Republican Challengers Meet at Lundy's-Cherry Hill in Sheepshead Bay
Yesterday morning, the Republican challengers for Comptroller, Public Advocate, Brooklyn Borough President and the City Council’s 46th District gathered under the roof of the historic Lundy’s building. The event was the Republican party’s first endeavor to meet voters as formally endorsed candidates. What they encountered was a smattering of supporters, more food than people, and one lone reporter: me.
It was a hum-drum occasion. The Republicans each spoke briefly about their experience and reason for running. It was a litany of complaints about corruption and mismanagement, paired with promises to shine a light on the darknesses of political patronage and the Democratic machine. They promised more transparency in the issuing of contracts and to pressure contractors to do work efficiently. And they promised restraint and common sense, in place of, oh, say, $64 million amphitheaters next to synagogues.
But more than anything else, the event and its lack of coverage illustrated the chief hurdle the Republican party faces in local New York City elections: stigma.
Gene Berardelli, who is running for Lew Fidler’s seat in the City Council, called it the “Scarlet R”. Republican candidates in New York City face a steep uphill battle, as years of Democratic dogmatism threaten their credibility.
After all, this is a group many in the media regard as “token” challengers – and some even forget to mention at all. Courier-Life for example, has completely omitted the Republicans from their new election website. No, I don’t mean they’re not covering them (which they’re not). I mean they’re not even listed as challengers.
It’s bad enough we live in a two-party nation, but a one-party city is simply unacceptable. What, after all, has decades of one-party rule given us? What are we to benefit from the elimination of choice?
I’m not suggesting you should go out and vote Republican this year. What I’m suggesting is that you should have the opportunity to learn about a Republican from your media.
What I learned from yesterday’s meeting was that NYC Republicans are not the ravenous beasts of the national party. They’re home grown, and their opinions can stray far from the usual brand of Republican. Some, like Berardelli, are staunchly pro-environment. Many are pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay rights. Some may even believe in universal healthcare (okay, I haven’t met one of those – yet). What we have in NYC is a unique flavor of Republican – one that has adopted many of the national Democratic Party’s favorite issues while shaving off the dead wood of our city’s machine politics.
Again, I’m not suggesting you vote for a Republican in November. But you should attend a meet-and-greet. You should look at their websites. And you should ask yourself how fair your usual news outlet is being by muting these voices.
Ned Berke is a life-long Democrat. He has never voted Republican. In fact, the only time he voted for another party was during college, when someone got on the New Jersey gubernatorial ticket as “Weedman.” At that time, Ned felt Weedman deserved that vote for being skilled enough to navigate NJ’s electoral bureaucracy while high. That was pretty cool.
Related posts
Print This
- View Comments
- Opinion
Your picture is better than mine. Seems I’m cursed in that I cannot take indoor photos. The circular lighting on the mural came out too bright, and blurred everything near it.
I can count the times on my fingers when I voted for a Republican. While I can’t vote for Gene, I will consider the qualifications and positions of the three I could possibly vote for.
It’s been a long time since Republicans have been a political consideration on the most local level in most parts of NYC. Democratic incumbents are guaranteed re-election. For some elected officials, its given them the ability to vote their conscience as legislators. Others, however, see this as the means of serving the needs of special interests with any consideration of the impact their favors have on voters.
I think it’s about time we started needling the other local and citywide media abut the narrow focus of their political coverage. Of course some people who work at these various media read this blog so notice has been served to some degree. However, emailing the editors wouldn’t hurt.
As residents of Sheepshead Bay for just over two years my wife and I looked forward to this event to meet the candidates and other active people who have similar interest in our new community.
We arrived about 9:45 making sure we were there before the stated meeting time. We walked upstairs and waited for someone to greet us…nothing. Not knowing anyone we took the second table in front by the podium, facing the market. By 10:20 the meeting had not started, no announcement was made for the delay.( We may have misunderstood the time) It was a disappointing start for us in meeting the leaders in our community… We left and went to church.
Tim – sincerest apologies: We delayed the start in the hope that some more media would be attending as promised. That didn’t materialize – but who needs more media when you have Ned on the case!
Totally my fault for not making announcements clearer – most people understood the delay.
Hope you had a good day at church!
Oh, I got so wrapped up in responding to Tim, that I forgot to thank everyone who did come out and attend. Sunday morning politics is NOT fun for anyone, I realize… so thank you for coming out and meeting everyone.
As Ned pointed out, it’s a modest start, but a start nonetheless. I plan on sending out lots of press releases in order to break into some regional “mainstream” coverage. I’m hopeful we’ll break through with time.
I’m not going to cry “liberal media” like others have – the Republican party in Brooklyn and in NYC has been dormant – you sow what you reap. This is the first city-wide ticket we’ve mustered in 12 years! Of course the press isn’t going to be chomping at the bit to cover us – we have to earn back some credibility lost.
But, you have to start somewhere, and I’m glad I’m starting with men like Marc D’Ottavio, Alex Zablocki and Joe Mendola.
A revitalized Republican party is definitely news. But I suppose it’s a matter of perception. There’s probably some truth to the stereotype of the cynical editor. But there’s a great story here if they’d look into it.
I wonder how often media people hear from Republican organizers in NYC. It may take more than press kits to get their ear. Some personal contact might help. But I do believe that if they could be convinced that the party was seriously fielding candidates it would make a difference.
NYC as a truly two party city would create very interesting news stories.
You’re right Lisanne!Like I said we need to earn back our credibility. Fielding competent young energetic professionals is a great start. Now we need the follow-thru.
I just hope that “mainstream” news is fair in givng us a chance to earn that back. I don’t necessarily want the media to work with us, just not work against us.
Of course its an objective media that best serves everyone. A wider scope of coverage would be part of that diversity.
The local media, such as Courier-Life, used to be easily accessible years ago. I got them to cover some local events I put together and they were quite happy to help with pre-publicity. It wasn’t politics, but I was rather young at the time and not sure whether I could interest them. But I have no idea how things are run now that Courier is part of a media conglomerate. Still it is worth looking into.
I gotta be honest Gene.
A few years ago I considered myself bi-partisan. I was a bright eyed 18 year old and a new fangled registered voter. Since then, I’ve found it very very very hard to vote for Republicans. The national party has given the party as a whole a very bad name. The crap in State Senate, both before and after the last election make me very leery. I just don’t see anyone that represents ME and my point of view.
