De Blasio To Be Questioned Today By Federal Prosecutors In Corruption Probe

Today's the day:

Reporters outside loading dock of Manhattan building where federal corruption probers are reportedly set to question @NYCMayor @BilldeBlasio pic.twitter.com/uka0RfRGwG

— Matthew Chayes (@chayesmatthew) February 24, 2017

the tabloids appear to be relishing Mayor de Blasio's reported plan to meet with federal prosecutors today pic.twitter.com/fIY0tYr9Ek

— Colin Campbell (@colincampbell) February 24, 2017

The NY Times sets the stage:

Ending months of anticipation and speculation, Mayor Bill de Blasio will meet on Friday with federal prosecutors and F.B.I. agents who have been investigating the mayor’s campaign fund-raising for nearly a year, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

A grand jury has heard evidence in the case, some of the people have said, but it remains unclear whether the investigation, focused on whether the mayor or others in his administration traded beneficial city action for donations to his 2013 election campaign or to his now-defunct nonprofit political group — or both — will result in charges. Either way, the interview is an indication that the expansive criminal inquiry is most likely in its final stages.

...

The mayor is expected to be questioned on Friday morning in a conference room at Kramer Levin’s offices in Midtown Manhattan, according to the people with knowledge of the planned session, which they said is expected to last about four hours. The prosecutors and agents want to question the mayor about more than a dozen topics.

In addition to investigating whether the city took any action on behalf of Mr. Indig as a result of his support for the mayor, the prosecutors and agents are also likely to focus on a number of other donors who have come under scrutiny, including two who have been of intense interest to prosecutors. They are Harendra Singh and Gina Argento.

The Times also has a bit a "new" news:

In recent weeks, investigators appear to have focused on a relatively new area in the inquiry, looking into the mayor’s relationship with a Brooklyn businessman who hosted a fund-raiser for him in October 2013, after the Democratic primary but before the general election, according to two of the people. Like others interviewed for this article, they declined to comment because they were not authorized to discuss the continuing investigation.

In recent weeks, investigators appear to have focused on a relatively new area in the inquiry, looking into the mayor’s relationship with a Brooklyn businessman who hosted a fund-raiser for him in October 2013, after the Democratic primary but before the general election, according to two of the people. Like others interviewed for this article, they declined to comment because they were not authorized to discuss the continuing investigation.

 Louis Flores on what may be going on here:

Friday’s tête-à-tête btwn de Blasio and Preet's prosecutors is "a proffer session" https://t.co/K2RAyPUBrV

— Louis Flores (@maslowsneeds) February 24, 2017

Proffer or "queen for a day" letters are written agreements between federal prosecutors and individuals under criminal investigation.... pic.twitter.com/VWsXYzndHn

— Louis Flores (@maslowsneeds) February 24, 2017

de Blasio’s aides fear he will ‘sacrifice’ them to the Feds #profferagreement #nonprosecutionagreement https://t.co/DtF49LcJmN #Preet

— Louis Flores (@maslowsneeds) February 24, 2017

You can bet Hakeem Jeffries, Scott Stringer, Ruben Diaz Jr and other potential challengers are watching what happens today and ensuing days closely.

So far, no serious challenger to the embattled de Blasio has emerged but clearly an indictment of de Blasio on corruption charges will set off a free-for-all in the Dem primary.

It's difficult to say what indictments of current and/or former aides do to de Blasio's 2017 re-election chances - it all depends on how much residual damage is done to de Blasio if/when that happens.

De Blasio has led a bit of a charmed life these past few months, having much of the news around the corruption investigations buried under an avalanche of Trump news while de Blasio attempted to become the local face of opposition to Trump's policies on immigration, health care, etc.

Other pols - including Governor Cuomo - have attempted similar anti-Trump PR efforts recently (see here and here, for example.)

Both Cuomo and de Blasio are using the Trump election for their own ends of course (Cuomo as rationale for 2020 White House run, de Blasio as rallying cry and distraction from his corruption woes), but in another way the Trump election has helped de Blasio out - it's given Cuomo something else to shoot for instead of de Blasio himself.

For the last few years Cuomo has spent much of his free time looking for ways to torture de Blasio, including looking for potential challengers to the mayor for 2017, but with the Trump administration ensconced in Washington, Cuomo appears to have lost his relish for de Blasio combat and begun setting his sights on a 2020 run instead.

As a result, de Blasio appears to have a pretty easy time of it in his re-election bid - barring criminal charges and/or residual damage some to him by criminal charges on people around him that is.

But that could all change today.

We'll know soon enough. 

As the Times reported, the questioning of de Blasio today means the investigation is about to come to a close.

Barring Indictment, De Blasio Looks Like He'll Get A Fairly Easy Run At Re-Election

Two pieces of New York City mayoral race news today.

First, as expected, Hakeem Jeffries declined to run against de Blasio:

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, a Brooklyn Democrat, said Tuesday he will not run for mayor of New York City — leaving one less potential challenger for Mayor Bill de Blasio as he faces re-election later this year.

"The stakes are so high in Washington D.C. right now, and I want to be part of the effort to turn the situation around," Jeffries said in an interview. "It would be a dereliction of duty to abandon ship at the moment when times are tough."

...

Jeffries said de Blasio has benefited from the election of President Donald Trump, and the palpable anger and fear in New York City toward the president. More than 80 percent of the city's voters voted against Trump, and de Blasio has positioned himself in the city as standing up to Trump on immigration and other issues.

"The phenomenon has benefited the mayor because it's taken a lot of attention off of City Hall," Jeffries said.

Jeffries said "top-tier candidates" are still looking to the investigations to see if they "potentially change the dynamic."

"It's not clear to me that there's a meaningful candidate prepared to step forward at the moment," he said.

Next up, GOP hopeful/real estate developer Paul Massey had a press conference today that, well, let's just say didn't go so well.  Here's a play-by-play in tweets:

Republican mayoral candidate Paul Massey holds press conference at City Hall, criticizing Mayor de Blasio for "unprecedented" corruption pic.twitter.com/A7Pt14m5AZ

— Samar Khurshid (@samarkhurshid) February 21, 2017

New York GOP mayoral candidate Paul Massey declines to offer policy specifics in first campaign event. Hello 2017 https://t.co/JvTAzUmfqG

— Mara Gay (@MaraGay) February 21, 2017

"We'll make it different almost immediately," Massey says when @chayesmatthew presses him for details on his homelessness plan

— Mara Gay (@MaraGay) February 21, 2017

"I haven't established an answer," Paul Massey says when Bloomberg's @hgoldman77 asks if he supports expanding stop and frisk like Trump

— Mara Gay (@MaraGay) February 21, 2017

Less than 9 months to Election Day, it's surprising that @MasseyForMayor hasn't identified a position on this core criminal justice issue. https://t.co/GjSmbIljIF

— Dean Chang (@dchangnyt) February 21, 2017

@HyersBill Was on life support anyway since GOP real estate developer not great candidate for Trump Era. But yikes!

— rbe (@perdidostschool) February 21, 2017

And so, we appear to have two potential challengers to de Blasio taken out of the equation in one day.

It's been rumored for a while now that Jeffries, who has been elevated into the Democratic leadership in the House, was going to decline to run for mayor, so that announcement wasn't much of a surprise.

But the Massey presser, well, that was a bit of a surprise to me.

Given that we're now in the Trump Era, it was going to be a heavy lift for Massey, a Republican real estate developer, to win post November 2016, but to be honest, I always assumed he was a bit more serious as a candidate than what showed up today.  How could he not have an answer for the stop-and-frisk issue?

You can see the whole Massey presser here at his Facebook page - assuming they don't take it down to try and undo some of the damage.

Go on and watch it and you tell me if he's somebody who can win a mayor's race in NYC during the Trump Era - from what I see so far, it's unlikely.

As for other potential opponents, Scott Stringer has apparently all but ruled out a run (barring something extraordinary coming from the Southern District of New York on de Blasio) and the air around Ruben Diaz Jr. has grown awfully quiet on that front as well.

