TESTIMONY TO THE NYC CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION Queens Borough Hall, Wednesday, July 28, 2010 by Adrienne Kivelson Vice President, the League of Women Voters of the City of New York. Good Evening, Chairman Goldstein and members of the Charter Revision Commission. I am here this evening to comment on the preliminary report issued by your staff and to follow up on some of the recommendations we presented in earlier testimony and correspondence. First I want to thank you for holding these hearings in all five boroughs and particularly for webcasting them, enabling all of us to follow the testimony and the questions and comments of the Commissioners. This has certainly added to the transparency of this process and for that achievement we commend you, the commissioners and the staff. We knew when this process started that term limits was a high priority, if not your first priority. While the League believes that the best term limit is for the voters to vote inadequate or ineffective elected officials out of office, we were opposed to the action of the Mayor and the Council in overriding the will of the voters in extending term limits. We had called on the Mayor to convene a Charter Revision Commission to review the status of term limits and put the options on the ballot in 2008. We're asking you to do the same thing. Put the options on the ballot. It has been 17 years since the voters opted for term limits. We have a whole new generation of voters. We now know that "citizen legislators" do not return to the private sector. Most choose to run for another office, find another way to stay in government, or wait around for four years and run for the Council again. It is our understanding that all of the questions on the ballot must be phrased to get a simple yes or no answer. Therefore, we are suggesting that if you decide to place term limits on the November ballot you propose two questions: 1. Do you support Term Limits? Yes______No ______ 2. If term limits were approved, do you believe there should a limit of two full four year terms for all city elected officials? Yes____ No_____ In our April testimony, we asked the Commission to consider recommending inclusion of the Department of Education in the City Charter. The League and others also called for strengthened community boards and independent budgets for the Public Advocate, Borough Presidents and the Conflicts of Interest Board COIB). The staff's report cited time limitations in deferring all suggestions of structural change to future commissions. However, it is our experience that more significant structural changes emerge from the recommendations of charter commissions than through the legislative process. The League will continue to advocate for charter status for the Department of Education through the state and city legislatures because we believe that an agency under Mayoral control, which consumes 20% of our expenditures, belongs in our City Charter and we did not anticipate that this could be achieved in six months. However, if all commissions begin with a determination to put something on the ballot in the year in which they are appointed, as has been the history of charter commissions for the past twenty years, it is difficult to see how we will achieve meaningful structural improvement. We cannot envision a time when the Council and a Mayor will see that it is to their advantage to give independent budgets to the Public Advocate or the Borough Presidents or to the Conflicts of Interest Board. This is not going to happen without a charter commission recommendation and voter approval. The staff report also asserts that "streamlining" the charter can be achieved by the City Council working with the Law Department. We don't believe this is a realistic expectation from a term-limited and time-limited legislature and executive. Mayors and Council members have policy and program priorities and reconciling charter and administrative code provisions and language is not even low on that list of priorities. A brief review of chapter 20 of the charter and any section of the code will show why this reconciliation process is needed. In their report the staff recommends a commission to review the continued relevance of reporting requirements and advisory board. We support this commission, provided that the Comptroller and the Public Advocate, or their designees are included. We believe that consideration should be given to establishing a similar commission to reconcile language in the charter and the administrative code. We appreciate your dilemma. You were charged with reviewing the entire charter but now you believe that time constraints limit your options in making significant structural changes. Have you given any thought to not putting anything on the ballot this year and spending a full year reviewing the charter? Term limits do not have to be on the ballot this year to be effective for the next city election in 2013. We support the staff's proposals to encourage increased voter participation by consolidating the Voter Assistance Commission into the Campaign Finance Board (CFB) and reducing the number of petition signatures required to run for office. We also support requiring disclosure of independent expenditures to the CFB and increased penalties for violations of conflict of interest laws as well as the codification of COIB opinions. The New York City League has studied Instant Runoff Voting and supports its implementation for the citywide primaries. It also could work well when filling vacancies in the City Council. We do not have a position on using IRV in any other city elections. We hope you will make additional substantive proposals for voter approval. Securing independent budgets for the Public Advocate and Borough Presidents would strengthen these independently elected officials and enable them to more effectively do the jobs to which the voters elected them. And providing the Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) with an independent budget would insulate the Board from the possibility of political interference and help to restore public confidence in city government. If your final decision is to recommend questions for the 2010 ballot, in which case you go out of business on November 2nd, we sincerely hope that your first recommendation to the Mayor would be to reappoint you, or appoint another commission early in 2011 to continue your review of the charter with the goal of proposing amendments to be voted on in the 2012 election. Thank you for your consideration, and for your service.

