Three Blind Mice Lose Their Tails;
Bloomberg Wields Carving Knife.

By Henry J. Stern
October 14, 2004

Mayor Bloomberg continued his housecleaning last night by firing the three remaining members of the Local Conditional Release Board, one holdover and two that he had selected on the recommendation of his committee on appointments. The ousters followed the uproar over the September 28 early release of former Senator Guy Velella, who was probably Rikers Island's best-known inmate.
 
Four dailies reported the dismissal this morning, while the Times' Jennifer Steinhauer predicted it: "...Mr. Bloomberg has suggested that the three other members might also be replaced. 'I'll be dealing with the entire commission later on,' he said icily yesterday." 'Later on' turned out to be early evening, when, in a Post article headed "MIKE SACKS VELELLA'S GET-OUT-OF-JAIL PANEL," David Seifman wrote concisely: "…A tersely worded statement [was] dropped on reporters' desks at 6:40 p.m."

Statement by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg on Resignations from the Local Conditional Release Commission:

"Today, I have personally spoken with three members of the Local Conditional Release Commission, Jeanne Hammock, Irene Prager and Amy Ianora, accepted their resignations and thanked them for their service. With Daniel Richman now taking over as Chair, it is time for new people to join this commission and we will announce new appointments as quickly as they are made."

The mayor did not praise the newly departed members when he said, "I would not have gone and voted to release [Mr. Velella]," and added, "I don't know what possessed them to do that." Of former LCRC chair Raul Russi, he observed, "I think he made a mistake in judgment."
 
Legal questions surround the senator's early release: Was there a quorum? Was there public notice of the meeting? Was there in fact, an actual meeting? Was Velella's application illegal as premature in view of LCRC's recent rejection of his earlier plea? The mayor said he would leave those questions to the courts, but he did not opine who would sue whom to obtain a ruling on the issue. To find the answer to that question, the Corporation Counsel should advise the mayor as to the legality and the revocability of the LCRC action, which is quite a different issue than its wisdom as a matter of public policy. If the Corporation Counsel or the Department of Investigation find legal problems with the LCRC action, the mayor should feel impelled to act in the matter.
 
This is being taken by some in the press as a case of misconduct in the notably clean Bloomberg administration. The mayor, like most of us, was unaware of the case in advance and had no recollection of the commission. But once the matter became highly public, he had to deal with it publicly. In cases like this, time is of the essence. The sooner the executive acts, the stronger he is perceived to be. That is why he wisely abandoned Plan A, waiting for the DOI report, and went to Plan B, taking action on his own.

The newspapers' editorial boards would like to see the escape plot scotched and the prisoner recaptured. But to do that would certainly incur the displeasure of Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, a political friend and occasional ally of the mayor. How many millions in state aid would it cost the city to see Velella back in the can? It could be the modern equivalent of a king's ransom. What price justice? On the other hand, wouldn't failure to act be submission to intimidation?
 
The best result would be for the senator to be returned to durance vile, without the participation of the mayor. That scenario conforms with Rule 26: "No prints." Sadly, it is too late; we are in a Rule 19-C mode: "The cat is out of the bag." Remember the words of President Nixon's former top aide, H.R. Haldeman, who said: "Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's hard to get it back in." Haldeman said it with regard to the cover-up of what was called a third-rate burglary. This case is about the bribery of a powerful elected official.

The mayor has a political problem. He is right to be outraged at the foolish people who put him in this position, without even giving him a heads-up. But that anger must be tempered by the knowledge that his attitude toward delegation of responsibility may have prevented him from being advised of this matter in advance. You can't have it both ways. Either run an administration top-down, as Mayor Koch and Mayor Giuliani did (or tried to do), or be held accountable for the blunders of people you hardly know on matters you never heard of. Former Deputy Mayor Peter Powers often told the commissioners: "No surprises." The idea that an appointed panel that meets in a phone booth, if at all, cannot receive guidance from the administration that appointed its members is absurd.
 
Predictably, the City Council is getting into the act. The Fire and Criminal Justice Services Committee (created after the public safety committee was split in two to provide lulus for two chairs) has scheduled a public hearing for Monday (Oct. 18) at 10 a.m. on the Velella release, and has requested documents and phone logs from the LCRC. The meeting will be chaired by Brooklyn Councilmember Yvette Clarke, a Congressional candidate who lost in 2004 to Major Owens, and will try again in 2006, when he has said he will retire. She succeeded her mother, former Councilmember Una Clarke. The other half of the old public safety committee is chaired by Peter C. Vallone, Jr., son and successor of the former speaker. Young Vallone recently called Federal Judge Charles Sifton, who forced an undercover police detective to reveal her identity to a drug dealer, "an arrogant, pompous fool."  It is not disrespect to tell the truth.
 
The workings of the Local Conditional Release Commission could be of particular interest to the local legislature if any councilmembers end up on Rikers Island — although the last member to be convicted of extortion, Victor Rodriguez, the Brooklyn delegation's candidate for Speaker of the Council in 2002, was sent to a federal prison. There is no LCRC for Club Fed. When I was a councilmember a generation ago, a larger proportion of us were indicted than were teenagers in the South Bronx. To be fair, times have changed.
 
The mayor told Dan Janison of Newsday that Russi "assured me he never met Guy Velella. He did it, he said, because of compassion. I don't happen to think it was the right decision." Earlier yesterday, the mayor said to David Saltonstall of the News: "I think there is probably not any great reason to have it today. And I would urge Albany to take a look at that when they come back into session." The LCRC was established in 1989 to deal with prison overcrowding. The population of Rikers has declined by about 40% since that time. Oddly, Velella himself was counted as having voted to abolish the panel when the issue arose in the State Senate in February. The Sun covered the matter briefly and in an anonymous squib.
 
The News weighed in on the issue in another editorial, "Shut down jail-break board." The editors wrote:

"Preposterously, Russi justified releasing Velella after three months of a year's sentence by describing him as a broken man. That Russi was so hoodwinked by Velella's whimpering meant he had to go. Now, Bloomberg's choice to head the panel, Fordham Law Prof. Daniel Richman, should throw Velella back in the can and implement a coherent process for releasing selected prisoners."

But the News also asks the "state Assembly to do the right thing, which is to put the LCRC out of its misery for good." If the LCRC is to be abolished, why should it be reconstituted to go into the business of releasing prisoners? There are 12,400 inmates on Rikers Island and this year the LCRC released only five (including The Velella Three). Assuming that just one percent of them deserve mercy, wouldn't we have to set up a whole new agency to examine their applications, not to mention hear their pleas, review what the courts have done? Don't we already have the probation department to release inmates in unique situations?
 
The mayor's choice of a qualified chair should not result in the commission morphing into a full-fledged escape route for convicted prisoners. His next three appointees should be told whether the mayor wants the commission to exist, before setting up shop as a new escape hatch for convicted prisoners dissatisfied with their sentences.

If the new commission, once appointed, wants to transact business, it should begin with the case of Senator Velella. Give proper notice, have everyone present, and review the record. Log all communications the commission has received, oral as well as written, from people who seek to influence its decision. The commission should keep firmly in mind, as Mayor Bloomberg has said, that public service requires higher standards of conduct and stricter accountability if one betrays the public trust.

The mayor is not responsible for what happened, but he will be judged on how he handles the situation. He should think carefully about what to do to maintain public trust. He is a person of high integrity; he should not allow himself to be dragged down by the weakness, incompetence or venality of those who do not completely share his commitment to the public good.