That leaves this guy who raised $750 last quarter and left the mainstream Democratic conference in the state Senate to join the breakaway, Republican-allied Independent Democratic Conference, a group of faux Dems growing increasingly unpopular in the Trump Era:

And maybe this guy:

Councilman Dan Garodnick, a Manhattan Democrat who lost his bid to become the City Council Speaker in 2014, has talked with donors, consultants and others about running for mayor. Garodnick has told these people he would want a one-on-one race with de Blasio and would be interested if he saw a path, but isn't sure if there is one.

Asked about the conversations, Garodnick declined to comment. "I am exploring my options as I am term-limited," he said. Garodnick had previously denied he was considering a mayoral run.

Oh, and an ex-Jet with about as much chance of winning City Hall as the Jets had of winning the Super Bowl last year.

And there was that rumor about Hillary Clinton maybe running for mayor, but that's pretty much bullshit.

None of this is going to matter in a race against de Blasio where he has managed to make labor peace with the cops, other unions (including the UFT) have endorsed him, and he continues to enjoy popular support in the black community.

So from what I can see, the biggest opponent de Blasio appears to have for re-election right now is U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara.

No wonder the UFT jumped aboard the de Blasio Express when they did. 

Barring something coming from Bharara, it looks like de Blasio is going to waltz to November relatively unscathed.

Somewhere Bradley Tusk weeps.

Looks Like Criminal Charges Are Coming For Some De Blasio Cronies

Preet Bharara leaking to the NY Times:

Two separate grand juries in Manhattan have begun hearing testimony in connection with federal and state criminal investigations into Mayor Bill de Blasio’s campaign fund-raising, according to several people with knowledge of the matters.

It was unclear whether either inquiry would result in criminal charges against the mayor, but the grand jury activity appeared to be the strongest indication since the investigations came to light in April that prosecutors may be moving closer to one or more indictments, possibly against some of Mr. de Blasio’s closest aides.

The inquiries have centered on Mr. de Blasio, a Democrat, and several of his senior aides, according to the people with knowledge of the matter, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because grand jury proceedings are secret.

The state investigation has focused on whether the mayor, or those acting with him or on his behalf, violated state election law by raising hundreds of thousands of dollars through three upstate county committees and funneling it to Democratic candidates during the party’s unsuccessful 2014 bid to gain control of the State Senate.

The questions asked by state prosecutors in their grand jury presentations suggest their inquiry is in some measure centered on Emma Wolfe, Mr. de Blasio’s top political aide, Ross A. Offinger, who was then his campaign finance director, and Josh Gold, a union political operative who worked on the 2014 Senate effort, the people with knowledge of the inquiry said.

The federal investigation has examined whether Mr. de Blasio or his aides took beneficial action on behalf of donors in exchange for contributions they had made to his 2013 mayoral campaign, his political nonprofit or both in roughly a half-dozen instances, according to people with knowledge of that inquiry.

Preet doesn't leak this kind of shit without criminal charges coming soon after, so it's almost a done deal that Wolfe, Offinger, Gold or all three are going to get charged with something in the near future.

Whether de Blasio gets charged, difficult to say at this point - but one of the guy's turning state's evidence is the same guy who turned on Ed Mangano in Nassau County, so you never know.

Cuomo had a bunch of his cronies indicted but most New York City residents have no idea that happened - it didn't get much coverage in the media down here.

That's Cuomo - he leads a real charmed life.

If de Blasio's aides are charged, however, you can bet there'll be a free-for-all over it in the media and it will do real damage to de Blasio.

So far Sal Albanese has announced he's running for mayor and faux Democrat Tony Avella has set up a committee to explore a mayoral run.

I think if charges come for de Blasio's aides, we'll see more jump in the race.

The ones to watch are Scott Stringer and charter school shill Ruben Diaz Jr. - do either or both jump in if de Basio appears wounded by these grand jury investigations?

I would've had another charter school shill on the list for potential jump-in's but Congressman Hakeem Jeffries is now in a leadership position with House Democrats, so it's unlikely he jumps in.

We'll see how all this plays out, but once again, Preet's in the seat bringing more heat - and this time it's aiming at Bill de Blasio.

No matter what happens, I remain dubious about Diaz Jr. running as the clean candidate against de Blasio when he comes from a family with such a history of corruption.

But we'll see.

Odds On De Blasio's Re-Election

Telling statement from Hakeem Jeffries, charter school shill and oft-rumored Cuomo fave for running against de Blasio in a Democratic primary for mayor, in this Wall Street Journal piece on de Blasio's chances for re-election:

“Short of the investigations showing anything happening to Bill de Blasio, it’s not clear to me that he has anything to be concerned about with respect to his re-election,” said U.S. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, a Democrat who represents portions of Brooklyn and Queens. “It’s always difficult to unseat an incumbent when the economy and public safety numbers are not subject to heavy criticism.”

Sounds like Jeffries is going to stay in Congress, doesn't it?

Unless those investigations into de Blasio turn up something, of course - but no one seems to know what's going on with any of this:

Here's how the WSJ reports on potential challengers to de Blasio:

City Comptroller Scott Stringer, a Democrat, has privately told consultants and others that whether anyone is indicted has significant sway over whether he runs, people familiar with those discussions said. Mr. Stringer has said he wants to be ready to announce by the end of the year, but isn’t committed and is less likely to run if no one is charged, they said.

Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr., another Democrat, also has expressed an interest in running but remains unsure if Mr. de Blasio is beatable, a person familiar with the matter said, and believes his chance at being competitive hinges in part on the investigations.

Mr. Jeffries said he is unlikely to run but would make a decision after November. Real-estate executive Paul Massey has said he would seek the Republican mayoral nomination, but it is unclear how formidable a GOP contender would be next year.

Diaz Jr has been investigated in the past by the feds and comes from a family with a history of corruption, so I remain skeptical that's the guy who gets to run successfully against de Blasio on the morals/ethics issue.

As for Massey, a real estate exec running for mayor of NYC? 

Good luck with that.

My thinking on that is, you want to be from a different industry with real estate money backing you to win (you know, like de Blasio...) 

If Jeffries doesn't run (and it sure sounds like he isn't), then only with Stringer do you have a realistic challenger to de Blasio, but until/unless we get more on the investigations in the next few months, Stringer's going to have to sit on his ambition and wait.

Post Cuomo administration indictments, I'm not convinced indictments of de Blasio staff and/or donors will be a fatal shiv for his re-election.

An indictment of the mayor himself would be.

Like everyone else, we'll just have to wait and see.

As a little tea leaf reading, a couple of weeks ago Preet made a de Blasio joke at a public function:

It seems that U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s recent slapping of federal charges on Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s closest associates in an alleged bid-rigging scheme has emboldened him to take jabs at just about everyone—right up to Mayor Bill de Blasio and his infamous affinity for traveling all the way to his old neighborhood of Park Slope to exercise at the YMCA during working hours.

Bharara was honored as “Newsmaker of the Decade” by City & State and served as keynote speaker at its 10th anniversary gala tonight at Vermilion Restaurant in Midtown Manhattan.

...
 

The federal prosecutor didn’t reference the case against Cuomo’s top lieutenants, but instead poked fun at another target of his recent investigations: de Blasio, who faces federal probes into his police department and defunct political nonprofits.

Bharara tweaked the mayor’s fondness for traveling 12 miles from his Gracie Mansion home to the Park Slope YMCA—a subject he hates to talk about—and his preference for eating pizza with utensils—known jokingly as “Forkgate.” He praised City & State for choosing Vermilion Restaurant as a venue, saying that he understood it to be “Indian fusion” which resonated well with him because “I’m kind of Indian fusion myself”—but he said de Blasio would prefer the gym if it were an event for him.

“If it had been Mayor de Blasio, we’d all be eating at the Park Slope YMCA,” Bharara said, as attendees shouted “Ooh!” and laughed raucously, “and we’d eat pizza with a knife and fork. It’s just jokes.”

