Saturday, November 05, 2011

FEPC Orders Conlon To Repudiate Republican Party

November 5, 2011
For Immediate Release

Andrew Conlon ordered to denounce Republican Party

Today, the Fair Election Practices Committee ordered Republican candidate Andrew Conlon to repudiate the Republican Party for violating the Fair Campaign Pledge.

The FEPC reviewed a Republican Party mail piece in which Rita Garretson’s name and photograph were tied to a statement she did not make and did not support. Such misrepresentations violate the Fair Campaign Pledge, which Conlon signed in September.

Conlon’s name did not appear on the attack piece. The FEPC decided that the Republican Party was responsible for the mailer. The pledge requires a candidate to “publicly repudiate any individual or group whose activities on my campaign’s behalf (directly or indirectly) violate this Fair Campaign Pledge.”

Accordingly, the FEPC directed Conlon to make such a statement.

“I eagerly await Andrew Conlon’s statement repudiating the Republican Party,” said Rita Garretson, Conlon’s challenger for Greece Town Board. “The mailer was a dishonest attack on my reputation. I expect him to forcefully speak out condemning the Republican Party, as the FEPC instructed.”

It was not a good week for Conlon. On Tuesday, Conlon lost the main issue in another fair campaign case, in which FEPC agreed with Rita Garretson that, in fact, Conlon had never spoken out against John Auberger's misconduct. Auberger was the object of public outrage when voters learned that he failed to inform police of his intimate relationship with a married murder victim. FEPC sustained Conlon’s secondary complaint that Rita Garretson said he relied on party bosses for his livelihood. Conlon is employed in the district office of Republican NY Senator Joe Robach.

Rita Garretson, Wendy Wright, and Norma Cummings are running for Greece Town Board on the Democratic line. Currently, there are only Republicans on the Town Board. Between January 2010 and September 2011, the all-Republican board voted unanimously with John Auberger 941 times. None of them voted against Auberger, not even once.

For more information, contact: Dave Garretson ( )

The FEPC Pledge

SCATS ~~ For those of you who can't figure it out, the above item is a Press Release, not an item written by SCATS. So, what will Andy do to denounce the Republicans? Stand in front of his bedroom mirror and repeat three times "Bad, bad Republicans" ?


Anonymous said...

He will have to wait until
Augie and McCann write something for him to read.

Anonymous said...

These two are really slugging it out. I vote for the person, not the party. I have given this a lot of thought. I am one of those people who actually read all that junk mail from the politicians.

I got lots of mail from both of them. Andy's mail was some of it wimpy, taking credit for Todd Baxter and Unity Hospital as if he actually had much to do with those things, or sneaky such as trying to sell me that thanks to him my taxes are lower, or downright nasty telling me that Rita is GUILTY in big red letters because somehow he got the fair campaign people to buy that him working for Robach has nothing to do with politics.

Rita's mail was sharp and no wussing around. Told me what she plans to do. Told me what she thinks is wrong with Andy without being bitchy about it. I was especially impressed with the one where she lays out her qualifications next to his, and it is night and day believe me.

If you can't tell where I'm going with this here it is. Andy had my vote last time, but this year I'm going for Rita. We need to swap out the muppet babies and put in grown ups who can stand up to you know who.

Anonymous said...

No way will this guy do this announcement because there is no way to force him. But you can call and ask him to tell you how he is renouncing the Republican party. He was at my house two weeks ago and gave me his card. It says Town of Greece Third Ward Councilman Andrew Conlon on it with his phone number and address . He said I can call him any time. I said can I give this to other people and he said yes. So I'm giving it to you. 406-7937. If you wood rather email him his email is right there on his official card so go ahead and call.

SCATS said...

To 5:15PM ~~ He gives out his cell number rather freely, which I believe ALL electeds should have publicly posted in an easily accessible place. Normally, I wouldn't do this but in this case, with so little time to go, he needs to get a message.


Anonymous said...

Any candidate can sign the pledge and make a complaint. If the complaint is found to be with merit, the offending candidate is censured and knows he or she did something not according to this committee of league of women voters and some church alliance. It is all very nice but they don't "order" a candidate to repudiate. In fact once the material has been distributed there is nothing this group can do but make a judgment.
Since the party falsely represented her in print she should sue for libel. There was definitely the presence of "malice".

Anonymous said...

Once again you post a press release that tells a complete falsehood without checking any facts SCATS. The FEPC cannot and does not order candidates to do anything. Their contact information is freely available on their website. Have you contacted them yet to see if Rita Garretson is lying?

Of course not. You don't operate in facts.

But you take what DEMOCRAT Rita Garretson says and run with it, even back it up with your snarky remarks about Conlon.

I get this won't be posted because it doesn't blindly agree with you regardless of facts, but you know you're wrong here. If you don't know you're wrong, then there's something gravely wrong with you.

Lying seems to be a staple of Rita Garretson's campaign this year.

It's no surprise that you whole-heatedly support her.

Lie down with cats and you get fleas. ;)

SCATS said...

To 7:46AM ~~ WHAT "complete falsehood" are you talking about? Are you claiming Conlon didn't sign the pledge? I suspect that's NOT your claim, so ... Conlon signed the pledge (WHICH I POSTED) and by doing so he agreed to repudiate the Republicans if anyone violated it on his behalf. Again, I didn't write the PR piece but, once again, I did provide you with info so you can argue that issue with its author.

