NYCivic - To Tell the Truth

PREFACE: In its attempt to report different views of a complicated situation, this article has grown in length (1846 words, including this preface). I call particular attention to a rebuttal by DA Hynes, which we received this morning. It is strongly recommended that you print out this column and read it at your leisure, lest you be distracted from your important work. Any comments you care to make will be received with appreciation, and, if you wish, considered for publication on our website, either signed, initialed or encrypted. Just press Reply.

Did Golden Back Hynes for DA?
If So, Why Does Hynes Deny It?
If Not, Why Did He Hire Golden?

By Henry J. Stern

November 25, 2003

In last Wednesday's column, People v. Norman, I wrote that District Attorney Charles J. Hynes, who is now serving his fourth term, was not the candidate of the Brooklyn Democratic organization when he first ran for DA. My source was the District Attorney himself, who volunteered it to me on November 7 at New York Law School, where he discussed judicial selection at a gathering held by the Center for New York City Affairs.

Relying on that statement, I repeated it on November 19, in a column about the indictment of Assemblyman Clarence Norman, the Brooklyn Democratic leader, and his associate, Jeffrey Feldman, executive director of the party in Kings County. I wrote: "Hynes is a most unlikely prosecutor, since he was first elected in 1989 without the support of the machine … he has not been notably active in prosecuting public officials."

On November 20, I received a number of calls and e-mails from political historians on the subject.   Two recounted that some Democratic clubs favored Assemblyman Daniel Feldman, another candidate for DA. Sometime in the Spring, Borough President Howard Golden, who was also County Leader at the time, (holding those two offices at once is now illegal) was said to have received a telephone call from then-Governor Mario Cuomo, requesting that he support Hynes. Golden did what he was asked to do, and instructed the people in the room to carry out those instructions. Other respondents agreed that Golden supported Hynes.

By January 2002, Golden's sixth full term as Borough President had ended. He had been precluded by term limits from seeking re-election, which he probably would have won. Hynes then appointed him as director of intergovernmental relations in the DA's office at a salary of $125,000, and provided him with a temporary car and driver. The appointment drew press criticism, and the job ended in late September. Golden's assignment was to raise private funds to assist with projects the DA was supporting to help reduce crime. There was speculation as to why the DA would risk his own reputation on a clearly political selection for a previously non-existent position. The answer could have been the DA's gratitude for Golden's support in 1989, when his nomination was not assured.

I later learned that, in a May 3, 2003 article in the New York Times, Jonathan Hicks wrote, "Over the years, Mr. Hynes has moved from the role of political outsider – the party backed another candidate in his first campaign in 1989 – to one of the party's marquee elected officials."   But on Tuesday, May 6, the Times published the following CORRECTION: "An article on Saturday about speculation that the Brooklyn district attorney, Charles J. Hynes, is seeking to use the case against a former Democratic Party official to distance himself from the organization misstated the party's choice for district attorney in 1989. The party and its leader, the Brooklyn borough president, Howard Golden, supported Mr. Hynes, not Daniel Feldman, an assemblyman at the time."

Mr. Hicks cannot, however, be faulted for this error. Later in his May 3 story, he quotes DA Hynes directly: "I have been independent since I beat the organization in 1989." The reporter could reasonably have assumed that the District Attorney was being truthful, as I believed on November 7.

The prosecution of Clarence Norman and Jeffrey Feldman, who have, over the years, debased the Kings County judiciary by the selection of an excessive proportion of mediocrities, sloths, hangers-on, and in some cases crooks (along with some decent and honorable men and women), is important. Norman and Feldman may have committed bribery or extortion, or they may have stayed within the letter of the law while "playing politics" to the hilt. Is the remedy for their conduct political or criminal? And is their behavior different from County Leaders in other boroughs?

Like Caesar's wife, Calpurnia, a District Attorney should be above suspicion.   He should tell the truth, particularly when commenting on public events.   Let us hope that this matter may be clarified, and the truth established, lest the public view the prosecution of this case with the negative attitude: "A plague on both your houses."

CLARIFICATION

Readers of NYCivic called and e-mailed me to say that in my article, I wrote that candidates for Supreme Court Justice, once anointed by the judicial convention, did not occur substantial campaign expenses since, being on the Democratic line in Brooklyn, they were assured of victory. (When I was a boy, it was said that the Democratic nomination in Mississippi was tantamount to election. That is no longer the case, Republican Haley Barbour just defeated the incumbent Democratic Governor, Ronnie Musgrove.)

