....April 30, 11:55 AM
 
 
 
Battle Lines Drawn In Boro Council Races

By MICHAEL SCHENKLER


(Saturday, April 25) Wow!

It was a day to behold: bright, warm and perfect.

How can one end a day of glory writing on the imperfections of politics?


Yup, in case you were wondering, politics is imperfect. It is about as imperfect as the imperfect people who play the game.

Elected officials are no better than the average guy. Not morally, not ethically and at times we think not intellectually.

No, we’re not going to name names.

But we are excited about a batch of names – new names entering the fray.

In spite of the vile action by the self-serving City Council in overturning the two-term limits imposed by the people, there are a large handful of Queens races attracting quality people.

The races for seats with no incumbent running are as exciting as elections of eight years earlier when the people imposed term limits, causing every Queens seat to change hands, and bringing a field of 65 candidates — many competitive, many bringing new ideas to the game. It is clear that NYC matching funds and a council seat that is up for grabs will attract a solid field of solid candidates – the people are well-served by such contests. Such is the value of term limits.

The old, the stale, the tired, the lazy, the self-serving, those too close to the lobbyists, are forced to move on and make way for those yet untainted by the imperfections of politics.

In the 19th CD, Tony Avella’s windmill tilting charge for the mayoralty has attracted no fewer than eight candidates vying for his open seat: Jerry Iannece the Community Board Chair who ran eight years ago is being challenged hard by Paul Vallone – yes of the family – with both well on the way to max out with City matching funds. Avella choice Steve Behar, Congressman Ackerman staffer Kevin Kim, longtime city employee Debbie Markell, paraplegic Tom Cooke and Joseph Gravagna are also in the race as is Republican Daniel Halloran. While it’s too early to bet on a horse, clearly Iannece and Vallone are off to the quick lead – in money and name recognition. But in a field this large, the race will be long and hard.

In the 20th CD, John Liu’s well-funded and fast-moving candidacy for Comptroller has another seat wide open and a list of candidate’s names – many new to us – keeps on growing. The seat in the heart of Flushing has attracted the candidacy of Chinese Americans Yen Chou, James Wu – son of former Dem District Leader Ethel Chen, Korean-American SJ Jung, Issac Sasson from Julia Harrison’s old Democratic Club and Queens College student Constantine Kavadas. We wouldn’t be surprised to see more hats in this one.

The vacant-seat, crowded, energized field rule only applies if the newcomers can be competitive. As David Weprin vacates his 23rd CD seat for a well organized Comptroller run, his brother, Assemblyman Mark Weprin, has cleared the field of many of the stronger candidates leaving Bob Friedrich, Pres. of the Glen Oaks Village Co-op, well funded Swaranjit Singh and an underfunded Bryan Rivera remaining to take on the Weprin dynasty.

Melinda Katz is leaving her 29th CD seat vacant to be the only woman in the Comptroller race and it too has attracted an active field. Former Councilwoman Karen Koslowitz took a title change at Borough Hall to begin her campaign and former Assemblyman Mike Cohen is battling the latest Hevesi scandal (when he vacated his seat for a job gotten him by the Comptroller’s office and Andy Hevesi succeeded him). Longtime civic activist Heidi Chain, former candidate Lynn Shulman, girls softball league organizer JR Nocerino, and under-30 candidate Mel Gargarin take aim at the front running former electeds.

Eric Gioia vacates his 26th CD seat for a run to be Public Advocate. Dem District Leader Diedre Feerick, longtime civic activist Jimmy Van Bramer, high-powered Bloomberg LLP attorney Brent O’Leary along with David Rosasco vie to replace him.

All the other Councilmembers appear to be taking advantage of the four extra years the Council voted itself when it overrode the term limit law. Although, especially in Southeast Queens there are attractive new candidates, beating an incumbent, even one who voted to overturn the people’s law, is a very long-shot, uphill climb at best.

We’ll be watching if any of the incumbent seats turn into real races.

