He had first talked about a mayoral candidacy in the late '90s, an idea that failed to gain traction. But the notion gained new life after new mayor Michael Bloomberg hiked property taxes, evoking anger among middle-class families. In early 2003, polls showed any Democrat could beat Bloomberg nearly 2-1.
McLaughlin huddled with his political advisers, his former chief of staff, Evan Stavisky, and union lobbyist Bob Ungar, and asked top gurus like Hank Sheinkopf for advice. He hired a full-time fundraising consultant, a young woman named Jackie Rovine, parked her in an office upstairs from the labor council on West 15th Street, and began trying to raise as much campaign cash as he could. – Village Voice, December 12, 2006
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Influence Peddlers: Trade secrets of the city's fastest-growing lobbying firm
by Tom Robbins Village Voice, February 21st, 2006
Talk about a bad news day. On February 8, a major city bank learned that it was going to be slammed that very afternoon at a City Hall press conference for lending money to slumlords. A group called Housing Here and Now was accusing New York Community Bank of hiking the misery index in poor neighborhoods by funneling mortgages to bad landlords. Worse, the new City Council Speaker, Christine Quinn, was due to participate as well. What to do? The bankers picked up the phone and dialed the lobbying equivalent of 9-
The call went to William Driscoll, a grizzled veteran of Queens politics and partner in a government-relations practice called the Parkside Group. The appropriately named Parkside Group can see City Hall Park from the windows of its spacious Nassau Street offices, and it immediately dispatched troops across the street to see what was up. When the aides arrived and began taking notes, a puzzled member of Quinn's staff asked what they were doing. "We just got hired," came the response.
Chalk up one more client for New York's fastest-growing lobbying firm. Launched in late 2000 by a trio of Queens political figures, Parkside has prospered mightily, thanks in no small part to its ties to the Queens Democratic organization and the council's leaders. City and state disclosure forms show that Parkside took in a whopping $2.2 million last year in fees from 52 clients, a figure that could make it the city's top earner in the lobbying business once those totals are officially compiled by the city clerk. Whatever its ranking, Parkside's revenues have risen faster than the price of oil, up from the $490,000 it earned in 2002.
And that's just the lobbying end of things. The firm has also helped elect many of the same political officials it lobbies. Fifteen members of the current council have used Parkside as a campaign consultant. In last year's elections, city candidates spent more than $550,000 for campaign assistance from the firm. Among them was former Council Speaker Gifford Miller, who became so close to Parkside after it helped him win his post that he asked one of its partners to help him hire a chief of staff. In 2004, Miller launched his ill-fated drive to become mayor right from Parkside's offices.
But for all of the firm's vaunted influence and access, the bank called at a lousy time. That's because there's been a growing buzz about how lobbyists have become the new permanent government for a council that, thanks to term limits, faces constant turnover in members and staff. And Quinn, while owing her own position to many of the same political patrons allied with Parkside, was already looking for a way to place some distance between herself and the influence peddlers.
One council insider said that Parkside's abrupt appearance at the press conference helped galvanize Quinn's decision to unveil a set of reforms right away. "What pissed her off was the assumption that this was the way to reach her," said the source.
On February 16, Quinn stood with Mayor Bloomberg to announce new proposals that would limit lobbyists' access, compel greater disclosure, and double fines for violations. The city's two top officials said they didn't want to wait for scandals like those in Washington and Albany to happen here. What was needed, said Quinn, was a drive to "reduce the influence of special interests in city government."
It's unclear just how these new measures will be enforced, as the legislation has not been submitted. But major issues remain unaddressed. One is the convenient distinction drawn by some firms that visits to city officials are "legal work"—which doesn't require disclosure—not lobbying. Also unresolved is how to cope with firms like Parkside that lobby the people they help to elect (a city hearing last month heard strong testimony that to bar such representation would violate First Amendment protections).
Still, the reforms are a good beginning, said ethics watchdog Megan Quattlebaum of Common Cause/NY, though she added, "The devil will be in the details."
Sitting in their new offices recently, two of Parkside's partners said they could live with any new rules. "From a public policy viewpoint, we think stating who is lobbying whom, and for what duration, is fine. It's a great thing," said Harry Giannoulis, a jovial former Democratic gubernatorial aide who serves as a member of the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission. "As someone smarter than me said, 'Sunshine is the best disinfectant,' " added partner Evan Stavisky, the wonkish son of a pair of state legislators.
Parkside gets high marks from those clients willing to talk about it. "They are terrifically skilled lobbyists," said a representative of the city's Central Labor Council, which pays $5,000 a month for the firm's advice.
But the city's laissez-faire attitude about lobbying rules is highlighted by Parkside's disclosure reports to the city clerk, which shroud its work in mystery. Question 6(A) asks for the "Individual and Entity lobbied." For all of its clients, the firm affixes the same adhesive sticker on its filings: "NYC Legislative & Executive; NYS Legislative & Executive." Another question asks the specific subject matter. Parkside slaps on another all-embracing sticker: "Public Policy and Legislation."
