Sunday, May 11, 2014

Did New York State Election Officials Create a Dual Mandate Loophole to Campaign Finance Caps ? [UPDATED]


SPECIAL NEWS UPDATE: SUN, 11 MAY 2014, 09:30 PM

Now that federal prosecutors have empaneled a grand jury to investigate political corruption, all of a sudden Gov. Andrew Cuomo is pushing changes to the state campaign finance system -- but only after he amassed a $30 million war chest for this year's reelection race.

But the governor wants the state to adopt the New York City campaign finance model, even though this model easily allows for unscrupulous candidates and Super PAC's to engage in campaign finance corruption.

In spectacular articles in The New York Daily News, it was reported the FBI is investigating a Super PAC for possibly violating the law. These articles portrayed former Council Speaker Christine Quinn as the victim, even though Speaker Quinn weakened campaign finance laws in the New York City model.

Christine Quinn's replacement as Council speaker, Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito, collected her public matching dollars from the New York City model, then she opened another campaign finance account to go around restrictions of the New York City model.

The only answer real campaign finance reform advocates should support is a ban on all private campaign donations, and, in its place, 100% public financing of campaigns with heightened oversight. Any reasonable person can see how the New York City campaign finance model can be gamed, but maybe Gov. Cuomo can't see straight ?


SPECIAL NEWS UPDATE: FRI, 25 APR 2014, 09:50 AM

Scott Levenson NY-CLASS Christine Quinn Bill de Blasio FBI Investigation into Campaign Corruption photo 2014-04-25TheNewYorkDailyNewsFBIReport_zps189d95ac.png

In the past few weeks, FBI agents have been asking questions about the campaign by the animal rights group NY-CLASS to strong arm former Council Speaker Christine Quinn (center) to support a ban on the iconic horse-drawn carriages, two sources familiar with the matter told The New York Daily News. The horse lobbyists in question include Scott Levenson, and they are linked to Mayor Bill de Blasio (inset). (FBI investigating claim that Christine Quinn was threatened by Scott Levenson for refusing to support carriage horse ban during the mayoral race * The New York Daily News)


PUBLISHED : THURS, 27 MAR 2014, 05:30 PM
UPDATED : SUN, 11 MAY 2014, 01:30 PM

By Approving Double Electioneering Accounts For Melissa Mark-Viverito, Did Election Officials Create a Dual Mandate Loophole to Campaign Finance Caps ?

Last year, New York City Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito raised $149,151 in private donations for her primary reëlection race. Because she remained under the $168,000 cap on private donations set by city campaign finance regulations, the New York City Campaign Finance Board granted Councilmember Mark-Viverito's campaign $158,502 in public matching dollars, according to the Campaign Finance Board's formula. City campaign finance rules require that all donations and in-kind contributions to political campaigns be disclosed to the Campaign Finance Board. But last year was the first time when the corrupt Citizens United Supreme Court ruling opened the floodgates of outside independent expenditure Super PAC money in the New York City municipal elections, and Councilmember Mark-Viverito received the benefit of about $26,868 in outside Super PAC spending in a super-heated primary election campaign ; she won her primary bid with barely 36% of the vote. If any of that extra money, which Councilmember Mark-Viverito desperately needed to defeat her five other challengers, was coordinated with her campaign, then she might have exceeded her cap on fundraising.

Since Councilmember Mark-Viverito's district is overwhelmingly Democratic, she faced no serious challenge from the Republican or Liberal party candidates after she won the Democratic primary. Having succeeded at being reëlected, she initiated a semi-private campaign to lobby her fellow councilmembers in order so that she could become selected as the next City Council speaker. Although the spirit of campaign finance laws is to regulate and decrease the corruptive influence of money and lobbyists in elections, Councilmember Mark-Viverito opened a second campaign account during the same election cycle in order to hire a team of lobbyists, this time for the Council speaker race. Instead of campaigning before voters, Councilmember Mark-Viverito sought to persuade her fellow councilmembers to vote for her in the Council speaker race. She also used the second campaign account to make patronage-like donations to other political supporters. Traditionally, the Council speaker race has been an "insider's game," where political party heads, operatives, lobbyists, and special interest operate in backroom meetings to barter for support, obscuring from public scrutiny the true extend of the negotiations that go into determining who becomes the Council speaker. True to tradition, much of the political machinations that went into winning the Council speakership for Councilmember Mark-Viverito were never transparent to the public.

Melissa Mark-Viverito photo melissa_mark-viverito_3_zpscc49b72b.jpg

Because of the caps on fundraising, Councilmember Mark-Viverito could not open that second electioneering campaign account through city election regulators at the Campaign Finance Board. Instead, she opened that second electioneering campaign account through state election regulators at the New York State Board of Elections. Subject to no cap in fundraising and ineligible for public matching dollars, that second electioneering campaign finance account allowed Councilmember Mark-Viverito to raise another $100,828 for the Council speaker race. In addition to the resources afforded to Ms. Mark-Viverito by this other $100,000 in contributions, she also benefitted from having employed the services of The Advance Group lobbying firm for free. Councilmember Mark-Viverito also benefited from the lobbying services provided by Alison Hirsch, a union political operative. Ms. Hirsch had been retained by the Progressive Caucus of council members. In an apparent example of how inconsistent the Campaign Finance Board is, it's unknown how the Progressive Caucus paid for Ms. Hirsch's lobbying services or who made campaign contributions to the Progressive Caucus in order for Ms. Hirsch to be paid for her lobbying services, or whether the Progressive Caucus was required to establish a legal political committee with state campaign finance regulators.

How could city and state campaign finance regulators condone two electioneering accounts during the same election cycle for one City Councilmember when all other councilmembers were subjected to a cap in fundraising and limited to one campaign finance account ?

The only way the Campaign Finance Board could approve Councilmember Mark-Viverito's use of two electioneering accounts during the same election cycle would be if the Campaign Finance Board were affirming that New York City would treat a City Councilmember and any leadership post held by that Councilmember as two separate, public offices, also known as a dual mandate. But does a City Council leadership post rise to the level of being treated as a "public office" separate and distinct from the underlying Councilmember's public office ?

On background, a supervisor at the New York State Board of Elections was contacted about two questions : (i) is it legal for an elected official to hold more than one simultaneous publicly-elected office, and (ii) how do state campaign finance regulators treat a second campaign finance account for a candidate, when the same candidate is subject to caps for a first campaign account. In a phone conversation, the supervisor admitted that these questions were too complex. "You could have three election lawyers in a room, and you would get three different answers," the supervisor said. The questions were separately submitted as a FOIL request to the state Board of Elections. Although the request sought the legal reasoning that would allow the Board of Elections to grant Councilmember Mark-Viverito the right to open a second, unregulated campaign finance account, the Board of Elections provided a response nine days after the request was made, describing the underlying request for information as not a "request for records." Instead, the Board of Elections passed the buck to their legal staff. "We have forwarded your request to the Counsel’s Office for their reply," the Board of Elections response read, in part. The Counsel's Office never provided a response. In a further discussion with a Board of Elections official, the official stated that there is no specific statue that prohibits a candidate for elected office to open a state election account for a Council leadership race. When the official was asked how could a campaign finance regulatory authority enable politicians to keep opening serial campaign accounts, when the very act of perpetual, unregulated fundraising violates the spirit of campaign finance regulations, the elections official clung to the reasoning of an absence of a prohibited statute. Even after it was pointed out that press reports questioned the way one political candidate, Councilmember Mark-Viverito, used a state Board of Elections account to finance post-Election Day campaign activities that are otherwise distinctly prohibited by the campaign finance regulatory authority nominally tasked to supervise municipal officeholders, the state elections official clung to the reasoning of an absence of a prohibited statute. The state elections official said that as far as the State Board of Elections knew, the state campaign account established by Councilmember Mark-Viverito was for a race in 2017 cycle. Consequently, the FOIL request was modified to request "copies (preferably in .PDF format, if available ; if not, in physical form) of : any agency application or designation document(s) ; any campaign committee formation documents ; list(s) of campaign committee officers ; written certifications, affidavits, or attestations ; committee registration and information document(s) ; committee authorization status document(s) ; and all other required due diligence documents filed or submitted in respect of any campaign committee(s) for the political candidate Melissa Mark-Viverito that correspond with the establishment of these two BOE campaign finance accounts : Filer ID's : C02515 and C02516." In response, the Board of Elections provided the following documents : Committee Registration : Treasurer and Bank Information, Committee Authorization Status, and Candidate's Authorization For A Committee To Make All Campaign Financial Disclosures. The forms submitted to the Board of Elections, which were signed and attested to by Councilmember Mark-Viverito and her campaign treasurer, Randolph Mark, indicated at first that the campaign committee being formed by Councilmember Mark-Viverito was going to be for an office "TBD" with a date of election "TBD." The date of election was later scratched out and replaced with "2017." Even though it has been widely reported that Councilmember used her state Board of Elections account to finance her Council speakership race, the state Board of Elections refuses to acknowledge that Councilmember Mark-Viverito's campaign committee deliberately deceived the state's campaign finance regulatory authority, and so far the city campaign finance regulatory authority refuses to admit that its public matching dollar system was gamed by Councilmember Mark-Viverito. This is even after many scandals, where politicians, their teams of lobbyists, and questionable donors continue to game the system. Today, the Editorial Board of The New York Daily News opined that if political campaigns can scam the public matching dollar system of the Campaign Finance Board, imagine what kind of campaign finance fraud can be perpetuated through the Board of Elections, if the state's regulator adopted a public matching dollar system ? The Editorial Board singled out how the Board of Elections is a compromised regulatory body : ". . . the see-no-evil Board of Elections . . . is party-controlled and paralyzed in the face of runaway lawbreaking." In an environment where city and state campaign finance regulators don’t even care to reign in the corruptive role of big money donors, special interests, or lobyists, a candidate can do whatever it takes, even violating the law outright in order to keep gaming the broken campaign finance system in New York. Against this backdrop of corruption, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced that he was dissolving a state commission that was investigating public corruption, thereby decreasing the amount of regulatory scrutiny on corrupt candidates, donors, and lobbyists at the very time when it’s most needed.

