The Velella Papers, Chapter Five:
The Pursuit Intensifies, the Chairman Hides.

By Henry J. Stern
October 12, 2004

Starting September 29, we compiled five articles on the Velella case. Today is the fifth, providing complete coverage of the early release, newspaper commentary, reactions of public officials, the ongoing DOI inquiries, and the links between Velella, his former colleagues in the State Senate and other persons of interest. Today we cover the last five days of this unfolding drama, Oct. 8 through Oct. 12. We will present it with the most recent stories first. We will comment on or amplify the newspaper accounts where we think it is appropriate.
 
Our concern with the Velella release should not be taken to mean that this story is the most important issue the City of New York is facing. That issue is the enormous impending shortfall in the state and the city budgets, about which no one in public office appears overly concerned. Nor do we mean to neglect other matters, such as the attempts at educational reform, the upcoming Armageddon on school financing. Can a court order specific spending levels that could cripple the economy of an already struggling state? Why have a Legislature at all, inept as they may be, if their role is merely to act as court attaches? Our elections are far from perfect, but they are superior to rule by judges chosen by rigged judicial conventions in which only party insiders have the right to participate. There are many more issues to discuss, and we look forward to joining them.
 
Nonetheless, the Velella case has special appeal. It is well defined: it has a starting date and will hopefully be resolved in a few months. It is specific in its subject; everyone can understand what it is about. The tale involves the extent of personal influence — whatever the motivation — over a previously unknown city agency which rarely stirs itself to act, complete absence of documentation by the agency, the lack of public notice or transparency in its star chamber operation, and what appear to be  multiple standards of justice in the proceedings of this obscure appendage to city government.
 
We do not want to neglect other public issues. Yesterday, in Q-36, we discussed two of them: a crackdown on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, and a scandal in worthless penny stocks. You can link to any Q here. Our Q-list now has 729 subscribers; you can become one by writing any word with Q in it on the subject line of your reply to this message. You will get more e-mails with Q, but the additional messages will be briefer.
 
The Times was the last of the five dailies to editorialize on the Velella case. You probably didn't see it since it only appeared in Section 14 of the Sunday paper, "The City," on page 15. With a nod to the Beatles, the editorial is entitled, "A Little Help From His Friends." It is creatively written by a talented but unidentified author, and conveys an air of disdain and disapproval without using extreme language. You should definitely link to it for literary as well as civic uplift. It's too bad that practically nobody knows it was published — just like the Local Conditional Release Commission, which practically nobody knew existed.
 
In today's Times, on B2, Jennifer Steinhauer, City Hall bureau chief, reports that Mayor Bloomberg might just dismiss the entire LCRC. He hinted at that, ironically, when asked about it at the start of the Columbus Day parade. For many years, successive mayors, the former Parks commissioner (when in office) and the former senator had participated in the Bronx Columbus Day parade, which ended in front of Mr. Velella's district office on Williamsbridge Road. This year the senator did not attend.
 
Ms. Steinhauer's report, the most up-to-date account of the unfolding case, concludes with a new issue:

"While Mr. Bloomberg may not have known of the board, Mr. Velella's early release has created a political headache. The newest question is why Mr. Velella was released only weeks after his first application was denied. Under State law, prisoners cannot reapply for release until 60 days after their unsuccessful application was submitted. The Department of Probation has referred all calls to Mr. Russi [the chairman of the board], who has stopped returning calls to reporters."

Today's Sun carries a searing column by Jack Newfield, on p2, "Velella Release Sends Insulting Message." Mr. Newfield compares the early release the senator received with the way blacks and Latinos who are sentenced to a year in Rikers Island for a nonviolent first offense are treated. He cites longtime Bronx defense lawyer Ramon Jimenez, who Mr. Newfield points out is a Harvard Law School alumnus.
 
The column, specific and hard hitting, emphasizes class distinctions in the treatment of inmates. He writes:

"The only practical remedy is for the city's obscure Conditional Release Commission to convene in public and send Velella back to jail to complete his sentence. That is exactly what the commission did when it released the ex-Jets player Mark Gastineau. The precedent exists to rectify this backroom favoritism..."

Newsday printed two stories on the matter in the last five days, and has a third on its website. Today's article, by Dan Janison, on A8, is titled "Mayor's money helped: Bloomberg gave $10,000 last year to GOP fund-raising committee that aided Bronx politician." The gift went to the Bronx Republican Campaign Committee, and it is likely that all Republican county committees received similar gifts. Janison quotes Bloomberg spokesman Jordan Barowitz as saying that the mayor "never gave any money with the intent of defraying any of Guy Velella's legal expenses." This article illustrates how people not involved in a scandal can be linked to it through normal political contributions. Glenn Thrush contributed to the story.
 
