The Growing, Corruptive Role of Money and Lobbyists In NYC Politics Contravenes Progressive Values

• RELATED : Melissa Mark-Viverito Lobbyist Firm Never Quit, Continued Lobbying Despite Investigations (NYC : News & Analsyis)
• RELATED : Proposed NYS public matching dollars at risk of being gamed, just like with ''model'' NYC campaign finance system (NYC : News & Analsyis)

The lobbyists, big businesses, and special interests that game the broken political system do not want reforms of campaign finance law.

The 2013 municipal elections in New York City were the first time that Citizens United brought the corruptive use of Super PAC money into local elections here, and the top lobbying firms, which double as campaign consultants, used the scourge of independent expenditures as a backdoor to funnel millions of dollars through Super PAC's. This corruptive use of money has never been fully investigated, excepting for a series of articles in Crain's about the shady double-dipping by one lobbying firm, The Advance Group. (Scott Levenson NY-CLASS ABQ WFP Timeline to Benefit Bill de Blasio ?) The serious questions into The Advance group's shady dealings will go uninvestigated, because the city's Campaign Finance Board now answers to the mayor and the Council speaker, who have close ties to The Advance Group. The shady embrace of Super PAC's in New York City politics is joined in murky darkness by the shameless role of lobbyists in determining leadership posts in the new de Blasio-Mark-Viverito administration.

NYC Council Speaker Race Campaign Finance Controversies (2013)

The corruptive role of money and lobbyists continues to erode away at transparency and democracy in New York City municipal politics, or whatever is left of it.

• RELATED : Were possible coordination of independent expenditures and free gifts of lobbying services between The Advance Group, NYCLASS, the de Blasio mayoral campaign, and Councilmember Mark-Viverito's speakership race violations of federal laws ? Will the Moreland Commission investigate possible campaign corruption ? (The Advance Group Federal Complaint Referred To Moreland Commission * NYC : News & Analysis)
• RELATED : Escalating Corruptive Influence of Money in NYC Politics, But No Public Advocacy (Updated)

New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito raised more than $100,000 after her election, and spent nearly $80,000 on consultants and donations to other political groups in her bid to become Speaker. (Mark-Viverito spent big on speaker race * Crain’s) One of the city’s biggest lobbyists, Vito Pitta, quietly assisted Ms. Mark-Viverito in her campaign for City Council speaker -- putting him in a prime position with his clients now that she has been selected. (Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito Got Help From Top Lobbying Firm * The New York Daily News)

Prior to the backroom deals that selected Melisa Mark-Viverito as the new Council speaker, she had accepted unpaid assistance from The Advance Group, a prominent lobbying firm headed by Scott Levenson, the news Web site Politicker reported. (The Advance Group Helping Melissa Mark-Viverito in Speaker’s Race * Politicker) After controversy erupted over Ms. Mark-Viverito's receipt of unpaid assistance from The Advance Group (City Council Speaker candidate Melissa Mark-Viverito may have violated city ethics rules * The New York Daily News), Ms. Mark-Viverito deceptively announced that she fired the The Advance Group. (Melissa Mark-Viverito Drops Advance Group for Speaker Bid * Politicker) However, Jonathan Yedin, an operative with The Advance Group, has been working in Brooklyn Democratic Party politics for more than a decade and belongs to Frank Seddio’s political club. Mr. Yedin was a crucial player in brokering the backroom deal with Mr. Seddio to give Ms. Mark-Viverito the win in her bid to become the next Council speaker, sources said. (Inside Melissa Mark-Viverito’s Road to Victory * Politicker) But The Advance Group was never paid for their work, according to New York State Board of Elections campaign finance disclosure records, raising the specter anew that Ms. Mark-Viverito was in violation of prohibitions on publicly-elected officials from accepting a “valuable gift” from a firm that intends to do business with the city, according to an analysis by The New York Daily News of the City Charter regulations, which include prohibitions on lobbyists from giving valuable gifts to publicly-elected officials.

"Under city election rules, Ms. Mark-Viverito was not allowed to spend money from her 2013 campaign account for the speaker race. She was also not allowed to spend money from a 'transition committee' meant to pay only for inauguration activities. And she was likewise not allowed to yet set up a new 2017 campaign committee with the city Campaign Finance Board. ¶ Instead, on Nov. 5, she set up a 2017 campaign committee for an as-to-be-determined city office, according to the state Board of Elections, and then spent on the speaker race," reported Crain's.