TESTIMONY TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTION LAW Friday, May 14, 2010 Presented by Adrienne Kivelson, City Affairs Chair Good Morning, My name is Adrienne Kivelson and I am the City Affairs Chair of the New York City League of Women Voters. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the needs of the New York City Board of Elections in its efforts to implement the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and to educate voters and poll workers on the imminent conversion from lever machines to paper ballots and optical scanners. The League of Women Voters is a multi-issue, nonpartisan political organization that encourages informed and active participation in government and influences public policy through advocacy and education. For 90 years the League of Women Voters has been in the forefront of promoting voter education. It is most unfortunate that the implementation of the new voting system coincided with fiscal crises at the national, state and local levels. However, election administration is an essential service and must be funded at adequate levels. The League does not have a position on the proposal made by the New York City Board of Elections to institute a formula-based minimum mandatory budget for boards of elections. However, we believe that prior to considering any proposal like this, there should be a clear accounting of how much it costs to run paper ballot, optical scan elections in the state's 57 counties and New York City. While valuable information may have been gleaned from the pilot programs in last fall's elections, which did not include New York City, a more comprehensive study conducted by, or under the auspices of the State Board of Elections could assist boards' effort to justify additional funding. We believe there are several steps which can be taken in this legislative session to ease the financial shortfalls local boards are currently anticipating. For example, state law now requires four inspectors in every election district in a General Election. This may have made sense when we had at least one lever machine in each election district, but now we will be operating with optical scanners, each of which can handle multiple districts. Election District Inspectors will now be showing the voters where to sign in and handing out paper ballots.A poll site with five election districts will still have 20 inspectors -- plus information clerks, doorkeepers and coordinators, -- two optical scanners and a BMD, more personnel than will be needed under this new configuration. There will be other jobs for inspectors in the polling place such as directing traffic, staffing the scanner and the ballot marking device but it is unlikely that all 20 inspectors will be needed for the day. We understand that this is the first statewide election utilizing the new voting system. If the legislature is not prepared at this time to reduce the number of inspectors, we urge you to consider giving boards of elections discretion to combine elections districts for both the primaries and general elections. Both the Assembly and the Senate have introduced bills which would give boards of elections the authority to create, consolidate, divide or alter election districts. In the Assembly the bill number is A8692c/Millman and in the Senate, the number is S5447c/Addabbo. These bills also include requirements for locating polling places, whenever practicable on the main or ground floor of the premises selected. The bills are on 3rd reading in each house. The League of Women Voters of New York State supports these bills which are consistent with both the Help America Vote Act and the NYS Election Modernization and Reform Act (ERMA). A reduced number of inspectors also reduces the number of poll workers who need training. State law requires that a notice go out to all voter households in August listing election dates and poll sites for both the primaries and general elections. Calls to the League's Telephone Information Service (TIS) indicate some problems with the August notice.. Some unenrolled voters go to the polls on Primary Day thinking they can vote because they received a card from the board of elections. Voters toss out the cards they received in August and forget the information by Election Day in November. Over the years member groups in our Voter Coalition have asked for two notices. This year the City Board has proposed sending out an additional informational brochure to each voter. It's unclear from the board's material whether either,or both of these brochures will be paid for with HAVA funds. This certainly qualifies as voter education and should be paid for out of HAVA funds rather than tax levy money. We have also suggested that registered but unenrolled voters not be sent the August notice. As of April 1, 2009 more than 700,000 active registered voters in New York City are not enrolled in a political party. Statewide, the number is in excess of 2,000,000 unenrolled voters. If two notices are being sent out this year and one has to be paid for with tax levy funds, costs could be reduced if it were the first notice and it was only sent out to enrolled voters. Voter education is a key component of HAVA implementation . Since every county in New York State is converting to an optical scan system, there can be a statewide campaign to alert voters to the pending changes. We recommend a state-funded initiative to place an illustrated poster in every MTA train, bus and subway and all other state supported mass transit. This could also have a positive impact on voter turnout. Perhaps boards could share voter education material produced locally which could be replicated by other counties. For example, the New York City board is producing a brochure which might be adapted by another county using the same scanners and ballot marking devices.. The Erie County Board of Elections produced a pamphlet for all of their registered voters in 2009 which might be utilized by another county board and possibly produced in-house.. All of these suggestions are put forward in an effort to reduce local advertising and promotional expenditures. We hope that the State Board of Elections is exploring options to ameliorate the drain on local resources caused by the implementation of HAVA and the new voting systems. We trust that they are looking at redundancy in procedures and personnel. This fall after we have experience with a full statewide roll-out of our new voting systems and hard data on the cost implications of implementation of HAVA, we will have to ensure adequate funding to protect our electoral process and each New Yorker's right to vote. With the enactment of the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE) which imposes additional fiscal and operational requirements on the State, as well as continuing implementation of HAVA, New York's congressional delegation should be consulted about recommending additional funding for New York in the federal budget.

