Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorsed Gene Berardelli for City Council over the weekend, raising the stakes in his fight against sitting Councilman Lew Fidler.
In the release from the Berardelli camp, Bloomberg cited the candidate’s work with Brigham Street Park and his efforts in downzoning a portion of Sheepshead Bay as reasons hizzonah would lend his support to the first-time candidate for public office.
“I need a fighter like Gene Berardelli in the City Council so we can keep the city moving in the right direction. I strongly endorse Gene Berardelli in the race for City Council and urge the voters of the 46th district to support him too,” said Mayor Bloomberg in the release.
With just a little over three weeks left until the election, the endorsement’s effects are questionable. Berardelli probably wont be fundraising anymore, and his meager $3,000 or so of contributions is hardly enough to do such campaign basics as send mailers to the district’s residents. But he will appear on the Republican ballot in a year in which the Republican mayor has spent record amounts on media and other materials promoting himself and the party.
But while Berardelli is able to ride off the media-inundated coattails of the sitting mayor, it appears his opponent nailed the resources necessary to buy a little attention himself.
Councilman Fidler has received more than $63,000 in taxpayer funds after submitting a statement of need to the campaign finance board. Although Berardelli has not raised nearly enough money to be eligible for matching funds from the city, Fidler was able to get three times the amount he normally would by citing the district’s past turnout for a Republican mayor, as well as submitting 40 pages of documentation that included campaign coverage by Sheepshead Bites.
Related posts
Print This
- View Comments
- News & Features
Ouch!
If the mayor had put his clout behind downsizing years ago we would have seen a more functional Zoning Commission whose recommendations would have been given more weight. There would have been far less allowance for zoning variances that favored the development of out of scale projects in communities already cramped for breathing space. The wholesale destruction of historic communities like the Bowery would have never occurred.
The mayor use the bully pulpit of his office to push his health agendas. If he really believed in intelligent growth he would have been just as outspoken in opposing the destruction of neighborhoods.
Unfortunately he wasn’t alone in failing to control the current craziness. He had a lot of help from a mostly Democratic City Council, and Community Boards that are easily swayed to inaction.
This endorsement does make this more of a race. However, it should have occurred sooner.
Headline: Man Bites Dog.
Republican Mayor endorses Republican candidate for City Council. Ignores Term Limits Issue and Praises challenger for helping to “create” a park that his Administration Refuses to Fund, but Incumbent Councilmember does.
Cmon Ned, you missed the headline!
Lew from Brooklyn
Lew: It must really get your goat that Bloomberg was originally a Democrat.
You Dems really screwed the proverbial pooch 9 years ago when you could have embraced him. No point in complaining about it now….
You’re a regular comedian, Councilman. I would say “don’t quit your day job”, but since I’m after one of your day jobs, feel free to quit it anytime you like.
Some other headlines for consideration:
“Mayor Endorses First-Time Novice Over Two-Term Incumbent”
“Fidler Gets No Vote of Confidence From the Mayor” – You should like it, Lew. After all, that keeps it all about the Councilman.
“Bloomberg Bolsters Berardelli’s Bid” A little alitteration.
Anyway you slice it, it amounts to this: The relationship between the Mayor and our Councilman is so far gone that he’d prefer a no-name novice like me over him. We need a Councilman who can constructive engage the Mayor without burning bridges. We need a representative who can criticize and part as colleagues with the Mayor at the close of business. We don’t need an entrenched politician who support the Mayor’s rivals at every turn, or someone who badmouths hims every chance he gets.
The Mayor sees that when it comes to our district, it’s not to try something different.
What exactly did Lew do to piss off Bloomberg? I wasn’t exactly expecting Bloomy to endorse a Democrat but what is the Bridge Burning everyone keeps referencing.
Arthur,
I sued him when he unlawfully withheld the $400 property tax rebate.
I led the fight against Congestion Pricing.
I voted against his last property tax increase.
I characterized him as the Xmas Grinch for refusing to release the rebate checks until after the Xmas holiday though he had agreed that the law required that they be sent.
I tangled with him over cell phones in public schools and threatened to pass a law to require him to expand gifted and talented programs in our City schools.
I forced him to “uncancel” the last two classes at the police academy so we could actually hire cops.
I opposed his two attempts to close firehouses in our City and his two attempts to “consolidate” [euphemism for close] senior citizen centers.
I guess my Republican opponent thinks I should not have fought with the Mayor on those things.
You know, despite it all, I think the Mayor and I have a grudging respect for each other. I DO admire what he has been able to do with his life. I certainly support the work he has done on gun control. And, we have stood together on the issue of mortgage foreclosures, where he has freely acknowledged my work in not only predicting the current crisis, but in doing something about it at the Council. [See Gene, the Mayor and I CAN work together.]
I guess the point of my “humorous” post was this: it would have been a story if the Republican candidate for Mayor endorsed the Democratic incumbent. Especially this one, that has, to use his the Mayor’s own words, “irritated” him so effectively when on the other side.
And just a final dig, if I can…[after all, I don't get my jollies from posting a whack a Gene game on line]: Not a mention of Gene’s virulent opposition to the term limits extension, which has up to now been a central theme of his campaign.
Finally, as to whether or not I am effective, I think my record speaks for itself. Name the subject: parks, seniors, youth, our local schools, education, the foreclosure crisis, saving mass transit, the environment. Let’s talk about what I have been able to do….without kowtowing to the Mayor on issues that I thnk he was wrong on.
Lew from Brooklyn
PS And I still hope that the next Mayor of the City of New York will be Bill Thompson, who surely has NOT endorsed my Republican opponent.