Then again I’m a very complicated person. I’m Pro-Choice, Pro-Marijuana Reform, Anti-Tobacco, Anti-Alcohol, Anti-Immigration (Illegal), Moderate-Immigration (Legal), Pro-Environment, Pro-Car, Pro-Taxing Rich People, Pro-Social Programs, Anti-Giving Everything to Anyone for free, Anti-Lobbyism, Pro-Campaign Reform, Pro-Legal Speed Limit Increase, Anti-Elderly Driving Rights, Pro-Alternative Energy, Pro-Innovation, Pro-Tradition.
I’m going to need some major convincing before I can walk into that booth and vote for a Republican and not think my taxes are going to go through the roof and my rights taken away while getting NOTHING back for it.
For that matter, I’m disgusted how the state threats the city, if I’m not mistaken we don’t even get back 70c on the dollar.
I’m rambling now, sorry.
Arthur B- Responding to you would be breaking my promise to Ned and Ray of not making stump speeches on his site on “why you should vote for me”, which I’ve gotten dangerously close to doing. Thus far, I’m tried to keep conversations either topical or in response to other postings. I’m going to copy and paste my response on my blog soon.
I truly believe it is more important to vote for the individual instead of the party. The longer you keep parties in office without appropriate transparency of individuals the more corrupt they become. Time has proven that both parties have their share of corruption. If you replaced every elected with someone things could not be worse. The machine would be disrupted and you have a chance for improvement.
Example:
Republicans: Reagen W. Bush
Democrats: Clinton Carter
Both parties have had the good and the bad-the smart or the inept
The voters have no one to blame but themselves when they vote by party or for the wrong individual.
Candidates that promise you everything usually deliver nothing.
The people must listen carefully to what the candidates have to say and vote for the INDIVIDUAL they feel they can trust. NOT THE PARTY!
Sorry if anyone is upset with this post.
I tend to agree with Simon that that’s how it works on a national level. On the local level, there’s less separation between the two parties because there’s a lot more to agree on.
I know that there won’t be a mass conversion from blue to red anytime soon – I’m just looking to open some perspectives and let people know there’s a choice. That said, I’m not going to shrink or allow a stigma to develop based on anyone’s party allegiance, either.
What I look for is the candidate that will address as i try to do, the issues of inept management, fraud and corruption running rampant in NYC Government. Cleaning up the houses of the School Construction Authority, NYC Building Department, NYC Housing Authority, Department of Finance/PVA/PVB and the MTA as a start, would generate more money for Quality of Life projects throughout the City’s Council Districts than any Council Member could possibly generate with their present allocations. Add to that the inequality of funds within districts if the Council Person doesn’t kiss Quinn’s ring. It appears Simcha Felder gets a larger share! How does Nelson or Fidler compare?
Without new Council Members supported by the community, nothing changes. It is time for Council Members to raise their voices and in media print to tackle the big issues which will generate substantially more monies for our communities.
Who is Fidler to not say where all the money goes, especially when it’s our money, not his to play with. They all must justify their decisions with total transparency. Nothing less should be tolerated.
How many of today’s elected officials ever raised the issue above. They should all be replaced as it is evident they arev afraid. Perhaps they will be spanked by one of Bloomberg’s Raiders for voicing the truth.
Perhaps at all Community Board, Civic Associations and Community Group meetings the people should start demanding answers on some of the tough issues from the so called Council Members who supposedly work for the people. I feel confident that heir ability to respond will clearly demonstrate they should be replaced.
Every place they show their face the people should be on the offensive.
Somehow, bck to me again.
Mr. Belsky hs taken a comment made several years ago, out of context and repeated it out of context. I repeat, ALL of my allocations are posted on the Council website with my name next to them I know he does not get my newsletters since he is not in my district [though he seems to want to be]…where I PUBLISH my most signifidcant allocations and mail to every voting household in my district.
Can we put that to rest now?
And finally, for the record, i want everyone to know that some of my best friends are Republicans.
So let’s get a grip, ok????
Have a lovely summer day.
Lew from Brooklyn
Lew to save anyone the trouble of finding this information perhaps you’d like to post a link? I’d also like to invite you to change your tone in your writing. Maybe I’m reading to much into it but it sounds very annoyed and defensive when I read it. I understand you might get annoyed at something a citizen may post or say especially when it involves you but being in public office I’d expect your composure to be a bit more restrained… But then again that’s just my opinion!
@Ned – hahahahahaha that Ann Coulter ad at the bottom is hilarious, ain’t target advertising grand?
Try these:
http://council.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/fy_2010_sched_c_final.pdf
http://council.nyc.gov/html/home/home.shtml
Someone should explain to Mr. Fidler the definition of taking ones comments out of context. The following is the full article.
(Money for The District-Paragraph #7)
Is stating that crystal clear statements are taken out of context is a politicians method of covering up the truth then I suggest taking a close look at all his comments to see if anybody else took them out of context. Mr. Fidler and everyone can now read the entire article and ask Mr. Fidler to explain what is out of context.
*********************************************************************
Budget Dollars for the Neighborhoods: Community Development or Political Pork?
by Mark Berkey-Gerard
Last year, organizers of the West Indian-American Day Parade invited five New York City Council members on a “fact-finding” mission to Trinidad and Tobago’s carnival to study what makes the event so popular and profitable. Based on New York City’s annual budget, it appears the trip paid off — at least for the organizers.
Buried deep in the city’s budget documents is a $100,000 allocation for the Brooklyn parade, twice as much as the group received last year.
While many New Yorkers would agree that events like the West Indian Day Parade, the city’s largest ethnic celebration, are worthy of some funding from the city’s $47 billion budget, the City Council is not exactly forthcoming about the details of such decisions and how members benefit from them.
Each year as part of the annual budget, the New York City Council doles out millions of dollars to community groups, arts organizations, Little League teams, and parades. (For a list of what more than a dozen council members say they received from the budget see related article.)
But when it comes to these initiatives, the City Council:
* Negotiates the grants behind closed doors.
* Does not disclose which officials requested the money.
* Gives little explanation about how the money will be used.
* And refuses to add up how much all of these efforts cost taxpayers.
And most council members defend the practice, arguing that the money goes to needy causes in their districts.
“They call pork the other white meat,” East Harlem City Councilmember Philip Reed told the Daily News. “Meaning, it’s good for you.”
Where does the money come from? Who decides where it goes? And do these grants really help a neighborhood and its residents, or are they just taxpayer-funded efforts to help get officials re-elected?