TESTIMONY TO THE NYC CHARTER REVISION COMMISSION LaGuardia Community College Monday, April 19, 2010 Presented by Adrienne Kivelson, City Affairs Chair League of Women Voters of the City of New York Good Evening, Chairman Goldstein and members of the Charter Revision Commission. My name is Adrienne Kivelson and I am City Affairs Chair of the League of Women Voters of the City of New York and the author of the League's publication What Makes New York City Run?, a citizen's guide to the New York City Charter. The League of Women Voters is a multi-issue, nonpartisan political organization that encourages informed and active participation in government and influences public policy through advocacy and education. The New York City League has been a long-term advocate for a City Charter which clearly delineates the structure of our city government and the roles and responsibilities of elected and appointed officials. While the Charter is replete with extensive descriptions of city agencies, there is one very important Mayoral agency that is barely mentioned and when it is cited in Chapter 20, (Education), the references are to various reporting requirements rather than to governance. Codify the Department of Education We believe it is time to codify the Department of Education in the City Charter. When we had a Board of Education, prior to 2002, over which the Mayor and city government had very little control, minimal mention in the Charter of its governance and functions might be justified. Now that the State Legislature has twice voted to give control of public elementary and high school education in New York City to the Mayor, it is appropriate for the Department of Education's governance to be clearly and fully described in the New York City Charter and for the Department to be subject to the same oversight and accountability imposed upon every other Mayoral agency, including those which also administer or incorporate state law, such as the Police Department, the Department of Transportation or the Civil Service Commission in the Department of Citywide Administrative Services. The Department of Education (DOE) consumes a major portion of our city budget. The Independent Budget Office (IBO) estimates that school spending will be about $18 billion, which is 20% of the IBO's projection of the city's expenditures for FY2011. The DOE's contracts for goods and services should comply with the guidelines established by the Procurement Policy Board and the procurement rules and procedures in place for other Mayoral agencies. Including the Department in the Charter should make its operation subject to the same Council oversight and Comptroller and IBO generated audits as every other city agency. While the State Legislature voted last year to increase the level of accountability required of the Department and expand opportunities for parental involvement, inclusion in the Charter will provide a clear path for parents and other city residents to raise their issues and concerns at the city level, where they can be addressed more expeditiously. The Department of Education is now a Mayoral agency and there is no longer any justification for keeping it in limbo and out of the City Charter. Instant Runoff Voting to Replace Primary Citywide Runoffs Another issue which is of concern to us and which we urge you to consider is the feasibility of replacing the runoff primaries for city-wide office with Instant Runoff Elections. The September 2009 Democratic Primary runoff elections for Public Advocate and Comptroller cost the city $13 Million - an unconscionable amount, particularly given the low voter turnout. With Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), voters would rank up to three choices in the first Primary and if no candidate reached the 40% threshold, the votes of the candidates who finished at the bottom of the field could be redistributed to the second or third choices; eliminating the need for a second election. At the very least, IRV should be considered for absentee and military voters in the citywide primaries, who do not have time to return their ballots for the second election. It may even be feasible and desirable to use IRV in our non-partisan elections to fill City Council vacancies. These elections have such minimal turnouts that winners are declared with a small percentage of the vote. Set Budgets for Public Advocate and Comptroller We also urge you to consider recommending baseline budgets for the Public Advocate and the Comptroller. These are independently elected citywide officials who must be able to fulfill their Charter-mandated functions without fear of antagonizing the Mayor or the Council and ending up with inadequate resources. Strengthen Community Boards Over the years New Yorkers have come to rely more and more on their community boards to connect them to local services and mobilize community action on various development issues. We hope you will explore measures that will enable them to have a more effective role in determining local development. Consideration should be given to the feasibility of establishing guaranteed minimum budgets. Review Term Limit Options We know that you will be considering Term Limits. In your deliberations we urge you to review all of the options, such as different terms for executive and legislative offices, the effect of two or three "four year" terms or the return to "no" term limits", except the one at the ballot box when citizens vote their elected officials out of office because they no longer consider them effective. As you progress through your comprehensive review of the Charter we hope you will explore the feasibility of moving some provisions currently in the Charter to the City's Administrative Code. The City Charter is supposed to be the framework for New York City government rather than a compendium of every possible operational contingency. For example, let's look at Chapter 20 on Education again. This section contains detailed instructions on "The installation and operation of security cameras in New York City Public Schools" (Section 528) and "Reporting of information concerning out-of-state facility placement" (Section 530). As vital as these reports may be, do they really belong in the City Charter? If we continue along the path of adding everything thought to be "important" to the Charter, we could end up with a multi-volume constitution which will not serve the needs of our city or its citizens We appreciate the enormous task you have before you and offer our full cooperation and assistance in this important endeavor To see a review of Adrienne Kivelson's presentation click here

