In a fast developing story, an honest writer is often forced to eat crow and re-evaluate his initial conclusions.
Months ago, I noted that Vito Lopez was personally responsible for building and obtaining funding for a multi-tentacled social service empire (mostly run under the auspices of the Ridgewood-Bushwick Senior Citizens Council) which seems to have an interlocking relationship with his well oiled political local political operation in Bushwick/Williamsburg and its vicinity. My conclusion had always been that most of the reason that the social service agencies inure to Lopez’s benefit is that they actually and competently delivered social services to the communities they serve.
At the very least, some of the reports in the press now cast doubts about the empire’s competence.
Then, I said that the Mayor’s response has been so mild at least partially because Ridgewood-Bushwick is “too big to fail,” in that thousands of people daily depend upon its services, and that it was not easily replaced; and could not just be shown the door. Now Azi is reporting City funding for Ridgewood-Bushwick is being frozen. By contrast, the News :reports it is only “new” contracts which are being suspended.
This is sort of like sending someone home without dessert after the first nine courses of a banquet.
Meanwhile a City Department of Investigation probe of Ridgewood-Bushwick continues, and new probes have been undertaken by both the State’s Comptroller and Attorney General.
Nothing spurs initiative like the prospect of an oncoming election.
Meanwhile, the prosecution of a Ridgewood-Bushwick staffer accused of ripping off the Agency off has been gently shoved across the Verrazano-Narrows to land in the lap of a prosecutor (Dan Donovan) who’s already made getting Lopez’s scalp as a trophy a major pledge in his race for State AG. Then, The Old Gray Lady reported Lopez was the subject of two Federal probes as well. Last week, I complained that a measure allowing Lopez to appoint 11 of his horses to the Brooklyn Party’s Executive Committee had essentially made Lopez the Leader for Life (Vito is bragging that one of the new appointees, Assemblyman Alec Brook-Krasny, is the Executive Committee’s first “Russian” member, which should be news to Brook-Krasny’s male District Leader, Mark Davidovich).
With all the investigations, it seems possible that such life tenure may not even extend the two years to which Lopez has just been re-elected.
We also learned this week that Lopez’s tenure for life as County Leader might come to an end literally, and that Federal investigations might not be the kind of probes which most concern him. The Brooklyn Paper reports that Lopez has severe health problems, while Tom Robbins say Lopez will soon being undergoing heavy chemotherapy. Add to that, the news of one more in a series of defeats in race for local District leaderships, and many in the Party, not all of them by any means “reformers,” are licking their chops.
It is time to put things in perspective.
Even if Donovan’s office did not resemble a small-town version of the Gang That Couldn’t Subpoena Straight, one would have trouble seeing how the probe of what appears to be a low level staffer leads to a prosecution of Lopez.
In fact, it is hard to see how even the more extensive City and State probes would lead to Lopez, who appear to control Ridgewood-Bushwick in the same manner in which the Corleones controlled Vegas hotels: in every manner but the legal one.
In order for Lopez to be put in jeopardy, one would need to establish not only acts of criminality (as opposed to venality, which, given the exorbitant salaries paid to Ridgewood Bushwick’s top executives, now must be presumed ) at the Agency’s highest reaches and then one would have to picture someone high in the Ridgewood operation, where Omerta is the rule, dropping a dime on Lopez.
Seriously, can anyone picture Ridgewood Bushwick’s Housing Director rolling over on Vito? (Perhaps this is not the best choice of words).
Vito’s biggest concern about the Ridgewood-Bushwick probes may not be penal jeopardy, but collapse of empire. Actually, in the scheme of things, preventing that might be a higher priority for Lopez than avoiding incarceration. As I’ve noted before, Vito’s power does not derive from his County Leadership; Vito’s County Leadership derives from his power.
As far as the possibility of indictments go, the Federal probes, which may or may not have any relationship to Ridgewood-Bushwick, may be a more serious concern than anything local.
However, even if serial snitch Brain McLaughlin has Vito on tape, it is hard to picture Lopez saying anything more outrageous than the stuff he already says in public and to reporters.