MONEY FOR THE DISTRICT
At all levels of government, elected officials lobby for funding for projects in their home districts. For New York City Council members, who have less power to set policy than lawmakers in Albany or Washington, these budget allocations represent some of the most tangible evidence of what they have done for their constituents.
City Council members obtain money for their districts in four primary ways.
1. Member Items
Each of the 51 City Council members is given a sum of money — often called “member items” or “discretionary funds” — to spend in their districts.
This year, each member received a total of $240,000, of which $60,000 must go to programs for the elderly and $100,000 must go to youth programs. Officials allocate the remaining $80,000 in their districts as they wish.
Although each City Council member is given that same amount of money, many members take credit for obtaining these grants as a way of bolstering their accomplishments.
Riverdale City Councilmember G. Oliver Koppell, for example, recently sent out a press release announcing that he had “obtained an increased amount of funding” for senior programs. “The programs I am helping to fund provide much needed services to our most vulnerable citizens and add to the quality of life,” Koppell said in the statement.
Koppell, however, did not mention that each of the other 50 City Council members also received the same amount of money. But when it comes to the specifics of how an individual council member divides his or her discretionary funds, elected officials often are less forthcoming.
When asked how he doled out his $80,000 in member items, Canarsie Councilmember Lew Fidler said he did not feel comfortable giving all of the details because community groups that did not receive funds may feel left out.
And Flushing Councilmember John Liu even rejected the idea that member items really exist, arguing that the council arrives at a budget as a body.
“I don’t have anything that’s called a member item,” said Liu. “There are local initiatives that are suggested strongly by a council member.”
2. Borough Delegation Money
In addition, each borough delegation — the group of council members representing each borough — is given a pot of money. For example, this year the Queens delegation received $250,000, which was split among the 14 Queens council members. With their money, Queens council members funded projects like the Queens Symphony Orchestra, which received $78,000.
To decide who is worthy of funding, borough delegations hold open meetings where individual non-profit groups come and “testify” as to how much money they need. These meetings are not widely advertised, and a group must know when and where these meetings occur.
3. The Speaker’s Money
Another large sum of money belongs to City Council Speaker Gifford Miller who, along with Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has the largest influence over what goes into the city budget. Miller can also dispense large grants on behalf of the legislative body.
For example, the New York Junior Tennis League, which offers free lessons to kids, received $486,500 from the city budget this year. And while the budget documents don’t say that the money came from the speaker, the tennis organization’s web site does: “Funded By Council Speaker Gifford Miller” the web site states prominently.
Miller’s office refused to say how much money the speaker allocated this year, saying only that the grants “represent the City Council’s priorities.”
To get the speaker’s support for projects within their district, individual council members must convince him that they have worthy projects. Politics also comes into play; the speaker can use his power to reward or punish certain council members based on their support for him in other matters.
“Some of us are good at this and some of us aren’t,” said one council member who did not want to be named. “Those of us who are good at it are supposed to keep our mouths shut.”
4.Capital Budget
In addition to funds in the city’s annual operating budget, each council member also lobbies for projects in the separate $6 billion capital budget, which covers the purchase, repair, or construction of physical items that cost over $35,000 and that last for at least five years.
These are often big ticket items, like computer equipment for schools, improvements to parks, or expansion of local libraries. It is also what City Council members often take the most credit for, since the projects cost millions of dollars and voters can see some tangible results.
But there are other factors that lead to funding beyond a council member’s lobbying. For example, Brooklyn City Councilmember Diana Reyna said she obtained $1.6 million toward the development of almost 200 affordable apartments, but that project largely resulted from Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s citywide effort to build more housing over the next five years.
FOLLOWING THE MONEY TRAIL
The argument for giving City Council members a substantial role in allocating money in their districts is that they know the community’s needs.
“You elect council members locally because they know what is needed in their district,” said Doug Turetsky of the Independent Budget Office, a watchdog group that monitors the city budget.
But the process of distributing this money is largely obscured from the public.
Most of the lobbying and negotiations takes place behind closed doors. This forces non-profit groups and arts groups into the role of lobbyists, writing letters to their council members, meeting council members in person, and even making trips to City Hall to make sure they are not forgotten.
Budget documents also do not say which City Council member requested which item, which can lead to confusion over who exactly should take credit for obtaining the funding.
The head of one Brooklyn community center, who asked not to be named, said that after receiving a grant for $30,000 this year, he received letters from three different council members all claiming credit for it.
And come election time, politicians go back to the same organizations and groups that they funded looking for campaign donations or help in getting out the vote.
“We are eager to give this money out,” said Jack Freedman, chief of staff to Councilmember David Weprin. “But we’re politicians, so we also want people to know where it came from.”
For a look at what your individual council member obtained in this year’s city budget, read What Did Your Council Member Get for Your Neighborhood?
*********************************************************************
Mr. Fidler and all politicians must get a clear message that the matter will never be put to bed until there is total transparency and accountability to the total district, not only where the contributions are made.
I do get both Nelson’s and Fidler’s Newsletter and they are nothing more than than patting themselves on the back. They use our money just to put their name in front of you and never dare raise the issues of inept management, fraud, corruption and lack of transparency in City Government as I have explained in prior posts.
I don’t and I am sure you don’t believe Fidler or Nelson would dare debate me on the issues I have raised, But I will always be available.
Arthur B: A link is a very good suggestion to start, but I would be shocked if we ever see one. When a politician is put on the spot regarding his comments or issues he is afraid to comment on, he has no choice but to become defensive or distort the facts in a desperate attempt to confuse the voting public.
Arthur: I am currently looking to see if there’s a way I can ban specific ads. I have no intention of helping that hateful monster sell books.
…and blocked! Goodbye, cretin!
I think the above links are what everyone is looking for. Check out page 61 on the PDF file.
“3. The Speaker’s Money
Another large sum of money belongs to City Council Speaker Gifford Miller…”
How old is the article?
Bill W: The article I posted is 2004. As evidenced by the inquires into Quinn’s allocation of monies last year, it appears that the problem has not gotten any better. I believe that Simcha Felder denied requesting monies for two Jewish Organizations. I will get the latest article and post it in order to get the facts straight. I believe it was in the NY Times.
Here are three articles that raise serious questions why you should vote for any incumbent. I hope it’s not too lengthy.
Quinn Offers Apologies to Council
Article Tools Sponsored By
By DIANE CARDWELL
Published: April 18, 2008
In a series of private meetings with rank-and-file members of the City Council on Monday, Speaker Christine C. Quinn kept apologizing. She told them she had blundered badly in her response to revelations about the Council’s appropriation of money to fictitious organizations.