April 23, 2010 TESTIMONY BEFORE THE NEW YORK STATE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS REGARDING CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW REFORM Joanne Pugh, Chair of the Legislative Action Committee League of Women Voters of the City of New York I am testifying here today on behalf of the New York State League of Women Voters. I want to thank Senator Addabbo and the Senate Standing Committee on Elections for inviting us to this Senate Hearing on Campaign Finance Reform. The League of Women Voters is a non-partisan political organization working to promote political responsibility through informed and active participation of citizens in government. We have been involved with the issue of campaign finance reform since the early seventies and believe that methods of financing political campaigns should ensure the public's right to know, combat corruption, as well as the appearance of corruption, minimize undue influence, enable candidates to compete more equitably for public office and allow maximum citizen participation in the political process. Any proposed legislation must mandate not only the desired actions or prohibitions, it must also contain sufficient penalties for noncompliance and an independent enforcement agency with sufficient powers to investigate compliance and sanction noncompliance. The League's advocacy has two tracks: 1) achieve regulatory reforms particularly in the area of campaign finance enforcement; and 2) build support for public financing as the best long-term solution to combat undue influence in the election process. Along with others, we testified last summer before this committee at length about deep and long-standing problems with New York's campaign finance system ranging from loophole-ridden high contribution limits to ineffective enforcement. At that time we said that we strongly supported Senator Smith's bill creating a new campaign finance enforcement office within the State Board of Elections and a Campaign Finance Advisory Board with a nomination process for appointing a Campaign Finance Enforcement Officer to head this new office. This bill also increases civil and criminal penalties for violations, and adds random audits of campaign committees. We believe that strong and independent campaign finance enforcement is critical to improving the state's system of financing elections and are pleased that you added S5814 to today's agenda. We believe that New York should dramatically reduce the amount that can be given to candidates and parties, and that unlimited contributions to party housekeeping accounts should be banned. The latter is a League goal for many years. Individual candidates should be limited to one political committee per election and we support closing the multiple LLC contribution loophole. We believe that the problem of personal use of campaign funds would be best addressed by banning the use of campaign funds except as allowed by federal law. With respect to the disclosure bills, we support legislation that would require "bundlers" to report who they have collected contributions from, and on whose behalf. This would be in line with federal disclosure laws and the League strongly supports this approach. We also believe that political committees as well as individuals should be required to report the occupation, employer and business address of contributions. With respect to public financing proposals, we continue to prefer a phased-in approach patterned after the NYC-style matching system that would include added grants for candidates who are being outspent. While we urge that budgetary concerns are kept in mind as any system of public financing is implemented, expenditure limits must not be so low as to result in the two major parties opting out of these voluntary systems. With respect to legislative solutions to the issues raised by the Citizens United case, we urge that the strongest possible disclosure requirements be imposed on independent political spending. Direct and indirect political spending by those with business before the state should be banned. We support the concept that political expenditures should be approved by shareholders and that other corporate governance measures may be useful in this area, but care should be taken that any legislation is both effective and constitutional. We applaud the attention that this hearing is giving to this critical issue. Again we want to emphasize that campaign finance laws enhance the quality of our democracy by promoting the values of a free society. Without strong safeguards to limit the influence of money in the political process, voter turnout is diminished and the representative character of our democracy is undermined. Public confidence and trust in government is lost. Campaign finance laws restore people's faith in government and help reconnect citizens to the political process. They encourage greater individual involvement in public affairs and produce a more responsive, transparent and accountable government. Thank you Senators, for this opportunity to contribute to the important discussion on Campaign Finance Reform.