It’s not so much what the Councilman has opposed a given issue as it is the way he goes about personally attacking the Mayor.
Many a time, I’ve heard our Councilman pontificate on the Mayor, and many a time I’ve heard him cross the line between respectful adversary and cheap shot artist.
As far as term limits, I’ve been clear. The Mayor had a bad idea in extending term limits. But it would’ve remained a bad idea had Lew Fidler and the 28 others not turned a bad idea into law. If only you would’ve checked your opinion at the chamber door.
And there you go again misleading people: Mayor Bloomberg has only endorsed a handful of Republican council candidates. He has been very selective in his choices for endorsement. It’s clear that when the Mayor acts, it’s news. Ned recognized that. So did the Daily News, apparently. Only Ned has it first.
Oh and feel free to make a whack-a-Gene game. At least that would show a modicum of creativity – and it would be a step up from calling me a bigot.
Response to Gene B’s post of 7:26 PM
You stated: “The relationship between the Mayor and our Councilman is so far gone that he’d prefer a no-name novice like me over him. We need a Councilman who can constructive engage the Mayor without burning bridges.”
He prefers a “no-name novice” because it’s more likely that a novice will always play well with others and willingly take on the role of a kiss ass rather than someone who has the backbone necessary to sometimes adopt a stance contrary to King Bloomberg’s agenda.
Bagels – look at my record, I’m hardly a kiss ass. I bow down to no one.
- Fought for Re-zoning my neighborhood – and won.
- Fought against a large restaurant and parking lot on parkland – and won
- Fought to design and build a park without a concession – and it’s becoming a reality.
- Fought to allow minority kids legally out of school to have access to a public beach – and got cuffed and thrown in a jail cell!
Look at how I’m fighting in this campaign – and hopefully, I’ll win.
To Lew and Gene:
Lew,
I, like millions of other people in NYC and a majority in this district, was outraged at the term limits extension. Thus, any subsequent claims of fighting the mayor by you are thus much more likely for me to discount without further checking, and you need to make a much stronger case than those stated above.
And although not a smoker, the micromanaging of tobacco bans such as today’s 46-1 vote (bars are fine, what people choose to buy is another; if you want to protect kids, enforce the laws we have where many of my hs students can get a 12 pack and cigarettes at any bodega in their neighborhood at any time).
That said, I liked your support of public schools and agree with you on most issues.
Gene,
I will be voting for Bill Thompson (you’d be surprised how UNPOPULAR Bloomberg is if they polled the outer boroughs and not just Manhattan and Trendy Brooklyn (i.e. Williamsburg, Downtown, etc.)
However, I do admire your activism and principles as far as term limits and although I know neither nor have met either of you personally, you seem much more “in touch” with district residents. That said, I’m a progressive Democrat and have voted for exactly one Republican since 2000, in a local race and disagree with the general principles of conservative local and national leaders.
I’d also like to hear your positions on public, charter schools, education, etc. since that’s been Bloomberg’s main theme in the past.
To both of you,
Stop the negative stuff (especially to Gene for the stuff in my mailbox) and have a publicized debate and let the us decide.
Sincerely,
A left-leaning Democrat who is actually a toss-up (Yes, term-limits are that BIG of a deal)
Dear Left Leaner,
First, you DO know who the one no vote today was, don’t you?
Second, if it matters: my cv on standing up to Bloomberg is well established at City hall. He once told my own wife: “Your husband is a smart guy, but he is a f****g pain in the ass.” Publicly, his comment was “Your Councilman is no shrinking violet and when he is on the other side, he can be quite irritating.”
So that should speak for itself.
I am glad that you approve of my record on public education. I am proud of it. I have questioned DOE officials aggressively as a member of the Council Education Committee. I think they are good at spin and little else.
I enjoy a 90% plus rating from the League of Conservation Voters and I am endorsed by most progressive organizations in this City.
I DO speak my mind, get in trouble for doing so on blogs, and while we obviously disagree on the term limnits question, unlike the Mayor who lied about his position for 7 years (still wondering how my opponent reconciles his support of the Mayor’s re-election with that thought), the head of the Citizens Union refererred to my vote and position on term limits as “principled and consistent”.
Of course, I hope you vote for me. It would be impossible for any thinking person to agree with me 100% of the time, but I hope and think that if you research my record on education, youth, tax policy for instance, I think you will be more than satisfied.
Thanks for considering me
Lew from Brooklyn
Nick: Thanks for the message. I share in your view of the national platform. I think my party has a long way to go in earning the trust of the people on a national level. I’m Republican because I believe in fiscal conservatism, individual liberty, and smaller, more efficient government delivering essential services. Socially, my views are more moderate.
To directly address your posting – I’m a product of the public school system. I believe that in a lot of ways, education is what you (the student and the family) make of it. I went to Sheepshead Bay HS and was able to get 32 credits towards college – a full year of credit for less than $1000 (in Advanced Placement Test fees) thanks to public education.
My position on charter schools is not as cut and dry as the Mayor’s is. They surely have their place, and I believe that when used correctly, charter schools can be a very good thing to a neighborhood where educational options are slim or lacking. But pumping the system with charter schools is no answer. We shouldn’t pull resources in a school district to subsidize an experiment.
I also think the system is turning into more of a business and a money-making opportunity for applicants than it should be – there are way too many applicants creating unnecessary charter schools in areas, like much of our district, that do not suffer from failing schools.
We only get one chance to educate a child – to unnecessarily expose them to “laboratories of education” with unorthodox and sometimes untested methods and curriculum is something we should stay away from.
