"The local little league will no longer have to scrape by," said Evan Stavisky, a Democratic consultant. "The nature of politics is that the party in the majority has a better chance to secure things for their district. Democratic districts will benefit, and all but one or two districts in the Senate will be Democratic." - AM New York, July 17, 2008
"n integral part of the 186-page indictment against Mr. McLaughlin, 54, an influential politician and head of the nation’s biggest municipal labor council, is the detailed description of how prosecutors say he took donations for the league and carefully moved the funds between bank accounts to siphon $95,000. Part was used to pay rent on his apartment in Albany and part went for other personal expenses, according to the indictment."- New York Times, October 19, 2006
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
U.S. Inquiry Into Funding by Council Is to End Soon
A federal investigation into the City Council’s appropriation of funds to fictitious groups should conclude within 90 days, a prosecutor said on Thursday.
But the prosecutor, Rua M. Kelly, an assistant United States attorney who spoke at a hearing in State Supreme Court in Manhattan to determine whether the court would hold a separate public inquiry, did not indicate whether anyone would be charged.
Federal investigators have been conducting a grand jury investigation into the City Council’s appropriation of discretionary funds to community groups.
Ms. Kelly asked Justice Joan B. Lobis of State Supreme Court in Manhattan to delay any public inquiry for 90 days if she does indeed grant it.
Holding a judicial inquiry before the federal investigation is complete would make it virtually impossible for the authorities to prosecute anyone because testimony from the inquiry is not permissible in a criminal proceeding, Ms. Kelly said. That means that federal prosecutors would have to show that their evidence came from somewhere other than the inquiry, Ms. Kelly said.
“We think that 90 days would absolutely suffice to allow our investigation to go forward,” she said.
Justice Lobis, who did not rule on Thursday, is expected to submit a written decision in the next few weeks. The judge did indicate that she would not do anything to compromise the federal investigation.
The inquiry being sought is known as a judicial summary inquiry, and it comes from a rarely used section of the City Charter. The section, 1109, was created in 1873, a product of the Boss Tweed era, when the New York politician William M. Tweed bilked the city of hundreds of millions of dollars.
The civil rights lawyer Norman Siegel is requesting the inquiry on behalf of eight New York taxpayers. The inquiry would not determine guilt or innocence, but would merely lay out the facts surrounding the case for public review.
Mr. Siegel said he was fine with a 90-day stay and, in fact, welcomed Ms. Kelly’s news that the federal investigation was nearing completion.
“New Yorkers anxiously await the result of that criminal investigation,” Mr. Siegel said outside the courtroom.
Mr. Siegel said he thought that at the very least, a crime was committed by presenting fictitious charities in documents.
“Someone intentionally designed this scheme,” he said. “It was no mistake.”
Stephen Kitzinger, a lawyer for the city, said he believed Mr. Siegel’s request for a public inquiry was motivated by his desire to run for public advocate, an office he has sought twice before, in 2001 and 2005.
“It would appear that this is a publicity stunt designed to promote a campaign,” Mr. Kitzinger said in court.
Mr. Siegel denied that contention.
By JOHN ELIGON
Published: June 27, 2008 New York Times
But the prosecutor, Rua M. Kelly, an assistant United States attorney who spoke at a hearing in State Supreme Court in Manhattan to determine whether the court would hold a separate public inquiry, did not indicate whether anyone would be charged.
Federal investigators have been conducting a grand jury investigation into the City Council’s appropriation of discretionary funds to community groups.
Ms. Kelly asked Justice Joan B. Lobis of State Supreme Court in Manhattan to delay any public inquiry for 90 days if she does indeed grant it.
Holding a judicial inquiry before the federal investigation is complete would make it virtually impossible for the authorities to prosecute anyone because testimony from the inquiry is not permissible in a criminal proceeding, Ms. Kelly said. That means that federal prosecutors would have to show that their evidence came from somewhere other than the inquiry, Ms. Kelly said.
“We think that 90 days would absolutely suffice to allow our investigation to go forward,” she said.
