Regarding illegal electioneering, §8-104(1) of the New York Election Law states:
While the polls are open no person shall do any electioneering within the polling place, or in any public street, within a one hundred foot radial measured from the entrances designated by the inspectors of election, to such polling place or within such distance in any place in a public manner; and no political banner, button, poster or placard shall be allowed in or upon the polling place or within such one hundred foot radial.
How about calling for an event or a series of events “within the polling place, or in any public street, within a one hundred foot radial measured from the entrances designated by the inspectors of election, to such polling place or within such distance in any place in a public” which would compel the attendance of those who would typically vote in favor of your candidate, or your proposition? Does that constitute illegal electioneering? Obviously it does.
Last Tuesday, Dec. 3, the voters in Great Neck were to decide on the proposition of adding 8 classrooms to the E.M. Baker and Lakeville Schools with an exorbitant price tag of $9.7 million.
The polling sites were E.M. Baker, Great Neck South High, Lakeville and Saddle Rock Schools.
At three of the four polling sites were multiple previously planned events, i.e., there were “Teacher-Parent” conferences at E.M. Baker, Lakeville and Saddle Rock Schools for grades K through 5 (after their early dismissals at 11:45 AM). It was followed by “Afternoon and Evening Conferences” at E.M. Baker School.
Clearly, the attendees, i.e., parents, have “moral obligation” for their attendance at the Parent-Teacher-Conferences” which were taking place next to the polling sites. Least to say, if a parent already attended any of the conferences, he/she felt compelled to walk only a few steps to vote in favor of the proposition.
Is such a voting arrangement legal? Obviously not, because this “incidental” arrangement exactly falls within the definition of illegal “electioneering.”
Who is responsible?
If you speak to those who planned the “Parent-Teachers Conferences,” they would tell you that those events were planned prior to the vote for the Proposition. If you ask those who decided to use Tuesday, Dec. 3, for vote on the high priced project, the chances are that they would tell you that this coincidence was not intentional.
The primary responsibility of the Board of Trustees of Great Neck Public School District is to the taxpayers as opposed to the parents of the GNPS students.
Such votes that entail financial burdens on the taxpayers require a fair participation of all voters, i.e., all the taxpayers and not predominantly the parents of the children who are currently attending the Great Neck Public School District.
If the process is designed in such a manner that all the taxpayers are not given the same convenience and accessibility to vote, the election process is botched.
All taxpayers, but not only the parents of Great Neck Public School District students, are the people who pay their fair share of their taxes and should be able to make their financial future.
Boards of trustees have the duty of candor, i.e., the duty to be forthright to the public.
The duty of candor obligates each of the board members to ascertain that no illegal electioneering should take place while the public has appointed them as their “trustees.”
Hopefully, the members of the Great Neck Public School District Board of Trustees are well aware of their vital responsibilities and the duty of candor and shall ascertain that there should not be any social gatherings of parents occurring on the same day of elections, referendums and public decisions for propositions.
It is well understood that any failure of the duty of candor can conceivably constitute an act of criminal misconduct, especially, when the board members have any awareness about the illegal issue.
Eli Hematian
Great Neck
