92AD: Absentee Ballots and a possible State Assembly rule violation

I.  Absentee Ballot Applications in 92AD

The absentee ballot applications for the June 28th Democratic Primary of the 92nd Assembly District are final now and are as follows, broken down by town/city: 

The absentee ballot application distribution is the same as the total registered Democratic voter percentages among the three town/cities of 92AD.  Among the Mount Pleasant applications, 108 of 311 (35%) originate from the Kendal on Hudson senior living facility. From Greenburgh, 74 come from the Grasslands Roads senior facilities (The Knolls and The Grove).  So good job by whichever campaign (almost certainly Abinanti) worked those facilities to get those applications sent. 

Because the 92AD borders are new, and the last assembly primary in 2020 was unique with extraordinarily high turnout, we don't have a direct comparison from previous years to measure the absentee ballot "turnout"  in this campaign.   We do have a roughly comparable local race, however, with last year's Greenburgh town supervisor primary (taking out Edgemont which is no longer part of 92AD).  Here are the comparisons listed by zip code for Greenburgh for absentee applications in 2021 for Town Supervisor and 2022 for 92AD.   

Overall absentee ballot applications for the upcoming primary (both assembly and governor) are down 21% in Greenburgh (non-Edgemont) from the 2021 Supervisor primary. Some of this drop can be attributed to receding concerns about COVID as in impediment to in-person voting along with growing awareness of early voting.  We can also see variations among the town zip codes reflected above with the biggest drop (-28%) in absentee applications in the White Plains 10603 and 10607 zip codes, which is double the decrease in Hastings-on-Hudson (-14%).  Valhalla (10595) had the smallest decrease at just -5%, but as nearly all the Valhalla applications come from the Grasslands Road senior facilities, that number could be expected to be reasonably consistent.   

Note in the 2021 town Supervisor primary only 445 of 1120 (40%) of Greenburgh absentee applicants actually returned their absentee ballots.

II. The Abinanti Robocal that likely violated State Assembly rules for members.

Some 92AD residents received a robocall from Tom Abinanti at 6:00pm (dinnertime!)  on June. 14th.  The originating number, identified on my landline as "Bedford," came from 914-867-3846. You can hear the call at this link..  Introducing himself three times as "your state Assemblyman Tom Abinanti" over the course of the 50 second call, Abinanti made no reference to his campaign and spoke only about an upcoming meeting in Tarrytown addressing Medicare rights.  

If this robocall was in fact not campaign related, but instead an assembly-office funded constituent communication, the call almost certainly violated Assembly members rules.   First, read the following New York State Assembly Rules of Members Rule V regarding black out rules that apply to assembly-funded communications thirty (30) days prior to a primary.

§ 10. Use of legislative printing, mail and mass communication facilities.

1. The use of legislative printing and mail facilities for newsletters and other forms of mass mailings which bear the name or likeness of a candidate in a local, special, primary or general election shall be prohibited within thirty days of such local, special, or primary election and be prohibited within sixty days of such general election. Members may not utilize other forms of Assembly-funded mass communication media during such thirty day and sixty day periods, respectively.
2. The Assembly shall maintain a file containing a copy of each newsletter provided by Assembly facilities which file shall be available to the public.
3. The provisions of this section shall be applicable to all communications addressed to the geographic area in which the member is running for election.  (emphasis added)

Clearly 10(a) prohibits assembly-funded mailers within 30 days of a primary. While Abinanti has issued numerous assembly office-funded mailers over the previous months, he has not sent any such mailers (that I'm aware of) since the beginning of the black out period on May 28, 2022.  

What about this robocall?  Again, the robocall addressed only a specific issue for the information of constituents: a medicare rights meeting that Abinanti (quite strategically) was co-hosting 10 days before the primary.   At no time is the call identified as a coming from Abinanti's campaign or is it described as paid for by his campaign. Until Abinanti informs us otherwise, there is no reason to assume that the robocall was affiliated with his campaign in any way.

So who funded this robocall?  I don't see any expenses listed in Abinanti's campaign financial disclosures itemized through June 13th that are obviously related to robocalls. If it wasn't the Abinanti campaign fund or outside campaign supporters, then the robocall might have funded through assembly funding available mass communications with constituents.  If this conclusion is wrong, I'll be happy to correct it. 