There's nothing to stop shady politicians from opening never-ending electioneering accounts or setting up secretive 501(c)(4) organizations to violate the spirit of campaign finance regulations.

A dual mandate is a controversial practise that allows politicians to hold more than one simultaneous elected office. The practise was banned in New Jersey by then Gov. Jon Corzine in 1992 over concerns that such politicians would create conflicts of interest in government. In examples that were noted by The New York Times, sometimes a municipal official would also concurrently hold a state-level office. But in Councilmember Mark-Viverito's case, she is holding what she considers two simultaneous offices : a seat on the City Council subject to a city campaign finance regulations and a leadership post on the same City Council, which is not subject to any city campaign finance regulations. It is said that until recently, Councilmember Mark-Viverito was also a District Leader of the state Democratic Party. She had only won the District Leader race last September, but she reportedly resigned her position, but the Web site for Manhattan Democratic Party still shows her holding the position. It’s not known why Councilmember Mark-Viverito resigned her position, if other elected officials hold a publicly-elected office at the same time when they serve as a District Leader. Although a District Leader is still publicly elected by members of that political party during that political party’s primary race, a District Leader is not a government office. For example, Keith Wright, the chair of the Manhattan Democratic Party and a District Leader, is also a state assemblyman. A search for Councilmember Mark-Viverito’s name with state campaign finance regulators showed no state campaign finance account for her District Leader race. It apparently was never disclosed how Councilmember financed her race for District Leader. Such races can involve considerable expense. In 2010, Lincoln Restler raised $66,066 for his District Leader race, and in 2012, Mr. Restler raised $92,513, demonstrating that a candidate for a mere political party leadership post could use a District Leader race to raise vast amounts of campaign donations, over which campaign finance regulators have limited some say, but impose no overall fundraising or spending cap.

Candidates can further game city and state campaign finance regulations by receiving the benefit of electioneering activities of independent expenditure groups or Super PAC’s. A New York City Democratic Party official, who spoke on background, said that a candidate for District Leader could raise large sums of campaign contributions, like Mr. Restler, according to complex formula that is neither entirely clear or fully transparent, and still receive external help from an independent expenditure group or Super PAC. Mind you, this is only for a political party leadership post that can be served concurrently with a publicly-elected office, which would be subject to its own campaign finance restrictions that could further be augmented by further electioneering activities of an independent expenditure group or Super PAC. What good is a spending cap in one election race, when a candidate has so many options to game the system ? In Councilmember Mark-Viverito’s case, she further opened a third campaign finance account, this time to pay for celebrations and other transition functions, even though she had been re-elected to her Councilmember district, and it remains unclear what transition functions an incumbent office holder needed to conduct outside of her official public duties ?

One major issue that good government groups and government reform activists face is to know why city and state campaign finance regulators would accord Councilmember Mark-Viverito the advantage of having so many electioneering accounts during the same election cycle, but deny that right to other candidates seeking a public office, but maybe it has something to do with how city and state campaign finance regulators can’t keep up with the many ways that candidates and their lobbyists make Swiss cheese out of regulations and restrictions ?

In New York, politicians generally shuttle between posts in municipal and state-level elections. Before she was a City Councilmember, Melinda Katz was a legislator with the New York State Assembly. She now serves as Queens Borough President, a municipal post. But she never held any of these posts in a concurrent fashion. Similarly, Thomas Duane ran for a seat in the New York State Senate while he was still a New York City Councilmember. After he won his State Senate race, he resigned from the New York City Council in order to take his state-level post. In New York, however, it appears that a distinction known as double-dipping is allowed, which is separate from a dual mandate. For example, the current New York City schools chancellor, Carmen Farina, came out of retirement to run the city’s public schools in the de Blasio administration. Mayor Bill de Blasio negotiated a deal which allowed Ms. Farina to continue to collect her retirement income at the same time she collected a full salary for serving as the schools chancellor. It's not transparent how the mayor has discretion to approve double-dipping, or when voters approved that councilmembers could treat the seeking of a City Council leadership post as a separate "election." Lobbyists would be interested in maximizing the number of times that candidates could mobilize an army of lobbyists, because lobbyists would be motivated by seeking additional opportunities for compensation, sometimes inflated by public matching dollars, or establishing a special insider access relationship with elected office holders. Contrary to some perceptions, some candidates for leadership posts, who are prolific fundraisers, would also welcome further opportunities to raise money, because the added contributions would give the candidates an unfair advantage over challengers, who are not adept at raising vast amounts of campaign donations. But why would voters deliberately want a situation like this, that would be so susceptible to the corruptive influence of money and lobbyists in determining the leaders of the City Council ?

The Campaign Finance Board was contacted by e-mail to determine its view of dual mandates. "The NYC Campaign Finance Board does not regulate which offices individuals can run for or hold, nor do we have the authority under the law to do so," Campaign Finance Board press secretary Matthew Sollars said in an e-mail. The more campaign finance reform advocates examine the role of city campaign finance regulators, the more it becomes apparent that the regulations have not kept up with the corruptive machinations of politicians or their lobbyists.

Besides the uniqueness of Councilmember Mark-Viverito's dual electioneering accounts, should advocates for campaign finance reform conclude that Councilmember Mark-Viverito's situation disadvantaged her challengers by disallowing her challengers the same opportunities to open serial campaign finance accounts, an unexplained advantage that Councilmember Mark-Viverito enjoyed, or should Councilmember Mark-Viverito's double electioneering accounts be seen as having set a dangerous precedent, whereby an elected official can keep opening electioneering accounts, even after having won a general election, to continue raising money from wealthy and special interest donors in order to arguably campaign for dual mandates or special interest causes ? In the effort to reign in the corruptive influence of money and lobbyists in politics, where can voters expect city and state campaign finance regulators to draw the line ?

The danger of dual mandates and perpetual campaign fundraising in New York City politics

How can a seasoned politician, like Councilmember Mark-Viverito, argue that she can remain eligible for $158,502 in public matching dollars for her primary City Council reëlection race, but still go outside the spirit of campaign contribution caps in order to raise over $100,000 for her run for City Council speaker ? What Councilmember Mark-Viverito seeks to do is to create a backdoor that will allow politicians to treat leadership posts as further elected offices that are separate from the underlying elected office that first permitted a politician the privilege, but not the right, of serving the public.

There's no written guarantee that politicians can keep raising money whenever they want. If they did, this would violate the spirit and nature of campaign finance regulations. What is more, it would treat any leadership race in the same legislative body as a separate "election," thereby leading to never-ending campaign fundraising cycles within government, regardless whether the campaigning would take place before or after what we traditionally view as the first Tuesday in November, or "Election Day." If Councilmember Mark-Viverito can treat the Council speakership as a "separate" election, why didn’t Councilmember Daniel Dromm declare any expenditures in his campaign to be named chair of the City Council Education Committee ? As early as a last December, the press was reporting that Councilmember Dromm was seeking that leadership post. Do city and state campaign finance regulations only require disclosure for some City Council leadership posts, but not all ? Are regulations meant to root out corruption only applied on a voluntary basis ?

