The Patricof Family, One Cog In The Corrupt City Apparatus

Walking on the streets of New York City, it is nearly impossible to miss the orange envelopes marring the windshields of parked cars from Lower Manhattan to Riverdale and from the Westside to Little Neck. What most people do not see, except for those that wish to contest their fines, are the parking judges that determine whether to drop, reduce or leave the fine as is. One of these judges is Allan J Patricof and he is makes more than any of his fellows on the "parking" benches. If you're wondering why, all you have to do is ask his wife Rochelle, who determines salaries for the court.

From The NY Times:

According to city records, the judge, Allan J. Patricof, earned $110,472 in 2006, the same year that city investigators found that he had submitted time sheets for some hours when he was not at work. Mr. Patricof is married to Rochelle Patricof, the deputy finance commissioner.

Mr. Patricof’s earnings were $20,000 more than any of the other 145 administrative law judges who hear ticket cases for the agency. In 2007, Mr. Patricof earned $84,687.24, also more than any other parking judge.

The department said it had yet to calculate how much the judges earned in 2008. It has said the deputy commissioner does not have a role in overseeing the hours assigned to parking judges.

There are so many problems with this situation and they aren't all centered on the Patricof's.

First of all, both Allan and Rochelle each need to be fired and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Unless he's a true workaholic, those hours he billed are just a little bit unbelievable. The next most busy judge billed 381 hours less. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduct what Patricof was up to. The fact that he got away with it and that is wife is Deputy Finance Commissioner aren't hard to put together, and neither will it be for a jury.

Then there's the system that must be considered. The department denies the deputy commissioner plays a role in overseeing hours. That's a crock of the foulest smelling shit I've ever heard. She may not have officially signed off on his time sheet but an indirect connection isn't hard to find. For the department to try and deny it shows just how they feel about New Yorkers' intelligence and knowwithall about how the city works.

As for the Conflict of Interests Board.....for them to approve of Mr. Patricof to be in this position considering where Mrs. Patricof sits, is completely proposterious. I don't think they could find a conflict of interest if it slapped them in the face and hit them upside the head.

Bloomberg Tries To Cut Ethics Requirements For Public Officials

Just when the climate in Albany and down here in the City couldn't be more corrupt, Mayor Bloomberg is taking a stab at making it easier to hide personal information for public officials. Ethical scandals haven't just been occurring in Albany but down here in New York City as well. Quinn had her slush funds exposed not too long ago, Dennis Gallagher was found to be a scumbag and our last Mayor was Rudy Giuliani, so enough said. If anything these men and women who are elected to represent us should be willing to or made to disclose anything and everything that is pertinent to the way they govern and what things or people might influence them in one way or another. So why is Bloomberg going in exactly the opposite direction?

From The NY Times:

Among the proposed changes, public servants would no longer have to provide dollar amounts or ranges on outside income. In addition, they would need to report only gifts (worth at least $50) they received from people who did business with the city, not all gifts larger than $1,000, as is the current law.

Also slated to come off the disclosure form are investments worth between $1,000 and $10,000 and real estate holdings located more than a quarter-mile outside the city limits.

Among the planned additions to the forms is the disclosure of relatives who hold city jobs, a question intended to discourage nepotism.

Of those generally required to submit disclosure reports, most are elected officials, candidates for public office, policy makers, purchasing agents and other high-level public servants.

The bill was meant to reduce the paperload for volunteers, but this ends up giving politcians cover in so many ways. While there are some good things in there, the bill is still flawed and good government groups were the first to react to this news.

Still, the proposed changes are causing ripples among groups that promote transparency in government and are not convinced that less is more. Several said they were concerned that the changes had not been widely discussed before becoming part of the legislation. “It seems to me whenever there’s a shrinkage of information, the public should be concerned,” said Norman Siegel, a longtime civil rights advocate who is running for public advocate next year.

Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, a watchdog group, said: “I wouldn’t want the disclosure forms changed in a way that would limit or diminish information that has been previously required. In fact, there may be good reasons to increase the disclosure requirements as opposed to loosening.”

Less is definitely not more in this case and Bloomberg should be well aware of that. The fact that the bill was partially hidden by an effort to help city volunteers is rather distasteful. Actually, it almost tastes as sour as the Mayor's subtle influence in the term limits battle that is now being discussed across the city. Like in that debate, this seems like another attempt by the Mayor and his minions in order to hold on to more power at the public's expense.