Publisher Sues City of Yonkers for Conviscating its News Racks.

Hits: 0

WPCNR PRESS NOTES. From The Westchester Guardian. September 19, 2007:  Westchester Guardian Publisher Sam Zherka will in Federal Court in White Plains, Friday, Sept. 21st, 10am. 


Mr Zherka is suing the City of Yonkers, Mayor Phil Amicone,  Police Commissioner Hartnett, and DPW Commissioner, for Content Based Discrimination, and Freedom of Speech violations after The Westchester Guardian printed articles calling the Mayor “Dumber” and “Yonkers Mayor a Huge Flop” 



Yonkers DPW and Police under orders from the Mayor, confiscated 56  Westchester Guardian news racks from public and private property in order to silence the press, and issued over a dozen violations and threats of arrest to Guardian Employees for distributing The Guardian Newspaper on Public Property.

 

A class action lawsuit, representing as many as 100,000 Yonkers Citizens may also be filed as early as Friday morning.
 

Posted in Uncategorized

Dems Vision of City: What People Make It Lecuona, Power Say.

Hits: 0

WPCNR CAMPAIGN 2007. Post Election Reaction. Gathered by The CitizeNetReporter.  September 19, 2007: Post triumph interviews at Dunne’s Pub , Democrat Headquarters, by WPCNR with Nominees-elect Milagros Lecuona and Dennis Power yielded promises that the council was going to be slowing down and taking a closer look at development and would reassert control over the direction the city takes in the future. When pressed for what their vision of the city is, Power said citizens would be involved extensively in the formulation of that vision and the council would, he hoped, not be building White Plains from now on based on outsider’s desires to build what they want in White Plains. 



 Milagros Lecuona  and Dennis Power, victors in the Democrat Primary in White Plains last night,  together voiced  the hope that the Democrats’ “Vision for White Plains” and that the concept of “Balanced Development” would evolve. Lecuona said she was going focus hard on development with her professional expertise in architure and planning.


I asked Milagros Lecuona what she hoped to do to prepare for the Common Council, (assuming she’s elected in November):


Milagros Lecuona: “Thank you very much for those encouraging words, I hope so.  I don’t think I’m going to be anything different than I have been until now, which is being a professional and working and listening to the people and what they’re needs are, and I am part of it so I am very aware of it all the years I am living in White Plains.  I am going to try and use my professional experience and my involvement in the community for the best of everybody.”


I asked what she felt this vote for her means for the people of White Plains, she added,


ML:  “This vote means a lot for the people of White Plains, this is kind of a referendum on the way the development and the concern for the development of the city is going, and it is the type of work that I am going to be focusing on.”


Asked if she was going to be asking sharp questions of developers touting projects, Lecuona said, “Whatever.”


Dennis Power right on Boykin just 36 votes behind him, with 1,602 votes said, “The people have spoken.”


WPCNR asked him if he thought the election (in November) was in the bag for the trio. ( Power, Lecuona, Boykin, Robert Stackpole, Robert Levine, Anthony Pilla,Cass Cibelli, Augie Zicca and Candyce Corcoran will be contending in the November general city election for the three council seats.)


“Oh no,” Power said, “November 6 is when it’s over, not before. There are a lot of issues to be addressed in the city ofWhite Plains. I think we’ve begun addressing them tonight. The people have spoken in terms of the direction we should be going.”


Power Interprets Direction


CNR encouraged Mr. Power to explain what that direction is: “It’s careful deliberation, responsible consideration of issues, whether it’s development, whether it’s affordable housing, sales tax all those kind of things you have to look at things and make sure we do our due diligence before we just kind of blow it out.”


Power expanded: “ I’m just pleased the people have made a  — or at least the Democrats (about 1,650 of 13,500 registered Democrats) have decided they want to have considerations of the residents come first as opposed to having developers and others design the future ofWhite Plains.  I think this is one of the biggest issues in White Plains this year in that people said you know what we’ve got this conflict, this future of suburbia and urban development. I think we’ve got a thriving downtown. People have said let’s craft a balance between the two, because if not, decisions are going to be made for us and the suburbia that we know will be forever gone. ”


WPCNR asked what does balance mean?


Power said “It (balance) is going to develop over a period of time. It means making careful decisions. It means not making snap decisions, just knee-jerk reactions. It means we have to consider things and that we have to be more in control of things, as opposed to instead of just being dealt and reacting to.”


WPCNR asked Power how is the council going to stay in control of things when you (the council) don’t know what you want to do to the rest of the town, do you agree with the West development for example?