TESTIMONY FOR THE NYC CAMPAIGN FINANCE BOARD HEARING December 1, 2009 Submitted by Laura Altschuler, Co-Chair LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK As an early and consistent supporter of public campaign financing, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the League of Women Voters of the City of New York at today's hearing to comment on the effectiveness of this year's campaign finance program. As our organization is celebrating its 90th year of encouraging citizen participation in the electoral process, we are particularly appreciative of your efforts to produce an informative Voter Guide and televised debates for city-wide offices. The League was chosen by the CFB as one of the debate sponsors and much of what we say today came from the surveys which were filled out online or submitted at some of our public meetings. Our survey responses and phone calls came from people who actually voted in this very low turn-out election. Ninety-eight percent of the respondents were enrolled in a party that had a primary election. They watched the debates, even remembered many of the sponsors and 50% changed their minds as to who to vote for as a result of the debates. Many favored additional "town hall" formats where candidates would speak to each other. A significant number expressed annoyance at what they considered to be "frivolous" questions asked of the city-wide candidates. There was also interest in having community forums for City Council races. We tried to accommodate these types of forums but found it difficult to get free convenient space and have all the candidates agree to a date. We were successful in having the Manhattan City Council Primary debates air on the Manhattan Neighborhood Network, and other local cable stations also featured debates. We recommend that City Council candidates running in contested races and receiving public financing be required to participate in such forums which could be aired on Public Access and the NYC cable stations and publicized through the Campaign Finance Board's media outlets. While the Campaign Finance Board's website is clearly more user friendly and easier to navigate, we did receive complaints that the public section was not easy to use if one wanted to track the contributions of all of the candidates in a particular race. Public access and use of the website would be facilitated if at least the alphabetical listing included a district or office designation or preferably, if the candidate contribution records could be accessed or grouped by office and district as well as by alphabet. The final financial disclosure forms had not been completed when we were preparing this testimony, so we cannot know the totals raised and spent. However, we remain concerned that candidates are still receiving full public funding when they have little or no opposition. We still need to find a way to either limit reimbursements or require the return of all, or a portion of the match when there was no real contest. At present, there is no incentive for a candidate to limit spending, short of the cap provided by the law. While we have never met a candidate who was convinced he or she would win without spending everything that could be raised, we fear that the public is becoming disenchanted with excessive amounts of campaign literature and intrusive "robo" phone calls partially paid for with their money. Most surveyed felt a 6 to 1 match was too high. The League is not prepared at this time to recommend a change for the next election cycle because we anticipate that the total dollar amount of matching funds may stay the same or be lower than that spent in the last election because the matched amount was reduced from $250 to $175. This is one of the areas that should be reviewed after the final 2009 accounting. We are encouraged by your reports that in fact the number of small contributions have increased as a result of this change. Expanding the base of campaign contributions is a very positive outcome of our public financing system and we applaud your efforts to achieve this. We give high marks to the Voter Guide and appreciate the difficulty in gathering and distributing all the information in a timely manner. In previous years we recommended that you at least list other-than-city offices which are on the ballot. While you didn't do it this year, even with the highly competitive Democratic primary for District Attorney in Manhattan, we urge you to reconsider this for future guides. We are appreciative that at the League's request (and presumably others) you made corrections between the primary and general election editions, listed a website for judges and added the two state ballot issues in the general election guide. We did receive complaints by phone and survey about receiving multiple Voter Guides in different languages, or not receiving one in English. Callers to our telephone information service were given the information as to how to access the Voter Guide on line and we also had a link on our website. Perhaps you should call it "The Official New York City Voter Guide" so that it is not confused with tabloids or campaign literature. The League was pleased to be one of the debate sponsors and we will study the effects of this year's debates as we come up with ideas for 2013. We know that many viewers tuned in online during and after the debates and we need to improve voters' access to the sponsors so that they can submit their topics and questions. Despite the concern that a self-financed candidate might not participate - these debates are part of our political fabric and it is unlikely that any candidate would turn down the opportunity to debate days before an election. Our "leading contender" mayoral debate, sponsored and aired on WABC-TV and WXTV 41, was picked up by Channel 13 and WNYC and repeated on foreign language radio and TV networks, quoted in the press and remained online through Election Day. The publicity given to the debates and the Voter Guide by the Campaign Finance Board was a positive feature of the 2009 campaign. What we need to do next is make it more compelling for the voter to go to the polls. The League works with the Board of Elections, the Campaign Finance Board and other civic organizations to make that happen. Whatever changes are made in the program going forward, we commend you for reaching out for recommendations and implementing them. Despite all your best efforts and those of organizations like the League, we did not do well in increasing voter turnout. We all need to do more so that the public goes to the polls and holds their elected officials accountable. In addition to the usual reasons given, such as my vote doesn't make a difference, many surveyed were dismayed by the change in term limits and we know that some candidates withdrew and others ran for re-election because of the ability to run for a third term. The Campaign Finance Board needs to take these unexpected events into account and make sure that the financial playing field remains fair and that monies collected cannot be used as a war chest for future races or distributed to other candidates. We continue to support a strong public financing system. Its value is in no way undermined by the presence of constitutionally protected self-financed campaigns. While it is highly unlikely that we will ever again e a campaign financed so disproportionately to its opponent's, public financing helped that opponent, and hundreds of candidates in other city races have a fairer and more level playing field. For some, public campaign financing was the only way they could run for office. We believe broadening the field of potential candidates improves our democracy and we commend you for all that you are doing to pursue this worthy endeavor.

