Democracy Fund Revisits
DeStefano Violations

The New Haven Democracy Fund’s governing board may have agreed at its last meeting not to investigate the DeStefano mayoral campaign for violations of its rules. The board did not, however, promise to leave the issue alone.

The board, which runs the first-in-Connecticut program that gives public funds to qualifying mayoral candidates, took up the issue again at a meeting Monday night in City Hall.

Lingering resentment over last month’s 2 – 2 vote that let the 2009 DeStefano campaign off the hook for a late filing dominated the meeting. Almost an hour of discussion didn’t alter the board’s stance. Nor did it take the issue off the table.

It did obscure a major accomplishment of the Democracy Fund, which was created to help level the playing field for mayoral candidates and to limit the role of special-interest money in campaigns: For the first time, a mayoral challenger has qualified for public financing through the fund. Jeffrey Kerekes received enough small contributions from New Haven residents to meet the fund’s requirements. Kerekes will receive a $17,000 grant and at least $7,000 more to compete against Mayor John DeStefano Jr. in the Sept. 13 Democratic mayoral primary.

Two other challengers, Anthony Dawson and Robert Lee, have agreed to participate in public financing, but only Dawson gained enough signatures to appear on the Sept. 13 ballot. He has not yet demonstrated that he has obtained the contributions to receive public funds.

Another mayoral candidate, Clifton Graves, chose not to participate in pubic financing, as did Mayor DeStefano.

Democracy Fund Chair Caleb Kleppner, who voted in July to investigate the DeStefano campaign, Monday night presented a memorandum written by the fund administrator Robert Wechsler proposing to change regulations in response to last month’s decision. The new regulations would give the board authority to investigate violations of late or insufficient filings only upon an allegation that the violation was intentional or involved misuse of public funds. The current regulation simply states that the board does not need to initiate investigatory proceedings for late or insufficient filings.

Both Kleppner and Wechsler argued that the change is necessary to assure that another candidate who makes a late or incomplete filing is not investigated.
 
​“I think it’s important to do because we need to treat campaigns equally,” Kleppner said. ​“If we say there’s no violation in Case A, we need to make sure that if someone comes along in the same situation they won’t be penalized. We need to say: These are our standards. We should be honest. We should be upfront.”

Wechsler, who called the issue ​“very important,” said: ​“If we make a decision that inadvertent mistakes are not going to be investigated or penalized, it has to apply to everyone.”

Wechsler said that he derived the new standards for an investigation — an intent to violate the statute or malfeasance — based upon last month’s discussion of the DeStefano campaign. Wechsler said those seemed to be the reasons two board members, Stephen Kovel and Richard Abbatiello, voted not to investigate the DeStefano campaign.

Vice-Chair Anna Mariotti joined Kleppner in voting for an investigation last month. With board member Dennis Curtis absent, that led to a deadlocked vote and the failed motion.

The controversy arose when the 2009 DeStefano campaign, which was receiving public financing, filed financial information with the Democracy Fund in March 2011, well after the Jan. 31, 2010, deadline. The board had previously fined the campaign $500 for failing to file on time.

Representatives of the DeStefano campaign attended last month’s meeting to argue that the late filing was inadvertent and therefore shouldn’t be investigated.

Kovel and Abbatiello agreed with each other again on Monday night. They both objected to changing the regulations, saying the more open-ended rule gave the board the flexibility to decide whether to investigate based upon particular circumstances.

“It’s based on the individual situation. I keep going back to that,” Abbatiello said.

Kovel said last month’s decision did not bind the board. ​“I don’t think we’ve set any precedents that can’t be differentiated by future circumstances,” Kovel said. ​“The rules as they currently exist are quite adequate and shouldn’t be changed.”

Kovel also explained that a number of factors entered into his decision to drop the matter, such as the newness of the process and the board’s lateness in considering an investigation, and not just a lack of intent or malfeasance.

Although Kleppner and Wechsler initially focused on future circumstances in advocating for the rule changes, It was clear the behavior of the DeStefano campaign continued to rile, particularly administrator Wechsler.

Wechsler said allowing the DeStefano representatives to participate at all last month was a mistake. ​“We shouldn’t have even let them come in before an investigation to make their case,” Wechsler said. ​“Everything they said could be false and you would have no idea.”

Wechsler said the three candidates participating this year have tried very hard to comply with the rules, calling him frequently to make sure they follow the rules. ​“The DeStefano campaign is the exact opposite,” Wechsler said. ​“They never asked for my advice.”

DeStefano and several aldermen supported creation of the fund. The mayor appointed its board members, who were approved by the Board of Aldermen. DeStefano accepted fund financing in his 2007 and 2009 campaigns but opted out this year.

Wechsler said he felt so strongly about the issue that he would resign if he felt he had to present a candidate who had made a late or insufficient filing to the board, knowing the board would investigate that candidate when it hadn’t investigated DeStefano.

Vice Chair Mariotti, who had voted to investigate the DeStefano campaign last month, said she doesn’t think that decision would lead to such a situation.

Kovel also tried to disarm the threat by calling Wechsler a ​“valued administrator.” He argued that last month’s decision won’t put Wechsler in a untenable position. 

Kleppner then indicated that there didn’t seem to be a ​“groundswell” to make any changes in the regulations, and suggested further discussion at the next meeting.

Kovel objected. ​“I think we’re dragging something out we could put to bed right now,” he said

“Noted,” Kleppner replied, adding that he doesn’t expect the ​“memorandum” to ​“show up at the next meeting.”

Yet Kleppner wasn’t quite ready to drop the issue of DeStefano’s 2009 violations. He suggested that the board members vote not as they had previously on whether to investigate the campaign, but instead cut to the chase and vote on whether a violation of the rules had occurred. ​“We can make a decision that there is a violation and then talk about penalty and mitigation,” Kleppner said. ​“Maybe that’s the best way to put it to bed.”

Abatiello and Kovel did not agree.

Kleppner then said that issue could be moved to the next meeting, scheduled for Sept. 19.

Kleppner said after the meeting the issue may or may not be considered then. He said he would wait to see whether anyone asked for it to be discussed. Kleppner said he didn’t know yet whether he would personally put the issue on the agenda.

The board also put off consideration of a ​“technical amendment” that Wechsler proposed to clarify the administrator’s responsibility to alert a candidate committee when a contribution or expenditure is totally omitted, rather than the more typical situation where there is insufficient information.

The board even tabled consideration of last month’s minutes.

“Holy smoke,” Kleppner said upon glancing at the minutes. ​“They’re the most detailed minutes we’ve ever had.”

“That’s because I did them,” Wechsler said, later acknowledging that ​“I’m a bit of a transparency nut.”

Abatiello said the minutes were too extensive to absorb on the spot, so they were held off for the September meeting.

By that time, the board might have a new member. Tiana Ocasio has been nominated to replace Dennis Curtis, who did not attend Monday’s meeting. The board of aldermen is scheduled to vote on her nomination at its Aug. 22 meeting.