Justice Lobis, who did not rule on Thursday, is expected to submit a written decision in the next few weeks. The judge did indicate that she would not do anything to compromise the federal investigation.
The inquiry being sought is known as a judicial summary inquiry, and it comes from a rarely used section of the City Charter. The section, 1109, was created in 1873, a product of the Boss Tweed era, when the New York politician William M. Tweed bilked the city of hundreds of millions of dollars.
The civil rights lawyer Norman Siegel is requesting the inquiry on behalf of eight New York taxpayers. The inquiry would not determine guilt or innocence, but would merely lay out the facts surrounding the case for public review.
Mr. Siegel said he was fine with a 90-day stay and, in fact, welcomed Ms. Kelly’s news that the federal investigation was nearing completion.
“New Yorkers anxiously await the result of that criminal investigation,” Mr. Siegel said outside the courtroom.
Mr. Siegel said he thought that at the very least, a crime was committed by presenting fictitious charities in documents.
“Someone intentionally designed this scheme,” he said. “It was no mistake.”
Stephen Kitzinger, a lawyer for the city, said he believed Mr. Siegel’s request for a public inquiry was motivated by his desire to run for public advocate, an office he has sought twice before, in 2001 and 2005.
“It would appear that this is a publicity stunt designed to promote a campaign,” Mr. Kitzinger said in court.
Mr. Siegel denied that contention.
By JOHN ELIGON
Published: June 27, 2008 New York Times
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Miller Gets Help From Lobbyist In Finding a New Chief of Staff
New York Times, May 18, 2004, By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Council Speaker Gifford Miller has sought help from a lobbyist whose clients often have business before the City Council to fill a crucial position, the speaker's chief of staff. The role is traditionally that of gatekeeper and top adviser to one of the city's most powerful officials.
The lobbyist, Harry E. Giannoulis, a partner in the Parkside Group, a lobbying and political consulting firm, said yesterday that while he did not believe he had played a pivotal role in helping Mr. Miller choose his chief of staff, he had given the speaker advice on what to look for in a candidate and had advised some potential applicants to seek the job. He also participated in meetings at which candidates were discussed, according to Mr. Miller's staff.
''I have encouraged people who have talked to me about it to apply if I think they are good for, or if I think the fit would be good,'' Mr. Giannoulis said yesterday, adding that he had had dozens of conversations with people who have called asking him: ''What's the deal? Is the job open? What's the speaker looking for?''
Mr. Giannoulis wears two hats, one as a consultant helping candidates get elected, another as a lobbyist, who then helps his clients gain access to the people he helps elect. It is a standard strategist-lobbyist model that is common in the city and in the federal government. In this case, Mr. Giannoulis acknowledges wearing both hats at the same time -- saying he is collecting a $2,000-a-month retainer from Mr. Miller's campaign committee for political work while also representing clients like the Telebeam Telecommunications Corporation of Long Island City, which owns pay phones throughout the city.
Mr. Giannoulis said he had lobbied the speaker directly for his clients. It is his dual roles -- helping the speaker find a chief of staff and also lobbying the speaker on behalf of companies -- that have some government watchdog groups concerned, particularly given the power a chief of staff holds in terms of access to the speaker and in helping perform Council business.
''You can't deny the speaker his right as an employer to cast a wide net to get a highly capable chief of staff,'' said Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, a government watchdog group. ''But having a well-known lobbyist involved in the recruitment and screening of candidates for such an influential position raises serious questions, like how does the future chief of staff deal with a request from the Parkside Group if that lobbyist or firm helped that very same chief of staff get his or her job? It may not create a conflict, but it may certainly give the impression of one.''
Mr. Miller's office said yesterday that Mr. Giannoulis had not played a central role in the search for a chief of staff. Stephen Sigmund, Mr. Miller's director of communications, said the search was being headed by two of the speaker's staff members who are overseeing the collection of résumés, vetting and interviewing. After months of searching for a new chief of staff, there are three finalists left, Mr. Sigmund said, adding that Mr. Miller will ultimately decide who gets the job. Mr. Sigmund said that he expects the job to be filled in a few weeks.