I’ll be unveiling some more policy points this weekend – including improvements I think will revolutionize how constituent services are handled by a Council office that bring greater responsiveness and accountability to the table – and the best part is that it doesn’t cost much! So stay tuned.
Unfortunately, the debate I’ve been demanding since the summer is looking less like it’ll happen. From what I understand, Ned has been working really hard to put one together and is trying to meet the Councilman’s conditions (I have no conditions) but it’s looking bleak.
Finally, what negative stuff in your mailbox? I can’t afford to do mailings. The only mailing that went out that I know about and authorized was done by the Conservative Party to their constituents, and it was my “Eight is Enough” small card. I’d be interested to know what you’re talking about. Please get back to me on that either on here or through contacting me privately.
Lew, I can’t get any clearer than I have already – the Mayor had a very bad idea when it came to term limits. But if you and your friends in the Council would have represented your constituents instead of – in your case – thinking that your own opinion mattered more, that very bad idea would have remained just that.
Instead you valued your personal opinion more than the will of the people, took up his very bad idea and made it very bad law. The fact that you and Bill Thompson want to place total responsibility for overturning term limits in the Mayor’s lap is disingenuous. There were 29 accomplices. You’re one of them. Own your very bad decision.
Passing the buck doesn’t cut it anymore.
And a word on the tobacco legislation: It’s a personal issue to me because my family is now living with my father’s decision to smoke all his life.
I’m a believer in individual liberties, but a smoker’s individual choice to smoke endangers not only themselves, but infringes on the rights of others that choose not to be around cigarette smoke. So I can understand restrictions on locations where smoking is permissible.
Flavored tobacco seems to be targeted towards young people primarily and that manufacturers are looking to hook a new generation onto their toxins. That shouldn’t be allowed.
The FDA’s method of determining what products are to be banned seems to be determined on an individual basis, which in my opinion will lead to a period of confusion regarding banning existing products and will lead to these manufacturers scanning for loopholes.
I would’ve supported the legislation, knowing that a blanket ban of all flavored tobacco would most likely be challenged in court. While this probably won’t even put a dent for the cause of smoking prevention, it is a message that promoting dangerous products for use by young people is wrong and is not tolerated.
Does this new law apply to all those flavored blunt wraps that are advertised as “for tobacco” but are only really bought by marijuana smokers?
I think it’s the tobacco products specifically. I’ve noticed that the manufacturers re doing what they also try to do, look for a workaround. Luckily most kids are terrible at rolling cigarettes. and filterless cigarettes, even on flavored paper, don’t taste so good.
The FDA might have to get a court to rule that their jurisdiction extends to products that provide a delivery method.
You know as much as I’m not a fan of smoking and tobacco, I get a bad vibe from this law. We need to put more responsibility with parents and with vendors. Walk by any HS in the city and within 2 or 3 blocks you’ll see HS’ers smoking.
The crackdown should be on anyone who sells to minors, or gives to minors. Removing choices for adults that legally buy/use is bad in my book.
Next they’ll go after flavored vodka! I don’t drink either but that would be wrong too, IMO.
There are things Bloomberg has done that I favor (smoking bans, putting the screws to the boys in the south who sell weapons that end up on our streets, and requiring fast food joints to display calorie content). But I just can’t come to terms with the rise in real estate taxes that no one seems to talk about anymore and the issue of term limits. I wonder how many other qualified mayoral candidiates out there would have liked to run but then realized they could not compete with Bloomberg’s huge pocketbook. The democratic process really took a hit on this one.
Apparently, the tobacco issue is also a personal one for the Councilman:
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/brawlforthehall/2009/10/lew-fidler-confesses-i-smoke-t.html
Bagels: I’m not going to tell you how to vote for Mayor. I’ve got enough of a task convincing people to vote for me. But I will say that you should vote based on the issues that are important to you. I’m honored to have been endorsed by the Mayor, but I’ve got plenty of contentious points to bring up with him, and you hit on two of them.
I can tell you that John Catsimatidis, owner of Gristides and another NY billionaire, was looking towards a Mayoral run, and I was told that he would not run if the Mayor ran. So even other billionaires didn’t want to outspend the Mayor!
As far as the campaign spending, the Mayor recently pointed to partisan elections as a reason for his lavish spending, saying that as a man without a party, he had to spend to get his message out. http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/10/if-only-he-had-stayed-a-democr.html
To penalize the Mayor for legally spending his own money as he sees fit sounds un-American. It stinks to be on the receiving end like Bill Thompson is, but what’s the alternative – unequal rules for the rich candidates who take no public funds and spend the money they earned? I’d be glad to listen to suggestions on how to rein that in.
Thanks for the responses to Lew and Gene. Both were good. I feel I can make an informed choice.
As for the tobacco ban, my intentions in the comment were not directed at tobacco per se (as I’ve never bought the stuff nor smoked it), but at a larger issue of the (fleeing) middle class in the city not feeling like they have any control over anything anymore.
But you are both right. These products are advertised towards kids (Lew’s point), and if we enforced the laws we had, we wouldn’t need to do this. (not to mention the legislation was sponsored by a tobacco company — I mean, menthol isn’t a flavor?)
For the record Gene, it couldn’t be clearer. I never lied to the people who voted for me about my position on term limits. It was open, public and reported on by Citizens Union befoer my last two elections. And my constituents re-elected me with that open position.
On the other hand, the Mayor of the City of NY LIED to the people who elected him by saying that overturning the referenda would be—and I quote HIM—”a disgrace”.
