PlanetAlbany

More on Schenectady police

In response to my prior post on Schenectady cops that mentioned a TV show, "The Wire," a correspondent brings up another police drama, "The Shield," which I have never seen, and points me to a 2002 article by Times Union television critic Mark McGuire, which begins:
"When a rogue cop slips an informant some crack in the new FX drama 'The Shield,' you can't help but think of Schenectady.
"'A good man with good intentions went astray,'' said Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg West, describing one of four cops from that city recently convicted on corruption charges.
"That phrase fits the protagonist of `The Shield'' ... , Michael Chiklis' brutally effective Detective Vic Mackey.
"He's a character who may cause you to calibrate your moral barometer. Mackey can rationalize breaking laws for the public good: If dishing out a little rock to a hooker - who would have plied her trade for it anyway - gets a drug dealer off the street, that's a fair trade."
But, McGuire says, it's a slippery slope for the fictional cop, who winds up rationalizing cold-blooded murder.
In real life, cops have been convicted of murder, including a couple who moonlighted as Mafia hit men in New York City. But that's nothing like what the four Schenectady cops McGuire mentioned did. A 2001 New York Times article described two of them thus: "The other two implicated officers are among the most decorated and well regarded in the department: Michael Hamilton, who is charged with tipping off an informer to a police surveillance, and Nicola Messere, who is accused of paying an informer with crack. Both men maintain their innocence."
Messere was convicted of one offense, giving cocaine to an informant, a drug-addicted prostitute. A co-defendant, Officer Michael Siler, testified that Messere did this, and so did the prostitute, who said: "I was sitting on the steps and Nick came up on the sidewalk in the police car. He came out of nowheres, and he would drive up and ask me who got it good. You know, where is the good crack at, and I told him I don't know. I don't know, you know, and he threw me a bump and told me to get off the streets."
For that, he got 27 months in prison. Hamilton got a longer sentence for trying to protect his informant. Unlike Siler, they didn't make a deal and testify against each other or other cops, which meant the system dealt with them more harshly.
In response to my original post, commenter Molly said: "So what's your solution? Make it legal for cops to distribute drugs to informers? You can't turn a complete blind eye, because it opens up the possibility for serious corruption within the department. Say you support cops distributing drugs to informers, because it provides good information and enables the arrest of violent criminals. What if those same police officers start taking the drugs themselves? Or if one or two become corrupt, and start selling the drugs? Such a process would have to be heavily monitored, and thus endorsed by the state."
She's absolutely right. In 2007, another Schenectady cop admitted stealing drugs from the evidence locker for his own use. There surely have been scandals in the department, continuing up to the current one of an officer who keeps getting arrested on various charges.
But the problems are compounded by politicians, prosecutors and pundits who consistently lose all sense of proportion, treating decent officers who cut corners for informants much more harshly than overtly corrupt ones like former Chief Greg Kaczmarek, and failing to give street cops the benefit of the doubt over criminals in chaotic violent situations. When cops and residents alike suspect that justice is not achievable because the powers that be are not interested in it, that's a recipe for continuing trouble in the department and on the streets.
 

More signs that The Foundry may founder

The government of Kuwait, citing lower oil prices and the worldwide financial crisis, is pulling out of a planned multibillion-dollar joint venture with Dow Chemical in Michigan. Meanwhile, the government of  Abu Dhabi has acquired an increasingly large majority stake in its joint venture with AMD, The Foundry, which is supposed to start building a $4.6 billion computer chip plant next year in Saratoga County. The state has been busy transferring $1.2 billion in economic incentives, including a $650 million direct subsidy, to The Foundry. Meanwhile, AMD itself keeps reporting worse financial news. So the Saratoga County project's future now depends on Abu Dhabi not following the example of Kuwait.