League Testimony on Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations regarding drilling in New York State Robin Bahr, Co-Chair of the League of Women Voters of the City of New York. November 10, 2009 Good evening. I speak tonight on behalf of the City and the State Leagues. Thank you for giving us this opportunity. The League is premised upon the principle of active and informed participation of citizens in government. In view of the vast turnout tonight and the passionate concerns which have been raised, it is evident that citizens want their voices heard. We urge the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to extend its comment period through the end of January 2010 so that all our voices can be heard. I will comment briefly on six issues concerning the impact of drilling on water quality and quantity. These issues have been addressed by many tonight. We hope that the cumulative effect of our concerns will cause the DEC to review its evidence, rethink its conclusions and rewrite its draft supplement re gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale. It is crucial that the draft be written as regulations, not recommendations, with sufficient staff to enforce regulations. Withdrawals: Huge amounts of water, up to three million gallons per fraking, could lead to "stream flow and groundwater depletion, loss of aquifer storage capacity, and water quality degradation" according to the draft environmental impact statement. Is the use of this large a quantity of water sustainable and the best use of a precious resource? Stormwater Runoff: "All phases of gas well development…have the potential to cause water resource impacts….if stormwater is not properly mitigated." Stormwater carries contamination from spills, equipment, pit leaks or failures, poor well construction, accidental release of fracturing fluids, and flowback fluid. There are sixteen pages of opportunities for contamination from stormwater runoff, and we doubt all can be properly monitored and controlled. Wastewater Disposal: Recovered fluid contains up to 15,000 gallons per fraking of chemical additives, brines, heavy metals, radionuclides, and organics forced out of the shale. There is no good way to dispose of this waste. The US Geological Survey says it is questionable if wastewater treatment plants can adequately treat this type of waste. Underground injection could contaminate aquifers, and dehydration beds do not seem practicable in this area. Specifically, the US Geological Survey stated that we need a "better understanding of the impacts of drilling and wells on water supplies and a clearer plan for wastefluid disposal." Chemical Additives: Industry considers these proprietary so there is poor information on what is being injected into the ground or contained in the wastefluid. Thus, there has been no analysis of these chemicals for their effect on our water and most critically on public health. Reports have shown contamination of drinking water in several states. Drinking watersheds: It is inconceivable to us that this activity would be allowed in any drinking watershed, much less in the New York City water supply. There are no protections for infrastructure and no regulations that address gas drilling in drinking watersheds. The DEC is relying on the Watershed Rules and Regulations for this even though these do not regulate industrial gas drilling. No gas drilling should be allowed within one mile of drinking watersheds. Aquifers: The statement concedes "The primary concern regarding groundwater withdrawal depletion is aquifer depletion that could affect other uses, including nearby public and private water supply wells." There is also the threat of contamination as well as cross-contamination of aquifers from released fraking fluids migrating through groundwater, according to EPA reports. The League calls for no gas drilling within one mile of primary aquifers. Gas extraction may have an economic benefit to individuals, communities and governments, but any benefits must be balanced against environmental and social costs. These costs should be evaluated by considering the cumulative impacts of multiple wells rather than per well pad since each well pad can accommodate up to sixteen wells. Thank you once again for the opportunity to be heard. It is our responsibility as citizens to speak out on the issues. It is government's responsibility to listen to its citizens. This is essence of the democratic process which is at stake in coming to resolution of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale. FOR MORE INFORMATION GO TO http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/46288.html

TESTIMONY TO THE NEW YORK STATE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS October 9, 2009 Adrienne Kivelson, Election Specialist - New York City League of Women Voters for the New York State League of Women Voters Good morning Chairman Addabbo and members of the Committee. My name is Adrienne Kivelson and I'm here today to speak on behalf of the League of Women Voters. We appreciate this opportunity to address some issues relating to New York's implementation of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). For more than 90 years the League has been in the forefront of efforts to assure voting integrity, to protect every citizen's right to vote and to encourage active participation in government and elections. With the passage of the Help America Vote Act in 2002, voting systems became subject to federal requirements and for the first time, federal funds were made available to secure new voting systems which would be accessible for people with disabilities, offer voters the opportunity to review and change their votes and have an auditable paper trail. The national League of Women Voters subsequently resolved