Monday, November 07, 2011

Conlon & Garretson: Clarifying the FEPC Ruling

Rita Garretson said...   

A word of explanation about Saturday’s Fair Campaign ruling. There were three components to the complaint filed against Andrew Conlon: 1) That he inappropriately used a term to describe me ( I won’t repeat it), it was a mischaracterization, 2) That he attached my name and photograph to a statement I did not make and do not endorse, 3) that he failed to identify himself on the mailer. All three are components of the pledge which Andy and I both signed in September.

On Saturday morning, the FEPC dismissed #1, ruled in my favor on #2, and dismissed #3. The third item, “candidate not identified,” was dismissed because the Republican Party, not Andrew Conlon, sent the mailer. In such cases, the candidate is expected to repudiate those who violate the pledge on their behalf. The Fair Campaign Pledge ends with this statement: “I will publicly repudiate any individual or group whose activities on my campaign’s behalf (directly or indirectly) violate this Fair Campaign Pledge.”

There was a fair amount of discussion upon hearing the FEPC’s decision. Republican Chairman Bill Reilich sought clarification on who should issue a repudiation statement and what it should say. The committee informed him that Andrew Conlon should make a statement repudiating the Republican Party and its violation of the fair campaign pledge.

There were ten people in the room: two Democrats, three Republicans, and five from FEPC. I believe it was clear to everybody in the room what had transpired and what was expected from Andrew Conlon.

Later that day, we issued a press release calling on Andrew Conlon to repudiate the Republican Party for its attack on me. In retrospect, I wish we had not said that FEPC “ordered” Andrew Conlon to make a repudiation statement. Clearly, that was expected, but the word does not appear in their written decision.

The fact remains that Andrew Conlon and I both signed the Fair Campaign Pledge. A committee of two Democrats and two Republicans ruled that I was unfairly attacked. Andrew Conlon should honor his word and repudiate the Republican Party for their unfair attack against me.

If I am elected on Tuesday, you can expect me to keep my word. If I catch myself in a mistake, you can expect me to step forward and say so.

Rita Garretson    11/07/2011 10:35 AM


Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that Ms. Garretson won't repeat the "term" Mr. Conlon used to gescribe her.
It was "Liberal Activist".
Clearly this isn't as bad as Ms. Garretson would have you think.

I appreciate that she issued a clarification concerning the FEPC ruling, and what was "ordered" versus what was expected.

I also agree that Mr. Conlon should repudiate any party making false statements.

Having said that, calling a dermocrat "Liberal Activist" and showing her picture next to the picture of someone holding a sign which reads "We Want Bigger Government" doesn't really seem like a big deal.

Mountain meet Molehill

Anonymous said...

Vote early and often for Rita

Anonymous said...

It's me the person who reads everything. I just wrote a comment on the other thing. I am glad you made a separate article about this note from Rita. She is showing that she is a class act. She made a small error which arguably was not even a mistake at all, and she is owning up to it. What a breath of fresh air!

Andy, on the other hand, still did not come forward to issue the statement he was supposed to.

With each passing day, am I happier with my choice.

Anonymous said...

This shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of either one, but we got a mailing from the Conlon campaign that Garretson was accused and found guilty of sending an unfair campaign mailer. Any background on that mailing? Can't we have a fair, clean campaign where the candidates just tell us what they want to do for us and the rest of Greece if elected? Makes you want to write in the name on the Fire Hydrant for town council!

Anonymous said...

to 1:58, You don't take offense at the language. Maybe it's easier to take if your name isn't the one being trashed and mailed to thousands of people. It is lame to excuse name calling by saying the name I called you wasn't so bad. As I see from your last paragraph, you seem to say as a democrat candidate she deserves to be called whatever Andy can think up.

Anonymous said...

Rita deserves to win but don't hold your breath. The Republican power in this town rivals the Chicago mob and the NYC Mafia bosses for their pervasive power and influence. No good deed will go unpunished by the Republican Party as they make every effort to steamroller the opposition's high level campaign and honest and moral behaviors. Conlon is a pathetic example of a young man inebriated by the power of the party and willing to perform any act short of a felony to ingratiate himself with the power brokers. Too bad the Democrats are too few, too disorganized, too talent starved, and too underfunded to slay the dragon.

Anonymous said...

To 7:16,
What I meant was that calling a democrat a liberal activist is as bad a calling a republican a conservative activist.
I would venture to guess that each would call themselves that in their own groups.
And no I wouldn't be crying to the FEPC if someone called me either.
If I were a democrat, I'd wear it as a badge of honor to be called a liberal activist. That's what the democrat base wants.
If I were a republican, I'd wear it as a badge of honor to be called a conservative activist. That's what the republican base wants.
I think it's about time folks stop looking at every interaction as an opportunity to pick a fight or complain about being offended. It lessens the effect when someone does something truly offensive.

SCATS said...

To 9:45PM ~~ While I get what you're saying, both candidates pledged not to participate in clearly defined activities. The fact of the matter is that while the FEPC ruled Conlon's use of the name-calling to be OK in this case, I question, why do it at all especially if you are signing this pledge & really intend to run a clean campaign? Those who sink to such levels are mentally bankrupt, IMHO.

Anonymous said...

The issue is someone calling Ms Garretson a liberal activist.

She is the director of C.A.S.H.

C.A.S.H. Is described on their own website as a community coalition led by Empire Justice Center and the United Way of Greater Rochester.

Would that make one a liberal activist???

Anonymous said...

Calling any of our party leaders liberal or activists or conservative is not the same as the national level of the parties. Around here the local people get to play politics and the national or state committees do not care what they do. They are allowed to have play-dates and mock debates with their opponents, as far as both national parties are concerned. It helps them at the national convention level and when they need workers for the big campaigns to have these local members. But do we really think there is much difference between the democrats and republicans ideologically here in Greece or any other suburb.
I don't think that Rita is being a liberal activist anymore than Andy is working for the tea party. They are both just members of a different club and she wants some new people to be allowed in the treehouse. Maybe that's a good idea. We have no idea what is going on at the Greece town board level because all the decisions are made before they open their monthly meetings. Those in office now surely do not want some new girl in there. Where would they make their decisions ahead of time if she was involved?

SCATS said...

To 6:44AM ~~ Good point! I refuse to join a party. It allows me to focus on the candidate & the issues more easily. This time, I support Rita Garretson. I've seen Conlon do NOTHING aside from support Auberger's every whim for 2 years. Any puppet can do that. I've heard Garretson speak out against Auberger & if she wins, I expect her to keep it going.