What I wrote was accurate, BUT I failed to make clear that the two judicial candidates involved in this indictment were not Supreme Court candidates, but were running for Civil Court in a contested campaign. In the primary, both were defeated by anti-organization candidates, after which one unsuccessfully sought a Supreme Court nomination from the Democratic organization.    These candidates properly contributed to their campaigns. The issues are whether the particular contractors and sums recommended (or demanded) by party officials were effective, whether any money found its way into O.P.P. (other peoples' pockets), and whether these were the firms that the candidates would have chosen if they believed they had the authority to spend their own money.

FOOTNOTE

Borough President Golden served in that office for 25 years (1977-2001). He was a strong supporter of Brooklyn development and cultural institutions, and used his influence and knowledge of the city on their behalf. The borough, particularly the downtown area, made a sharp economic recovery during his term.

Although an ardent advocate for Brooklyn, which he felt was discriminated against by city government, his relations with both Mayor Koch and Mayor Giuliani were very poor, which resulted in discretionary funds and capital dollars often going to Queens, whose Borough President, Claire Shulman, was firmly supportive of both mayors. Golden's personality could be characterized as choleric or dyspeptic, and he was said to be somewhat harsh with his staff.

My most vivid memory of him was at a playground dedication at which, coming by car from Manhattan, I arrived late. After denouncing me in gutter language and threatening to knock the (not a link) out of me, he said, memorably, "Get out of Brooklyn, and take your damn dog, too." His words vividly reminded me of what the Wicked Witch of the West had told Dorothy, "I'll get you, my pretty, and your little dog, too."
Ever the gentledog, Boomer, never before or since cursed by anyone, endured the Borough President's harsh words without flinching or retaliating.

REBUTTAL

This morning at 11, I was surprised to receive a telephone call from District Attorney Hynes. I had previously spoken twice to his press secretary, Jerry Schmetterer, but I did not believe that my inquiries rose to the level of requesting personal contact with an elected official. After all, I am only a blogger.

He began the conversation sharply by denouncing Mayor Koch, whom he felt had treated him unfairly. Accustomed as I am to hearing mayors disparage people, sometimes justifiably, I waited until he finished and then assured him that I was not the agent of the former Mayor or anyone else, but was writing independently and trying to be fair.

He then gave me the following version of events, which I reconstruct from his conversation.

He said that he repeatedly sought Democratic endorsement from Howard Golden, the County Leader, and Ken Fisher, his associate, but never received it. The most the County may have done was to remain neutral. The majority of Democratic clubs in Brooklyn supported Assemblyman Daniel Feldman. Hynes said that Assemblyman Al Vann supported him, while Clarence Norman opposed him, in part because Norman's seat in the Assembly was next to Feldman's.

He said the reason he appointed Golden was that, after the Borough President's 25 years in office, downtown Brooklyn had been rebuilt with massive capital infusions, and he thought Golden could help raise private funds to support socially beneficial projects in which Hynes was interested. When it became clear that these funds were not forthcoming, the arrangement ended amicably, and the Borough President retired.

FURTHER INQUIRY

Since my sources differed over what Governor Cuomo had said or done, I took the liberty of calling him for guidance. The Governor was kind enough to return my call promptly, this afternoon. He said he had no specific recollection of a telephone call 14 years ago, but said that, if asked, he would have made the call because of his high regard for Joe Hynes, a fellow Brooklyn attorney whom he had recommended to Governor Carey to be the Howard Beach prosecutor.

Councilman Lew Fidler, whom I called seeking enlightenment, was a campaign manager for Hynes. He said he had worked with Golden in the primary. He said that, as Borough President, Golden supported Hynes but that as County Leader, he was neutral. The county organization did not endorse any candidate. Since the two positions, Borough President and County Leader, have now been separated by law, no future leader will have to make such a Solomonic choice between competing allegiances.

CONCLUSION

Since I am not a juror, I am not required to decide who said what to whom. Usually, in these matters the truth lies somewhere in between, (Rule 30-T). In this case there are discrepancies in recounting specific events that one side must be telling substantially more of the truth than the other.

This is the first time that this column has dealt with this kind of fact situation, and I think it is wisest to leave it to you, dear readers, to decide (if you care to) what actually happened before the 1989 primary election for Kings County District Attorney.

In the meantime, I would suggest the District Attorney not comment on this matter (unless he feels obliged to do so in response to statements by others), and devote himself to the discovery of evidence and the diligent prosecution of the case of People v. Norman and Feldman, so that justice, whatever it may turn out to be, can most effectively be served.