''The premise that he is driving this process or even anything akin to that is just, just not real,'' Mr. Sigmund said of Mr. Giannoulis.
''The only role that Harry has had in a couple of meetings, the subject has come up,'' Mr. Sigmund said. ''He has given some input on what kind of qualifications and qualities in what a good candidate would have.''
Mr. Sigmund also said that Mr. Giannoulis put forward the name of one candidate -- an assertion that Mr. Giannoulis denied, saying instead that he told many people who approached him first that if they were interested in the post, they should apply directly themselves. Mr. Giannoulis said that his role with Mr. Miller was no different from the role many lobbyists-strategists have with clients, and that to avoid any potential conflict, his firm discloses all its clients, as is required by law.
Mr. Giannoulis said his role in selecting the chief of staff was minimal. ''I could not tell you all the people he has interviewed, how many people he has interviewed, and I couldn't tell you who he might be hiring,'' he said.
The Parkside Group has had a long and successful relationship with Mr. Miller. It helped him in his two runs for Council and later aided him in his bid to become speaker. The group is also expected to work with Mr. Miller should he follow through on his plans to run for mayor. The firm recently joined the ranks of the top 10 lobbying firms in New York City, Mr. Giannoulis said.
The relationship between Mr. Miller and his political consulting firm started to raise eyebrows among Democrats at a time when his performance as speaker is coming under increasing scrutiny. Mr. Miller has been facing allegations that he has failed to properly handle a sexual harassment case filed against another council member, and he has struggled to assert his authority as leader of the Democratic majority in the Council. With a crowded field of Democrats hoping to take on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg next year, some are hoping Mr. Miller's missteps prove fatal to his ambitions.
But Mr. Miller's problems may stem at least in part from not having a permanent chief of staff, political strategists said. A chief of staff often acts as an alter ego to his boss and, depending on the relationship that develops, is often pivotal in setting and carrying out an agenda -- as well as serving as a shield against political fallout. Mr. Miller has been looking for a chief of staff since Forrest Taylor announced his resignation in February.
Council Speaker Gifford Miller has sought help from a lobbyist whose clients often have business before the City Council to fill a crucial position, the speaker's chief of staff. The role is traditionally that of gatekeeper and top adviser to one of the city's most powerful officials.
The lobbyist, Harry E. Giannoulis, a partner in the Parkside Group, a lobbying and political consulting firm, said yesterday that while he did not believe he had played a pivotal role in helping Mr. Miller choose his chief of staff, he had given the speaker advice on what to look for in a candidate and had advised some potential applicants to seek the job. He also participated in meetings at which candidates were discussed, according to Mr. Miller's staff.
''I have encouraged people who have talked to me about it to apply if I think they are good for, or if I think the fit would be good,'' Mr. Giannoulis said yesterday, adding that he had had dozens of conversations with people who have called asking him: ''What's the deal? Is the job open? What's the speaker looking for?''
Mr. Giannoulis wears two hats, one as a consultant helping candidates get elected, another as a lobbyist, who then helps his clients gain access to the people he helps elect. It is a standard strategist-lobbyist model that is common in the city and in the federal government. In this case, Mr. Giannoulis acknowledges wearing both hats at the same time -- saying he is collecting a $2,000-a-month retainer from Mr. Miller's campaign committee for political work while also representing clients like the Telebeam Telecommunications Corporation of Long Island City, which owns pay phones throughout the city.
Mr. Giannoulis said he had lobbied the speaker directly for his clients. It is his dual roles -- helping the speaker find a chief of staff and also lobbying the speaker on behalf of companies -- that have some government watchdog groups concerned, particularly given the power a chief of staff holds in terms of access to the speaker and in helping perform Council business.
''You can't deny the speaker his right as an employer to cast a wide net to get a highly capable chief of staff,'' said Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, a government watchdog group. ''But having a well-known lobbyist involved in the recruitment and screening of candidates for such an influential position raises serious questions, like how does the future chief of staff deal with a request from the Parkside Group if that lobbyist or firm helped that very same chief of staff get his or her job? It may not create a conflict, but it may certainly give the impression of one.''