Just last month, Vito told the News’ Errol Louis he was sure he’d be re-elected as Leader, citing his “very strong infrastructure," specifically referring to how the 384 members of his Brooklyn Unidos organization club would work the district on his behalf. Brooklyn Unidos is a not-for-profit funded by $90,000 in Lopez sponsored, taxpayer supported, member items. Unidos' meeting notices are sent from Lopez’s Assembly office, in his envelopes, presumably on his State allocated mailing budget.
Concerning Lopez’s illnesses, besides extending him prayers, it seems appropriate to note that babies conceived the first time most of the political world had already written off the leukemia inflicted Lopez as terminally ill will be voting in next year’s general election. The political graveyards of Brooklyn, and the real cemeteries ones that adjoin Bushwick, are littered with the dead bodies of pols who thought they would soon be dancing at Lopez’s funeral. Lopez probably regards chemotherapy the way old mobsters regard anisette.
As to his political situation, yesterday Court Street was abuzz with nothing else. But, everyone luxuriating is such gossip kept turning their heads to make sure that none of Lopez’s allies were listening.
But for the sake or argument, let’s say the era of Lopez did end. Where would that leave us?
Lopez’s successor would be chosen by a group of leaders of which 11 were handpicked by Lopez himself (in reality, this number is even higher; for instance, Lopez’s Co-Leader in Bushwick was also handpicked by Lopez).
Reformers (e.g. Chris Owens, Jo Anne Simon, Kevin Carroll and Lincoln Restler) have as potential allies a few of the more liberal regulars (Lew Fidler, Jake Gold, Laurie Knipel) a couple of the more Brownstony black (Walter Mosley, Olanike Alabe, and perhaps Jesse Hamilton), and Hispanic (Felix Ortiz) leaders, as well as some others from off the beaten track (e.g., Inez Barron). But even in those thin ranks, I count perhaps five different blood feuds which might prevent such a coalition.
Then there is the question of exactly what is being sought. As I’ve noted before, In negotiations over a leadership, the important question for “reformers” really isn’t who, but how. In exchange for their vote, “reformers” should want to extract some concessions on how the Party will be operated.
But first they need to build coalitions. And in this they must be very careful. The news about Lopez has already brought out from under a rock the worst sort of opportunistic bloodsuckers waiting for a new body to leach off of.
Lots of people pretend to be reformers when they see their opportunities. In response to a post which referred to Lincoln Restler as “nerdcore,’ I got the following response on my Facebook page from a longtime Bushwick activist:
“I love the nerdcore; reminds me of a new breed of democratic reformers in Bushwick and Williamsburg of the late 60's and early 70's, which included a shy tentative social worker who was the director of the Ridgewood/Bushwick Senior Center named Vito Lopez.”
Tom Robbins reports that after their pre-County Committee meeting rally, the reform minded New Kings Democrats marched down the block to the meeting, accompanied by the bull-horn wielding Reverend Taharka Robinson, who wore a long black, judge-like robe, and was quoted as saying, "If Lopez can make all these other clowns judges, why not me?”
Don’t tempt me, Taharka.
Let me reiterate some points previously made in this Department about Reverend Robinson.
For several years, the implementation of an Independent Judicial Screening Panel by the Kings county Democratic Party for its candidates has been considered by supporters of Vito Lopez to be one of his crowning achievements, at least when his supporters are talking to the press. Even some of his critics will grudgingly acknowledge this.
In the wake of the Gerry Garson scandal, the Mike Garson scandal and the Clarence Norman indictments, strenuous efforts were undertaken by Reform District Leaders Alan Fleishman and Jo Anne Simon, and Regular District Leader Lew Fidler, to create an Independent Screening Panel for the Party’s judicial candidates. Despite the vehement opposition of other Regulars, including District Leader Al Vann and Annette Robinson (Reverend Robinson‘s mom), they succeeded.
The panel, like all efforts to reform a political process to select the person who will receive a prestigious position, is undeniably imperfect (the “independent” screening panels used by the Mayor and the Governor are also undeniably imperfect).
Some have complained that the Brooklyn panel’s rules differ in significant ways from that of the similar panel in Manhattan; ironically, most of the difference had come at the suggestion of Manhattanites dissatisfied with the imperfections in their own panel’s procedures (While “reformers” often hail the Manhattan panel as a model, I get regular complaints about it being fixed from gadflies like Alan Flacks).
At the Supreme Court level, the panel has real teeth; under the Brooklyn Party’s rules one cannot be nominated at the Party’s Judicial Nominating Convention unless one was approved by the Screening Panel.
