Normally, City Comptroller Bill Thompson's press releases are unexceptional.  He makes awards to various citizen groups, produces worthwhile suggestions to agencies, and calmly comments on the city's financial condition.
 
Today we saw a change of pace.  After an audit, his office was highly critical of the Carlton House Shelter in South Ozone Park, Queens, operated for the Department of Homeless Services by the Salvation Army, of all people.  "In every unit we checked, we found horrible conditions: roach infestation, water damaged walls and ceilings, peeling paint, stained and frayed carpets, leaking sinks and bathtub faucets, damaged appliances, and broken cabinets and doors.  And residents complained of roaches, mice and bedbug infestations. People should not have been living in these conditions."   The Comptroller said his agency's report was prompted by "concerns raised by Congressman Gregory W. Meeks of the deplorable conditions at Carlton House".
 
The Salvation Army responded, through Clifford Marshall, its communications director, that Carlton House was one of the most difficult challenges the agency had undertaken. The city, under fire from the courts in 2002, was directed to find additional emergency space.  Carlton House, formerly a bankrupt motel, was rented. It had 335 units, making it far larger than most shelters.  Substantial repairs were made, even as the property deteriorated.  All the resident families have transitioned to long-term housing, and the last families left on September 30, 2005, when the facility closed.
 
We assume that most of the Comptroller's findings were correct, at least to some extent, (Rule 5 - Where there's smoke, there's fire).  It was therefore fortunate that the shelter was closed because it was redundant (fewer homeless families).  But was Carlton House (ironically named to suggest the Ritz-Carlton) as bad as the report indicates, or is the Comptroller gearing up for 2009, when one of the negatives in his mayoral race may be that he is too nice to be mayor?  The Salvation Army is a more vulnerable target than the Roman Catholic Church or the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies.  How many Salvationists, after all, are there in the City of New York?  How many other groups operate shelters for the city?
 
One is left to wonder whether the shortcomings of this institution justified the Spitzerian assault.  (That is no criticism of Spitzer, who has done some remarkably good work in raising the standards of financial ethics through instilling fear in the scoundrels whom he torments.)  Nonetheless, it is a bit startling to see Thompson morphing into a more aggressive figure.  As long as the public wants its leaders to be tough, aspirants will have to act like alpha males, whether in their hearts they are lions or lambs.
 

 
You can reference many valuable articles on the issue of budget reform by joining Budget Reform New York.  This site is prepared by Jo Brill, director of state studies at the Citizens Budget Commission.
 
To get today's compilation of articles and editorials on the budget, plus a speech by Speaker Silver delivered Tuesday at New York Law School, click here.  We heard the Speaker's remarks in person.  He was quite supportive of the CFE lawsuit and other state programs, including Medicaid.  He hinted that he would support some rules changes.  He did not, however, suggest any revenue measures to help pay for the expenditures he advocated.
 
Silver spoke strongly, and showed in his manner and in his remarks some of the leadership qualities which have kept him at the top of the heap of Albany Democrats since 1994.  No legislators have proposed real solutions to the fiscal problems facing the State.  In fact, few if any substantive disagreements with the Speaker have been publicly expressed.  It is highly unlikely that any of our lifetime legislators will stick their necks out and jeopardize their own places in the power structure, humble as their situations may be.  "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings."



Remember Guy Velella?  He was the Republican state senator from the northeast Bronx and Westchester who pleaded guilty to charges involving payments made by contractors to secure work from the state.  He was sentenced to a year at Riker's Island, with one-third off for good behavior.
 
After he arrived at the Island, he found conditions not to his liking, and initiated proceedings before the Local Conditional Release Commission (a body which the State Legislature recently allowed to die, possibly because of its bungling this case).  Velella and two buddies were released early.  When discovered, this set off a media storm since the negotiated sentence was already regarded as light.  You can get the details of the controversy over his release by going to our home page and googling Guy Velella.
 
Now he is involved in a legal struggle with the Bronx Republican Committee, which he formerly headed.  Jay Savino, son of a former Republican Councilman at Large, is the new chairman.   The issue, of course, is money, who is entitled to the funds collected for Velella, much of which went for his legal defense.  The money was deposited in the bank account of a political committee.  Newsday 's Dan Janison reports on the matter today, as he did Wednesday, November 23.



The hapless City Council plans to extend its members' terms of office, allowing all those who would have to depart in 2009 because they had served two full terms to remain in office until December 2013.  The irony of the situation is that most of these members were elected in 2001, and only won their seats because term limits came into effect that year, and forced out the great majority of sitting members.
 
It is a complete mockery that these people, who are the principal beneficiaries of the term limits which were applied to others after two referenda on the subject, now seek to amend the law in their own interest, so that they can squeeze an extra four years' emoluments from the city. At $100,000 per year, their public salaries generally exceed their earning capacity in the private sector.  Of course, the law allows them to work in the private sector anyway while they are Councilmembers, and many of those who can, do.
 
Michael Goodwin writes forcefully on the subject in Sunday's Daily News.  Under the headline, "POLS' UNLIMITED GALL: In Council, they're trying to override voters & create jobs for life."  Goodwin blisters the self-serving legislators who have forgotten how they got their sinecures in the first place.  "The whole thing has piggy-piggy smell," he writes. "Of the 51 current members, seven are being forced out by term limits and one (Eva Moskowitz) sought another office.  Of the remaining 43, 42 (all but Allan Jennings, who had issues) were re-elected.  Most had no serious opponent."   
 
Nevertheless, we add, many of them collected 4 to 1 matching funds from the Campaign Finance Board, so we paid the cost of their self-promotion.  Some honest souls declined the unnecessary gelt, and we will give you their names next time.



The Monday we get back to work is a good time to correct certain errors which we made over the past weeks.  First, the vote Staten Islanders took in 1993 was on secession, which the Southern states tried around 1860.  The word is not 'succession' as we know perfectly well and we think you do too.  BTW, Staten Islanders voted 4-1 to secede, but the State Legislature thankfully refused their plea.  If they had been allowed to secede, Mayor Mark Green might have been re-elected this month.
 
Second, Robert F. Wagner was not the last mayor to vacate City Hall voluntarily.  It was John V. Lindsay, a Republican who became a Democrat during his second term so he could compete in the 1972 Democratic presidential primaries.  He did not seek re-election in 1973.  Reader Sid Davidoff was the first to call this error to our attention.
 
I now see the problem the New York Times has with corrections.  On one hand, you want to straighten out the record, especially if your error has injured anyone.  On the other, the correction calls the matter to the attention of many more people than noticed the original article or the mistake in it.   Our conclusion: when you make a mistake, admit it.   Following that rule would have saved many public officials, among others, a great deal of trouble and expense.