The Comptroller Pissing Contest
Last night was this month's Independent Neighborhood Democrats (IND) meeting. For the record, as of last night I am now a member of IND's executive board. Despite my rather rocky relationship with the IND executive board during 2006, they have welcomed me warmly.
I will write in some detail about the main event of last night's meeting, a great talk by former Congresswoman from Brooklyn, Liz Holtzman, about impeaching Bush, later. But first I want to give a slightly different viewpoint on the Di Napoli brouhaha than has been presented here. Now I don't really disagree with the assessment of my fellow Daily Gothamers about the dysfunction of our state legislature or the fact that Di Napoli was not the best choice and that Shelly Silver needs a good slap across the face or kick in the behind. But there is another side of it other than Spitzer's side. And my own Assemblywoman, Joan Millman, gave us that Assembly viewpoint last night.
Joan Millman is a good, solid reformer. And I think no one is happier than her that Spitzer is our Governor. But she described Spitzer's behavior regarding the Comptroller situation as being heavy handed and the Assembly's actions as being a rebellion against a heavy handed insult.
Assemblywoman Millman described Spitzers declaration that no one from the legislature would be considered qualified for the job as being an arbitrary slap in the face to the legislature. Her view of the original agreement with Spitzer was that five names would be chosen by the panel of former Comptrollers and that people from the legislature were welcome to throw their names into the ring. She did not have the same impression as Shelly Silver that it was agreed on that a legislator would necessarily BE one of the five names chosen, but she did think that plenty of legislators had qualifications and should be considered.
The process was apparantly bizzare. The three-person panel of former Comptrollers, from her observation, didn't ask questions, leaving it to the Assembly to ask questions despite the fact that it was the panel that would choose the five names. Joan didn't suggest this, but I wondered if that was an indication that the panel had an idea ahead of time who was going to be picked.
Spitzer's declaration that no one from the legislature would make the cut was taken as an insult. Now, Joan is the first person who will admit that the legislature has huge problems and I am sure she would agree that many in the legislature are NOT qualified. But she named a few names she thought should have been considered and gave good reasons why she thought they would be qualified.
Then only three names were handed to the legislature and one of those names was viewed as being too close a friend to Spitzer to adequately oversee his peformance as governor. She felt that one name out of the three was inappropriate but felt the other two names were excellent choices. But she felt that to exclude any legislators while including the name of a Spitzer buddy (I won't use the word crony because I think Spizter is better than that, but...) and right after Spitzer named a legislator (State Senator Balboni) to Homeland Security was a deliberate and unnecessary slap at the legislature. I apply the term pissing contest, she did not.
Despite her dislike of parts of the process, Joan was one of the handful of legislators who stuck to the panel's list and voted for New York City Finance Commissioner Martha Stark for comptroller. But, as a direct return-piss in the contest (my words, NOT Joan's!!) the legislature overwhelmingly voted for one of their own, Thomas DiNapoli.
I should note that State Senator Marty Connor, another IND regular though one I have not been as fond of as I have of Joan, also voted for Martha Stark, taking the high road. I will add, though, that Connor apparantly had some interest in the job himself. I am less comfortable with that that Joan was.
Joan has some confidence in DiNapoli, at least in public. She didn't give him a glowing after the fact endorsement, and of course didn't vote for him. But she outlined what she saw as his qualifications and pointed out that they aren't much different than the qualifications of, for example, Hevesi before he became NYC Comptroller. Her main points were: give him a chance; all eyes are on him so he better perform; and we can judge him in about 4 years and decide if we want to keep him.
I am not as forgiving as Joan is. I think although Spizter may indeed have overstepped his authority, the legislature in the end wasn't reasonable either. Perhaps, given the proverbial dysfunction of Albany, we really NEED a comptroller who is not close to the legislature...OR for that matter to Mr. Spitzer either. Unproductive pissing contest all around I say and I add to the Daily Gotham disgust at the legislature my own disgust at Spitzer.
Joan finished with the hope that the Spitzer-Legislature pissing contest (my words, not hers!!) is now over because they all have a huge back log of things to get done now that obstructionist Pataki is out of the picture. I see problems ahead as Spitzer, Silver and Bruno all posture like sumo wrestlers to intimidate the others, but Spitzer has the popular support, the legislature really is dysfunctional, and Silver and Bruno are both slime as far as I am concerned. But if sumo-posturing and pissing contests can be put aside, and Bruno forced to be reasonable, I think Joan's wish of getting stuff done is quite attainable.
Personally I'd prefer Joan Millman were in charge of the Assembly. Things would be far more civilized and reasonable if she was.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Comptroller | Government | Governor | New York State Assembly | New York State Senate | New York
Well...