“I’m terribly sorry for the way I did this, with no consultation,” one council member recalled her saying. “You read in the paper about people in crisis situations doing things and you say, ‘How could they have been so stupid?’ And now I know how they could have been that stupid.”
But several Council members said that Ms. Quinn’s expressions of regret did little to ease their anger.
Two weeks ago, Ms. Quinn was facing her first major public embarrassment: the disclosure that she had not known, or had been less than forthright, about the strange way the Council handled its discretionary funds. Now she is facing what may be a more serious threat to her political future: the growing rebellion of council members who have criticized her attempts to limit damage from the revelations as amounting to a surrender of power to the mayor.
With little notice or briefing to council members, Ms. Quinn held a news conference last Friday to unveil a plan to allocate discretionary grants through a competitive process overseen by the mayor’s Office of Contracts, severely curtailing the Council’s latitude.
Some have called her dishonest. Some have called for her to resign. William C. Thompson Jr., the city comptroller and a potential rival in a race for the mayor’s office, has said he would police the Council’s spending. And Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said he wanted the administration to oversee all but the smallest Council appropriations.
So Ms. Quinn has spent days calling and meeting with council members; she has agreed to rethink the reform measures she championed a week ago; and she has hired her own lawyer. The full scope and impact of criminal investigations into the Council’s spending are unclear and may yet be evolving. But its specter — rising from fact or conveniently buoyed by competitors — is likely to continue to tax Ms. Quinn’s political survival skills as she pursues a run for mayor.
“That Friday press conference that she had was a last-ditch effort to save her political career at the expense of the institution,” said Councilman Tony Avella, “and that’s what I think really pushed people over the edge.” Mr. Avella, a Queens Democrat who plans to run for mayor, added, “She’s thrown everyone to the wolves except herself.”
For her part, Ms. Quinn acknowledged that she should have consulted more with her fellow lawmakers, but said she wanted to send New Yorkers a message that the Council was moving to fix what had gone wrong. She deflected questions about her political future.
“This is obviously a difficult time for, I think, everyone in the City Council and all of us are going to have to do what we’ve always done in the City Council, which is to pull together and keep moving forward,” she said in an interview at City Hall on Thursday, calling this period “perhaps the most tense time for us so far in the two and a half years that we’ve all been in this term together.”
But many council members said that Ms. Quinn’s political interests and those of the Council were colliding, and that they resented being tarred as corrupt and in need of reform by her proposals.
Indeed, as she has been quietly laying the groundwork for a mayoral bid during the past year, Ms. Quinn has been privately casting herself as a reformer who could best extend the legacy of Mr. Bloomberg if she became the next mayor.
“This was nothing more than trying to get some political cover for what had happened already,” said Councilman John C. Liu of Queens, “and it was problematic because calling it reform casts the whole body in a negative light as if somehow we needed to be reformed.”
Thus far there has been no serious internal push to oust her from the post she gained in 2006. But several lawmakers, many of whom would speak only anonymously for fear of retribution, said that even though there was still good will left for her in the Council, Ms. Quinn had severely damaged the trust of the Council and would probably find it increasingly difficult to win support for her agenda and her campaign for mayor.
Leroy G. Comrie, a Queens councilman who is the majority whip, said, “People want to see the speaker defend the institution and ensure that the institution at the end of the day stays what it was meant to be by its original mandate: a counterpoint to the executive branch.”
Ms. Quinn has not been fulfilling that role, said lawmakers stung by what they saw as her abandonment of their needs and her pattern of aligning herself with Mr. Bloomberg against the will of the Council.
As she ran for speaker, these lawmakers say, she promised to pursue extending term limits but then retreated after a poll came back with mixed results. She devised unpopular lobbying and campaign finance overhauls with groups outside the Council, and then muscled them through, lawmakers complained. And both she and Mr. Bloomberg promised council members that they would not be forced to take a politically risky vote on congestion pricing to improve traffic in Manhattan until there was an agreement in Albany to approve it as well, council members said. (The measure died in the State Assembly without reaching a vote.)
Ms. Quinn acknowledged that there were tensions on the Council, but said they were natural in a 51-member body.
“I think that on the vast majority of issues we’ve been incredibly successful working together,” she said. “I don’t think it’s realistic to expect that any set of elected officials are ever going to feel that their speaker or their leader is, you know, 100 percent in lock step with them all the time.”
But others said the situation was more dire.
Councilman Lewis A. Fidler, a Brooklyn Democrat, said he was “trying to help her out of this mess.” The way she moves forward, he said, is critical. “She’s got to reconcile the policy agenda she laid out with the constraints that are being placed on that by at least 48 of her colleagues who think what she suggested publicly without consultation was a huge mistake,” he said.
August 6, 2009, 5:55 pm
Thompson and Gotbaum Ask for Mayor’s Discretionary Fund Data
By Ray Rivera
Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr. and Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum asked the mayor on Thursday for all documents relating to his office’s use of discretionary funds to finance nonprofit groups after The New York Times reported that the Bloomberg administration had sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to two politically connected groups in violation of city contracting rules.
“As Chief Financial Officer of the City of New York, I have the authority under the New York City Charter to investigate all matters relating to or affecting the finances of the city,” Mr. Thompson, who is challenging the mayor in this fall’s mayoral race, said in a letter to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. He called The Times report “extremely troubling.”
In a separate letter to the mayor on Thursday, Ms. Gotbaum, who has disagreed with Mr. Bloomberg over term limits and budget cuts for her office, said, “I urge you to address these allegations immediately and to shed light on your office’s discretionary spending since you have been in office.”
On Tuesday, The Times reported that City Councilman Simcha Felder never asked that City Hall give two nonprofit groups $3 million in what are known as discretionary funds. Without that request, the administration lacked the authority to give the money to the groups, Agudath Israel of America Community Services and Ohel Children’s Home and Family Services, except through competitive bidding.
Mayor Bloomberg has questioned Mr. Felder’s memory, and aides to the mayor say a thorough review of the spending last year found no illegality. That analysis detailed nearly $30 million in spending between 2002 and 2008, including nearly $20 million on behalf of more than two dozen council members.
In his letter on Thursday, Mr. Thompson demanded a copy of the audit and all supporting documents.
“Despite my office’s critical role in registering all contracts and agreements, that audit has, to my knowledge, never been shared with my office,” Mr. Thompson wrote.