Power fielded that one this way:  ‘What it takes, what it means is that you work listening to the people, involving people in decisions, involving planning groups and not just reacting to decisions about who else wants to develop the city of White Plains. So it’s going to be careful deliberations. It’s going to evolve over the course of time and it’s going to be a lot of good things coming together. It’s not going to be a knee-jerk reaction to what some people want for the City of White Plains. I think basically tonight the people have spoken and they’d like some careful deliberation as to where the vision of White Plains goes.”



 Candyce Corcoran, who gathered 694 votes, who will be on the Conservative Line in the November election vowed, “First I would like to thank the1300 White Plains residents who signed my petitions and those citizens who believed enough in me to come out to vote. As any sports fan knows, they do not call a game at halftime. We still have another half to play in the general election. I graduated from White Plains High School, and we are known as the Tigers. Tigers never give up and quit. The campaign still goes on.”



Arnold Bernstein, finished  fourth and has no line on the November ballot at this time. When WPCNR arrived at his headquarters for postmortem, he had already left the building.


 

Posted in Uncategorized

City’s Bad Timing of RFQ Doomed Bernstein — Handed Dems a Hammer

Hits: 0

WPCNR CAMPAIGN 2007. By the Armchair Analyst. (Edited) September 19, 2007: Interesting results to have a cup of tea with; Arnie Bernstein was down when I went to bed at 11:00.

But the numbers are very much along with the discussion we had  yesterday; contrasting the difference between a poll and and an election  comparatively.

There can be an majority of people in support of an outcome (a train station redevelopment), but unless that same sample represents the actual voters who decide the issue (which include uneven participation across a spectrum  of voters), the results will not be identical.

So if more women, over 50 do not like a particular development, despite their husbands liking the same project, ultimately, the project goes nowhere because the minority in the first instance overcomes the majority in the actual voting.

In short, while the husbands blow hot air, and do not vote, their wives, who do vote, cast their ballots in a certain way.

Thus the “poll” is both correct and incorrect: it correctly logs voter opinion based on easily identified items, and then because an actual election might be twisted, more women than men participate, the results change.

The ultimate point is, the RFQ killed Arnie.

Yesterday was a long day; today will be longer..

About the results, I’m not too surprised.  Candyce Corcoran did not do a thing.  Nor did Arnie.

But the Request for Qualifications killed Arnie.   And the stupid full-page ad did not help. By the city giving the Democrats a ready-made issue – the Request for Proposals – springing it on them and including a 30-day reply date —the Dems were able to tie Bernstein to supporting the RFQ.


( WPCNR notes: Councilman Benjamin Boykin one of the victors last night even confirmed unasked to WPCNR that the council will not consider any qualifications coming from the RFQ, the Request for Qualifications for potential Redevelopers of the White Plains Railroad Station Urban Renewal property)


 


RFQ ultimately could turn the city against Cappelli because the city’s push on the RFQ, on top of the clandestine exclusivity agreement In the spring. That is what killed Arnie.  They did not understand the difference between an opinion poll and a post election poll.

Who votes, and their opinion, counts.  A majority may approve of a  project, but if they do not vote, hard knocks results.

Women, over 50, do not support development without checks.  Their husbands might, but you would have to be an idiot to believe  that really matters.

Both from a happy marriage point of view and that of a political analysis.


Posted in Uncategorized

Dem Mastermind: Right Candidates Right Issues. Boykin’s Vision.

Hits: 0

WPCNR CAMPAIGN 2007. By John F. Bailey. September 19, 2007: In the giddy atmosphere at Dunne’s Pub after the victory of Benjamin Boykin, Melagros Lecuona and Dennis Power in yesterday’s primary, the Democratic City Committee Chair, Liz Shollenberger, who lead the Democratic City Committee Candidates to prevail over incumbent Councilman Arnold Bernstein and challenger Candyce Corcoran, attributed the  nominees’ across-the-board win to having presented “better candidates with better issues, that’s why we won.”



Benjamin Boykin, leading vote-getter said it was a great victory, and promised a vision for White Plains. Shown, April, 2007.


 


Shollenberger said her Democratic nominees won “pretty much across the board. ” Bernstein only carried Battle Hill, according to a poll-watcher in that neighborhood. WPCNR asked what these results said to her, she commented, “The result shows we have a strong Democratic people and we’re going to win in November. This is a mandate on these three candidates.” 


Asked if  the party had done anything different to get out the vote,  “No, not really. We did what we could. Everybody worked hard. Everybody got behind our candidates. I hope all Democrats will come behind our Democratic candidates in November.”


