Crouching Scandal, Hidden Hevesi
October 12th, 2006
The scandal involving New York State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi was so blatant – for years, the state had been paying for a chauffeur to drive his wife around – that his name has now entered the urban dictionary as a verb: “hevesi: To illegally convert governmental assets or resources to one’s personal use; and, when caught, to offer to make full restitution and public apology.”
He has certainly lost the respect of editorial writers. Today’s El Diario reprints one from the Watertown Daily Times that concludes: “It hardly seems fair that the man at the top of the Comptroller’s Department failed to follow the rules which bind other public servants.”
But there is some evidence that Hevesi will not lose the election in November. As the Albany Times Union’s blog New York Politics Capitol Confidential explained, “Chauffeurgate hasn’t prevented Democratic state Comptroller Alan Hevesi from raising money – he took in more than $70,000 since the scandal broke on Sept. 22. Meanwhile, Hevesi’s opponent, Christopher Callaghan… has $43,147 on-hand, compared to Hevesi’s $5,872,586.”
This may help explain Hevesi’s stealth strategy -– making few public appearances, declining to answer questions about the scandal (e.g. exactly how did he calculate the $83,000 for which he reimbursed the state for his wife’s chauffeur and will he pay back taxes on it?), and refusing to debate his opponent. “With big advantages in name recognition, party enrollment and fund-raising, Hevesi may well slink back into the controller’s office without opening his mouth,” writes columnist Bill Hammond today in the Daily News. “But the cynical strategy will destroy the few shreds of credibility he has left as the taxpayers’ watchdog in Albany. Every time he puts out an audit about a village clerk with his hand in the till, Hevesi will face questions about his own sticky fingers.”
That is why both Hammond’s column and an editorial in the Times Union yesterday call for Hevesi to debate Christopher Callaghan. “Of all the statewide races this year, the one for comptroller raises the most issues that cry out for debate,” the Times Union argues. “Hiding from the people,” Hammond writes, “is another huge mistake from a guy who’s running out of feet to shoot.”
Update: While there are no scheduled debates in the race for comptroller, the Hevesi scandal has come up during the first debate for governor (the second is tonight):
In category: Albany, Electoral Politics, Governing, Public Finance | 4 Comments »


October 12th, 2006 at 10:26 am
I learned an interesting term the other day: Yellow Dog Democrats, meaning people will vote for a yellow dog before voting for any Republican. I know the term was associated with southern Democrats, but I think people today, in New York, would vote Democrat despite Hevesi’s scandal.
Also, while it is a big deal, does it negate the good work he has done for New York? I don’t know, but that’s true of any scandal, I think.
October 12th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
What’s been unstated here and elsewhere it has been covered has been the real reason a driver was assigned to Mrs. Hevesi. Is it a kindness to keep this sort of thing mysterious? I, personally, sympathize with the Comptroller’s mis-step in this regard and ask you: is snarkiness is really the best tone here?
October 27th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
We need to keep our priorities straight. One’s priorities depend, of course, on where one sits. Public employee pension funds have come under much scrutiny in the past several months. The national media have reported that many such funds are under-funded. To the extent that a jurisdiction’s legislation requires, pension shortfalls will be made up with taxpayer dollars.
As a retired New-York-state teacher, I have been more than pleased to read that — under Mr. Hevesi’s guidance — the pension fund that we retired public employees depend is one that is well-funded.
Did Mr. Hevesi transgress? Possibly. But there is an article in today’s (10/27/06) NY Times entitled “Spitzer Withdraws Endorsement of Hevesi,” written by Michael Cooper. The last five paragraphs of this article begin with this: “In 2003, Mr. Hevesi asked the Ethics Commission for permission to use a state driver for his wife.” The remaining four paragraphs of the article make it unclear, in my mind at least, whether Mr. Hevesi’s actions amount to unethical behavior.
So, did Mr. Hevesi transgress? Possibly. But what should our priorities be? Is this possible misdeed so serious that we should jeopardize the solidity of the state pension fund by entrusting it to hands of someone who has no experience in dealing with funds of this size? I believe not, and I hope that the voters of New York will see through the political miasma and vote for Mr. Hevesi.
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:44 am
rUDY gIULIANI – While MAyor – had bodyguards for his wife, girlfriend, and his kids. as well as a security detail at hi Moms house. Why isnt that an issue?