When will good government groups and the media finally admit that the impotent New York City Campaign Finance Board turns it head away from the way campaign consultants and lobbyists have made Swiss cheese of campaign finance regulations ?

Broken political system doesn't want do-nothing @NYCCFB to keep up with role of money/lobbyists/Super PACs in elections. @ChrisBragg1

— Louis Flores (@maslowsneeds) January 16, 2014

To add insult to injury, several lobbyists, who helped Ms. Mark-Viverito in her successful bid to become Council Speaker, are now aiding her in deciding committee assignments and who the Council should hire. (Lobbyists aid Mark-Viverito transition * Crain's)

Alison Hirsh, the political director of the building service workers union 32BJ, Brooklyn Councilman Brad Lander, the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, and Jon Del Giorno, a founding member of the lobbying firm Pitta Bishop Del Giorno and Giblin, are exerting behind-the-scenes influence in backroom meetings to determine the makeup of the Council leadership positions that will report to Speaker Mark-Viverito. Left unmentioned was Scott Levenson, whose lobbying firm, The Advance Group, kept working behind-the-scenes for Ms. Mark-Viverito, in spite of some press reports that his firm had been fired. A controversial political operative, Mr. Levenson gave contradictory statements to the press last year about his campaign consulting work to defeat LGBT political candidates.

Mayor Bill de Blasio established the political culture of allowing lobbyists to have a say in how the municipal government would work since his election. Mayor de Blasio named "Carl Weisbrod, a registered lobbyist, as co-chair of the mayor's transition committee," Crain's reported.

The role of lobbyists, big business, and special interests will likely continue unchecked by good government groups, co-opted reformers, and the lazy media when Mayor de Blasio and several of his top administration officials are expected to attend the Real Estate Board of New York’s annual gala. (Mayor de Blasio to party with real estate * Crain's)

"In addition to the mayor, Police Commissioner William Bratton is expected to attend, along with other top de Blasio appointees, including Tony Shorris, de Blasio's first deputy mayor; Emma Wolf, the director of intergovernmental affairs; and Alicia Glen, the deputy mayor for housing and economic development. Kyle Kimball, president of the Economic Development Corp., who Mr. de Blasio recently renamed to that position, is also likely to be at the event, sources said. U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer will likely attend as well," Crain's reported.

Letters to U.S. Senators, requesting assistance in Lt. Daniel Choi's FOIA Request

Today, I sent a letter to Senators John Cornyn and Al Franken regarding their investigation into the conduct of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the government's aggressive prosecution of the late Internet activist, Aaron Swartz. I mentioned the pending Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that is pending in the government's vindictive prosecution case against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal hero, Lt. Daniel Choi. I asked the Hon. Senators if there was a way that we could work together on these matters.

2014-01-15 Lt Daniel Choi FOIA Request - Senator John Cornyn - Al Franken (Fax and Confirmation)

Separately, I sent another letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, asking him for his support on these matters.

2014-01-15 Lt Daniel Choi FOIA Request - Senator Harry Reid (Fax and Confirmation)

If I receive any responses, I'll provide another update.

Daily News Editorial Calls For End of Speaker Mark-Viverito's Slush Fund

Even though many politicians have been arrested and gone to jail for fraud, bribes, and other federal corruption charges, Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito still wants to keep the practise of doling out slush funds.

The Editorial Board of The New York Daily News has pressed Mayor Bill de Blasio to use "his mayoral powers to abolish the Council practice of dividing up some $400 million annually in so-called member items. He has the authority. He must use it, simply to be true to his word," adding that Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito has no intention of closing down the slush fund, "No surprise, Quinn, and now Mark-Viverito, love the power that comes with dispensing member items."

Mayor de Blasio already kicked sand in the eyes of the Editorial Board of The Daily News over his support of Ms. Mark-Viverito's scandal-plagued speakership campaign.

Will he dare defy The Daily News on the lingering slush fund scandal ?

NYTimes Public Editor to People of Color : Drop Dead

Request to discuss concerns about the Bratton appointment to head the NYPD is denied.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: nytimes, public
Date: Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: Bill de Blasio // How’s He Doing ?
To: Louis Flores

Dear Mr. Flores,

Thanks so much for taking the time to write. While we very much appreciate your concern, and are keeping a close eye on early coverage of Mr. De Blasio's days at the helm, the volume of requests of this nature that we receive is simply too great for the public editor to honor each one. Given the seriousness of the issues that you bring up, there is certainly a possibility that they could help illuminate themes and issues that may well make a good subject for a future column. Thanks again for writing, and for caring about what's published in The Times. Feedback from readers like yourself is essential and I'll keep your email in mind when reading evaluations of Mr. De Blasio's tenure.