In Councilmember Mark-Viverito's view, she has a right to raise money to "lobby" other elected officials for a leadership post the same way she has a right to "campaign" before voters for an elected office. This is an example of the addiction to the corruptive role of money and lobbyists by entitled elected officials, who become unprincipled after they become elected. As a self-identified "progressive," Councilmember Mark-Viverito should be moving away from the corruptive role of money and lobbyists in government, not moving towards it. Likewise, Mr. Restler, who some describe as a reformer, in spite of his dependence on prolific fundraising just to earn a political party leadership post. As it stands, good government groups already criticize other loopholes that allow officials seeking unelected municipal appointments to hire lobbyists cloaked in secrecy to game the appointment process. When officials seeking unelected government appointments, they can hire lobbyists, and how these lobbyists are paid, whether any fundraising is conducted, or other details about the relationship between prospective and elected officials and their corresponding lobbyists are not required to be disclosed to the public. In the example of Ms. Farina, the schools chancellor, it's unknown if she employed a team of lobbyists to negotiate any terms of her employment, including her double-dipping. If she had, there's no rule that would require Ms. Farina to disclose the details pertaining to her lobbyists, how they got paid, or if there was any fundraising to pay for her lobbyists. The same goes with lobbyists, if any, that may have had a role in negotiating the controversial appointment of Willliam Bratton as commissioner of the New York Police Department.

Added to all of the questions of suitability and compliance of twin electioneering accounts and dual mandates is the objectivity of the Campaign Finance Board to review these serious issues. Few advocates for campaign finance reform believe that the city's Campaign Finance Board can be trusted to police the corruptive influence of money and lobbyists in government. Already, three complaints about municipal campaign finance or electioneering violations have been filed at the federal level, because there are reasons to suspect that city campaign finance regulators have become politicized in their review of violation cases. Since the board members of the Campaign Finance Board are selected by a combination of either the mayor or the Council speaker, the board members are not truly independent from influence from City Hall or City Council. When violation cases roll up to either the mayor or to the Council speaker or to political operatives connected to either, as they do in the review of Councilmember Mark-Viverito’s twin electioneering accounts, how can the Campaign Finance Board truly act free of undue influence from either the mayor or the Council speaker ?

When the NYC Is Not For Sale Super PAC was found to have violated reporting requirements, the Campaign Finance Board essentially fined the Super PAC ten cents on the dollar for the infraction amounts. It's been asserted by others that the NYC Is Not For Sale Super PAC acted in concert or to directly benefit the mayoral campaign of Mr. de Blasio, and, in apparent gratitude, Mr. de Blasio consequently attended a key fundraiser for one of the large donors behind the Super PAC last year, an event that was closed to the press, further frustrating transparency. Given the Super PAC's close association with the mayor, it shouldn't come as any surprise that the Campaign Finance Board would levy a proverbial slap on the wrist when the target of an investigation is connected to the mayor. This contrasts greatly to when the Campaign Finance Board dealt a death blow to John Liu's mayoral campaign, one of Mr. de Blasio's challengers, by denying Mr. Liu any public matching dollars in last year's mayoral race. Furthermore, Mayor de Blasio seems to be allowed to set up 501(c)(4) advocacy groups that work in tandem with City Hall without question from the city or state campaign finance regulators.

  • RELATED : The Campaign Finance Board is the judge, jury and executioner of New York City's campaign finance law. As Albany eyes the CFB as a model for a statewide public financing system, City & State probes how the agency has wielded its enormous power over city elections. (Cracks in the Campaign Finance Board * City & State)
  • RELATED : Reform advocates and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo tout New York City's public campaign finance system as a model for the state to follow. But some political figures who insist they support the city Campaign Finance Board's mission are questioning its stewardship. (Campaign Finance Board leadership questioned * Newsday)

Going back to the unknown regulatory reasoning for Councilmember Mark-Viverito's need to establish a second electioneering account outside of the jurisdiction of city campaign finance regulators, how is the Campaign Finance Board going to rule in her case ? Presumably her first campaign finance account is undergoing a post-election audit. The only way the Campaign Finance Board knew that the NYC Is Not For Sale Super PAC had violated disclosure requirements was because investigators found inconsistencies after having cross-checked the Super PAC's reported disclosure filed with the Campaign Finance Board against the reported disclosure filed with the state's Board of Elections. But in Councilmamber Mark-Viverito's case, she couldn't file the Council speaker race disclosure report to city campaign finance regulators, because that report would have violated the spending cap in place for the primary and general election campaigns. The Campaign Finance Board does not have rules for allowing fundraising beyond the general election, nor does it guarantee a politician the ability to perpetually raise campaign donations after Election Day, unless we are witnessing the final politicalization of municipal elections by board members of the Campaign Finance Board, wherein the board members will allow the de Blasio-Mark-Viverito administration to decimate the spirit of campaign finance laws ? Only time will tell.

The questions surrounding Councilmember Mark-Viverito's speakership race add to the largely unexamined role that other Super PAC's, other lobbyists, and the flood of money had in last year's municipal elections, the first time the corruptive influence that the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United would be observed in local political races. None of all that is being examined. If the mayor and the City Council were truly progressive, they would be calling for a real investigation of allegations of campaign finance corruption. Unless, of course, it turns out that the elected officials occupying City Hall and City Council were progressives in name only ?


QUESTIONING THE NEW YORK CITY CAMPAIGN FINANCE BOARD

With John Liu's lawsuit against New York City over conflicted city campaign finance regulators, this makes three federal referrals of elections violations, forcing Mayor de Blasio to lawyer-up, recruit special inside election counsel.

After a wave of federal complaints that have been lodged over electioneering violations in last year's municipal elections, Mayor Bill de Blasio has hired a special legal advisor specializing in election law.

Since Mayor de Blasio and City Council Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, and/or their political operatives, are entangled in some of these federal complaints, it should come as no surprise that Mayor de Blasio is now maneuvering to use his public office to defend himself against allegations of wrong-doing that took place during the electioneering of last year's municipal elections.

The three federal complaints lodged following last year's municipal elections :

  1. GOP consultant E. O'Brien Murray argued to the State Department that Patrick Gaspard, a former top White House aide with a deep history in Gotham politics, violated the federal Hatch Act by getting involved in Mayor de Blasio's campaign -- and City Councilwoman Melissa Mark-Viverito's subsequent election as speaker -- while representing the U.S. in South Africa. (GOP Operative Files Hatch Act Complaint Against U.S. Ambassador Patrick Gaspard * The New York Daily News)
  2. Louis Flores, a local political gadfly who ran a blog and wrote a book criticizing Christine Quinn, has filed a complaint with U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s criminal division against Scott Levenson and The Advance Group consulting firm, which came under deep scrutiny during the mayoral campaign. (Federal Complaint Filed Against The Advance Group for Election Work * Politicker)
  3. Former New York City Comptroller and failed mayoral candidate John Liu has filed a federal lawsuit against the city and its Campaign Finance Board. He says the board unfairly crippled his campaign by denying him matching funds in last year's race for mayor. (Ex-NYC mayor hopeful sues Campaign Finance Board * AP/The San Francisco Chronicle)


Emma Wolfe

  • RELATED : Roger Bennett Adler, a special prosecutor investigating the Working Families Party's corrupt relationship with Data & Field Services, a corporation formed by the left-leaning party to provide its candidates with get-out-the-vote staffing and expertise at possibly illegal discounts, has sought an interview with one of Mayor Bill de Blasio's highest-ranking aides, Emma Wolfe, people familiar with the matter said. Data & Field Services, a corporation formed by the left-leaning party to provide its candidates with get-out-the-vote staffing and expertise. Mr. de Blasio was elected in 2009 to become the city's public advocate thanks to, in part, the deeply discounted services of Data & Field. (Prosecutor in Working Families Corruption Case Seeks Interview of de Blasio Aide, Emma Wolfe * The Wall Street Journal)

The impact of the never-ending corruptive influence of money and lobbyists in politics : Has it come back to bite Mayor Bill de Blasio in the ass ?

To continue the mayor's plan to extend his influence across New York City, his administration has installed the lobbying and consulting firm of Berlin Rosen, political operatives who worked on the mayor's campaign, in the media relations role of the mayor's universal pre-kinder initiative. Berlin Rosen will be able to "control" the universal pre-kinder messaging for the mayor this way. Berlin Rosen also serves as consultants to a coalition of major police reform groups, Communities United for Police Reform. The latter allows Berlin Rosen to control the messaging coming from one of the mayor's most politically sensitive quarters : police reform activists. Tampering down police reform activists is all the more important to the mayor, even as the NYPD continues to become embroiled in more racially-profiled controversies. It was reported that another political insider and lobbying firm, Pitta Bishop, helped Council Speaker Mark-Viverito with City Council staffing, and now Pitta Bishop, like The Advance Group, are being paid to lobby the same Council speaker they helped to install by gaming the city’s and state’s campaign finance system. Left out in the lurch as a consequence of the these political machinations are voters, who will have no say in what the messaging will be that comes out of the universal pre-kinder or the police reform movements that are now controlled by the political operatives loyal to the mayor and to the Council speaker.