 

Is an assembly office mass communication taking the form of a robocall subject to the same blackout rule as assembly office mailings? The second sentence of 10(a) taken together with 10(c), while not explicitly citing robocalls, clearly states that all "forms of assembly-funded mass communication media" as well as "all communications addressed to the geographic area in which the member is running for election," are prohibited during the 30 day pre-primary black out period.  To me, the conclusion that assembly-funded robocalls are subject to the same prohibition as assembly-funded mailings, is inescapable.  Without evidence to contrary, that this robocall's funding came from a non-assembly funded source, it is not unreasonable to conclude that Abinanti willfully violated this Assembly Rule. 

Next: the last pre-primary financial disclosure reports 

Abinanti amends campaign financial disclosures

On June 5th, Tom Abinanti's campaign refiled his financial disclosure reports for both Jan. 18 and May 28 to amend several entries, resulting in a $6,185 (6%) reduction in cash available for his campaign as of the end of May 2022.    

For the financials submitted on Jan 18th, Abinanti added a $1000 contribution from Allstate Indemnity Co. (better known as Allstate Insurance)  dated Nov. 30, 2021 and corrected an under-report of $345 in expenses.  

For the financials submitted on May 28, Abinanti made the following changes:

1.  Removed a $2,500 contribution from Peckham Industries originally dated March 4, 2022; 

2.  Removed a $2000 contribution from DANY (disability advocacy group) dated March 18, 2022, which may have been an inadvertent double counting of another $2000 DANY contribution

3. Removed a $1000 contribution the PAC of Hinman Straub PC (an Albany law firm) dated March 25, 2022

5.  Removed a $500 contribution from Michelle Stern of Brooklyn (Executive Director of the NYS Academy of Trial Lawyers) dated March 28, 2022

6.  Removed a $350 contribution from Faith Walker of Albany (Director of Operations of the Police Benevolent Association of New York State) dated March 31, 2022

7.  Removed a $350 contribution from Featherstonehaugh, Wiley and Crane LLP (Albany law firm) dated March 31, 2022  (double counted)

8.  Removed a $200 contribution from William Greenawalt dated Feb. 24, 2022, probably a double counting, with Greenawalt's status changed from "individual" to "sole proprietorship."

9.  Removed a $100 contribution from Kathleen Schuler dated May 5, 2022 (probably a mistaken double counting)

10.  Adding a $100 contribution from Nelson Payamps dated May 12, 2022

11.  Adding a $350 contribution from the New York Bankers PAC dated May 18, 2022

12. Removed a $250 contribution  from the New York State Automatic Vending Association PAC dated Feb. 20, 2022 (possibly a double counting) 

13.  Removed a $350 contribution from the School Administrators Association of New York State dated April 4, 2022. 

In summary, Abinanti amended his campaign finance filings as follows:

i.  January 18, 2022 filing was amended to increase contributions from partnerships, PACs and corporations by $1000, while expenditures for this reporting period also increased by $345.

ii.  May 28, 2022 filing was amended to reduce contributions from individuals from $17,785 to $16,535, and contributions from partnerships, PAC, corporations from $30,750 to $25,150, for a total decrease of $6,850. 

These two amended filings resulted in a net decrease in available funds for Abinanti's campaign of $6,195 overall, leaving Abinanti with $96,484 Cash on Hand at the end of May 2022 (instead of $102,679 as he previously reported). 

Mary Jane Shimsky has not amended either of her campaign filings to date.  

Money and the 92nd Assembly District Democratic Primary Campaign.

There are exactly four weeks until primary day for the 92nd Assembly District (92AD) when incumbent Tom Abinanti will face off against county legislator Mary Jane Shimsky.   With campaign financial disclosures recently released, I'm going to take my usual look into the money involved in this campaign.

First a summary of the campaigns' financial positions:

Abinanti started this campaign cycle (which I'm measuring from November 1, 2021) with more than $63K in his campaign account.  To launch her challenge, Shimsky transferred $25,600 from her county legislature campaign account and received family loans with $1,500 outstanding.  Through late May, Abinanti has out-raised Shimsky by $16,585 and has spent $15,546 more, leaving Abinanti still with a sizable $37,135 cash advantage heading into the campaign's final month.  