Mr. Miller's office said yesterday that Mr. Giannoulis had not played a central role in the search for a chief of staff. Stephen Sigmund, Mr. Miller's director of communications, said the search was being headed by two of the speaker's staff members who are overseeing the collection of résumés, vetting and interviewing. After months of searching for a new chief of staff, there are three finalists left, Mr. Sigmund said, adding that Mr. Miller will ultimately decide who gets the job. Mr. Sigmund said that he expects the job to be filled in a few weeks.
''The premise that he is driving this process or even anything akin to that is just, just not real,'' Mr. Sigmund said of Mr. Giannoulis.
''The only role that Harry has had in a couple of meetings, the subject has come up,'' Mr. Sigmund said. ''He has given some input on what kind of qualifications and qualities in what a good candidate would have.''
Mr. Sigmund also said that Mr. Giannoulis put forward the name of one candidate -- an assertion that Mr. Giannoulis denied, saying instead that he told many people who approached him first that if they were interested in the post, they should apply directly themselves. Mr. Giannoulis said that his role with Mr. Miller was no different from the role many lobbyists-strategists have with clients, and that to avoid any potential conflict, his firm discloses all its clients, as is required by law.
Mr. Giannoulis said his role in selecting the chief of staff was minimal. ''I could not tell you all the people he has interviewed, how many people he has interviewed, and I couldn't tell you who he might be hiring,'' he said.
The Parkside Group has had a long and successful relationship with Mr. Miller. It helped him in his two runs for Council and later aided him in his bid to become speaker. The group is also expected to work with Mr. Miller should he follow through on his plans to run for mayor. The firm recently joined the ranks of the top 10 lobbying firms in New York City, Mr. Giannoulis said.
The relationship between Mr. Miller and his political consulting firm started to raise eyebrows among Democrats at a time when his performance as speaker is coming under increasing scrutiny. Mr. Miller has been facing allegations that he has failed to properly handle a sexual harassment case filed against another council member, and he has struggled to assert his authority as leader of the Democratic majority in the Council. With a crowded field of Democrats hoping to take on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg next year, some are hoping Mr. Miller's missteps prove fatal to his ambitions.
But Mr. Miller's problems may stem at least in part from not having a permanent chief of staff, political strategists said. A chief of staff often acts as an alter ego to his boss and, depending on the relationship that develops, is often pivotal in setting and carrying out an agenda -- as well as serving as a shield against political fallout. Mr. Miller has been looking for a chief of staff since Forrest Taylor announced his resignation in February.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Ex-Speaker Hires Lawyer in Inquiry
By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM and RAY RIVERA, New York Times, May 17, 2008
Gifford Miller, the former City Council speaker, has hired a criminal defense lawyer to represent him in a federal investigation into the Council’s longstanding practice of allocating millions of dollars to phantom nonprofit groups, people involved in the case said on Friday.
Gifford Miller, at a 2005 news conference, has kept a low profile since the investigation into Council spending was disclosed.
The Council, which had hired a criminal lawyer to represent itself in the inquiry by federal prosecutors and the City Department of Investigation, recently hired another one to represent staff members who were being questioned, several of the people said.
The two lawyers, along with a third criminal defense lawyer representing the current speaker, Christine C. Quinn, are being paid with city funds; Mr. Miller’s lawyer, Henry Putzel III, is not.
Mr. Putzel said in a brief statement that the former speaker “had done nothing wrong, and when the facts are fully developed, I am quite sure that everyone will conclude as much.” He said that his client intends “to cooperate fully.”
Other than Ms. Quinn, Council officials said no one else in the 51-member Council had sought to have the city pay for individual legal representation, even though several have had to defend their spending in the face of news reports about allocations to nonprofit groups that hired council members’ friends, relatives and staff members. It was unclear, however, whether any council members had retained lawyers with their own money.