Would Bharara be making Park Slope and pizza jokes about de Blasio if he were going to arrest him on corruption charges in the near future?

Seems weird, but maybe I'm overthinking it.

Stringer Readies Primary Challenge Against De Blasio

Ross Barkan in New York Magazine:

With next year’s election looming on the horizon, the progressive mayor is becoming vulnerable to a primary challenge.

While a few prominent local politicians are toying with the idea, it’s City Comptroller Scott Stringer who seems to be getting the most serious about taking on de Blasio. He held a fundraiser on Tuesday night and is quietly assembling a campaign team. Elected to his citywide post in 2013, Stringer has talked up the possibility of challenging de Blasio to several Democrats over the last two months, and his chief of staff has approached at least one veteran Democratic operative about signing on to a potential bid next year.

“Stringer sees that de Blasio is weaker and more vulnerable than ever before because of the multiple scandals facing City Hall,” said a party insider familiar with Stringer’s thinking. “That’s why it’s no surprise Stringer’s political team is reaching out to consultants and operatives to gauge their interest about a 2017 mayoral bid.”

If you're looking to make book on Stringer's chances compared to other New York pols rumored to be considering challenges:

A range of Democratic sources who are aware of Stringer’s plans say he is the most hungry among a group of potential challengers that also includes Bronx borough president Rubén Díaz and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries. Stringer has more than $1 million in his campaign account, according to the latest filings. De Blasio has about $890,000 in his 2017 account, and may not be able raise cash as readily as a typical incumbent, given his investigatory woes.

Stringer's plan is to run against de Blasio as a liberal who can get things done - only without the corruption.

We learned recently that Eva Moskowitz is pushing Ruben Diaz Jr. to run against de Blasio.

Given past corruption involving the Diaz family - including Ruben Diaz Jr. himself - I have a difficult time seeing Diaz Jr. take out de Blasio based on a "He's Corrupt!" campaign message.

But Stringer on the other hand...well, that's certainly conceivable.

In any case, I'm beginning to think de Blasio himself is going to be indicted on corruption charges.

The leaks we're getting on the mayor's scandals are beginning to hint at just that - take last night's leak for instance.

That's the way Preet works - ready the public for high profile arrests with leaks.

He did this with Shelly Silver, he did this with Dean Skelos.

We'll see how this all shakes out, but the way things look right now, at best de Blasio's in serious trouble and facing a primary challenge from a well-funded, well-connected Stringer while at worst, he's going to be carted out in cuffs to join Silver and Skelos in ignominy.

As for teachers supporting Stringer as a better alternative to de Blasio, pay attention to some of Stringer's backers:

One advantage Stringer has over Díaz and Jeffries is a large orbit of loyalists in the public and private sector that has been privately compared to a “Ready for Hillary” operation. They include Audrey Gelman, his former press secretary; Micah Lasher, attorney general Eric Schneiderman’s former chief of staff and a candidate for State Senate on the Upper West Side; Amy Rutkin, Rep. Jerry Nadler’s chief of staff; and Camille Joseph, deputy comptroller for public affairs and Anthony Weiner’s former campaign manager. Any 2017 bid would also likely involve Anson Kaye, a Hillary Clinton ad-maker and top strategist on Stringer’s comptroller campaign. At the center of it all, there's Sascha Owen, Stringer's current chief of staff and former campaign manager.

Micah Lasher is a former StudentsFirstNY guy and Bloomberg aide.

I've been off the de Blasio bandwagon for a while now but I wouldn't be all that thrilled to back a mayoral candidate whose large orbit of loyalists includes Micah Lasher.

Barkan writes that it's not a done deal that Stringer runs, he wants to see how the investigations proceed and if de Blasio's poll numbers continue to fall.

But given the news de Blasio's facing these days, with his chief fundraiser the focus of a federal investigation and stories about de Blasio's afternoon's at Bar Toto making fundraising calls with said chief fundraiser, I can't imagine things are going to get better for him any time soon.

Gaming Out A Post-De Blasio City Hall

After weeks of getting hammered by news that there are multiple federal investigations into his fundraising, Mayor Bill de Blasio's poll support has fallen to its lowest levels ever in the latest Quinnipiac poll.

That's not a surprise, given the coverage of those stories, coupled with the tabloid headlines.

The Q poll has de Blasio down to 41% approval, 52% disapproval.

Against potential challengers, de Blasio fares poorly:

The poll also tests him against potential Democratic challengers running as independents. Mr. de Blasio wins 37% to 36% against Comptroller Scott Stringer, 35% to 34% over Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and 37% to 32% over Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. None of the men has declared as candidates for 2017.

They didn't test the Eva Moskowitz shill, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, but I would imagine Jeffries would fare somewhere between Diaz' and Stringer 's numbers.

Ken Sherrill says there's still time for de Blasio to turn things around:

Kenneth Sherrill, a professor emeritus of political science at Hunter College, said the numbers are “a warning signal” that the mayor needs to make changes.

“He’s lost control of the debate. He’s not setting the agenda. In some ways he might seem to be acting as someone with something to hide,” Mr. Sherrill said.

“But people might be for the most part paying attention to the presidential race. He has a lot of time to make some changes. I don’t think this is fatal.”

I am less convinced about that.

Given the number of investigations, given the press coverage he's garnering, given the "Agents of the City" nonsense he offered to keep some correspondence secret, I think we can conclude in the immortal words of Michael Ray Richardson that "This ship be sinking."

Leaving aside who might run as a Republican for now, the Dems appear to be Stringer, Diaz, perhaps Jeffries and perhaps Adams (though Adams continues to say he is not interested in running until 2021 - when de Blasio's second term would be over, assuming he's not in prison by then.)

Whether there are tweaks to mayoral control or not, the next mayor will have great power and influence over the school system.

De Blasio has been Bloomberg Lite on schools, saying some of the right things about testing, teachers, school closures, et al., but really changing little from the Bloomberg Years.

The morale in the school system is lower now than even during the Bloomberg Years, as the UFT has become essentially a company union that works in concert with Chancellor Farina and Mayor de Blasio.

These days I feel "Meh" about a de Blasio loss (or arrest), though I am concerned about what comes next.

An Eva shill like Jeffries or Diaz is particularly concerning, though that kind of ascension to City Hall could theoretically get the UFT out of its company union status and force them to stand up to out-of-control administrators and other abuses.

Couple of things to think about regarding this - there are more health care plan "savings" benchmarks to be hit in the next couple of years (i.e., we pay more, city saves more) and the contract expires in 2018 but the "retro" goes through 2020.

There's lots of damage a pro-charter, pro-reformer mayor can do.

Given that, I suppose if I had to back a horse in a primary race, I'd take Stringer, though I don't trust him much.

Given his hostile relationship with Moskowitz and past support from the UFT, I suppose he would be the least bad choice.

I have a difficult time seeing Diaz run citywide, especially given the corruption he and his family have been involved in.

But that doesn't mean he won't run, though I suppose what Jeffries does could influence what Diaz does because Eva and the charter shills are going to want just one horse in a primary race against de Blasio.

Cuomo's no doubt pulling strings to try and get challengers to run against de Blasio, but he's got his own scandal trouble with the federal investigations into his economic development programs and campaign donors, so I'm not sure how much juice he'll really have here.

In any case, all of this really depends on how these investigations into de Blasio turn out.

If there are indictments of his top people, he's got serious political trouble, but if he's indicted himself, well, that's game over.

It's difficult to take out an incumbent mayor in New York City, but it's not impossible, and looking at how may headwinds de Blasio's got blowing against him, that near impossibility appears to get more possible by the day.

Thoughts?

Scott Stringer Would Primary De Blasio Now If He Knew He Could Win

Ross Barkan in the Village Voice:

De Blasio is trapped in a singular no-man's-land. Bloomberg had the elites and the upper middle class; Giuliani had his white outer-borough ethnics. To all of these people, de Blasio is a feckless socialist. And to many of his old allies — and the leftists who never trusted him in the first place — he is a Hillary Clinton in Elizabeth Warren's clothing.