Benjamin Boykin the leading vote-getter with 1,638 votes, said, “It was a great victory for the Real Democrats of the City of White Plains. It was a great victory for the people of White Plains, for the future of White Plains.”


Asked what he thought the result said, Boykin noted, “The result says that we have a strong field of outstanding candidates that won a strong race.”


I asked Boykin why he thought the  money barrage of mailings and attacks by the Bernstein camp the last few days leading up to Tuesday’s primary did not work, Boykin said, “It was sleaze money that had no impact because it was untruths and it was too little, too late and we are continuing to focus on the vision of the city of White Plains, and we’re not running a negative campaign but we’re talking about the great things that lie for the future of this city.”


WPCNR encouraged Mr. Boykin to elaborate on what he saw as a “vision of White Plains:”


Boykin said, “The vision for White Plains is smart growth, balanced development,  it’s for open space, including green space downtown. It’s for keeping property taxes low. It’s for having citizens’ input, which means we’re going to have open government.  It means we’ll have integrity in government. And that we’ll continue to keep our property taxes low.”


WPCNR  asked Mr. Boykin how he defined “balanced development:”


“Balanced development is smart growth,” Boykin warmed to the subject, “It means that you do due diligence, that you take your time , that you look at all angles, that you look at the needs of the citizens, and that you make sure development responds to and meets the needs of its citizenry.”


WPCNR queried as to whether balanced development meant one type of building in one section of the city, and another use or project in another part. Boykin said “no, balance has to do with planning, due diligence, and putting the right development in the right place at the right time.”

Posted in Uncategorized

Democratic Nominees Sweep Challengers. Boykin, Lecuona, Power Win Dem Line

Hits: 0

 


WPCNR CAMPAIGN 2007. September 18, 2007 UPDATED September 19, 2007 12:30 A.M. EDT UPDATED September 20, 2007 8:45 A.M. EDT UPDATED September 24, 2007 10:25 P.M.: Incumbent Councilpersons Benjamin Boykin and Dennis Power and new rising Democrat personality, Milagros Lecuona  have ended incumbent Councilperson Arnold Bernstein’s political career Tuesday, and withstood a challenge from Candyce Corcoran in the Democratic Primary. Corcoran though will get another opportunity in November as she has the Conservative Line in the citywide election to be held November 6.


The turnout of 2,402 voters based on the recanvas released Monday, September 24, was 1,012voters more than voted in the primary  year of  2003 (1,390) in White Plains, and 39 voters more than the  2,363 votes in the 2002 Adam Bradley-Naomi Matusow Primary Race. The City Democratic Committee turned out  2,402 Democratic votes to support the nominated ticket.


The results with 43 of 43 Districts Reporting from the Westchester County Board of Elections, percentages are rounded.


 


Benjamin Boykin  1,694 votes  26%


Dennis Power       1,649 votes  26% 


Milagros Lecouna  1,395    22%


Arnold Bernstein       1.009  votes   16%


Candyce Corcoran  698 votes     11%


Total Votes :2,402


 

Posted in Uncategorized

Mayor Pounds the Sales Tax half Cent Increase Schedules Resolution for Special M

Hits: 0

WPCNR COMMON COUNCIL CHRONICLE-EXAMINER. September 18, 2007: Mayor Joseph Delfino has scheduled a Special Meeting of the Common Council for Wednesday evening at 6 PM in the Mayor’s Conference room to consider a resolution requesting a Home Rule legislation increasing the White Plains Sales Tax 1/2 percent to 8.25%. The council had tabled the resolution last week in an acrimonious exchange, saying they needed to discuss it, after having known about the policy the Mayor has espoused for about six months. It was widely speculated this was done for political reasons by the Council to postpone voting until after today’s primary. In addition to the resolution, the council will discuss demapping of streets for the Kensington assisted living project on Maple and Longview Avenunes and take up discussion of the increase in the Affordable Housing setaside (within new rental complexes), to 10% or higher — again without significant developer input as to the feasibility for developers to live within the new 10% figure.


The agenda:



 


COMMON COUNCIL


AGENDA


SPECIAL  MEETING


SEPTEMBER 19, 2007


6:00 P.M.


 


RESOLUTION:


 



1.            Resolution  of the Common Council of the City of White Plains authorizing a Certification of a Home Rule Request seeking enactment of State legislation to amend the Tax Law in relation to authorizing the City of White Plains to impose an additional increase of one-half (½) of one percent (1%) Sales and Compensating Use Tax.