Caroline Kennedy and the puritanism of modern journalism

While not regretting the possible collapse of Caroline Kennedy's senatorial campaign, or dissenting from the emerging consensus that she is out of her depth, there are a couple of things to be said in her defense. She was, you know, joking with those New York Times reporters when she said their crack political team was asking questions that sounded like they came from a women's magazine. Taking umbrage just shows that thin-skinned, self-important media types can't take a joke. And speaking of that annoying "you know" verbal tic, which Caroline shares with many other people, it would not have appeared in print back in the day. Now, journalistic puritans decry cleaning up quotes as a cardinal sin. There is something to be said for letting the valley girl delivery shine through her Harvard and Columbia education in all its inarticulate glory. But, as the Sarah Palin saga demonstrated, journalists can be overly eager to pin on the bimbo label.
My Democratic wife was quick to pick up on Caroline's "you know" problem, and also mentioned something else I haven't seen commented on, about how she was wearing a hip-hugger, very low-cut style of pants popular with young teenage girls, not with women in their 50s. I don't think it puritanical to point that out. Nor do I think it sexist for me to naturally write "Caroline" as opposed to Kennedy or Schlossberg or whatever her last name is. Only a puritan could demand solemnity when discussing the aspirations of this would-be senator.

The inconvenient truth about Schenectady and other police

Today's Gazette has an interesting Page One story which begins as follows: "In almost every respect, the city had a more effective police department a decade ago. From 1998 to 2000, according to FBI data, the police had a better solve rate for nearly every serious crime than it did in the three-year period from 2005-07. They also solved a greater number of cases back then — a surprising figure since crime has increased 17 percent since that time. And they did it with fewer people. The detective division had just 19 people — 16 fewer than it has today."
So what's going on? The police spokesman doesn't know, and a couple of implausible theories are floated. Then comes this: "But others say the real problem is one of morale. Some officials believe police worked harder a decade ago, before a series of scandals tarnished the department’s reputation. In 2000, the FBI began to investigate reports that some police were taking drugs from dealers and giving them to informants. By the end of that year, two officers were indicted on drug distribution and extortion charges. There was more to come. In 2002, four officers went to federal prison and another committed suicide at the department headquarters during the federal probe."
In fact, there is a connection to that particular scandal, but it's not raised by anyone quoted in the story. Of the four officers who went to prison, two, Mike Hamilton and Nick Messere, were among the best cops in the department. Hamilton routinely made far more arrests than anyone else.
And that is what explains the otherwise mysterious statistics in today's Gazette. Cutting corners, i.e. by "taking drugs from dealers and giving them to informants," contributed to very effective police work.
But anyone who says that will be asked if that means you endorse illegal activity by police. Because politicians and prosecutors don't want people to indignantly ask them that question, the truth goes unmentioned. People may not even admit it to themselves, living in denial.
The four cops in that scandal were pursued by a leather-jacketed young federal prosecutor, Daniel French, who soon after switched sides to take up criminal defense work, and also represented Evident Technologies, one of the beneficiaries of Joe Bruno's largesse. Then Attorney General Andrew Cuomo got French appointed last year to the state's Public Integrity Commission, which prompted some hand wringing about possible conflicts of interest. Maybe French is now advising Cuomo on Schenectady police matters, which the attorney general has been disastrously mishandling. The police chief who had turned a blind eye to the tactics of Hamilton, Messere and the other cops was Greg Kaczmarek, who then retired and became involved in drug dealing. The Kaz's post-retirement activity was a genuinely appalling scandal that was prosecuted by Cuomo's office, which proceeded to treat the ex-chief with extraordinary leniency (especially when compared to French's merciless persecution of Hamilton and Messere, whose sentences were more than twice as long as Kaczmarek's). In a separate, minor case, Cuomo has been coming down too hard on some street cops in Schenectady.
When people watch a good TV drama like "The Wire," they can appreciate the moral complexity of police work. But not in real life, apparently. A decade ago, when the Schenectady Metroplex Authority was only just getting started, the city was in very tough shape and its future seemed in the balance. There was a permanent fiscal crisis, with crime threatening to spin out of control. Public officials were not inclined to scrutinize too closely the tactics of officers like Hamilton who were solving major violent crimes and locking up bad guys. They were keeping the lid on.
But if you want an opinion, here's what a commenter known as wmarinic said about the Gazette story: "Back 10 years ago the Police had the support of the Mayor and City Council and the public was willing to help in an investigation rather than hinder it."