Asked what Mr. Thompson intended to do with the information, his spokesman, Jeff Simmons, said, “Once we receive it, we will review it as soon as possible and determine the next course of action, including referral to an appropriate investigative body, if warranted.”
The administration did not respond immediately to Ms. Gotbaum’s letter, but in a swift reply to Mr. Thompson, Deputy Mayor Edward Skyler said in a letter that he was “surprised and confused” by his request. Mr. Skyler said the administration had been fully forthcoming with the comptroller’s office at the time of the analysis, which Mr. Skyler categorized not as an audit but rather an “exhaustive review.”
Mr. Skyler said the review included the work of a forensic accountant hired by the Law Department to reconstruct how funds were spent. It resulted, he said, in a pair of publicly issued notices in May and September 2008 explaining the “mechanics and history” of the funds as well as a series of changes in procedure.
“I personally worked closely with your staff both before and after the issuance of the memoranda to discuss the steps the city was taking, and to collaborate on the procurement reforms that have been implemented since this issue arose,” Mr. Skyler wrote.
In an obvious reference to the coming election, Mr. Skyler closed his letter by saying, “I would like to think this is a simple misunderstanding rather than an indication that outside circumstances are impairing our ability to work together on this and related issues.”
In response, Mr. Simmons said in a statement:
It is unfortunate that the mayor’s office would choose to once again cry politics when transparent and accountable government is all that Bill Thompson is seeking. According to The Times, City Hall clearly portrayed that an audit was conducted. The comptroller has continued and will continue to call on City Hall to make public any of those documents. Ascribing a different agenda is clearly a smoke screen.
Politics aside, Mr. Thompson and Ms. Gotbaum should not expect any big envelopes in the mail. The mayor’s office has said that there is little paperwork supporting the review and that it relied on interviews with staff members to reconstruct the financing. When The Times asked this week for a copy of the audit, a spokesman for the mayor said the report was really little more than a “spreadsheet that detailed what was funded and by whom.”
August 6, 2009, 10:50 am
‘Bad Memory’ Cited in Dispute Over Mayoral Funds
By Michael Barbaro
The Bloomberg administration is calling it a case of poor record keeping and “bad memory.”
On Tuesday, The New York Times reported that Councilman Simcha Felder never requested that City Hall give two nonprofit groups $3 million in what are known as discretionary funds, as the mayor’s office has claimed in documents.
Without Mr. Felder’s request, City Hall lacked the legal authority to dole out the money to the groups, Agudath Israel and Ohel. By law, the funds could be distributed only at the request of a council member or borough president.
“People disagree on what they remember,” Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said at a news conference on Wednesday, disputing Mr. Felder’s recollection.
He added:
I really asked a thousand times of my staff, and we remember it one way. It’s one of these things that was never documented, but when I talk to my staff it makes sense that they’re right. They wouldn’t have any reason to not, and there was lots of history before and afterwards that would suggest that, you know, maybe it’s just bad memory. When you get to be my age, I’m telling you get to forget some things, too.
Documents from the fiscal years 2007 and 2008, obtained by The Times through a Freedom of Information Law request, may help explain why Agudath and Ohel stood out for Mr. Felder: they are the only two groups that City Hall financed in his name for which he did not file written requests.
In 2007, Mr. Felder filed formal written requests to City Hall seeking funds for nine groups or causes, like the purchase of garbage cans. City Hall gave money for all nine — plus two more for which there were no written requests, Agudath and Ohel.
In 2008, Mr. Felder wrote requests for 18 groups or causes he wished City Hall to finance. Again, City Hall gave money to each — plus two more, Agudath and Ohel, despite no written request forms from Mr. Felder.
The Bloomberg administration said it had no written requests from before 2007.
Mr. Felder has said the explanation for the missing request forms for Agudath and Ohel is that he never asked for the money. In 2007 and 2008, he agreed to allow City Hall to use his name to finance the two groups, even though he said did not seek the money. From 2002 to 2006, he said, City Hall financed the groups in his name without his knowledge. Even Agudath officials acknowledge that they went straight to the mayor’s office — not to Felder — for the money, and were surprised to see it come back in the councilman’s name.
The Bloomberg administration disputes this account, saying an internal audit shows that it had requests for all the money it gave out. And it contends that it financed many groups on behalf of council members in the absence of written requests — perhaps as many as 16 groups.
Mr. Bloomberg has acknowledged that his discretionary financing process lacked sufficient record keeping and transparency, which he says is why he shut it down in 2008.
Bill: Do you expect anyone here to trudge through 400 pages to find the entries relating to Mr Fidler?
I did a character search of the PDF and searched for Mr Fidlers name hoping to find the monies he donated. My search showed zero results. So either Mr Filder’s name doesn’t appear in that document or I did something wrong.
Comments from NY Times readers on the articles: If you feel this much information is not informative I wil redude the length of these posts as I don’t know how to input links:
20 Comments
1.
1. August 6, 2009 10:55 am Link
The inevitable knee-jerk whining about anti-semitism should not sway the U.S. Attorney’s Office from looking into this matter. There’s a strong whiff of graft to this story.
— dip
2.
2. August 6, 2009 11:15 am Link
How about a complete list of nonprofit groups that get money from City Hall and how much they get annually? Also how much do they pay their on staff people? I have a problem when staff members get benefits and more than median wage from discretionary and unaccounted for money paid by taxpayers which could be used for things such as hiring cleaners to clean subway stations….e.g. or gasp lower fees like bus fare and tolls…
— “hetty greene”
3.
3. August 6, 2009 11:17 am Link
Who are these groups and what do they do … and how many votes do they deliver to Bloomberg?
— John H.
4.
4. August 6, 2009 11:35 am Link
“…maybe it’s just bad memory. When you get to be my age, I’m telling you get to forget some things, too.” — Mayor Bloomberg.
Maybe it’s just that we need a younger mayor, with a sounder mind, possessed of all the faculties required to govern this city and lawfully manage allocation and distribution of public funds.
— Nat
5.
5. August 6, 2009 11:41 am Link
I see how it works: Hizzoner’s staff remembers it one way & since there is no written record to support their memories, they must be right; Mr. Felder’s recollection must be faulty. Nevertheless, one of the two groups was quoted yesterday in the NY Times as saying they never went to the City Council for funds, they went directly to the Mayor’s office. Let’s face it, both groups are important politically to Bloomberg’s re-election and were going to get funds by hook or by crook. This merely demonstrates the hypocrisy of Mayor Bloomberg’s claims that it is not business as usual with him. First, he has the Council repeal the term limits law, flying in the face of 2 referendums on the issue, & now he provides funds to political supporters by using a council member’s name. He’s been a good mayor, no issue with that. However, these political shenanigans are reasons for him not to be re-elected.