Emblematic of this struggle, and maybe of de Blasio's entire mayoralty, was his belated decision to back Clinton for president. She announced her campaign in April 2015; he hemmed and hawed until October. No one really believed that de Blasio, the campaign manager for her 2000 Senate bid, would endorse Bernie Sanders, and his delayed choice was widely mocked — even by Clinton, during their excruciating "CP time" skit at the annual Inner Circle dinner. But according to City Hall sources, de Blasio actually did come genuinely close to endorsing Sanders, only to have top aides, including Emma Wolfe, talk him out of it. As the presidential primary descended on New York this April, de Blasio, frozen out of Clintonland for insufficient loyalty and bereft of the adulation progressives showered on Sanders, had nowhere left to go.

Now his potential 2017 rivals salivate. Comptroller Scott Stringer would primary him now if he knew he could win. Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr. and U.S. Representative Hakeem Jeffries have Cuomo cooing in their ears. De Blasio can't buy support or deference like Bloomberg could, and he's never been overwhelmingly popular since he took office. Had he embraced his progressive conscience fully and endorsed Sanders, he could at least have tapped into a whole new universe of donors, a wave of millennials thrilled to have their own Bernie acolyte in stodgy City Hall. Imagine if Sanders deigned to email a fundraising appeal on behalf of his besieged Brooklyn buddy?

Read the whole piece by Barkan - it's quite fair to de Blasio and pretty instructive of why he's in the mess he's in.

As for Stringer, I say he should throw his hat in the ring if he's so eager to run against de Blasio.

Show some guts, have at it while the mayor's down (and maybe almost out) and the governor's actively looking for primary challengers against de Blasio.

De Blasio Support Up

Not the best poll numbers around but at least the hemorrhaging has been staunched for now:

Mayor Bill de Blasio’s approval rating has improved slightly over the last three months, with 50 percent of New York City voters now saying they approve of the job he is doing and 48 percent saying they believe he deserves a second term, according to a Quinnipiac poll released Tuesday.

An Oct. 29 Quinnipiac poll showed de Blasio with a near-record low approval rating of 45 percent. At the same time, 48 percent of voters said he did not deserve a second term.

“Not great, but better news for Mayor Bill de Blasio on two key questions: His overall job approval and whether he deserves re-election. They’re both up a bit since the last time we looked,” Maurice Carroll, the poll's assistant director, said in a release accompanying the poll results.

As for potential match-ups:

According to the poll, de Blasio would Stringer, 44 percent to 33 percent. He would defeat Kelly 50 percent to 35 percent and Diaz 47 percent to 25 percent, according to the poll.

Not sure why Hakeem Jeffries wasn't part of the potential match-ups but he wasn't.

Stringer's the closest to de Blasio, but keep in mind that's without any negative stuff run against him.

This poll found that 61% haven't heard enough about him to form an opinion of him.

If Stringer decides to take Sheriff Andy up on his "Somebody run against de Blasio!" gambit, you can bet he'll have to defend his record as comptroller - including the rather poor performance of the pension funds he oversees.

That might change things in a  head-to-head match-up against a sitting mayor.

As for Diaz, over 70% don't know enough about him to form an opinion.

If he runs, you can bet the ethically-challenged history of his family will come up for notice.

So all things considered, compared to where de Blasio was a few months ago, he appears to be stabilizing things politically, at least for now, and nobody on the potential opponent list is making that big a splash in the polling.

Critics Say Cuomo And Stringer More Concerned With Making Points Against De Blasio Than Solving Homelessness/Housing Problems

From this morning's Politico NY email update (story is behind a paywall):

HOUSING ADVOCATES ASSAIL CUOMO ON HOMELESS ISSUE -- POLITICO New York's Laura Nahmias: A group of housing activists and advocates say Governor Andrew Cuomo is more concerned about his feud with Mayor Bill de Blasio than he is with finding solutions to the city's homeless problem. More than a dozen advocacy groups, including VOCAL-NY and Make the Road New York, signed a letter sent to Cuomo's Albany office, calling on the governor to match a commitment made by de Blasio last month to create and pay for 15,000 new units of supportive housing over the next 15 years.

In the letter, the groups accuse Cuomo of dedicating "more energy toward attacking the Mayor, while offering none of the needed resources" to address homelessness, as the city's shelter populations hover around 58,000 residents. Cuomo, whose spokeswoman late last month said de Blasio "can't manage" the city's homeless problem, has signaled that he intends to announce his own plan for addressing homelessness next month in his state of the state address. READ THE LETTER: http://politi.co/1OeZqUV

Cuomo concerned more with scoring political points than solving a serious issue?

Say it isn't so.

Cuomo ally Scott Stringer plays the same game:

Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration and members of the City Council railed against Comptroller Scott Stringer on Thursday, following the release of a report by his office which they say misrepresents de Blasio’s affordable housing and rezoning plan for East New York.

Stringer's new 8-page report argues, in part, that the administration's plans to rezone a portion of East New York in Brooklyn are flawed. The report states that the administration proposal, which needs City Council approval, would place nearly 50,000 current residents living in the area "at an increased risk of displacement."

...

Councilman Rafael Espinal, who represents parts of East New York slated for the rezoning, said the comptroller is making a “caricature” out of the numbers.

“I'm not interested in getting in the middle of political squabbles,” Espinal told POLITICO New York. “This is not a simple problem, and the numbers are caricature and not the full picture of what I am pushing the final plan to look like. I've been working hard with my community for many, many months to address the same concerns of affordability and have been working with the administration to get them addressed.”

Other council members, who spoke with POLITICO New York on the condition of anonymity in order to preserve their relationships with Stringer, said the report threatens to undermine the efforts they are making to work out better deals with the administration. Some went as far as suggesting Stringer is simply taking a cheap shot at the mayor and inserting himself into a procedure he plays no role in.

Council members pointed out the report does not necessarily fall within Stringer’s purview, and questioned whether his office is focusing on the areas the comptroller is actually supposed to manage, like the public pension fund.

One member said, “I’m not engaging with him, because Scott has absolutely no authority by City charter and no involvement in any way, shape or form in the ULURP process, it’s a little bit ridiculous.”

It's noteworthy when the council members who have been working on this issue for "many, many months" say Stringer's got no business inserting himself into it, has no authority by City charter to be involved in "any way, shape or form" and simply is looking to take a "cheap shot" at the mayor.

Stringer's positioned himself as a Cuomo ally, sucking up to the governor every chance he gets (including this most pathetic of suck-ups when Little Scottie thanked the governor for "keeping us all safe" in his big, strong arms.)

This 8 page report that is outside of his purview as comptroller is another attempt to aggrandize Cuomo and, perhaps, get his backing for a primary attempt against de Blasio in 2017.

Alas, Stringer's record as comptroller isn't so hot, so perhaps he should keep his nose out of issues with which he has no authority and just focus on the ones he does - like the plummeting pension fund returns and skyrocketing fees the Wall Street vultures are charging for management of those funds.

Reading The Tea Leaves On The Cuomo-De Blasio Dinner

The NY Post reports on two political pow-wows that took place in restaurants.

The first was between Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio:

Bitter rivals Mayor de Blasio and Gov. Cuomo broke bread during a secret sit-down at a Midtown restaurant in an attempt to mend their fractured relationship, The Post has learned.

Hizzoner and Cuomo held the peace summit Tuesday evening in a curtained-off private room in the back of Casa Lever on Park Avenue at East 53rd Street, sources said.

“It looked like a serious business meeting,” a restaurant staffer told The Post, saying there were no outward signs of acrimony but no laughs either during the tête-à-tête.

...

“Governor Cuomo has a nice setup near the back of the restaurant. He’s sort of hidden away so he can have his privacy with his guests. You can always tell he’s here because his ‘secret service’ guys are crawling all over the place,” one restaurant staffer said.