That's its response for Entergy, a giant utility that paid Parkside $78,000 last year to help make sure a pesky council resolution calling for the shutdown of the Indian Point nuclear plant wasn't resurrected. And that's also the response for each of the 30 not-for-profit organizations (most of them Queens-based) that pay Parkside $4,000 to $6,000 per month for very different assistance—to help win council funding grants (the firm has a near perfect batting average).
"You want to have as broad a category as possible so that you are not leaving anyone out. It is consciously broad," explained Giannoulis. "You don't want to be uninclusive," added Stavisky.
Pressed as to whether the stickers complied with even the clerk's minimal rules, Giannoulis later acknowledged he had somehow missed the instructions calling for specific answers that are posted on the city's website. "We may have some refiling to do," he said.
But the lobbyists still remain the soul of discretion when asked exactly what they do for their customers. What about Fresh Direct, the fast-growing (and non-union) home grocery delivery company whose trucks now crowd city streets, and which paid Parkside $48,000 last year? "I don't think for the purposes of this interview we are going to discuss what we do for individual clients," said Stavisky.
On the other hand, they're happy to describe the method behind their fast rise to the top: "We are very good and we work really hard," said Giannoulis. "It is a lot of work. It is hard work. You start from morning and you go to night, and you work weekends."
Connections also help. Driscoll, the eldest of the trio, declined to be interviewed about his own work habits, but he has labored for decades for various Queens pols, including serving as chief of staff to former congressman Tom Manton, who has ruled the Queens Democratic Party organization since shortly after its 1980s scandals.
The job brought its perks. Between 1995 and 2001, Driscoll, an attorney, pulled in more than $320,000 in fees from guardianship appointments he received from judges installed by Manton. Even after 1998, when he became part-time counsel to the Queens County clerk, he kept getting the appointments—though he should have been banned from further guardianships, as a 2000 Newsday article noted. How had that issue been resolved?
"As our business was growing he stopped doing the things in question, so it became kind of moot," said Stavisky.
Yet Manton's shadow looms over much of the firm's success. Parkside has run winning campaigns for many candidates backed by the Queens Democratic machine. "We have been proud to be on the right side of some of Tom Manton's right choices," said Giannoulis, citing the firm's campaign work for the city's first Asian American elected official (Councilman John Liu), as well as the borough's first Latino (Assemblyman José Peralta).
But the firm isn't about to buck Manton's choices.
Parkside initially backed a Democratic organization candidate against Queens councilman James Gennaro in the 2001 election. It was Gennaro, chair of the council's environmental committee, who introduced the anti-nuke resolution that Parkside has vigorously opposed on behalf of its utility client. The resolution died, opposed by an overwhelming majority, and has not been reintroduced. When Gennaro ran for re-election last year, this time with Democratic organization support, Parkside ran his campaign. A Gennaro spokesman said the two events were unrelated, as did Giannoulis.
"This is the complete opposite of a problem," said the lobbyist. "This shows that a political client of ours can have a different position than our lobbying client."
Giannoulis himself has enjoyed his own patronage perks. In 1998, he was appointed by former council leader Peter Vallone to the city's taxi commission. The following year, Giannoulis was listed as the intermediary for some $10,000 worth of contributions from taxi industry figures to Vallone's failed mayoral campaign. Giannoulis acknowledged that such solicitations would be improper but insisted the filings were a mistake, one he had tried to correct: "I was there, but I never raised money. They were supposed to have clarified that a long time ago." Vallone's campaign treasurer, however, said the filings were accurate and that he had no recollection of Giannoulis complaining about it.
Talk about a bad news day. On February 8, a major city bank learned that it was going to be slammed that very afternoon at a City Hall press conference for lending money to slumlords. A group called Housing Here and Now was accusing New York Community Bank of hiking the misery index in poor neighborhoods by funneling mortgages to bad landlords. Worse, the new City Council Speaker, Christine Quinn, was due to participate as well. What to do? The bankers picked up the phone and dialed the lobbying equivalent of 9-
The call went to William Driscoll, a grizzled veteran of Queens politics and partner in a government-relations practice called the Parkside Group. The appropriately named Parkside Group can see City Hall Park from the windows of its spacious Nassau Street offices, and it immediately dispatched troops across the street to see what was up. When the aides arrived and began taking notes, a puzzled member of Quinn's staff asked what they were doing. "We just got hired," came the response.
Chalk up one more client for New York's fastest-growing lobbying firm. Launched in late 2000 by a trio of Queens political figures, Parkside has prospered mightily, thanks in no small part to its ties to the Queens Democratic organization and the council's leaders. City and state disclosure forms show that Parkside took in a whopping $2.2 million last year in fees from 52 clients, a figure that could make it the city's top earner in the lobbying business once those totals are officially compiled by the city clerk. Whatever its ranking, Parkside's revenues have risen faster than the price of oil, up from the $490,000 it earned in 2002.
