Fair Campaign Practices for the Capital Region, Inc. (FCP) held a hearing on October 30, 2007 to consider a complaint made by Steven Tommasone against William Cooke. Both are candidates for the office of Supervisor in the Town of Rotterdam. Present were Hearing Panel members Joan Elliott (Chair), Katie Henrikson, Helen MacDonald, James Ruhl and Harriet Warnock-Graham, along with Coordinator Barbara Thomas. Mr. Tommasone represented himself at the hearing. Mr. Cooke did not appear or send a representative.
Mr Tommasone complained about a piece of campaign literature distributed by the Schenectady County Democratic Committee in support of the candidacies of John Silva, Richard Leet and Mr. Tommasone’s opponent, William Cooke. Mr. Tommasone complained it was misleading and contained many falsehoods. The piece is titled “Why?” and asks a series of questions, all but one of which start out “ Why did the Republican Party…?” Mr. Tommasone pointed out that the actions referred to were actions of the Town Board, which is composed of three Republicans and two Democrats, and that he holds no party or party committee positions. Regarding specific items in the piece he stated:
that the Town Board initially considered placing a park on part of the acreage the town owns over the Big Flats Aquifer, but that when DEC ruled that that was not feasible given the deed restrictions it was actually the three Republicans who voted to change the zoning from Agricultural to Land Conservation in order to protect it from future development, and the two Democrats who voted against the zoning change. That the Town Board is still working to fix the stormwater and drainage problems of Masullo Estates, and is in the process of acquiring land needed to rectify the problem. That the Republicans on the Board did not raise legal expenses to the Town by 400 per cent, and produced a spreadsheet showing the yearly legal fees the Town has paid from 2001 to the present. The fees fluctuate depending on the number and complexity of tax certiorari cases, but the range is from $100,000 to $250,000. That the Republicans and the Democrats on the Board have allocated money for studies necessary to apply for grant monies, not unnecessary and duplicative studies. -more-
That he has consistently voted against revaluation, whereas the Democratic campaign literature supported it in 2005, and Democrats Marco and Paolino have consistently voted for it. Mr. Tommasone supplied a timeline with the actual votes taken on revaluation. That the Police Commission was not formed to hire and promote friends and relatives. It was an attempt to focus more attention on this service and was only in operation in 2006. Now the entire Board functions as the Police Commission. All police hiring is from the civil service list, and in accordance with civil service rules. It does not discriminate against friends or relatives of elected officials. The Town Board or its Republican members did not take back a grant that had been promised to the Hamburg Street Merchant’s Association. This was an IDA grant that was in question. The Town Board did not file an application for the Hamburg Street Area as the data necessary to complete the grant application was not available at that time. Since that time studies have been completed that provide the data to be used in a joint application by the City of Schenectady and the Town. Mr. Cooke’s written statement was that “All mailings for the Rotterdam Town Supervisor Position were done by the Schenectady County Democratic Committee.”
FINDING: Unfair Campaign Practice. The piece of campaign literature distributed by the SCDC and titled “Why?” contains numerous falsehoods and misleading statements. In particular, FCP found that contrary to the statements in the piece, Mr. Tommasone has not supported revaluation, did not raise legal fees 400 %, did not take back a grant from the Hamburg Street Merchants. FCP found that there was no evidence presented to show improper hiring practices in the police department or that studies commissioned by the board were unnecessary. FCP found that while the Town Board initially wanted to place some park facilities on Town land which lies over the Big Flats Aquifer, it was misleading to imply that the Republicans on the Board did not care about the aquifer, since the record shows that following the DEC ruling, they supported the zoning change to Land Conservation and the Democrats did not.
The “Why?” piece would have violated FCP Principle Four if it had been issued by Mr. Cooke. Because it was issued by the SCDC, Mr. Cooke had a duty to publicly and promptly disavow it. It was not enough that he did not approve the piece prior to issuance. He should have pointed out that the piece was false and misleading and that he hoped voters’ support for his own candidacy would not be based on the misinformation contained in the piece. His failure to repudiate the piece is a violation of FCP Principle Seven.
Candidates are reminded that misrepresentation of FCP findings in order to obtain political advantage constitutes an unfair campaign practice.