But the mayor's reliance on outside astroturf groups that double as political operatives for his municipal agenda has its price : his political opponents also have at their disposal the same tactics, and so it was that when Mayor de Blasio sought to place restrictions on the growth of charter schools in New York City, his political opponents organized their own public relations campaign. Buying up TV ad time to broadcast political attack ads, an innocuous-sounding, pro-charter school group named Families for Excellent Schools portrayed Mayor de Blasio as deaf to the grassroots needs of the community, a campaign eerily similar to the one used by NYC Is Not For Sale against Mayor de Blasio's former political nemesis, former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. Whereas Families for Excellent Schools is structured as two entities : Families for Excellent Schools, Inc., a 501(c)(3) entity and Families for Excellent Schools-Advocacy, a 501(c)(4) entity, NYC Is Not For Sale was set up as a Super PAC. Mayor de Blasio and his supporters decried the Families for Excellent Schools' TV attack ads just like former Council Speaker Quinn had decried the NYC Is Not For Sale's TV attack ads. Confronted last year about the NYC Is Not For Sale campaign, then candidate de Blasio initially defended NYC Is Not For Sale's attack ads, saying, "People decided to speak out, and that's their legal right. But the fact is in our system, everything can and will be disclosed, and that's what the people require," although, contrary to then candidate de Blasio, the Super PAC got into trouble for failing to fully disclose its activities, as "the people require." At the time, Mr. de Blasio added that he'd be open to later reforming campaign finance laws (presumably after NYC Is Not For Sale sank former Speaker Quinn's mayoral campaign). "The important thing is to respect the fact that we may not like the way the law is, but it's the law. I certainly will put energy going forward into trying to further reform the campaign finance system, but so long as the law is the law, people will make choices within it. That is their right, but I will certainly never ask anyone to engage in such behavior." The Campaign Finance Board should be reviewing whether the de Blasio campaign coordinated any activities with the NYC Is Not For Sale Super PAC, but it’s not clear if any campaign finance authority would regulate or restrict how the mayor appears to coordinate official policy with the 501(c)(4) entity that has each of lobbied for an enactment of a universal pre-kinder program for New York City and refused to disclose its contibutors and expenditures, as "the people require."

But we saw this week a news report that one of the mayor's political supporters, New York Communities for Change, opted out of a multiple plaintiff lawsuit against the spread of charter schools. New York Communities for Change, which appears to be structured as two separate entities, New York Communities for Change, Inc., a 501(c)(4) entity, and The New York Communities Organizing Fund, Inc., as a 501(c)(3), appears to take political cues from City Hall. After it became clear that Mayor de Blasio was going to support charter schools after he initially communicated that he was going to oppose their spread, New York Communities for Change decided to pull out of the lawsuit in order to stay on the same side on the issue as Mayor de Blasio. But what the charter school debacle showed was that Eva Moskowitz, the charter school administrator who helped to lead the $5 million charter school attack ads on the mayor, was able to hurt the mayor's political poll favorability ratings with her TV attack ads. A recent poll showed that only 39% of poll respondents had a favorable view of Mayor de Blasio's performance. So long as Super PAC's, independent expenditure groups, 501(c)(3) community groups, or 501(c)(4) political entities can mount million-dollar TV attack ads and city and state campaign finance regulators abdicate their responsibilities, public policy will continue to fall victim to big money donors, special interests, and lobbyists. So long as the mayor does nothing about reforming the corruptive influence of big business donors, special interests, and lobbyists in municipal politics, he's going to have to endure being the focus of political attack ads from his wealthy, big business opponents. What will it take for the mayor to follow through on his campaign finance reform promise ? Maybe his approval poll numbers need to sink below 30% ? I'm sure that there are many lobbyists and big business interests in New York City, who'd like to take credit for causing the mayor's poll numbers to sink that low. So long as the law is the law, the law appears to favor more campaign corruption.

Carl Espen "Silent Storm" (Norway) Eurovision 2014

This ballad by Carl Espen, "Silent Storm," was Norway's entry in Eurovision 2014, and it was my favourite song.

Falete sings "S.O.S."

The Spaniard flamenco singer Falete sings "S.O.S." on the show, "Ratones Colorados."

In one word : demasiado !

Schneiderman Scrambling To Arrest Corrupted Officials Before Federal Prosecutor Hands Down Embarrassing Grand Jury Indictments [UPDATED]

PUBLISHED : WED, 07 MAY 2014, 05:54 PM
UPDATED : SUN, 11 MAY 2014, 06:00 AM

Shirley Huntley Ruben Wills Christine Quinn Corruption photo Ruben-Wills-Christine-Quinn-Shirley-Huntley_zps3d97d1d8.png

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman Finally Gets Around To Arresting Councilmember Ruben Wills On Investigation That Is Over Two Years Old

With federal prosecutors hot on a corruption crackdown across New York state, the state's attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, today arrested New York City Councilmember Ruben Wills on a charge of misusing some of the proceeds of a $33,000 state grant to New York 4 Life, a charity the councilmember managed.

New York State Attorney General Eric Schniederman and U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara photo Eric-Schneiderman-Preet-Bharara_zpsc8b4f9e3.jpg

The $33,000 grant to Councilmember Wills' charity was sponsored by former New York State Sen. Shirley Huntley in 2008. Two years ago, Councilmember Wills' charity refused to fully comply with a subpoena issued by the state's top prosecutor's office, forcing state prosecutors to file a court motion to compel the charity to comply. After that, the state's case went dormant. During this time, Gov. Andrew Cuomo formed an anti-corruption panel to great fanfare, but the governor ditched the panel as soon as it appeared that the panel would investigate the governor's own questionable political supporters. Recently, the outrage by good government groups and government reform activists reached such a fevered pitch at the government's inept prosecution of corruption that the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, Preet Bharara, took over the corruption investigations of the now-defunct anti-corruption panel, known as a Moreland Commission. In the time since the feds took over, Mr. Bharara has empaneled a grand jury, obtaining subpoenas for corruption records. As government reform activists await possible grand jury indictments, all of a sudden the state's attorney general has begun to look busy. One fruit from Mr. Schneiderman's scurrying efforts was today's arrest of Councilmember Wills.

But Councilmember Wills' corruption arrest is complicated by many factors. One of the publicly-elected officials, who State Sen. Shirley Huntley was asked to wiretap and photograph as part of an undercover FBI sting operation on political corruption, was Councilmember Wills, according to Politicker. Prior to that, former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn endorsed Councilmember Wills for re-election one day after he had appeared in court to face a misdemeanor stealing charge. Councilmember Wills earned his incumbency on the City Council in a special election in southeast Queens in 2010 to succeed Thomas White, who died in August in 2010, and Councilmember Wills was re-elected in 2011 to continue to serve the remainder of White’s four-year term. Councilmember Wills later appeared in court in March 2011 on charges in connection with a 1996 incident. He was accused of damaging a wall and removing a fan and track lighting at a downtown business.

After Councilmember Wills' March 2011 court appearance, Speaker Quinn defended Councilmember Wills. "I'm extraordinarily proud of my City Council and proud of the members that I get to serve with every day on behalf of the people of the City of New York," she told The New York Daily News at the time.

In spite of Councilmember Wills' troubles, Speaker Quinn had awarded Councilmember Wills $584,000 in discretionary funding in the city's 2012 budget.

That Councilmember Wills is being singled out in the attorney general's sudden efforts to catch up with the state's long backlog of corruption investigations is troublesome. As has been noted by others, it can sometimes appear that state and federal prosecutors seem to obsess with the petty crimes of minority politicians, which conveniently allows larger corruption scandals to go uninvestigated and unprosecuted. It doesn't help when the media portrays the political corruption problem as only being isolated to Queens, for example. Corruption is a bigger problem, and the bigger corruption scandals rarely receive the kind of scrutiny as petty crimes. Councilmember Wills was arrested for allegedly misusing the proceeds of a $33,000 state grant. Former Sen. Huntley is serving a one-year prison sentence in connection with the misuse of $80,000 in tax payer money. Meanwhile, there's still no update on whatever happened to the corruption probe into how Aqueduct Entertainment Group landed a multibillion-dollar casino contract. But in that AEG probe, two more black leaders, State Sens. John Sampson and Malcolm Smith, appear to be targets. Each of Sens. Sampson and Smith are also being investigated in connection with still yet other corruption charges. Another possible corruption scandal in Queens, a questionable $20 million construction project by the Queens Public Library, will probably drag on for years before any indictments or arrests are made. State Sen. Jose Peralta, another minority leader from Queens, is the subject of a possible corruption investigation that is almost five years old involving over $500,000 in taxpayer money that was funneled to Corona-Elmhurst Center for Economic Development, a dormant non-profit organization. No arrest or indictment has yet to be made in connection with state Sen. Peralta's non-profit. Moreover, there's also been no update into an alleged investigation into the awarding in January 2010 of a $50 million voting machine contract to Election Systems & Software by New York City election officials. The new voting machines turned out to be an embarrassment to city officials, when it was revealed that the new machines would be unable to timely tally votes for the primary and general elections, even though they are "electronic" machines, forcing New York City elections officials to drag out clunky voting booths that work with levers, pulleys, and wheels in the last mayoral primary election. Even after the $2 billion fiasco that is the ECTP 911 emergency call EMS system that keeps crashing over and over -- and over again -- there's still no investigation into cost over-runs, failures, or other possible wrong-doing. Also pending is the outcome of the city's investigation into the corrupt campaign spending by Super PAC's administered by one lobbying firm, The Advance Group. And all there is, is silence about the other corrupt Super PAC's from last year's municipal elections.

