MTA Dropped Security Plan it Worked On For Years With Army; Hevesi Faces Challenge Over Bill to Subsidize Private Salaries.

Subject: 1)Lord, Protect Us 2)The Wages of Terror
Date: 7/12/2005 7:23:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: starquest@nycivic.org
To: reysmontj@aol.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)

MTA Dropped Security Plan it Worked On For Years With Army; Hevesi Faces Challenge Over Bill to Subsidize Private Salaries.

By Henry J. Stern
July 12, 2005


One aspect of providing links to news stories is that some stories are either directly or indirectly critical of public officials. In fact, most news articles find fault with someone. If everything were going well, there would be no story. Or, as they say backwards, good news is no news.

While we regard some officials as scoundrels and some as, say, limited--and we don't mean term-limited--most of them are reasonably intelligent and, at least, money-honest. If you don't know what the term 'money-honest' means, we will tell you. It indicates that the person so described does not accept bribes or demand kickbacks. He is, however, subject, possibly strongly so, to the influence of donors, lobbyists and special interest groups. He sometimes serves their purposes, against his better judgment, because of his interest in retaining his office or advancing to a higher one.

When we link to an item dealing with an elected or appointed official, it does not mean that we hold that person in low regard, or that he/she is not a valuable public servant. It does mean that a journalist has made a point which we think should be more widely shared, and perhaps expanded upon in the interest of clarity and forcefulness.

All of us who are, were or will be in politics should recall Rule 29- B, the Godfather rule, the one we quote most often: "This is the business we have chosen." Part of that business is the fact that outsiders, journalists, critics, cynics, people with no real responsibilities, may not fully understand the compromises that we necessarily make in order for us to be reelected, so that we can continue to serve you, the people, so effectively. It is one of the many burdens we endure. We are willing to bear them in your interest. However, there are other less qualified people, who would be more than willing to take our places. They are probably unaware of some of the difficulties they will encounter. Hopefully, they will have no opportunity to learn.


MTA DROPPED US ARMY SECURITY PLAN
AFTER IT FIRED ITS POLICE CHIEF IN 2003,
EXPERTS BELIEVE THE PLAN WAS USEFUL

Sewell Chan, a rising star at the New York Times, wrote a story which may turn out to be the most important item we learn today. Under the headline, HOW TWO FIRINGS UPENDED ARMY-MTA SECURITY PROGRAM, Chan tells how the dismissal of Transit Authority Police Chief Louis Anemone and his deputy led to the discontinuance of a program in which the MTA and the US Army were working together on new anti-terror techniques to use to protect subway riders.

This could turn out to be one of those "he said, she said" (BTW, that's Rule 13-S) stories. Chief Anemone had issues which affected his performance, and the MTA could well have been obliged to dismiss him and his deputy. But, and we cite another Rule, 29-C, "A stopped clock is right twice a day." he could have been correct on this issue, and the fact that his successor, one William M. Morange, did not like the program means little, since the judgment of the MTA bureaucracy is not held in the highest regard. The neutrals quoted in the story appear to agree with the Anemone, who is suing the authority for firing him, as so many disgruntled former employees do nowadays. (Have you ever met a gruntled employee?)

We believe the US Army knows more about security than MTA flunkies, seething over their blunder in hiring Anemone in the first place. He ended up believing that some senior people at the MTA were crooks or extremely naive, but he bit off much more than he could chew, and his cowboy methods were not helpful. He was also careless with the truth, but what kind of detective would tell the truth at all times. And he cared deeply about his job.

Mild paranoia is sometimes helpful for effective law enforcement. Suspicion of others is a definite plus, but the line between brilliance and madness is hard to draw. In addition, that line can be moved by one side or the other, preferably when no one is watching..


SHOULD THE STATE COMPTROLLER SQUAWK
IF LEGISLATURE VOTES TO SPEND FUNDS
IN A FINANCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE WAY?

Bill Hammond, who wrote for the New York Sun before going to the News' Albany bureau, writes a column, On Pensions, on p31 of today's Daily News. Under the headline, HEVESI MUST HOLD POLS ACCOUNTABLE, Hammond finds fault with what he calls the State Comptroller's failure to object to many of the 46 pension grabs approved by the State Legislature. Maybe he did object, but we didn't read of it. Or maybe he supports all the sweeteners, and thinks that the city will be able to pay for it when stock prices rise.

One thing I learned many years ago from the late Ted Diamond, a wise judge, was that "The Comptroller must only be slightly more fiscally responsible than the Mayor." Diamond worked in the Comptroller's office under Abraham Beame, so this goes back a long way. And Hevesi has been more prudent than Governor Pataki, who is himself more conservative financially (except in election years) than the legislative leaders, Bruno and Silver, masters of the universe of public spending.

It may be, however, that fiscal responsibility today consists not only of being wiser than a tad of other elected officials, but of departing substantially from the Albany consensus on the policy attributed to Harry Hopkins during FDR's New Deal in the 1930's. "Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect."

It would be interesting to hear the Comptroller's view, for example, on the $60 million state tax credit that the legislature has just approved to benefit members of Local 32BJ of the powerful Service Employees International Union. Legally, he may not have to take a position on such matters, but the question is whether he is the guardian of the state's fiscal probity, or the keeper of the books while the state continues its march toward insolvency by assuming ever greater burdens, including the subsidy of private sector operating salaries.

Maybe this new program is valuable in protecting us from terrorists by teaching doormen how to get the passengers off the top deck of the Titanic. You can't put a price tag on people's lives, especially rich people. But on the other hand, isn't terrorism training the responsibility of the landlords who, in today's overheated real estate market, are far from starving?

In any event, they will most likely pass these costs along to their tenants, who in the event of enemy attack, would be the beneficiaries of this training. In view of the state's multi-billion dollar deficit, is this benefit for a group of union members in New York City a reasonable expenditure for taxpayers from Montauk to Niagara to assume? And what will be the next subsidy demanded from our pliant legislature by another private-sector union?

Comptroller Hevesi is a well-regarded public official, and deserves the respect he receives.
It must be difficult for him to be faced with an issue of this sort. He was once a pillar of the State Assembly, but no longer, so he did not have to vote on the xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx (that's 46) pension sweeteners the legislature adopted in the first six months of 2005. It appears to us to be a great injustice that, after unions bargain collectively with the mayor on wages and working conditions, they reach over the city's head to their lobbyists in Albany to get all kinds of goodies added to their pensions, for which the City of New York, not the State, has to pay through its proverbial nose. The other side is that the unions' constant contributions to the campaigns of incumbent legislators of both parties has earned them some return on their investment. If they did not receive it, they would be cheated.

New York City exists in servitude under its Albany masters, whose most significant contribution to our fisc in the last decade was the bipartisan repeal of the commuter income tax on May 17, 1999, a date which will live in infamy.

Now the Comptroller has an opportunity to stand up for fiscal responsibility. He can even try to make the Governor a partner on this issue.. Mr. Pataki's decision may indicate whether he is running for re-election in 2006, or has fixed his eyes on the presidential nomination in 2008. Republicans are assumed to favor fiscal responsibility, although that is not readily apparent to
those who have observed the Congress and the President create mega-deficits (not counting the war).

Who can believe any of these guys?




Henry J. Stern
starquest@nycivic.org
New York Civic
520 Eighth Avenue
22nd Floor
New York, NY 10018
(212) 564-4441
(212) 564-5588 (fax)

www.nycivic.org