Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Topics

Topics

Former Senator Guy Velella: Convicted Felon, $80,000-A-Year Public Pensioner


 There are political scandals that last no more than a day in New York, and then there are those select few stories that simply refuse to die, because they have grown out of the public’s overwhelming dissatisfaction with the dysfunctional system of government which they have been forced to endure.

Such a scandal is the early release from Riker’s Island of convicted felon Guy Velella.

Velella was a high-ranking, popular Bronx Republican State Senator, and throughout his thirty years in elected office he exercised his powerful influence to win massive contracts for his political cronies while bringing home the bacon for his district. Velella held a safe Senate seat for 18 years, and he had garnered a reputation around the state as a shrewd politician. But it all came crashing down when Velella and two of his associates -- former state housing official Hector Del Toro and Bronx social service consultant Manuel Gonzalez -- were charged in 2002 with a 25-count indictment that alleged the Senator had accepted at least $137,000 —- and allegedly solicited $250,000 -— in return for steering public-works contracts to those who paid bribes from 1995 to 2000.

Velella faced up to 15 years in jail on the indictment, yet he was allowed to plead guilty to only one count of bribery. Velella agreed to serve one year in jail; the other two men agreed to eight months. None of the three served anything close to their full sentences. After less than twelve weeks, the virtually unknown Local Conditional Release Commission abruptly ordered their releases. Only four other people have been released under similar circumstances since 2000. In the wake of their early release, much has been written about the special access to the Commission the convicts were afforded and the fact that Velella will receive an $80,000-a-year pension. During the ensuing furor, Mayor Bloomberg has forced the resignations of the entire board, which may have acted illegally, as well as its $135,000-a-year executive director. City investigators and the office of District Attorney Robert Morgenthau are probing the decision as well.

To borrow a quote from Henry Kissinger: “Corrupt politicians make the other ten percent look bad.” The public uproar being driven by the overwhelming press coverage of the Velella scandal would have you actually believe that 90 percent of elected officials are corrupt individuals! This could not be further from the truth. The fact is that most elected officials that I have come across on the local, state and federal levels (in both parties) are decent, civic-minded people with the best interests of their constituents in mind. Of course, you have your occasional corrupt, power-hungry individual, but that is part of the nature of politics. The successful elected official must balance the power of his or her office with the responsibility of that office. As James Freeman Clark wrote in Sermon, “A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman thinks of the next generation.”

Let's not forget, though, that running for elected office is a choice. Nobody put a gun to my head and demanded that I run for office. I chose to run and as such, I believe that I should be held to a higher standard of accountability. When I campaign and I ask people for their votes, I am actually asking people to put their trust in me. I do not take this lightly and most of my colleagues take their oaths of office very seriously. The fact is that those who do violate their oaths of office, such as Guy Velella, should be punished.

When the Velella story broke and the shady circumstances under which he was released were brought to the public, I decided it was time to bring attention to the fact that elected officials who commit felonies are still eligible to receive their pensions -— in Velella’s case, an $80,000-a-year pension. I have since introduced legislation that would close this loophole and prevent City and State elected officials convicted of felonies relating to their official duties -— that is, when they use the powers of their offices to engage in criminal activity —- from collecting their government pensions. Specifically, those who would be affected by this proposal would only forfeit the portion of their pensions that come from the taxpayers.

There are those who believe that jail time is a sufficient penalty for the crime that Velella committed. After all, Velella is a disgraced man; he not only lost his Senate seat, he was also disbarred. Yet, this is not about the crime committed, and it is not about the penalty. This is about making a simple statement to present and future New York elected officials. It is simply unconscionable for elected officials who violate their oaths of office by committing felonies to receive pensions that are funded by tax-paying New Yorkers. You forfeited that right. You broke the law. You violated the people's trust.

Government reform has become the buzzword in New York State politics this month. Calls from Senate Democrats, Assembly Democrats, and surprisingly, even Senate Republicans have reached a critical mass where there is a real possibility of achieving at least some reform by changing the legislative rules. This represents a huge step forward, compared to the attitudes of the Legislature when I first published reform proposals in 2002. Polls show that the electorate is dissatisfied with the State Legislature, and that the people of New York yearn for a transparent and deliberative system of governance.