At the Civil Court level, the panel has a limited purpose. Since anyone is free to circulate a petition for an opening, regardless of what the panel says, the panel’s decisions regarding Civil Court slots have only one internal effect: the Brooklyn Democratic Party is no longer allowed to print or bind any nominating petitions which contain judicial candidates not approved by the panel.
Initially, this had an impact; in 2005, the panel actually rejected a candidate who was the personal choice of Vito Lopez. Further, the panel generally approves more candidates than there are slots, and has not shown demonstrable political bias in judging Civil Court candidates by their political affiliation.
But more important than the internal impact is the external one; during Lopez's reign as County Leader, there has not been one Civil Court primary where a candidate approved by the panel has lost to one who was not.
That is what Joe Biden would call a “big fucking deal.”
In 2006, only three candidates who put themselves before the panel ended up circulating nominating petitions. One who was under investigation by the State’s Committee on Character and Fitness (and later cleared) was rejected. The other two, Dena Douglas and Jacqueline Williams, were eventually endorsed by County.
The rejected candidate stayed in the race, hooking up with “consultant” named Taharka Robinson (he was not yet doing the work of the Lord), who ticketed her with another candidate who was had refused to submit herself to the panel at all.
In the race that followed, it was pretty universally acknowledged that the County Candidates’ most effective piece of literature was one devised by Fidler which highlighted that they were the only candidate approved by the Independent Screening Panel. The Panel-approved County candidates won.
Are the panels perfect? No, they tend to heavily give weight to the prejudices of the various wings of the County’s legal establishment. Those wings include Legal Aid and public interest lawyers, and various ethnic associations. The panels are by no means lily-white; but they do tend to reflect the concerns of those who appear in Court for a living, perhaps sometimes to the detriment of other considerations. And sometimes there appears to be a bit of logrolling amongst the various factions.
Sometimes, in my humble opinion, the panel has done injustices.
However, no one has ever posited any alternative method of performing such a function in an elective system. And, in fact, the equivalent panels which stand guard over appointed judgeships usually have the same establishment biases, except that they are less likely to have the diversity of the Kings County Panel (I note that the much complained about appointment to a Judgeship of Lopez’s came courtesy of one of those blue-ribbon panels).
And the Panel, along with Lopez’s iron hand, has virtually put an end to primaries against incumbent judges. Reformers had always desired a change in the process to allow sitting judges to be able to minimize their need to raise money, as well as to minimize their contacts with the political process. Under Lopez, this has happened.
Under the regime of the prior County Leader, Clarence Norman, a parasitical claque of “consultants” existed which fed in the manner of bottom fish. Usually they approached sitting Civil Court judges up for re-nomination, and in the manner of Doug and Dimsdale Piranha, said something like “that’s a nice judgeship you have there; it would be ashamed if anything happened to it. If you hire me, I can protect you from a primary…nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more.”
Unspoken was the threat that, if the “consultant” was not hired, they would find a candidate to oppose the sitting judge. In Brooklyn, such primaries occurred several times during the Norman regime and several sitting judges lost their jobs as a result (Yellen, Katherine Smith and Maxine Archer could all tell tales), and when such primaries did not occur, it was often because such “consultants” had been hired.
In fact, the suspicion grew among many that Norman sometimes purposely bobbled the opportunity to kill such challenges, because such challenges were good for business. They meant that one would have to hire Norman’s friends.
Among the friends Norman used to “recommend” be hired was one Taharka Robinson.
Eventually, Norman went to jail on charges stemming from his insistence that one sitting judge (Karen Yellen) hire and pay his associates.
Under Lopez, sitting judges no longer had to engage in unseemly fundraising to pay off parasitical “consultants” who would otherwise run primaries against them. The quashing of such activity served a good government purpose, though this fortuitous by-product was probably just an inadvertent bonus rather than the real intent.
With perhaps less justification, Lopez has also gone to war with the consultants to cut them off at the knees when they try to run candidates for open seats as well. This is a totally different kettle of fish.
