Conflict of Interest Seen
In Council Voting Itself
Half a Million Dollars
And Four More Years,
Ignoring City Charter

By Henry J. Stern
October 14, 2008

One of the issues involved in the City Council’s attempt to override two referenda is whether the Councilmembers have a conflict of interest in voting to extend their eligibility for re-election, an action which would benefit each member financially by a sum thisclose to half a million dollars ($490.000).

The question is raised in an eight-page letter from attorney Randy Mastro, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, a nationally known law firm.  Mastro served as a Deputy Mayor in the Giuliani administration, and has been involved in public interest litigation in recent years.  In this case, he is representing Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum and City Councilmembers Bill de Blasio and Letitia James of Brooklyn.

You can link to Mastro’s letter here. It is lawyerlike but juicy. Appended to it is the text of Councilman Simcha Felder’s original bill to overturn the referenda, and a list of statements made over the years by Mayor Bloomberg asserting his favorable opinion of term limits and his plan to retire as mayor on December 31, 2009.  Although these quotations have no legal effect; everyone has the right to change his or her mind, they do make interesting reading.

The relevant section of the City Charter involved here is 2604(b)3.  It states:

“No public servant shall use or attempt to use his or her position as a public servant to obtain any financial gain, contract, license, privilege or other private or personal advantage, direct or indirect, for the public servant or any person or firm associated with the public servant.”  Mastro then argues: “Surely Council members 'obtain' a 'private or personal advantage' when they 'use' their positions to vote themselves by legislation the opportunity to serve a third term.”

Today Mr. Mastro fired off another letter to the Conflicts of Interest Board.  You can link to the October 14 letter here. It is shorter and quite specific. Read it if you are interested in the gritty detail of the charges.

The gravamen of the letter is found in these three sentences:

“Late last week, the proposed legislation was amended to make it clear that it shall become effective immediately but 'shall be deemed repealed upon the effective date of a lawful and valid proposal to amend the charter to set term limits at two, rather than three, full consecutive terms, as such limits were in force and effect prior to the enactment of this local law.'

“The amended legislation, in other words, first gives current incumbents, including Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council, an immediate opportunity for an additional term in office and then explicitly anticipates reversal by the voters immediately thereafter so that successors to those positions will be limited to the two-term limit currently in effect.

“Such statutory language would be inexplicable, were it not for the widely-reported deal between Mayor Bloomberg and term limits proponent Ronald Lauder that Mr. Lauder would not oppose a one-time – and one-time only, change to the term limits law.”

The letter continues to detail the alleged transactions, as reported in the press.  Council Speaker Christine Quinn has been accused of being the linchpin in these political arrangements, allegedly having been promised a position as Deputy Mayor if her fifty colleagues on the Council do not reelect her as Speaker in 2010. 

It has also been reported in the media that the mayor has promised to support her as his successor in 2013.  Of course, we weren’t there, so we don't know whether that is so; it is more likely that the commitment, if any, was implicit rather than explicit.  On the other hand, the mayor once supported her for the mayoralty in 2009, so it should be crystal clear that her interests are distinctly secondary, if not tertiary, to his.  Her services were useful in securing Council passage of the self-serving extension bill which purports to overturn the twice-expressed wishes of the voters. She has 14 more months to serve as Speaker, unless a Council majority removes her, which is highly unlikely, no matter how they grouse privately.

It is likely she will be offered a position in government or in a certain foundation.  During her four years as Speaker, she has often represented the interests of the mayor when they differed from those of the councilmembers who elected her Speaker. Actually, that was a good thing, since the mayor’s interests are generally more reasonable and less parochial than the wishes of individual councilmembers. 

Ms. Quinn’s predecessor as Speaker, Gifford Miller, opposed the mayor at almost every turn, in part because he was a mayoral candidate himself.  The difference was that in 2005 Mayor Bloomberg was eligible for a second term, to which he was easily re-elected with wide public support. Mr. Miller was widely told to run for the open spot of Manhattan Borough President, but he impaled himself on the mayoral lance.

Under existing law, the Mayor is not eligible to serve a third consecutive term.  His solution: induce the City Council to change the Charter.  As a reward, their own eligibility will be extended. Ms. Quinn will have to wait four years, or more, to fulfill her mayoral ambitions, but she is only 42 years old and, God willing, has plenty of time to help others and promote herself, which is a necessity in the business we have chosen, (See Rule 29-B).

Citizens Union, Common Cause and NYPIRG (New York Public Interest Research Group) will hold a forum on term limits this evening at Baruch College.  We will be there, and report to you tomorrow on the proceedings. 

If you feel we are giving undue attention to this subject, you should know that we believe that this is the greatest assault on democracy (which means rule by the people) that we have ever seen in city government.  The attack is not being made by radicals, anarchists or other extremists, but by a cabal of the richest and most powerful men in New York, aided and abetted by those who live on their leavings and desire their favor. They include City Councilmembers desperate to avoid unemployment or honest labor, highly unlikely to earn the $122,500 the city pays them (including lulus) without any restriction on their private business or other income.

The situation is complicated by the fact that Mayor Bloomberg has really been an admirable and benevolent emperor for the last seven years. Many of his vassals are first-rate. His commissioners have relative autonomy, and his administration has been scandal free except for the usual low-level thieves protected by the law, their unions and civil service.

The issue to us that New York, a proud city in a free country, should be a democracy, not a banana republic where the expressed will of the people counts for naught when it conflicts with the self-serving desires of the oligarchs and the nomenklatura.

#505 10.14.2008 1138wds