While no member of the Council has been singled out for scrutiny by investigators, the authorities have indicated that the inquiry is broad, aggressive and continuing along two tracks. First, it is examining the practice of squirreling away millions of dollars in the name of phantom organizations; second, it is reviewing how individual council members have directed their discretionary spending to nonprofit groups, and how the groups have spent it.
As a result, Council officials on Friday sent a memo to members outlining the process by which they can seek to have the Council pay for defense lawyers.
Mr. Miller, who served as speaker from January 2002 until December 2005, has kept a low profile since the investigation was disclosed in April.
The Council’s use of fictitious organizations to hold money in reserve dated to at least the 1990s, when Peter F. Vallone Sr. was the speaker. The practice, records show, expanded after Mr. Miller took over the following year and the names of the phantom groups became more legitimate-sounding.
Ms. Quinn, who has worked to increase transparency in the budget process, has said that when she learned of the practice last year she ordered that it be stopped.
Defense lawyers and prosecutors not involved in the case said it was routine — and common sense — for anyone who may be approached during an investigation to hire a lawyer.
“The smart thing to do is to hire a lawyer to figure out what the prosecutors think and want,” Edward A. McDonald, a white-collar defense lawyer who prosecuted public corruption cases as an assistant United States attorney, said in an e-mail message. One person involved in the case said that Evan Barr, the defense lawyer hired to represent Council staff members, had accompanied “a handful” of witnesses who had been interviewed.
Anxiety has been building among council members since the investigation was disclosed and Ms. Quinn revealed that she had been asked to turn over hundreds of pages of documents to the city and federal investigators. Less than two weeks later, federal authorities announced the indictment of two aides to Councilman Kendall Stewart of Brooklyn on charges that they had embezzled $145,000 from a group he funded.
Last month, Steven R. Peikin, the lawyer retained by the Council to represent it, briefed members about the inquiry.
In the memo sent on Friday, the Council’s Office of General Counsel said it and the city’s corporation counsel would decide to provide outside representation for council members on a case-by-case basis.
The decision, the memo said, would depend on several prerequisites, including a requirement that the council member or employee did not engage in intentional wrongdoing and cooperated with the investigation.
The ripples of the investigation are being felt throughout city government. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s office this week detailed a little-known fund that it uses to finance council member items and outlined steps to tighten control over that process.
City agencies also have begun denying access to public documents about city contracts involving council member items, citing the investigation.
Gifford Miller, the former City Council speaker, has hired a criminal defense lawyer to represent him in a federal investigation into the Council’s longstanding practice of allocating millions of dollars to phantom nonprofit groups, people involved in the case said on Friday.
Gifford Miller, at a 2005 news conference, has kept a low profile since the investigation into Council spending was disclosed.
The Council, which had hired a criminal lawyer to represent itself in the inquiry by federal prosecutors and the City Department of Investigation, recently hired another one to represent staff members who were being questioned, several of the people said.
The two lawyers, along with a third criminal defense lawyer representing the current speaker, Christine C. Quinn, are being paid with city funds; Mr. Miller’s lawyer, Henry Putzel III, is not.
Mr. Putzel said in a brief statement that the former speaker “had done nothing wrong, and when the facts are fully developed, I am quite sure that everyone will conclude as much.” He said that his client intends “to cooperate fully.”
Other than Ms. Quinn, Council officials said no one else in the 51-member Council had sought to have the city pay for individual legal representation, even though several have had to defend their spending in the face of news reports about allocations to nonprofit groups that hired council members’ friends, relatives and staff members. It was unclear, however, whether any council members had retained lawyers with their own money.
While no member of the Council has been singled out for scrutiny by investigators, the authorities have indicated that the inquiry is broad, aggressive and continuing along two tracks. First, it is examining the practice of squirreling away millions of dollars in the name of phantom organizations; second, it is reviewing how individual council members have directed their discretionary spending to nonprofit groups, and how the groups have spent it.
As a result, Council officials on Friday sent a memo to members outlining the process by which they can seek to have the Council pay for defense lawyers.
Mr. Miller, who served as speaker from January 2002 until December 2005, has kept a low profile since the investigation was disclosed in April.