And that's just the lobbying end of things. The firm has also helped elect many of the same political officials it lobbies. Fifteen members of the current council have used Parkside as a campaign consultant. In last year's elections, city candidates spent more than $550,000 for campaign assistance from the firm. Among them was former Council Speaker Gifford Miller, who became so close to Parkside after it helped him win his post that he asked one of its partners to help him hire a chief of staff. In 2004, Miller launched his ill-fated drive to become mayor right from Parkside's offices.
But for all of the firm's vaunted influence and access, the bank called at a lousy time. That's because there's been a growing buzz about how lobbyists have become the new permanent government for a council that, thanks to term limits, faces constant turnover in members and staff. And Quinn, while owing her own position to many of the same political patrons allied with Parkside, was already looking for a way to place some distance between herself and the influence peddlers.
One council insider said that Parkside's abrupt appearance at the press conference helped galvanize Quinn's decision to unveil a set of reforms right away. "What pissed her off was the assumption that this was the way to reach her," said the source.
On February 16, Quinn stood with Mayor Bloomberg to announce new proposals that would limit lobbyists' access, compel greater disclosure, and double fines for violations. The city's two top officials said they didn't want to wait for scandals like those in Washington and Albany to happen here. What was needed, said Quinn, was a drive to "reduce the influence of special interests in city government."
It's unclear just how these new measures will be enforced, as the legislation has not been submitted. But major issues remain unaddressed. One is the convenient distinction drawn by some firms that visits to city officials are "legal work"—which doesn't require disclosure—not lobbying. Also unresolved is how to cope with firms like Parkside that lobby the people they help to elect (a city hearing last month heard strong testimony that to bar such representation would violate First Amendment protections).
Still, the reforms are a good beginning, said ethics watchdog Megan Quattlebaum of Common Cause/NY, though she added, "The devil will be in the details."
Sitting in their new offices recently, two of Parkside's partners said they could live with any new rules. "From a public policy viewpoint, we think stating who is lobbying whom, and for what duration, is fine. It's a great thing," said Harry Giannoulis, a jovial former Democratic gubernatorial aide who serves as a member of the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission. "As someone smarter than me said, 'Sunshine is the best disinfectant,' " added partner Evan Stavisky, the wonkish son of a pair of state legislators.
Parkside gets high marks from those clients willing to talk about it. "They are terrifically skilled lobbyists," said a representative of the city's Central Labor Council, which pays $5,000 a month for the firm's advice.
But the city's laissez-faire attitude about lobbying rules is highlighted by Parkside's disclosure reports to the city clerk, which shroud its work in mystery. Question 6(A) asks for the "Individual and Entity lobbied." For all of its clients, the firm affixes the same adhesive sticker on its filings: "NYC Legislative & Executive; NYS Legislative & Executive." Another question asks the specific subject matter. Parkside slaps on another all-embracing sticker: "Public Policy and Legislation."
That's its response for Entergy, a giant utility that paid Parkside $78,000 last year to help make sure a pesky council resolution calling for the shutdown of the Indian Point nuclear plant wasn't resurrected. And that's also the response for each of the 30 not-for-profit organizations (most of them Queens-based) that pay Parkside $4,000 to $6,000 per month for very different assistance—to help win council funding grants (the firm has a near perfect batting average).
"You want to have as broad a category as possible so that you are not leaving anyone out. It is consciously broad," explained Giannoulis. "You don't want to be uninclusive," added Stavisky.
Pressed as to whether the stickers complied with even the clerk's minimal rules, Giannoulis later acknowledged he had somehow missed the instructions calling for specific answers that are posted on the city's website. "We may have some refiling to do," he said.
But the lobbyists still remain the soul of discretion when asked exactly what they do for their customers. What about Fresh Direct, the fast-growing (and non-union) home grocery delivery company whose trucks now crowd city streets, and which paid Parkside $48,000 last year? "I don't think for the purposes of this interview we are going to discuss what we do for individual clients," said Stavisky.
On the other hand, they're happy to describe the method behind their fast rise to the top: "We are very good and we work really hard," said Giannoulis. "It is a lot of work. It is hard work. You start from morning and you go to night, and you work weekends."
Connections also help. Driscoll, the eldest of the trio, declined to be interviewed about his own work habits, but he has labored for decades for various Queens pols, including serving as chief of staff to former congressman Tom Manton, who has ruled the Queens Democratic Party organization since shortly after its 1980s scandals.
The job brought its perks. Between 1995 and 2001, Driscoll, an attorney, pulled in more than $320,000 in fees from guardianship appointments he received from judges installed by Manton. Even after 1998, when he became part-time counsel to the Queens County clerk, he kept getting the appointments—though he should have been banned from further guardianships, as a 2000 Newsday article noted. How had that issue been resolved?
"As our business was growing he stopped doing the things in question, so it became kind of moot," said Stavisky.