FCP’s Principle 4 states that the candidate will not use, permit the use of, or condone the use of any campaign material or advertisement that misrepresents, distorts, or otherwise falsifies a fact or the facts regarding either the candidate or an opponent.
FCP’s Principle 7 states that the candidate will promptly and publicly disavow support from and the materials/actions of any individual or group whose activities violate this Statement of Principles or whose activities would violate this Statement of Principles if engaged in by the candidate or the candidate’s campaign. -End-
My congratulations to Mr. Tommasone also. I commend him for rightfully taking his complaint to the FCP Committee. The Schenectady County Democratic Committee (SCDC) is sending out deceptive, misleading, and dishonest mailings that attack their opponents to the voters of the county. The candidates themselves claim to have no knowledge of Brian Quail's (Schenectady County Democratic Party Chairman) actions. It is my opinion that the Democratic candidates are either lying or, if they truly are not aware of the mailings, are being used as pawns in their party's game of political control.
There is no civility in political campaigns by the Democratic party. The party's candidates are not exhibiting honesty or integrity. The voters are displeased with the negative campaigning of the Democratic party. The voters will express their displeasure at the polls next Tuesday. After the Democratic candidates are defeated, Mr. Quail will be looking for another position and the Democratic party will be looking for another Chairperson.
I would like to thank Mr. Tommasone for taking a stand for what is right. And for holding people responsible and accountable. I would also like to commend the FPC for acting so swiftly on this matter so the people can learn the truth before election day. Although, most people were well aware of the falsehoods and lies that the democrats were printing on these campaign fliers.
The democratic candidates will obviously not stand up and take responsibility for their own actions, they are hiding behind the democratic committe. If these candidates don't take responsibility and are not accountable now, how can anyone possibly think they will have the fortitude to lead or govern a town or county if elected? Gutless wonders who have no platform for themselves and have to sink to unfair campaign practices. Also, my thanks to the FCP for seeing this tactic for what it is......Trash by nothing more trashy candidates.
Well well well....so now Mr.Cooke and the rest of the dems are exposed for what they really are. And the Rotteredam Conservative party just shot themselves in the foot and lost all credibility.
The dems have done nothing but wrongfully lie to the people and yet maintain their 'no platform' campaign. Just the typical mudslinging. And the conservs endorsed a pathetic candidate for supervisor just to satisfy the appetite of the RPD.
When will they ever learn?
“Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” Thomas Jefferson
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Barbara Thomas October 31, 2007 (51 885-9769
FINDINGS IN THE COMPLAINT OF CAROLINA LAZZARI AGAINST ANTHONY JASENSKI & ROBERT GODLEWSKI COMPLAINT 2007.6
Fair Campaign Practices for the Capital Region, Inc. (FCP) held a hearing on October 30, 2007 to consider a complaint made by Carolina Lazzari against Anthony Jasenski and Robert Godlewski. All are candidates for District 4, Schenectady County Legislature. Present were Hearing Panel members Joan Elliott (Chair), Katie Henrikson, Helen MacDonald, James Ruhl and Harriet Warnock-Graham, along with Coordinator Barbara Thomas. Carolina Lazzari represented herself at the hearing. Mr. Jasenski and Mr. Godlewski did not appear, but sent a written statement. In addition Brian Quail, chair of the Schenectady County Democratic Committee (SCDC), sent a written response to the complaint.
