May 23, 2003

By James Eugene*

NOT IN THE PUBLIC GOOD.

It was a moment I will always remember. He stood in front of the television cameras. He took total blame for what had happened: the tragic death of a foster care child. Television cameras in his face, flash photography going off, questions coming from left and right, his face stoic, his voice halting, taking the blame, but insisting that the social worker in charge of the case would not be fired. That the worker had been disciplined (a letter in her file!) and that additional training would be forthcoming for the worker. The media wanted the worker's head; the Commissioner refused to serve it on a platter. He then stated that the social worker had a difficult job, that the agency could not expect perfection, and that the worker's record was fairly good and firing a worker for a terrible result that frankly could have happened to anyone just didn't make sense.

The media was obviously indignant. Commissioner William Grinker was roundly criticized, although Mayor Koch stood by him, and while not jumping into the fray, neither did Koch criticize or discipline the Commissioner. The storm eventually passed.

Commissioner Grinker had the right idea in protecting his agency's worker. Sometimes simply allowing the media to control portions of City government by their coverage of a supposed "scandal" is allowing a herd mentality to control. Stronger and better are the bureaucrats who see the big picture and understand that the City workforce is human, not a perpetual motion machine that never breaks. By allowing workers to be human (and I know that in some instances, especially when life and death is involved, this is difficult, but ultimately unavoidable), elected officials and Commissioners allow a good worker who might have made a mistake to stay on board. And ultimately, the public is served by a more productive workforce with less turnover.

Mayor Koch also understood that and while he let Grinker take the brunt of the criticism as Commissioner of the Human Resources Administration, he did not pile on the criticism as well. Some Mayors understand the import of this. Mayor Prosecutor did not, as witnessed by the use of Patricia Zedalis as a "fall guy" for the school construction budget underestimation three years ago (and trust me, I know Pat Zedalis and she would not have done the things she did without permission from above). Unfortunately, I have now come to the conclusion that Mayor Billionaire does not understand the big picture either. He only understands the headlines he wants to avoid.

Exhibit A is the recent firings of three top officials at the New York City Housing Development Corporation (HDC). Oh yes, they supposedly resigned. But you know the drill: "resign or be fired," and the employee takes resignation. Now why were they fired? Press reports have it that these workers were let go because they did not tell all during the investigation of former HDC President Russell Harding, who stole approximately $250,000 from the agency. Now no one accused the three top officials of stealing a dime, and I know at least one of them was relieved that Harding was gone. (This was mentioned to me when Harding left, but the official did not elaborate at the time about why he was relieved). Moreover, during the Harding investigation, I am sure the three officials had to wonder what would happen to them if they did talk. After all, Russell Harding's father, at the time the boss of the now defunct Liberal Party, had helped make Giuliani who helped make Mayor Billionaire. Would you want to annoy a man with seemingly that much power? And Russell Harding, who was placed in that position by Mayor Prosecutor, was totally unqualified to run that agency (no housing experience, no college diploma and not a peep from the media about placing such a lightweight at that agency). How many political types get besmirched in the media and then never prosecuted, leaving a non-politico holding the bag? I would have been guarded too.

Moreover, whom did Mayor Billionaire hurt? Oh sure, the three officials lost their jobs, but remember HDC is also one of the key agencies in the Mayor's Affordable Housing Program. I bet agency morale is awful. And the loss of three very senior officials (we are talking about three of the top five people) puts a giant hole in agency performance and given the officers' years of experience, the agency will now suffer from a significant institutional memory loss. Moreover, I bet more than a few projects got their closings delayed (although I am sure no one will say this on the record since no one wants to jeopardize their financing).

So Mayor Billionaire hurt the agency, but that is not all. In reality, Mayor Billionaire hurt the poor of New York City. HDC is the lead agency in financing affordable housing projects in the City. By hurting that agency, Mayor Billionaire hurt the poor who rely upon those projects for housing. He could have elected to stick by his Commissioner, give a reprimand or a fine, but not hurt the poor by dismantling the top of such an important agency for the poor. His reaction was that of a patrician billionaire, which is amazing since Mayor Billionaire is a nouveau riche billionaire. I expect the Mayor's next words will be "let them eat cake".

Exhibit B is the morale at agencies where there have been scandals, such as the Finance Department and the Buildings Department. I talk to employees there, good honest employees. And while City employees always have a love-hate relationship with their agency, I see no love in the current state of the relationship. I hear more sighs, more frustration, more paranoia than in 1986, when the Donald Manes' scandals broke. I have come to the conclusion that City workers can deal with corruption; they just can't deal with the paranoia of their new bosses as those bosses seek to crack down on corruption. And why does it always seem that those bosses crack down on the good employees and miss the bad ones as is now happening at Finance and Buildings?

I was recently asked if I would consider going back into City government. I would not. No, I am not a corruption risk (quite the opposite, I was always talking to my agency's ethics counsel to ensure that the least problematic thing that my superiors were seeking was okay… I think I wore him out after awhile). But I would not work under corruption police. Nor do I want my workers to feel as if they are constantly being watched for corruption. It is an infantile relationship - only I must confess that I think the infants are all at City Hall.

The City Council is on the verge of passing legislation that will require "absentee" landlords of small residential dwellings (one and two-family dwellings) to pay a 25% surcharge on their real estate taxes. The logic is that the Owner can afford the extra money since the dwelling is an investment property.

Now does the Council really think that the Owner will not pass the surcharge onto the tenant? Although the legislation is "at the request of the Mayor", this tax was a component of Speaker Gifford Miller's State of the City address. Speaker Miller, I want you to explain to renters in one and two-family dwellings how the tax portion of their rent has gone up forty-eight percent in one year! That's right 48%, because a 25% increase on top of an 18.5% in November is actually a 48% increase. Isn't affordable housing great?

I have nothing to say beyond that. It just seemed appropriate.

* James Eugene is the pseudonym of a veteran of NYC government affairs. Inside The Big Apple will appear exclusively on the Empire Page. If you want to send tips or column ideas to James Eugene, email them to jameseugene@empirepage.com.