Best,
Jonah Bromwich
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Louis Flores
Date: Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:07 PM
Subject: Bill de Blasio // How’s He Doing ?
To: public@nytimes.com

Dear Ms. Sullivan :

On the Web site today, The New York Times gave a brief assessment of Mayor de Blasio's administration, thus far :

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/new-york-today-hows-he-doing/

• Over all, Mr. Grynbaum said, things have gone relatively smoothly for the mayor – “with the notable exception of his pizza faux pas on Friday.” (Mr. de Blasio’s regular-guy image took a global hit when he ate pizza with a fork.)

How can this be a fair assessment ? Many activists have issues with the new mayor, not the least of which center around the appointment of William Bratton as NYPD commissioner ?

(I have my own serious questions regarding campaign finance and the role of lobbyists in the campaigns and transition, but I'm contacting you on behalf of some of my activist friends, who are more focused on police reform.)

Some of my activism friends have issues with the fact that their concerns are not being fairly represented in The NYTimes. Is it possible to have a phone call or to Skype with you, so we can share some of these concerns ?

In the past, I've protested outside The NYTimes when we thought there was a media bias in the paper. But this time now, I (personally) would like to see if we can have a more productive relationship if we started out with a discussion.

Please let me know if we could speak. If you agree, I'd like to invite a couple of activist friends to participate on my end, so that you can hear directly for the people.

Thank you kindly for your consideration.

Best regards,
-- Louis

Louis Flores
1 (646) 400-1168
lflores22@gmail.com

Escalating Corruptive Influence of Money in NYC Politics, But No Public Advocacy (Updated)

On the same day when Bronx Assemblyman Eric Stevenson was convicted on federal corruption charges of trading his office for money come new reports that public officials flout campaign finance and ethics regulations. The question everybody keeps asking : where are the good government groups and the public advocate ?

• RELATED : Bill de Blasio, New York Liberals, and the Veal Pen

Common Cause/NY, a "good government" group dedicated to fighting the "excessive influence of money on government policy and elections" is silent on the campaign finance questions engulfing Mayor Bill de Blasio, Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, and Councilmember Margaret Chin

Susan Lerner, who heads Common Cause/NY, has been missing in action (MIA) as the press increasingly report serious questions about the political fundraising and electioneering payments in the recent past municipal election cycle.

Some of Mayor de Blasio's campaign contributors exploited loopholes, allowing them to make donations that were double or triple the legal limit, The New York Daily News reported. Last week, muckraking reporter Jill Colvin of Politicker reported that many of Mayor de Blasio's transition campaign donors have business before the city, creating a potential conflict of interest.

During her controversial post-election campaigning for the Council speakership, Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito openly flouted campaign finance and city ethics regulations. Indeed, her primary speakership campaign consulting firm, The Advance Group, had triggered its own campaign finance investigation. Further, both the mayor and the Council speaker both benefitted from their relationship to Scott Levenson, the head of The Advance Group, even though he was tied to fundraising controversy when he administered a $1 million Super PAC. Left unexplained is how Speaker Mark-Viverito, a leader of the Council's Progressive Caucus, can reconcile her close association with The Advance Group in spite of its scandalous anti-LGBT campaign work.

Another member of the Progressive Caucus is Councilmember Margaret Chin, who exploited campaign finance laws to pay some campaign workers bonuses in contravention to regulations.

Though all these, and other violations of campaign finance and city ethics regulations are playing out publicly in the press, not once has Ms. Lerner challenged the new city officials.

Public Advocate Tish James, who is a publicly-elected government watchdog, is also eerily silent, even though she promised to hold the de Blasio administration accountable to ethics.

Joining Ms. Lerner in MIA status is the city's public advocate, Tish James. Both share similar motivations to bring transparency and accountability to government, but both are asleep at the switch.

We most recently heard from Ms. Lerner, when she was opposing Speaker Mark-Viverito's challenger, Councilmember Daniel Garodnick. Perhaps Ms. Lerner only plays favorites ?

As for the new public advocate, at a debate last September she said that although she supported Mayor de Blasio, she would remain an independent watchdog. But what explains why Ms. James has been silent on all these campaign finance and ethics violations ?

