From the article:
"Effective immediately, I am advising all Democratic candidates to withdraw participation in the Monroe County Fair Election Practices Committee until the sponsors re-format the committee in a fair, bipartisan manner.
I have repeatedly expressed my frustration with a process I believe to be biased against Democratic candidates, despite assurances from the League of Women Voters that the committee's consideration of complaints would always be balanced and fair. For the past two years it has been neither. The committee has repeatedly been comprised of more Republicans than Democrats, a fact the committee now openly acknowledges."
Original article:
Update:
UPDATE 4:30 p.m. - Sarah Liebschutz, chair of the Fair Elections Practices Committee, says the committee always strives for balance. The committee is composed of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. The members are people who have a reputation, she says, for being fair, despite partisan affiliation.
"We do not arrive at positions on a partisan basis," Liebschutz says.
Also: Monroe County Republican Party chair Bill Reilich has sent out a statement blasting Morelle.
"Monroe County Democratic Committee Chairman Joe Morelle should be ashamed of his decision today to encourage dirty politics in our own backyard," Reilich said in the statement. "Morelle and many Democrat candidates signed the Fair Campaign Pledge with the League of Women Voters' Fair Election Practices Committee earlier this year. Now, one week from Election Day, local Democrats have made it clear that they think the rules shouldn't apply to them. Monroe County voters deserve better."
"But there has been a consistent Republican majority during recent hearings, says Monroe County Democratic Committee Executive Director Adam Bello"
"The committee has repeatedly been comprised of more Republicans than Democrats, a fact the committee now openly acknowledges." - Joe Morelle
The committee is composed of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. - Sarah Liebschutz, chair of the Fair Elections Practices Committee
So - which one is lying? I'll take bets on Bello and Morelle.
Because - The Committee is made up of equal Dems and Repubs - and the NON VOTING chair (Liebshutz) is a Republican. Also, Dems were on those panels with the "majority Republicans" and they ruled UNANIMOUSLY against MCDC/Morelle.
Update this morning on City News:
Story in today's D&C Vote Up.
Maybe Morelle and Bello are upset because of this recent ruling against Wilmot:
Wilmot sent out a mailer that said "Jim Alesi would take the shirt from a taxpayer's back if he could make a buck."
Why is anyone surprised that Joe Morelle violated the Fair Campaign pledge....AGAIN? Last year, he was the reincarnation of Minarik with some of his ads, and he got called on it, and they were fair rulings.
Remember the McCarthy/DeMarco race for County Judge? That ad Morelle sent out that was really over the top on the "fear factor", and pretty vicious. Smugtown Beacon described it as:
".....a vicious and unprecedented TV attack ad, showing TV viewers still-photographs of destroyed vehicles, destroyed lives; apparent family members of injured and dead victims of DWI's sitting on a curb, head collapsed into grieving, folded arms; and, to top it all off, the all too familiar site we've all seen, where grieving family members and friends of those (sober) victims of DWI are memorialized on the shoulders of roads with Christian crosses and flowers."
MPN had an article about it as well, and Joe is quoted as saying:
“Yes, we used troubling images and they have nothing to do with his (DeMarco’s) cases,” Morelle said, “but the facts are chilling and I think he (DeMarco) has to answer for it (his past decisions).”
If he used images that had nothing to do with his cases, then.....how can they be "facts"?
Remember the other rulings against him/MCDC last year?
Antelli/Coon - Three separate infractions:
Also, 3 legislature candidates - Moscato (Gates), Condello (Henrietta) and Coon (Greece) were found guilty of falsifying a quotation on a campaign mailing.
I remember another issue about the Dems using stock photos from the internet in their mailers and claimed that they were local Republicans who were disillusioned with their own party.
Morelle didn't mind when the LWV and IA were seen as "pro-Democrat". I don't remember him demanding that they be more "bi-partisan" and "independent" when the rulings were pro-dem....but the past couple of years, Joe has been pretty whiny.
Maybe people are finally starting to wake up and realize that Joe Morelle is just another Minarik.
Great blog on Mustard Street about this.
Here's the League of Women Voters website.
Here's the Interfaith Alliance website.
Update - Thursday, October 28th, 7:30pm. Today, magically, Wilmot is A-Ok with the ruling against Alesi - the FEPC is grrrrrrrrreat!
I should go easy on Joe - he's creating 250 jobs in the next three years. If he is re-elected this year for his 11th term, and then again for his 12th - that works out to about 11 jobs per year that he would have been an assemblyman. (IF he's re-elected.)
Never mind that NYS has had a net loss of about 150,000 jobs since 1993. See the below Oct 6th article in the D&C about how NYS lost 408,000 jobs from 1993 to 2007 - and the gains that the state made still had them lose 148,000 jobs - the largest of any state during that time period.
Well, don't worry. Joe has TONS of business sense. His company pulled in NO income last year - so he really knows how to run a business.
Here are Morelle's 11 day pre general contributions:
Individual/Partnerships:
Corporate:
Transfers Out:
Other Monetary:
Expenditures/Payments:
Refunds:
6 comments:
Wow! Well first off I received another Morelle mailer today. I seriously can not believe how many I've received this election.
Personally, I think they are pretty ineffective. My recycle bin is very happy. Ha.
So Joe loses with the fair election committee and now he's decided to pick up his toys and leave. Priceless!
"The committee is composed of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans" Sarah Liebschutz, chair of the Fair Elections Practices Committee said.
