ROGER GREEN'S VOLUNTEERS Supporters of Hakeem Jeffries didn't expect a level playing field in his Democratic primary against Assemblyman Roger Green, which the incumbent won handily. But it did bother them to see members of Green's Assembly staff working on his campaign while remaining on the state payroll, stretching the definition of the term "volunteer," and perhaps the parameters of the law.

It's not unusual for an elected official's staff members to ditch their usual duties for weeks or months to work on their boss's reelection campaign. But generally they take unpaid leave or use vacation time, and move to the campaign payroll. Those who remain on the office staff are supposed to avoid doing campaign work on office time. (One congressman's press secretary just replied to our election-related query by emailing, "I can't reply from here. It's against the law." He forwarded our message to the campaign staff.)

Yet a check of Green's campaign finance records shows not a single expenditure for wages, and only one named recipient of consulting fees: Park Slope resident Michael Gaspard, who ran the campaign. There were also payments to ACORN, which hired out foot-soldiers. Green, who lunched with us recently in Park Slope, said his office employees-Sharon Sanders, Janella Meeks, Tish James, Randy Toure, etc.-weren't regular campaign workers. Rather, they helped out his campaign on evenings and weekends, on their own time. Meeks was on maternity leave and Toure was not much involved in the campaign, Green noted. James was active in it, but didn't neglect her legislative duties, he added. (According to one Jeffries supporter, James held the title "co-campaign manager" and "seemed to be working full-time for the campaign, without ever leaving the Assembly payroll.") Campaign finance records show Toure, Meeks, and James were reimbursed for about $2,000 in campaign expenditures.

James made numerous appearances for the campaign, which paid her just $400 for "constituent services." Also, Toure sent us a press release for the campaign, inexplicably using Assembly stationery, though otherwise we didn't hear from him. Sanders contacted us a number of times on behalf of the campaign during business hours. Could she have been calling during her lunch break? It's worth noting that she was hired to handle Green's press about two months before the election, and immediately told us she would be the contact person for Green's campaign. Sanders didn't get a dime in wages from the campaign, according to Board of Election records. One Fort Greene resident even told Jeffries that he'd tried in early August to discuss a quality-of-life issue with Green's office, but was told the office could not meet with constituents until after September 10.

Is this just sour grapes from a losing campaign? Perhaps. Jeffries supporters had been wrong once before when they questioned Green's assertion that Carl McCall had endorsed him. But Green, in his 22nd year in office, has been around the block enough times to run a tighter ship, which would obviate such criticism, or at least reduce its credibility. Speaking of which, a full month of campaign activity is missing from Green's financial disclosures-from August 17 to September 17.

Sanders, relaying information from someone on the Green team, told us the 10-day post-primary report was simply late and that an extension had been requested from the Board of Elections. But Board of Elections spokesman Lee Daghlian informed us, "We do not grant extensions. When a filing is late, treasurers and candidates are mailed a letter demanding filing within a 10-day period or they will be sued." Green was sent such a letter, he added. Four weeks later, the filing was still not on the Board of Elections Web site. By early November, it was finally there. Its most interesting revelation was that Green spent about $30,000 on polls. There were no expenditures for wages.

O'HARA-VERSUS-HYNES SAGA CONTINUES Just when you thought Brooklyn District Attorney Joe Hynes had made the world safe for democracy again, New York's most dangerous (and only) convicted illegal voter, John O'Hara of Sunset Park, is going back to court to clear himself. O'Hara will appear before a federal judge in a few weeks to argue that his felony convictions-which Hynes spent seven years and countless taxpayer dollars obtaining-should be thrown out. O'Hara avoided a jail sentence but the felony cost him $20,192 in fines and restitution and, more importantly, his law license. He's now trudging through 1,500 hours of community service, removing weeds and garbage from city parks.

The former City Council and Assembly candidate will likely raise a number of issues before the court, but one is likely to be that he was selectively and even uniquely prosecuted by Hynes. It's common knowledge that illegal voting goes on all the time, as residents move but fail to re-register and end up voting as if they still lived at their old addresses. A Brooklyn councilman's chief of staff was even seen voting in the 57th Assembly District on September 10 this year, despite having moved to the 44th A.D. in June, according to an acquaintance of his. Needless to say, Hynes did not prosecute.

False registration is also not uncommon, though to our knowledge Hynes hasn't prosecuted anyone but O'Hara for it. State Senator Nellie Santiago, for example, has not been arrested despite published evidence that she doesn't live at her registered voting address. Few dispute that O'Hara made a mockery of the law by pretending to live at an uninhabitable address in Sunset Park, where he enjoyed running for office. But at the same time, Hynes's pursuit of the case is considered well out of proportion to the threat to the public posed by a perennial losing candidate.

If O'Hara can demonstrate that he was a victim of unequal application of the law by Hynes, the conviction could be undone.