Ms. Lazzari complained about a piece of campaign literature distributed by the SCDC, consisting of one side showing a picture of pigs and asking how much pork she got, one side with both a picture of a barn and the statement, ”Lazzari took $25,000 of your tax dollars to fix her barn but advocated cuts to parks and senior programs There was a separate mailer attacking Supervisor Tommasone but which included the statement, “ meanwhile the big reval winner is County Legislator Carolina Lazzari. Her taxes are going down $1500 because of the reval.” Ms. Lazzari complained that the implication of the pieces is that she engaged in criminal activity, that she received special treatment not available to the ordinary taxpayer, and that she and her husband were depicted as pigs. She disputed the amount of the tax reduction, and pointed out that most of the tax reduction was a result of taking the Homestead Exemption, newly passed by the board and her school district. She further complained that she applied for and received a grant of $25, 000 from NYS to preserve a pre-revolutionary war barn and to protect it with a preservation covenant. She produced a copy of the preservation covenant for the hearing panel, as well as copies of her tax bills. (She thanked her opponents for alerting her to the fact that the state had not filed the preservation covenant with the county, as was their duty.) While she admitted that she had stated in the context of a discussion about the essential functions of government, that the $25,000 was pork, she pointed out that in accepting the grant she had to pay more than $49,000 in additional restoration costs, the $25,000 was taxable income, and that the preservation covenant reduced the value of her property. She complained that linking the $25,000 she got for historic preservation in 2001 with her 1998 suggestion while on the Rotterdam Town Board (at a time that the Rotterdam Town Board was in dire fiscal shape) that they consider cutting some funds for parks and senior programs was misleading. Mr Godlewski and Mr. Jasenski both submitted identical statements in response, which are quoted in full: “As stated in Ms. Lazzari’s complaint in the mailings she is concerned about were sent by the Schenectady County Democratic Committee. I did not play any role in the approval process for these mailings, something which I have made clear in the media. None of my campaign conduct is at issue.” The response from the SCDC states that the pigs represent pork, not people; that they could not find any record of the filing of an easement by NYS Parks and Historic Preservation with the County, and presents a different way of calculating the amount of Lazzari’s tax reduction.
FINDING: Unfair Campaign Practice. The FCP panel did not agree with Ms. Lazzari’s assessment that the campaign piece in question implied criminal activity on her part or that the pigs were meant to depict Mr. and Mrs. Lazzari. However the FCP panel did find that the piece was false, distorted and misleading in the following particulars: There is a clear implication that Lazzari received special treatment in the revaluation process which is not borne out by any evidence. Saying that she was “the big reval winner” implies that she received the most benefit from the revaluation, also not true. Stating that “Lazzari took $25,000 of your tax dollars to fix her barn” was misleading, implying to voters that local property tax dollars were involved. Stating that “Lazzari took $25,000 of your tax dollars to fix her barn but Lazzari advocated cuts to parks and senior programs” – even though the fine print showed that the consideration of cuts to parks and senior programs occurred three years before the grant for barn restoration- distorted the situation and made it seem like an either/or decision. This piece violates FCP’s Principle Four. Although both Godlewski and Jasenski stated publicly that they played no role in the approval process for the mailings they had a duty, under FCP’s Principle Seven, to disavow any campaign action which would have been unfair if engaged in by the candidates themselves. Beyond the denial of prior approval, they should have gone on to say that they hoped that voters would not make the decision to vote for them based on the false or misleading information in the piece.
Ms. Lazzari complained that a Zogby push poll conducted on behalf of the candidates or the SCDC included the question,”Would you be more or less likely to vote for Carolina Lazzari if you know that she wanted to close the Glendale nursing home and do less for seniors?” NO FINDING: There was no evidence presented to show that the polling had occurred.
Ms. Lazzari also complained about a mailer from the SCDC which had a sheriff’s patrol car and the words: “Attention Duanesburg and Princetown - Road Patrol cancelled by Carolina Lazzari – Your Sheriff’s road patrol is at risk!” The back of the mailer was from Sheriff Buffardi urging residents to save the road patrol for Princetown and Duanesburg by voting for Jasenski and Godlewski. Ms. Lazzari stated that the idea of shifting four members of the road patrol to the county jail in order to comply with the state’s mandates for staffing at the jail was an idea that she brought up in a ways and means committee meeting, but was never a proposal for action, and in that same meeting she stated forcefully that she was not in any way proposing eliminating road patrols in the two towns. SCDC countered that if the road patrol were cut in half it would have the effect of eliminating the road patrols in question. Mr Godlewski and Mr. Jasenski both submitted identical statements in response, which are quoted in full: “As stated in Ms. Lazzari’s complaint in the mailings she is concerned about were sent by the Schenectady County Democratic Committee. I did not play any role in the approval process for these mailings, something which I have made clear in the media. None of my campaign conduct is at issue.”
FINDING: Unfair Campaign Practice. The road patrol has not been cancelled by Carolina Lazzari, or anyone else. There has not even been a motion to reduce the size of the road patrol. Indeed, individual legislators have no power to force changes in sheriff’s procedures. Mr. Godlewski and Mr. Jasenski cannot claim that their campaign conduct is not at issue simply by stating that they did not give prior approval to the campaign literature at issue. They had a duty to disavow it, since not correcting the misinformation in the piece might convince voters to support them for the wrong reasons. Had this piece been issued by Mr. Godlewski and Mr. Jasenski it would have been a violation of FCP Principle Four, which proscribes false, distorted or misleading statements. Failure to disavow it is a violation of FCP Principle Seven.