Cuomo and de Blasio were accompanied by Emma Wolfe, the mayor’s legislative director, who handles Albany matters, and Melissa DeRosa, the governor’s director of communications.

In the second tier came a meeting between wanna-be mayor Scott Stringer and real estate developer (and maybe wanna-be mayor) Don Peebles:

Real estate developer Don Peebles and city Comptroller Scott Stringer had a power breakfast at the Regency on Monday, which piqued the interest of fellow diner the Rev. Al Sharpton at a nearby table.

When he spotted the pair, who are both considered potential challengers to Mayor de Blasio in his re-election bid, “Sharpton walked over to their table to say hello, and joked that some might view their ‘secret meeting’ as a plot to take down de Blasio,” a spy said.

ADVERTISING

Peebles, who’s reportedly worth $700 million, told The Post in August he’s giving serious thought to a run, saying, “I was a political supporter of [de Blasio] . . . I’ve lost confidence in him. It would be irresponsible of me to do nothing.”

Peebles doesn't actually spend much time in NYC and might have trouble meeting the residency requirements, so I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about him as a potential challenger if I were Bill de Blasio.

And Stringer, well, he isn't particularly good at the job he has now, so he's not exactly a serious threat to a sitting Democratic mayor either (especially since a successful opponent to de Blasio is going to have eat away at de Blasio's support with the black community and Stringer's political base is Upper West Side white people.)

But it has been rumored that Cuomo has been actively recruiting potential challengers to de Blasio for 2017 and that his "Number #1 priority" is "being anti-Bill de Blasio," so the Cuomo-De Blasio dinner is an interesting gossip tidbit.

It was reported that Cuomo won't mend fences with de Blasio until the mayor publicly apologizes for de Blasio's criticism of Cuomo back in late June/early July, and the feud between the two continued last week when Cuomo accused de Blasio of being incapable of solving the homelessness problem in the city and criticized him for working with Republican Rob Astorino on transit issues, so I dunno what the point of this was or if anything was accomplished at the dinner between the two.

But I think I may have one possibility.

Fred Dicker reported on Monday that some Democrats were criticizing Cuomo for his constant "belittling" of de Blasio, something that was undercutting Cuomo's attempts to get a challenger to run against de Blasio.

The challenger who might have the best shot to beat de Blasio in a primary, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, was said to be having second thoughts about running because of the damage the Cuomo-de Blasio feud would do to his chances:

U S REP. Hakeem Jeffries, Gov. Cuomo’s choice to oust Mayor de Blasio, is having doubts about entering the race, as Democratic unhappiness over Cuomo’s “belittling’’ of the mayor grows, senior Democrats have told The Post.

Jeffries, whom Cuomo has encouraged directly and through intermediaries to challenge de Blasio in the 2017 primary, “is having second thoughts about running, and has begun resisting Cuomo,’’ a prominent Democratic activist with strong party ties told The Post.

The source said it was now likely Jeffries would not challenge de Blasio, despite Cuomo’s repeated entreaties and polls showing the mayor’s popularity continuing to fall.

A second highly knowledgeable source, calling the Brooklyn-based Jeffries “a very pragmatic guy,’’ said that the well-regarded two-term congressman “has got to be aware that Cuomo can’t necessarily deliver for him in the Democratic primary, especially with what’s been going on.’’

That was a reference to Cuomo’s new attacks last week on de Blasio. The governor said he, and not the mayor, knows best how to handle the city’s homeless problem, and faulted Blasio for appearing at a press conference with Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino, last year’s Republican candidate for governor.

“It’s reached a point where having Cuomo backing you in a Democratic primary could work the other way, and Jeffries must be aware of that,’’ said the second source.

“Just look at what happened with the governor in his own primary with Zephyr Teachout,’’ he continued, referring to Cuomo’s surprisingly weak showing last year, when only mustered only about 60 percent of the primary vote against Teachout, a little-known law professor, and comedian/activist Randy Credico.

Several prominent Democrats said they were “shocked’’ — a word that was repeatedly used — at Cuomo’s criticism of de Blasio for appearing in public with Astorino. The governor cited Astorino’s opposition to abortion, among other things. But that didn’t stop Cuomo from standing with Pope Francis in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in September, despite the pontiff obviously being anti-abortion.

“That was one of the most amazing statements I’ve ever heard,’’ said a prominent Democrat who has known Cuomo for years, noting that the governor in the past has claimed he was committed to cooperating with his political opponents.

“It’s like the old ugly Andrew is back, the way Andrew used to be and had promised after 2002 that he wouldn’t be anymore,’’ the source continued, referring to Cuomo’s repeated pledges of new-found humility after his defeat in the race for governor that year.

Another key Democrat — known to virtually all party activists — said prominent Democrats had become increasingly unhappy with Cuomo’s “belittling’’ of de Blasio.

“Cuomo’s MO of pretending to be high-minded while belittling de Blasio has become a tedious trick,’’ said the source.

“Since [Cuomo’s] sagging polls are in part due to people understanding he’s a nasty piece of work — Astorino’s use of ‘scorpion’ is dead-on — perhaps he should try governing and see if that works.

“De Blasio is tricky in his own way but looks like an alter boy compared to Andrew,’’ the source, who has known Cuomo for years, continued.

So, why the Cuomo dinner with de Blasio?

And who leaked the story to the Post?

My inner bullshit meter says it's in Cuomo's interests to show that he's making an effort to work with de Blasio so he can say to those critics sniping at him that "Old Ugly Andy" is back that this is not the case, he really is trying to work with de Blasio.

In the past, Cuomo had been "winning" the feud between the two, if not in polls, at least politically, because he had successfully isolated de Blasio and had the upper hand in both the political battles between the two and the media accounts of those battles.

But with Dems "sniping" both privately and publicly that Cuomo was going too far, Cuomo may have realized it was in his best interest to reach out to de Blasio and make it look like he's trying to work with him.

In the end, as with everything Cuomoesque, I wouldn't exactly trust him if I were de Blasio (in fact, I probably would have brought a food taster with me to the dinner if I had been him.)

Nonetheless, that the meeting took place and somebody felt the need to leak it to the Post is quite interesting to me.

As for the Stringer/Peebles "power" breakfast, that clearly looks like Stringer reaching out to a potential funder for a 2017 challenge to de Blasio.

Peebles played this same kind of game against former DC mayor Adrian Fenty back in the day and Peebles has already indicated he wants to see de Blasio go.

Stringer also publicly sucked up to Cuomo a few months back:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo over the weekend received some warm words from New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer.

Later today, he will be attending a roundtable discussion with U.S. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries.

Both Stringer and Jeffries just happen to be potential mayoral candidates and rivals to the incumbent, Bill de Blasio.

Stringer on Sunday singled out Cuomo for praise during an event hosted by Sen. Adriano Espaillat.

“Governor, it’s been so good having you in New York City, protecting all of us,” Stringer said.

Boy, how's that for a subtle suck-up job from Stringer?

In any case, given the job he's done as comptroller and the political realities of what it would take to defeat a sitting Democratic mayor in a primary, I think Stringer's delusional if he actually thinks he can successfully primary de Blasio.

Also would note that while Cuomo likes people to suck up to him, he also tends to treat those same people with disdain and contempt if they show weakness - and let's be frank, Stringer's "You make us all feel so safe, governor!" line oozes weakness.

In the end, I bet Cuomo still wants to find a challenger to de Blasio and knows that Jeffries is his best bet to take out his former "frenemy."

Dinner or no dinner, I doubt Cuomo's buried the hatchet with de Blasio - except maybe the proverbial one, right into de Blasio's mayorality.

Scott Stringer's Top Bundler Is Same Bagman At The Center Of The Skelos/Silver Corruption

From the NY Post:

A real-estate executive who received immunity to become a witness in the federal corruption trials of both of the state’s former legislative leaders is also the top “bundler” for city Comptroller Scott Stringer.

Records show that Glenwood Management senior VP and counsel Charles Dorego rounded up $149,900 for Stringer’s 2013 campaign, more than any other supporter.