Good for Tom, right?  Not so fast.  The spending numbers, when examined more closely, may suggest that the campaign is heading in a direction not so favorable to the incumbent.  Abinanti has raised $75,833 since November 1, 2021, broken down between $23,135 contributed by 66 individuals, with the remaining $52,748 coming from variety of PACS, corporations, law firms and similar entities.  Of this amount coming from individuals, only 36 donors (contributing $6,200) actually live within the 92AD.  Put differently, of Tom's cash haul since November, only 8.2% has been contributed by potential voters. Those in-district donors are split nearly evenly between Mount Pleasant and much larger Greenburgh (about 18 donors each). 

In contrast, Shimsky has reversed Abinanti's corporate/PAC v. individual contributor ratio.  Shimsky has received $48,248 from individual contributors and $11,000 from a mix of other campaign funds, law firms, and just a few PACs.   Shimsky's donors include 149 itemized individuals (typically donating $100 or more cumulatively) plus an unidentified number of small contributors who have given $1,330.   Shimsky's individual donors include 80 itemized in-district residents (plus likely several more small amount donors).   Nearly all (74) of these 80 donors live in the Town of Greenburgh.  

Who are the big donors to the campaign?

By far the biggest contributor is Lawpac of New York (trial lawyers?) which has given Abinanti $9,400.  His next biggest donor is an individual living in South Williamsburg in Brooklyn who has donated $5000 cumulatively.  Other $4000+ donors to Abinanti this cycle are the New York Hotel Trades Council ($4,700) the Stars and Stripes PAC ($4000 - building industry) and the DANY PAC ($4000 - disability advocates).   In addition to the Brooklyn donor, Abinanti has a donor of $2,500, 2,000, and three giving $1,000.  Only one these large donors resides in 92AD. 

Shimsky's largest donor is an individual from Hastings who has given $4,700.   Shimsky also has received from $1000 to $2000 from nine individuals (seven of whom live in district).   Shimsky's biggest non-individual donors are the Cricket Club of Westchester ($1000),  Kearney Group Corp. ($1000 - a "domestic transportation corp.) and David Vinjamuri's (failed) campaign account ($1000).  

Additional "indirect" funding:

1.  Democratic Party funds:   The Greenburgh Democratic Town Committee is backing Shimsky. At its March 24, 2022 meeting, the Executive Committee voted to spend up to $20,000 for endorsed primary candidates facing opponents, specifically identifying Shimsky and Mondaire Jones (no longer relevant).  It is unclear how much, if any, of this $20,000 has been spent to support Shimsky's campaign so far.  Presumably, the Greenburgh Democratic Town Committee will pay for mailings or other promotional material (lawn signs or brochures) on Shimsky's behalf.   The Mount Pleasant Town Democratic Committee, which backs Abinanti, has voted to allocate $2,500 toward his campaign (per the Mount Pleasant Democrats facebook page).

2.  State Funding:  A recurring complaint in every campaign where a challenger takes on an incumbent is the incumbent's ability to use state funding awarded to his office for constituent communication indirectly for campaign purposes.  While such constituent mailers are a legitimate activity by any officeholder, challenged incumbents frequently wait to spend their office mailing budget until late in a campaign cycle to make sure that every constituent home receives several reminders of incumbent's name, face and achievements in their mail.  State rules, however, impose a black-out period on such mailers thirty days before a primary.  Greenburgh residents have certainly received a number of mailers from Abinanti's office in the past few weeks (I received my most recent Abinanti office mailing yesterday - presumably the last such mailing before the black-out period).  

What does the incumbent's mailing advantage mean financially?  We can make some guesses.  There are 50,298 registered Democrats in the 92AD (under existing borders) which suggests about 25,000 households that a Democratic primary candidate would want to reach.  On average, a post card mailer costs about .50 cents, or $12,500 to reach those 92AD Democratic households.  Greenburgh residents have reported receiving somewhere from 6 to 8 Abinanti office mailers during the campaign.  A challenger would have to raise and spend, cumulatively, from $75,000 to $100,000 to match the advantage that Abinanti has gained through the privileges of incumbency. 