While the attorney general follows up on the missing $33,000 that Councilmember Wills cannot fully explain, there are millions and billions of taxpayer dollars in outstanding corruption investigations, and allegations that may call into question the integrity of our entire election system, that appear to be going cold. This pile-up of corruption cases proves that city and state prosecutors are inept at fully investigating political corruption. Instead, state and local prosecutors just looked the other way, and the incidence of corruption just kept piling on up until nothing less than a dedicated Moreland Commission would be needed to flush all this corruption out of the system. But since Gov. Cuomo scuttled the Moreland Commission, now the task of prosecuting all this corruption lands on the laps of the U.S Attorney's Office. Indeed, federal prosecutors received the files of about two dozen possible investigations from the now-defunct Moreland Commission that city and state investigators never got around to worrying about before now. When the governor first formed the Moreland Commission, the press never asked why lazy city and state prosecutors had allowed corruption to grow to become a stage 4 cancer on our government. Once the feds excise this cancer of corruption from our body of government, will we have enough good officials left to right this ship ? After all this is over, one of the first things voters should demand is for the elected officials to determine why did the state's attorney general and all of the district attorneys let corruption become so out-of-control in New York in the first place. Prosecutors should also determine the legality of allowing government officials to subvert the conduct of the public's business by elected officials, who use private e-mail services to hide the government's official work from the reach of sunshine laws, a tactic embraced by Gov. Cuomo. The shady use of private e-mail accounts to subvert the reach of freedom of information laws or the discovery process of litigation is a practise typical on Wall Street and their big money law firms. Now, Gov. Cuomo has apparently rolled out this shadowy machination to New York state government. Gov. Cuomo's pattern of political subterfuge may have contributed to the failure of the Moreland Commission to refer any criminal case for prosecution before its disbanding, and the appearance of sabotage is said to be being the focus of federal prosecutors. Government reform activists privately hope that Gov. Cuomo's interference with the doomed Moreland Commission can meet the legal definition of obstruction of justice, opening the door to a political pressure point to force government reforms, if not at least to give federal prosecutors additional evidence to hand down indictments against more crooked politicians, who are responsible for enabling political corruption in New York state government.

Andrew Cuomo photo andrew-cuomo-smiles-jpg-alg_zps9d0cdc97.jpg

In the meantime, Speaker Quinn's successor, Councilmember Melissa Mark-Viverito has indicated that she will not allow Councilmember Wills to decide the fate of his slice of this year's City Council slush funds. Instead, her office will decide where his allocation of the discretionary funding will go, in consultation with the chair of the Queens Councilmembers' delegation. At all costs, the Council Speaker's office is intent on keeping its councilmember slush fund. Even though many officials have been charged with fraud in connection with the misuse of the City Council's discretionary funds, the corrupted elected officials are too addicted to the power that comes from doling out these grants.

Last year, former Council Speaker Quinn approved the disbursement of $3.2 million in member items requested by Councilmember Dan Halloran, even though the councilmember had been charged in a conspiracy and bribery scheme relating to his member items. In the criminal complaint against him, Councilmember Halloran suggested to an undercover FBI agent that Councilmember Halloran could increase the size of the discretionary funds he was using as a bribe by calling in favours from other councilmembers. For all the corruption that the City Council did to hide the speaker's multimillion-dollar slush fund, former Speaker Quinn herself was never prosecuted.

With millions and billions in taxpayer dollars at stake in uninvestigated political corruption, law enforcement under the de Blasio administration continues to focus on NYPD Police Commissioner William Bratton's obsession with his "broken windows theory" of policing. Instead of focusing on the "criminal networks" of political corruption and corporate corruption, law enforcement instead over-police the poor and people of color, targeting them, amongst other places, on public transportation systems of subways and buses, a regressive move that may violate the Civil Rights Act.

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Barfing into bags, voters face a moment of truth about Democratic Party incumbents

Andrew Cuomo photo andrew-cuomo-smiles-jpg-alg_zps9d0cdc97.jpg

Democratic Party bouncers give voters no choice but to re-elect Gov. Cuomo

"Every place is not Greenwich Village," said Assemblyman Keith Wright, who is also chair of the state's Democratic Party, referring to a lack of support in the rest of New York State as an excuse for why Gov. Andrew Cuomo has failed to roll out any liberal reforms.

The ironic thing is that everybody knows where there are concentrations of liberal thought. Gentrification does a very good job of corroding these neighborhoods to disperse like-minded individuals. Dissent almost doesn't exist anymore, and nobody respects autonomy. The last few hold-outs are haggard, and true solidarity has all but shriveled up. After the number that real estate developers have done to the Village, especially the harvesting of St. Vincent's Hospital before the poor corpse had even died, isn't it more true that Mr. Wright's quote should be, "Greenwich Village has become like every place ?"

The hopeful thought would be that activists would realize that going back to fighting for single issues is the fastest way for everybody to lose. Thinking small is a losing way to think. Caring about our own pet issues makes us unprincipled, because it means we are only in this for ourselves and not for all of us. This pressure is real. After all the evidence of corruption coinciding with the Cuomo administration, look at how the only ones practising discipline are Democratic Party "leaders," who want your votes in exchange for more cheap-ass talk. Somebody complained yesterday that there is nobody, who can run against Gov. Cuomo, but that is a lie, because there are other people running against Gov. Cuomo. But people seem to be more impressed with the celebrity of a candidate than with casting a vote for an alternative that involves the slightest bit of taking a chance on a new face. Keeping voters in this place of fear works nicely for incumbents.

If people fail to achieve solidarity and fail to take a chance on someone new, then the only winners here will be Gov. Cuomo, Democratic Party bouncers, and their permanent government operative insiders, who double as big business lobbyists. It's enough to make one barf.

Friday, May 9, 2014

Michael Petrelis Exposes Misuse Of San Francisco Taxpayer Money In Promotion of Inaccurate Marriage Equality Book

Revisionist book by The New York Times reporter Jo Becker raises questions about possible ethics violations in San Francisco City Attorney's Office

The New York Times reporter Jo Becker wrote an inaccurate book about the marriage equality movement photo Jo-Becker_zps65bd0edd.jpg

Activist and muckraking blogger Michael Petrelis has obtained public records from San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office, showing how San Francisco city employees on the City "clock" were coordinating with The New York Times reporter Jo Becker and her various publicists to promote her controversial new book about the marriage equality movement, "Forcing the Spring." The 110-pages of public records is available on Google Drive.

In an e-mail Mr. Petrelis sent to Ms. Becker, to top editors of The New York Times, and to Mr. Herrera, Mr. Petrelis forwarded a link to his latest blog post and asked, "Will the San Francisco media continue to ignore these serious ethical lapses at the City Attorney's office ?"

Mr. Petrelis, like many LGBT activists, bloggers, and leaders, have been outraged by the inaccuracies of the modern social movement for marriage equality in the United States, as presented in Ms. Becker's book. Many reviewers of Ms. Becker's book believe that she gives too much credit to the recent progress of marriage equality across the United States to, amongst others, Chad Griffin, who was one of many individuals involved in the litigation to overturn California's controversial Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages when the ballot initiative was passed in 2008. Incredulous as it may seem, Ms. Becker called Mr. Griffin the gay "Rosa Parks."

For his part, Mr. Petrelis has been blogging about Ms. Becker's scandalous book, reporting about how the San Francisco City Attorney's office has been using city infrastructure, city employees' time, and other city resources to promote Ms. Becker's inaccurate book.

One wonders whether city investigators in San Francisco will question the use of taxpayer resources for Ms. Becker's private profit.

In the aftermath of the Stonewall riots of 1969, political activism by gays, lesbians, and trans* New Yorkers took off. In 1971, members of the Gay Activist Alliance in New York City "zapped" the city's marriage office, occupying it with the radical demand gays and lesbians be allowed to get married. The activists threw an "engagement party for two male couples," complete with "wedding cake decorated with two grooms and two brides," according to a YouTube video of the protest. In this emboldened new era, demands to end marriage discrimination crossed over into the mainstream. According to Mr. Petrelis' blog :

… On May 2, 1974, a one-hour debate organized as a mock trial and aired on a show called "The Advocates, The PBS Debate of the Week", and the subject was "Should Marriage Between Homosexuals Be Permitted ?" and the event was held on the University of California at Irvine campus. Leading the charge for the gays was longtime gay pioneer Frank Kameny who was masterful in his presentation and how he framed his arguments. …

Joining Kameny were out lesbian Elaine Noble who was a professor at Emerson College at the time, a year before she was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives and Dr. Richard Green, a psychiatrist from UCLA, and quite the bear but I don't what his sexual orientation is.