 


 


2.            Communication from the City Clerk transmitting a request from PDH Holding Corp. d/b/a Sam’s of Gedney Way, 52 Gedney Way, requesting a waiver of the thirty (30) day notification requirement set forth in the New York State Alcoholic Beverage Control Law for the renewal of two liquor licenses.


 


3.                        Resolution of the Common Council of the City of White Plains waiving the thirty (30) day notification requirement set forth in Section 64(2)(a) of the New York State Alcoholic Beverage Control law in regard to an application submitted on behalf of Sam’s of Gedney Way Restaurant


 


 


ITEM FOR REFERRAL:


 


4.            Communication from Acting Commissioner of Building formally transmitting a previous administrative referral of a request for a site plan amendment submitted by Cappelli Enterprises for changes to the exterior on a previously approved site plan for construction at 240 Main Street.


 


 


DISCUSSION:


 


5.            Longview Avenue/Kensington LLC De-Mapping of City-owned property.


 


6.            Affordable Home Ownership and Rental Housing Program.

Posted in Uncategorized

Primary Day in White Plains 2007.

Hits: 0

WPCNR CAMPAIGN 2007. By The Armchair Analyst (Edited) September 17, 2007 UPDATED 3:45 PM EDT: The polls on Democratic Primary Day open in White Plains Tuesday morning at 6 AM at all 43 of White Plains regular polling places.  Only registered Democrats may vote.


Registered Democrats will have their choice of  Arnold Bernstein, Benjamin Boykin, Candyce Corcoran, Melagros Lecuona, and Dennis Power. Boykin and Power are incumbent Councilpersons and the nominated by Democratic City Committee choices. Lecuona is a newcomer nominated by the Committee this year. Corcoran is a well-known crusading Democrat who has worked tirelessly for numerous causes throughout the city and has been denied twice an opportunity to run for Council. Mr. Bernstein is an incumbent Councilperson bidding for a second term who was denied renomination by the party and is fighting for his political career.


One observer of the uncomfortable, and increasingly cantankerous Democratic contests with accusatory mailings arriving daily, had this to say about keys to the race, the Analyst has also taken our earlier article to a new level, showing the actual numbers for the 2002 Adam Bradley White Plains vote canvas, showing the actual demographics of who votes in Democratic Primaries:


 


The election Tuesday, one veteran political observer, whom we shall call The Armchair Analyst,  notes is going to be based on the demographics of the turnout, in county wide Democratic primaries held in 2003 and 2006.


Older People Are the Voters.


The Armchair Analyst notes that in the 2003 and 2006 (not just 2003, the Analyst points out, as we first wrote),  Democratic Primaries (with no councilpersons primarying), 842 White Plains  “hard core Primary” Democrats turned out to vote, and the Analyst reports that 52% (442) were over the age of 65, and of that 52%, two-thirds were women.  Another 42% of the Democrats were over the age of 70, and two-thirds of them were women. The key factor: the voting demographic is older, and two-thirds are women. The key issues with them are security and taxes. Our Analyst notes that only 40 of the 842 White Plains Democrats were under 40 years of age, and only 133 were under age 50.


The bottom line: the hardest core Democrats, our Analyst points out in 2003 and 2006, the voters were “overwhelmingly” women over age 65.


In 2006, an offyear race the analyst reports, 7,744 Democrats turned out to vote Countywide. Of those 7,744, 62% were women; 66% were over age 50, and 62% of those were women.


Most striking, the Armchair Analyst reports, only 489 voters were under the age of 30 (a mere 6.3%). Young voters? Not many. Only 137 voters were under the age of 25 (1.76%).


Over half the voters in the 2006 primary were over age 50.


In both races, the Analyst reports the voters were “predominantly white, either catholic, protestant, or Jewish.” These are the voters he calls the “super primes” folks who came out for BOTH primaries, not just one.


The 2003 Count On Its Own.


For 2003 alone,  the total Democratic  Primary Vote was  1390 and the number of women voting was 872 (62.7%), 1021 of the total voters were above the age of 50 (73%).

Of that number over 50, The Analyst reports, 652 were women (63.8%).

Above 60 were a total of 703 voters (50.57%), and of that number, 450 were women (64%).

Above 70 were 424 voters. (30.5 % of the total vote), and of that number, 277 were women (65.3%)

Under 30: 44 voters, of that number 25 were women (56.8%) Under 30  represents only 3% of the total votes cast.

Under 25: 29 voters, of that number 18 were women (62%). Under 25  represents only 2% of the vote.


