Let the Sunshine In On Scarsdale's Nominating Process

Here is a letter from Robert Selvaggio, a longtime Scarsdale resident and a write-in candidate for Scarsdale Village Trustee in the March, 2011 election. Selvaggio is commenting on the Scarsdale Forum Non-Partisan Procedure Committee’s report released on June 16, 2011.
I see two significant problems with the Forum's evaluation of the "non-partisan process": the first is that many of the signatories to the report are themselves or have been vested in that process as key players and therefore cannot be expected to provide an unbiased critique; and the second is the report's insistence on a confidentiality that can only breed suspicion and distrust at its best, and provide cover for fraud at its worst.

A Scarsdale Forum critique of the "nonpartisan process" is no different than a chef's evaluation of the cooking he has performed for decades -- both can argue that had they not liked the taste of their cooking they would have changed it long ago. It is enough to point out that among the signatories are individuals who are personally involved in situations that the "nepotism" part of the report addresses directly and who were personally involved in the decision not to drop the candidate among the three with the lowest vote total on the first ballot. I am not arguing that there is anything improper about these and this point needn't be belabored -- these are all citizen volunteers with good intentions -- it's just that if our citizens want a true audit of the "non-partisan process" we need to commission outsiders, not insiders to the process, to conduct that audit.

Where I believe the report truly has it wrong is in its insistence on confidentiality through the nominating process. There is little doubt that the cleansing power of sunlight would allay many of the concerns of dissatisfied voters (so many of whom see voting as an exercise in futility and a waste of time and gasoline) and might also encourage a wider swath of our talented and busy Scarsdale residents to run for office and serve the community.

While certainly most citizen volunteers of the Scarsdale Forum and the CNC (indeed a number of Scarsdale Forum committee members are also or have been CNC nominators) choose to serve out of a true desire to give to their community, some (as in any large group) will have narrow, self-interested goals in mind and will act with single-minded passion to advance their own private agendas. Enforcing confidentiality as recommended by the report simply gives these individuals a screen behind which they can hide their misbehaviors, and frustrates and discourages the honest, generous CNC volunteers who must tolerate these miscreants until their own terms of service are mercifully over. Ultimately CNC members might view themselves as consorting to the untoward behavior they witness if they are forced to honor a code of silence under the threat of disciplinary action for their whistleblowing.

Who was it in the eleventh hour of balloting that leveled scurrilous accusations against one of the mayoral candidates? Was any attempt made to allow that candidate to respond to the charges? Which candidate received the lowest number of votes on the first ballot, and why was the tradition of eliminating the low-vote candidate ended that night? We'd all like to believe that the victim of the scurrilous charges was the one given a second chance, but only a handful of citizens know for sure. Were all candidates truly evaluated fairly or did horse trading occur to balance the self-serving concerns of various special interests? What was the relationship if any between the Village Hall "poll watchers" engaged in what some regarded as intimidating behavior on Election Day and the CNC? Is there actual evidence that allowing husband/wife teams on the CNC leads to bad outcomes? Voters want answers, but the report and subsequent defenses of it seem much more concerned about circling the wagons and asserting that all is just fine than in establishing, maintaining and projecting the integrity of "the process".

Wouldn't it would be best for our community if someone at that meeting last winter who is not yet heavily vested in the system were to give an honest public accounting of the CNC selection process on that night so shrouded in mystery? Why not televise future CNC nomination proceedings or second best, at least allow members of the local media access to the deliberations? The arguments made for secrecy are not compelling -- candidates for nomination fully expect that their CVs will be scrutinized, references contacted, and their relative merits and suitability for office debated. And who questions the public's right to know the qualifications and backgrounds of those who would be put in a position of public trust? Candidates also want to know that the debate about their candidacy is a fair one and only openness can provide that guarantee. Individuals who are willing to go through the nominating process deserve no less than the assurance of fairness that full public disclosure will guarantee.

Scarsdale citizens want more openness about the nominating process, not less. While punishing whistleblowers achieves no good end in politics (Merriam-Webster: "the art or science of government"), cleansing sunshine energizes the honest citizens already serving, encourages others to serve, and engenders confidence in our elected servants and in the political process.