The opposing side was led by Florida civil rights attorney Tobias Simon, who was joined by Robin Smith at Occidental College, and Dr. Charles Socarides, listed as an Associate Clinical Professor at Albert Einstein Medical School.

Socarides was the father two blights upon the LGBT community, the first being the now-discredited bogus "conversion therapy" that held a person with same-sex attractions could be changed to desire the opposite sex, and the second was his son Richard Socarides, a Democratic political strategist who holds the dubious distinction of having written talking points for President Bill Clinton deflecting LGBT advocates' anger over the signing of the Defense of Marriage Act when he was the White House gay liaison. … (Frank Kameny v. Charles Socarides: 1974 PBS Gay Marriage Debate * The Petrelis Files)

In the intervening years, as the cumulative effect of LGBT political organizing grew grew, the arc of legal treatment towards the community grew from one viewing us based on our "sexual preferences" to one being based on "sexual orientation" and "gender identity," the difference being that we were stopped seeing as making a choice about our sexuality and instead being born this way, an easier argument to make for being born with natural rights and liberties, making the community's demands for equality easier to make. (The way that our community identified itself also change, from being termed "homosexuals" to "gays" to "gays and lesbians" to GLBT to LGBT, etc.) However, the inevitable backlash against LGBT organizing against discrimination, including against the state-sanctioned discrimination that denied LGBT couples the right to get married, was codified on the federal level by none other than President Bill Clinton, when he signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, in 1996. As alluded to by Mr. Petrelis, President Clinton's treacherous enactment of the law was made possible by the shady help of Richard Socarides, a gay political operative, who many New York City activists view with disdain for having enabled President Clinton to codify federal discrimination against civil marriage rights for LGBT couples. President Clinton later changed his mind about DOMA, but only after it became politically advantageous for him and for his wife, Mrs. Clinton.

Then, in 1999, the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruling in Baehr v. Lewin helped to spark the modern marriage equality movement. Activists were further emboldened by the landmark 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which finally invalidated all state laws against sodomy, a backhanded way that governments had traditionally used to oppressed the civil rights of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and trans* Americans. A year later, in a nod to how progressive social movements have historically been shown to grow in the United States, Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, added fuel to the fire in the drive for marriage equality by authorizing the city to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. His sole act helped to give hope to a broad spectrum of LGBT activists and allies by showing that a progressive reform made in one municipality could be replicated in other municipalities. The mayor of New Paltz, New York, copied Mayor Newsom's move, but the New Paltz effort was stopped by legal action. Legal action also put a stop to the San Francisco effort, triggering legal action, the whole Prop 8 ballot initiative, and subsequent litigation over Prop 8. When the traditionally conservative state of Iowa instituted same sex marriage rights in 2009 following its own Supreme Court ruling, LGBT activists in New York state where shamed about their inability to make progress on marriage equality in the shadow of leadership in other states, despite New York's reputation for being the nation's undisputed liberal and progressive leader. Marriage equality advocates had always been pressing their cause in New York state, but local politicians, such as former New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn never wanted to gamble any of her political capital on risky new government policy proposals, especially after she had spent years distancing herself from the radical activism that runs the liberal and progressive politics of New York City. Indeed, as the most visible LGBT official in New York City at the time, Ms. Quinn failed to organize the LGBT community in New York to block former Mayor Michael Bloomberg's successful effort to quash marriage equality in New York when he appealed, in 2005, a favourable court ruling supporting equal civil marriage rights. After the unrelenting direct action campaign, begun in 2010, by one group, Queer Rising, put marriage equality back on the social agenda, the big money LGBT groups felt more comfortable in deploying resources to support a renewed push for marriage equality in New York state. After marriage equality became law in New York state, activists across the world were inspired by the ability to pass legislation to extend civil marriage rights to LGBT New Yorkers. In the wake of success in New York, marriage equality activists were emboldened to organize and change the laws in such far away nations as France.

LGBT is the most common acronym to describe the minority community oppressed by state-sponsored laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but a more inclusive term is QUILTBAG, which stands for Queer/Questioning, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Transgender/Transsexual, Bisexual, Allied/Asexual, Gay/Genderqueer. Although more memorable, QUILTBAG has not gained wider use.

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Too bad HHC didn't backstop LICH's restructuring plan

From the Demand a Hospital Listserv :

Begin forwarded message:

From: Demand A Hospital
Subject: Too bad HHC didn't backstop LICH's restructuring plan
Date: 7 mai 2014 11:42:47 UTC-04:00
To: Demand A Hospital
Bcc: lflores22@gmail.com
Reply-To: demandahospital@gmail.com

Dear All :

The latest in-depth news about the end of full-service hospital care at Long Island College Hospital comes from Capital New York :

Officials from the de Blasio administration, including Emma Wolfe, were concerned that the winning bid to buy LICH from SUNY was not commercially feasible. Brooklyn Health Partners was the sole bidder for LICH to submit a plan to continue full-service hospital care at LICH, said to be a major concern to the community and to Mayor Bill de Blasio, but Brooklyn Health Partners has lacked a state license to operate a hospital, an area where the city's network of hospitals, the Health and Hospitals Corporation, could have provided valuable, non-financial assistance by proposing an HHC affiliation with Brooklyn Health Partners. However, the city never proposed any such affiliation, in spite of it being in the best interest to public health. Meanwhile, time may have run out on Brooklyn Health Partners's bid for LICH, even as Brooklyn Health Partners continues its search for a partnering hospital system, which could, amongst other things, sponsor an operating license.

City and state officials expressed outrage after it was revealed that Brooklyn Health Partners had planned to use a secret plan for massive real estate development on LICH's footprint to subsidize full-service hospital care at LICH, somewhat reminiscent of Rudin Management Company's original plan for St. Vincent's Hospital. The community's painful experience with what Rudin's reckless plans did to St. Vincent's still weighs heavily on the minds of New Yorkers, and that experience may have influenced the city's sudden opposition to Brooklyn Health Partners' plans for LICH. But government officials never sought to provide a combination of restrictions and assistance to the winning bidder for LICH to prevent such drastic real estate speculation in the first place.

Recall how the city rejected the community's demand to "land-lock" the zoning on the property of St. Vincent's Hospital after its final bankruptcy filing. Community activists even organized a sit-in protest over this very issue.

Watch : 4 Community Activists arrested In HANDS OFF ST. VINCENT's protest (YouTube) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcToWCh5VhU

Read more : The end of the full-service hospital in Cobble Hill (Capital New York) : http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2014/05/8544898/end-full-service-hospital-cobble-hill

Adding hospital-only restrictions to the deed(s) of LICH's property, coupled with critical support, like extending HHC's operating license to Brooklyn Health Partners, would have been one way for the city to have responsibly supported its intention to continue full-service hospital care at LICH. Some hold out hope that SUNY will sell LICH to the second-place bidder, Peebles Corporation. But SUNY's governance board, which has been on a months-long scorched earth campaign to sabotage LICH, has no motivation to save the hospital it's been desperately trying to close in a move to appease hospital closing czar Stephen Berger and Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

If by small chance Peebles Corporation is awarded its second-place bid for LICH, it may mark another instance when North Shore-LIJ stands to make financial gains from the closure of another full-service hospital in New York. North Shore-LIJ is a partner in Peebles Corporation' plan to build an urgent care center complex at LICH. As part of the Berger Commission's drive to close St. John's Queens Hospital and Mary Immaculate Hospital, both in Queens, the state Department of Health made a $3.5 million grant to North Shore-LIJ to expand emergency room services at its Forest Hill and Franklin sites. A year later, North Shore-LIJ received another state grant of $5.3 million to open an urgent care center in Rego Park, Queens, following the closures of St. John's and Mary Immaculate. After the closing of St. Vincent's, North Shore-LIJ received yet another $9.4 million grant to open a failed urgent care center in Chelsea. North Shore-LIJ also received for free its use of the old O'Toole Building, which is being redeveloped into a glorified urgent care center in the West Village. Now, North Shore-LIJ may again stand to gain from its venture deal for LICH. The Peebles Corporation plan for LICH involves plans for the development of some luxury housing, providing a financial windfall to the next owners of LICH's valuable real estate. LICH's medical campus sits on land said to be worth as much as $500 million. North Shore-LIJ CEO Michael Dowling served on Gov. Cuomo's Medicaid Redesign Team, which has pushed for further hospital closings on top of the closures made under the previous Berger Commission. There is further appearance of cronyism in ties between Peebles and SUNY. Peebles Corporation is headed by Don Peebles, who has political ties to SUNY chairman H. Carl McCall, Crain's New York Business has reported.