Inside the Adam Bradley White Plains Primary Vote Count.


In the Adam Bradley Primary Race in 2002, where Mr. Bradley defeated Naomi Matusow by 22 votes, was by contrast 2,376  White Plains voters voted in a race that mattered to White Plains. So even in that race, WPCNR notes that 986 more voters turned out to support “a favorite son.”


The 2002 Primary Race that made Adam Bradley the Assemblyman for the 89th District shows the following — almost two-thirds of the voters (61%) were women and they made up 62% of the voters over 60.  More telling is that that  70% of the White Plains primary voters were over age 50 (1,672 of 2,376, and 1,018 of the 50-somethings were women.. Here is the Breakdown:

2376 total voters went to the polls.

Of that number, 1447 were women (61%)

Total voters above the age of 50: 1672 (70%)

Of that number, 1018 were women (60.8% of the class)

Total voters above the age of 60: 1042 (43.8%)

Of that number, 646 were women (62%).

Total voters above the age of 70: 616 (26%)

Of that number, 383 were women (62%)

Younger than 30: 90 voters (3.7%) 53 were women (58%)

Younger than 25: 10 voters (.42% of the vote) 7 were women (70% of that
class)


The Analyst notes that only 4% of the entire vote in the 2002 when a younger candidate was running, was under 30. He considers it a sad comment on the young residents of White Plains


What does this mean?


The Armchair Analyst warns the base voters today will be women, retired or semi-retired, aged 50 to 65 with concerns about property taxes and personal safety issues. The Analyst draws a picture of a women voters who have raised families in White Plains and are not “transplants.” He says “anything that keeps their taxes low while not interfering with their lifestyle will be supported.” Our source describes them as living in the outer neighborhoods of the city with knowledge of local issues and an awareness of Mr. Bernstein and the Common Council personalities.


The Armchair Analyst predicts that Bernstein fits the base best. Ms. Lecuona the least.


The Analyst gives Corcoran a chance because she is “in the middle of the base: a woman, white, a name that could be Catholic, or Jewish, a history of community activity.”


The Analyst rates Boykin a toss-up, because he does “not fit the base too well, either, but he has name recognition and has served a long time. Arnie, however, has that same name recognition and fits the base.”


Power. The Analyst sees him as “a wild card”. But, notes Power lost 1,400 Democrat votes when he ran for Mayor in 2005, when Power lost to Mayor Joseph Delfino by slightly over 2,000 votes. And only about half the Democrats voted in that election, so Power simply did not galvanize them.


The Analyst picks Bernstein to win a seat, with a toss-up as to whether Corcoran has done enough to get her petition signers to the polls in her third single-handed attempt to run for Common Council and can slip past Boykin or Power to secure the Democratic Line. Corcoran will still be in the hunt in November on the Conservative Line.


The analyst likes her possibilities  “I think she can beat Boykin. Her profile is better. She got signatures from well over a thousand Democrats, (if she was smart, she should have focused on getting signatures from Superprimes. Power survives only because Ben (Boykin) is a weaker candidate as compared to Corcoran.”


City Committee Must Have Its Slate Win Big.


The analyst, a veteran election tracker, thinks the White Plains Democratic City Committee does not realize the “grave risk” they have taken. “If Arnie wins and Holy Moses, Candyce Corcoran, the leadership is sunk. The leadership has really forgotten what their role really is: finding the best candidates whose focus is on what is best for White Plains, not their own political fiefdoms.”


The analyst  sighed,  “Adam Bradley holding up the sales tax, so he can vet the financials of the city while Boykin is head of the Budget Committee and Rita the Council President? Absurd. If the tax will keep the property taxes of residents down, he should have made damn sure it was passed at the earliest possible time. Politics, not policy, is running the show here in White Plains, as any knowledgeable observer should note.”


WPCNR is not making any predictions, but implores all the “Real Voters all 14,000 or so Democrats to come on out and vote. As the talk show host Bob Grant used to say, “Your opinion counts. Use it!”

Posted in Uncategorized

Backoff News to Wood. Cites 2 Cases Prohibiting Policy Making in Council Caucus

Hits: 0


 WPCNR CITY HALL CIRCUIT. From the Mayor’s Office. September 17, 2007: City Hall announced today that Robert Freeman Executive Director of the New York State Committee on Open Government has ruled in the distant past (1994) that a caucus involving a majority of governing officials taking action out of the public eye, setting policy is not permitted, and cited New York court decisions putting this ruling in place. Freeman’s letter on matters of caucusing and legislative bodies is on the Open Government website.