Candidates are reminded that misrepresentation of FCP findings in order to obtain political advantage constitutes an unfair campaign practice.
FCP’s Principle 4 states that the candidate will not use, permit the use of, or condone the use of any campaign material or advertisement that misrepresents, distorts, or otherwise falsifies a fact or the facts regarding either the candidate or an opponent.
FCP’s Principle 7 states that the candidate will promptly and publicly disavow support from and the materials/actions of any individual or group whose activities violate this Statement of Principles or whose activities would violate this Statement of Principles if engaged in by the candidate or the candidate’s campaign.
I must say that the Dems mailings were ,at best ,the cheesy type of 'Hooters' advertising during super bowl half time.......I think they should all attend classes at SCCC.....
I will however ask the Reps what their goals are with a timeline.....not rhetoric but real honest to goodness goals....dont just say"keep taxes low" that statement is nothing more than saying"drink milk, it does a body good"......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
County Democratic political fliers in Rotterdam’s supervisor and District 4 races were deliberately misleading, the League of Women Voters’ committee on campaign fairness found this week. Supervisor Steve Tommasone and county Legislator Carolina Lazzari, both Republican incumbents, successfully argued their grievances about the literature before the seven-member panel this week. Both cases cited campaign mailers sent out by the county Democrats last month. “It vindicates the town of Rotterdam and the people, who for several years were clamoring for change,” Tommasone said in response to the finding. “All the Democrats are doing is offering a negative campaign message.” Lazzari said the finding will help voters see through underhanded tactics being used by the Democrats to undermine GOP candidates. She said the misrepresentations made in the mailers are a clear attempt at turning public opinion against her. “I have to trust that the voters recognize these malicious lies when they see them, with the knowledge that my defense of this has been upheld and that people will understand these misstatements and misrepresentations for what they are,” she said. The Democrats challenged the findings by filing two complaints of their own. Tommasone’s challenger William Cooke filed his grievance against Tommasone’s campaign literature Thursday, while county Democratic Committee Chairman Brian Quail filed a claim Wednesday against a recorded phone message put out by Lazzari’s campaign. Quail said he stands by the county mailings and said the Republicans are manipulating the relatively minor committee rulings for their own political gain. He accused the Republicans of again casting themselves in the role of victims to influence voters. “There is no fundamental fi nding made that indicates what we said wasn’t true,” he said. “Instead, they disagree with some of our characterizations.” In Tommasone’s case against Cooke, the committee found a flier distributed by the Democrats contained misleading statements about the supervisor supporting the revaluation, raising legal fees 400 percent and withholding grant funding from the Hamburg Street merchants. The committee also found no evidence to show improper hiring practices in the Police Department, as stipulated in a Democratic mailer. Cooke did not attend the committee’s hearing Tuesday and disavowed any part in producing the fliers, despite his name appearing on one. The committee found it was his duty to inform the public of the misstatements and to publicly disavow them. “It was not enough that he did not approve the piece prior to issuance,” the finding stated. “He should have pointed out that the piece was false and misleading and that he hoped voters’ support for his own candidacy would not be based on the misinformation contained in the piece.” Likewise in Lazzari’s case, the committee found that a mailing by the county Democrats falsely stated the legislator received special treatment during Rotterdam’s recent revaluation, and incorrectly implied she used local property tax dollars to restore a historic barn on her property. The committee also agreed with Lazzari’s assertion, that another mailer claiming she fought to cancel the county sheriff’s road patrol in Duanesburg and Princetown was inaccurate. “There has not even been a motion to reduce the size of the road patrol,” the finding stated. “Indeed, individual legislators have no power to force changes in sheriff’s procedures.” District 4 candidate Tony Jasenski and Robert Godlewski both claimed they had nothing to do with the mailers, which came from the county Democrats. Neither candidate attended the committee hearings. When contacted about the fi ndings, Cooke maintained the fliers were truthful and that Tommasone “double talked” the committee into believing his case. He also questioned the timing of the grievance so near to next week’s election. “Obviously, he was waiting for the right time to do this,” he said Thursday. Cooke said his complaint against Tommasone pertains to a campaign mailer characterizing him as a liar unwilling to maintain a stance. He viewed the literature as a personal attack on his character. Quail said the grievance against Lazzari is in response to a phone message, during which Jasenski is described as “calling women pigs.” The complaint also includes Republican District 4 candidate Angelo Santabarbara, citing a primary mailer that characterizes him as an enrolled conservative. “They’re trying to abuse the process to discredit our message,” Quail said. Santabarbara also filed a grievance with the committee Thursday, claiming the county Democrats sent a mailer recently falsely accusing him of accepting a $5,000 stipend for serving as chairman of Rotterdam’s Industrial Development Agency. He said the Democrats are trying to sully his volunteer service for the town. “I am new to politics but can see why so many are reluctant to get involved,” he said in a prepared statement, “My campaign has been positive and about the issues and ideas, not these types of false personal attacks.”