Yet Manton's shadow looms over much of the firm's success. Parkside has run winning campaigns for many candidates backed by the Queens Democratic machine. "We have been proud to be on the right side of some of Tom Manton's right choices," said Giannoulis, citing the firm's campaign work for the city's first Asian American elected official (Councilman John Liu), as well as the borough's first Latino (Assemblyman José Peralta).
But the firm isn't about to buck Manton's choices.
Parkside initially backed a Democratic organization candidate against Queens councilman James Gennaro in the 2001 election. It was Gennaro, chair of the council's environmental committee, who introduced the anti-nuke resolution that Parkside has vigorously opposed on behalf of its utility client. The resolution died, opposed by an overwhelming majority, and has not been reintroduced. When Gennaro ran for re-election last year, this time with Democratic organization support, Parkside ran his campaign. A Gennaro spokesman said the two events were unrelated, as did Giannoulis.
"This is the complete opposite of a problem," said the lobbyist. "This shows that a political client of ours can have a different position than our lobbying client."
Giannoulis himself has enjoyed his own patronage perks. In 1998, he was appointed by former council leader Peter Vallone to the city's taxi commission. The following year, Giannoulis was listed as the intermediary for some $10,000 worth of contributions from taxi industry figures to Vallone's failed mayoral campaign. Giannoulis acknowledged that such solicitations would be improper but insisted the filings were a mistake, one he had tried to correct: "I was there, but I never raised money. They were supposed to have clarified that a long time ago." Vallone's campaign treasurer, however, said the filings were accurate and that he had no recollection of Giannoulis complaining about it.
Friday, February 3, 2006
More Political Consultants Are Lobbyists, Too
By MIKE McINTIRE - The New York Times - February 3, 2006
More political consultants in New York have taken on the second role of lobbyists over the last five years, prompting good-government advocates to press the city's ethics board to revive attempts to regulate the practice.
An analysis by Citizens Union, a nonprofit policy group, shows that half of the top 10 consultant-lobbyists last year earned no money from lobbying in 2001, but gradually adopted the practice, sometimes lobbying the same public officials they helped elect. Altogether, those 10 firms earned $32 million from lobbying and consulting from 2002 to 2005, according to the analysis, which the group intends to present today to the Conflicts of Interest Board.
Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, said the growing trend underscored the need for the city to strengthen its lobbying laws. He said elected officials who pay consultant-lobbyists for their advice, and then encounter them in their role as lobbyists, face potential ethical dilemmas.
"When a consultant recommends to the candidate that the candidate take a position on a particular issue, how impartial is that advice?" said Mr. Dadey. "When a campaign consultant invoices his candidate, but is also working for a lobbying client, will the consultant discount the bill because the consultant knows there may be greater access in the future to the candidate if elected?"
The board has scheduled a public hearing on the issue at 9 a.m. today at New York Law School. It held an earlier hearing on the same topic last Friday.
The hearings are the board's latest attempt to wrestle with the issue of consultant-lobbyists. Last year, it issued a memo saying consultants hired by public officials "may not lobby or in any other way communicate" with those officials on behalf of private clients.
The board quickly rescinded the memo after some of the firms threatened to file a lawsuit, saying the prohibition infringed on their constitutional right to free speech. Now, the board is collecting opinions from all sides on whether it should try again.
At last week's hearing, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, a lawyer for a group of lobbyist-consultants, said "the sort of regulation the board is considering is beyond the limited power that the City Charter bestows on the board," and that even if it did have the power, any such regulation would be unconstitutional.
More political consultants in New York have taken on the second role of lobbyists over the last five years, prompting good-government advocates to press the city's ethics board to revive attempts to regulate the practice.
An analysis by Citizens Union, a nonprofit policy group, shows that half of the top 10 consultant-lobbyists last year earned no money from lobbying in 2001, but gradually adopted the practice, sometimes lobbying the same public officials they helped elect. Altogether, those 10 firms earned $32 million from lobbying and consulting from 2002 to 2005, according to the analysis, which the group intends to present today to the Conflicts of Interest Board.
Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, said the growing trend underscored the need for the city to strengthen its lobbying laws. He said elected officials who pay consultant-lobbyists for their advice, and then encounter them in their role as lobbyists, face potential ethical dilemmas.
"When a consultant recommends to the candidate that the candidate take a position on a particular issue, how impartial is that advice?" said Mr. Dadey. "When a campaign consultant invoices his candidate, but is also working for a lobbying client, will the consultant discount the bill because the consultant knows there may be greater access in the future to the candidate if elected?"
The board has scheduled a public hearing on the issue at 9 a.m. today at New York Law School. It held an earlier hearing on the same topic last Friday.
The hearings are the board's latest attempt to wrestle with the issue of consultant-lobbyists. Last year, it issued a memo saying consultants hired by public officials "may not lobby or in any other way communicate" with those officials on behalf of private clients.