 


Wood said he had received no communication from  Camille Jobin-Davis, the Assistant Director of the New York State Committee on Open Government that she had modified or “backed off” from her ruling of Friday in which she noted “If these four members (Councilpersons Boykin, Malmud, Roach and Power), including the President, did not discuss their decision to send this letter during a public meeting, I do not believe that they could validly have acted. Even if the letter was circulated for signing without discussion, I believe it to be action taken outside the requirements of the law.” The unsubstantiated (to this hour report), was printed in the news media Saturday morning.


 


The  Robert Freeman take on caucusing and policy making,  Wood said could be found on the Open Government website:  “ I have a ruling right off the Freeman website that shows a caucus is o.k., but you cannot discuss a public issue  in a caucus, you can only discuss strategy, and you cannot come to conclusions on public issues. I don’t know that they (the Committee on Open Government) are backing off. I don’t agree that they are backing off. Her e-mail seemed to indicate to me that was the final word. They are not allowed to discuss public issues and come to the conclusions about them outside the view of the public, and that’s exactly what they did.”


One case is Humphrey vs. Posluszny and involved a meeting of a village board with its Police Benevolent Association. The Appellate Division found that the discussion went to the step of policy making. Mr. Wood contends that the four Democrats (consisting of a majority) were doing that when they announced they would “avail  ourselves of all measures at our disposal to bring this ill-considered proposal (the RFQ) to a quick end.”


A  second case, Buffalo News versus the City of Buffalo Common Council in which the Common Council members consisted of members of all one party which met to formulate a budget policy. Here, too, the New York Supreme Court Second Department found they were  in violation of the Open Meetings Law.


The complete letter, for the record, of  Mr. Freeman, Executive Director of the New York State Committee on Open Government. The relevant sections of the letter are highlight in blue type:


February 11, 1994

Mr. Isidore Gerber


The staff of the Committee on Open Government is authorized to issue advisory opinions. The ensuing staff advisory opinion is based solelyupon the facts presented in your correspondence.

Dear Mr. Gerber:

As you are aware, I have received your letter of January 12. You have asked that I furnish information concerning judicial interpretations and advice pertaining to the assertion of the attorney-client privilege and political caucuses under the Open Meetings Law.

In this regard, it is noted at the outset that the Open Meetings Law provides two vehicles under which a public body may meet in private. One is the executive session, a portion of an open meeting that is closed to the public in accordance with §105 of the Open Meetings Law. The other arises under §108 of the Open Meetings Law, which contains three exemptions from the Law. When a discussion falls within the scope of an exemption, the provisions of the Open Meetings Law do not apply.

Of relevance to the assertion of the attorney-client privilege is §108(3), which exempts from the Open Meetings Law:

“…any matter made confidential by federal or state law.”

When an attorney-client relationship has been invoked, the communications made pursuant to that relationship are considered confidential under §4503 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules. Consequently, if an attorney and client establish a privileged relationship, the communications made pursuant to that relationship would in my view be confidential under state law and, therefore, exempt from the Open Meetings Law.

In terms of background, it has long been held that a municipal board may establish a privileged relationship with its attorney [People ex rel. Updyke v. Gilon, 9 NYS 243 (1989); Pennock v. Lane, 231 NYS 2d 897, 898 (1962)]. However, such a relationship is in my opinion operable only when a municipal board or official seeks the legal advice of an attorney acting in his or her capacity as an attorney, and where there is no waiver of the privilege by the client. Further, after a public body has
sought and obtained legal advice from its attorney and has started to discuss and deliberate a matter of public business, I believe that the attorney-client privilege would end and that the Open Meetings Law would apply.

With regard to political caucuses, since the Open Meetings Law became effective in 1977, it has contained an exemption concerning political committees, conferences and caucuses. Again, when a matter is exempted from the Open Meetings Law, the provisions of that statute do not apply.
Questions concerning the scope of the so-called “political caucus” exemption have continually arisen, and until 1985, judicial decisions indicated that the exemption pertained only to discussions of political party business. Concurrently, in those decisions, it was held that when a majority of a legislative body met to discuss public business, such a gathering constituted a meeting subject to the Open Meetings Law, even if those in attendance represented a single political party [see e.g.,
Sciolino v. Ryan, 81 AD 2d 475 (1981)].