Tom Woodman EDITOR’S NOTES Constructive disagreement would be worthy ideal for local politics Gazette Managing Editor Tom Woodman’s Editor’s Notes column appears monthly in the Sunday Opinion section. Send questions and comments to woodman@dailygazette. com or by mail to 2345 Maxon Road Extension, P.O. Box 1090, Schenectady, NY 12301-1090.
When some out-of-state friends asked recently what local politics is like in this area, I’m afraid I painted a bleak picture. Too often, elected officials show a take-no-prisoners attitude, I thought. Political opponents aren’t people with honest disagreements; they are enemies to demonize and personally attack. A differing opinion isn’t something to consider or engage. It’s something to crush, along with the benighted soul who dared suggest it. Now, I understand that this is a bit of an exaggeration. And I have seen some encouraging political events this year. One was the Schenectady mayoral debate The Gazette sponsored at Proctors. There was no shortage of passion, with both candidates heatedly arguing their positions and occasionally raising their voices. But both appeared prepared, they addressed the questions put to them and, while they sometimes disagreed over facts, they didn’t challenge their opponent’s character or integrity.
MIXING IT UP Maybe my jaded response was overly influenced by recent behavior in my town of Rotterdam. Rotterdam politics has always seemed unnecessarily bruising to me. But this has been a doozy of a year for electioneering. With several positions at the town and county level contested in Rotterdam, my mail is full of fliers — only some of which are devoted to saying good things about a candidate. And my phone assaults me with recorded messages — self-righteous complaints about what some candidate has done now. The automated campaign call has been eroding civilization for some time now. But for me to interrupt dinner preparation and rush to receive an earful of petulance and venom seems more than I should have to put up with. (And by I, I mean anybody.) Candidates of both parties in several Rotterdam races have brought complaints to Fair Campaign Practices for the Capital Region, saying their opponents used misleading campaign material and false personal attacks. (The committee, operated by the League of Women voters, agreed with Republican complaints about Democrats’ material last week. It has not ruled on the Democrats’ complaints as of this writing.) Why is it that so many politicians treat the most ordinary disagreement as a fight to the death? Can’t there be such a thing as constructive disagreement?
WE CAN DO BETTER I’ve been in newspapering long enough, and have covered enough politics, to be free of utopian illusions. I know that we can’t eliminate the tawdry behavior some folks will sink to when they wield or want to wield power — even the less than dazzling power that comes with the office of town councilman or county legislator. I’m still idealistic enough, though, to think we don’t have to accept boorishness as the norm. We can work toward a higher level. The Fair Campaign Practices committee is a good try. It hasn’t, obviously, eliminated bad behavior. But it does stand for the principle that politics can be conducted honorably. The individual candidate can take a similar stand in insisting that his campaign hold to the high road — and by refusing to hide behind the common excuse that he can’t control what an independent political committee is up to. He can denounce attacks convincingly and effectively. And voters can reward the candidates who treat their rivals, and the voters, with respect. My friends, who live in Connecticut, have taken up political activism somewhat late in life, partly through disaffection with the same childish behavior we see so much of here. They did experience an encouraging moment recently, though, in hearing a political newcomer speak. I have one idea, he said. You have a differing idea. Maybe if we work at it we can come up with a third idea that’s better than both. In other words, let’s try constructive disagreement.
885-9769
Logged