The problem of the outsized influence of money and lobbyists in politics is, of course, larger than just the corruption it introduces into municipal elections. The corruptive influence of money has been shown to exist on the state level with Assemblyman Stevenson's conviction, and on the federal level, too, with, for example, the arrest of Diana Durand on election fraud charges for "using straw donors to exceed campaign contribution limits" to Rep. Michael Grimm’s 2010 campaign, The New York Post reported.

The questionable role of an Obama administration official, leading to a complaint of ethics violations.

Patrick Gaspard, the United States Ambassador to South Africa, allegedly violated federal law, according to a report in The New York Post. The law forbids government workers from "engaging in partisan activity by promoting pal Bill de Blasio’s mayoral campaign, an ethics complaint claims," The NYPost reported, adding, "The complaint, filed by Republican activist O’Brien Murray, cited media reports that Gaspard, President Obama’s former political director, helped pull strings from South Africa to aid de Blasio’s campaign." The report also includes references to actions taken by Mr. Gaspard to electioneer the successful speakership campaign of Mayor de Blasio's chief Council ally, Ms. Mark-Viverito. See, also, Patrick Gaspard, ambassador to South Africa, helped de Blasio campaign: Joe Lhota aide : Republican operative O’Brien Murray complains that the envoy violated the Hatch Act, a 1939 law that bans most government officials from partisan political activity (The New York Daily News)

The complaint against Mr. Gaspard will be reviewed by federal authorites. "Complaints about possible violations of the Hatch Act are handled by the federal Office of Special Counsel," The New York Daily News reported. It's uncertain how truly independent the Office of Special Counsel will be in reviewing allegations of wrongdoing against Mr. Gaspard, who is the former White House political director. Locally, the complaints about violations of municipal campaign finance and ethics violations may prove to invoke conflicts of interests. A major concern raised about the illicit campaign finance activities of Mayor de Blasio, Speaker Mark-Viverito, and Councilmember Chin is that the mayor and the speaker both oversee the Campaign Finance Board, the municipal body responsible for investigating allegations of campaign corruption. Separately, the mayor himself oversees the Department of Investigation, the city agency that would investigate allegations of ethics violations. The Conflicts of Interests Board also answers to the mayor. The way the government is set up, there is no way for city officials to hold the mayor, the Council speaker, and other councilmembers accountable if good government groups and the public advocate abdicate their government watchdog role, which appears to be what they have already decided to do.

That only leaves the press and possibly federal corruption prosecutors to keep City Hall and City Council accountable.

François Hollande Only Has Himself To Blame For Not Having A Private Life

What Private Life ? François Hollande, the N.S.A., and Article 13.

The magazine, Closer, reported last week that the French president, François Hollande, in having an affair with the access, Julie Gayet. The fallout provoked by the revelations have been instantly scandalous for two reasons.

First, the French president is normally accorded a large zone of privacy. In the past, other presidents have had lovers, and even fathered children out of wedlock, but the press never reported these truths.

Second, François Hollande reacted in anger. He demanded that the press respect his personal zone of privacy. But the president is a hypocrite, because the French national government just enacted a controversial new law, Article 13, that allows the Ministry of Economy and Finances to spy on French citizens. When the French president says that he has a private life, I want to know, "What private life ?" The president only has himself to blame for not having a private life. Here's how : He's done nothing to stop the N.S.A. spy program or the passage of Article 13.

Ordinairily, France has privacy laws that should be respected, but the United States violates these laws as a consequence of its N.S.A. spy program, and France itself collaborates with the N.S.A., in violation of its own laws.

If the president wants that his private life be respected anew, then he should be fighting on behalf of everybody to have a private life. If the president does nothing on others' behalf, how soon before the good French people should expect that the Ministry of Economy and Finances, given their new spy powers, will disclose "selfies" of the president ?

Daniel Garodnick concedes ; Melissa Mark-Viverito Expected To Become Council Speaker

Or else, @BilldeBlasio offered sooooooo many perks and privileges that @DanGarodnick couldn't match ? @MichaelHwrdSaul

— Informed Voting (@informedvoting) January 8, 2014

• RELATED : Were possible coordination of independent expenditures and free gifts of lobbying services between The Advance Group, NYCLASS, the de Blasio mayoral campaign, and Councilmember Mark-Viverito's speakership race violations of federal laws ? Will the Moreland Commission investigate possible campaign corruption ? (The Advance Group Federal Complaint Referred To Moreland Commission * NYC : News & Analysis)

The not-so “different realities” between de Blasio-Mark-Viverito and Bloomberg-Quinn in Council speaker race

Read more : On Eve of Speaker Vote, de Blasio Evasive On Mark-Viverito and Quinn Comparison (City & State)

Do private Council speaker lobbying meetings violate open meetings law ?

