Henry J. Stern
July 10, 2007

Friday we described the Bruno-Spitzer war of words and threats in a column titled, "Tough Talk at the Albany Corral."  Four days later, the quarrel has escalated.  The welter of charges and counter-charges over the misuse of state planes and state troopers, and who blew the whistle on whom, has become redundant, and the public, which usually enjoys a good fight, is losing interest. Meanwhile, State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo was asked by both sides to look into different aspects of the controversy.  Cuomo has put his government watchdog, Ellen Nachtigall Biben, Special Deputy Attorney General for Public Integrity, on the case.

 Meanwhile, in today's News, Bill Hammond takes his scalpel, or hatchet, to Senator Bruno in his column on p25: NOW PLAYING IN ALBANY, JOE BRUNO'S LAST STAND.  Our response to the column is that even if it is all true, the scoundrel should still be treated with dignity.  It was Winston Churchill who said, with regard to diplomatic courtesies to Germany and Japan, "When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite."
 
 The Cuomo investigation means that both the Governor and the Senate Leader will be subject to whatever findings the Attorney General and his staff make after they examine whatever evidence there is and hear the testimony of all the parties.  The findings are unlikely to be positive, although it is possible to conclude that charges were unproven.  The whole matter is an embarrassment to State government, and the impending Cuomo inquiry is likely to prolong the discomfort of the parties and the witnesses.

 The Attorney General has no reason to exert exceptional kindness to anyone who is above him on the political food chain.  The parties may in the end get more justice than they wanted.  Although they may deserve the scrutiny they will receive, it will surely distract from whatever other state business they might have been able to transact.  And don't forget Scooter Libby's recent experience, if there is no other crime you committed, even if there was no underlying crime by anyone, you can be indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice if someone says you lied, or got the facts wrong. .  No ambitious prosecutor likes to go home empty handed - the Governor knows that from his experience as Attorney General. .  The lesson for both complainants:  Don't call the cops unless you must.  A day's press release can mean a year's aggravation.
 
When squabbles are prolonged and innocents are dragged in, the attitude of bystanders (in this case the general public) can sometimes be expressed by the well-known imprecation,  "A plague on both your houses," first uttered by the dying Mercutio, a victim of swordplay in Romeo and Juliet (first quarto ed., 1597).
 
In 20th century public affairs, the Shakespearean phrase was quoted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to express his, and the American public's disapproval of both the coal mine operators and the United Mine Workers at the time of a bitter strike in 1937   The response to FDR by John L. Lewis, the union president, is remembered for its eloquence: "It ill behooves one who has supped at labor's table and who has been sheltered in labor's house to curse with equal fervor and fine impartiality both labor and its adversaries when they become locked in deadly embrace."
 
In 2007, politicians and labor leaders do not write or speak with the grace of their predecessors. As you have doubtless read, some express their sentiments with threats and obscenities. Today, for example, the New York Times, on pB8, refers to Viola Plummer, (whose name alone suggests Valerie Plame, another embattled public servant).  The Times refers to Ms. Plummer's remark May 30 calling for the "assassination" of a Councilmember.  Actually, Ms. Plummer said: "If it takes assassination of his ass, he will not be [borough president of Queens]”.  The Times today omitted the vulgarism 'ass', a word which makes the threat more tasteless but a tad less serious.  Of course, such language is unacceptable, particularly from a public servant.  What may be more actionable is Ms. Plummer's behavior at the City Council meeting, as reported in an editorial in the June 30 Daily News: "Plummer, seated with other staff, repeatedly screamed ‘Cracker!’ and ‘Liar!’ at members as they voted down the renaming, and she ignored the presiding officer's calls for order."
 
The Post covers the story today on p8, FIRED VIOLA HOPES FOR LAST LAUGH.  There is a three-column picture of Ms. Plummer, with her mouth opened wide as humanly possible.  The subhead is QUINN BOOTS 'ASSASSIN' AIDE.   The lede, by Frankie Edozien, "City Council Speaker Christine Quinn yesterday fired a top aide to Councilman Charles Barron for refusing to agree to behave better during legislative meetings.
 
Ms. Plummer, 70, chief of staff to Councilmember Barron, was one of seven black radicals who were acquitted in 1985 in a federal trial in Manhattan of plotting robberies and jailbreaks, but convicted on lesser charges of possessing illegal weapons and using false identifications. The verdicts appear to be a compromise reached by the jury.  Why would she collect weapons and false IDs unless she intended to use them?  Her future as a City Council employee is now in the hands of Federal Judge William H. Pauley III,  who has so far refused to interfere with her suspension, but made clear she has First Amendment rights in speech not connected with her employment.
 
I was a City Councilmember for nine years (1974-83).  If anyone on my staff had screamed insults at any Councilmember during a meeting or at any other time, that person would not have been given an opportunity to apologize or attend anger management classes. He or she would have been told at once to seek less demanding employment.
 
But how is Viola Plummer's conduct different from that of high state officials?  For one thing, they are elected and she is appointed, and elected officials have more latitude in speech.  They are answerable to the voters alone, unless they are convicted of felonies.   Another difference is that the elected officials'  threats of doing physical harm to other are obviously middle-age breast-beating.  There is no Aaron Burr in Albany today, and certainly no Alexander Hamilton.
 
However, in view of the actual assassination of the late Councilman James E. Davis in July 2003, in the balcony of the Council chamber by a political rival, the city legislature is understandably skittish about the word and the prospect of a similar crime.  Although Ms. Plummer is highly unlikely to commit the act, her words may inflame others to carry out the threat, a la Salman Rushdie.  Can her threatening words be considered a fatwa?
 
There is a current English saying. "Never mention rope in the home of one who has been hanged."  It has been traced back to John Minsheu, an early lexicographer, who wrote in 1599: "A man ought not to make mention of a halter in the house of a man that was hanged."  Minsheu published Spanish dictionaries for speakers of  English, recognizing the usefulness of bilingualism just a short while (historically) after the Spanish Armada sailed against England in 1588.
 
Back to the Empire State:  The major food fight is before the State Attorney General, and the sideshow verbal abuse case is before the Federal court in the Southern District of New York.  I did not believe that Speaker Quinn would take action against Ms. Plummer, on the ground that pursuing her for her threats would give her and Councilman Barron more public attention than they deserved  But by taking the careful legal path that she has followed, Ms. Quinn has tried to maintain the dignity and integrity of the city legislature, and its members’ right not to be threatened or abused by Council staff as they cast their votes in the Council Chamber..

We cannot predict whether Ms. Quinn’s effort will succeed in view of today's low levels of civil discourse, and double standards of permissible attack, or what now constitutes 'fighting words', but Ms. Quinn deserves credit for defending Councilmembers from intimidation, and for standing up for the rule of law.


#392  7.010.07  1355wds