Furthermore, “lockstep democracy” is what Greenburgh has had for most of Feiner’s 16-year tenure in office. During that period of time, the town’s infrastructure was allowed to crumble, the town was underinsured, laws were repeatedly violated, the town failed to maintain its roadways, and Feiner kept his stranglehold on public office by raking in tens of thousands of dollars from developers with active applications pending before the town—and then using that money to elect colleagues on the town council who could be trusted to turn a blind eye to Feiner’s shenanigans.

All that began to change as citizens came forward and successfully challenged Feiner in court, and as former town employees began to share with residents the real story behind Feiner and his cronyism.

The end result is that the town council is for the first time in years, truly representative of the people of Greenburgh. No longer shilling for Feiner, they are there to do the people’s business, and to expose Feiner for what he is and has done to the people of Greenburgh.

Yes, Feiner is an unconventional politician and I can understand why he is a thorn in the side of Democratic party machine. All the more reason for eliminating Bass (and maybe Barnes, too) in the upcoming Democratic Primary. If we can’t seem to get rid of the undemocratic one party system in Greenburgh, at least let’s some diversity. The lock step democracy advocated by Bass and Sheehan is a shame for our Town.

She reports that the proposal barring campaign contributions from anyone with applications pending before the town “would mean candidates for town office could not accept campaign money from developers or their lawyers.”

This is false. Had Rebecca attended the town board meeting, or just watched it replaying on the Internet, or talked to any of the ethics board members, she would have learned that state law only allows towns to regulate campaign contributions being made to already-elected public officials.

Candidates for office are already covered elsewhere under the state’s Fair Campaign Practices Law, which mandates disclosure of all contributions.

The reason the law makes the distinction is that towns are authorized under Chapter 18 of the state’s General Municipal Law to regulate the propriety of town decision-making. They are not authorized to regulate campaign contributions generally. Thus, towns can restrict the kind of campaign contributions that already-elected officials may receive if towns feel they need to do so to protect the integrity of town decision-making.

Greenburgh’s proposal to prevent town officials from both accepting and soliciting contributions from persons with applications pending is precisely the kind of regulation contemplated by state law because it will help remove taint from town decision-making.

For years, Feiner has been selling access to his office by taking money from persons with applications pending, and he’s been using that money to elect his own rubber-stamp slate of town council members.

Thanks to Bass and Sheehan, that’s about to change, and it’s about time.