Do private mtgs. between Bill de Blasio and Bronx @NYCCouncil delegation violate open meetings law ? http://t.co/Fy2AgzNpG7 @AGSchneiderman

— Stop Christine Quinn (@stopchrisquinn) January 7, 2014

In a Council speaker race already beset by campaign finance violations and issues of possible ethics violations, now comes word that the mayor planned and scheduled private lobbying meetings between publicly-elected officials with neither any notice for the public to witness or participate nor any full recording of the official business transacted during these meetings for the public to be able to examine.

Do private council speaker lobbying meetings violate the open meetings law of New York State ?

The Losing New York City Council Speaker Candidate Is Less Corrupt Than The Winner

The Losing Council Speaker Candidate #constantcontact http://t.co/tmpGyWojvJ

— Louis Flores (@maslowsneeds) January 7, 2014

About 36 hours remain before the next class of New York City Councilmembers file into City Hall to vote for the next Council speaker. Supporters for both candidates are freaking out. I just got flamed on Facebook by an animal rights activist. I get it. People want their candidate to win ; consequently, they mistakenly think that by attacking me they will help their candidate win -- as if I have that much influence, as if I ever did ? I just want to point out that I'm in this for reform. It doesn't matter who wins anymore, it never did. The Council speaker race is all about how desperate the candidates can get to out broker the sleaziest backroom deals to win. The political coverage so far in this year's speaker race has exceeded the scrutiny former Council Speaker Christine Quinn got in 2005. By that measurement, we've already won, because some of the true extent of backroom dealing has been described by a couple of bloggers and a handful of mainstream media reporters. Meanwhile, some activists still contact me with questions about where the corruption exists ? After a series of YouTube videos, blog postings, links to other blogs and other news reports, tweets, and newsletters, all this information is available on Google. Now, let's see which Council speaker candidate dares to go for bust. Word is that every corrupt favour is being called in from every political hack in town. The fight has stopped being one to win, but a race to the bottom, because, technically, the winner only wins after putting together the most corrupt backroom deals to round up support. The winner readily risks flouting campaign finance laws and ethics regulations. If the desperation to win reaches new highs, let's hope that whatever remaining scrutiny on the Council speaker race will report that escalated corruption. Only in the Council speaker race will the candidate that comes in second actually be the one that is less corrupt than the winner.

New Yorkers Continue To Be Deceived About Council Speaker Race

The NYTimes reports that the Council speaker race gets decided in "back rooms," but fails to report the back room deals.

After having been shut down last week-end, The NYTimes City Hall reporter Kate Taylor describes the Council speaker race with this one truth : the speakership "tends to be decided in back rooms." It's the process that is corrupt, and The NYTimes stops short of describing what back room deals are taking place, and that should be cause enough to once again sound the loud alarum bell to announce to the people the approach of corruption, but sadly the people have no say in the Council speaker race. Until the people demand a say, no alarum bell will ever be loud enough to drown out the backroom dealings. It doesn't matter who becomes speaker, because the winner can only win after brokering back room deals that only serve the winner. And the biggest loser in all this is not the speaker candidate who fails, but the public, who gets shut out of having any say -- and who gets deceived by media, like The NYTimes, who fail to report the true extent of the back room dealings.

Sam Roberts Stops City Hall Reporter Kate Taylor From Fully Discussing Council Speaker Backroom Deals

This Week In Self-Censoring, Corporate Newspaper Editors

On this week-end's edition of The New York Times Close-Up on NY1, the editor Sam Roberts asked City Hall reporter Kate Taylor to give a report back on the Council speaker race. Mr. Roberts only tolerated the most brief of report backs ever provided in the show's history. The instant that Ms. Taylor reported that leading Council speaker candidate Melissa Mark-Viverito may not have the votes needed to win the speakership, Mr. Roberts said, "We'll leave it right there," or something similar to that. Mr. Roberts had to cut off Ms. Taylor, before she could give the public a report back on all the corrupt backroom deals being wagered in the desperate power grab waged by Ms. Mark-Viverito's camp.

Even though very little scrutiny is being put on Councilmember Daniel Garodnick, Ms. Mark-Viverito's challenger for the speakership, both candidates have "manned up" with teams of real estate lobbyists/enablers. The Council speaker will be selected on Wednesday, when the next session of the municipal legislature will first convene in the new year. It remains to be seen if, before then, either side really becomes so disconsolate that they may actually break the kinds of laws that will trigger a federal corruption investigation. In the fight for the speakership, Ms. Mark-Viverito's team of lobbyists have thus far flouted campaign finance regulations, one of her lobbyists faces a Campaign Finance Board investigation, and Ms. Mark-Viverito has been engulfed in allegations of ethics violations.

