Silver, Cuomo, Skelos (photo: the governor's office on flickr)
The trial of former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has begun in New York City with a federal prosecutor alleging he made $5 million through kickbacks from developers seeking legislative favors and other schemes. "Year after year, Sheldon Silver was on the take," said U.S. Attorney Carrie Cohen, alleging a pattern of "power, greed and corruption." Silver's counsel countered that the former Assembly leader's conduct was "legal and normal." The trial is expected to last six weeks.
Before it is over, former Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos will go to trial on charges of extortion and soliciting bribes.
The charges facing both men are substantive and serious. Silver's charges carry a potential penalty of 130 years in prison.
Will Silver and Skelos be convicted? If they are, will they be sent to prison? The historical record may give both men cause for hope.
Former Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno was indicted by federal authorities for wire and mail fraud and other corrupt actions in 2009. Five years of trials, convictions, appeals, and challenges to the constitutionality of the laws that were the basis of prosecution resulted in acquittal. Bruno held a press conference to declare he had been completely exonerated and that the whole thing had been "persecution, not prosecution." New York taxpayers wound up footing most of Bruno's legal bills because state law allows officials to be reimbursed for "reasonable" legal fees if they are acquitted of crimes pertaining to their official duties.
One-time Assembly Speaker Melvin Miller and his law partner were convicted in 1991 of federal charges of cheating legal clients out of some of the profits from investments in cooperative apartments in New York City. The charges were unrelated to Miller's legislative work but the conviction meant automatic expulsion from the legislature. Miller was sentenced to community service which he performed at the Henry Street and University Settlements in New York City, working on mental health and other problems. Two years later, the conviction was overturned on appeal. Miller's actions "may not have been a model of candor and disclosure," the court said, but they did not constitute crimes. Miller decided not to run for office again but continued his legal practice and also worked as a lobbyist.
In 1975, Assembly Speaker Stanley Steingut and his son were indicted on charges that they had promised to assist a donor to the younger Stenigut's campaign for City Council to obtain an unsalaried city job in return for a $2,500 contribution. The exact nature of the position was never clear; press speculation was that it was an honorary deputy police commissioner or unsalaried adviser to the Civilian Complaint Review Board. The Steinguts apparently did not deliver the promised position and the aggrieved donor -- or someone else, it was never entirely clear -- complained to the district attorney. He brought charges under a seldom invoked statue that said an office holder could be charged with "corruptly using" his position in exchange for a benefit, usually cash. It was a shaky case at best.
Steingut denied the accusation and refused to resign as Speaker. Two years later, the Count of Appeals dismissed the indictment on the grounds that there was no evidence of "a materially harmful impact upon governmental processes." Steingut was elated but his vindication led to overconfidence and neglect of politics in his home district. In 1978, he lost his Assembly seat in a primary election.
Then-Assembly Speaker Perry B. Duryea and several others were indicted in 1973 for "vote siphoning." Prosecutors asserted that they set up a phony Liberal Party committee to print and distribute literature for Liberal candidates in marginal legislative districts in order to draw votes away from Democratic candidates, thereby aiding Republicans.
Duryea proclaimed his innocence and refused to step down as Speaker. The next year the charges were dismissed when the section of the election law requiring sponsors of political literature to identify themselves was ruled unconstitutional. Duryea believed the whole thing was a scheme by political opponents to derail his pursuit of the Republican gubernatorial nomination in 1974. Four years later, out from under the cloud of the voting scandal, he secured the nomination but lost the election to Governor Hugh Carey.
Senator Arthur Wicks of Kingston became majority leader in 1949 and, in 1953, also began serving as acting Lieutenant Governor after the incumbent resigned. Press investigative reports that fall disclosed that he had made several visits to Joseph Fay, a labor union leader imprisoned in Sing Sing prison for extortion. Wicks made a paid TV broadcast on Oct. 18, 1953, saying that he had once asked Fay's help "to see that [a union] jurisdictional fight terminated" and other times had asked him "to keep labor peace in my district."
Wicks compared the visits to Fay to the President negotiating with Communist leader Joseph Stalin -- unpleasant but necessary. That analogy didn't wash with Governor Thomas Dewey or most state senators. Wicks was never formally charged with wrongdoing but consulting with a felon at Sing Sing hardly seemed appropriate for one of the state's top officials. Dewey convinced him to resign as majority leader and acting Lieutenant Governor. But he held on to his Senate seat, and was re-elected in 1954.