Those decisions, however, were essentially reversed by the enactment of an amendment to the Open Meetings Law in 1985. Section 108(2)(a) of the Law now states that exempted from its provisions are: “deliberations of political committees, conferences and caucuses.” Further, §108(2)(b) states that:

“for purposes of this section, the deliberations of political committees, conferences and caucuses means a private meeting of members of the senate or assembly of the state of New York, or the legislative body of a county, city, town or village, who are members or adherents of the same political party, without regard to (i) the subject matter under discussion, including discussions of public business, (ii) the majority or minority status of such political committees, conferences and
caucuses or (iii) whether such political committees, conferences and caucuses invite staff or guests to participate in their deliberations…”

Therefore, in general, either the majority or minority party members of a legislative body may conduct closed political caucuses, either during or separate from meetings of the public body.

Many local legislative bodies, recognizing the potential effects of the 1985 amendment, have taken action to reject their authority to hold closed caucuses and to continue to conduct their business open to the public as they had prior to the amendment.

There have been recent developments in case law regarding political caucuses that suggest that the exemption concerning political caucuses has in some instances been asserted as a means of excluding the public from gatherings that have little or no relationship to political party
activities or partisan political issues.

One of the decisions, Humphrey v. Posluszny [175 AD 2d 587 (1991)], involved a private meeting held by members of a village board of trustees with representatives of the village police benevolent
association. Although the board characterized the gathering as a political caucus outside the scope of the Open Meetings Law, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, held to the contrary. In a brief
discussion of the caucus exemption and its intent, the decision states that:

“The Legislature found that the public interest was promoted by ‘private, candid exchange of ideas and points of view among members of each political party concerning the public business to come before legislative bodies’ (Legislative Intent of L.1985,ch.136,§1). Nonetheless, what occurred at the meeting at issue went beyond a candid discussion, permissible at an exempt caucus, and amounted to the conduct of public business, in violation of Public Officers Law §103(a) (see, Public Officers Law §100. Accordingly, we declare that the aforesaid meeting was held in violation of the Open Meetings Law” (id., 588).

The Court did not expand upon when or how a line might be drawn between a “candid discussion” among political party members and “the conduct of public business.” Although the decision was appealed, the appeal was withdrawn, because the membership on the board changed.

The second decision, Buffalo News v. City of Buffalo Common Council [585 NYS 2d 275 (1992)], involved a political caucus held by a public body consisting solely of members of one political party. As in Humphrey, the court concentrated on the expressed legislative intent regarding the exemption for political caucuses, as well as the statement of intent appearing in §100 of the Open Meetings Law, and found that:

“In a divided legislature where a meeting is restricted to the attendance of members of one political party, regardless of quorum and majority status, perhaps by that very restriction it would be fair to
assume the meeting constitutes a political caucus. However, such a conclusion cannot be drawn if the entire legislature is of one party and the stated purpose is to adopt a proposed plan to address the deficit before going public. In view of the overall importance of Article 7, any exemption must be narrowly construed so that it will not render Section 100 meaningless. Therefore, the meeting of February 8, 1992 was in violation of Article 7 of the Open Meetings Law… “When dealing with a
Legislature comprised of only one political party, it must be left to the sound discretion of honorable legislators to clearly announce the intent and purpose of future meetings and open the same accordingly consistent with the overall intent of Public Officers Law Article 7″
(id., 278).


I hope that the foregoing serves to clarify your understanding of the Open Meetings Law, and that I have been of assistance. As you requested, a copy of this response will be forwarded to the Chairman of the Sullivan County Board of Supervisors.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Freeman
Executive Director

RJF:jm

cc: H
o

Posted in Uncategorized

$6,000 Ad Exposes Truth of Boykin, Power votes: Committee Head– Papers Biased

Hits: 0

 


WPCNR CAMPAIGN 2007.  By John F. Bailey. September 17, 2007 UPDATED 6:32 PM EDT: You couldn’t miss it. A full-page advertisement on the back of this morning’s Journal News Main Your World Section, blaring “ATTENTION WHITE PLAINS DEMOCRATIC RESIDENTS.”  The advertisement was placed by “The  Year 2001 Committee,” described by its Chairman, John Ioris , a White Plains resident, owner of The Complete Golfer and Chairman and President of the Board of Trustees of the White Plains Performing Arts Center, as an effort to inform the public of  the truth about the voting records of Democratic Primary Candidates Benjamin Boykin and Dennis Power.



Ioris explained the advertisement to the CitizeNetReporter: “The actions we took on Friday, (placing the ad),was an unprecedented action for this organization. My feeling, John is enough is enough. That was the mindset I had when I bought space for that ad. Enough is enough, let’s get back to running the city and let’s dispense with the rhetoric and get back to business. This was basically a bunch of people who put their own money where their mouth was and this was what we feel about what’s going on here. I think the politics of this city has been totally portrayed in the newspapers with an unbelievable bias.”