The board quickly rescinded the memo after some of the firms threatened to file a lawsuit, saying the prohibition infringed on their constitutional right to free speech. Now, the board is collecting opinions from all sides on whether it should try again.
At last week's hearing, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, a lawyer for a group of lobbyist-consultants, said "the sort of regulation the board is considering is beyond the limited power that the City Charter bestows on the board," and that even if it did have the power, any such regulation would be unconstitutional.
LOBBY LIST REVEALS THE HIGH PRICE OF INFLUENCE
New York Post, Feb 3, 2006
As the city examines the power that lobbyists exert on municipal government, new figures show the top influence-peddlers are hauling in big bucks.
According to a list compiled by the Citizens Union and obtained by The Post, the Parkside Group is the city's top-billing lobbying or consulting group, having earned $7.5 million in fees since 2001.
Among the group's high-powered clients is former City Council Speaker Gifford Miller. It has also lobbied Miller on behalf of several clients.
Kasirer Consulting was next on the list, with $6.5 million. Its clients have included City Comptroller William Thompson.
Mirram Global, which guided Fernando Ferrer's failed mayoral bid and was co-founded by former Bronx Democratic boss Robert Ramirez, has taken in $5.2 million since 2001.
Hank Sheinkopf, who represents Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, earned $4.7 million.
The list was disclosed as the city's Conflict of Interest Board winds up its public hearings today on whether to push a rule barring lobbyists from doubling as political consultants.
But the Citizens Union is arguing that that the further regulation of lobbyists should be addressed by the mayor and the City Council, not the board.
As the city examines the power that lobbyists exert on municipal government, new figures show the top influence-peddlers are hauling in big bucks.
According to a list compiled by the Citizens Union and obtained by The Post, the Parkside Group is the city's top-billing lobbying or consulting group, having earned $7.5 million in fees since 2001.
Among the group's high-powered clients is former City Council Speaker Gifford Miller. It has also lobbied Miller on behalf of several clients.
Kasirer Consulting was next on the list, with $6.5 million. Its clients have included City Comptroller William Thompson.
Mirram Global, which guided Fernando Ferrer's failed mayoral bid and was co-founded by former Bronx Democratic boss Robert Ramirez, has taken in $5.2 million since 2001.
Hank Sheinkopf, who represents Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, earned $4.7 million.
The list was disclosed as the city's Conflict of Interest Board winds up its public hearings today on whether to push a rule barring lobbyists from doubling as political consultants.
But the Citizens Union is arguing that that the further regulation of lobbyists should be addressed by the mayor and the City Council, not the board.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Lobbyist Has a Dual Role at City Hall
By MIKE McINTIRE Published: June 22, 2005 New York Times
It is all there on a single orange-trimmed page: a series of spending priorities that would cost New York taxpayers up to $17,371,000. And for the past week, it has circulated quietly among City Council members as they work to complete a city budget by July 1.
At City Hall, some nonprofit groups, "even the small ones, feel the only way they can get in the door is to hire a lobbyist," one councilman said.
While it was not an official document, its authorship made it unlikely to be ignored. It came from the Parkside Group, a firm that has carved out a dual role in New York politics: as lobbyist for nonprofit groups seeking city money and as a political consultant to a dozen council members, including the speaker and the Finance Committee chairman, who have a major hand in approving budget requests from those same groups.
Although the City Hall steps are often clotted with people buttonholing politicians with leaflets and whispered pleas for money, the unusually expensive requests found in the Parkside memo, and a few others like it, touched a nerve for some council members and good-government groups. They say it represents a culture of lobbying that is spiraling out of control.
The memo is one of several that have been distributed to council members by professional lobbyists, who are increasingly being hired, often for $40,000 to $60,000 a year, by nonprofit organizations that want city money for the health, cultural and social service programs they operate. The amount paid to lobbyists by these and other clients seeking influence in City Hall hit a record $34 million last year.
"I think it's unfortunate that a lot of these nonprofit groups, even the small ones, feel the only way they can get in the door is to hire a lobbyist. That's disgraceful," said Councilman Tony Avella, Democrat of Queens. "They shouldn't have to go out and hire these people, at exorbitant fees, which comes out of the money we give them."
Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, a nonprofit civic group that has no budget request before the city, said the competition for money among nonprofits had "created this frenzy" to hire lobbyists out of a belief that doing so would increase their chances of securing appropriations. He also expressed concern about what he called "a growing problem" of council members being lobbied by firms that serve as political consultants to many of them.
"It's a closed circle of influence that is totally inappropriate," Mr. Dadey said. "It clearly gives a lobbyist who does campaign work unfair advantage, because it gives them a level of access to the elected official that they otherwise would not have."
For its part, Parkside has defended its ability to be a consultant to elected officials and to lobby those same politicians on behalf of private clients. Earlier this year, after threatening to go to court, the firm succeeded in getting the city's Conflicts of Interest Board to withdraw a new guideline that would have effectively prohibited the practice.