And, you seem to deflect any responsibility for the term limts decision from the man with whom you have exchanged endorsements, Mike Bloomberg. HE was the great enabler. The Council COULD NOT have taken this up but for his action.And his millionaire friends like Ron Lauder who took out FULL PAGE ads in the newspapers that he so clearly controls.
So, it amazes me this act of political and verbal ledgerdemain of yours…how you can embrace the re-election of the agent provacateur but condemn those that were his “accomplices”.
Strange indeed.
Lew from Brooklyn
PS As to the ban on flavored cigars, I think the FULL article on the issue that was linked does fair justice to my position, as opposed to your flippant remark that it was “personal”. Adding the link does not excuse the deliberate mischaracterization of the article.
The remark wasn’t meant to be flippant – only to draw a parallel to my comment of how my experience with smoking frames my opinion. Sometimes a comment is just a comment, not an attack.
Sometimes I think you wish you were running against Mike Bloomberg.
You didn’t lie to the people about term limits – you did something far worse: you cast a vote to nullify all of ours instead of doing what you’re supposed to do. Represent us. You only represented yourself.
You think I’m deflecting responsibility for someone else – you actually shirked yours.
If we take all that you say about the Mayor and Mr. Lauder and ads and everything else as gospel, the fact still remains that if you and the majority of the Council would’ve stood up to the Mayor and represented the will of y our constituency, I’d be talking online to someone else this election cycle.
The Mayor and his term limits plan would have been dead in the water if you just would’ve fulfilled your job description. Instead you – the vocal opponent of the Mayor – fell right into place and put yourself before your duty. To me, that makes you even more culpable.
The amazing – and strange – thing is that you don’t see that.
Well, if I could run against the Mayor, at least he would have a record to compare to. It’s easy to sit back and lob bombs when you haven’t been there having to make the call.
Anyway, we clearly see this differently.
You SUPPORT the Mayor, ignoring the fact that this never could have even started without his sudden reversal of position. Please note that I did not file a campaign re-election committee until long after the vote….so clearly I did not expect this. Yet, you argue that I should not be re-elected because of the vote.
Frankly, and this is of course up to the voters, I think that given our respective jobs, I have done a better job as Councilman than Mike Bloomberg has done as Mayor.
I think your other major criticism of me has been the issue of bringing discretionary funding back to the district, saying that I am working the system. We obviously differ on that. But your Mayoral position is still inconsistent: because the Mayor also gave out many many millions of discretionary dollars—none to our district I might add—DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW AS IT NOW STANDS FOR THE MAYOR TO GIVE OUT DISCRETIONARY FUNDING [see the NYTimes article where the Mayor’s office admitted this to be true.And yes, they stopped….after they were caught. And instead, they parked it in the budget under the names of Councilmembers who had no knowledge and never asked for it.
Voters will decide who the Mayor is and who the Councilman is. But I am still quizzical as to how you can reconcile these positions and support Mike Bloomberg.
Lew from Brooklyn
Wow, that’s an amazing observation – I haven’t been in government to make the calls. I wonder what your extensive legislative experience you had at age 31. That smacks of desperation.
But since you’ve asked, in my few years, I’ve assisted in re-writing the Sheepshead Bay Re-Zoning, clerked for the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut General Assembly where I not only reviewed and reported on hundreds of pieces of legislation for a Democrat-led body, but even wrote some of it, and I got my start interning for a Kennedy for a summer at age 19 in Washington. All that while graduating college in 3 years with two majors and a minor and finishing law school at age 23.
I seen from the inside how government actually works at all levels, and I know enough to see that your way is the stuff of bad political jokes and reminders of the bad old days.
I argue that you shouldn’t be re-elected for many reasons, as you’ve read. Re-counting all of them will take a while, but in a nutshell, you have “worked” broken systems of government for too long. From “pork” spending to campaign finance gluttony to your term limits power grab, it’s a legacy of “me first” politics that has stifled our communities and created a cultural of political apathy.
I’m not here to make a case for the Mayor, so feel free to bash him all you want. Like I’ve said, you’re facing me, not him. I’ve answered your questions time and again about him. Feel free to re-read them at your leisure.
However, your tactic – and that’s all it is, really – is a good attempt at deflecting from our race.
It’s a good way to make people forget that you took money from local special interests.
It’s a good way to make people forget about your campaign finance gluttony, and how you took 63K in taxpayer money that you don’t need.
It’s a good way to deflect the fact that you crow about seeing the sub-prime crisis coming, but that you gained from it as well, and that you work in an industry that targets poor working class people for advances on litigation that come with huge interest rates that fleece them worse than any sub-prime mortgage ever could.
It’s a good way to make people forget how you pump pork in to our district more than anyone else in the City, and how you use discretionary dollars to fund organizations run by friends, and how such funds can be a means of control that stifle our community’s growth.
It’s a good way to make people forget that you threw our votes in the trash because you thought you knew better than us.
It’s a good way to make people forget how you bowed down to Mayor Bloomberg on his term limits idea and in the name of “me first” politics “worked” another term out of a broken system for yourself.
Everything you’ve done has been really great for you. But you didn’t so us any favors. Our communities have been held down long enough, it’s time to stop being pulled backwards, and to have someone lead us forward.
Oh, I almost forgot! It’s also a good way to try to make people forget that you STILL haven’t debated me on the issues. It’s a good way to deflect how you’ve put conditions on giving the people what they want.
