Mayor Awaits Investigations Report
After Accepting Russi's Resignation;
Editorials Seek Velella's Recapture

By Henry J. Stern
October 13, 2004

The first head has rolled in the controversy over the early release from Rikers Island of former Senator Guy Velella.

It belongs to Raul Russi, city sheriff and commissioner of probation in the Giuliani administration and chairman of the little-known Local Conditional Release Commission under Mayor Bloomberg. One must admit that Russi certainly put the LCRC on the map. But even on the day of his resignation, all five dailies, in their headlines, named Velella (one also mentioned Mike), and nobody named the victim. For him, that could be just as well. Russi brought with him a statement of resignation, which was followed by a resume of his 34-year career in public service.
 
Mayor Bloomberg had previously intended to meet with Russi and decide on his future after the Department of Investigation filed its report on what happened at the LCRC between their rejection of Velella's first application for early release around September 1 and their granting of his petition on September 28. Although the narrow charge for DOI was to determine whether any laws had been broken, the inquiry necessarily evolved into a study of LCDC and its operations.

Concern has been expressed over whether outsiders, besides the32 people who wrote letters on Russi's behalf, had tried to influence the commission. Mayor Bloomberg said that neither he, nor anyone speaking for him, had interfered in the case. That is likely to be true, but there are other players in the political community who are not city employees, Senator Velella has made many friends, and some of them may also know Mr. Russi.

It is not a crime, nor is it dishonorable, to call or write a public official and ask for mercy for someone you know. If, God forbid, I were in a similar situation, I would hope that my friends would try to help me. One cannot, however, harass, threaten, intimidate, or promise a reward of any kind to the official to whom one appeals. That would be a crime: either bribery or extortion.

We do not know who said what to whom, and in circumstances like this one, the parties to any such communication are likely to deny or minimize them. Rule 29-C, "This conversation never happened," applies in cases where the communication itself may well be legitimate, but it is in the interest of both parties for it not to appear in the record. Some conversations like this may be similar to settlement negotiations.

The mayor was both wise and merciful in retaining Mr. Russi as a member of the Board of Corrections. He has always been regarded as an honorable public official, with a strong law enforcement background. He made a serious error in judgment in the Velella case, not realizing the public significance of the case as a bellwether of the morality of elected officials. It is said that he did try to obtain guidance, but did not receive direction.

I knew Raul (Rooster) Russi as a colleague in the last administration. He is a thoughtful and careful person, mindful of his responsibilities. It is possible for public officials to make mistakes without being dishonest. After the Velella release, it would have been impossible for him to continue as head of LCRC, as he fully recognized. The failure to observe rules of procedure of which he may not have been aware — not keeping minutes or giving public notice, premature consideration of the second application for early release, yielding to ex parte emotional appeals by the inmate — all of this is inappropriate for a quasi-judicial panel.

Professor Daniel Richman, the new chair, has heavy blue-chip credentials in law and academia. You can link to his very impressive resume. Richman may be overqualified for the $175-per-day position, but that shouldn't hurt. It would be a shame if his prestige were used to keep an unnecessary commission alive; LCRC, now scheduled to sunset in September 2005 (unless extended by the State Legislature), should probably be folded into the probation department, which has already been swallowed by its larger cousin, the Department of Corrections. Independent extra-judicial review of light sentences can too easily lead to miscarriages of justice, as may have occurred here. Also, if an inmate has cancer, or is in otherwise dire circumstances, the probation department can grant early release. It is not necessary to have a special commission for such cases.

My advice to Senator Velella would be to go back and show the world that you are strong. See Martha Stewart as a role model. Your health is all right (so far as we know), your friends will stick by you, and in any event, you'll find out who they really are. You are well liked in your community, and a lot of people sympathize with your plight because they believe that many public officials do what you did, and it was just your misfortune to be caught. Get involved with life in the jail, become an expert on it. Your voice will be heard after you are released.

But don't run for re-election in 2006. Even if you win, it will give the authorities another chance to go after your pension. Your candidacy wouldn't help the Republican candidates for governor or other Senate seats, whoever they might be.

This case and its consequences are far from over. We await the DOI report from Commissioner Hearn. We want to see what happens to the other ill-starred members of the LCRC. We are curious whether the commission will continue in existence, and if so, who will be the next beneficiary of its mercy?

Several recent editorials represent substantial public sentiment on the matter. The editorial in today's Poughkeepsie Journal concludes: "The release board members making this decision should be shown the door themselves. And then Velella should be given another escort — only this time it should be back to his cell, not his home." The Post expressed the same sentiment in its editorial on October 7: "Certainly Velella should finish his wrist-slap punishment."  And an editorial in the Albany Times-Union on October 6 concluded: "Any contemplation Mr. Velella has of a political comeback should come first from a jail cell. He should be required to finish his sentence like a criminal, not like a political insider."

At the conclusion of our article yesterday, we wondered whether we had been too harsh on Senator Velella. We invited his lawyers, friends, supporters or others who are sympathetic to him to write to us, and we promised to publish what they said. We want to be "fair and balanced," except when specifically expressing an opinion. We received three e-mails. All criticized me for being too soft on the senator. The suggestion was that I too am an establishment figure. I realize that, when aroused, the public is a great beast. And when a target of its anger can be identified, that person is in peril.

The real meaning of this case is that it is the exercise of raw power and influence overruling the judge in a case which had already been plea-bargained down to much less than the ordinary person would face for committing such a crime. And after that, the defendant got another bite of the apple, with his sentence reduced by 75%. If you do not see injustice here, please let us know what you think injustice is, and where you have ever seen it.



Today's stories:

• Times: "Head of Panel in Velella Case Is Replaced," by Jennifer Steinhauer, pB1

• Post: "Velella-release exec quits after Mike meet," by Fredric U. Dicker, p2

• Newsday: "Velella panel chief exits post," by Glenn Thrush, pA6

• News: "Board boss out in Velella storm," by David Saltonstall, p3

• Sun: "Chairman of Commission That Released Velella Resigns," by Dina Temple-Raston, p3