The money Dorego directed to Stringer overshadowed the $33,175 he contributed or bundled that year for all other candidates, including $9,900 for Bill de Blasio’s mayoral campaign.

Dorego didn’t return calls to explain how he became such a big Stringer fan.

The Comptroller’s Office offered no explanation, other than to say that Stringer “follows all applicable laws.”

Glenwood Management and its owner, Leonard Litwin, also gave more campaign donations to Governor Andrew Cuomo last election cycle than any other entity.

You can see more about Glenwood - and Cuomo's corruption - here.

Dorego, btw, is known as the Glenwood "bagman".

No wonder Scott Stringer and Andrew Cuomo are such good buddies and Scott feels so safe in Andy's arms.

They're both on the take from the same crooks.

Despite A Poor Performance As Comptroller, Scott Stringer Attempts Power Grab

The NY Post reports the following:

The budget for the office of the city’s financial watchdog grew at twice the rate of the rest of the government over the last two years, according to data examined by The Post.

Comptroller Scott String­er’s budget increased from $71 million in fiscal 2013, when John Liu was in charge, to $86 million in fiscal 2015, a 21 percent jump.

The city’s overall budget grew by 10 percent over the same time period, according to the Independent Budget Office — an increase city officials said was due largely to new labor contracts negotiated under Mayor de Blasio.

Stringer aides noted that $5.8 million in added charges came from having to find a new custodial bank for the pension system.

With Stringer's budget growing at twice the rate of the rest of the city government, New York City residents ought to be getting some bang for their buck out of Stringer.

Alas, they are not:

The New York City retirement fund posted a dismal 3.4% return for the fiscal year ended June 30. Comptroller Scott Stringer delayed release of the figure for months. The poor returns mean the city will have to spend billions of dollars more in pension contributions.

And with markets down so much this year, the city’s pension funds may soon be an increasingly severe budget problem.

The fiscal 2014 investment gain of 3.4% is less than half of the city’s target of 7%, which is the rate of return the city assumes in determining how much to put aside to pay benefits. The city is expected to contribute an average of $6 billion annually over the next few years to the five pension plans that comprise the city's retirement system.

Stringer attempted to hide the poor pension fund performance with a "bare-bones announcement" on the comptroller's website:

Stringer, who released news of a strong gain in fiscal 2014 in August of that year, waited until last week to deliver the bad news about 2015 and did so with a short, bare-bones announcement on his website. The strategy almost worked: Until now, only the trade publication the Bond Buyer has reported the news. The comptroller’s office says it waited for audited results rather than release an estimate as it did last year.

Perhaps Scott was hoping the big, strong arms of Governor Andy would save him from having to make the pension fund performance disclosure.

Speaking of disclosure, let's read (per Yves Smith) about pension fund fees and how Stringer continues to hide the management fees NYC funds pay while claiming he's all about disclosure:

Pensions & Investments reported yesterday that the New York City Retirement System reported that it paid $709 million in fees to investment managers in its last fiscal year, and was trying to give the impression that as a result of a big push for more disclosure, it was now reporting all the fees it is paying.

Yet if you read the article with a modicum of attentiveness, you can see that that is false. In reality, Stringer is trying to have it both ways: to appear to be on the right side of a controversy, while not doing anything to ruffle the pension systems’ fund managers, many of whom are very influential political donors.

Here are the key parts of the article:

The figure represented a 33.7% increase over the $530.2 million in fees reported for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014. However, the most recent fiscal year’s accounting includes many incentive fees that hadn’t been identified in previous annual reports…

City officials said they believe the latest information covers most of the investment management fees, adding that the new rules for fee transparency will provide an even more accurate picture.

The big tell here is the use of the “believe” language. When CalPERS requested carry fee data from all the funds in the entire history of its program, it was able to tell the Financial Times a mere ten days into the exercise exactly how many funds had not yet coughed up the data: a mere six our of over 850 funds over the life of the program. The fact that New York City is so fuzzy on what it does and does not have 22 months into the effort is a strong tell that they are not going about the effort in a serious, rigorous manner. The end of the article confirms this impression:

In its October letter to private equity and hedge fund managers, city officials asked for fees based on asset class and type, such as commingled fund or separate account. The fee information will be posted on the comptroller’s website.

The letter also asked that each manager prepare a one-time analysis to each pension fund of base fees, performance fees and other fees charged by each investment option. The letter asked that this information be provided by year-end, adding that future information about fees must be provided quarterly.

By contrast, South Carolina, which has set the standard for fee information gathering, has a detailed template that it has managers fill out, and then staff follows up with funds that have not completed it or claim they have difficulty completing it, to get the missing items.

Stringer appears to be reacting to a set of articles in the New York Post last month that criticized his transparency head-fakery. The first Post article, dated October 8, pointed out an embarrassing omission: Stringer had tried showing how much the city’s pensions were paying to money managers. He reported a total of $399 million in fees for a total pension system of $169.2 billion in assets.

The wee problem was that Stringer completely left out the heftiest fees paid, those to private equity funds and hedge funds. The Post had previously reported that the total fees paid were actually $530.2 million. So Stringer made a flagrant misrepresentation a month ago. And in his report to Pensions & Investing yesterday, he confirmed that the Post’s figures of the costs the year before were correct.

The second Post article, on October 11, pointed out that the accounting that Stringer had just issued contained some howlers, and also, despite the braying about greater transparency, took a step back on disclosure in key areas:

For instance, the firefighters fund said it paid just 0.59 percent in fees as a percentage of hedge-fund assets — less than what it paid managers to invest in small-cap stocks. Hedge funds typically charge investors a management fee of 1 to 2 percent of assets and about 20 percent of any gains each year…
Problem is, the city’s percentage rate is just a guesstimate. By his own admission, Stinger doesn’t know all the fees the city is forking over to hedge funds, private-equity firms and other outside managers. Nowhere in his report, however, is there a footnote explaining this.

What’s more, Stringer has taken a step back in other areas. He didn’t provide names of outside money managers in his latest report — something the pensions had divulged in previous reports.

If you look at New York City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, the pension fund performance disclosure is remarkably thin (see pages xxi to xxiv). As North Carolina’ former chief investment officer Andrew Silton said by e-mail, “If this is what transparency looks like when someone is trying to be transparent, NYC isn’t revealing much.”

So let's sum it all up - a skyrocketing budget for the comptroller's office, plummeting returns for the city's pension funds, a lack of transparency about the fees the city's pension funds are paying for management of those funds and Stringer bending over backward to not ruffle the feathers of the Wall Street guys because he's going to want to hit them up in the future when he runs for mayor.

Not exactly an effective performance as comptroller.

But wait - it gets worse.

Despite his poor stewardship of the city's pension funds, Stringer wanted to "reform" the system so he could consolidate power inside his office and have "carte blanche" over how the funds invest:

New York City Controller Scott Stringer will propose next week a sweeping change in how the city’s $160 billion pension system — the fourth largest in the nation — chooses the private companies that invest its money.

Stringer’s plan, according to several people briefed on it, will call for consolidating separate investment committees of the police, fire, teachers and other municipal union pension funds into a single combined umbrella group. That group would meet only four times a year, thus doing away with the current system, where the five major pension funds each hold their own separate monthly meetings to select investment managers.
The trustees of each fund, however, would still vote separately on whether to park their money with a particular firm.

He has told trustees of the funds that it will streamline an archaic and bureaucratic process that requires his staff to attend five separate investment meetings every month — 55 meetings a year — even though 95% of the investment decisions are the same for each fund. The change will give the controller’s staff more time to spend on monitoring funds and reducing fees, Stringer has claimed.

Gee, sounds great - except that this seems to be nothing but a power grab by Stringer:

Public Advocate Letitia James, also a NYCERS trustee, is a vocal holdout.

"I am deeply concerned about these proposed changes as they relate to transparency, accountability and public access,” James said. “Any proposal that does not take these issues into account is difficult to support."