But Joe said -
"The committee has repeatedly been comprised of more Republicans than Democrats, a fact the committee now openly acknowledges."
Who to believe? The chair of the committee or the entrenched 20 year politician that is a sore loser? Hmmmmm
So Joe has spent Over $200,000 in 3weeks - Yowza!
I know that you are concerned with fair and accurate data so I wanted to assist you with some of the quotes that you must have missed. While the board does appoint 2 democrats and 2 republicans A)the chair is supposed to be independent or blank, she is not.
B)when a member cannot attend the meeting the people there can call their alternates, guess which ones they call? here are the quotes you must not have seen:
"The president of one of the sponsors of the adjudicating process, the League of Women Voters, also told Democrats not to participate in any hearing if they arrive at one and the board is not balanced."
"As president of the league, I'm very concerned that the process (of having a balanced panel) hasn't been followed," Smith said."
"Morelle said in some cases, the board contained three Republicans and only one Democrat including Liebschutz."
"In addition, four alternates, also evenly split between the parties, are chosen in case the other committee members cannot make it."
"When board members cannot attend a hearing, according to committee rules, the decision can be made by a panel of three, four or five people."
"The league president, Katherine Smith, said she was unaware that the board chairwoman, Sarah Liebschutz, was a registered Republican until Democrats told Smith they had checked Liebschutz's registration."
I didn't miss any quotes. I wrote the blog yesterday, you copied from articles that didn't appear until this morning. I've already put the updates on the main page of the blog.
"When the League and the Interfaith Alliance of Rochester appointed the members of the committee this year, they selected four Republicans and four Democrats."
"they appointed Liebschutz, who's a registered Republican, as the non-voting chair"
"Smith says she misunderstood the intended meaning of independent, and that one of the appointees should not have been registered with any party."
The "chair" that Joe is complaining about being a Republican can't even vote at the hearings.
Now, last year Joe thought the process was unfair and complained about it.....but he still signed the pledge this year and attended meetings where he KNEW that the Republicans outnumbered the Democrats.....and he still attended even though he thought it was "unfair" last year, and even though Smith told both parties "that if candidates arrive at hearings and the panels aren't balanced - not every member of the committee shows up for every hearing - they shouldn't participate."
But Joe still participated. What Joe fails to mention is that in these recent rulings, they were unanimous.....even the Democrats at the hearing ruled against him.
So - he is either accusing the Democrats of being in cahoots with the Republicans who he is accusing of being unfair - or Joe is playing party politcs again, and is having a temper tantrum because he is being called on his unfair campaigns.
I would think - it would be unfair if the Dems ruled him ok and the repubs said he was in violation....but that's not the case. The Dems on that board unanimously ruled that his party's campaign literature was unfair and violated the pledge that he signed.
Joe does this every year a week or two before election day. It's starting to become a tradition, and we're thinking of having a tailgating party next election, if he's still MCDC chairman.
I appreciate the fact that this is your blog and of course you can continue to write it, edit it and allow for certain comments as you see fit but as a person who has respected a lot of what you write when you purposely fail to mention portions of an article while you are quoting other portions.
You called out 1 person as a liar when in actuality he was telling the truth. When you read both papers and both articles what they say is that yes, there are 4 democrats and 4 republicans and 1 chair who is supposed to be a blank (maybe cheri should offer her unbiased opinion) when a hearing is called it is supposed to be the original 2 dems 2 rep and 1 chair, if the 2 dems arent there then the chair can choose which and how mnay of the people to replace. What Joe AND the president of the league of women voters is saying is that several times there has been a majority of reps over dems. And yes those votes have been unanymous, whouldathunkit. The president of the leaugue of women voters and joe morelle is saying that if you get there for the hearing do not stay if it is unequal.
And there was an election, Joe Morelle will be MCDC chair next year.
You sure are putting a lot of energy into Joe Morelle this year, did you move back to Irondequoit?
With all of the things going on in the town (or lack thereof) I am surprised you have been missing out on writing about that, but I get it...
"when you purposely fail to mention portions of an article while you are quoting other portions."
Again, I did not leave out quotes on purpose as I wrote the blog last night.
Those quotes were not in the article last night. The article in the D&C was not there last night.
They were in the D&C and City News THIS MORNING.
I did put the City News update from THIS MORNING on the blog when I got home.
A "majority" of Republicans at the hearings mean at least ONE Democrat was in there. The Democrats on that board ruled against MCDC/the Dems too.
Not that hard to figure out that he violated the Fair Campaigning laws, and he's just throwing a hissy fit about it, like he always does, every year.
"Joe Morelle will be MCDC chair next year."
I didn't say next year....I said next election.
"The president of the leaugue of women voters and joe morelle is saying that if you get there for the hearing do not stay if it is unequal."
If the Dems showed up to an unbalanced board, and they were all warned not to stay if they felt it was unbalanced....then why did they stay?
To grandstand a week before election about some unfairness?
His mailers were unfair. The Democrats on that board ruled against him too.
Oh brother, here we are again with another blogger (wink-wink) that is going to tell Jax how to write her blog.
It's groundhog day. Different alias- same whining. Please get your own blog and write about what you want, when you want.
I didn't get a mailer from Joe today. He missed a day I'm not sure what my blue box is going to do now? :)
If the Democrats on the Fair Election Committee thought that the Republicans on the board were being unfair they would have voted in favor of the Democrats. They didn't because the mailers were UNFAIR!
No, that couldn't be the reason. The whole board must be corrupt. Sure that's it.
Post a Comment