NYCivic - Hi-Yo, Long John

At 3:28 a.m. Saturday in Oakville, Ontario, I woke with a frightening thought.   In the article sent out Friday, before I went to Canada for the weekend to visit my brother and his family, I had noted the "fifth anniversary" of the unfortunate Assembly vote to repeal the commuter tax, which, took place on May 17, 1999. At that point I knew that I had made an error in failing to count the years.   Not wishing to be Jayson Blair, I wanted to correct it, but I was out of the country and New York Civic was closed for the weekend.

This morning, I came in and looked for a deluge of corrections from subscribers. There was but one, from the editor of a weekly newspaper that prints the column. This concerned me more, because it means that either 1) nobody read the item, or 2) nobody bothers to subtract, or 3) people trust me and so accept the numbers, or 4) people don't want to embarrass me by making an obvious correction, or 5) no one wants to be the bearer of bad tidings, or 6) the messenger is afraid of being shot, or 7) the computer rejects corrections as spam. If you can think of 8) or more, please advise me.

Anyway, in the interest of truth and the record, let me say that May 17, 2003 was the FOURTH anniversary of the vote on the tax, as reported by subsequent Pulitzer Prize winner Clifford Levy.   I know the correction will get more attention than the error, which violates Rule 18- D "Don't spread the stain". However, I hope it will show that when we make a mistake, we try to set it right as soon as we can.

The duty to disclose reminds me of a story I heard from a city official who was called before the Feerick Commission, which was established by Governor Cuomo in 1987 to discredit Mayor Koch, his former rival. The inquiry failed to find any Mayoral wrongdoing. One day, the Commission was looking into how JD, whom we identify only by initials, was allowed to retire so quickly. The witness said that he had met JD on a street corner to arrange the retirement. The lawyer asked, sarcastically, whether there was anyone else that the witness had met on a street corner for that purpose. The witness answered, "Yes". The lawyer asked "Who?" The witness replied "AA", another city official who had retired hastily while under investigation. The hearing room broke out in laughter.   The witness, years later, told me: "I would rather look like a fool than commit perjury. After all, I was under oath."

While writhing over miscounting the years, which I could have done on the fingers of either hand, I wondered whether we had been unfair to the Speaker. After all, his egregious error was four years old. Then I came back to the city Sunday, and read the Daily News story and remembered their April 19 editorial about the Speaker's private income as a personal injury lawyer. His clients sue the City and State while the Assembly considers tort reform to rein in an out-of-control system which costs New York City's taxpayers almost $600 million a year, a figure increasing annually.

Actually, if the account of his friends is true, he did less than meets the eye.   Rather than receiving an annual stipend for unspecified services, he was paid a referral fee on cases that he brought in to the firm. What he did is legally permissible, but it is not appropriate, certainly when the amount and nature of the fees he is paid are undisclosed.

To be fair, Silver is a decent person of relatively moderate progressive views. He heads a fractious caucus, which he caters to by impeding criminal justice reform and bills increasing penalties for crime. He defends himself by saying he speaks for his members, some of whom have a pronounced antipathy to law enforcement and social responsibility.   He is far from the worst member of the legislature, supports Joseph Lieberman for President, and understood the danger and cruelty of the Saddam regime.

If Silver expressed regret for his misjudgment on the commuter tax, and disclosed his referral fees, it would help to restore confidence in him. But public officials rarely do mea culpas, convinced as they are of the rightness of their cause, and the extremely valuable service they believe they provide to the citizenry.

To sum up, all that we said about the Speaker is true, but that does not really mean that he is a venal man, nor that he is a disgrace as Speaker. But he could serve the people of New York City and State so much better if he used his intelligence and influence less selectively and more effectively.

Anyone seeking exegesis or explanation of any titular or textual reference in this or any other column is invited to e-mail gingernut@nycivic.org or telephone him at 212-564-4441. Inquiries and replies will be held in confidence.