The Future of Reform in Brooklyn: Another analysis of the Surrogate race and some rumors
Been thinking about the Brooklyn Surrogate race and many people have been talking to me about it. I know to non-insiders this seems like a minor thing, but in reality the Surrogate Judge, and all judges, are important elected positions and the fact that the machine's lock on appointing judges has majorly slipped is a very big deal.
My post-primary piece might have been a bit overly pessimistic, though I think fairly accurate. But the reform clubs are celebrating and for good reason. I put down the reform clubs a bit in my last piece, but honestly they did help swing the race for Diana Johnson and did hand Vito Lopez a solid defeat.
And it really was a solid defeat. Diana Johnson won with almost 60% of the vote. That means Vito Lopez and his machine lost about as decisively as you really ever expect in a judicial election. There was a time when Surrogate Judge was the machine's to give away like a plum. It was one of the bigger plums the machine could give.
Vito Lopez has lost BOTH Surrogate Judge seats. The first time Margarita Lopez-Torres squeaked by to a narrow victory, causing Vito to demand recount after recount until it all finally was decided in court. This time Diana Johnson won with 60% of the vote. Vito couldn't even call for a recount. Now the fact that Diana Johnson was Vito's candidate against Lopez Torres the first time around and then was the reform candidate AGAINST Vito Lopez is one of those strange twists of Brooklyn politics that just make you shake your head. But that doesn't change the fact that Vito was handed one defeat in a Surrogate race, just barely. Then just 2 years later he is handed a solid, decisive defeat in the other Surrogate race. And there aren't going to be any more Surrogate races for 12 years.
That is reform. Voters, not Vito, decided who would be Brooklyn's Surrogate Judges. And, in the process, Margarita Lopez-Torres's victory led to a lawsuit that has ruled Brooklyn's judicial conventions, one of the main ways the machine controlled the selection of judges, unconstitutional. That court decision is currently under appeal and has gone all the way to the US Supreme court. If upheld, it would weaken Vito's hold even further.
As an aside, in an earlier article I wrote that once the Surrogate race is over, keep an eye on who gets the next court appointment by the machine. Well, that next court appointment will be decided this coming Tuesday when what might be the last of the probably unconstitutional judicial conventions will be held to fill a vacant state supreme court seat. The real decision will be made in a closed meeting on Monday where Vito will make his pick know. Remember I said to watch who gets rewarded for taking a fall in the Surrogate's race. Tuesday we will see one of the people who Vito wants to reward. Rumor has it Simpson will get her reward later. Tuesday will be someone else's turn.
So Johnson's victory is widely seen as a victory for reform clubs in Brooklyn, a view put forward by many newspapers including the NY Times in their post-mortem of the primary. Again, as I said in my post-mortem, the victory for reform is slightly soured by the fact that when Johnson turned reform, she never fully broke from her machine connections, maintaining some rather unsavory connections left over from the Clarence Norman days. But that doesn't change the fact that the reform clubs ALL chose Johnson and they won.
Another sign of progress, if not necessarily reform per se, is the fact that Brooklyn, one of the most diverse communities on earth, has two Surrogate Judges. Now one of those judges is Hispanic and the other is black. And race, per se, was never a major issue in the elections. That in itself is something to be proud of, given that both judges are fully qualified. One racial issue that did come up is that Vito Lopez decided he wanted to choose his own black candidate to run rather than listen to a fairly unified Brooklyn black leadership who backed Johnson. I believe many black leaders felt Vito's decision to pick his personal black judge rather than respect the wishes of black leaders in the community was insulting. But there was no question that it was fully appropriate to have two qualified minority Surrogates. Race, per se, was not an issue.
Finally, a friend pointed out another reason why it was a reform victory. Tons of money, in addition to influence, was poured into the race on Simpson's side. The big money lost. My friend compared it to Yassky's loss despite having the big money. Now having money doesn't mean you're bad, but two years in a row, in the biggest election of the year for Brooklyn, the big money lost. As a progressive, I have to have a soft spot for an underdog candidate winning. And, in the case of the Surrogate race, the underdog won big.
