By MICHAEL SCHENKLER

Maybe I don’t know the rules. Or maybe Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez doesn’t. But the local Latina Congresswoman believes it’s okay to spend public money for political endorsements.

Velázquez, who represents the 12th Congressional District – a gerrymandered tri-county seat including parts of Queens, Brooklyn and Manhattan – faxed and emailed us a press release on United States Congress letterhead with her office’s return address endorsing the candidacy of Margarita López Torres for Brooklyn Civil Court judge.

The contact number was her Washington, D.C. Congressional office phone and the contact staffers, two Congressional employees on the Federal payroll. The email account Nydia.Velázquez@mail.house.gov and the fax are paid for with public funds.

Now we don’t know Hon. Ms. Lopez Torres and she’s from Brooklyn anyway. But we do know that it is absolutely unacceptable to use staff, the offices, funds, stationery, equipment or anything belonging to the House of Representatives for political endorsements.

House members do their campaign stuff outside of Congress. They are supposed to spend their own funds, not ours.

When we called the office of Congresswoman Velázquez, her staffer told us some mumbo jumbo about technicalities making it okay.

We don’t buy it. She broke the rules. But we await her return call to hear her point of view.

Members of Congress and their staffs are responsible for knowing the rules and must be able to differentiate between the business of the people and the business of politics.

We have sent a copy of the release along with this item to the House Ethics Committee, the Federal Election Commission, the Speaker of the House, the Minority Leader of the House and Congresswoman Velázquez, requesting a reply and a follow-up report on appropriate disciplinary steps.

We wonder, with all the campaign reform in the world, what good is it if they don’t enforce the rules or the rules have no teeth.

Ethics? What say you, Congresswoman?

The Altar Of The Market

So, we sit out there, worshipping the almighty DOW, its holy houses — the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, etc — relying on the integrity of the men of that cloth to steer us righteously.

We take their advice, read their reports and depend on their words as we go to the altar of the market to feed our needs.

Now, some of you may find the metaphor offensive. How dare I compare the purity of the church to the vile and ugly stock market?  After all, who worships the almighty buck? Who has – in the past decade – knelt before the altar of the stock market and prayed that they will find salvation?

Who? An awful lot of disappointed people, that’s who.

And, it might not be the sanctity of the market that is the problem. It appears that the human intermediaries between the market and the people — call them what you may — might be less than pure.

I’m not sure whether they’re called stockbrokers or analysts or researchers or men of some different cloth, but it seems that they are no more righteous than everyday folk — and perhaps even less righteous.

No it’s not just ENRON, but that was the one that opened the floodgates to the outcry about the abuses.

No, it’s not just the probe of Merrill Lynch, but that was the first time that the morals of one so elevated in the hierarchy was brought into question.

Now we understand, the Attorney General has begun investigating nine more brokerage firms, which – according to published reports – include Salomon Smith Barney and Morgan Stanley.

It seems that all the high priests of the industry are suspect.

Shouldn’t the industry call in the authorities when wrongdoing is reported?

It’s absolutely amazing how – over the years and with the number of people praying at the altar of the stock market – very few wrongdoers are disciplined for violating the integrity of their position. So few get prosecuted. So few go to jail. The high never seem to fall. The mighty never seem to pay.

Perhaps it is different this time. The magnitude of ENRON, the sheer numbers of investigations, complaints and recriminations, the public outcry that won’t go away, may cause meaningful change.

It appears to have shaken those who are elevated and awakened those at the most revered levels.

But sadly, like any other scandal, the fixers may try to get away with less than a real and permanent fix.

History tells us, in times like this, there could be a couple of sacrificial lambs. One or two may go to jail. Some bucks in restitution may be paid. Some new rules may be instituted.

But unless there is a vigilant public constantly watching and yelling, unless all who knew of criminal action are made to pay, I fear that, in the future, some young innocent will again be raped by one of them.

Let us pray.

Avella: Community Crusader

Tony Avella stopped by last week.