James declined further comment, but a source in her office labeled the proposal a “power grab” by Stringer.

Switching from 55 to just four meetings annually, the source said, will result in less time for trustees of the individual funds to grill the private firms about their performance and their management fees, and will force the trustees to depend more on Stringer’s investment recommendations. An earlier version that called for Stringer to make all major investment decisions was rebuffed, two union presidents said.

“It would have given Scott carte blanche,” one of those presidents said. “But we knocked that down, so he came up with a compromise we can support.”

Say this for Stringer - he may not know what the hell he's doing as comptroller or exactly how much his Wall Street buddies are charging the city's pension funds, but he sure does know how to increase his office's budget, power and public relations reach along with his own aggrandizing relationship with potential Wall Street donors.

StudentsFirstNY Attempts to Mobilize Parents In 100 "Failing" NYC Schools

Lisa Colangelo in the Daily News:

A group of education advocates spent the first days of classes trying to mobilize parents at the city's 100 worst-performing schools, saying Mayor de Blasio's recently unveiled agenda is not enough.

Community organizers from StudentsFirstNY said they mapped out and then visited each of 100 sites where few or no students passed vital statewide tests.

"The students in these schools deserve action now and frankly, the mayor's recently announced programs are just not enough," said Tenicka Boyd, director of organizing for StudentsFirstNY. "They do nothing to improve the quality of teachers in the classrooms and nothing to give families access to better school choices."

You see, the plan doesn't fire teachers and close schools, so it's no good.

This is why StudentsFirstNY will no doubt be one of the backers of Governor Cuomo's efforts to knock de Blasio off in a primary and elect a pro-charter, anti-union alternative. 

Some of the names bandied about as potential opponents include Hakeem Jeffries and Scott Stringer.

There will be a concerted effort in 2017 to put somebody into City Hall who brings back the First Teachers/Close Schools program Bloomberg pursued.

Cuomo Said To Be Personally Recruiting Primary Opponent Against Bill De Blasio

No surprise here - I thought this might be happening:

Gov. Cuomo, who, according to a recent poll, is winning his bitter feud with Mayor de Blasio, is upping the ante by becoming personally involved in recruiting potential candidates to oust the mayor — and he apparently doesn’t mind people knowing it, The Post has learned.

Cuomo has assigned state Democratic Committee Executive Director Basil Smikle Jr., a Harlem resident with strong ties to African-American politicians, to help lead the effort.

Smikle has already held preliminary talks with several possible challengers, including Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of Brooklyn and city Comptroller Scott Stringer, an influential Democratic insider who knows Cuomo and de Blasio told The Post.

“It’s my view based on what I see going on that not only does Cuomo want de Blasio to lose in 2017, he wants people to know that he’ll be having something to do with it,’’ the insider, who demanded anonymity, told The Post.

“There are all sorts of people out there preparing to run against de Blasio, but the governor is trying to make sure that you don’t wind up with five of them, splitting the [anti-de Blasio] vote.

“That’s why he has Smikle out there talking to people, trying to find the right candidate. It’s ongoing,’’ the activist continued.

You can bet whomever Cuomo "recruits" will be a pro-charter, anti-teacher candidate.

Jeffries already fits that description.

As for Stringer, well, he's flexible, you know?

Given the troubles Cuomo's got right now with the Buffalo Billion/SUNY corruption case, Cuomo's scheme may not get the kind of attention he wants it to get.

But make no mistake, Cuomo wants de Blasio destroyed and will lead the effort to do so.

Says a lot about Cuomo that this is the kind of thing he puts effort into, doesn't it?

NY Times: Cuomo Should "Stop Being Ridiculous," De Blasio Should Stop Overreacting To Nonsense

A scathing NY Times editorial on the bullshit story that is the Times Square topless problem:

Times Square is not going to hell, or anywhere near hell’s vicinity. Mr. de Blasio’s enemies have been predicting New York’s downfall since before the mayor took office. He should not be feeding their false narrative by panicking over some localized crudeness. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who recently said that he thought what the women were doing was illegal and had to be stopped, and that they reminded him of the “bad old days,” should stop being ridiculous.

The Times has a long relationship with our namesake square. It’s in our backyard now, since we moved to Eighth Avenue, but it was our front porch for more than 100 years. We and the city have survived rallies and riots and many, many New Year’s ball drops. More seasoned members of our staff remember how shuttle vans used to take late-shift employees in safety from our old 43rd Street building to the Port Authority Bus Terminal and Pennsylvania Station.

Times Square can reveal New York at its bleakest and most brilliant. It took grit and resolve to stick with it through the bad times. This is not one of them.

It's a bullshit story and the Times is right to tell de Blasio to stop overreacting to the attacks.

De Blasio's foundering, the sharks are circling, shills for Hakeem Jeffries, Ruben Diaz Jr., Scott Stringer and Tish James are declaring they may primary the mayor in two years and Eva Moskowitz all but announced for mayor on the radio.

De Blasio's pushback early in the summer against Cuomo has set much of this stuff off - Cuomo's working overtime behind the scenes to do de Blasio in (see here for example.)

I dunno how he rights the ship, maybe he doesn't right the ship ever.

But it's important to point out when the attacks are unjustified - "ridiculous" in the words of the Times - and point out that the attacks are coming from pols and their shills with ulterior motives.

That doesn't mean de Blasio doesn't need to get a handle on this - he does.

The PR issue has been a problem from the beginning.

Ben Max has one idea how to handle it here. 

I'm no political expert, but I would say the mayor needs to put his head down, get to work (on time!), stop giving his enemies opportunities to nail him on stuff (i.e., stop with the unforced errors like wondering if Times Square toplessness can be solved by pulling out pedestrian plazas), focus on issues important to New Yorkers, have the friends he has left (though that group seems to be dwindling) push his message and his "successes," and watch his back as best he can.

Overreacting to the Times Square bullshit by wondering aloud if the pedestrian plazas should be pulled out was not the way to right the ship, that's for sure.

Scott Stringer Feels Very Safe In Andrew Cuomo's Strong Arms

Love this quote from City Comptroller Scott Stringer, sucking up to Andrew Cuomo:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo over the weekend received some warm words from New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer.

Later today, he will be attending a roundtable discussion with U.S. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries.

Both Stringer and Jeffries just happen to be potential mayoral candidates and rivals to the incumbent, Bill de Blasio.

Stringer on Sunday singled out Cuomo for praise during an event hosted by Sen. Adriano Espaillat.

“Governor, it’s been so good having you in New York City, protecting all of us,” Stringer said.

Oh thank you, Governor, I just feel so safe knowing that you superseded incompetent Mayor de Blasio in the current health crisis facing the city

Just like when you closed the subway for the snowmaggedon that wasn't without telling incompetent Mayor de Blasio and superseded incompetent Mayor de Blasio on the Ebola crisis even though incompetent Mayor de Blasio, you know, was handling it the right way without trying to spew FEAR across the city.

I get it - de Blasio's bleeding in the water, so the sharks are circling.

But Stringer's suck-up to Cuomo is extra nauseating for it's, well, nauseatingness.

Come on, man, can't you suck up to Cuomo without sounding freaking pathetic?

City Teachers Had Better Start Asking Some Hard Questions About Their Pension Fund Before It's Too Late

Guest Post By Harris Lirtzman, former Director of Risk Management for the New York City Retirement Systems in the NYC Comptroller's Office from 1996-2002 and former Deputy State Comptroller for Administration from 2003-2007.

During the last few weeks, there’s been a lot of news about the way that the City invests the money that backs your retirement benefit and none of it is good.

There are few things less interesting to read about than the condition of your pension fund system.  But, other than the financial condition of the City that prints your paycheck and the insurance company that provides your medical coverage, there is nothing more important.

Two weeks ago, the City Comptroller released a report that contained information that didn’t surprise anyone who follows these things closely but which should scare the bejesus out of any active or retired New York City school teacher.  According to an article in the New York Times, “The Lenape tribe got a better deal on the sale of Manhattan island than New York City’s pension funds have been getting from Wall Street.” 

