Annals of the City Council:
The Making of the Speaker

By Henry J. Stern
March 11, 2005

We have written over the years about redistricting and gerrymandering, the submission of legislators to the leadership, de facto life tenure for legislators in one-party districts, the effect of campaign contributions, lobbyists, political consultants, the facade of democracy concealing rule by special interests, the influence of public employee unions over the officials they elect, the burden of interest on an ever-expanding debt, much of it issued by public authorities which are not answerable to the public, judicial and legislative mandates to spend without any provision for funding, and other flaws in our system of government

But the circumstance that is hardest to deal with is the fact that people, perhaps particularly politicians, act in what they perceive to be their own interests, which is usually what their peer group is doing. Many legislators, in casting their votes, do not begin to analyze the consequences of their decisions on the general public.

When I was a city councilmember (1974-83), and tried to persuade some colleagues to support or oppose a particular bill, I soon realized that my efforts were useless.   Even if the colleague liked me, and a reasonable number did; on every matter, large or small, the real issue was not the merits of the legislation, but whether or not the councilmember would vote with the leadership.  Since  I had been elected on the Liberal Party line from Manhattan, and was the sole Liberal on the Council, I was not considered subject to party discipline.

During my two terms, the panjandrum of the Council was Thomas J. Cuite, the majority leader.  His style was that of the abbot of a monastery of an order whose watchword was obedience. In fact, he was irreverently referred to by some members as Mother Superior.  Cuite was chagrined by the fact that the Manhattan delegation to the Council had selected me as their representative on budget matters. "How could they do that," he asked, "he's not even a Democrat."  In the end, he attributed the selection to the lunacy that he believed pervaded councilmembers from Manhattan, the borough the least pervious to his influence, and consequently the least powerful on the Council.

When Cuite retired in 1985, a new pope had to be elected.  Traditionally, the principal power brokers in the process of selecting Council leaders were the Democratic county leaders.  Peter Vallone was the candidate of the Bronx and Queens leaders, Stanley Friedman and Donald Manes.  Manhattan, always divided, and Brooklyn supported Councilman Sam Horwitz of Coney Island.

The day of decision was January 8, 1986, when the Council pursuant to the City Charter, held its Stated Meeting.  The nose counters foresaw a narrow margin for Horwitz, but, in a complete surprise, Manhattan Councilman Robert J. Dryfoos voted for Vallone, although he had promised his colleagues that he would support Horwitz.  Vallone was selected by one vote.  This was the last political triumph for the powerful team of Friedman and Manes -- a few days later Manes made his first suicide attempt, shortly before he was enveloped in scandal.  Dryfoos later was compelled to withdraw from politics because of ethical deficits involving the use of campaign funds for personal expenses.

To be fair, Dryfoos had every right to support Vallone, who was in fact the superior candidate.  The deceit in which he engaged, lying to his colleagues, raised a question of political morality.  It was Friedman who had orchestrated Dryfoos' switch, and it was in his side's interest to keep the fact secret, in order to prevent the Horwitz forces from trying to reach a Vallone supporter to change his vote, which would have thrown the election the other way.

One could argue that Dryfoos' act was treachery of the highest order to friends he had worked with for years, or one could say he simply wanted to vote his conscience without being subject to political pressure.  Rule 30-T applies:  The truth lies somewhere in between.

There is no point in wallowing in scandal here; readers who were too young at the time of these historic events or want to learn about them can Google the names of the principals.  In making judgments about what should happen in 2005, it is useful to know what happened yesterday.

To update the principal characters, Borough President Manes committed suicide to avoid a criminal trial and likely imprisonment.  Friedman, after being convicted, returned and became a useful and valuable member of the New York business community.  Lawyer Dryfoos is still prospering as a result of his switch, which led to a lucrative post-Council lobbying practice due to Speaker Vallone's gratitude.  Now Dryfoos is a bunder of contributions to Speaker Miller in his mayoral race, but you can be certain that if Miller stumbles, Dryfoos will find another horse.

Peter Vallone turned out to be a far better speaker than his rival would likely have been.  He enhanced the power of the Council, treated people fairly, and cooperated to a reasonable extent with Mayors Koch, Dinkins and Giuliani.  In the end, the city and the Council were well served by his selection, although the people who put him in office did not enjoy similar good fortune.

For sixteen years thereafter (1986-2001), the more flexible and collegial Vallone (father of the current member) was the dominant figure in the Council.  He did not compel people to vote with him on every issue; members were allowed to 'go off the reservation' with his permission.  On a few major issues, like controversies with the mayor or tax bills, discipline was invoked, and that was not unreasonable; why should some members get away with opposing tax increases while others have to bear the political burden of supporting them?

The real decisions were never made on the Council floor, or even in a Council committee meeting.  Issues were decided at meetings in the speaker's office, and subsequent proceedings were pro forma.  No bill that came to the floor was defeated, because if the bill did not have the majority vote needed to pass, it would not have been brought to the floor.  Nonetheless, there was input from senior councilmembers.  Although the speaker made the final decision on all matters, he heard people out and tried to accommodate their needs.

To Vallone's credit, he allowed the gay rights bill, which had been blocked by Cuite for years, to come to the Council floor in 1986, where it was adopted and then signed by Mayor Koch. Vallone himself voted against it, the only time, we believe, where he was part of a minority on the Council. It is claimed that allowing a floor vote was a demand Dryfoos made before his switch, but Horwitz would have made the same commitment.  So does principle bend to politics, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.  One also observes that today's councilman from Astoria, Peter Vallone, Jr., would not seek to repeal the 1986 gay rights bill, although he is not an advocate of gay marriage.

Term limits, imposed by two referenda, terminated Vallone's leadership in 2001, when he ran for mayor and came in third in the Democratic primary.  A new speaker was needed but there was no obvious candidate. Once again, the Democratic county leaders brokered the selection.  The same Bronx-Queens alliance that prevailed in 1986, this time led by Roberto Ramirez and Jose Rivera in the Bronx and Thomas Manton in Queens, led to the selection of Gifford Miller over the Brooklyn candidate, Angel Rodriguez, who has since gone to jail for bribery. The newly chosen Majority Leader, the second highest position on the Council, went to Joel Rivera, son of Jose, who at the time was 22 years old.  This provided gravitas for Miller, who was then 32.

Once again, sixteen years later, the Bronx-Queens team picked the better man, since Rodriguez, Brooklyn leader Clarence Norman's nominee for speaker, was convicted of bribery a year later, lost his seat, and is now in federal custody. Normally, Rivera would have been expected to be sympathetic to his fellow Latino, Rodriguez, but since the latter had failed to support Fernando Ferrer the previous year,  ethnic ties had become so frayed that the Bronx went for the WASP candidate.  That saved the city the ugly spectacle of the first Latino city-wide office holder being tried, convicted, sentenced and imprisoned.

In January 2006, with Speaker Miller term-limited out and consequently running for mayor as his predecessor Vallone did, a new speaker will again be chosen.  We will watch the competition with detached fascination.

NOTE: Writing political history, such as this article, inevitably generates controversy with those who may have seen the described events in a different light.  Since this blog values full disclosure and diverse opinions, we invite those who recall these events from another perspective to write to us.  We undertake to publish your views, if not libelous or obscene.  And if you see things in roughly the same way we do, we would certainly appreciate your saying so, since often people write when impelled by differences of opinion or recollection with whatever they have read.  There is not likely to much scholarly history of these events; we hope to be helpful in providing a rough guide to the battles of yesteryear.

Reader response

---