Almost four months after the Buffalo School Board Election which took place on May 5, a new court decision may shed more light on the political contributions made to current board member Christopher L. Jacobs.

Four months? Why so long?

Because in that time, despite our efforts in court, Jacobs has still not filed complete campaign finance disclosure forms. We feel we’re just pursuing accurate information, and that takes time, not to mention expert legal representation from Peter A. Reese.

Jacobs’s attorney, Paul G. Joyce (pictured), disputes our motives. He claimed in an affidavit to the court that we were capriciously and frivolously trying “to harass and maliciously injure Mr. Jacobs.”

The Hon. Frederick J. Marshall did not agree. Here’s the transcript of Tuesday’s proceedings, including his ruling from the bench.

On July 17, two months after the filing deadline, and without notice to the litigants pursuing the records (us), or to the courts, Jacobs filed a somewhat more complete campaign finance disclosure form with the Buffalo Board of Education. That filing omits addresses and full names of contributors. Nonetheless, Joyce used that belated, incomplete, and unannounced filing as a rationale for calling our litigation frivolous and capricious. Here’s the affidavit. At the end of that document, you’ll find Jacobs’s July 17 disclosure. Click here to read Reese’s responding affirmation.

Let the guessing games begin. Assign last names to first names in the document, or vice versa, and win fabulous prizes from Artvoice for accuracy, and/or originality. Judging will take place if and when Jacobs meets the judge’s order to comply with the law within 20 days.

Despite Joyce’s claim, this all began because we were interested not so much in Jacobs, but in an undocumented and seemingly illegal entity created by the Buffalo Niagara Partnership called Buffalo Students First. The group spent more than $30,000 to back the incumbent at-large candidates in May’s school board election.

According to Jacobs’s July 17 filing, his campaign spent almost $54,000 on top of whatever backing he received from the Partnership.

Brian Meyer of the Buffalo News reports that Mayor Byron Brown has relented: The public does not have to pay $35 to hear his State of the City speech on Thursday. Those who wish to attend need only pay if they want to be served lunch, and if they do, about a third of the price of their ticket will benefit something called Mayor Brown’s Fund to Advance Buffalo.

We first wrote about this practice—turning a civic event into a fundraiser for a private charity controlled by the mayor—in 2007, when Brown delivered his first annual State of the City address. (It’s worth clicking the link for the quotes from the late Jimmy Griffin at the end.) Back then, we had a hard time discovering what it is Mayor Brown’s Fund to Advance Buffalo intended to do. Last week, AV editor Buck Quigley looked through the not-for-profit’s paperwork and discovered it has not put a lot of money on the streets—just $8,500 by the end of 2007, when it sat on assets of $60,000. Quigley estimated the mayor’s fund will raise another $20,000 on Thursday afternoon.

Seems almost like wonder if Mayor Brown’s Fund to Advance Buffalo is saving up for a rainy day. I wonder if the folks who control that fund—Brown stalwarts like Steve Casey, Mike Seaman, Dana Bobinchek, and Alisa Lukasiewicz—will find more ways to spend that money this summer, when the mayoral election will be looming?

Last week attorney Peter Reese protested the mayor’s use of the City of Buffalo and CitiStat seals on invitations for what he said amounts to a private fundraiser. The mayor’s spokesperson, Peter Cutler, denied to the Buffalo News that Reese’s protest influenced the mayor’s decision to open a limited number of seats to the public free of charge.

As anyone who’d bother to read this post knows, South District Councilmember Mickey Kearns and Delaware District Councilmember Mike LoCurto submitted a resolution asking the city’s law department to draft a statute banning some city employees from engaging in politicking. The resolution, they say, is a response to complaints that workers in City Hall are made to carry petitions, donate to campaigns, and canvass for candidates whom the mayor instructs them to support. (I’m having trouble downloading the text, so no link, sorry.) This mini Hatch Act—so called because it is a local version of the federal law—is intended, say Kearns and LoCurto, to protect city employees from being pressured by their superiors to do political work.

Niagara District Councilmember David Rivera and Council President Dave Franczyk signed onto the resolution, and the fifth man in the majority coalition, Lovejoy’s Rich Fontana, voted yea to send the resolution to the legislative committee.

That’s where it ran into attorney Peter Reese, who excoriated the measure for 10 or 15 excruciatingly funny minutes. (I don’t watch City Hall TV myself, or whatever it’s called, because I don’t have cable; if you do, and if such things interest you, try to catch Reese’s performance.)

Reese said the proposed legislation did not represent reform at all, that in fact it was “politics as usual.” He called the proposed legislation anti-union, because as written it could make union activity grounds for dismissal.

Edit: Mike LoCurto tells me I have misunderstood the section of the proposed legislation that led me to write what is now in brackets and italics below: “The exemption would only be for employees who are currently committeemembers,” LoCurto write. “They could remain committeemenmbers for their current two-year term. They would not be permitted to donate to campaigns during that time.”

[He said it was racist, for several reasons, not least of which is this: Current employees would be grandfathered, so they could still politick. Only new employees would be excluded from political activity. If you sort city employees by councilmanic district and race, you'll find a preponderance of white South Buffalonians. New Latino hires from the Lower West Side? You can't campaign for a candidate from your community. New African-American hires from Cold Springs? You don't get to pass petitions for you next door neighbor whose running for Common Council.

White guy from South Buffalo who has had a job since the Griffin administration and never fails to drop $50 into the hat at a Goin' South beer bash? Keep writing those checks.]

(Later in the hearing, North District Councilmember Joe Golombek pointed out that a ban on City Hall employees politicking would deprive the mayor of some of his ground troops in his re-election bid next year; meantime, county and local state employees, who tend to align with the county chairman, would remain free to campaign for the mayor’s opponent.)

Reese said the legislation had been misnamed: Instead of the “City of Buffalo Employee Protection Act,” it ought to be called the “Minority Exclusion Act of 2008.”

Worst of all, he said, it created a “political superclass.” Only folks like plow drivers, clerks, cashiers, sanitation workers, etc. would be prohibited from politicking. Appointees who serve at the pleasure of the mayor, the comptroller, or the council—immediate staff of the three branches of city government, in other words, the people who are closest to politicians and most overtly political to begin with—would not be covered by this mini Hatch Act.

It compromises First Amendment rights, Reese said. And state courts have already ruled that passing designating petitions for a political candidate is an absolute right of every citizen.

“And these are the things I like about this bill,” Reese said.

(more…)