Ethan Geto defends corrupt real estate dealing by Melissa Mark-Viverito

It doesn't matter who becomes speaker, because lobbyists are always the winners.

Ethan Geto is another corrupt real estate lobbyist enabling Melissa Mark-Viverito's speakership. This is the same Ethan Geto, whose firm once represented Forest City Ratner. It's important to note that both camps fighting for the speakership are playing by the same broken "rules" of the corrupt political system. And nobody from the Left calls any of this out, because, according to situational ethics, you game the system when it's in your favor, and you denounce it when the other side does it. Am I saying that if Mayor Michael Bloomberg were still in office, would people be taking to streets over this ? Maybe, but to this bunch of "progressives," real reform is dependent on who's reaching for greater power. It doesn't matter if Ms. Mark-Viverito or if Councilmember Daniel Garodnick becomes speaker, because the real winners are the lobbyists, who will still get paid by developers. Let me repeat, it doesn't matter who becomes speaker, because whoever does become speaker will take the same coins it takes to pay off the speaker in campaign donations to ram through community crushing development.

Healthcare As Bargaining Chips in New York City Politics // The Pelican Brief (Updated)

Getting Your Piece Of The Pie After It Gets Taken Away From Somebody Else

Housing Works CEO Charles King, left, agreed to going along with making $17 billion in healthcare cuts. Stephen Berger is a budget hatchet man, who leads a special subcommittee of neoliberal Gov. Andrew Cuomo's controversial Medicaid Redesign Team trying to close hospitals in Brooklyn. Thomas Farley, right, is the do-nothing city health commissioner responsible for continuing years of municipal policy that failed to keep community hospitals open or to finally develop a comprehensive, city-wide AIDS agenda.

• RELATED : Watching the Political Chess Pieces Move on the $10 billion New York State Medicaid Waiver
• RELATED : You Could Die Waiting In A New York City Emergency Room

Word on the Street : Whereas Mayor Bill de Blasio doesn't have enough money to make good on unions' demands for retroactive backpay and raises, he's in a quandary about how to bring down the unions' demands, but still make them feel like he "appreciates" them.

Whereas Mayor de Blasio keeps being all talk about his "progressive reform agenda," he's rightly raising expectations amongst reform activists that he's actually going to deliver changes on major social, legal, and economic issues that went neglected for the last 20 years of Republican City Hall rule.

Now, therefore, the intersection of these two circumstances is creating a troubling development : There's talk amongst some political insiders that Mayor de Blasio may offer one union largely responsible for his electoral win with a lower contract in exchange for being given backroom access to selecting one of the city commissioners that would have some oversight of that union.

Isn't this how Wall Street games the system ? We already have Scott Stringer, a slimy career weasel, in charge of the Comptroller's Office. Knowing Stringer's situational ethics, he's no doubt ready to sell access and influence in exchange for campaign donations to make another campaign run for higher office the next time the situation presents itself. We say that this is wrong when it is done by the political right, or by the 1%. But what happens when it's done by the left ?

A sordid theory about how corruption spreads : dividing the community for expedient political gain, leaving everybody triangulated from criticising the corruption.

1199, formerly headed by Obama administration political operative Patrick Gaspard, is a close advisor to Mayor de Blasio. Judging by how Mr. Gaspard sold out on his union's dedication to healthcare advocacy by agreeing to the wave of Berger Commission hospital closings ordered by former Republican Gov. George Pataki and by Gov. Pataki's own political operative, Wall Street investment banker Stephen Berger, Mr. de Blasio is hoping to resurrect the evil playbook of corruption in the contract negotiations between City Hall and 1199.

Here's how.

Trading A Lower Labor Compensation Contract In Exchange For Naming The Next Health Commish

Corruption doesn't have to always be about breaking the law, it could be about corrupting the democratic process that should be at the start be advocating transparency and a fully public participation in all decisions in matters of the public's own governance, especially major decisions, like picking the next city health commissioner. This role is vital, and the fact that we've had Thomas Farley for the last four years, only shows the kind of damage that having an impotent health commission can cause : Mr. Farley has not done one thing to stop the lingering Berger Commission hospital closings, nor the next wave of hospital closings called for by neoliberal Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo under his own Berger-like apparatus, the Medicaid Redesign Team.