I say again – give me a time and place and I’ll be there. We can record it and broadcast it ourselves on the internet, provide copies to the press so they can write about it in the mainstream media, have reporters moderate, have bloggers moderate, whatever! Don’t shift the burden to someone else – have your people contact me and we’ll set it up and publicize it. Let’s just finally give the people what they want.
Talk about smacking of desperation.
Puh-lease. One distortion of reality after another.
And btw, I wasn’t questioning your experience, just pointing out how it easy it can be to sit on the sidelines and toss bombs.
FYI, by the time I was 22 I had graduated from law school. By the time I was 26 I was Chairing a Community Board in Brooklyn. By the time I was 31 I had been a founding director of a neighborhood affordable housing corporation, counsel to the police precinct council, and vice-president of the neighborhood development corporation. So I can strut my stuff too.
You continue to not answer the qustion about Bloomberg….and so once again you deflect by accusing me of deflecting.
Finally, Gene, I gave Ned a very simple and clear set of prerequisities for a civilized and dignified debate. He seemed to accept them and told me that he is working ion them. If it happens, I want to besure that it is done in a way thatexceeds the dignity level of your whack a Lew game.
And if he is able to arrange it, I will be there. So stop the finger pointing.
The fact tht I have even engaged you on these blogs against the advice of EVERY political person I know should tell you that I am more than willing to stand toe to toe with you or anyone and debate my record and the issues.
Hope you enjoyed the Marine Park event today. It was funded with what you call “pork”. I am sure that the 2,000 of our constituents who enjoyed it would likely approve of the spending of their tax dollars on such a great community event.
Lew from Brooklyn
You of all people know that I don’t EVER sit on the sidelines.
I too gave Ned a clear set of prerequisites for a debate – let me know where and when.
I didn’t have a laundry list of conditions. Enough is enough already. Get pro-active! Let’s set this up ourselves! We can surely get a panel of reporters and bloggers together in a room with a media recorder of some kind!
Instead, you place the burden on others. Shameful.
I’m willing to work to put it together. You clearly are not. That should speak volumes to everyone about your desire.
***
You repeatedly asking the same questions about the Mayor, and me answering every time is neither deflection nor desperation. It’s more like exasperation at the fact that you simply just don’t get what just about everyone else gets – that the Mayor gets nowhere fast on term limits without you and 28 other Council members putting self-interest over the will of the people.
Many people I talk to have noted how you would rather attack the Mayor than… I don’t know, set up a debate?
***
Events such as today’s in Marine Park can still get funding under a system where money is distributed based on real quantitative measures instead of a politician arbitrarily deciding who to give money to and who to screw over. So don’t “work” the truth, Lew – worthy community projects won’t suffer if I’m elected, The only losers would be those like you who “work” the system.
By the way, did you notice how reps from the Bloomberg campaign and I were across the street from the event while you and Thompson supporters went against their wishes and gave out campaign flyers inside and while families waited on line?
We respected the organizers of the event and kept it non-political. You didn’t.
Yet another microcosm of how different we really are. I know people at the event surely took note.
***
Speaking of people in the community, I can’t tell you how many people have recently come up to me and told me of the pressure placed on them to take a little photo you set up. I guess a photo with community leaders is supposed to mean that they’re on your side. Except they’re not. Many felt used and abused by you, but felt that they had to comply for the good of their communities. Another pork by-product – and another way of “working” things.
I haven’t asked one community leader to publicly stand with me because I know that they fear reprisal and I would never put them in a position to choose between friendship and community.
Many of them took note of that, too. The way you’re turning people off left and right, you’re turning into one of my best campaign workers! Keep it up!
OK, here’s the loaded question of the day-How come council members like Tony Avella get no discretionary funds to play with? The $358,000 doesn’t count, that’s money that every council member automatically gets for his district.
There Milkshake don’t bring pork to the yard….
Pardon my French, but what a load of crap.
I have not personally asked a single person to stand and endorse me. We sent a letter, asked for an rsvp and campaign staff called those that we didn’t hear from just to ask. If someone said no, and there were a few, I did not call and pressure them. NOT ONE.
In fact Gene, your blog has resulted in many, many community leaders coming forward to ask me how they could help.
Thanks.
As to the debate, I remind you that we have shared the podium at no less than 4 or 5 candidates nights. Including the one set up by your mother’s programming committee.
I have not given Ned a laundry list of pre-conditions. Just a few, designed to make sure that we have a moderator of impeccable integrity and City wide knowledge [and I believe we have one], that the debate not be restricted to the issues of only a part of the district but to all of it and to our City, that it be done in a studio where it could be re-broadcast or streamed on the internet…and oh yes, that it be done at some time that I am able to come. I asked for two or three proposed times. I am not going to miss a Council meeting to debate you, Gene. And I asked that the other candidate who earned a ballot spot, Derek Sacerdote be invited. I don’t think that is a laundry list, and I think all are fair. Again, I remind you that you are the one who has “contributed” to the quality of the debate here by putting a Whack a Lew game on your website.
Finally, you just refuse to answer the question about the Mayor’s responsibility and term limits. Oh well, you answer it, but to use your words, you just don’t get it. So, I’ll just leave that dead horse where you have left it.
As to whether or not you think the district’s good programs will suffer if you get elected, I’ll let people figure that one out for themselves. If our district gets more than any other, I would think that would be a good thing. And if you think that some faceless bureacrat making that decision without any accountability is going to benefit us and is a better system, then we REALLY disagree, The fact is…without a doubt of any kind….that such systems favor large organizations over community based organizations and ALWAYS favor Manhattan versus outer boro neighborhoods like ours.