Mr. Ioris, speaking to The CitizeNetReporter in an interview confirmed his Committee had placed the advertisement and that it cost The Year 2001 Committee $6,000.


WPCNR asked Mr. Ioris  why his Committee ran the advertisement, and if it was in support of the Mayor and his policies, and the spurned Democrat incumbent Councilman Arnold Bernstein, in a fight for his political career in tommorrow’s Primary.  Ioris said, “The year 2001 Committee is an independent political action committee that has absolutely nothing to do with the Mayor of the city, other than the fact that he has been kind enough to lend his name to many of our fundraisers.”


WPCNR asked him what funds were used for what causes, Ioris replied  “political causes and charitable causes, but this (ad) is in no way, shape or form a Mayoral organization.”


I asked him what was his rational in publishing this advertisement today. Ioris said he was concerned about “what’s going on in the political process.”


“Basically having followed what’s going on in the political process in the last several months and being disgusted is the wrong word, close to disgusted with what’s going on on the political side of the city, I figured the citizens at large have a right to read a true and accurate portrayal of the voting record of a couple of people who are running for Council.”


Not a Bernstein Endorsement


WPCNR asked if he was not endorsing Arnold Bernstein:


“We are not,” Ioris said. “We simply basically believe that the direction the city has taken over the last several years on the development side has been the proper direction for the city to take. It seems as though a faction of the city is attempting to derail it for political reasons. Basically this (ad} was simply telling the truth. If the votes we basically paid to tell the  people about today  — if the councilmembers don’t like those votes – maybe they need to rethink how they’re voting. It was their votes.  They are what they are. The actions of the council over the last several months have been much to the detriment of this city. As a citizen and business owner in this town, I think that’s a very bad thing.”


Makeup of The Year 2001 Committee


WPCNR asked who else was on the Committee or do they have an Advisory Board, Ioris said to WPCNR, “There are several people we meet with to advise us on our opinions who do not want their names published, so as a result we don’t publish them. But quite frankly, I believe the opinions of the people who are involved in this organization are the opinions of the large majority of the citizens of this city. I think small factions that make a lot of noise are given far too much weight.”


I asked how many persons are on the Year 2001 Committee.


Ioris reported “We have several people that contribute. Several people that come to meetings. There is a goodly handful that are active that I hear from on a regular basis.”


Ioris said the full-page all print advertisement cost slightly short of $6,000.


Ioris said it was a possibility the Committee would run more advertisements: “That is something that depending upon how I feel or what we feel or how we feel about what is going to happen in the city going forward, we may decide to do on a regular basis.”


Newspapers Biased.


I asked him if he did this as a public service to inform the people:


Iorus said, “I did it because I felt largely because what people read in the media, the local  media in this city is unfairly biased.I believe people need to hear the truth sometimes, and they don’t always get the truth in the newspaper.”


He elaborated on his charge to WPCNR: “I think the politics of this city has been totally portrayed in the newspapers with an unbelievable bias. Things that should come to the forefront don’t. The local papers are reporting their own agenda and are not reporting the news. You read these political stories. They read like op-eds, they don’t read like news. News is news.I don’t need the newspaper to interpret them for me.”

Posted in Uncategorized

Committee on Open Government Closed Today.

Hits: 0

 


WPCNR AROUND ALBANY. September 17, 2007: A WPCNR effort to get a clarification from Ms.  Camille Jobin-Davis, Assistant Director  of the New York State Committee on Open Government on her interpretation of how the Open Meetings Law applies to caucuses and policy-making in the press which she issued last week, as reported by City Hall, was stymied today by Ms. Jobin-Davis being unavailable. 


 WPCNR contacted the Open Government Committee to confirm whether she softened her original observation that Councilpersons Malmud. Now the City has to wait in suspense on hold until Ms. Jobin-Davis returns to the office next Monday. Efforts to have Ms. Jobin-Davis contact us from her undisclosed location were met with the information that “I guarantee she will not be contacting you.”


Robert Freeman, who is Director of the Committee on Open Government is also out of the office until Thursday. The woman fielding WPCNR’s call said Mr. Freeman would defer to Ms. Jobin-Davis on the issue. So, caucus etiquette  and the announcement of policy positions in the press guidelines – the final word—awaits the return of Ms. Jobin-Davis.  The Ms. Jobin-Davis absence during this week was planned in advance, the spokesperson said.


 

Posted in Uncategorized