How bad would it really be if 1199 gets given the right to pick the next health commissioner in exchange for accepting a lower labor compensation contract from Mayor de Blasio ?

For one thing, how do we know that the political direction of 1199 will act independently in the best interests of the patients it cares for ? Or how about making sure that the political leadership of 1199 will make decisions independently in the best interests of its membership ? Under Mr. Gaspard, the union never challenged the Berger Commission hospital closings, and it even took a seat at the table for the Medicaid Redesign Team. George Gresham, the President of 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, sits on the MRT panel.

As much as I am pro-labor and pro-letting labor get an inside track to making major political decisions, what troubles me is that 1199 is not independent. It was a major political supporter of the mayor, back when he was a no-hope candidate, so far distant from the front-runners that nobody took him seriously. In getting the chance to pick or vet the next health commissioner, can 1199, based on its track record, really and truly be counted on doing the right thing for the emergency room-full service hospital needing public ? Or is it going to make a deal that will catapult its current top crop of political directors into their next jobs, like, say, the next presidential campaign political consultant, White House political director, or ambassador to South Africa ?

Why is nobody asking why is Mayor de Blasio linking labor compensation contract negotiations with picking the next healthcare commissioner ? It's because Mayor de Blasio plans on being disingenuous in his union contract talks, and it matters naught to the mayor that he's going to divide the community by confusing discussions that should only be about backpay and raises with picking the next health commissioner. If the mayor cared about public input, he would automatically -- and without needing to subvert important agency picks as bargaining chips -- involve all stakeholders in his decision-making for the next health commissioner. That is to say, the public AND 1199 AND critical healthcare community groups should have a say in the next healthcare commissioner at the same time when the mayor should be having rigorous union contract talks with 1199. One has nothing to do with the other. But this kind of mentality, of offering two birds in the bush for one in the hand is what dishonest negotiations are all about. Rather than have 1199 say, "Yes, and …," you had the mayor saying, "No, but…."

Other Examples of How Critical Healthcare and Social Services Decisions Get Made Half-Assed By "Community Leaders," With No Full Public Involvement or Accountability // The Hunger Games

This kind of offering one group a piece of pie only after having first withdrawn that same piece from somebody else is what happened when some large New York City community and non-profit organizations went along with the Medicaid Redesign Team's cuts to healthcare for the poor in exchange for a few coins for homeless housing programs. Again, you had community groups agree to Gov. Cuomo's draconian austerity plans of closing more hospitals in New York City and making other healthcare cuts valued at upwards of $17 billion, over time, and for giving the sleazy neoliberal governor political cover to make these cuts, groups like Housing Works and GMHC were made promises that Gov. Cuomo would make a few million dollars available to homeless housing programs. Groups like Housing Works and GMHC have the provision of healthcare for the poor and the disenfranchised as part of their mission, but look at how they agreed to actions that were in contravention to other healthcare groups, with similar missions. Indeed, one need not look any further than how St. Vincent's Hospital, a former comprehensive AIDS center, Level I Trauma Center, and full-service hospital with a large HIV/AIDS patient load, was shut down under the calls for hospital closings. Don't these groups see that we are shooting ourselves in the foot ? Why does having to close hospitals be linked with making money available for homeless care programs ? What does one have to do with another ? We should be fighting for a healthcare system that covers everybody at the same time when we are fighting for the full resources to provide shelter to people, who are homeless. But only politicians, who are interested in expedient political gains would try to subvert one important community issue to another, and community group leaders should not be going along with this kind of corruption.

Another example comes to mind when the head of one homeless LGBT youth program turned on the head of another, all because politicians divide us, make us fight, for the crumbs that they throw at us.

But there is hope. Some groups, like the Legal Aid Society, and bloggers can reframe the conversation about budget cuts, failed government responses to the major social, legal, and economic issues of our time. The Legal Aid Society recently sued the city over its abdication of responsibility for providing shelter to homeless youth. Rather than being a victim to the rigged budget negotiations, the Legal Aid Society decided to make a demand for the FULL resources to address the problem at the same time when all we get is lip service that we can count on a truly progressive reform agenda from the de Blasio administration. If the public were truly able to see that backroom political machinations of insiders, operatives, and lobbyists don't fully answer the social, legal, and economic problems of our time, then the public would know that one of the first reforms we need is to demand a fully transparent and accessible process on every major de Blasio administration pick, especially with regard to the selection of the next health commissioner.