By the time you “fixed” the system, how many groups in our neighborhood that do good work would be gone. How many kids will have left their education behind without computers, arts and music programs? How many seniors would have missed out on needed programs?
Like I said, its easy to be on the sidelines pontificating. Actually delivering for the people you represent is harder.
And you still failed to comment on the illegal use of discretionary funds by the Bloomberg Administration, did ya?
Lew from Brooklyn
PS As much as I wished that Bill Thompson had been at the Halloween walk to greet people, I had notihing to do with giving out his flyers. For the whole truth, why not admit that YOU were the first candidate of any kind to be there electioneering with campaign materials and that you were ASKED by the people running the event…as were the Thompson folks…to go across the street. You didn’t do it, as you suggest, not to politicize the event. When I was told that you were campaigning and giving out materials—which is of course your right—only THEN did I send for campaign litearture of my own…and instructed my two volunteers, one of whom was my son, to stand in the same area that you were standing. You have a very political way of using half-truths to create impressions that you know to be untrue. This is just another example.
Oh Lew…. it seems that you and the truth rarely ever meet.
As far as me being at the Marine Park event – I spoke with the organizers before I did any kind of campaigning. I’m from the community and I know what it’s like when crass electioneering dampers an event. After approaching the organizers and asking if I could give out literature, I was asked not to do anything near the walk, and I respected that.
I then saw Bill Thompson’s people “working” the line and pointed that out to the organizers. Once pointed out, they too were asked to moved away. Thus, Bill Thompson’s inconsiderate campaign team were the first ones electioneering – and they broke the rules. I know this because I was standing with the organizers and saw it all go down.
After a friendly chat with some of the organizers and auxiliary officers, I then went ACROSS THE STREET to the corner of the Marine Park parking lot to give out literature. No one was standing near me except for Ray Riley and Steven Shariff (forgive me Steven for mispelling your name) from the Bloomberg campaign who came about an hour after I started and gave out the Mayor’s materials, and we exchanged literature and engaged the crowd.
NO ONE from your campaign was across the street where I was and no one was in sight, but I most certainly did people that were exiting the event had your flyers in hand. Actually, it made a nice talking point to engage people! I also did see your campaign flyers on your table INSIDE the Salt Marsh Center when I helped to clean up the event.
By the way, I was told that this was the first time that you actually stayed at the event from beginning to end. It’s amazing the things you’ll see in an election year.
***
As far as the “load of crap” as you refer to it, what I’ve said was confirmed by two leaders from two different neighborhoods. I can tell you who personally, but will not publicly name them on here.
***
And here we go again with community forums versus debates. With the exception of one meeting in JUNE, there were no questions, there were no opportunities for rebuttal, only a limited time to address the crowd. And you were allowed to speak more than once at some of them.
You’re either a lot dumber than I give you credit or you’re deliberately distorting the truth. I’ll let others make up their own mind which is true.
Re: Debate – Allow me to meet your demands. We don’t need a “studio”, we need a room and a digital recorder. To stream over the Internet, we would also need a phone line. However, streaming isn’t necessary, as the recording can be stored online and made available for personal download online for free, and copies can be disseminated to the press to spread the word.
I can borrow the necessary equipment from my media company, and there’s no shortage of rooms available in the district. You say that there’s a moderator – great. We can talk anything and everything. I’d more than welcome Derek Sacerdote to join us and will contact him.
So looks like there’s no more reason to delay. Simply let me know when you’re available – I will personally make myself available, as I’m sure Derek will as well, and let’s do it already. Looks like you’re all covered!
***
The Mayor’s responsibility in overturning term limits is well-documented – people don’t need me to confirm that. What they do need to see is that the Mayor couldn’t do it alone. Lucky for him that you were more than glad to oblige.
***
Our district “benefits” from a broken discretionary system – for now. Things change swiftly in politics. Leadership in the Council is up in the air, alliances change – who’s in now could be out tomorrow.
The fact that communities have to kowtow and feed from the “Fidler trough” in order to remain solvent is a very sad state of affairs.
Don’t put words into my mouth and try to scare everyone into thinking that they can’t get along without your “pork” and that big bad Manhattan will steamroll the poor outer boroughs.
I never mentioned bureaucrats. The Council can set REAL criteria so that both large AND small organizations from all over the City can apply for funding with full transparency and accountability on all sides. The Council itself can review organizations to see if they MEET that criteria.
Working for their money will result in active creative programs run efficiently by qualified organizations instead of government corruption and cronyism. These organizations will also benefit from the strength of new-found independence. Dissent and open discussion can be restored. Honest discourse can be returned.
Discretionary funding reform includes – as I’ve said – all levels of government, including the Mayor. Again, people don’t need me to tell them that the Mayor broke the rules, too.
***
For the life of me, I can’t understand what you have against things like transparency, accountability, efficiency and promoting free thinking, and why you cling to a system where you control the purse strings, and with them the collective destinies of many organizations in the district, in a system that is meant to control communities.
Oh wait, I just got it.
Permitting a nameless faceless bureaucrat to make funding decisions is transparent and accountable?
The funding decisions I make are on the web with my name next to them. Sounds pretty transparent to me.
As to the Walk campaigning, I know Marty Golden’s staff member who commented that this is the first time I have been to the entire event. Not so. This is the firs time the event wa inside and laid out this way so I stayed inside in one spot as opposed to working the line. My SON told me that he saw you talking to the auxiliaries while he and the other volunteer were giving out flyers across the street. So, it happened as I said it did. There were a few flyers that inadvertently got put on the table inside. When I saw them, I had them removed, probably why they were there when you “cleaned up”.