UPDATE 6/2: Courtesy of https://seethroughny.net/expenditures  we can see that in 2020 (a primary year) Abinanti expensed $77,045 in "bulk mail" and in off-year 2021 he expensed $66,820 for bulk mail.  I do not know if there are timing restrictions on allocation of the mail budget (e.g., possibly an assemblymember facing a challenger might backload his bulk mailings in the prior year and advance them in the primary year, allowing spending upwards of $150,000 on bulk mailing timed for the election cycle).  I have also learned that county legislators are allowed one bulk mail per year to their constituents which, possibly, could amount to two bulk mailings during an election cycle (i.e, one mailing late in 2021 and one more before the 2022 primary).  I cannot find the county legislature mailing black out rules.  It should be noted, however, that Shimsky's county legislative district #12 includes only 40% of 92AD Democrats.    

 Note: for full disclosure, the author has contributed a small amount and has canvassed for the Shimsky campaign.

Town of Greenburgh School-Age Population Continues to Slide

The complete New York Department of Education enrollment stats (reported by the school districts). are finally out. The numbers show a continuing decline in school age children (i.e, ages 5-17) in the ten school districts in Greenburgh (including Tarrytown, Valhalla and Pocantico Hills which also cross over into adjacent towns). 

These enrollment numbers are collected by the school districts in the fall of each school year. [It should be noted that Greenburgh Central's enrollment numbers dated May 2 shows an increase from 1,510 to 1,540.]  

 For comparison, here is the previous school year ('20-'21) with the '19-'20 totals at. the bottom:

The COVID-prompted bubble in non-public school enrollment and home schooling (remember learning pods?) is over.   The town districts went from 55 home schoolers pre-COVID to 128 last year back down to 78 this year (although there.may be a couple more as Pocantico Hills has not reported its home school enrollment for the current year.).   Similarly private/parochial enrollment is back to its pre-COVID level from two years ago after growing 5% last year.  

Overall, however, the trend of decreasing enrollment in both public and non-public schools continues townwide with a 2% drop over two years.  

Once again, I'm highlighting the school-age population % of each district to show the enormous disparities in our. communities in their success in attracting families with school-age children.  Also the school districts with the lowest school age populations tend to have the higher % of those kids enrolled in non-public schools.  

Contention at the Convention: Abinanti staggered by Greenburgh Dems as Shimsky wins the belt at the 92nd AD confab

Democratic Party district leaders (DLs) from the newly and bizarrely reconfigured 92nd Assembly District convened via Zoom last Tuesday (Feb. 22) to consider nominating a candidate for the upcoming June 28th Democratic Party primary.  The roster of DLs was somewhat different from previous years as the redistricters in Albany excised from the 92nd nearly the entire Edgemont school district (along with a small piece of the Greenburgh Central school district) and added Ward 3 in north-west Yonkers.  The convention electorate consisted of 59 DLs from the Town of Mount Pleasant (including the villages of Sleepy Hollow and Pleasantville), 150 DLs from Greenburgh (including all six villages, and unincorporated Greenburgh minus amputated Edgemont), and 18 DLs from Yonkers's third ward.

The candidates considered were (1) Tom Abinanti who is in his sixth two-year term representing the 92nd assembly district in Albany and who has held elected offices for more than thirty (!) years, and (2) Mary Jane Shimsky who is serving her fifth and (term limited) final two-year term in the Westchester County legislature (where Abinanti held office for twenty years before his Nov. 2010 election to the state assembly).  If www.ourcampaigns.com is accurate, Abinanti has not lost an election since a failed bid for the state senate in 2000.   Mary Jane Shimsky won her seat at the county level in 2011 and and has never lost an election.  Someone's winning streak is going to end this June. 

Team Abinanti's apprehension about the convention was reflected in a letter issued by Abinanti allies Bill Greenawalt and Joanne Sold, and a statement at the convention by Greenawalt, challenging the convention's validity on procedural grounds. The convention proceeded regardless and an impressive 87% of district leaders voted (including objectors Greenawalt and Sold). 

Here are the results presented as both DL totals and by weighted votes assigned to each election district (derived from prior voter turnout numbers). For purposes of the convention, the weighted vote total is the significant number as 50% weighted votes must be attained by a candidate to receive the party's nomination.   

Shimsky won the nomination with a comfortable majority of 55% weighted votes, far ahead of Abinanti's 36%. Nine percent of DLs (15 DLs all from Greenburgh) abstained. 