The fact that a convicted felon can still collect his or her full pension is a perfect example of the institutional failings of the culture of Albany. When we do pass this legislation, I hope that New Yorkers will start to feel some small inkling that integrity and honesty are returning to the State Legislature. I promise, we are getting there, step by step, election by election.

State Senator Liz Krueger represents the Upper East Side of Manhattan

A Victim Of Domestic Violence Gets Fired


 New York City's Human Rights Law makes it unlawful to discriminate against an employee based on her being a victim of domestic violence. The first case brought under this 2001 amendment to local law, involving a former Department of Correction probationary officer, has just been decided.

When Gina Reynolds, 39, a victim of repeated spousal abuse, left her violent, drug-addicted husband, she and her two children stayed with relatives, friends, at shelters and hotels; they even slept in a car. In March 2002, the Department of Correction granted Reynolds sick leave in order to have time to look for an apartment (and later for a surgical procedure), but informed her that she could not remain employed while homeless. Rather than lose her job, Reynolds supplied her husband's address. An investigation by the Department of Correction, under its sick leave policy, which required that an employee on sick leave remain at home, revealed that Reynolds was not "at home." In fact, she had made two attempts to return to the marital home but was assaulted by her husband and called police both times.

Reynolds and her children moved into Safe Horizon, a domestic violence shelter,in May 2002. In order to protect residents from the abusers who forced them into the shelter, it is standard practice to require that the shelter's address not be revealed. Therefore, Reynolds supplied the department with the address of Safe Horizon's headquarters rather than the shelter itself. While an agent of the Department of Corrections contacted Safe Horizon, the department did not sign an agreement to keep the address confidential at that point, and therefore Reynolds's location could not be provided. Her employment was then terminated for being away from her residence while on sick leave. Her shield and ID were taken; she had already surrendered her department-issued revolver.

Reynolds, with the support of her union, sued, claiming, among other things, that although the Department of Corrections eventually signed Safe Horizon's confidentiality agreement, the failure to do so promptly was what kept her exact location from the department. Moreover, her attorney, Mercedes Maldanado, argued that Reynolds was unreachable because she was a victim of domestic violence and that the firing was in violation of the amended Human Rights Law (Local Law 1 of 2001 sec. 1) which makes it unlawful "to discharge from employment . . . because of the actual or perceived status of an individual as a victim of domestic violence."

The department's position was that since she was a probationary employee, no reason was needed to terminate her, and that there were other unrelated reasons for firing her. The department also relied on its sick leave policy requiring a specific address and requiring that the employee must be at that address.

Justice Lewis B. York of New York State Supreme Court in deciding Reynolds v. Fraser wrote that if there were other reasons Reynolds was an undesirable probationary employee, the Department of Corrections should have acted on those reasons earlier, but never did. He ruled that Reynolds be reinstated to her Riker's Island job with back pay.

The decision, which is expected to have considerable future impact, distinguishes between "no reason" being required for termination of a probationary and an illegal, discriminatory reason. Justice York wrote, "The Council enacted an amendment to the City's Human Rights Law to prevent employers from discriminating against victims of domestic violence [Admin Code §8-107.1]. The stated purpose of this amendment was 'to protect the economic viability of victims of domestic violence and to support their efforts to gain independence from their abusers' by 'enabl[ing] victims of domestic violence to speak with their employers without fear of reprisal, about a domestic violence incident or about possible steps that will enhance their ability to perform their job without causing undue hardship to the employer [Local Law 1 of 2001, §[1]."

"Respondents may not have intentionally acted in bad faith, as petitioner contends, but they did act in contravention of Local Law 1 in that they failed to make reasonable accommodations for petitioner's status as a homeless victim of domestic violence. The end result here, petitioner's loss of a job at the point when she was finally getting her living situation under control, is exactly the kind of fallout that Local Law 1 was enacted to prevent." In a lengthy discussion of violence in the home, Justice York underscored the necessity for the victim to escape the abuser, and for Reynolds and her children to leave the home. (The decision does not discuss why the violent spouse was not removed from home instead of the wife and children having to leave.) "The ability to hold on to a job," Judge York wrote, "is one of a victim's most valuable weapons in the war for survival, since gainful employment is the key to independence from the batterer."