And finally, we just got a call from BCAT indicating that they would do the debate, at Ned’s request. So I guess we are going to get it done.
Happy now?
Just don’t bring any bats, tasers or fists. Leave those on the web please.
Lew from Brooklyn
Just to jump on that BCAT/debate comment real quick: the particulars of the debate are still being worked out. There has not yet been a confirmation from BCAT. As soon as things are finalized, Sheepshead Bites will inform all parties and our readers.
Lew: Discretionary funding is something I’m very curious about, and I can see both sides on this issue. While I think the transparency of knowing who gave out those funds is a great thing, I’d like to know if there is any consistent criteria to which it’s given out. I can think of at least one organization that in the past needed lots of money for an annual event. This year – an election year – they got their first significant contribution from a politician. It was large, to say the least. I worry, though, that next year that money won’t be there for the group, and they’ll have this one big event one year and a tiny one the next. Regardless of who gives the money out – you or a faceless bureaucrat – do you think there should be a public criteria for distributing those funds?
Again, I ask the question-How is it that Tony Avella’s council district got no discretionary money aside from that which is automatically distributed?
What is it with you and putting words in my mouth? Who said bureaucrat other than you?
I said that the COUNCIL can create and administer a better system.
The schedule that makes discretionary funding “transparent” is perfunctory at best. It’s a table with one sentence, or a sentence fragment. No report, no representation as to any due diligence, nothing.
I did hear about you staying at the Walk from a rep from Marty Golden, but also from two of the organizers as well. As far as giving out flyers – I take you at your word. All I can say is what I personally did and what I personally saw, which is (1) I didn’t give anything out to people on line at the Walk and (2) I was across the street for an hour with no one but some Bloomberg reps.
Looking forward to the debate in whatever form it takes.
Thank you for taking me at my word. I had no campaign lit with me for the event until an organizer brought me your piece and told me that you were outside campaigning. It took a while to go to my HQ and get the lit as we did not bring any. It got there at the time you were with the Auxiliaries. My son and the other volunteer then went across the street.
To Ned and Lisanne, the principal behind Council members allocating funds is that we are in a position as elected reps of a community to know what the worthwhile groups and the real needs of a community are. You are free to ask me why I made an allocation or supported an allocation that my name appears next to. You can then decide if you agree with my rationale. I have yet to hear of a single one that my opponent thinks was unworthy.
I can’t speak to Tony Avella, other than to say that he was not an effective Council member….not because he was independent, but because he was disagreeable. His bills didn’t get passed and he was unable to advocate for the needs of his district. I have maintained my abject independence—see last week’s vote where I was the only no vote on a matter thatt he Speaker herself spoke in favor of on the floor—yet I am still able to both pass legislation and get the needs of my community met.
I am not willing to cede that process to a competitive bidding process.That is the alternative that some have suggested. MOST City funding is in fact given out that way, and btw, I am pleased that some of the groups that I seeded with discretionary money have been seen as good enough to win significant independent bids.
A retired Judge in this County once said that the only impartial committee he knows is buried in Washington Cemetery. He had a point. If you don’t agree with my allocations,then you know who to blame. If you do agree, then you know who gets the credit….and if you went to the other system, GUARANTEED communities like ours would lose, especially to Manhattan, and local small groups would lose out to the larger groups who can do fancier glossier proposals. Ask any group that participates in the competitive bidding process if that is not a real fear.
In the RFP processs, the public NEVER knows who makes the decision and never knows the reason why. Tranparent? Accountable? I don’t think so.
Mind you, the amount of discretionary money is a pittance compared to the rest of the budget money allocated by RFP. So it tends to fill the gaps that the RFP process leaves in the outer boros and with smaller groups. We have fixed the problems that were inherent in taxpayer abuse, so says the DOI Commissioner….and the Mayor.
Can people still steal taxpayer money? Unfortunately yes they can….but they can whether or not it is given out by RFP or thru the discretionary process.
Three City agencies have to vet every dime given out thru the discretionary process before a dime is given to a group….so we are doing what we possibly can.
I hope that helps you see the full picture.
And,btw, I have rarely seen a candidate seek office by suggesting that the district gets too much taxpayer money returned to it.
Lew fromBrooklyn
Unfortunately, the Councilman neglected to point out that this is virtually the same system where 4.7 Million dollars were allocated to fictitious organization in 2008, and where more recently, 2 staffers of Councilman Stewart’s staff were indicted for fraud, and was the main reason that Councilman Miguel Martinez resigned amid scandal.
While there has been some reform which has brought greater transparency – mainly the result of responding to scandal – more is needed, not only to ward off further scandal, but to de-politicize the system.
The system as it stands now relies on council members to police themselves and hold each other accountable for their individual decisions. Funding decisions are political decisions with consideration to consolidating political power figured into the equation – that, to me, is a major downside to the process.
A negative culture is created as a result.
- Within the city as a whole, you have a culture of “haves” and “have-nots” which depends largely on a Councilmember’s standing in the Council.
- The same can be said for within districts – those who go along with a Councilman get along, those who don’t usually get shut out.
- Those that get money lose a bit of independence because they worry about losing funding. This, in turn, stifles creativity and new ideas within the group and within our neighborhoods. Because the decision for funding is partially political.
It’s a vicious cycle that needs to be broken.
My alternative will de-politicize the system.
- Take discretion out of the process. Perform double-blind evaluations where council members who represent a given district evaluate the funding applications of organizations from other districts that omit name and location.