So, even though, as I discussed before, we are left with unqualified, homophovic Judge Noach Dear, the horrible garbage dumped on the 5th Civil Court by Vito Lopez and Marty Markowitz (a judge who has never practiced law and failed the bar twice???), and even though Judge Diana Johnson may not have been the ideal reform candidate, all in all it really was a win for reform in Brooklyn. And the reform clubs deserve to be celebrating.
But what about the future? Vito is not going anywhere, and his hold on the county party seems as strong as ever. When Vito Lopez nods his head, almost all district leaders in Brooklyn pretty much say Amen and vote his way. Almost no district leader has the guts to stand up to Vito on anything of substance. Maybe, just maybe, with the Surrogates and the judicial convention lost to Vito, the time has come to start taking district leader positions more seriously. Perhaps reformers and progressives should be eyeing challenging some of Vito's tame district leaders. I hear DFNYC and other progressive organizations wants to do a big progressive push in Brooklyn in 2009. But the truth is this will be very difficult as long as Vito Lopez dominates the party. Resources and money flow where he wants it, and the stronger he is, the harder it will be for progressives to do their big push. Perhaps DFNYC needs to pick a few district leader positions to target in 2008 to strengthen their hand when they go up against the machine in 2009.
And this gets to a key thing: the reformers and progressives may have just won, but as I wrote earlier, that is not enough. Let me just quote from Jonathan Hicks' article in the NY Times on the Surrogate race from Sept. 20th:
Mr. Lopez might well be encouraged because the forces opposing the party organization are not particularly unified. In fact, those coalitions tend to form on a contest-by-contest basis, with the characters changing from one race to the other.
That really hits the nail on the head. We have to stop acting on a contest-by-contest basis, fighting ourselves as much as we fight the machine. We have to have a more unified front, a more coherent agenda that more clearly outlines the alternatives we offer to the machine. And we have to apply that agenda, using it as a wedge to weaken Vito's power on all level, from district leader on up. We've made a start, and I must say we did it in an excessively divided and haphazard manner. I would suggest the 2008 district leader elections may be a chance to test out a more unified, more agenda-driven strategy. How about it DFNYC? How about it LID and CBID and, I hope, IND?
In this context, I should address one rumor I am hearing that bodes ill for reforming the district leadership. Rumor has it that one of my district leaders, Alan Fleishman, may resign as district leader. Now Alan and I have not always seen eye to eye, but what is clear to me is that he is probably the strongest voice of opposition against Vito Lopez in all the closed door meetings of the machine, including the judicial conventions. Given the fact that the reform movement has successfully won both Surrogate seats from Vito and may well have taken the judicial conventions from Vito, it seems like a foolish time for the strongest voice of opposition to Vito to resign. Come on Alan! I know it's an uphill battle, but do you quit right when we've won two or three big battles? Furthermore, if Fleishman resignas as district leader, the decision of who would replace him would ultimately fall to Vito Lopez himself. The voters would be deprived of their choice and you can be sure Vito's annointed choice would not be as strong a voice of reform as Alan. I am hoping Alan does not want to let Vito, rather than the voters, select his successor.
Hang in there, Alan. You've just won one. Enjoy it for awhile rather than leaving just when things might be getting better.
district leader | election 2007 | judicial elections | progressive politics | Reform | Alan Fleishman | Brooklyn | Diana Johnson | Vito Lopez
District Leaders
We need groups like DFNYC to challenge District Leaders in all 5 boroughs. 2008 would be a perfect oppurtunity, considering the primary in September will have a low turn out (which is unfortunate, but its the truth), as most people will have already voted in the presidential primary and will just ignore the September primary.