Yesterday, Evan Stavisky, a Parkside partner, said the firm's political consulting gave it no advantages in seeking budget requests. He also said the total amount being sought by Parkside was not a lot in the context of a $50 billion budget. "It's not surprising that as you're coming out of some of the toughest budget times in recent memory, they're looking to make the case that the work they're doing requires greater support," Mr. Stavisky said. "And as these nonprofits are asked to do more and more, it's also not surprising that they're asking the city to help them do that."
Mr. Stavisky added that it was Parkside's policy to require that none of its nonprofit clients paid their lobbying fees from the proceeds of city money appropriated for them during the budget process.
Parkside was paid a total of $1.7 million by more than 40 clients last year, many of them nonprofits, according to the city clerk's office, which tracks lobbyist registrations. Only four firms reported higher earnings, including Kasirer Consulting, whose principal, Suri Kasirer, is also a political consultant.
Other lobbyists and nonprofit groups have also been distributing wish lists to council members during the budget negotiations, during which the Council is trying to decide how to divvy up roughly $200 million available for community groups in the city budget for the 2006 fiscal year, which starts July 1.
The Dryfoos Group is circulating an 11-page memo that requests $14 million for groups including Big Brothers Big Sisters, the American Folk Art Museum and the South Street Seaport Museum.
In interviews over the last few days, half a dozen council members complained about the lobbying, which they said seemed intense this year. Several cited the Parkside memo, which is actually the cover sheet for a binder that was less widely circulated and contained details of each request from groups like the Church Avenue Merchants Block Association and NYC & Company.
One member waved the memo dismissively and likened it to a bank robber's demand note. Another called the $17.4 million being sought "ridiculously large," but added that it had to be taken seriously because of the firm's perceived relationship with the speaker, Gifford Miller, for whom Parkside has consulted in recent years. In fact, it was a measure of Parkside's perceived clout that none of those who criticized the firm were willing to be quoted by name.
Councilman David I. Weprin, chairman of the Finance Committee, said he did not see a problem with Parkside's lobbying effort, and he called the memo helpful for "consolidating the programs and amounts being sought."
"In my opinion, having an advocate, whether it be a professionally paid lobbyist or somebody who works full time for the organization, doesn't change the substance of what they're advocating," he said. "The question is, what's the substance behind it?"
In addition to sitting in judgment of Parkside's budget requests, Mr. Weprin is also a Parkside client. He could be seen stopping to chat with Parkside executives on his way out of a budget meeting earlier this week.
It is all there on a single orange-trimmed page: a series of spending priorities that would cost New York taxpayers up to $17,371,000. And for the past week, it has circulated quietly among City Council members as they work to complete a city budget by July 1.
At City Hall, some nonprofit groups, "even the small ones, feel the only way they can get in the door is to hire a lobbyist," one councilman said.
While it was not an official document, its authorship made it unlikely to be ignored. It came from the Parkside Group, a firm that has carved out a dual role in New York politics: as lobbyist for nonprofit groups seeking city money and as a political consultant to a dozen council members, including the speaker and the Finance Committee chairman, who have a major hand in approving budget requests from those same groups.
Although the City Hall steps are often clotted with people buttonholing politicians with leaflets and whispered pleas for money, the unusually expensive requests found in the Parkside memo, and a few others like it, touched a nerve for some council members and good-government groups. They say it represents a culture of lobbying that is spiraling out of control.
The memo is one of several that have been distributed to council members by professional lobbyists, who are increasingly being hired, often for $40,000 to $60,000 a year, by nonprofit organizations that want city money for the health, cultural and social service programs they operate. The amount paid to lobbyists by these and other clients seeking influence in City Hall hit a record $34 million last year.
"I think it's unfortunate that a lot of these nonprofit groups, even the small ones, feel the only way they can get in the door is to hire a lobbyist. That's disgraceful," said Councilman Tony Avella, Democrat of Queens. "They shouldn't have to go out and hire these people, at exorbitant fees, which comes out of the money we give them."
Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, a nonprofit civic group that has no budget request before the city, said the competition for money among nonprofits had "created this frenzy" to hire lobbyists out of a belief that doing so would increase their chances of securing appropriations. He also expressed concern about what he called "a growing problem" of council members being lobbied by firms that serve as political consultants to many of them.
"It's a closed circle of influence that is totally inappropriate," Mr. Dadey said. "It clearly gives a lobbyist who does campaign work unfair advantage, because it gives them a level of access to the elected official that they otherwise would not have."
For its part, Parkside has defended its ability to be a consultant to elected officials and to lobby those same politicians on behalf of private clients. Earlier this year, after threatening to go to court, the firm succeeded in getting the city's Conflicts of Interest Board to withdraw a new guideline that would have effectively prohibited the practice.