Tony is one of the class of fourteen new Queens Councilmembers. He represents northeastern Queens.

Tony Avella

It apparently hasn’t been quite so smooth sailing for Tony who has both ruffled feathers and had his own ruffled as he’s made the transition from civic activist to crusading Councilman.

Tony’s drive and independence have both elevated his community activism into a commitment to constituent service and caused him to occasionally cross swords with others on the political scene. This community-caring crusader, who built his rep on painting over graffiti, is tackling a new graffiti which he sees spoiling the community character or city process. He’s yet to adjust to the go along, get along process that marks the old boy political network.

He is the first Councilman – that we know of – to mail out a constituent service questionnaire. He intends to address constituent concerns with the same energy level that earned him community recognition and, eventually, election.

Tony’s new politics typifies the new class of City councilmembers. He is not prepared to sit back and take orders. He’s loyal to Council leadership and the Queens Democratic organization but unwilling to back down just because of that loyalty. He cares deeply about the quality of life in his community and has taken on fights even though they could negatively impact on his reelection campaign. Tony does not make decisions by testing which way the wind blows. Tony makes decisions from the gut and he reacts quickly.

But like most of the new class of Councilmembers Tony cares. He cares deeply. Like them, he is not mired in the old ways of City politics and looks for real life solutions that positively impact the communities he represents. Like most of his new colleagues, he works hard — putting in many more hours than the average workweek.

Tony Avella is one of fourteen new Queens Councilmember and judging by our brief chat last week, the residents of northeast Queens have a noble champion.

Drinks With Al Gore

Al Gore came to town last week, just to say thank you.

And when I say town, I don’t mean Manhattan.

It was an intimate gathering at the Inn at Great Neck.

No, it wasn’t a fundraiser and the press wasn’t invited. Gore flew up from his Tennessee home to thank PR guru Robert Zimmerman, his partner Ron Edelson and a handful of friends, supporters and contributors.

I was invited because of my charm and good looks.

The first intimate get-together of about 25 people included Congressman Gary Ackerman, Nassau County Exec. Tom Suozzi and what seemed to be the folks who wrote some big checks during Gore’s Presidential run.

The second gathering of 75 included several more politicos and more contributors.

There was no formal agenda. Al shook hands, there were a couple of pictures, and he spoke to the groups and answered questions.

He opened each of the two sessions with, “Hi, I’m Al Gore. I’m the man who used to be the next President.”

He was light-hearted, self-effacing, witty and charming. He was at ease with himself, the surroundings and handled the groups with grace and humor.

He was better than the Al Gore I remember from 2000.

He’s either gotten much better or he’s gotten better writers.

He was aiming at the President, who he said did a good job in the Sept.11 crisis, then added, “But look at us now.”

Gore explained: Afghanistan is back in chaos. He shouldn’t have set Osama Bin Laden as the yardstick to measure our success. And the administration’s Mideast policy changes weekly, if not daily. As a matter of fact, added Gore, I remember once when it changed twice in a day.

His intellect was apparent as he spoke with authority on foreign affairs and without pause moved to the next question on the environment.

The fox is watching the chicken coop was Gore’s description of every regulatory agency under the Bush Presidency. His commitment to the environment shown brighter than it had during the campaign. Then again, he had an issue where he pointed to the administration’s big-oil-directed environmental policy.

“Why did Ken Lay interview energy commissioners?” he shouted.

And he took off on the economy and the Bush administration’s tax breaks for the wealthiest one tenth of one percent.

Al Gore was on. Al Gore was fighting. Al Gore was good.

He pledged to cross the country this election helping the Dems keep the Senate and try and take the House. He portrayed as unimaginable the damage that an unchecked Bush administration would do to our country.

He has yet to make up his mind about running for President in 2004. He did, however, sound an awful lot like a candidate — a candidate who was committed, a candidate who was driven and a candidate who came “that close” to winning a lifelong dream.

He’ll be back.

No...he is back.