Turns out that the trustees of the City pension funds, including your fund, the Teachers’ Retirement System of New York City, have been investing the money that backs your pension in ways that have given almost all of the market’s gains for the last ten years right back to the Wall Street firms they hire to do the job as big fat fees

Surprised?  I didn’t think so.

Wall Street has spent the last twenty years convincing public pension fund trustees, like the ones who run TRS, that only a company like Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan Chase is smart enough to know how to invest your retirement money.  Our trustees bought this story lock, stock and barrel.  We all know how well Wall Street has looked after the rest of us the last ten years.  Wall Street knows a sucker when it meets one and our pension trustees have been suckered, good.

This stuff is a little complicated but hang with me for a minute or two:

• Over the last 10 years, the return on very basic investments like stocks and bonds—more than 80% of the City’s pension portfolio—has exceeded expectations by more than $2 billion, despite the financial crisis of 2008 and the recession that followed.
• But nearly all that extra gain—about 97% of it—has been eaten up by Wall Street management fees, leaving only $40 million behind for the benefit of City retirees.
• Around 20% of the City’s pension funds is invested in complicated and expensive things called “alternative investments,” such as real estate and hedge funds.  The City began to invest in these investments in 2000, just at the moment when they began to do significantly worse than other parts of the market.
• The combination of the poor underperformance of these alternative investments and the huge fees that Wall Street firms charge to manage them for the City cost the pension funds—your pension funds—more than $2.5 billion since the end of 2004.

According to a New York Times editorial, “Even non-experts can grasp a primal personal-finance principle: buy low-cost funds linked to the overall performance of the stock market, be patient and don’t try to outsmart the market or pay someone an arm and a leg to do it for you. That a succession of fund trustees would never have thought of this before and found ways to reduce the damage done by excessive fees, is incredible.”

So let’s ask some of our trustees—members of the UFT who sit on the TRS board—what they think about all of this.  The UFT has three representatives on the TRS board of trustees: Mel Aaronson and Sandra March, who’ve been members for more than 20 years, and Thomas Brown.  Rank-and-file teachers elect these members to the board in some election process you probably never knew about or can remember.

Michael Mulgrew, president of the UFT, said that “he was happy that his union’s pension fund, TRS, had been performing well.  But he said the fees paid to some managers were ‘ridiculous’ and should be renegotiated if those managers are retained.  Education’s always being put under reform; maybe some of these financial practices should be put under reform as well.”

Ya think?

Teachers in New York City: According to an independent industry analysis, TRS now has money in it equal to around 58% of the future pension benefits that it must pay to current and retired teachers over the next 30 years.  As a comparison, the New York State Teachers Retirement System—which covers teachers who work in schools outside of the City—has around 96% of the money in it required to pay teacher pensions in the rest of New York State.  That means that your retirement benefit is only 61% as secure as the retirement benefit of a teacher who works outside of New York City.

Teachers in New York City:  The City TRS had a total investment return of 17.6% in 2014.  As a comparison, the State Teachers System had a total investment return of 18.2% in 2014—your retirement fund did 3.3% worse than did the retirement fund for teachers in the rest of the state.
Teachers in New York City: In 2014, the cost to run the City pension fund, including administrative expenses and fees paid to Wall Street firms, was almost twice the cost it took to run the State Teachers System. 

The UFT trustees sitting on the board of the TRS—the trustees your union nominated and that you elected—are guilty of gross negligence and of “investing-while-stupid.”

Teachers of New York City, if you don’t want to eat cat food when you retire start asking Michael Mulgrew, Mel Aaronson and Sandy March some hard questions about how they manage your pension fund.  If you make a big enough ruckus now there is still time to protect your pensions.  If you wait much longer I guarantee you that it will be too late.

NYC Employees Retirement System Nixes Recommendation To Invest In Pro-Charter Joel Greenblatt's Hedge Fund

From the NY Post:

In a rare move, the board that oversees the city’s retirement fund for civil servants killed a proposal to invest in a high-yield hedge fund — run by one of the city’s biggest investors in charter schools, sources told The Post.

The New York City Employees’ Retirement System nixed a recommendation from the comptroller’s office to sink a portion of its $54 billion pension fund into Gotham Asset Management, which is run by Success Academies co-founder Joel Greenblatt.

The charter network is overseen by Eva Moskowitz, a long-time foe of Mayor de Blasio.

The 11-member board is stacked with reps who are allied with the anti-charter teachers’ union — including appointees from de Blasio, Borough Presidents Eric Adams and Ruben Diaz Jr. and leaders of three major city unions.

Stringer's office recommended the investment into the hedge fund:

The Comptroller’s Bureau of Asset Management referred Greenblatt’s hedge fund to NYCERS for consideration as a potential investment last month, but a spokesman for Comptroller Scott Stringer declined to say how it learned of the fund.

“As the investment adviser to the New York City Pension Funds, the Bureau of Asset Management recommends investments based strictly on their merits,” said Stringer spokesman Eric Sumberg.

One of the merits from my perspective is NOT to invest in a hedge fund run by a guy out to destroy public schools.

Apparently that's NOT one of the merits from Stringer's perspective

New York Charter Schools - Virtually No Oversight Or Supervision By The State Either Before Or After The Approval Process

Peter Goodman at Ed in the Apple, writing about the "Dr" Ted Morris and Steve Perry charter school approvals by NYSED and the New York State Board of Regents, notes this:

The State Education Department (SED) website has impressive requirements for applying for a charter as well as monitoring the entire process.

The application is detailed and the State Department of Education (SED) in their guidance document sets a high standard.

The Board of Regents will only approve applications that clearly demonstrate a strong capacity for establishing and operating a high quality charter school. This standard requires a strong educational program, organizational plan, and financial plan, as well as clear evidence of the capacity of the founding group to implement the proposal and operate the school effectively.

Once approved the SED retains the right to monitor the performance of charter school,

… the New York State Education Department, is authorized to oversee and monitor each charter school authorized by the Regents in all respects, including the right to visit, examine and inspect the charter school and its records.

Additionally the SED requires specific actions in an opening procedures document, a monitoring plan, a performance framework and a closing procedures checklist
 
Unfortunately the SED will tell you there is no way they can monitor charter schools in the detail that the regulations allow; they simply do not have the staff. Once a charter school opens there is virtually no supervision for the initial five years.

What is disturbing is that the SED does not adequately vet the applicants, the members of the charter board.

The Regents and NYSED have given charter schools to a con man ("Dr" Ted) with a trustee board with no experience running a school and a guy (Steve Perry) who has threatened physical violence on his detractors.

Clearly there isn't much to the vetting process for charter school approval in New York State.

That SED freely admits they don't have the staff to monitor charter schools once they're opened makes the poor vetting before approval even worse.

There's a reason charter school operators don't want to be subject to auditing by either the state or the city comptroller but would rather be subject to NYSED/Regents accountability.

That's because they know there is no one at NYSED or the Regents who is going to hold them accountable.

After the "Dr" Ted fiasco, the director of the NYSED charter office went into hiding, refusing to publicly comment on the mess.

When the guy at the State Education Department who's supposed to hold charters accountable refuses to be held accountable himself, we've got major problems.

The only solution here is to ensure that a thorough auditing and monitoring of all charters, both single schools and chains, be conducted by the comptrollers at the state and city levels.

We know from a recent analysis of audits conducted by the state comptroller's office or NYSED of charter schools since 2002 that violations and/or financial mismanagement are found 95% of the time.

No wonder the charter operators don't want to be subject to auditing - it's the Wild, Wild West in the charter sector and audits have a way of taming it all.

Eva Moskowitz successfully sued last year to make sure that couldn't happen.

Since then, Governor Cuomo gave charters in NYC free rent courtesy of the NYCDOE but subject them to auditing by the comptrollers.

It is essential that these audits must be conducted.

It's clear that the Board of Regents and NYSED are neither prepared to hold charter schools and their operators accountable before or after the approval process.