|
|
| |
Starquest: The Conscience Of A City
|
| TALKING GOVERNMENT (l-r): Trib founder Gary Ackerman, Trib columnist Henry Stern, Trib Publisher Mike Schenkler
|
By MICHAEL SCHENKLER
New York Civic celebrated its third birthday last week.
The good government group is the brainchild and creation of Henry Stern. In its three years in existence, Henry has written 199 thought provoking commentaries on our City and its government.
Using NYCivic, a non-profit educational organization which examines New York City government and public policy questions, Henry watches the city with his sharp intellect creative mind, through the eyes of one who has participated in the process of city governance for some three decades.
He was a candidate for the New York City Council in 1973 on the Liberal Party line. He was elected and served nine years in the Council. He became Parks Commissioner under Mayor Ed Koch (1983-1990) and returned to that position during the eight years of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s administration (1994-2001), serving longer than any other commissioner except Robert Moses. Henry has left an extraordinary legacy throughout New York City.
He retired from city government after the election of Mayor Michael Bloomberg to form New York Civic and function in a unique capacity commenting as the number one city elder.
In addition to his intellect and love of nature, Henry is known as a creative character. He will always be remembered for the approximately 10,000 “park names” that he has given out. The naming practice dates back to 1995, when Parks employees, communicating by portable radios, made up nicknames for one another. Then Park’s Commissioner, Henry formalized the practice, awarding tags with “Park names” to people who are special friends of New York City and open spaces. For himself, he chose StarQuest, which he created by combining the translation of the German word “Stern” and his endless quest for knowledge. Twenty years later he is perhaps best known by his “Park name” (and email: Starquest@nycivic.org).
Rudy Giuliani is “Eagle,” Estelle Cooper, administrator of Flushing Meadows Corona Park, is “Unisphere” and this writer is honored to be dubbed “Tribunal.”
But most importantly, he is, in the opinion of this writer, the most probing, important, independent voice on New York City government today. Although we don’t always agree with him, we always learn from him.
He is the penultimate watchdog of this city’s funds and morality. Henry is bright, Henry is knowledgeable and Henry cares. We are privileged to regularly bring you his words on this page. This city is fortunate to have him as their conscience.
In his words, “Just as fish in a river gather at the mouth of a sewer for nourishment, where public funds are involved, eager hands and hungry mouths assemble to partake of the bounty.”
As long as Henry is around, there will be New York Civic. As long as there is New York Civic, Henry will be watching and commenting.
Happy Birthday Henry!
|
|
Term-Limits Reversal Is Lukewarm
Canada Company Buys Power Plant
Queens Loses Two Soldiers
Williams vs. Williams
Effort Afoot To Bring Soccer Team To Queens
BMX Star Rides High In Streets And In Business
Candidates Battle For Senate Seat
Stavisky, Schwartz: Is This A Race?
Incumbent Faces Tough Race In Primary
Kids Ready For School With Some Wii Help
Queens In Need Of Blood Donations
Stage Set For Addabbo, Maltese Showdown
Arthur Ashe Kids’ Day
Gennaro Launches Senate Bid Online
Torahs Stolen From Jewish Center
Gas Prices Fall After Summer Peak
Weprin Wants Tough Text Laws
Summer Rains
Cat Needs A Home
Queens Man is New Buildings Commissioner
Congressman Takes Office On The Road
Non-resident Kicked Off Senate Ballot
Home Repossessions In Queens Up 374 Percent
|
| |
‘Pay for Play’: Voting Under the Influence
|
| Henry Stern
|
By
HENRY STERN
The city’s Campaign Finance Board has been holding public hearings on how to deal with one of the most troublesome issues in the funding of political campaigns, described briefly as “pay to play.”
Broadly defined, pay to play refers to the solicitation and receipt of campaign contributions by corporations and individuals who do business with the government, or who want to, and whose bottom line would be affected by decisions made by public officials, whether in the executive or legislative branch. This is a complicated issue, with a great variety of situations where influence can be exerted.
Paying sums of money by cash or check or giving real or personal property directly to a public official or candidate for office is a crime under federal and state law. It is bribery if initiated by the corrupt citizen and extortion if the money is demanded by the official. For those crimes, those found guilty usually go to prison.
Former State Senator Guy Velella was convicted of a felony, automatically disbarred, compelled to resign his Senate seat (with his pension intact) and sentenced, by agreement, to a short stay on Rikers Island for a long-standing pattern of conduct. He received money from contractors and used his influence with the state administration to assure that his benefactors received contracts to provide services to the state, e.g. bridge painting.
Interestingly, the legislator was not bribed to enact or defeat a proposed law, or to sell his vote in Albany, but to use his considerable political influence to see that certain corporations were given more consideration by state agencies than they would ordinarily receive if decisions were made on the merits.
The modern sale of influence is sophisticated.
Contractors, concessionaires and firms doing business with the state, or seeking to do state business, are given opportunities to contribute to the campaign funds of those who have influence in government. This is not a crime, it is perfectly legal. It has some negative effects; it means that state contracts may go to the most generous contributors, rather than to those who could do the best job for the taxpayers. It is the new style of political corruption.
In reality, swollen campaign treasuries may amass far more money than is needed to win an election in the gerrymandered one-party districts that have been carved by the leadership to protect incumbents. When one retires from politics, one has considerable latitude in how these funds can be extended. For example, funds collected as campaign contributions are available for the legal defense of officeholders stemming from charges of misconduct in public office.
Under the city’s campaign finance program, these investments in candidates are matched on a 4-to-1 basis by the city out of tax revenues. It is bad enough that officials can collect money from their constituents to influence or reward them for their decisions, but to have the taxpayers match these gifts on a 4-to-1 basis should generate a higher level of public concern.
One problem in expressing outrage is that when you simply describe a fact situation in ordinary language, it may not leap out and grab you by the throat. To us it is a perversion of the political system for us to be required to pay taxes in order to multiply the sums given by individuals so they may receive appropriations or contracts from the city, to which they might not be fully entitled if decisions were made solely on the merits.
And, if that were not enough, many of these taxpayer subsidies are made to candidates in runaway races, where they have no real competition in districts whose bounds have been gerrymandered (massaged, tweaked?) for their benefit. The subsidy they receive is spent on hiring campaign staff and publishing self-serving literature which will have no material effect on the outcome of the election. A proposal by the impartial Campaign Finance Board to limit the practice of rewards for runaways was rejected last year by the City Council under the leadership of Speaker Gifford Miller. Even the redoubtable Joseph P. Kennedy, who spent millions to elect his children to public office, at one point stopped and said, “I’m paying for a victory, not a landslide.”
The citizens of New York are by law compelled to pay a 400% tax on political contributions up to $250. Of course, friends and relatives of the donor can give a matchable $250 each. While some gifts are legitimate, others are self-serving. Some are expressions of respect and friendship, while others are thinly disguished legal bribes. Worse yet, the 400% tax is often spent to glorify incumbents on their way to runaway victories. It is hard to conceive of a more egregious misuse of public funds, but no one should be surprised at self serving actions by the pampered part-timers who comprise our current City Council. Yes, there are honest, decent and hard working councilmembers, but they keep their mouths shut about the way the place is run. |
|
|
Not4Publication.com by Dom Nunziato |
|
|
|
|
