NYCivic

Critics Continue to Question Velella's Release;
Ask What Standards Obscure Panel Employed
In Springing the Senator and Two Accomplices

By Henry J. Stern
October 4, 2004

Today is Day Six of the stories and editorials about former Senator Guy Velella's liberation from Rikers Island after serving three months of a one-year sentence. Since he walked through the gate to get out of the jail, there is more reason to call this 'Velellagate' than many of the post-Watergate analogies to which 'gate' has been attached. (The awkward Iran-Contragate was probably the most labored use of the g word as a suffix connoting wrongdoing.)

We proceed in chronological order. On Friday evening, an Associated Press dispatch by Michael Weissenstein was received by Newsday. We haven't found it in the published newspaper, but it appears on the Newsday website under the headline, "Head of release panel defends actions."

On Saturday, The Post ran a strong lead editorial, "Pleading for the Corrupt," which was highly critical of the public figures, religious and union leaders who had requested mercy for their faithful friend, now a fallen felon.

In Saturday's Times, Jennifer Steinhauer and Kevin Flynn wrote: "Pity, not Politics,
Was Behind Velella's Release, Official Says." The Times interviews LCRC chairman Raul Russi, former City Probation Commissioner. The newspaper discloses that Mr. Russi also runs a Bronx drug agency, Bronx Addiction Services Integrated Concept Systems (Basics) that receives $1.9 million a year in state funding. Mr. Russi said Senator Velella had not been involved in funding his agency.

Sunday's News carried an analytical article by Russ Buettner: "Panel that freed Velella run with few guidelines." It is an interesting story which begins, "The panel... has occasionally been hoodwinked, inconsistent and subject to political whim. At least some of that is because [it] operates without written guidelines on whom it can pluck from Rikers Island." Buettner writes that the commission was duped by former Jets star Mark Gastineau.

This morning, the Post's Fred Dicker, in a page 2 exclusive, headed "Whiny Velella was a jailhouse wreck," calls the former senator "a sniveling coward behind bars, moaning to friends that the conditions were atrocious." This judgment is based on letters he wrote from jail to a radio executive who later offered him a talk show when he was released. Velella turned 60 on September 25, and the release may have come as a birthday gift to the senator.

In her Times column today on B1, Joyce Purnick describes the situation: "Rolodex Turns And Cell Door Pops Open." Her lead is ironic: "New Yorkers owe a debt of gratitude to Guy J. Velella and the obscure commission that reduced his jail term. How better to remind the public of how the system works to protect its own?"

The flavor of the case can best be imbibed by reading the editorials, news articles and columns which we have collected and linked for you. They appeared on different days, including two over the weekend, in three different newspapers, so we collect them for you.

It may well be that Velella, because of his emotional condition, was an appropriate candidate for release. That is an issue which should be explored by independent psychiatrists. It is also true that Velella was a well-liked public official, who made many friends in both parties because of his good nature. And he was quite helpful to the City of New York in a Republican-controlled State Senate, more so than some Democrats in positions of power.

It is also true that the senator admits that he took $137,000 in bribes, a profound betrayal of public trust. Of course, he had no authority to award these contracts himself. It was his influence on the Pataki administration that made its employees defer to his corrupt recommendations. And he is not likely to be the only public official who has committed this crime, his misfortune was to get caught. This is one reason twenty of his Senate colleagues contributed $150,000 in campaign funds to his defense. There is an ancient phrase: "There, but for the grace of God, go I." We have been unable to find its origin; if you know, please tell us.

What makes this case so odd is that an unheard-of commission, on the brink of abolition, can substitute its judgment for the conclusions of the sentencing judge, the district attorney, and the probation department. The situation is, at best, anomalous.

It is even worse that these dispensations of clemency are made ex parte, ad hoc, sotto voce and sui generis. It is extremely difficult for the rational mind to believe that of the 7000 inmates on Rikers Island, these three (Velella, Hector Del Toro and Manuel Gonzalez) were the most worthy of immediate release. What is the mathematical likelihood of that possibility?

To discover on what basis the commission acted, on these cases, it is imperative that they release all telephone conversations and other communications with individuals concerning the case. The Department of Investigation inquiry ordered by Mayor Bloomberg should see to it that this is done. It is insufficient for DOI to be limited to whether a crime has been committed. It already was committed — that's why the three men were in jail. The apparent injustice of their release may or may not rise to the level of an independent act of criminality. It should nonetheless be thoroughly examined by the inquiry.

It is possible that the LCRC simply acted naively, but in good faith, moved by the inmate's apparent distress. It is quite possible that other entreaties were made to the commission members, apart from those on the written record. Justice will not be served until local Conditional Release Commission Chairman Raul Russi comes clean about everyone who approached him about this case, and what other names were mentioned by the people who called to request suspending the court sentence. It would, incidentally, be interesting for the public to know whether the commissioners are paid for their services, if so, how much, and whether this sinecure allows them to remain in the New York City Employees Retirement System.

There will be more to explore before this matter is laid to rest. By his early release, Senator Velella may have unintentionally performed a useful public service which could lead to the closing of the back door through which preferred inmates can escape their sentences.