Caroline Kennedy's marriage

PlanetAlbany's high standards of pompous harrumphing, and its lack of solid sources among the Manhattan glitterati, mean you will not read here now all about the Gawker rumor of a dual-celebrity affair. (Our standards of taste are so high that we put off even running this item until after Christmas Day.) Still, in our previous foray into lese majeste, we made gentle fun of two pro-Caroline columnists, Michael Daly in the Daily News and Alan Chartock in The Legislative Gazette, who rested part of the case for their heroine on her family-woman status. "She is a mom, a loving wife, a rock of Gibraltar in the Kennedy family," quoth Chartock. Daly related a conversation from when Caroline and her husband visited a pub in Ireland, and an old lady asked her: "So, girleen, how are you?" Then, according to Daly, the old woman "eyed Caroline's husband, Ed Schlossberg. 'It's a fine big man you got with you.'  After they left, all agreed that it was also a fine woman."
But Schlossberg and the kids have been notably absent from Caroline's Senate campaign, not trotted out for any photo op. Other Kennedys have had famously rocky marriages. That includes Caroline's father and uncles, and her cousin and current supporter Kerry. Kerry's affair ended her marriage to Andrew Cuomo, who now may be Caroline's main rival for the Senate seat. Since Caroline's supposedly solid marriage is cited in contrast to all that, and as one of her (few) qualifications for office, it is a matter of legitimate inquiry.

Tis the season

Like local blogger Sara Foss I'm a last-minute shopper, though I notice she has filed posts about watching movies and a comedy show since writing that Christmas deadline piece.
Meanwhile, let us praise unfashionable old-fashioned liberalism in the form of Gov. Paterson's proposed raising of welfare payments and other benefits for poor people, and even more unfashionable compassionate conservatism in the form of President Bush's alleviation of the AIDS epidemic throughout the world; and local residents who, according to the Gazette's Ed Munger, have been responding generously to rising need.
I just got an email from my wife's nephew, who is in town from Florida and is coming with his family for dinner tonight (which means I gotta clean out my "office"). I hear his son has been enjoying the brand-new experience of sledding and playing in the snow. I also can report that there are lots of cardinals this year, looking very red against the white. My sister-in-law tells me there are more in New Jersey too, and that I should look up their religious symbolism. But as my lovely wife might say, it is time for triage and to step away from the computer. Merry Christmas.

Diversity vs. patronage

So the director of the Schenectady County Human Rights Commission has filed federal and state complaints against the county, alleging he was discriminated against because of his race, age and gender by being denied two jobs. One of those jobs was created by the county 's Democratic leaders for a defeated Assembly candidate, a guy who had been a county legislator until they persuaded him to run for the state position. The other job was created for another guy whom the former Assembly candidate's new job had displaced. Seems like the only way you can fight political patronage in this state is by playing the diversity card. Oh, and there's also a computer pornography angle. As New York Post gossip maven Cindy Adams is wont to say, Only in New York, kids, only in New York.

  

More on Paterson , Suozzi, schools and taxes

Marissa Shorenstein, Gov. Paterson's deputy director of communications, today sent me items in addition to Tier 5 and the Wicks Law in which the Paterson budget proposal to some extent follows the Suozzi commission report. She writes:

"Health Benefit Reform

The Commission Proposal: Encourage health benefit trusts in order to facilitate additional collaborative participation in health benefit cooperatives throughout the State.

 The Executive Budget Proposal: The Governor’s plan also seeks to encourage the creation of health benefit trusts by easing the requirements to form cooperative health benefit plans.

 School District Mandate Relief

 The Commission Proposal:  The following recommendations to address the burden of excessive school district mandates were put forth by the Commission.

·         No new legislative or regulatory mandates without a complete accounting of the fiscal impact on local governments, which must include full documentation, local government input and proposed revenue sources to fund the new mandates.

·         Mandate accountability through an annual report from the Office of the State Comptroller, which should include the cumulative cost to localities of complying with all new regulatory and legislative mandates.

·         Centralize and streamline school district reporting to decrease personnel and other costs associated with sometimes duplicative and unnecessary forms and other filing requirements.

·         Increase threshold amounts for purchasing under competitive bidding requirements.

The Executive Budget Proposal:  The Governor’s proposal includes similar mandate relief items.

·         Delaying the Effective Date of Mandates.  Any new mandate with a cost would not be implemented sooner than the following school year to allow districts the opportunity to build those costs into their budgets.

·         Reducing Paperwork.  This proposal would streamline existing reporting requirements and eliminate required reports that are outdated or no longer serve a public policy purpose.

