Chronicle Editorial: A key finding of the Westchester County Fair Campaign Practices Committee is an assault on free speech.

Voice of Croton has every right to raise conflict-of-interest issues in regards to Brian Pugh.

The Committee found that the juxtaposition of these statements in a Voice of Croton campaign mailer constituted an unfair campaign practice.

Throughout this election campaign, the Chronicle has done its best to provide fair and balanced coverage of both sides. We have published numerous Guest Editorials by the candidates and their supporters, interviewed all six of them, and published news and feature stories about the campaigns and their public events.

Some of these stories may have put one side or the other in a negative light at times, and some readers may take issue with the limited number of political analyses we have published, but the Chronicle has fully opened its “pages” to all of the candidates to make their cases.

Yesterday we reported on the findings of the Westchester County Fair Campaign Practices Committee that Voice of Croton had engaged in unfair campaign practices in two instances. Both of these Complaints were filed with the committee by mayoral candidate Brian Pugh, and concerned statements made in a mailer Voice of Croton had sent out recently. (Pugh filed a third complaint in which the Committee did not provide findings for lack of sufficient information.)

We believe that the findings for Complaint #1, which concerned the statements in the section of the mailer reproduced at the top of this story about potential conflicts of interest on the part of Mayor Pugh, are badly misguided and constitute an attack on the freedom of speech of candidates campaigning in what is supposed to be a free and fair election.

Before we get into the particulars, it is important to stress that the Committee is not a governmental body, but a private non-profit organization established in 1991 by the League of Women Voters. It thus has no enforcement power other than the power of persuasion in informing voters of its findings.

Here is the organization’s history and composition, quoting in full from its Website:

“In 1991 the League of Women Voters of Westchester established the Westchester County Fair Campaign Practices Committee (the Committee) as a separate and independent entity. The purpose of the Committee was to promote a climate in which candidates conduct honest, fair and open campaigns, refraining from dishonest and defamatory attacks and without distorting the facts. More than 25 years later, the Committee continues to fulfill its mandate.

The Committee is composed of community leaders who serve as unpaid volunteers. We represent a wide range of public interests and are recognized as being independent and fair minded. Members are chosen by representatives from the Committee and the League of Women Voters of Westchester. In addition, members representing recognized political parties serve ex-officio without vote; they contribute political perspective and experience to the discussion. Westchester residents are encouraged to send the Committee resumes of those they believe would be appropriate.

The League plays no role in the Committee’s deliberations or decisions but does provide support services and administers the funding. Underwriting for this project was made possible by a grant from the Westchester Community Foundation, a nonprofit community endowment for the benefit of Westchester County.”

Now to the issues at hand.

In Complaint #1, according to the published findings, “Mr. Pugh complained that a Voice of Croton mailer was a ‘misleading character attack via insinuation, linking my employment to their pledge of conflict-free service without providing any evidence of a breach of duty.’”

The Committee agreed with Pugh, finding that Voice of Croton had violated not only a FCPC Principle but also two FCPC Guidances, concerning the making of misleading statements, misrepresentations, “false or misleading attacks on the character of an opponent,” and charges or assertions that are “partially true” or taken out of context. (We would urge readers to look closely at Complaint #1 and the findings at the link above.)

Brian Pugh, in his complaint, implied that Voice of Croton was required to provide evidence of a “breach of duty” for the statements in its mailer to constitute fair campaign practices.

In our view, this is nonsense. The question of whether Mayor Pugh has a “conflict of interest”—a concept that is very wide ranging in its possible meanings—is a perfectly legitimate issue to raise during an election campaign. In fact, opponents of the Pugh administration, especially of its pro-housing agenda, have been consistently raising this question for well over a year. It is obviously something on the minds of some voters.

Certain facts are clear. Mayor Pugh, and his wife, Westchester County District 9 Legislator Emiljana Ulaj, are fully integrated partisans in the Democratic Party political apparatus at the state and local level. As chief of staff to State Senator Pete Harckham, Pugh is instrumental in carrying out Harckham’s own pro-housing policy stance, and Croton has received large amounts of funding and also awards in recognition of its pro-housing efforts.

The village has received similar recognition for its efforts in sustainability initiatives.

In carrying out these initiatives, the mayor’s actions have also been very much in line with Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul’s policies, which are clearly stated. In a post about the opening of Maple Commons, for example, Hochul stated:

“Maple Commons brings critically needed affordable apartments to Croton-on-Hudson, one of the State’s first Pro-Housing Communities,”  Governor Hochul said. “This highly energy-efficient, transit-oriented development is the latest example of my administration’s commitment to making our state more affordable and ensuring all New Yorkers have access to a stable and secure place to live.”

In other words, Mayor Pugh is carrying out the policies of the governor of the state, even if—and we do not doubt this—he is also doing what he thinks is best for Croton.

Given all this, it is absolutely, clearly proper (and protected speech) for Voice of Croton to raise questions about possible motivations, conflicts, policy agendas, or other indications that Pugh’s policies are consistent with, or even to some extent guided or driven by, politicians and policies outside of Croton-on-Hudson. In fact, it seems perfectly obvious that this is true, at least in part.

What is less clear, in our view, is what motivates the mayor himself. Some in the village view Brian Pugh as a kind of slave or lackey to powerful Democratic Party interests, and believe that personal gain or political ambition are behind his policy positions.

There is another possibility, which, having communicated with the mayor for several years now in a number of different situations and venues, seems to us more likely: Brian Pugh is a true believer in affordable housing and sustainability, and his chosen associations and political affiliations reflect that.

Of course, both things can be true at the same time. In the end, it does not really matter, since voters will have to make up their own minds about such questions.

But one thing is a matter of bedrock free speech principles: Voice of Croton has absolutely every right to raise these questions, put them before the voters, and let those citizens make up their own minds about them.

For yesterday’s story, Voice of Croton gave us the following statement concerning the Committee’s findings on Complaint #1:

“We believe our statements constitute legitimate and acceptable political discourse, and respectfully disagree with the findings of the commission.

It is a matter of opinion whether anyone serving in two paid government positions simultaneously has the potential for a conflict of interest and our statement did not go beyond that.

We agree with this. The Committee has erred in its findings re Complaint #1. In doing so, it has unfairly provided Croton Democrats with ammunition in the campaign they have no right to employ, and raises serious new ethical issues if they try to do so.

**********************************************************************************************************

To share this post, or to share The Croton Chronicle, please click on these links.

Comments policy: No personal attacks, please be polite and respectful at all times.