One, Helen Sears’ 25th CD, is the center of great political action. Sears, who it is rumored wanted to be succeeded by her son, is facing an aggressive challenge from Democratic District Leader and gay activist, longtime Jackson Heights leader Danny Dromm. One-on-one, Dromm could possibly unseat the incumbent. However, at the moment, also in the race are Alfonso Quiroz who will capitalize on his Latino surname and also likely to erode some of Dromm’s gay support and well-funded Indian businessman Stanley Kalathara who must hope his ethnic constituency turns out in great numbers. Head on, Dromm could be the upset winner in the city. In a larger field, incumbents don’t lose.

We’ll keep an eye on the new names and the old races as we approach Election Day.


 
 
Placement Agents Sell Their Influence; Is That Criminal?

By HENRY STERN

Recent disclosures about the role of placement agents in arranging investments for the city and state pension funds have raised serious issues of improper influence.

As a result, State Comptroller Thomas J. DiNapoli has announced that he will no longer deal with middlemen in making decisions about where the state pension fund will invest.

City Comptroller William Thompson is moving in the same direction, and has asked Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to look into his office procedures. Cuomo requires no invitation to investigate anything, but he is likely to be gentle in his treatment of Thompson, who has not even been accused of any wrongdoing. The remedy in this case could well be the abolition of the business, which is inherently sleazy, rather than the selective prosecution of its more successful practitioners. A gifted and talented public official could try to pursue both goals.

Hank Morris, a political intimate of Hevesi for many years, is said to have been paid $30 million for his services as an intermediary. These were concealed under the name of a Connecticut firm, Searle & Co., which paid Morris 95 percent of the funds they received for him, 5 percent being a reasonable tariff for a laundry. Even people in politics, who are used to insiders reaping some financial reward if their horse wins, were astounded at the size of the bonanza alleged to have been paid here.

The other shoe in this drama would drop if it were discovered that Morris had, in some way, shared some of his good fortune with his lifelong friend and client, and the man who made it possible for him to receive such vast sums.

It would be preposterous for anyone to believe that Morris’ services were worth eight figures without recognizing that his principal contribution to the process was the indispensable influence he exerted to induce the Comptroller, the sole trustee of the fund, to make the investment in the first place, or to hire his client as a money manager for the fund.

There is a problem, however, in criminalizing the sale of influence, even though it is apparent to many that that is what happened here in a particularly egregious manner. For one thing, where is the certainty necessary to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt? Assume Morris was given power because of his prior services to Hevesi. Should the Comptroller have elevated his enemies?

What would have been a reasonable fee for Morris to charge, evaluating the expertise and insight he may have contributed to the transaction? Don’t salesmen and brokers receive commissions on real estate transactions, and people who connect business owners and managers receive finders’ fees? Lawyers are selected in part because of their reputed influence with judges and their ability to persuade juries. For lobbyists, relationships they have acquired over their years are their stock in trade.

The problem a writer has in defending a political figure is that sometimes you find out that the man has done much worse things than the one he was accused of. In the fall of 2006 we did not believe that Alan Hevesi, who had just been re-elected Comptroller by voters largely aware of his lapses, should be driven from public office for using his chauffeur to drive his handicapped wife. However, subsequent revelations have persuaded us that he was unfit to serve as Comptroller.

On the other hand, at some level of avarice that reasoning turns sour. Even if he did not receive a nickel from Hank Morris, allowing his aide to reap such enormous rewards for selling his influence was unconscionable. It is difficult to maintain that this Ph.D. college professor was totally unaware of what was going on within his office. Hevesi has been wise to stay out of the limelight since his departure from public office.

Wherever the line of propriety may be drawn, the Morris scheme appears to exist beyond it. But impropriety, distasteful as it may be, is not criminality. What Morris did should be banned by law or regulation. That is not the same as saying he should go to jail for it. If he did share his fees in any way with Hevesi, they are both guilty of a crime. If he did not, that presents a more difficult issue. We do not argue that he is blameless, or that he committed no crime; we await the evidence which will be presented if the case survives motions to dismiss.

StarQuest@NYCivic.org

Not4Publication.com by Dom Nunziato
Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.