Three days earlier (Oct. 9), Marc Humbert, an AP political writer in Albany, wrote "Velella scandal saga continues." This article appeared on the Newsday website, but was not in the printed newspaper. The story begins: "The scandal-scarred New York state Legislature just can't seem to put one of its big ones behind it." Humbert quotes Assemblyman Thomas Kirwan, a former state trooper, as saying that Velella should be sent back to jail. "Cops and elected officials have a special trust from the public. ... We just have to be treated harsher than the average guy." He also quotes Governor Pataki: "I'm concerned about the message it sends. We want to have equal justice for people." He cites the Journal News in Westchester County: "If Velella's release amounted to a jail break, he must be ordered to take a return trip to Rikers." Humbert also quoted a more vitriolic columnist, but to read what she wrote, you will have to link to the story.
 
On Oct. 8, in Newsday, Dan Janison wrote (pA26):

"Capping a second week of uneasy questions about the short jail stay of Guy Velella, Mayor Michael Bloomberg refused to say yesterday if he thinks the panel that freed Velella can or should reconsider its decision. 'It's not my personal views that matter,' he said, 'I'm here to do what's right for the city, not to generate headlines.'"

From this morning's Post, p4: "Velella D-Day Looms: Heads may roll," by Stephanie Gaskell.   The story carries the mayor's hint that he will shake up the Local Conditional Release Board.  "I can appoint a number of people if I want to," Bloomberg said yesterday.  "There's no limit, I believe, in the number of commissioners.  But I will deal with that after I talk to (DOI Commissioner) Rose Gill Hearn.

Monday's Post ran a major story on the case. Prominently placed on top of page 2 was the headline: "'Illegal' release could send Guy back to jail." Exclusive, by Fredric U. Dicker, state editor:

"The city commission that authorized the early release from Rikers Island of former Sen. Guy Velella may have acted illegally... Investigators are seeking to determine if the LCRC complied with two requirements of the state Open Meegings Law and one section of the state Corrections Law in releasing Velella, 60, once one of the most politically connected and powerful officials in the state. If the law wasn't followed, Velella could be returned to jail, sources said. Commission Chairman Raul Russi repeatedly refused to answer the Post's questions about whether the release of Velella complied with state law."

The story contains a graphic:

Queries
Three questions that need answering:
1. Did this board properly advertise in advance that the meeting would take place?
2. Did the board meet to discuss releasing Velella, or did they do it by telephone?
3. Did Velella wait the required 60 days to reapply to the commission for release, as is required by law?

In his Sunday column, "Inside City Hall," headed "Mike eyes obscure gov't panels in wake of Velella debacle," David Seifman, on p13, quotes the mayor: "I think there's a real question why this commission and lots of other small commissions that nobody really pays any attention to, why they exist."
 
Murray Weiss and Kenneth Lovett, writing in Friday's Post, "Velella couldn't stomach Rikers," p6, paint a pitiful picture of Velella in captivity. It is a vivid portrait of his despair. The information in the story is attributed to three unnamed sources in law enforcement.
 
The Weiss and Lovett article raises the issue of whether an inmate, particularly anguished at his own situation, should, because of his prior celebrity and his social and emotional distance from the predominant prisoner population, receive special or different treatment. It is certainly arguable that he should, for his own protection and because of his apparent high level of distress. But is it not possible to make "reasonable accommodation," as the disability laws call it, without overruling the trial judge and cancelling the sentence? There is no evidence that the LCRC looked into any alternative method of improving the prisoner's condition. And no one has claimed, so far as we know, that his two co-conspirators, Del Toro and Gonzales, also released early, were in more pain over their circumstances than the majority of inmates. It appears to have been a package deal.
 
This concludes the first two weeks of reporting on the Velella case and its coverage. There is more to come, as we await the DOI report and the mayor's decision on the future of the Local Conditional Release Commission and the four members, of whom he is now aware, who serve on it on his behalf.

Carved on the granite edifice that houses the Supreme Court of the United States is the inscription: "Equal Justice Under Law." People will decide for themselves whether that principle was followed in this case.

NOTE: Some people may believe that the commentary which accompanies the press stories reported here is unfair to the senator. If anyone — his lawyers, or friends, or outside observers — has a different opinion on the case, or feels that the release of the three men was justified in the circumstances, please write to us, and your views (if not obscene) will be posted for all to read. You have not read contrary views here so far because none has been expressed in the media. The senator's lawyers have remained silent, possibly out of wisdom and discretion. But there are two sides to almost every story, and we would welcome hearing from people who hold different opinions on this matter.