SUNY's disposition of LICH is expected to be made final on May 22.

Read more : SUNY Nixes Deal With Winning Bidder to Run Long Island College Hospital (DNAinfo) : http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20140505/cobble-hill/suny-ends-lich-talks-with-brooklyn-health-partners

Read more : Top LICH pitch implodes, leaving luxury developer up next (The Brooklyn Paper) : http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/37/19/dtg-lich-plan-implosion-2014-05-09-bk_37_19.html

Read more : LICH bidder Peebles has ties to SUNY board chair McCall (Crain's New York Business) : http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140402/REAL_ESTATE/140409967/lich-bidder-has-ties-to-suny-board-chair

Thank you for all that you do.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Demand A Hospital
Date: Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 8:42 PM
Subject: Can / Should HHC Save LICH and Interfaith ?
To: Demand A Hospital

Dear All :

Last week, SUNY Board of Trustees chairman Carl McCall offered to hand over Long Island College Hospital (LICH) to New York City once mayor-elect Bill de Blasio takes office, telling The New York Times that “I would love to meet with him and give him the keys to the hospital.” Mr. McCall said of his offer to transfer LICH to the next mayor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/18/nyregion/suny-withdraws-development-plan-for-troubled-brooklyn-hospital.html

In a separate report last week, another SUNY board member was quoted as saying that talks should be explored about possibly transferring LICH to the city's Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC).

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303949504579264803802600962

Given recent reports that Mayor Michael Bloomberg is leaving the city with a municipal budget surplus of approximately $2.4 billion, should consideration be given to transferring both LICH and Interfaith Medical Center, both located in Brooklyn, to HHC ?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/de-blasio-inherits-2-4b-surplus-challenges-article-1.1553616

Just today, Interfaith won a reprieve of a few more months.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/12/23/state-steps-in-to-keep-brooklyns-interfaith-medical-center-open/

Perhaps now is the time for the city to consider this stop-gap measure in order to guarantee full-service hospital care for Brooklyn, an option that was never made available for St. Vincent's Hospital by the Bloomberg-Quinn administration ?

If Gov. Andrew Cuomo won't fully fund healthcare in New York State, should we look to municipal resources ? For now, the resources exist at the city level. Since Albany seems intent on abdicating leadership on healthcare, should City Hall take action to finally stabilize city hospitals, so that our hospitals can adequately meet the expanded needs anticipated by new waves of insured patients under Obamacare ? Share your opinions with the mayor-elect at : info@billdeblasio.com

Thank you for all that you do.

P.S. Update on mysterious medical facility. The Lenox Hill urgent care center, which took millions in state money and then closed, was not the medical facility implicated by the Moreland Commission. The questionable facility, which took millions in state funding but failed to provide healthcare, was reportedly revealed to be Relief Resources Inc., and this facility is said to be tied to powerful Albany lobbyists.

http://nypost.com/2013/12/08/brooklyn-agency-fits-description-of-mystery-nonprofit/

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Tell Gov. Andrew Cuomo to stop closing our hospitals : 1 (518) 474-8390

You can also tweet your concerns to Gov. Cuomo at : @NYGovCuomo

Monday, May 5, 2014

A template for jobs growth in France

A new corporate entity type to empower French college graduates

Unemployment in Europe remains stubbornly high. In France, the unemployment rate is 10,4%. The only answer that European central bankers seem to be considering at the moment is rolling-out an American style bond buying-back program known as quantitative easing. Critics of this approach see it as nothing more than a backdoor bailout to large banks by artificially keeping interest rates low, allowing banks to arbitrage their lending as a way to recapitalize their tattered balance sheets. Mario Draghi, the European Central Bank president, is considering whether the ECB should adopt quantitative easing to stimulate banking profits, which he hopes will trickle down into new jobs. What delusion ! The only program that will create jobs is a “jobs creation” program. As it stands, the unemployment picture is only going to get worse. Amongst French youths, aged 15-24, the unemployment rate is 25%, slightly above the European average of 23,5% for that demographic, according to recent statistics. In Greece and Spain, unemployment of youths exceeds 50% ! How can a nation like France attract new investment while at the same time spur employment that is targeted at, let’s say, college-educated youths ?

France college students jobs program photo france-amphitheatre-universite_scalewidth_630_zps5f6bb7e2.jpg

In France, corporations generally face a high regulatory environment at a very basic level. Small things are over-regulated, like the width of the exterior sidewalks around office buildings, in a culture that resembles to impose a crude version of “broken windows” theory of business regulation that focuses on minutia, but does not focus enough attention at bigger issues, like the systematic way that corporations can exploit workers, for example, like what happened at the Goodyear plant in Amiens-Nord. It’s no wonder that, in this environment, France is losing a gifted young generation of entrepreneurs to other nations. Is there a way, for a period of, say, five to ten years, to incubate new businesses free from some of the most tedious of regulations -- just enough to liberate a creative class of young French citizens -- under a new form of organization to target jobs growth in several cities to jump start a new generation of prosperity ?

Traditional attempts to facilitate foreign investment in France -- the creation of a relatively new type of corporate entity in France, the société par actions simplifiée -- is a vehicle designed to essentially create subsidiaries in France, and this is a recipie for more disasters, where French workers will not achieve autonomy or freedom to create their own successes and instead unfortunately engender hostility. There is room, though, to create a new corporate structure to facilitate responsible investment to create a stronger France. This new structure, which would need to be created by a new law, would work in a new, enthusiastic partnership with the state as a jobs program. The state has a vested interest in seeing to the success of this corporate entity, and as a condition of simplifying some business regulation for a period of duration under this new corporate entity, the state would receive an equity investment in the new structure. Let me explain how this would work.

The state should enact a new law that creates one and only one specialized investment fund similar to a SIF structure with multiple compartments under Luxembourg law. The overall compliance management of the SIF at the umbrella level shall be overseen by a SIF governance committee comprised of, say, government economists and government lawyers, but the French can decide who would be best trusted with this role. Management of each compartment shall be determined by the constitution of each compartment, in accordance with the autonomous arrangement between the collective French workers and the venture capital investor. Each compartment created under the umbrella shall be 20% owned by the state. Forty-percent shall be owned by a venture capitalist, who seeds funding for a respective compartment. The remaining 40% shall be owned by the French workers, who, further organized as a collective for their part, propose a compartment to the SIF governance committee. So long as the workers are organized as a collective, present a business plan, pay a nominal incorporation duty, file a constitution for the compartment, and are sponsored by a venture capitalist willing to invest a minimum of €1 million, the SIF governance committee shall approve the creation of the compartment.

The French workers and the venture capitalist shall have wide latitude to create compartments, but since the social issue that this SIF structure is intended to address is the high unemployment rate of young French adults, the compartments should be geared to the long-term success of business ideas. The constitution of the SIF structure at the umbrella level must commence from its primary purpose : to be an incubation for new businesses. The constitution must also incorporate “public service” as a primary purpose, noting that each compartment formed thereunder shall carry out “socially-responsible business activities.” Since the state is waving some of its regulations to incubate the compartments, each compartment must file yearly financial and governance statements that attest the compliance of business activities to the compartment’s public service purpose. A feature of the SIF constitution must allow for a mechanism for the French public to enforce the “public service” and “socially-responsible business activities” purposes upon each compartment.

Furthermore, restrictions should be put into place in the constitution at the SIF umbrella level governing each underlying compartment : no borrowing of money or assumption of debts will be allowed, neither will be the making of loans. A cap on salaries on the employees set at a prevailing, living wage will be in effect to prevent any high earners to garner more compensation than other workers in the collective. No venture capitalist may be employed as part of the French workers’ collective. The maximum duration that a compartment may exist under this SIF structure shall be, say, five years, after which successful compartments shall exit the SIF structure as a new entity reincorporated as one of the many options then available under French law. No compartment may engage in businesses that may cause direct environmental harm, like industrial manufacturing, oil and gas exploration or production, or other chemical or industrial activities. No compartment may employ lobbyists, nor may any compartment make any politically-related contributions or expenditures. Compartments will be prohibited from influencing government law or policy. Finally, banking, investing, selling or issuing insurance, and development real estate shall be prohibited business activities.

Some will reasonably wonder whether a new corporate structure could facilitate jobs creation with so many restrictions. The immediate answer is that a structure like this could create jobs, because the state is trading less of the over-bearing corporate regulation in exchange for what basically amounts to a silent role as a passive equity investor. The anecdote of Guillaume Santacruz proves that this will be enough. The state gets a financial benefit once a compartment graduates out of the SIF structure. That the state will willingly grant some regulatory waivers to the compartments shows that the state is willing to support the success of the compartments. Others may wonder whether it is wise to give the state a 20% ownership stake in start-up businesses. Can the state be trusted to support start-ups from the inside ? Capped at 20%, the state’s role will solely be passive. The state’s ownership stake will allow the state to recoup any losses that may be incurred by the waiver of regulations. Any gains from successful compartments shall serve to balance any foregone gains from compartments, which do not succeed.