Submitted by mole333 on 18 February 2007 - 4:16pm.
There are reformers and there are reformers.
Joan is not as progressive as I would like. But I also think your asessment is unfair...or at least incomplete. Joan has spoken out at IND against some of the dysfunction in Albany and certainly didn't side with Silver on the Comptroller choice. I do think she was too easy on Silver in her description, but she nevertheless voted against him. I also have heard her disagree with Marty. In discussing the Atlantic Yards project, she pretty directly disagreed with Marty's lack of interest in what seemed to me quite a pointed manner. She and I do not completely agree on Atlantic Yards, but we share considerable common ground. And her message to Silver regarding halting the State approval of Ratner's project was a good letter and sadly was ignored by Silver.
I think to imply she is a rubber stamp for either Silver or Connor is wrong. I think there is far more to her than that and she often has the community's interests in mind. I cannot speak for the Brooklyn Bridge Park issue, since I did not adequately follow it. I know there is dissatisfaction there and I may well disagree with Joan on that. But as Albany politicians go, I find her far better than most. I have often spoken pretty harshly regarding Connor. I have yet to find a major reason to speak out against Millman and have found some reason to speak for her.
As to my purpose in this diary, I found some of Joan's observations interesting and suggesting that Spizter was not all that great in the mess either. I personally would side with Spitzer over Silver, but I am not always so keen on Spitzer either.
Talk is cheap
Submitted by dorothy siegel (not verified) on 19 February 2007 - 11:31am.
Honey,
Talk is cheap.
Joan can disagree in her quiet little way -- sending strong-worded letters after failing to take action, standing up bravely at HER OWN club to talk about how brave she is, voting against her puppeteer Silver when her vote doesn't matter -- but she isn't merely a citizen like you or me. She's our REPRESENTATIVE. That means she should NOT be introducing legislation that GIVES AWAY our park to luxury condo developers. She could have said "no" in her quiet, sweet way, but she ACTIVELY INTRODUCED legislation. Where was her bravery then, when it counted? Why didn't she tell Silver "no" if she's so brave and progressive?
When those 30-story condo's go up on Atlantic avenue at Hicks Street, courtesy of the Joan-Marty-Shelly cabal, I'm sure she'll write another polite little letter, letting everyone know how ANGRY she is. REALLY ANGRY. But JOAN is the one who caused them to be built! If she had simply had the spine to stand up to Shelly, the deal wouldn't have happened, and the condo's wouldn't be replacing the park. I know standing up to Shelly is really tough, but THAT'S WHY WE ELECTED HER -- to stand up for US, when the bosses want to steal our park.
I suggest it's time for you to "adequately follow" Joan's and Marty's Brooklyn Bridge Park Sellout by clicking on the parkdefense.org website. What are YOU afraid of? That Joan will be angry at you? Don't worry. She's all bark and no bite. And I won't tell her that you peeked!
You say you haven't found a major reason to speak out against Joan. Do you wonder why Silver ignored her brilliant after-the-fact letter voicing reservations about Atlantic Yards? Could it be that 1) Shelly doesn't care what Joan thinks because she is so ineffective or 2) This is how politicians cover their rears -- all talk, no action. Come on, Sweety, don't you think that some LEADERSHIP would have been helpful, not just spineless words?
After all, when Marty's and Joan's condo's go up, you'll have only yourself to blame for being too lazy or fearful or naive to question her warm embrace.
If you need a friend, get a dog. They don't introduce legislation and sell out their neighbors.
Hmmm...
Submitted by mole333 on 19 February 2007 - 1:40pm.
Ummm, perhaps you aren't familiar with my writing much. I don't take kindly to scolding. I was with you regarding needing to finally get around to the BB park stuff until I saw the "What are YOU afraid of?"
Excuse me, but I have pissed off IND, Joan, Marty, Scotto and the whole lot and stood up in their faces disagreeing with them and publicly airing my differences right here. And they read it and commented about it on line, to my face and referred to stuff I wrote at their meetings, both general and executive board meetings. So, no I am not afraid of them. But I do have limited time and attention to deal with this stuff. Want to pay me? Because blogging and politics are NOT my main job. They are something I do on the side and keeping up with each and every election (not just here, but many around the nation), keeping up with NDM, DFNYC, CBID and IND as well as a few other letter jumbles and Atlantic Yards and arsons in Brooklyn not to mention national politics is far more than I really have time for. Adding Brooklyn Bridge Park, no matter how important that issue may be, is just plain something I have not had time for.
I don't do this for Joan, but I don't do it for you either, so if you want the issue aired here or at IND, come on and do so. Join Daily Gotham with an official account and post on the forums in as much detail as you like. We would welcome it. Really. But don't tell me what to write about.