The petitioner was represented by Koehler & Isaacs, LLP. The Department of Correction was represented by Corporation Counsel. There will be no appeal.

Emily Jane Goodman is a New York State Supreme Court Justice

Police Killed With Their Own Guns


New York City Police Detectives Robert Parker and Patrick Rafferty were shot and killedin East Flatbush on September 10th, allegedly after a suspect, Marlon Legere, 28, grabbed Parker’s gun and used it to shoot both detectives several times at close range.

It is a scenario that, while not commonplace, happens with enough frequency to alarm law enforcement professionals nationwide. Last year, 10 police officers were shot and killed in the United States after a suspect managed to get control of an officer’s weapon. Nearly one in five officers killed as part of a crime last year were shot with their own (or a partner’s) weapon, according to the National Center for Law Enforcement Technology - the highest number of such deaths in 18 years.

New York has been fortunate to have few of these incidents. Before this month’s shooting, the last incident of an officer being killed with his own weapon occurred in the city in 1998. Still, the recent deaths reinforce the danger of being a cop in New York and raise questions about how to best protect officers in the future.

Training and Equipment

So far this year five officers in the U.S. have been shot and killed with their own weapons, including Parker and Rafferty.

One way to address the issue is through regular training. All New York police officers attend mandatory defensive tactics training sessions twice a year that help officers prepare for a variety of violent encounters with suspects. The sessions, which usually last about a day, focus in part on weapon retention.

Even with substantial training, however, the danger is always present. To further protect officers, safety holsters – gun holders with a variety of mechanisms to help “lock” a gun in place – began to be developed in the 1970s. However there are trade-offs: Features that make it more difficult to disarm an officer can also slow down an officer’s ability to draw.

And while uniformed patrol officers in New York routinely wear such safety holsters, plain-clothes detectives wear holsters that are easier to conceal. Police say Parker was wearing an off-duty hip holster, which typically does not have safety features. Neither Parker nor Rafferty were wearing bulletproof vests when they were shot.

New Gun Technology

Recognizing the need to protect officers from being shot with their own weapons, the federal government has spent millions of dollars in research on personalized weapons that can only be fired by their owner.

Ideas range from a ring worn by the user that unlocks the weapon to sophisticated biometric sensors designed to recognize a gun owner's grip. But the reliable technology still remains years away.

Even if “safer” guns are ever mass-produced and sold, they may not meet the demands of law enforcement. New Jersey passed a law in 2002 that will make user-recognition technology mandatory once it’s developed, but law enforcement officers were specifically excluded from the law. Police are understandably unwilling to carry a weapon they believe may not fire when they need it.

Not A Capital Case

Under New York's death penalty law, anyone who murders a police officer can face the death penalty.

But in June, New York highest court ruledthat the state's death penalty law was flawed and could not be imposed. Until the State Legislature adopts an amended law, prosecutors and defense lawyers argue that there is effectively a moratorium on capital cases.

Police union officials are angered that the death penalty will not be sought for Marlon Legere, who has entered a “not guilty” plea in the shooting of the two officers last week.

In 1989, Jay “Stoney” Harrison, the last person to shoot two officers in New York, also used an officer’s handgun. Harrison took a gun from an unlocked locker at a District Attorney’s office and shot Detectives Richard Guerzon and Keith Williams. The death penalty was not in effect at the time.

Unanswered Questions

The deaths of the two officersParker, 43, and Rafferty, 39, are tragic, and colleagues have been effusive in their praise of the detectives.

In the online tribute pageto fallen law enforcement officers, some colleagues have left poignant and heartfelt tributes for both officers.

“Their reputation preceded them in the area, in the neighborhood,” Michael J. Palladino, the president of the Detectives Endowment Association told The New York Times. “They were well-known, well-respected guys.”

Police say they may never know exactly how the suspect was able to get Parker’s gun; Parker may have even had his gun already drawn and the suspect somehow wrestled it away, or he may have grabbed it from Parker’s holster.

What is known is that Parker showed enough presence of mind after being mortally wounded to call 911 and describe the shooter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years