On the other hand, we are no longer seeing many stories like this one from Tom Robbins of the Village Voice in 2005, during the regime of Norman and shortly thereafter:
As Brooklyn Democratic Party leader Clarence Norman was starting trial last week on corruption charges, his peculiar approach to judicial politics continued to loom over local elections. In a case that has even veteran pols shaking their heads, a Civil Court judicial candidate has spent more than any other contender—even though she faces no primary.Genine Edwards, a personal-injury lawyer whose mother belonged to Norman's father's church, had spent $103,000 as of last week, $93,000 of it for the services of William "Tahaka" Robinson, a personable and energetic young campaigner whose own mom, Assembly Member Annette Robinson, is a close Norman ally and who learned his political chops in Norman's club.
Guided by the younger Robinson, Edwards pulled off a minor miracle this spring: While five other candidates sought a Civil Court judgeship, none of them filed for the same seat as Edwards, allowing her to escape a costly and risky primary, and guaranteeing her election.
Norman said he had nothing to do with it. "That's one lucky candidate," he chuckled.
"I asked them not to run against us," explained Robinson, 36, who insisted he is "totally independent" of Norman. Robinson said he earned his pay through savvy maneuvering and hard work delivering literature and putting up posters. "I market candidates like rap stars," he said. Clearly his talents are in demand. Robinson has also hauled in thousands more from other Norman-backed candidates, including $16,000 from mayoral wannabe Gifford Miller, $10,000 from Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, $34,000 from district attorney candidate John Sampson, and $7,000 from Surrogate's Court candidate Diana Johnson.
Or this one:
So which candidate got the most posters on the most lampposts on the most-traveled Brooklyn thoroughfares to catch the eye of commuters on Election Day morning? Bloomberg, with his bottomless campaign pockets? Ferrer, with his diehard troop of Latino and African-American supporters? Boro prez Marty Markowitz, with his relentless portrayal of himself as more Brooklyn than Pee Wee Reese and Junior's combined?
Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.
That would be Genine Edwards, Democratic candidate for a countywide spot on the Civil Court, a candidate without any real challenger, who was found "not approved" by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.
Huge portraits of a smiling Edwards lined Court Street all the way from the BQE to the East River. They decorated every pole along Atlantic Avenue, from the Red Hook piers to East New York. All the signs had was her name – and her pretty face.
Funny thing is, Edwards, a personal injury attorney whose mother belongs to former county leader Clarence Norman's father's church, was a shoe-in to win her seat even if she'd never put up a single sign. She's been that way ever since she hired a savvy young campaign manager named William "Tahaka" Robinson, son of Assemblywoman Annette Robinson and a graduate of Norman's old political club. Last summer, Robinson obtained the agreement of most Democratic county leaders to back Edwards. He then got rival candidates to agree to run for a separate civil court seat, thereby guaranteeing Edwards a free ride and no primary.
Since then, even though her only opponents were marginal Republican and Conservative candidates who never win countywide races in Brooklyn, Edwards has paid Robinson at least $93,000 to handle her campaign.
On election night, Robinson acknowledged to the Voice that he and his crew had worked late into the wee hours to pepper Brooklyn with Edwards' materials. "We worked like slaves," he said. "And we had all the polling sites covered." Why had he done so much postering for a candidate with no real race? "Got to do it," he answered. "You never know."
For his undaunting efforts, Robinson was dubbed a “poster thug” by Room 8’s Maurice Gumbs, while Hackshaw more than once accused Taharka and his minions of thugishness.
The absence of such stories in today’s Brooklyn sometimes makes it hard to remember that things were not necessarily better in the pre-Lopez era. And the Screening Panels have had a good deal to do with this improvement.
But there has been criticism that Lopez has been making ends run around the Democratic Party Judicial Screening Panel.
Last year, it is indisputable that Lopez ran Pam Fisher unopposed for a Municipal Court Judgeship in his home area, without her ever appearing before the Party Screening Panel. Further, it appears that the County Organization printed and bound her petitions.
The Party’s Law Chair excuses this as OK because Fisher was running for a District position rather than Countywide.
Balderdash.
In the past, the Party Screening Panel always interviewed candidates in District races. In fact, the Party Organization has justifiably exploited the failure of candidates opposed by County in District races to go before the Panel, and County’s candidates have won races on that basis.
Not surprisingly to anyone, Fleishman and Simon were appalled. Simon said “My concern that it was evaded in a fairly open and notorious way. While the rules require that the executive committee cannot endorse, he is not the executive committee, it is very troubling that the county leader actively supports a candidate that did not go through our process which is meant to identify qualified candidates.”