to support only voting systems which: Provide a voter-verifiable paper record that is the official record of the voter's intent; Allow the voter to verify this paper record while still in the process of voting; Allow verification of vote totals by an independent hand count of the paper record; Allow routine audits of the paper record in every election. For the League of Women Voters of New York State it was apparent that our lever voting machines met none of these standards and would have to be replaced if we are to have a voting system which is both accessible and accurate. After consideration of all of the options the New York State League endorsed a paper ballot precinct-based optical scanning system with inclusion of ballot marking devices. We then joined with other voting integrity organizations in asking the state legislature to establish high standards for accessibility, security, certification of voting equipment and post-election auditing by local boards of elections. The New York State Election Reform and Modernization Act (ERMA) of 2005 implements the federal HAVA and goes beyond that law to set the highest standards in the nation. We still have some issues with ERMA, particularly concerning the audits which we believe should be broader and larger than the 3% established in the law. We will continue to press for improved audit requirements. We were very pleased when the New York counties chose the paper ballot scanning system in 2008. Although there have been delays in certification we understand from preliminary reports from our representative on the Citizen's Advisory Committee that the first week of the public testing component of the certification process went well. As to the "Pilot Project" being conducted in 47 counties for the 2009 elections, we had and still have reservations. While reports on the experience of the participating counties on Primary Day are still quite sketchy, first impressions are that the problems which did arise were more involved with administration and poll worker training than with the optical scanners. For example, there were repeated concerns about the correct placement of privacy booths, which are new to most of New York State. We have also heard that the amount of training on the new equipment varied from county to county and impacted on how well each election proceeded. A preliminary report of September 15, on the experience of the Primary Election Pilot Project, by the New York State Board of Elections indicated that "of the 47 counties which opted to participate in the pilot, 13 of them did not have primaries, leaving 34 counties in the Primary Pilot Project" This report which was based on direct observation by State Board staff of procedures in a variety of counties across the state on Primary Day contains some very useful information for immediate correction to processes for the General Election where it is expected there will be a greater turnout and all 47 counties will have an opportunity to test out their procedures. The report calls attention to the need for increased hands-on inspector training to include new procedures and forms, as well as basics like system on and off tasks, etc. "There is a huge learning curve with this new technology and the best remedy is more training, smaller training classes, hands-on sessions, and where necessary the procurement of the services of professional instructors with experience in training adult learners." The experiences of voters during the General Election with the new equipment should also be documented through a survey prepared by the New York State Board of Elections and utilized by all the counties, as well as the NY State Board in developing procedures for the 2010 election cycle. A survey questionnaire which encompasses all aspects of voting such as the polling place, voting machine technology (ballot format and usability), Inspectors, etc could be very important as we transition to a new voter experience. It was reported at the NYS Board of Elections meeting of October 6, 2009, that federal appropriations for 2008-2009, 2009-2010, in the amount of $14 million, will be available for the New York State BOE and local county boards of elections to access for voter education and poll worker training. Counties should be urged to access this money as soon as possible by working with the NYS BOE to develop plans for 2010. While the State Board of Elections continues testing, and whether we have "pilot projects" or full elections, the new technology is here. The federal court is requiring us to replace all lever machines. The state accepted money from the federal government to do so and many of our counties have already purchased equipment. The League advocated for the paper ballot-marker scanner system because with rigorous procedures and citizen oversight it is most effective in assuring both access and accuracy. A major obstacle still exists, and that is adequate funding. While the federal government provided the bulk of the funds necessary to purchase new voting systems and some funds for education and training, the state and counties have new financial burdens as a result of the acquisition and maintenance of the new equipment and the implementation of the regulations and standards in our own state laws. Dire as our fiscal health may be, it cannot be used as an excuse to deny adequate funding to our electoral system. Voting is the bulwark of our democracy. It is not an ancillary service to be swept aside in bad economic times. We should all be urging the federal government to fully fund HAVA and we urge the State Legislature to assist the State Board of Elections and the counties with the funds necessary to assure that every voter has equal access to the polls and can be confident that their vote is secure and will be counted accurately. Aimee Allaud - Election Specialist - New York State League of Women Voters Adrienne Kivelson - Election Specialist - New York City League of Women Voters

