Candidates' Debate on FTTV-25 Oct 25,2005
For the past four months TUF has been trying to convince the Council to allow a debate or a candidates' forum (every candidate has 5 minutes to express their views) on FTTV-25. To date only one council member, Mayor Levine, has embraced the concept. All other council members have to a varying degree been against it. We believe that their motivation is political.
The Democrats in Franklin enjoy a greater than 2:1 voter registration advantage and have been able to out spend the Republican Party by about 3:1 in recent campaigns. Not having a debate/forum is a good strategy for the Ds. Having a debate/forum is a good strategy for the Rs. TUF is not interested in strategy and we don't care who this will help or hurt except we think it will help the people. The bottom line is, having a debate/forum is good government and anything else is politics.
One of the stumbling blocks has been Louis Rainone the Township Attorney who has expressed that he believed that it was illegal. When this was first presented to the Council Mr. Rainone cited the FCC as the authority that would not allow such debates. On July 14th 2005 TUF called the FCC and made the following note.
|
Today at 10:30 I called the FCC at 888-225-5322 (888-call FCC) and spoke to Judy, specialist 38 in Gettysburg. I asked if there was an FCC regulation preventing a public debate on a local Government Access Channel (GAC). She said there was not. I then asked for a reference I could use telling her that our township attorney said it was illegal. She got off the phone to speak to her supervisor. After 15 minutes she returned saying that there was no specific reference and suggested that it is incumbent on the township attorney to cite a reference showing that it is not legal. It was her understanding that GAC content is governed by local authorities and that local authorities can say yes or no to a debate but the FCC has no prohibitions. In fact she went so far as saying they encourage them. My conversation can be reference with the FCC using my telephone number. |
|
When I next saw Mr. Rainone I told him of this. He then said that New Jersey Law was the limiting factor. I ask who could I call in the state to verify that and suggested the State's Attorney Generals Office. I mentioned that to a reporter and the reporter called the Attorney General's office and was told that there was no law preventing a debate or forum from being televised on FTTV.
Mr Rainone was informed of this and also that Piscataway was televising a candidates' forum. At the October 11th Township meeting Mr. Rainone presented his opinion. In my words
|
Our Township Attorney has stated that a debate/forum is illegal because it would be an in-kind donation from the Township to the candidates. He also believes that it would be a use of public funds for a partisan purpose. He likened it to a mayor using his office stationary to ask for campaign contributions or allowing all candidates to use the Township's reverse 911 system to make political calls to citizens or allowing all candidates to use the Township's copy machines for political purposes. He also said that only written opinions are expectable and doubts that the Attorney General would supply one. |
|
He also stated that he looked and the only municipality he was able to find that did this was Piscataway. TUF went to a Piscataway Township meeting to ask questions we also called the station manager. We learned that not only do they have a candidates' forum but so do all the other eight municipalities that they serve. In addition to those eight with a minimum of looking on the web and sending a few emails we also learned of four more so at this point we know of 13 municipalities that have a forum/debate. The Municipalities are Bridgewater, Bound Brook, Dunelle, East Brunswick, Fairlawn, Manville, Middlesex bough, North Brunswick, Piscataway, Raratin, Somerville, South Bound Brook, Summit. At least two of these involve LWV sponsored debates.
That's 13 Township Attorneys that disagree with Mr. Rainone. Mr. Rainone continues to present a moving target. First he cited the FCC, then he cited the States Attorney General and finally the New Jersey ELEC.
We shall continue to investigate this important issueand shall report our progress
Phillip Kramer
TUF
© 2003-2010 - Taxpayers United in Franklin
|
