Last night I engaged in the masochistic act of attending City Hall News' party celebrating 40 overachiever's under 40 years of age. Someday soon I hope they get around to honoring 50 underachiever's over the age of 50, so I too can get my props.
At the party, I got into an animated discussion about the Comptroller's race with City Hall's Edward Isaac Dovere and Larry Park of the Trial Lawyers, and asked "OK, if you were investing your own retirement funds, who would you hire to chose your investments, DiNapoli or Wilson?"
Park, whose group is essentially a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Assembly Democrats (or maybe it‘s the other way around) responded sharply in defense of his candidate (perhaps Shelly does not wholly own Tom, but he surely has is the majority shareholder).
Park said (I think accurately) that DiNapoli was a committed public servant (but I’m not sure how that's relevant to the question I posed,) while Wilson would probably use the funds as part of some sleazy transaction involving an old school chum (a theory whose accuracy is probably, at best, a questionable one).
Park then went on to say. "You don't want a fox in charge of guarding the hen house. You want a chicken guarding the hen house."
And therein lies the problem.
I don't want a chicken guarding the hen house; I want the hen house guarded by a really mean dog. And I don't think DiNapoli qualifies.
But the truth is, even that's not sufficient. I don't want one dog guarding the hen house. Dogs get hungry too. I want a pack of dogs watching both the hens and each other.
And therein lies the bigger problem.
Even if DiNapoli and Wilson were both dogs instead of foxes and hens, there is only one of them. And neither one of them wants to change that.
The State Comptroller is the "Sole Trustee" of the State's pension funds. The key part of the word "trustee" is "trust." I don't trust one person to have sole control of such a honey pot.
By contrast, DiNapoli feels the status quo is just fine, while Wilson feels its flaws can be rectified merely by a change of management. Find a trustee one can trust and everything will be for the best in this the best of all possible Comptrollerships.
Perhaps we should call him Harry Pangloss.
The problems with that philosophy is that it was one shared by Alan Hevesi.
Which brings us what may possibly be the worst local column of this political season not written by Michael Goodwin, Andrea Peyser or Vincent Nunes. In it, Bill Hammond argues that we need to preserve the status quo because it ensures accountability. If something bad happens, at least we know who to blame.
Sorry Bill, but when it comes to my pension fund, I think one cop is not enough. I prefer the Jane Jacobs philosophy of "Eyes on the Street," and more than just two of them; in this case, let's call it "Eyes on the Treats."
Hammond worries, "Now imagine how things would play out if the fund were controlled by little-known appointees. Investments could tank, the controller could shrug, and voters would have no recourse."
Nonsense.
In the City, a Comptroller must submit his recommendations to oversight boards. A Comptroller's recommendations can always be compared with any changes those boards order.
As Ronald Reagan might sat, "Trustee, but verify."