DEMS WORKING FOR SISTER PARTY A Brooklyn strategy meeting of the left-wing Working Families Party attracted a host of powerful borough Democrats, including three members of Congress: Anthony Weiner, Nydia Velazquez, and Major Owens. Also on hand were City Councilmen Bill deBlasio, James Davis, and Al Vann, state Senator Carl Andrews, Assemblymembers Roger Green, Darryl Towns and Annette Robinson, and district leaders Charlie Ragusa and Jake Gold. (Davis, Vann, and Robinson are also Democratic district leaders.) The purpose was to help the party get the 50,000 votes it needs on November 5 to maintain its ballot status for the next four years in New York.

But why are Democrats helping another party? Alan Fleishman, a district leader from Park Slope, said his colleagues should be boosting their own party, not Working Families. "What were all these Democratic district leaders doing there?" he asked. "Aren't they supposed to be officials of the Democratic Party?"

Rep. Weiner said by helping Working Families, the Democrats are helping themselves. "I pride myself on being a Democrat," Weiner said. But he explained, "The Working Families Party is a recognition, for better or worse, that third parties are controlling a great deal of influence in New York state. And we are not going to leave the field to just the wackos-the Conservatives, the Right-to-Lifers, and everyone else except the progressives." Weiner said one in three voters is not affiliated with a party, and the percentage of people registering as independents is increasing. "We have to provide places for progressive voters who are disenchanted with the Democratic Party for whatever reason," the congressman said. "It's really a defensive strategy."

But Fleishman noted that Democrats' power to influence judicial elections and fill vacancies depends on how many votes it gets, and thus it shouldn't seek to divert votes to Working Families. Gold, the longtime Flatbush leader, acknowledged, "Short-range-wise, it may very well hurt me." But overall, said Gold, "It's a good thing. We do need a progressive party on the ballot, and the Liberal Party does not function that way." Anticipating our next question, Gold quickly added, "That does not mean that the Democratic Party is not (progressive)."

NYDIA NOT A THIRD WHEEL Gubernatorial candidate Carl McCall snagged Bill Clinton for a joint appearance in late October that McCall had filmed for a campaign commercial that unexpectedly included a Brooklyn congresswoman. According to the Daily News, the ad was supposed to show the candidate next to Clinton as the former president spoke "but Rep. Nydia Velazquez wedged her way between Clinton and McCall…so the ad shows McCall standing several paces away."

But Velazquez said she was not trying to steal the spotlight. "She was in the back with (Rep. Charlie) Rangel, but was moved up front," Velazquez's press secretary Wendy Belzer explained. "It was also at the same time the governor of Puerto Rico was there to endorse (George) Pataki."

Translation: McCall needed a prominent Latino to counteract Pataki's endorsement by the Puerto Rican governor, so Velazquez was positioned accordingly. That makes more sense than the News's explanation, since political events tend to be carefully choreographed.

EGG-CREAM BACKLASH FOR MARTY There is a downside to Borough President Marty Markowitz hosting cheery, lighthearted events like egg-cream and weight-loss contests, despite the good publicity they bring to Brooklyn. Take, for example, the complaint we received from a participant in a recent "Advocacy Summit" at Borough Hall organized by Yvonne Graham, Marty's deputy. The premise was that Brooklyn doesn't get its fair share of health care funding, despite worse health outcomes here than in the other boroughs. A major agenda item was the length of time-from several months to a year-it takes for non-profits to receive funding they've won, thanks in part to red tape at the mayor's office.

This was no publicity stunt-yet the city commissioners who were expected at the summit blew it off. "I see it as Marty screwing up," said one summit participant. "If he can't get commissioners to come to Brooklyn to see about fixing something, I think it's along the same track as (him) not being a serious person…I think nobody takes this borough president seriously." The participant also chastised Markowitz for the brevity of his appearance at the summit. "I watched his egg cream contest. He was there the entire time-several hours. And he can't stay more than five minutes? It's unconscionable."

When Markowitz reads this, he'll undoubtedly shake his head and think, "You see? No good deed goes unpunished." The official response e-mailed by his spokesman, Andy Ross, was more polished: "The deputy borough president was naturally the keynote speaker at this event due to her many years of hands-on training in this field. The borough president was scheduled to speak at a domestic violence conference, plus two other events that morning, but he still found time to speak to the gathering because he is committed to working with and helping community-based organizations who have contracts with the city and are struggling to deliver quality service. "But this is the deputy borough president's field of expertise and Borough President Markowitz has all the confidence in the world in having her organize and chair these types of events."

MESSY MIDDLE SCHOOL On a recent visit to J.J. Byrne Park in Park Slope, we found about 10 pigeons for every person. The reason: an ungodly amount of food litter scattered across the playground. But we had a brilliant idea. Why not recruit students from the adjacent Middle School 51 to regularly clean up the playground as a community service project? Unfortunately, it turns out the students are the ones making the mess. According to the Parks Department, the kids often use the playground during their lunch hour. In their wake they leave a smorgasbord of junk food and soda for the birds and rats.

As a result, the park is underused by smaller kids, despite a recent six-figure renovation and a multi-year effort by police and Community Board 6 to clear out gangs, boozers, and drug dealers. It's bad enough that the middle schoolers are gorging on potato chips and cheese doodles. The least they could do is clean up after themselves.