92ND ASSEMBLY DIST. DEMOCRATIC PARTY CONVENTION RESULTS - FEB. 22, 2022:  

Abinanti crushed Shimsky among DLs from the Town of Mount Pleasant, where Abinanti has lived for a number of years and has been active in organizing the party.  He also took a narrow weighted vote lead among Ward 3 Yonkers DLs. But Shimsky thrashed Abinanti in the Democratic voter stronghold of Greenburgh.  Abinanti faired poorly among DLs in Greenburgh's incorporated villages, where he received 22% of the weighted vote, and the unincorporated areas too, where he claimed just 21%.  Shimsky's success in Greenburgh more than compensated for Abinanti's strength in Mount Pleasant and possibly does not bode well for Abinanti in June as Greenburgh has 3.5 times the amount of Democratic voter turnout as Mount Pleasant (with the major caveat that DL convention votes do not necessarily predict actual primary voting results- just ask Paul Feiner).  The fifteen abstainers in Greenburgh were mostly political and party officials and their family members.

Abinanti primaried in June 2020 when he fended off Jen Williams by 10,054 (55%) to 8,065 (45%).  In that extraordinarily high turn-out primary (remember no-excuse-needed mail-in ballots?), Abinanti survived when other septuagenarian incumbents (e.g., Elliot Engel for Congress and Tony Scarpino for Westchester Disrict Attorney) were crushed by decades younger newcomers.  Abinanti's victory, however, was not unexpected as, unlike Engel and Scarpino, he enjoyed the backing of a unified local Democratic Party and faced a largely self-funded and effectively replacement-level novice.

As signaled by the convention results, Shimsky will certainly pose a much more serious threat to Abinanti's permanency than Williams did.  Shimsky is politically and electorially experienced, claims the support and respect of much of the local Democratic Party establishment, and has already proven herself a strong fundraiser in this campaign.  Williams brought none of these qualifications to her challenge two years ago. 

One intriguing subplot highlighted in the convention results is the impact of the Edgemont for Yonkers Ward 3 trade (straight up, no cash or PTBNLs).  It is suspected - though not confirmed - Tom Abinanti's friends in Albany engineered this exchange to rid the 92nd of Edgemont (where he was soundly beaten in the 2020 primary) in favor of possibly more Abinanti-amenable constituents in Yonkers.  Five of the six electoral districts eviscerated from the 92nd were very unfavorable to Abinanti and he might have been expected to lose those DLs by a margin of up to 10 to 1 (one DL would have abstained).   Instead of a huge loss among these DLs (and assuredly voters in the June primary), Abinanti effectively drew even among the Yonkers DLs newcomers. Thus, while  tossing Edgemont probably gained Abinanti fewer than 2% in the convention weighted voting, the possibility of swinging two hundred or more primary votes in Abinanti's favor - facilitated by the Edgemont for Yonkers swap - could play a decisive role in a tight primary in June.    

Greenburgh Public School Enrollment Declines for Third Consecutive Year

The NY State Education Department just released its official public school enrollment numbers.  In the 2021-22 school year - the third school year impacted by COVID - town of Greenburgh public school enrollment continued its decline since 2018-19, but the pace of decrease slowed, and some districts had small increases over last year.  Yet the three year overall decline (2.8% or 437 K-12 students) townwide now suggests a trend, rather than a statistical irregularity.  When NYSED releases the nonpublic and home school enrollment stats later this spring, we'll get a better sense whether students have left the public school system, or families with school-age children are decreasing in the town, consistent with  historically low national fertility rates.

Note the above enrollments are for K-12 only. Greenburgh Central, Elmsford and Tarrytown include preK in their publicly announced enrollments numbers, but to compare the ten Town of Greenburgh school districts, I've excluded preK.   Also, note that as the enrollment numbers are collected and reported by the school districts in October and November of each school year, 2019-2020 enrollment total precede the impact of COVID starting in March 2020.  

Source:  https://www.p12.nysed.gov/irs/statistics/enroll-n-staff/home.html

GREENBURGH COVID: OMICRON WAVE CRESTS - CASES START TO DROP

After peaking at 4,025 on Jan. 10, 2022, active COVID cases townwide start to drop, perhaps signaling the decline of the Omicron wave .  This trajectory is similar to the Delta Variant which crested in Greenburgh on January 20, 2021

.