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK ISSUES GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR MAYORAL CONTROL OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS New York City, June 3, 2009 - In a letter submitted to State Legislators, the League of Women Voters of the City of New York came out in support of continued mayoral control with provisions to insure accountability, transparency and parental and community involvement. Laura Altschuler, Co-Chair, said "The city League's long-standing commitment to good government and quality education compels us to recommend meaningful reform before the Legislature acts on New York City school governance." Included in the League's proposals are: Recognition of the Department of Education as a Mayoral Agency subject to the City Charter as well as State Education Law Fixed terms for voting members of the Panel for Educational Policy. Adding the Public Advocate as an appointing authority for the Panel for Educational Policy Empowering the City Comptroller to do both fiscal and performance audits and investigate all aspects of the Department's finances Requiring the Department of Education to comply with the rules and regulations of the City's Procurement Policy Board. Strengthening parent and community involvement through increased authority and required consultation with Community Education Councils Returning authority and accountability to Community District Superintendents. Creation of an independent Parent Advocacy Center. The League also recommended that this reauthorization of the school governance law "sunset" in 2015. Click here to read full statement Contact: Ashton J. Stewart LWVNYC (212) 725-3541

TESTIMONY TO THE NYS SENATE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE Senator Joseph Addabbo, Chairman New York City was presented on April 24, 2009 by Jeanne Felker, member of the League of Women Voters of the City of New York. The following is an excerpt: ". . .The League of Women Voters is a multi-issue, nonpartisan political organization which encourages informed and active participation in government and influences public policy through advocacy and education. The League believes that voting is a fundamental citizen right that must be guaranteed. Therefore, its basic mandate is to protect, extend and encourage the use of the franchise. Underlying all League positions is a philosophy that emphasizes participation in the electoral process. . . ." TO READ THE COMPLETE TESTIMONY, GO TO THEWEBSITE OF THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF NEW YORK STATE--CLICK HERE.

OPEN HEARING, MARCH 4, 2009 BEFORE THE NYC BOARD OF ELECTIONS TESTIMONY by Barbara Barr, League of Women Voters of City of New York ON BEHALF of the League of Women Voters of New York State and New Yorkers for Verified Voting On behalf of the New York State League of Women Voters, the New York City League of Women Voters and New Yorkers for Verified Voting I speak in support of the two paper ballot- marker-optical scan systems being considered for adoption by New York City. Both offer accessible, verifiable, and auditable voting. Both, therefore, are an improvement over the present system which uses unverifiable, unauditable, and inaccessible lever machines. Informed citizens have come to a consensus as expressed in January, 2009, by the League of Women Voters of the United States, in the introduction to its "Report on Election Auditing." This consensus is that any voting system should: 1. Provide a voter-verifiable paper record that is the official record of the voter's intent 2. Allow the voter to verify this paper record while still in the process of voting 3. Allow verification of vote totals by an independent hand count of the paper record 4. Allow routine audits of the paper record in every election. That there is a growing consensus about these requirements for a modern voting system has been shown recently when Congressman Rush Holt's draft bill to amend HAVA in 2009 aims to make all of these requirements a matter of federal law. We urge the NYC Board of Elections to keep these principles in mind when choosing your equipment. In addition, of course, you need to choose a system that offers equal access to persons with special needs. Both of the proposed systems do this. By contrast, the lever machines unfairly separate ballot marker ballots from the main system so that the privacy of those votes is not adequately protected. We also urge New York City to require that problems revealed during the deployment of the ballot markers last fall are corrected at no charge to the state before contracts are offered to either of these vendors. The City should resist current efforts by the vendors to raise prices beyond those offered in the initial contracts. It also should resist any pressures to implement equipment that has not passed NY's strict testing for certification. In addition, independence from vendor influence should be sought in all possible areas, for example, in ballot programming. As soon as possible, the printing of ballots should be opened to competitive bidding, in order to get lower prices. We need a voting system that meets the standards we have enumerated at the same time as it protects federal, state, and county taxpayers from exploitation. Wanda Warren Berry, Executive Director New Yorkers for Verified Voting wberry@colgate.edu Aimee Allaud, Elections Specialist League of Women Voters of New York State 85aimee@nycap.rr.com

The League of Women Voters NYC
TESTIFIES ON INTRO 845
TO EXTEND TERM LIMITS TO A THIRD TERM

The League of Women Voters
ANNOUNCES ITS POSITION ON IMMIGRATION