It Will Be Miller
The new judge will be Bob Miller. If the Johnson coalition was really about Reform, he could be beat. While those leaders who backed Johnson may or may not not have a majority of votes at the leader's meeting, they do have a majority of votes on the convention floor, because of the disproprotionate Democratic strength in the minority and brownstone communities. If they wanted to win a fight with Vito, they could. It's not that they can't, it's that they won't.
And that's because the Johnson coalition is not about reform. In fact, the real winner in the Johnson race is the victorious County Leader in Exile, one Clarenace Norman. And, in recognition of his victory, the coup de grace on Miller's behalf was delivered, from jail, by Norman himself, ensuring that that pro-Johnson leaders like Diane Gordon and Shirley Patterson supported Miller, who served as head of Norman's defense fund.
Mole says:
"We have to stop acting on a contest-by-contest basis, fighting ourselves as much as we fight the machine. We have to have a more unified front, a more coherent agenda that more clearly outlines the alternatives we offer to the machine."
But there is no "WE"; reformers can unite all they want, but even when they united, they constitute three and a half clubs with three district leaders between them, out of 42.
Reformers did not put Johnson over the top, they joined someone else's parade, providing more political cover than votes, and serving as an airwick for a sewer.
Maybe they did the right thing; reasonable folks can disagree on this one; but sane reformers (perhaps an oxymoron) should not be deluding themsleves about about the scope of their victory here.
Ah...
So, are you advocating throwing up our hands and just joining in with the sleaze? That sounds a lot like the way the Republicans have handled their own problems with corruption. Sorry. Don't accept it from them, don't accept it with our side.
Or are you advocating the good old fashioned sticking your head in the sand approach? Doesn't really do it for me either. Not in my name kind of thing.
If you are content with the Judge Noach Dear machine then I am sorry for you. For me it isn't all about power and handing out of prize plums to me. It's about governing and running a city/state/nation well. People who give us crap for judges disgust me.
As to the Simpson/Johnson mess, no one, NO ONE has given me one shred of evidence that Simpson was morally superior to Johnson. Both had connections with Norman. Both have had connections with Vito. So I happened to choose the one with 16 years experience on the bench and who actually lives with her family and who got the support of those who want to reform the system.
As to those reformers, well I was harsh on them in my last diary, easy on them in this diary. Truth is many of them are far smarter, harder working and honest than you have any clue of. Are their pseudo-reformers? Of course there are. And I believe I have said so and criticized the reformers for those among them who are full of shit.
But I see few alternatives. On the reform side there is a mix of real reformers and those who want to turn a blind eye to the sleaze and so say reform out of one end, then work with those who gave us Judge Noach Dear with the other end. In the machine you have it worse. You have those who blatantly lie about reform with no intention of doing anything but grabbing all the plums they can and you have those who don't even bother lying about reform and just wallow in the crap. I have no patience for that sort of thing because I see how bad that is for regular people when the Republicans do it. I can't really say I have any reason to expect corruption, particularly in the judiciary, to have a better outcome for average citizens when Democrats do it.

Your response was a lot of sound and fury
...but it signified nothing. I merely pointed out the truth. You missed the point of Hicks' article entirely. It was that the Johnson coalition was a one-time only event composed of people with radically different motives. This is undoubtedly true. Perhaps you are right, and it was a justified response to be a part of this coalition; perhaps not.
But that's not what you said, what you said was "We have to stop acting on a contest-by-contest basis, fighting ourselves as much as we fight the machine. We have to have a more unified front", and there's no rational justification for permanent unified fornt with the likes of Mitch Alter, John Sampson, Marietta Smalls, and Diane Gordon. If you needed any proof of this, it's that Vito has at least 30 of 42 leaders in the tank for Bob Miller, which is far more than he had for Simspson (especially so, because not everyone who backed Simpson is on board).
It may be jusitified to act on a contest-by-contest basis with some of these folks, or, for that matter, some of Vito's folks, but if a united front with Diane Gordon is your idea of reform, than there really is no hope, and it really is time to throw up one's hands.