·         Reforming Procurement.  This would allow school districts additional contracting flexibility by increasing existing bidding thresholds and allowing them to piggyback onto existing contracts.  This provision would also benefit other types of local government. "

But even from this comparison, it is clear that the governor is offering much less mandate relief than Suozzi proposed. Further, there is nothing in the budget following Suozzi's recommendations about a school district property tax cap, or controlling costs by reforming special education or the Taylor Law, or centralizing collective bargaining, increasing employee health insurance premiums, promoting consolidation and shared services. Nor does the budget include other sensible reforms, such as cutting the state's share of building aid and reforming the law so that districts do not have an incentive to neglect old buildings and construct expensive new ones. Nor could Shorenstein say if and when the governor will propose implementing the rest of the Suozzi report.

If he doesn't, he's going to drive the entire budget process into the ditch. Paterson is making it increasingly clear that he will eventually support higher income taxes on the wealthy, which is fine. But does he really think it plausible to increase income taxes on the upper middle class at the same time he takes away their STAR rebates (which his budget proposes), while school districts respond to a 3.3 percent cut in operating aid (also in the Paterson budget) by raising property taxes through the roof? Ain't no way the Legislature will let that happen, which means the governor will guarantee huge holes in the budget unless he ignores objections from NYSUT and other interest groups, revs up the Suozzi train and climbs aboard.

Does Paterson really support the Suozzi commission report?

That's the New York State Commission on Property Tax Relief, chaired by Tom Suozzi, which issued its final report on Dec. 1. The governor issued a supportive press release, but mysteriously failed to include the commission-backed school property tax cap, or most of its mandate relief and other cost containment measures,in his executive budget released last week. That budget did, however, call for eliminating the STAR rebates for home owners, which would seem to strengthen the case for a tax cap. The governor was pressing for a tax cap in June, when the Suozzi commission released its preliminary report. That preliminary report also had some cost containment measures including a proposed revision of the Taylor Law to eliminate automatic raises when teachers' union contracts have expired. At that time, I asked Paterson at a press conference if he supported reforming the Taylor Law as recommended, and he ducked the question. So does he in fact support the Suozzi proposals on that, on special ed and on other ways for school districts to cut costs? Budget Division spokesman Matt Anderson said the governor is proposing long-term savings in school districts as in other areas through a new pension Tier 5, and also would give districts relief from Wicks Law mandates, which Suozzi recommended. As for the rest of the commission's recommendations, Anderson referred me to the governor's main press office, where spokeswoman Marissa Shorenstein said the Suozzi report "laid out a blueprint" for reform but is still under review, and that the governor has not endorsed everything in it. "We have not yet put together legislation on that," she said, and could not on Monday provide an estimate of when a program bill might be introduced.

But Paterson says he wants the budget passed by March 1, which means he is running out of time. In his budget proposal, he is calling for a cut of more than 3 percent in school operating aid. If that cut were to pass without the tax cap and cost containment measures proposed by Suozzi, the certain result would be massive increases in local school property taxes, which is precisely what the commission was created to avoid. But much of what Suozzi proposed is anathema to NYSUT and other powerful interest groups, which also don't want to see the aid cut. Most legislators will follow the special-interest lead by ignoring Suozzi, while claiming to be protecting taxpayers by opposing the aid cut. Will Paterson let them get away with that business-as-usual baloney?

Paterson picks wrong way to tax gasoline

The governor's budget would repeal the sales tax cap on motor fuel, which now stands at 8 cents per gallon. State sales tax is now 4 percent, which means you would pay 8 cents tax if gasoline cost $2 per gallon.  But gas costs less than that now, so the governor's measure would not raise any revenue unless prices rose. And the more they do rise, say to $4 and more as they did recently, the more in tax consumers would also have to pay. It doesn't make any sense to hit people over the head with higher taxes at the same time as they are being hammered with higher prices. Something else that does not make sense is the magical thinking in the governor's budget, where it says: "There is no demonstrated evidence that this cap provides savings that are passed on to consumers." The highly dubious idea is that since the tax is imposed on wholesalers, it does not necessarily translate into higher prices for motorists at the fuel pump.

There is a case for raising gas taxes when, as now, prices are low and the state is in urgent need of revenue. But it should not be done by lifting the sales tax cap, which links the tax to the price. Better to impose a per-unit excise tax, putting an extra nickel or dime on the price of gasoline.