— Miguel J. Cernichiari
6.
6. August 6, 2009 12:41 pm Link
It appears that the collective memories of both the Mayor’s Office and the City Council are in question.
Who in the world forgets who they gave $3,000,000.00 to; whether directly or through a second or third party?
Somebody is lying through their teeth. I hope the NYC Department of Investigations gets to the bottom of this, no matter where it leads or to whom it leads to!
— adriane paniagua
7.
7. August 6, 2009 1:01 pm Link
Governor Blagovich will say I should have been mayor of New York city and no one will dare touch me.
— David Robertson
8.
8. August 6, 2009 1:08 pm Link
I’ve worked for this City for 10 years and you have to CC about 18 people just to move 50 bucks. I got one this morning with 23 people copied on it to replace one broken blackberry.
This is comical. And obvious.
— T
9.
9. August 6, 2009 1:18 pm Link
3 term Bloomberg is a know it all when it comes to good publicity but when criticism comes his way he just shoos it away like swatting a fly.
His reasoning for the 3rd term is to get us through the economic crisis. How’s he doing? WTC constuction stalemate has not been solved and now this decretionary funds issue which can not be authorized by the mayors office. The driving ban/traffic problems has been solved in Lower Manhattan due to high vacancy rates which is on the Mayors economic teams to do list.
So when his third term begins and the economic recovery begins he will be in the front of the line looking for a big plate of praise.
It must be the office (see Guiliani/Koch) of the mayor not the man that creates this extreme lack of humility.
— Mike
10.
10. August 6, 2009 1:24 pm Link
Reminds me of the song from the Broadway show, “Fiorello,” that has the politiciians singing that they each put missing New York City funds into, “A Little Tin Box, that a little tin key unlocks.”
I for one can’t wait until the results of the slush fund investigation are fully revealed and we all find out just how many little tin boxes exist and who has the little tin keys that unlock them!
— Perley J. Thibodeau
11.
11. August 6, 2009 1:55 pm Link
“When you get to be my age, I’m telling you get to forget some things, too.” – Mayor Bloomberg
” … get to forget some things, too.” provides legal cover for lying about some things.
Bloomberg is suggesting to Felder they shoud both forget about some things.
— JB in NYC
12.
12. August 6, 2009 2:05 pm Link
Nat, you read my mind! Great mind’s think a like ; )
— blast
13.
13. August 6, 2009 2:17 pm Link
Mayor Bloombergs says that “When you get to be my age, I’m telling you get to forget some things, too.”
Well Mayor, Perhaps that’s your indication that you’re to old to run for a illegitimate 3rd term..
— Simon
14.
14. August 6, 2009 2:21 pm Link
This looks more and more like a fiasco for the Republican mayoral candidate Mike Bloomberg. My prognosis is that in January 2010 the city of New York will have a new mayor: Democrat Bill Thompson.
— Lara
15.
15. August 6, 2009 4:27 pm Link
The hurriedlly diagnosed excuse of a parttime faulty elderly memory also brings to mind this Wikipedia entry for the song, “Little Tin Box.”
“Little Tin Box”, in which they imagine a series of Tammany politicians attempting to explain to a judge that their wealth came from their scrupulous habits of saving (”I can see Your Honor doesn’t pull his punches/ And it looks a trifle fishy, I’ll admit,/ But for one whole week I went without my lunches/ And it mounted up, Your Honor, bit by bit./ Up Your Honor, bit by bit.”)
Excuses never change-Politicians never seem to either.
— Perley J. Thibodeau
16.
16. August 6, 2009 4:44 pm Link
True that Bloomberg went on a Boss Tweed building spree but, let’s hope he stops short of restoring Tammany Hall.
— Perley J. Thibodeau
17.
17. August 6, 2009 9:45 pm Link
the mayor deviated from his normal modus operandi by not putting a little extra in an agency’s budget for a “friendly” council member. he probably still does it. it works like this, rather than raising alarms by having one council member disproportionately receive discretionary funds, he usually has a commissioner reach out to a council member after the budget is adopted (or sometimes state legislators) and have their nonprofit of choice receive some money. this is on top of what some council members get from the speaker who has also been known to park money.
this issue will be the downfall of the bloomberg administration.
— sam c
18.
18. August 7, 2009 7:53 am Link
While I am interested in why “these groups”, I don’t see how they did anything wrong. Felder appears to be the most honest man in City Hall for telling the truth. So it is on the other end of City Hall that prosecutors must look.
— Bruno
19.
19. August 7, 2009 8:22 am Link
head of the highline park makes $280,000 with 8 others making over $100,000 there…
— Kenny
20.
20. August 8, 2009 11:35 pm Link
bruno,
i agree with you in that it is the mayors office that should be investigated.
council members are not given the money to spend. they distribute it to nonprofit organizations that mayoral agencies are responsible to oversee and make sure all is in order before they receive the funds. a great deal of paperwork is required in order for a nonprofit to receive funds provided by a council member.
but if the mayor provides the funds, then i am sure things get expedited a bit……
— sam c
14 Comments
1.
1. August 6, 2009 6:22 pm Link
The first rule is don’t commit anything to paper and only supply audio tapes with a goodly proportion of minutes that are conveniently by accident erased.
I’m surprised that Andrew Cuomo hasn’t jumped into the fray.
It’s obvious that the political knives are being sharpened and will soon be flashing in their own highly reflective light.
Let’s hope they reach to all of their justified intended targets.
— Perley J. Thibodeau
2.
2. August 6, 2009 6:49 pm Link
Let’s see where this goes. There has to be paperwork for this. If the law wasn’t followed and the Mayor’s good buddy Simcha didn’t ask for it, “on paper” then the money never should have been given out. Here is another example of the City of New York’s policy of looking the other way as crimes are committed. On November 3rd come together as a people and vote out this man as he cannot relate to the dignified hard working citizen of the City of New York. running4mayor.com God Bless
— Kevin Coenen
3.