To target job creation, compartments should be formed in urban centers across France, coordinating if possible in priority development zones where there are high concentrations of educated young adults, such as Marseille, Montpellier, Dijon, Lyon, Limoge, Grenoble, Lille, Nantes, Strasbourg, Toulouse, and Paris. Corporate income tax rates would be assessed on each compartment no different than as on a small and medium-sized sociétés anonymes (SME's) under French law. Upon exit from the SIF structure, the state would be paid 20% of the fair market valuation of the compartment. A fair market valuation of the compartment will yield a higher return for the state, especially for Web-based business ventures, given that valuations of such businesses are pegged at their future potential, not on their current profitability. Under normal corporate structures, the public, including the state, miss out on "wealth creation." Under the proposed SIF structure, the state will earn a piece of this wealth, which it can, in turn, use to fund still yet other jobs creation programs or for other public purposes. After exit, the cooperative French workers should own no less than 50% of the surviving entity for a period of five further years. This will prevent the SIF structure from being used as a subsidiary tool by global multi-national corporations and will serve to respect the “cultural exception” of the business activities of the cooperative French workers. After that term, the French collective workers can autonomously decide what to do with their own creation.

Educated young adults, who would naturally find this proposed SIF structure attractive, would be creative types seeking to perhaps start Web-based businesses. These kinds of businesses, which are hot at the moment, tend to attract other young Internet-savvy employees. Who better to spearhead jobs creation for other young adults than creative and ambitious college-educated young adults ? Partnering a new generation of French workers with the state, as this proposed SIF structure contemplates, would reinforce the idea of the state as a valuable partner in the future of the French economy to its next generation of leaders, and it would serve to introduce venture capitalists to the idea that investors can work in collaboration with the French state. Indeed, France has been a magnet for recent foreign investment, making France an ideal candidate to roll-out a program like this.

During the term of the compartments’ existence under the SIF, the role of the state as a 20% owner in each compartment is to monitor the business activities of each compartment solely in respect of major realms of business regulation to prevent fraud, corruption, and other violations of law. The state will have voting rights as an owner of the compartment, but it will not hold a day-to-day management role. It is envisioned that under this proposed SIF structure the state will not interfere with the business activities of the compartments, but the state will, as the SIF’s ultimate regulatory authority, ensure that the compartments are accorded an environment with which to thrive, creating jobs in the process, ultimately serving the wider public service of improving employment and economic conditions in France. Success of this proposed SIF structure and its compartments will contribute to the success of France. By design, if the state can foster an attractive situation to satisfy entrepreneurial French workers to create their own businesses sponsored by venture capitalists, the nation will create a new source of employment for a critical segment of the nation’s population -- it’s next generation of leaders, who will help shape the future of France. The success of this proposed SIF structure will lower unemployment and change corporate culture by focusing investors on their critical role of public service, significant wins for French workers stung by recent corporate culture disasters at Goodyear and elsewhere.

Sunday, May 4, 2014

Dalida anniversary remembrance : "Jouez Bouzouki"

Yesterday was the 27th anniversary of famed French singer Dalida's untimely death. At age of , she committed suicide, breaking the hearts of her millions of fans around the world. Here she is in an uplifting dance performance of her 1982 number 1 hit, "Jouez Bouzouki."

Anne-Marie David sings "Tu te reconnaîtras"

The French singer Anne-Marie David represented Luxembourg in the 1973 Eurovision contest, winning for her performance of what has now become a classic song, "Tu the reconnaîtras." The hit song was composed by Claude Morgan with lyrics from Vline Buggy and conducting by Pierre Cao.

FBI agents seeking to determine if NY-CLASS donors hid Super PAC donations in coordinated effort to influence mayoral election

Federal Investigation Of Campaign Finance Scandal Looks At Coordinated Super PAC Donations

The NYC Is Not for Sale Super PAC TV attack blitz last year against former Council Speaker Christine Quinn brought to the fore years of grassroots discontent and organizing against Speaker Quinn. But FBI agents are investigating whether the hundreds of thousands of Super PAC expenditures were being coordinated behind the scenes by the de Blasio campaign or its surrogates, The New York Daily News reported.

Christine Quinn Bill de Blasio NY-CLASS FBI Investigation Campaign Finance Scandal photo 2014-05-04NY-CLASSFBITheNewYorkDailyNewsScreenShot_zpsd9803b1a.png

According to federal law, it is illegal for Super PAC's to coordinate their efforts with the official campaigns of political candidates. But on May 21, 2013, the attorney Jay Eisenhofer, who was Mayor de Blasio's largest campaign bundler, gave $50,000 to NY-CLASS, the animal rights group leading the charge to ban horse-drawn carriage. Ten days later, on May 31, NY-CLASS gave an equal amount -- $50,000, to the NYC Is Not For Sale Super PAC. On June 1, NY-CLASS received another large donation, this time for $175,000. It came from UNITE HERE!-- a labor union formerly headed by John Wilhelm, the mayor's cousin. Two days after that, on June 3, NY-CLASS sent the same amount, $175,000, to the NYC Is Not For Sale Super PAC, The New York Daily News reported.

If Mr. Eisenhofer and UNITE HERE! contributed directly to the NYC Is Not For Sale Super PAC, their involvement would have been made public within weeks because of campaign finance disclosure rules, but because they funneled their contributions through NY-CLASS, Mr. Wilhelm and Mr. Eisenhofer were cloaked in anonymity for months. The trigger for NY-CLASS to disclose their donors did not take place until NY-CLASS began its own campaign expenditures, an event that occurred on Sept. 7, three days before the Sept. 10 mayoral primary, The New York Daily News reported. NY-CLASS finally disclosed the contributions on Sept. 17, 10 days after the primary. The coordinated campaign contributions were first reported by Crain’s New York Business.

Confronted last year about the NYC Is Not For Sale campaign, then candidate de Blasio initially defended NYC Is Not For Sale's attack ads, saying, "People decided to speak out, and that's their legal right. But the fact is in our system, everything can and will be disclosed, and that's what the people require," although, contrary to then candidate de Blasio, the Super PAC got into trouble for failing to fully disclose its activities, as "the people require." At the time, Mr. de Blasio added that he'd be open to later reforming campaign finance laws (presumably after NYC Is Not For Sale sank former Speaker Quinn's mayoral campaign). "The important thing is to respect the fact that we may not like the way the law is, but it's the law. I certainly will put energy going forward into trying to further reform the campaign finance system, but so long as the law is the law, people will make choices within it. That is their right, but I will certainly never ask anyone to engage in such behavior." But so far, the mayor has betrayed his campaign promise to reform the loose campaign finance laws that allow Super PAC's to game elections. Furthermore, former Speaker Quinn has appeared to be milking the NY-CLASS scandal to portray herself as a victim of shady campaign finances ; meanwhile, she has a long record of political corruption.

If Mayor de Blasio was a true progressive, he would under take real reforms, like banning all private campaign donations in municipal elections, ending the appointment of municipal campaign finance regulators by politicians, and instituting newer, tougher regulations of campaign consultants/lobbyists. But perhaps Mayor de Blasio needs to protect the status quo of the broken campaign system. Judging by his 2013 campaign strategy, his 2017 reëlection campaign may be predicated on such.

Separate from violating campaign finance laws, the roles of NYC Is Not For Sale, NY-CLASS, and the lobbying firm advising them both -- The Advance Group -- had damaging effects on the opportunity for reform in a post-Quinn municipal government. Because of the independent campaign expenditures that nearly totaled $2 million, the influence of NY-CLASS perverted the ability of other issue reformers from being taken seriously by the media. Witness how the media accepted the controversial appointment of William Bratton as police commissioner, even though he still supports unconstitutional tactics, such as stop-and-frisk and the broken windows theory of policing, which unfairly targets low-income communities and people of color -- but does nothing to combat the white collar crimes by political operatives or by Wall Street. Further, NY-CLASS misappropriated the grassroots work by reform activists, including tenants' rights activists like John Fisher, police reform activists, QUILTBAG civil rights activists, and St. Vincent's Hospital activists, who each had separately and collectively spent years organizing to vote the former Council Speaker Quinn out of office. There was even a serialized book, recounting former Council Speaker Quinn's long record of community and political betrayals.

Casting a further pall on Mayor de Blasio's young administration is the outsized influence of lobbyists in City Hall, coordinating 501(c)(4) political campaign spending by loyal political operatives for his universal pre-kinder initiative with City Hall, his failure to reform the city's campaign finance system, and the reluctance by his administration to answer a FOIL request for records pertaining to possible obstruction of justice in the mayor's efforts to bust one of his campaign supports out of jail.