In 1910, Senator Benn Conger accused Majority Leader Jotham P. Allds of having taken a bribe to kill a piece of legislation back in 1901, when both were serving in the Assembly. Allds proclaimed his innocence, the Senate investigated, and an eyewitness testified that he had seen Allds take a $1,000 bribe in Conger's presence. "I guess it's all right, Conger, it feels good!" Allds had said as he put the envelope with the bribe into his suit pocket. Allds resigned from the Senate just before a vote that had been scheduled to expel him. But he was never prosecuted.
The Senate investigation that unseated Allds also revealed that S. Frederick Nixon, Assembly Speaker from 1899 to 1905 had often taken bribes to advance or kill legislation. He was at the head of a corrupt system of "bill-killing and law-getting," in the words of a contemporary journal article. By 1910, though, Nixon was dead, so only his reputation was tarnished.
History suggests that neither party is more inclined to corruption than the other. Silver, Miller, and Steingut are Democrats; Skelos, Bruno, Duryea, Wicks and Allds, Republicans.
Silver has been speaker since 1994, the second longest tenured speaker in history, and some people have suggested that is too long, leading to arrogance and a sense of entitlement.
The longest tenured Speaker, Oswald D. Heck, a Republican from Schenectady, served from 1937 to 1959, beating Silver by a year. His longevity did not lead to ethics violations or corruption. In fact, he was one of the most effective and upright speakers in state history.
Heck described his political philosophy as "a hard and conservative attitude in economics and a gentle, understanding attitude in human relations." He pressured governors to hold the line on spending but he backed progressive labor and social reforms, including the first state civil rights law in the nation in 1945. The principles he espoused -- cost efficient but responsive government, bi-partisan approaches, and alignment of politics behind the public good -- are still good models. This suggests that longevity in a legislative leadership position does not necessarily result in lapsing into political corruption.
The case against Silver will turn on whether prosecutors can produce and explain evidence that the ex-speaker's maneuverings and deals rose to the level of criminal activities rather than an extreme form of routine Albany deal-making politics. "There are two sides to every story, and we haven't heard [Silver's] side" yet, wrote Mel Miller in a Wall Street Journal op-ed column earlier this year. That story is about to pour out.
Whatever the verdict, history will be made.
***
Dr. Bruce W. Dearstyne is the author of the book The Spirit of New York: Defining Events in the Empire State's History, published in 2015 by SUNY Press.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? E-mail editor Ben Max: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Seneca Lake (photo via @NYGov)
Do you enjoy a pumpkin spice latte during the crisp fall weather? A warm cider, perhaps? No matter your drink of choice, it is ask risk of being more dangerous than delicious as Congress and federal courts have frozen the Clean Water Rule, instituted on August 28. The Clean Water Rule would have ensured that your beverages are clean and tasty, but officials are leaving us all vulnerable.
At the end of this summer, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Water Rule reinstated Clean Water Act protections to 28,785 miles of streams across New York and over 2 million nationwide that were previously open to pollution. This meant that drinking water for over 11 million New Yorkers, 55 percent of the state's population, was safe from the toxic chemicals that industry dumps into waterways.
The new Clean Water Rule finally gave the EPA the power and jurisdiction it needed to keep water clean and us healthy. From clean water advocates who dedicate their lives to this work to farmers, small business people, elected officials, and the citizens of neighborhoods across America, people from all over the country have campaigned to institute this rule. It is an issue that affects each and every one of us.
Clean drinking water is a basic right. Without clean water, not only does our quality of life decline, our economy slumps along with it. It is eye-opening to discover the importance clean water holds in everyday lives, and it is frightening to learn how much it is being threatened.
Big business, such as large-scale farming and oil and gas companies, have been fighting this rule since its enactment. It is upsetting that these businesses are willing to risk the lives of their consumers for short-term profits. The Senate recently sided with special interests by voting to dismantle the Clean Water Rule. President Obama has stated that he will veto their dangerous bill, and we need our senators who care about our public health to uphold this veto. Americans deserve to be able to swim, boat, eat fish, and drink water without worrying about the health repercussions of water pollution.
Luckily, New Yorkers have responsible and forward thinking officials. Senator Schumer is standing strong in his commitment to clean water and is standing guard against attempts to dismantle the Clean Water Rule in the budget process. A hero among members of Congress on this issue, Schumer must continue advocating for clean water and being an example for the rest of the Senate. As New Yorkers, we need to support his efforts and make our voices heard as loudly as those of the polluters.
***
Anubhuti Kumar is Media Intern at Environment New York, a statewide, citizen-funded advocacy organization working for the places we love and the environmental values we share. On Twitter: @EnvNY.