3. August 6, 2009 7:31 pm Link
I would like to point out a few things about Thompson for those of you who think he is an alternative to Bloomberg. I think both of them are 2 peas in a pod and SHOULD BE working together to make the city a better place. Thompson worked for Richmond, a US representative who was charged with soliciting sex from a minor and from an undercover police officer then Thompson went to work for him as Chief of Staff and Richmond eventually wound up in the slammer for tax evasion and a improper payments to a federal employees according to America Online look it up. Village Voice: Thompson broke 1/2 dozen securities regulations by operating with a suspended securities license. He failed to file his taxes a few times once failing to pay his fair share. He headed the Board of Education and drove it 3 billion dollars over budget and that agency was a nightmare during his reign. Now he is Comptroller and receives campaign contributions from investment firms from all over the U.S., who get N.Y. Citizens pension funds to invest and drove it down 25% in value. He is currently the Comptroller and the city is in its worst financial shape it has been in 50 years. Think about these things before going into the booth and voting for him. All of these things can be found with sufficient research. the time has come. running4mayor.com God Bless
— Kevin Coenen
4.
4. August 6, 2009 8:17 pm Link
him and quinn… the little groups fight for $2000 while the fat cats divide millions and pour it back into re-elections, ala the Highline park
— Jung’an
5.
5. August 6, 2009 9:36 pm Link
perley,
ag cuomo will never look into bloomberg. when the city council held hearings on term limits, mario cuomo was brought in by bloomberg as the lead witness for overturning the will of the people on term limits. he blasted term limits while talking about how great a mayor bloomberg is.
for this and probably other reasons, cuomo will never investigate bloomberg’s shenanigans. he has always been loyal to whomever his dad is loyal to.
— sy sigh
6.
6. August 7, 2009 12:44 am Link
whatever Bloomies faults are, he is doing a far superior job than any of the clowns opposing him would.
— Larry
7.
7. August 7, 2009 1:09 am Link
sy sigh
If Cuomo doesn’t do a thorough investigation of Mayor Bloomberg’s illegally taking this city fund money and passing it out to buy further votes then as both New York State Attorney General, and candidate for governor Cuomo has it all over himself too doesn’t he?
— Perley J. Thibodeau
8.
8. August 7, 2009 7:02 am Link
Gypsies tramps and thieves are running our city.
If I never make a request for money from the city government, can I nevertheless still be given $3,000,000.00 ?
No third term for ANYBODY !
— LF
9.
9. August 7, 2009 9:33 am Link
Keep it in the news until November, baby!
— Stuy Guy
10.
10. August 7, 2009 10:57 am Link
Money and resources hidden, stolen, misused for personal benefit, or squandered freely by the ruling class of government has always been the downfall of centralized civilizations.
In my venturing forth last night I couldn’t help but notice even more empty store fronts with FOR RENT or FOR LEASE signs plastered over the windows.
That this is a very serious and deep recession/depression has been brought to my attention by the fact that there weren’t any usual “GOING OUT OF BUSINESS SALE,” signs but, just stores that were there yesterday and gone today.
This makes it quite obvious that the store owners couldn’t meet another month’s rent and were forced to just empty the contents and vacate the premises.
Bangor, Maine has always advertised itself as being the Shopping Center for Northern and Eastern Maine, with customers coming from all the nearby Canadian Maritime Provinces to buy goods because their money bought more at U. S. prices. and so the city of Bangor has invested heavily in new shopping malls.
I was talking to a lifelong friend on the cell phone the other night and every old and every new store in the area we mentioned was followed by his exclaiming that they had closed and gone out of business, too.
No, it’s not a local business failing problem strictly indigenous to New York City.
It’s happening all over the country right now but, city officials in other areas aren’t openly throwing public money away to friends, advisers, and other frivolous pet projects when everybody else is struggling to survive.
History does repeat itself.
The signs are all there that a personal guillotine now looms large over everyone’s head.
— Perley J. Thibodeau
11.
11. August 7, 2009 10:57 am Link
Sarah Palin will say no one dares to go after Bloomberg – he gives peoples money left and right and no paper trail, as Wasilla baroness – i had to catch fish, crab and hunt deer and could not give a penny to my favorite charity NRA – it is double standard.
— david robertson
12.
12. August 7, 2009 12:37 pm Link
Gosh took them long enough to do this….
for politicians in NYC any taxpayer dollar is discretionary funding in case you haven’t noticed….
And the voter financed campaigns where they get up to 750,000 of taxpayer money or is it more?? need to be stopped as well….
what about the friends at lehman who didn’t pay 673 million in tax?? over how many years???
can honesty be taught in the public school?:)
— Hetty Greene
13.
13. August 8, 2009 7:52 am Link
Betsy Gotbaum and Bill Thompson have been firing their little scud missiles at the Mayor for years now. They are always duds. If Comptroller Thompson could come up with any solid reasons why he would be a better Mayor than Bloomberg, he would have a shot at winning. So far Comptroller Thompson has not made his case.
Mayor Bloomberg has done a good job throughout these very difficult economic times. I don’t see any candidate for Mayor who has demonstrated that he or she would perform better than Bloomberg.
— LaughlinSue
14.
14. August 8, 2009 11:29 pm Link
lets look at government efficiency. the highline park is about 2.5 acres and has dozens of park police officers. in my travels to other parks in the city i realized that parks with hundreds of acres (van cortlandt park, highland park, forest park, cunningham park, prospect park et al) rarely have 1 park police officer driving around. it pays to be in the right district does it not?
— sam c
I think the article implicated Bloomberg more than Felder.
“Even Agudath officials acknowledge that they went straight to the mayor’s office — not to Felder — for the money, and were surprised to see it come back in the councilman’s name.
The Bloomberg administration disputes this account, saying an internal audit shows that it had requests for all the money it gave out. And it contends that it financed many groups on behalf of council members in the absence of written requests — perhaps as many as 16 groups.
Mr. Bloomberg has acknowledged that his discretionary financing process lacked sufficient record keeping and transparency, which he says is why he shut it down in 2008″
Simon and others: Please refrain from copying full length articles from other websites to the comments section. I’m not sure where the law stands on this, but either way, it’s bad form. Simply include the link address, beginning with http:// and readers will go on their own. Short excerpts are also okay, but please don’t be abusive.
If you put a link it’s possible it may not come up right away. This is because our spam filter requires review for posts with too many links, and it will post within a reasonable amount of time. If not, feel free to e-mail or call me and I’ll look into the matter. Thank you.
Arthur: I just got home and saw your comment. I remarked about a similar comment on another website today. Great minds thnk alike!
http://www.gerritsenbeach.net/2009/08/08/property-owners-meeting-roudup/#comment-21965
Arthur B-
Yes – I expect anyone who is interested (or complains) in where our money goes should read original sources as much as possible. The first link is the 2010 budget and starting on page 61 of the file council members, incl Fidler, are listed with the amounts given out and to who. In too many situations we rely on second hand interpetations or other peoples word of what is available. Isn’t this what transparency means?