The Council’s use of fictitious organizations to hold money in reserve dated to at least the 1990s, when Peter F. Vallone Sr. was the speaker. The practice, records show, expanded after Mr. Miller took over the following year and the names of the phantom groups became more legitimate-sounding.
Ms. Quinn, who has worked to increase transparency in the budget process, has said that when she learned of the practice last year she ordered that it be stopped.
Defense lawyers and prosecutors not involved in the case said it was routine — and common sense — for anyone who may be approached during an investigation to hire a lawyer.
“The smart thing to do is to hire a lawyer to figure out what the prosecutors think and want,” Edward A. McDonald, a white-collar defense lawyer who prosecuted public corruption cases as an assistant United States attorney, said in an e-mail message. One person involved in the case said that Evan Barr, the defense lawyer hired to represent Council staff members, had accompanied “a handful” of witnesses who had been interviewed.
Anxiety has been building among council members since the investigation was disclosed and Ms. Quinn revealed that she had been asked to turn over hundreds of pages of documents to the city and federal investigators. Less than two weeks later, federal authorities announced the indictment of two aides to Councilman Kendall Stewart of Brooklyn on charges that they had embezzled $145,000 from a group he funded.
Last month, Steven R. Peikin, the lawyer retained by the Council to represent it, briefed members about the inquiry.
In the memo sent on Friday, the Council’s Office of General Counsel said it and the city’s corporation counsel would decide to provide outside representation for council members on a case-by-case basis.
The decision, the memo said, would depend on several prerequisites, including a requirement that the council member or employee did not engage in intentional wrongdoing and cooperated with the investigation.
The ripples of the investigation are being felt throughout city government. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s office this week detailed a little-known fund that it uses to finance council member items and outlined steps to tighten control over that process.
City agencies also have begun denying access to public documents about city contracts involving council member items, citing the investigation.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Gifford Miller takes another rap as audit slams contracts
Saturday, September 22nd 2007, Daily News
The City Council played fast and loose in awarding $1.67 million in printing work under former Speaker Gifford Miller, a city audit charged yesterday.
The report said competitive bidding requirements were skirted by splitting big contracts into several smaller ones that didn't reach the $5,000 bidding threshold.
The few times bids were requested, affiliated companies were allowed to submit rival bids - raising the prospect of price fixing, the audit said.
The findings by city Controller William Thompson rub salt into old wounds for Miller, who left the Council at the end of 2005 because of term limits - just three months after he finished fourth in the Democratic primary for mayor.
Although the audit doesn't fault Miller individually, it focuses on the blizzard of constituent mailings that he had authorized back in August 2005.
Initially, his office had reported mailing only 100,000 flyers, which featured Miller and touted the Council's budget positions, at a cost of $37,000. But a few days later, Miller aides admitted 5.5 million flyers had been mailed at a cost of $1.6 million.
By "intentionally splitting these printing purchases the Council was disregarding its responsibilities and neglecting its obligation to the City of New York," the audit concluded.
Miller, 38, now a business consultant, did not return a call for comment.
Thompson spokesman Jeff Simmons said the audit found no criminality.
Frank Lombardi
The City Council played fast and loose in awarding $1.67 million in printing work under former Speaker Gifford Miller, a city audit charged yesterday.
The report said competitive bidding requirements were skirted by splitting big contracts into several smaller ones that didn't reach the $5,000 bidding threshold.
The few times bids were requested, affiliated companies were allowed to submit rival bids - raising the prospect of price fixing, the audit said.
The findings by city Controller William Thompson rub salt into old wounds for Miller, who left the Council at the end of 2005 because of term limits - just three months after he finished fourth in the Democratic primary for mayor.
Although the audit doesn't fault Miller individually, it focuses on the blizzard of constituent mailings that he had authorized back in August 2005.
Initially, his office had reported mailing only 100,000 flyers, which featured Miller and touted the Council's budget positions, at a cost of $37,000. But a few days later, Miller aides admitted 5.5 million flyers had been mailed at a cost of $1.6 million.