- If there is a finding of need and merit and an allocation recommended, you then have a second level of review much like the pre-qualification process where independent evaluators review applications for potential conflicts of interest and other irregularities.
- All applications should be published and accessible to the public before voting on the budget. Any budget modifications should be reflected in the publication with reasons for modification.
- Finally, the Council as a whole allocates all money – no specific credit or acknowledgment is given to any Council member for any allocation – we all sink or swim together.
I think that these kind of changes will change the culture of “pork politics” at every level. First, there is no more playing favorites in the leadership. Second, every organization that participates gets a fair shake based on the merits of their programs: no political favoritism. Third, there’s even less of a chance for corruption. Finally, organizations are free to grow and innovate without worrying about funding cuts resulting from losing favor with a politician.
We disagree.
First, it is not the same system that allowed fictitious funding. BTW, just to be clear, not a penny of the fictitious money was EVER spent. But regardless, the new budget process which requires that the bona fides of every organization be vetted before budgeting by the agency through whom the group will contract, the Mayor’s Office of Contracts and the State Atty General as to proper not for profit status and tax filings…and then by the Comptroller’s Office after budgeting, is pretty tight now.
As I said, unfortunately, money can be stolen whether discretionary or otherwise. Miguel Martinez stole BOTH discretionary and non-discretionary money. The list of public money stolen from non-discretionary funded programs is sadly far longer than from discretionary programs.
So, when it comes to thievery, it is not HOW the money is allocated that makes it possible.
As to Gene’s proposal, it is sadly flawed in my view. The idea of another Councilman vetting the groups in someone else’s district is silly…not just because it would never work, but because it defeats the very purpose. What the heck do I know about the groups in Oliver Koppell’s district and what the needs of the district are as opposed to Oliver Koppell?
Second, you can be sure that any Councilman worth a soo would tell the member reviewing his or her district what the member’s preferences and desires are. Almost without an exception, they would be honored.
And what would stop a member from presing his political agenda in someone else’s district. I ask you: do you really propose that Charles Barron set the funding priorities for our neighborhood? (Or I in his?)
The idea of the Council as a whole allocating, now exactly how would THAT work? There are 51members of divergent viewpoints….and literally thousands of groups in the budget. Simply is totally unworkable.
Finally, the more anonymous the process, the LESS transaparent and the LESS accountable. No getting around that…you don’t like the decisions, who do you complain to? What is your recourse?
Gee, sounds like Mayoral control of the schools. Well, except for that we know who to blame.
Lew from Brooklyn
As you point out Lew, reform has been largely reactionary, not pro-active. And yes, anyone motivated to steal will find a way. The goal here is to ensure that the process doesn’t contribute to the thief’s motivation.
As far as my plan, you kind of make my point. One doesn’t need to know about who a group is if they are vetted properly. Each project should be evaluated purely on the merits and need of the project itself. And ensuring that relatively disinterested parties review relatively anonymous applications keeps all involved above board.
This isn’t without precedent in the Council – Councilmembers contemplate laws that effect a small segment of the population all the time: zoning changes for one, flavored tobacco for another! Why should these allocations be treated any differently?
Control over all identifying information would ensure that cross-chatter amongst members will be keep to a minimum. Members would be stopped from pressing individual agendas in their decisionmaking by having multiple reviewers for each given application so that one deciding member doesn’t do just that.
And if you’re worried about a Manhattan councilmember reviewing a Brooklyn project, you can set the process to where projects within a borough are submitted to all of the Borough delegation to review – all but the Councilmember from the application’s originating district.
Funding as a whole could be done through an omnibus bill before the Council or as an addendum to the budget itself which must pass through the Council, giving credit to the Council as a whole for all allocations. I personally have written such legislation and have seen it work.
A double-blind process will work if administered properly – a small number of gatekeepers would coordinate the process. All applications are public record, any and all findings will be public record, the budget is public record. Seems like a great deal all around.
No appeal process need be necessary – I don’t know of any now in the current process. A determination letter can be generated to each group explaining reasons for denial. Grant review processes do not normally have appeal procedures – this is essentially the same thing.
There can be any number of permutations, adjustments and refinements made to this concept, but the point is that we can do better than the existing system.
Gene, you completely miss the point.
You are suggesting that we allocate money to a group without knowing who they are? Without knowing their track record financially? Without being able to evaluate their ties to the community?
And if oyu put all of that into the proposal, as btw, City RFP’s do, everyone will know which group is which anyway.
We never pass a law that affects only some citizens and not others on a community by community basis. I don’t want folks like Charles Barron setting the agenda for funding in our district.’
you shouldn’t either.
Your proposal simply does not work.
Lew from Brooklyn
All your concerns can be integrated into the process.
I can’t respond to your subjective response about who knows what or what they think they know – all I can say is that the process will take the funding process a LONG way from corruption and politics as usual, which is the goal.
It’s not ever going to be perfect, but the citizens of the city will not have to worry about this particular governmental process as outlined falling prey to corruption and politics as usual. The existing system isn’t acceptable.
[...] each other’s honesty, and Fidler has called Berardelli’s charges anti-semitic (here, here, and here). Meanwhile, Libertarian Party candidate Derek Sacerdote has been waging a grassroots [...]
[...] have been trading barbs in the comments section of Sheepshead Bites and GerritsenBeach.net (here, here, and here). They have discussed such issues as campaign financing, term limits, and discretionary [...]
[...] spirited, with often heated back-and-forths between Berardelli and Fidler on this site (here and here), culminating in a taped debate. At issue were term limits, discretionary funding, and negative [...]