SEND ME CONLON'S REPUDIATION STATEMENT & I'LL POST THAT TOO! I won't be holding my breath though ;) I know you're too busy spewing party-line gobbledy-gook to be worried about the personal honesty, integrity and or ethics of your candidate :D

Anonymous said...

Calm down SCATS.

Rita says the committee ordered the candidate to do something and people here have shown that her statement is a lie.

Go to their site. They cannot and do not "order, force, demand, etc." anyone to do anything. Rita's is lying and she should apologize for doing so.

It's that simple.

SCATS said...

To 2:04PM ~~ Actually, the liar is Andrew Conlon who took a pledge, broke it and now has failed to make the amends he promised to make. But then what can we expect from a candidate who doesn't follow the ethics policy set by the same board that he sits on??

Anonymous said...

Rita broke the pledge she signed. Yet you say nothing about that. Must be because you blindly back her no matter what bad things she does or how poorly she acts.

Very telling.

Anonymous said...

Put the other SCATS on. He's more fun to interact with.

SCATS said...

To 5:29PM ~~ That was posted in the first PR piece. The difference is that the portion of the pledge that she broke doesn't require her to make amends by repudiating her party. Conlon is so required, he vowed to do so. It's time Conlon man-up and do it, thus raising the bar on ethics/honesty/integrity for the party bosses he works for (Robach) & reports to (Auberger) ;)

To 5:30PM ~~ I'll pass word along ... I could definitely use a break!

Anonymous said...

I received a mailer pointing out that Garretson broke her campaign ledge for making a false accusation. Days later I then received a mail piece from Rita with her making the very same accusation she was found guilty of.

Does Rita have an obligation to stop making claims that the committee said were false? Or do you support her continued breaking of the pledge she signed SCATS?

It'll be interesting to see if you hold Rita Garretson to the same standard.

SCATS said...

To 6:51AM ~~ I don't know which specific mailers you are referring to since you didn't bother describing them. I can't address timing issues that might be caused by printers or the Post Office either. Last but certainly NOT least is that SCATS doesn't set the standards we're talking about here. The FEPC does and they ORDERED CONLON TO REPUDIATE THE REPUBLICANS, just as he agreed to do when he signed that pledge. Garretson's infraction didn't require that as per the FEPC pledge ;)

And for the record, I was given a heads up yesterday evening about the fact that this little detail was omitted from both the Greece Post and the D&C's most recent coverage. There may be more info about this situation coming later today.

Anonymous said...

No she won't stop and he won't repudiate. This is like children whining as they tattle and the adults have to make a decision as to whether the tattler or tattlee is more at fault. Remember the Brady sister that was always tattling? "Awwww she said I only have a paycheck because of party bosses. Pay no attention to my employer." "Awwww he made up funny pictures about me because my party at the national and state level likes to raise taxes." Both of you to bed without dinner! Or will the wise women voters league have a better solution?

SCATS said...

To 7:06AM ~~ I suspect the FEPC pledge was supposed to be that solution ...

Anonymous said...

Rita Garretson doesn't have to abide by the pledge she signed.

Anonymous said...

"It'll be interesting to see if you hold Rita Garretson to the same standard."

I see from your response to this question that the answer is no.

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

Anonymous said...

Scats, regrettably not. They can pledge but they won't obviously follow the guidelines the ladies set up.
Maybe without the "threat" of the league the campaigns would be worse. Compared to the national mudslinging, it is tame.
It still sounds like tattling on both their parts. They should grow some thicker skin. It will get worse no matter who wins that race after the election. If she wins the town board meetings will be super interesting. If he wins , not so much. Same old, same old.

SCATS said...

To 7:32AM ~~ Maybe she just followed the lead of Andy Conlon ;)

To 10:33AM ~~ Again, I do not create the standard. It is the FEPC that does.

To Rita G. ~~ Thank you for clarifying.

To 11:34AM ~~ I think we both know it would be worse. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Conlon has ZERO CREDIBILITY with me going forward unless he repudiates his party as he pledged he would do.

Anonymous said...

No offense but Rita Garretson does NOT impress me or inspire me as a tax payer in the Town of Greece. All she seems to be doing is bad mouthing the young lad who has actually been doing a very good job. Now you may disagree with me SCATS, but you don't live in the 3rd ward so your opinion means little to me. I have seen ZERO info on what her plans are for the area. What I have seen is the same old same from the Greece Democratic Committee.

Anonymous said...

To 6:51,

Hello it's me the person who reads everything carefully. According to the newspaper, Rita was wrong to say that Andy's job at Joe Robach's office depended on political bosses. I disagree with them, but that's what they decided.

Sure enough, a few days later Andy sent a mailer saying "guilty" in great big red letters about Rita. Over the top but he is entitled to do it. He went down another notch in my book but I'd already decided to vote for Rita anyway.

In the same days mail a piece from Rita mentioning Andy's job again, but the wording was a little different. No mention of bosses this time. I don't know if the change was enough to make a difference for the legal hair splitters or not.

After this week's antics I am more solidly behind Rita than before. I think she has the guts to shake things up and keep Auberger honest.

SCATS said...

To 12:38PM ~~ Don't look now, but YOUR boy Andy ain't any better on any of the things you are complaining about.


To 4:23PM ~~ I'm impressed by the number of Rita's signs I'm seeing in the same lawn where signs are posted for other local Republicans. This could be a very close election. Let's hope she wins by a hair, whether it's split or not :)