THEY TOW, BUT DON'T TELL A Park Slope motorist was recently introduced to the Police Department's version of customer service. The 1st Street resident's car was towed by police from a legal parking spot that had been co-opted with inadequate notice by a film crew on Prospect Park West. It was relocated about seven blocks away, in front of a parking meter. A notice was left in the windshield by 78th Precinct police.

For the next two weeks, cops and traffic enforcement agents feasted on the car like ants at a picnic. Every day they helped fill their (unofficial) quotas by stuffing another ticket under the wiper, right on top of the notice saying the car had been relocated by police. When the relocation notice was mentioned to one officer writing a summons, she remarked, "I thought it was an ad. If I'd known what it was, I wouldn't have given him a ticket. But he'll probably be able to get it dismissed."

Paying no mind to a comment that the car's owner probably didn't know where it was, she finished writing her summons and went merrily on her way. The same concerned resident then called the 78th Precinct to report the situation. The desk officer declined to take down the car's license plate number and contact the owner. Instead, he said he would send a patrol car to investigate. If an officer ever showed up, he probably just wrote another ticket. With no progress apparent, the matter was reported to a third 78th Precinct officer, this one in a scooter. He dutifully wrote down the information and promised to have it checked out. Once again, nothing happened.

It took a call to Community Board 6 to solve the problem. A staff member informed a 78th Precinct officer specially trained to deal with other humans, who finally looked up the car's owner and called him. "He was very nonchalant," the motorist told us. "He said the car had turned up on one of their relocation lists." The car owner said he'd made numerous calls to the police, the sheriff, impound lots, and everyone else who tows cars, but no one could find his. He eventually gave up. "I figured the car would turn up eventually," he said.

BROOKLYN REPS SOLID ON SOCIAL SECURITY Brooklyn's five Democrats in the House voted to protect Medicare and Social Security over 98 percent of the time in the last two years, according to the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

Only an iconoclastic vote by Rep. Jerry Nadler prevented the Dems from achieving a perfect score. The committee rated the representatives on 13 votes, including the creation of a Medicare prescription drug benefit, increased access to generic prescription drugs, across-the-board tax cuts, the reduction of Social Security fraud, and the creation of a Social Security lock box. It was the lock-box vote where Nadler crossed with the committee, not to mention nearly every one of his House colleagues. Nadler voted against a bill to ensure that Medicare and Social Security trust funds weren't raided for other purposes. The measure passed 407-2.

Nadler's press secretary Eric Schmeltzer said the congressman is a strong believer in Social Security, but feels the trust fund would be better served by a growing economy than a lock box. "He believes that the best way to save the Social Security system and extend its life for as long as possible is to make investments in the economic health and infrastructure of the country," Schmeltzer said. "You don't want to tie your hands by putting away money that can't be spent on education, infrastructure, and public works."

If you're wondering how Brooklyn's lone Republican fared in the committee's ratings, the answer is: not too well. Rep. Vito Fossella voted as the committee wanted just 31 percent of the time.

Borough Politics Archive

2002
November 4 column.
October 28 column.
October 21 column.
October 14 column.
October 7 column.
September 30 column.
September 23 column.
September 16 column.
September 9 column.
September 2 column.
August 26 column.
August 19 column.
August 12 column.
August 5 column.
July 29 column.
July 22 column.
July 8 column.
July 1 column.
June 17 column.
June 10 column.
June 3 column.
May 27 column.
May 20 column.
May 13 column.
May 6 column.
April 29 column.
April 22 column.
April 15 column.
April 8 column.
April 1 column.
March 25 column.
March 18 column.
March 11 column.
March 4 column.
February 25 column.
February 18 column.
February 11 column.
February 4 column.
January 28 column.
January 21 column.
January 7 column.

2001
December 10 column.
December 3 column.
November 19 column.
November 12 column.
November 5 column.
October 22 column.
October 1 column.
September 6 column.
September 4 column.
August 30 column.
July 23 column.
July 2 column.
June 25 column.
June 11 column.
May 28 column.
May 21 column.
May 14 column.
May 7 column.
April 30 column.
April 23 column.
April 9 column.
April 2 column.
March 26 column.
March 19 column.
March 12 column.
March 5 column.
February 26 column.
February 19 column.
February 12 column.
February 5 column.
January 29 column.
January 22 column.
January 15 column.
January 8 column.
January 1 column.

2000
December 25 column.
December 18 column.
December 11 column.
December 4 column.
November 27 column.
November 20 column.
November 13 column.
November 6 column.
October 30 column.
October 23 column.
October 16 column.
October 9 column.
October 2 column.
September 25 column.
September 18 column.
September 11 column.
September 4 column.
August 28 column.
August 21 column.
August 7 column.
July 31 column.
July 24 column.
July 17 column.
July 10 column.
June 26 column.
June 19 column.
June 12 column.
May 15 column.
May 8 column.
April 24 column.
April 10 column.
March 13 column.
March 7 column.
February 21 column.
February 14 column.
February 7 column.
January 31 column.
January 24 column.
January 17 column.

1999
December 16 column.
December 9 column.
December 2 column.
November 25 column.
November 18 column.
November 11 column.
November 4 column.