Councilman Defends Quinn's Shell Groups
One City Councilman is defending Christine Quinn from today’s revelation that her staff misreported how taxpayer money was actually being spent. Quinn said money that went to non-existent charitable groups actually functioned as a rainy-day fund and ultimately wound up funding legitimate groups. It's a practice that appears to have predated her tenure as speaker.
“My first thought is that it sounds a lot worse than it really is,” said Lew Fidler of Brooklyn. “It’s not like it’s unique to the Council to have a rainy-day fund. And the way the article was written made it seem like it’s there to give out goodies. It’s also there for real emergencies.”
For example, Fidler said he got $50,000 from Quinn after a charitable group in his district - Brooklyn Housing and Family Services - didn’t get needed funding in last year’s budget.
“When the budget got printed, it wasn’t there,” Fidler said. “They [the group] was understandably upset. And I went to the Speaker and I said ‘Look, this cut is really going to hurt them and they may not be able to sustain it. They were really counting on it and may need to lay somebody off - more than one worker off.’ And in a budget modification they moved $50,000 over to Brooklyn Housing and Family Services. Now, I have no idea where that money came from. And frankly, I don’t think Brooklyn Housing and Family Services really cared where that money came from either. But it was 100 percent on the merits.”
A spokesman for the group was not immediately available.
"I understand how terrible it looks that they made up groups," Fidler said. But, referring to the city’s overall budget, he added, “In a $60 billion budget, you need a little wiggle room.”
UPDATE: I spoke to Larry Jayson, Executive Director of Brooklyn Housing and Family Services, who said, “If somebody is saying there is a fund for groups who have not been funded as [they] thought they would be, I would not feel bad about that.”
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
I wonder how many Shell Organizations each individual Councilman makes up when they put in for their "member items." I think this should be also investigated from top to bottom. This doesn't pass the Smell Test. Who else out there feels the same way?
Just for clarity, Azi, I am not saying this is a practice which was right or should continue. I am saying there ought to be a small emergency spending account, to fix mistakes and to react to crises that were unforsween. None of us knew about these faux groups and it is my udnerstaninding that when the Speaker found out, she ordered it stopped---as it should be. However, there was nothing venal going on here.
Lew from Brooklyn
Guys, lets keep our eyes on the ball here. It is widely beleived that this Speaker lied about her not knowing what her staff did. Given her penchant for details, this certainly doesn't hold up. Moreover, if she didn't know what her staff was doing, then this really says alot about her leadership. This is a sad day for the Council-- it ruins the reputation of this esteemed institution... If she cannot run the Council, then how can anyone in their right frame of mind expect her to run a City.
Lew: It's very easy to stop something wrong once you know about the wrong. She was already clued into the investigation. Lew: Follow the money trail, let's call this one Speakergate. I'm sure someone is going down on this sham. If they want & need a "reserve fund", why not let the people know about, afterall it's our tax money, NOT the Speakers' or the City Councils'.
It was the very squirreling-away of this money that made it necessary for Mr. Fidler to go and ask for it back in the first place!
Is it somehow illogical to presume that the absence of $50,000 to be appropriated for a non-profit and the existence of $50,000 in city slush fund, in the same fiscal year, are not directly related?
Instead of being his area's non-profit's advocate on the floor of the City Council and in public hearings, Mr. Fidler had to go talk to Christine Quinn, presumably in her office, presumably in an undocumented face-to-face meeting, to get that money appropriated.
That this money was most recently hidden as appropriations for phony organizations isn't what bothers me. What bothers me is that the City Council has, for two decades, taken an end-run around the open, public, and deliberately arduous process of handling taxpayer money -- and apparently its members see nothing wrong with this so long as it was for a good cause.
Well, who's good cause was it? We out here on the outside don't know. This end-around passed that transaction right over our heads without our purview, which, need I remind you, counts -- it's our money.
Respectfully, Mr. Fidler, if you think should we trust our elected officials enough to let them take our money out of our sight, then let's talk. Maybe I could sell you this tunnel to Jersey I've got.