Once more….
The article that Mr Belsky claims I am quoted in, four years old to boot, does not actually quote me. And I repeat, that reporter got his “facts” out of context.
Second, for the past three years—may only be two but I believe it is three—the allocations are listed in Schedule C of the budget which is available on the City Council website. In fact, it is so readable, that reporters have written numerous articles about how much money is given out by which Council Members.
I don’t know why Mr. Belsky insists that the fight “won’t be over until there is full transparency”. Well, there IS full transparency for anyone who is computer literate enough to get on this website.
the Times article which does in fact implicate the Bloomberg Administration and not the Council….is about a practice that the Bloomberg Administration engaged in two years ago that appers to be patently illegal It was NOT the Council, nor was it CM Felder.
And last but not least, I have no desire whatsoever to debate Mr. Belsky. I did in fact participate in a debate last month with all of the candidates who were actually running against ME at the time, including Mr. Berardelli. I have more inportant things to do than to stop and indulge everyone who wants to pick a fight with me.
As most of you know, I am not exactly a shrinking violet….
Lew from Brooklyn
Bill W: Please advise if this is the correct site “City Council Fiscal Year 2010 Adopted Expense Budget”, 408 pages where pg 61 does not reference Fidler but lists his name in various other places. I would like very much to view the correct website for accuracy. In this report on page 206 it references three budget items for Mr. Fidler to United Jewish Organizations (UJO) of Williamsburg. $5,000, $5,625 and part of $200,000. Do you know a website that lists specifically each budget/grant/contribution by Councilmember and in total within and outside his district Thank you!
Yes, i am sure Lew Fidler has more important things to do than answer the issues I raised which he said I know little or nothing about regarding inept management and possible fraud and corruption in the City’s Agencies which are negatively impacting the public’s pockets. Addressing these issues and fixing them will generate more monies for Quality of Life programs than any Councilmember is presently spending in their respective district. I will continue to voice my opinion in the hope that the public gets tired of being led like lambs and starts demanding answers to the tough questions from their elected officials. I am not looking to pick a fight with anyone, just answers to legitimate questions.
I took the article out of context, the reporters fact’s are out of context. There must be an Out Of Context disease going around.
If Republican party wants to be relevent in NY, they should start acting as Republicans instead of a warped version of Democrats. In the NY state lansdcape currently there is minimal difference between Republicans and Democrats.
I am frankly tired of both parties taxing and spending binges.
As a small example, lets discuss property taxes. Each year, the taxes are going up (substantially and way above the rate of inflation). Department of Finance would attrbute the increase to increased property values. However for tax years 2009 – 2010, they dropped the propery value on my house but increased the tax rate. As a taxpayer I feel cheated either way.
If Republicans want to be relevent, they need to stand up to the injustices and fight for free market capitalism and smaller government.
Simon,
The official Council site is
http://council.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/fy_2010_sched_c_final.pdf
Starting on page 61 are all the councilmen’s discretionary allocations. They are not in alpha order so you need to go thru line by line. No one said democracy is easy!
Page 293- allocations for Aging. They are in aplha order of councilmen
Page 348 to 350 are allocation for Youth. They are in alpha order of councilmen.
To perform what you want, download the the PDF and convert to a data base and manipulate it at will. Otherwise, all the information is there and maybe some other sites do the manipulation you require. I guess that is what keeps investigative reporters in business!
Alex – you’re absolutely right. I’ll go into a detailed response on my campaign site (boy, that promise I made to the site is getting harder and harder to keep with all the good comments recently!)
Bill W: Thank you. That was the same document I referenced. I was referring to the number at the bottom of the page instead of page 61 of 408. Looking at it your way the monies referenced in my post are on page 266.
I don’t know how Williamsburg/UJO relates to the 46th and others Council Districts not in Williamsburg, but it would be interesting to understand.
In the new budget I didn’t notice any monies being allocated to the Sephardic Community. Perhaps I missed it.
Again Bill, thank you for your assistance.
Alex, the Democrats are all for free market capitalism. NY Democrats did much to create the lax free market environment that led to last year’s financial meltdown. After all, New York thrives on business. Mostly large businesses, however. Again, no real difference between the two parties here.
Smaller government is a campaign promise that can only be so effective. What we really need is less wasteful government. We need to eliminate duplication of effort or responsibility, we have to look closely at the effectiveness of current programs. We have to eliminate totally the graft and inefficiency that swells the cost of running agencies and completing projects.
Not an easy task. These things are embedded in the system so well that while lots of people know about it few will come forward to help ferret it out. The people at the top can know but little of what goes on at the various government agencies.
Lisanne,
In terms of the financial meltdown, I disagree with you completely. The local politicians had nothing to do with it. If anything, to make the long story short, the tone is set in Washington. I have my own theories on why it happened that I do not want to get into since it is off topic.
My main concern is New York City and it’s fiscal policies. The spending is out of control.
I am waiting for a real fiscal conservative mayor to come along and say that he is cutting the budget fat across the board (eliminating fraud – there is plenty of it, making city agencies more efficient). I am also waiting for a real and meaningful welfare reform (this is where I had deep respect for Rudy Guiliani). If you want welfare, work for it! There are no free handouts.
Sorry…the above post was made by me in response to Lisanne.
Bloomberg actually started on the right track fiscally. He had a study done which indicated some problem areas within various agencies. He cleaned up the School Construction Agency, made it more difficult to order unneeded supplies and consolidated some operations. Then he seemed to have lost interest in continuing in that direction. SCA is back to their old tricks again,and accountability doesn’t seem important anymore.
After Congress reformed welfare the costs went down. But programs such as Medicaid are still rife with fraud and waste. Even worse, medical practitioners who get caught in fraudulent practices are allowed to plea bargain, and often keep their licenses. The Times had an article on this some time back, but I’m not sure whether it had any effect on how such matters are handled now.
Anyone who is serious any changing the way things are done has a lot of work to do.
[...] Berardelli (R) is running against Lew Fidler (D), for city council. He recently launched his campaigning at lundys and is now hosting a meet and drink for Gerritsen Beach residents at the Tamaqua Marina this [...]
[...] Kudos to NBC New York for producing these video voter guides. It’s good to see that they haven’t ignored the Republican opposition altogether (we’re lookin’ at you, Courier-Life). [...]