The author at a rally
As New Yorkers, we are all deeply saddened by the recent death of NYPD Officer Randolph Holder. But as we mourn and seek answers to this tragedy, we must not repeat the mistakes of past decades and allow retributive impulses to supersede evidence-based approaches to public safety.
People in drug diversion programs return to the community, as do 95 percent of people sent to prison. However, unlike incarceration, diversion successfully addresses some of the root causes of crime. Rolling back diversion programs that have increased public safety and lowered prison and jail populations would be a dangerous mistake and send a signal to policymakers across the country that New York is bound by the politics of fear.
As a public defender in Brooklyn for more than thirty years, I have seen firsthand the devastating effects of the combination of failed drug policies, disproportionate sanctions and mandatory minimums.
By the 1980s, it was becoming clear to public defenders, district attorneys, and judges alike that incarceration of poor people of color was not making our neighborhoods safer. Instead, it ensnared entire communities in an epidemic of criminal justice involvement, leaving untold numbers of New Yorkers—the vast majority low-income people of color—with the enormous burden of criminal records, in addition to the unmet mental health needs, untreated addiction, cyclical poverty, and multi-generational trauma that likely precipitated their arrests.
In Kings County we did not wait for reform of ineffective laws and decided to do something different— creating diversion programs beginning in the late 1980s and early '90s to allow defendants to enter drug and mental health treatment to address the conditions that prompted the criminal behavior in the first place. The theory was, and still is, that high quality diversion programs and treatment courts for the adjudication of cases for appropriate candidates would keep us safe, save money, and promote confidence in a troubled system. Support for these programs among politicians has varied over the years, but their success has always been validated by statistical evidence.
The point of diversion is public safety. We know that people who are given the opportunity to get clean, find stable housing, develop work skills, and avoid the collateral consequences of a conviction are much less likely to re-offend. In New York City, people who complete drug programs have a 36 percent recidivism rate, as compared to 54 percent for those sentenced to prison, jail, probation, or time served, according to a 2015 report by the Vera Institute of Justice.
To be sure, drug treatment and other court mandates can never address all of the reasons that people commit crimes. Likewise, because the success of these programs is contingent on defendants continuing to live in the community, there is an inherent risk that a small number of individuals will not comply with the mandates of the court. Incidents like Detective Holder's death, though tragic, are extremely rare. In fact, a 2000 study of diverted felony drug offenders showed that they pose no more of a risk to public safety than those traditionally prosecuted.
Brooklyn Defender Services handles over 45,000 cases a year; nearly 2,000 of our clients benefit from specialized treatment courts in Kings County annually. Two clients, Mark and John (names changed to protect their identities) have cases that are illustrative of the important role that alternatives to incarceration play in promoting public safety and helping people to improve their lives and those of their families and communities.
John, arrested in an undercover drug sale, has cognitive limitations. He accepted a conditional plea that included connection with services from Brooklyn Forensic Link, a program that assists severely mentally ill offenders each year with treatment and related transitional services. With the support of Brooklyn Forensic Link, he completed the terms of his conditional plea within six months and now receives much-improved access to services to help him navigate the city despite his disability.
Another client, Mark, was arrested for breaking into stores to steal money to support his heroin habit. Mark's case was transferred to drug court. He has already completed the inpatient portion of his treatment, is currently participating in outpatient treatment, now holds a job in construction, and recently became engaged to be married.
Their stories of success are repeated thousands of times each year. Yet I remember a time when Mark and John would have had no options other than incarceration, without the benefit of programming to prevent future contact with the criminal justice system.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. While we still have far to go, New York has taken important steps towards criminal justice reform. Safe and effective use of diversion programs began in Brooklyn and later served as the blueprint for reforming the Rockefeller Drug Laws in 2009. These programs reduce crime: arrests are down and fewer people are spending unnecessary time in jail or prison.
There is no doubt that the death of Randolph Holder deserves thoughtful pause. We are New Yorkers—thinkers and doers. We dishonor Officer Holder's service if we roll back hard-fought reforms that have made New York safer for everyone. The proposals urged thus far—fragmented bail reform, limiting access to diversion and adjustment of the sealing statutes—will not prevent future tragedies. Instead, they will hurt the thousands of New Yorkers who already suffer the most—poor people of color and the communities in which they live and work.
***
by Lisa Schreibersdorf, Executive Director of Brooklyn Defender Services. On Twitter @BklynDefenders.
***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? E-mail editor Ben Max: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.