Yesterday, Evan Stavisky, a Parkside partner, said the firm's political consulting gave it no advantages in seeking budget requests. He also said the total amount being sought by Parkside was not a lot in the context of a $50 billion budget. "It's not surprising that as you're coming out of some of the toughest budget times in recent memory, they're looking to make the case that the work they're doing requires greater support," Mr. Stavisky said. "And as these nonprofits are asked to do more and more, it's also not surprising that they're asking the city to help them do that."
Mr. Stavisky added that it was Parkside's policy to require that none of its nonprofit clients paid their lobbying fees from the proceeds of city money appropriated for them during the budget process.
Parkside was paid a total of $1.7 million by more than 40 clients last year, many of them nonprofits, according to the city clerk's office, which tracks lobbyist registrations. Only four firms reported higher earnings, including Kasirer Consulting, whose principal, Suri Kasirer, is also a political consultant.
Other lobbyists and nonprofit groups have also been distributing wish lists to council members during the budget negotiations, during which the Council is trying to decide how to divvy up roughly $200 million available for community groups in the city budget for the 2006 fiscal year, which starts July 1.
The Dryfoos Group is circulating an 11-page memo that requests $14 million for groups including Big Brothers Big Sisters, the American Folk Art Museum and the South Street Seaport Museum.
In interviews over the last few days, half a dozen council members complained about the lobbying, which they said seemed intense this year. Several cited the Parkside memo, which is actually the cover sheet for a binder that was less widely circulated and contained details of each request from groups like the Church Avenue Merchants Block Association and NYC & Company.
One member waved the memo dismissively and likened it to a bank robber's demand note. Another called the $17.4 million being sought "ridiculously large," but added that it had to be taken seriously because of the firm's perceived relationship with the speaker, Gifford Miller, for whom Parkside has consulted in recent years. In fact, it was a measure of Parkside's perceived clout that none of those who criticized the firm were willing to be quoted by name.
Councilman David I. Weprin, chairman of the Finance Committee, said he did not see a problem with Parkside's lobbying effort, and he called the memo helpful for "consolidating the programs and amounts being sought."
"In my opinion, having an advocate, whether it be a professionally paid lobbyist or somebody who works full time for the organization, doesn't change the substance of what they're advocating," he said. "The question is, what's the substance behind it?"
In addition to sitting in judgment of Parkside's budget requests, Mr. Weprin is also a Parkside client. He could be seen stopping to chat with Parkside executives on his way out of a budget meeting earlier this week.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Parkside Lobbyies for Voting Machines
"EVAN STAVISKY of the Parkside Group, which represents another voting machine company, Danaher Controls Inc., said he, too, had been talking to officials in New York City and elsewhere.
Parkside is a busy city lobbying firm. It has worked on the campaigns of more than a dozen City Council members, including the speaker, Gifford Miller. One of its partners is Harry Giannoulis, a member of the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission, and Mr. Stavisky is well connected in Albany, where his mother is State Senator Tobi Ann Stavisky, Democrat of Queens." - New York Times, May 15, 205
Parkside is a busy city lobbying firm. It has worked on the campaigns of more than a dozen City Council members, including the speaker, Gifford Miller. One of its partners is Harry Giannoulis, a member of the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission, and Mr. Stavisky is well connected in Albany, where his mother is State Senator Tobi Ann Stavisky, Democrat of Queens." - New York Times, May 15, 205
Thursday, March 3, 2005
Conflicts Board Rescinds Memo on Lobbying
By MIKE McINTIRE NY Times,March 3, 2005
Under pressure from lobbying-and-consulting firms, the city's Conflicts of Interest Board has backed away from its first attempt to restrict lobbying of elected officials by consultants who work on their campaigns.
The board caused a stir in political circles in January when it issued a memo reminding municipal employees of the ethical rules for taking part in campaigns, which included a new admonition against lobbying by political consultants. It said consultants hired by public officials "may not lobby or in any other way communicate" with those officials on behalf of private clients.
But yesterday, the board circulated a revised version of the memo with that section omitted. In an e-mail message to city officials, the board's counsel, Wayne G. Hawley, said that the earlier memo "does not necessarily reflect the current state of the law as interpreted by the board" and that the board had not placed any "impediments on lobbying of public servants by campaign consultants."
It is becoming increasingly common in New York politics for firms to take on the dual roles of political consultancy and lobbying, an arrangement that some ethics watchdogs say compromises the elected officials involved, because consultants could wield huge influence with the politicians they help put into office. Before it reversed course this week, the Conflicts of Interest Board, the agency charged with regulating ethics in the municipal workplace, appeared to have broken new ground by taking up the issue.
The board's abrupt about-face occurred after a group of lobbyist-consultants threatened to fight the restriction in court, on the ground that it violated their right to free speech. The group's lawyer, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, who specializes in First Amendment cases, said the board overstepped by extending its authority to political professionals outside of government.
"The board can only regulate public servants," he said. "This is an agency that is supposed to be focusing on conflicts of interest, self-dealing. No one anointed them regulators of political activities."