By "intentionally splitting these printing purchases the Council was disregarding its responsibilities and neglecting its obligation to the City of New York," the audit concluded.
Miller, 38, now a business consultant, did not return a call for comment.
Thompson spokesman Jeff Simmons said the audit found no criminality.
Frank Lombardi
Friday, September 21, 2007
Thompson: Council Broke Multiple Rules Under Miller
Daily News Blog, September 21, 2007
Comptroller Bill Thompson released an audit of Council purchasing from July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 (during ex-Speaker Gifford Miller’s tenure) that found the Council violated the city charter, its own rules and Procurement Policy Board rules, including spending $1.67 million on printing without entering into formal contracts.
“Instead of awarding a printing contract through competition, the Council intentionally split printing orders or made several small purchases for individual members to prevent the total from reaching the $5,000 threshold for competition,” Thompson said.
It’s a little bit techincal, but here’s the upshot, from Thompson’s report:
In general, the City Charter and the PPB rules require that contracts be awarded through competition. Instead?ith the exception of three purchases totaling $35,470?he Council split printing orders or made several small purchases by individual Council members to prevent the total from reaching the $5,000 threshold for small purchases above which would have required the solicitation of bids from five vendors or a full public procurement.
The Council also:
- Let permitted affiliated companies to submit competing bids against each other for the same proposa.
- Used miscellaneous vouchers for all Member purchases and ?hared?expenditures, totaling $3.49 million, violating a Comptroller’s directive.
- Broke Council and PPB rules when making OTPS expenditures from its Central Office by not obtaining bids on purchases that exceeded $500 (Council rules) and $5,000 (PPB rules).
- Did not use requirement contracts in 22 instances when procuring various items totaling $14,232.
- Made improper and questionable payments, totaling $54,939.
- Made improper and questionable imprest fund payments, totaling $2,837.
During the 2005 mayor’s race, questions were raised about Miller’s use of in-house mailings. He defended the practice - which, it should be noted, is a routinely engaged in endeavor - as legal.
UPDATE: Thompson spokesman Jeff Simmons said no evidence of criminality was found in the audit, and thus it was not forwarded to DOI. (Yes, that’s fixed. Writing too fast. Sorry).
Comptroller Bill Thompson released an audit of Council purchasing from July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005 (during ex-Speaker Gifford Miller’s tenure) that found the Council violated the city charter, its own rules and Procurement Policy Board rules, including spending $1.67 million on printing without entering into formal contracts.
“Instead of awarding a printing contract through competition, the Council intentionally split printing orders or made several small purchases for individual members to prevent the total from reaching the $5,000 threshold for competition,” Thompson said.
It’s a little bit techincal, but here’s the upshot, from Thompson’s report:
In general, the City Charter and the PPB rules require that contracts be awarded through competition. Instead?ith the exception of three purchases totaling $35,470?he Council split printing orders or made several small purchases by individual Council members to prevent the total from reaching the $5,000 threshold for small purchases above which would have required the solicitation of bids from five vendors or a full public procurement.
The Council also:
- Let permitted affiliated companies to submit competing bids against each other for the same proposa.
- Used miscellaneous vouchers for all Member purchases and ?hared?expenditures, totaling $3.49 million, violating a Comptroller’s directive.
- Broke Council and PPB rules when making OTPS expenditures from its Central Office by not obtaining bids on purchases that exceeded $500 (Council rules) and $5,000 (PPB rules).
- Did not use requirement contracts in 22 instances when procuring various items totaling $14,232.
- Made improper and questionable payments, totaling $54,939.
- Made improper and questionable imprest fund payments, totaling $2,837.
During the 2005 mayor’s race, questions were raised about Miller’s use of in-house mailings. He defended the practice - which, it should be noted, is a routinely engaged in endeavor - as legal.
UPDATE: Thompson spokesman Jeff Simmons said no evidence of criminality was found in the audit, and thus it was not forwarded to DOI. (Yes, that’s fixed. Writing too fast. Sorry).
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Stavisky Helps McLaughlin Run for Mayor
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)