What's going to happen when the full membership of 1199 learns that their leadership may already be agreeing to undercut their labor contract negotiations ?

And what other healthcare advocacy groups, let alone the public itself, should have a seat at the table of talks if the mayor is convening such an apparatus for picking the next health commissioner ? ACT UP comes readily to mind. Who else ?

Making Matters Worse Than Patrick Gaspard Is Stanley Brezenoff

James Capalino, the real estate lobbyist, left, with Continuum CEO Stanley Brezenoff. Capalino was a paid lobbyist for the Rudin Family in their controversial $1 billion luxury conversion of St. Vincent's Hospital into an exclusive condo complex. Brezenoff raided the trust fund of Long Island College Hospital in an effort to suck it dry of resources.

Mr. Brezenoff, the head of Beth Israel Medical Center, may be on the outs with Continuum, Beth Israel's parent holding company, following the takeover by Mt. Sinai Medical Center of Continuum's hospitals. Likely trying to make a transition back to head the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, a position he once head in the early 1980's, or possibly as the next health commissioner, Mr. Brezenoff has already wormed his way into an unpaid advisory capacity to the de Blasio administration's new First Deputy Mayor, Anthony Shorris. When he was head of HHC during the early years of the AIDS crisis in New York City, Mr. Brezenoff failed to get in front of the outbreak, treatment, and prevention of AIDS. He has a record of failure in respect of public health. Why would Mayor de Blasio pick him ? Let's examine the kind of political machinations that would go into a decision like this….

Maybe Mr. Brezenoff's new administration position is meant as a stick to 1199 that any role that the union may be offered to have in picking the next health commissioner may be the union's effort to block Mr. Brezenoff from a higher healthcare capacity with the de Blasio administration ? Mr. Brezenoff's controversial role in trying to raid LICH, for example, of its assets would scare -- and distract -- any reasonable union to want to block his return to any supervisory role in formulation government healthcare policy.

What a wicked web we weave …. Let's hope the union membership are smart enough to demand transparency from their political operatives, the same way the public and community groups should demand transparency from the de Blasio administration, the same way that the Legal Aid Society didn't accept a bullshit government response to the homeless youth issue of today. There is a way to get to the root of the social, legal, and economic problems we face : we just have to have the courage to not let our demands for a full solution be subverted by either slimy politicians in exchange for "insider access," like the current 1199-health commish trade off that is being discussed around town, or by failed community group leaders in exchange for political protection, like the "What's in it for me" Patrick Gaspard model that other non-profit organization leaders are adopting with greater frequency.

If everybody would just focus on the fact that we are all in this together -- that we are all involved in one struggle to make the city/world a better place -- we wouldn't let slimy politicians and their political enablers subvert our needs. The "Yes, and" model is one of faith : there are enough resources for everybody. If we accept the "No, but" model from politicians, we'll never find the answers we seek, and, worse, we'll sabotage other activists and groups trying to seek the answers for their own issues. We have to be in this together, for one another, if we want to make a difference.

Patrick Gaspard Lobbying for Melissa Mark-Viverito in Council Speaker Race

In desperation, Melissa Mark-Viverito's speakership campaign turns to Ambassador of South Africa for a lifeline. Is she unable to close the deals on her own speakership ?

Patrick Gaspard, one of the main political operatives from the Obama administration, is now pushing Melissa Mark-Viverito, like the Obama administration should be a guidepost for reform ? President Obama's political operatives are the people responsible for NSA-expanding, the messed-up Obamacare rolling-out, and drone-killing enabling. What does the new de Blasio administration think of the public, when the new mayor rolls out folks like Mr. Gaspard to be do backroom lobbying like this ?

Read more : "Sources tell NY1 that Patrick Gaspard, the current ambassador to South Africa and close friend of the mayor, was making calls pushing Mark-Viverito's candidacy last week." (NY1)

Furthermore, Mr. Gaspard comes with a complicated history of making controversial political deals. Under the first Berger Commission to close hospitals across New York State, Mr. Gaspard agreed to allowing Republican New York Gov. George Pataki to appointing Wall Street investment banker Stephen Berger to make the hospital closings, a decision that not only was in contravention to his union 1199's mission of securing healthcare for people, but that would also lead to the loss of jobs to his union's membership. What kind of backroom favor-trading or political deal-making did Mr. Gaspard agree to with Gov. Pataki and Mr. Berger to let the hospital closings take place ?

With this kind of situational, mixed-motivated leadership, what kind of credibility should progressive-minded City Councilmembers give Mr. Gaspard's lobbying ?