In a brief telephone interview yesterday, the chairman of the Conflicts of Interest Board, Steven B. Rosenfeld, refused to discuss the matter. He would not explain how the original memo came to be issued, what the board's position is on lobbying by political consultants or whether the board intended to address it again in the future.
Last week, before the board moved to rescind the new restriction, Mr. Hawley described it as guidance for public officials that did not carry the same weight as a formal opinion or ruling. Still, it represented the first time a city agency had addressed the potential for conflicts posed by political consultants who serve as lobbyists.
The hiring of lobbyist-consultants crosses party lines and involves all branches of city government.
The Parkside Group, for instance, has worked on the campaigns of more than a dozen City Council members, including the speaker, Gifford Miller, and has also lobbied the Council on behalf of private clients. Maureen Connelly worked on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's 2001 campaign, and then returned to her lobbying firm, which represented clients with business before the Bloomberg administration.
Mr. Rosenkranz declined to say which lobbyist-consultants he was representing, although others involved in the case said Parkside was among them. He said "there is no question" that he would have won a lawsuit against the board if it had not rescinded its action.
"The upshot of their proposal was that politically engaged citizens in New York City would have to choose between two forms of constitutionally protected activity: They can help candidates get elected, or they can petition the government, but they cannot do both," he said. "And the First Amendment says the government does not get to allocate those rights."
The board's confused handling of the issue left some city officials feeling whipsawed. William T. Cunningham, the mayor's communications director, said he was troubled that the board - whose members are appointed by the mayor - did not seem willing or able to stand behind its conclusion that lobbyist-consultants need to be regulated.
"It seems like what they did was issue a verdict, and then try to take it back and say it never existed," he said. "I'm sorry, but the verdict was read in open court and the jury heard it."
Under pressure from lobbying-and-consulting firms, the city's Conflicts of Interest Board has backed away from its first attempt to restrict lobbying of elected officials by consultants who work on their campaigns.
The board caused a stir in political circles in January when it issued a memo reminding municipal employees of the ethical rules for taking part in campaigns, which included a new admonition against lobbying by political consultants. It said consultants hired by public officials "may not lobby or in any other way communicate" with those officials on behalf of private clients.
But yesterday, the board circulated a revised version of the memo with that section omitted. In an e-mail message to city officials, the board's counsel, Wayne G. Hawley, said that the earlier memo "does not necessarily reflect the current state of the law as interpreted by the board" and that the board had not placed any "impediments on lobbying of public servants by campaign consultants."
It is becoming increasingly common in New York politics for firms to take on the dual roles of political consultancy and lobbying, an arrangement that some ethics watchdogs say compromises the elected officials involved, because consultants could wield huge influence with the politicians they help put into office. Before it reversed course this week, the Conflicts of Interest Board, the agency charged with regulating ethics in the municipal workplace, appeared to have broken new ground by taking up the issue.
The board's abrupt about-face occurred after a group of lobbyist-consultants threatened to fight the restriction in court, on the ground that it violated their right to free speech. The group's lawyer, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, who specializes in First Amendment cases, said the board overstepped by extending its authority to political professionals outside of government.
"The board can only regulate public servants," he said. "This is an agency that is supposed to be focusing on conflicts of interest, self-dealing. No one anointed them regulators of political activities."
In a brief telephone interview yesterday, the chairman of the Conflicts of Interest Board, Steven B. Rosenfeld, refused to discuss the matter. He would not explain how the original memo came to be issued, what the board's position is on lobbying by political consultants or whether the board intended to address it again in the future.
Last week, before the board moved to rescind the new restriction, Mr. Hawley described it as guidance for public officials that did not carry the same weight as a formal opinion or ruling. Still, it represented the first time a city agency had addressed the potential for conflicts posed by political consultants who serve as lobbyists.
The hiring of lobbyist-consultants crosses party lines and involves all branches of city government.
The Parkside Group, for instance, has worked on the campaigns of more than a dozen City Council members, including the speaker, Gifford Miller, and has also lobbied the Council on behalf of private clients. Maureen Connelly worked on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's 2001 campaign, and then returned to her lobbying firm, which represented clients with business before the Bloomberg administration.
Mr. Rosenkranz declined to say which lobbyist-consultants he was representing, although others involved in the case said Parkside was among them. He said "there is no question" that he would have won a lawsuit against the board if it had not rescinded its action.
"The upshot of their proposal was that politically engaged citizens in New York City would have to choose between two forms of constitutionally protected activity: They can help candidates get elected, or they can petition the government, but they cannot do both," he said. "And the First Amendment says the government does not get to allocate those rights."
The board's confused handling of the issue left some city officials feeling whipsawed. William T. Cunningham, the mayor's communications director, said he was troubled that the board - whose members are appointed by the mayor - did not seem willing or able to stand behind its conclusion that lobbyist-consultants need to be regulated.
"It seems like what they did was issue a verdict, and then try to take it back and say it never existed," he said. "I'm sorry, but the verdict was read in open court and the jury heard it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)