More surprisingly to some, but not to those who know him, Fidler was appalled as well. The panel was his pride and joy. He had used it for years as a sword and a shield to defend the interests of the Party and its Leader. Since he also practiced law in the Brooklyn Courts, there was also the possibility that he had more than ego and politics at stake.
If anything proved the Panel was not a sham, the fact that Fisher had eluded it spoke volumes for its credibility. If the panel was a piece of Lopez kabuki, why was he so afraid of it?
A local preacher actually lead a demonstration in front of the building where the Party had its headquarters to protest Fisher’s election; he even got himself arrested. His name:
The Reverend W. Taharka Robinson,
who in a prior incarnation was not known to object very strenuously to candidates eluding the panel, as long as they were his candidates. One may also remember that Robinson’s mother Annette and her co-leader Al Vann led the fight against the Screening Panel in the first place.
Perhaps Taharka had been born again.
Or perhaps not.
Last spring, Taharka was again demonstrating. But instead of insisting as he did last year on the sacredness of the Screening Panel, he was calling it a sham.
It was right before petitioning, and the Screening Panel was releasing its Civil Court findings. But first it was calling the candidates who had not passed muster. They were being told they could either withdraw; file an appeal, or pursue their candidacy with the knowledge that the panel would release a negative recommendation. But they had to chose or their names would be released.
This is what the rules provided for. The sum and substance of the call would be followed by a letter embodying the same thoughts.
Since, unlike at the Supreme level, the Panel had no power to stop a Civil Court candidate who wanted to run after being rejected, the only tool in its arsenal was the release of such information to the public.
Taharka was now screaming through a megaphone, calling this good-government practice “INTIMIDATION!” His minions were giving out copies of the letter, with the recipient’s name blacked out.
As far as I could tell, Taharka's position was that the Screening Panel should be allowed to exist, as long as it didn't tell anyone its findings. I would bet the mortgage money a Robinson client had just gotten the rejection call.
In fairness, though, I guess one would agree that such a procedure would surely result in fewer candidates avoiding going before the panels.
At his demonstration last spring, I tried to interview the good Reverend. I asked him if it was true he attacked Lopez last year for bypassing the panel. He agreed.
So, I then asked him how he could turn around and call the panel a sham.
Robinson screamed “BUT IT’S INTIMIDATION!”
I kept trying to ask him why publicizing the panel’s finding, but first extending folks the courtesy of an opportunity to avoid embarrassment was a bad thing.
But he kept screaming at me louder and louder, eyes bulging like a two-headed hound from hell, not letting me finish a sentence.
“IT’S INTIMIDATION, INTIMIDATION, INTIMIDATION!!!”
That it was, I was intimidated–I walked away before he tried to hit me.
Taharka Robinson is no reformer. Mostly, he is a Taharkening back to the era of Clarence Norman. Nonetheless, has a bit of Lopez in him as well.
Many consider Lopez, a fairly steadfast ally of the Mayor, who appoints Ridgewood-Bushwick’s Housing Director to the City Planning Commission. In 2005, when newly elected County Democratic Leader Lopez was who he supported for mayor, he could not even bare to mention Freddy Ferrer’s name, saying only that he supported the Democrat. Some also believe he took a dive on helping Billy Thompson. Some say Lopez has also been less than aggressive on behalf of the State senate Democrats.
By contrast, Taharka did not take a dive. According to Tom Robbins, progressive reformer Robinson actively and openly worked as a consultant for Bloomberg and Republican state Senator Frank Padavan.
Taharka’s explanation: "I've got kids."
Robbins reports that in 2006, Robinson was investigated by both the Brooklyn District Attorney and the Commission on Judicial Conduct after the Voice reported that he had received almost $100,000 from a Brooklyn judicial candidate with no opponent.
During his tenure as a Bloomberg consultant, Robinson also showed up at City Hall for the term-limits hearings, bringing along a bus load of folks who occupied the front rows holding pro-Bloomberg signs. The same folks were later seen being paid in cash.
Given Taharka’s reputation for thugishness, perhaps the “reformers” were afraid to tell him he was unwelcome to march along with them.
Or perhaps they thought they were coalition building.
One hopes they are not so naïve.