What you mean "we"
Don't have much time for pointing out what should be obvious (I am fighting a bigger fight currently...and wait until you see today's entry), but perhaps the "we" I mean doesn't include people like Mitch Alter, John Sampson, Marietta Smalls, and Diane Gordon. It should be obvious that the reformers I am talking about are the real reformers and the current victory involved one of those contest-by-contest situations where to be involved you had to be allied with one sleaze gang or another (perhaps you chose the Judge Noach Dear faction, I chose the other). If a reform coalition is formed on a more permanent basis presumably it will be less necessary to form such alliances with sleaze. Perhaps that is the point of both the Hicks article (in part) AND my article (in part).
And you still don't define whether you are advocating submission to or joining with the sleaze. Head in the sand or the Republican approach?

Mole, Do you have any proof
Mole,
Do you have any proof that Johnson's victory had anything to do with the work of IND and CBID? I live in part of that area (Park Slope), and the turnout was historically low there. It seems to me that voters in central Brooklyn, and not IND and CBID, are responsible for this victory. Maybe if you posted the ED vote totals in the areas where IND and CBID do their work, we could talk about whether IND and CBID really turned out the kind of vote you claim they did, but until then, I am very skeptical.
Best!
'sup
Anecdotal;
Right now more anecdotal: the figures of how many people who had voted were in the tens and twenties in the polling places covered by IND and CBID while in the ones in most others where I know people voting.
Also there is my own experience. My wife, son and I got some dozens voting who otherwise would not have. Similar experiences for the others I know who went out to get out the vote.
Add to that some of the commentary from the newspapers who seemed to think the clubs had an effect.
Last I looked into it, no ED by ED breakdown was available. I am sure it is now. Though I have to say I have bigger fish to fry if you look at my more recent diaries. But I will try to get that info.

Get real
"Mr. Lopez might well be encouraged because the forces opposing the party organization are not particularly unified. In fact, those coalitions tend to form on a contest-by-contest basis, with the characters changing from one race to the other."
"We have to stop acting on a contest-by-contest basis, fighting ourselves as much as we fight the machine. We have to have a more unified front, a more coherent agenda that more clearly outlines the alternatives we offer to the machine."
Sorry Mole, but the plain meaning of the words contradicts what you just said. It's not IND, CBID, Lambda and Joanne Seminara who are fighting among themselves; it is a ragtag collection encompassing Alter, Gordo, Small, Sampson and various others, including the Yvette Clarke, Mattheiu Eugene and Charles Barron most of whom just sold out the idea of reform in less than a weeks time after their victory over the "forces of darkness". That is the plain and only meaning of what Hicks said, and that is the "ourselves" Hicks plainly described. And btw, what did Alter and company do for Karen Yellen besides liebeling her good name?
If one is to stop the fighting among "ourselves", then that is the "front" with which you are uniting. And if it is just the "real reformers", then it is a rump faction of pinot sipping yuppies, which may or may not sometimes include Chris Owens.
I'm not saying give up; I'm saying wake up. The first step to change is acknowledging reality.
Yeah...right
Pot...kettle...black
Got better things to do right now. I am sure you and I will replay this again later. But I find you protest too much when it comes to these things. Look to yourself before you lecture me. Perhaps visa versa, but I assure you you are not doing all that much to solve Brooklyn's problems. My efforts, well, can't speak too highly of them either. But I don't plan on emulating yours. Though I do take advice from time to time.
Back to Homeland security issues...

All I's sayin is
...your point is reformers are divied (which I think overstates it) and need to unite (can't dispute that).
Hicks' point is not that "reformers" are divided, but that "anti-Vito" forces are divided. This is a far different point. You confuse the two, by doing so, you give the impression that lack of unity of reformers is what is holding reformers back.
This is kinda like Mike Gravel complaining he can't get to the White House because of fundraising issues.