As for IND, I spent quite a bit of time a the opposition. And I am sure I will again and they probably fully expect me to be a pain in their butts from time to time. But I also have some appreciation for what they do and who they are and find working with them to be a better option right now than spending ALL my time pissing them off. Come on to an IND meeting and bring it up and I will probably be there and be interested. But don't tell me what fights I should be choosing them because as far as I can tell I've been doing a pretty good job on my own of getting my opinions out there and heard...often to considerable outcries from the powers that be in Brooklyn.
Joan Millman, Reformer
Mole,
Alas, you are either naive or uninformed. I hope it is the latter.
Joan Millman is, in fact, a very nice person. Howsever, she is no Reformer, but a loyal foot soldier of Shelly Silver. Who told you otherwise -- Joan? Maybe it was her warm embrace that fooled you, Dear Boy. But you might look into her record in perhaps the most progressive assembly district in the state (the Fighting 52nd) before you innocently succumb to the warm embrace.
You might start by asking her why she GAVE AWAY Brooklyn Bridge Park -- a People's Park with active recreation and public amenities that the community planned, and Eileen Dugan fought for, for 20 years -- by SPONSORING legislation to replace it with a DeveloPark of high rise condo's and yacht marinas. Why was $150 million of state and city money that was allocated to develop a PARK diverted to finance a playground for the rich and to preserve the views of the PoohBahs whose homes line the Promenate? We residents of Bklyn Hts, Cobble Hill and Carroll Gardens TRUSTED her to REPRESENT us, and SHE SOLD US OUT. She sold out the people of New York City who lost what could have been the most spectacular park in the city. Why? I honestly don't know. It's possible she got something for it, but I doubt it. I think she just heard her bosses (Shelly Silver and Marty Connor) tell her to jump, so she jumped. As I said, she's a loyal foot soldier.
Now she may be saying how unhappy she is with the way the DEVELO-PARK is working out, or she may say that we need luxury condo's to support the cost of the park, but 1) those are bogus arguments and 2) they still don't explain why she SPONSORED THE LEGISLATION TO TURN THE PARK INTO A LUXURY CONDO DEVELOPMENT.
To help you learn about this issue, I suggest checking out this terrific site: http://parkdefense.org/
Joan's partner in crime (in cosponsoring the luxury condo legislation), Sen.Marty Connor, is so poorly regarded in the part of his district that overlaps with Joan's district (Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill and Carroll Gardens) that in last September's primary he garnered only 38% of the vote there. These folks -- ones he's been "representing" for 28 years -- know him best and see him as a sleazy sellout. If it weren't for Shelly bailing him out in the part of his district that overlaps with Shelly's, Connor would have lost -- the first incumbent state legislator to lose a primary in memory.
The reason Joan is being so nice to you and trying to convince you (with her easy vote for Stark) that she is a Reformer is that she's SCARED -- scared someone will run against her on her Brooklyn Bridge Park Sellout. Joan was Marty's biggest supporter in the primary, asking people to vote for him. The people who wanted a REAL park asked people to vote for his opponent, Ken Diamondstone. Nevertheless, THE PEOPLE in Joan's neighborhood knew better and helped his opponent beat him in his own (and Joan's) neighborhood in a landslide. At least Shelly can deliver votes in HIS Assembly District (thanks to $7.5 million of member items). Joan can't. (Not enough money in member items?)
If you were Joan, where your ally and mentor was just repudiated by your neighbors and constitutents, you'd be scared, too, Mole. That's called Politics 101 -- don't piss off your constituents.
Let's be clear. Joan is a VERY NICE PERSON who is also a tool of Marty Connor and Shelly Silver. She NEVER bucks either one when the vote matters. She is a member in good standing of the sleazy, pay-to-play Status Quo you claim to oppose and Sptzer is trying to fight. Now you are HER tool, telling the world that she is a "good, solid Reformer." Sorry, Mole. You've been suckered. That's Politics 102 -- sucker the people with the megaphones.
You have an opportunity to do some REAL good, Mole. You are on the Executive Board of IND, a once proud organization (I was an honoree many years ago) that long ago lost its relevance, as evidenced by its own endorsed candidates (like Marty) repeatedly losing in its own neighborhood.
Just to test whether Joan's Reformer label is deserved or not, I suggest you ask Marty and Joan to sponsor a community "town hall" meeting about the Park. The theme should be why almost EVERYONE in the club area opposes their sell out of the park. After all, if Marty and Joan truly "represent" the neighborhood, wouldn't they want to know why?
Wanna bet what the response will be from the GREAT REFORMER?
You're young. You'll learn. I hope.