Hicks talks about the lack of unity among anti-Vito forces, and then you, not me, repeat his quote, and then refer to those forces as "we"
Part of my point is actually that you are better than that; that the word "we" is too small to encompass both you and Diane Gordon.
The other part is that once you assimilate that information, your task is a lot more formidable.
I also suppose a part of my point it is that mere defeat of Vito, even final defeat, does not accomplsih your goals. The question remains: "Compared to What?"
The prior leader cared only about money, fancy cars and expensive clothes. Power was only a means to money.
This leader care nothing about those things. He looks like an unmade bed. To him, money is only a means to power.
You couldn't trust a word the old guy ever said, and he'd pick your pocket in a heartbeat, but he never held a grudge, and was easier to beat. A good argument can be made that, bottom line, a return to those days might be preferable resultswise.
You might call that progress. You might even be right.
Just please, don't call it "reform".
We can argue it sometime over a beer. First round is on me.
Few points
Okay, we do indeed have points of agreement.
1. Yes, anti-Vito does not automatically mean reform. And yes there was an uncomfortable mix of reform and old machine behind Johnson. Of course Simpson too once had Clarence Norman ties as well as current Vito ties. I still argue that reformers have the same issues to face as those Hicks' points out: they have no unified agenda, they merely flit from contest to contest. That makes contests with uncomforatble alliances more likely since reformers and progressives (themselves not united) have to take what contests come by rather than help define the debate. And, I would add, those with a clear agenda often define that agenda too narrowly. If reformers and progressives really want reform and progress they better create a more unified agenda and push more consistently on that agenda. Otherwise they will continue to flit from contest to contest. And that means that the more contests that are old vs. new machine (in itself an oversimplification, I think) the more likely reformers and progressives will have to have uncomfortable alliances with old or new sleaze.
2. Yes, the task is formidable. In fact that is part of what my point is: we aren't going to succeed by doing it the way we are. We need to formulate something better and more effective. Do I know what that is? Not really. Hey, I'm a scienist, what do I know about organizing a political movement?
3. Yes...what replaces Vito. I also don't have an answer to that. Vito is a party-wide embarassment. And I really don't even consider him any better than Norman, though perhaps different. One solution is to not HAVE a dictatorial machine. Not every place does. I think that is the ultimate goal of most real reformers. However, there still would be a party leadership and often that does come from deep insiders, whether or not the county is run by a machine or not. Whence from here? That is also part of my point. Fighting each contest as if it was the BIG SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM won't solve the problem, because winning battles doesn't necessarily mean winning the war. Hence the need for a better formulated, more unified, longer-term agenda rather than a contest-by-contest approach.

"One solution is to not HAVE a dictatorial machine"
That could be a reasonable argument for the old sleeze.
They were so busy stealing that they could never really crack the whip with much efficiency. Freelance sleazeballs like Mitch Alter were allowed to flourish, and, in fact enabled the boss's own sleazeballs by setting up contests, thus allowing for more profitable extortion. But everyone went their own way without much effort to enforce discipline, even (or especially) in November. By contrast, Vito wants to settle everything among the leaders, and then have everyone march to the same tune.
Not too comforting for non-conformists.
Hah!
We are talking about the same Vito Lopez who has broken ranks MANY times to support Republicans, right? Is that the conformity you are talking about? Isn't this the same Vito Lopez who discourages actually registering people as Democrats? When was the last time Vito Lopez actually encouraged voter registration at all (and what does he do with that money that is supposed to go to voter registration?)? And what help did Vito give ANY Democrat actually running against a Republican?
The only conformity he seems to want is that people support him. But given that he barely supports Democrats against Republicans at any time in his career, I don't think we WANT that kind of conformity. Not to mention conformity in giving us the homophobic, completely unqualified Judge Noach Dear. Is that the kind of conformity we want?
No. I don't buy it.















DISTRICT LEADERS
There are some district leaders in Southwest Brooklyn that don't vote with Lopez. We need more like them.