Long Calls on Democrat Leaders to Investigate Hevesi

New York Post Revelations of No Bid Contracts for Staff Members and Special Waivers for “Double-Dipping”  for Six Hevesi Transportation Staffers, Lead to Call for Immediate Probe

Ft. Hamilton Station, NY – Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long today called on the Assembly
Democrats to launch an official investigation into no bid contracts the Comptroller gave his campaign staffers and the special “211 waivers” that have been granted to 6 members of New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi’s transportation staff. The special waivers, which were reported yesterday in the New York Post, enable Hevesi’s staffers to collect public pensions and salaries simultaneously.

Back in May of 2003, the Post broke a similar story regarding just one waiver that was granted by the New York Power Authority. Within days of that story being published, no less than three separate official investigations were launched by three different Assembly Committees -- including at least one with subpoena power.

Chairman Long said, “This morning’s revelation that the Comptroller granted a campaign staffer a no-bid contract is an outrage. New Yorkers deserve a true fiscal watchdog, not someone opening the gate to the taxpayers’ money for the benefit of his family, friends and contributors. I am calling on the Assembly to convene hearings as to how and why Alan Hevesi was allowed to steer a no bid contract to a campaign staffer and I am calling on Alan Hevesi to immediately resign from the office he has disgraced.

“Additionally, the recent revelation that 6 members of Alan Hevesi’s security team have been granted special waivers to ‘double-dip’ is deeply disturbing, especially since the Comptroller’s Office is supposed to be looking out for taxpayers,” Chairman Long said. “In view of the serious nature of these new developments, I am calling upon Speaker Silver and Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, to launch an immediate investigation into the Comptroller’s decision to seek these special waivers.”

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky fancies himself as a fiscal government watchdog and is the Chairman of the Assembly Corporations, Authorities and Commissions Committee, which convened hearings and led the investigation into the NYPA waiver in 2003.

At the time, Chairman Brodsky and his committee demanded that NYPA provide copies of “all materials relating to this decision, including but not limited to all written matters…electronic transmission, and records of verbal or telephone conversations.”

Chairman Long called for Brodsky to make a similar demand of the Comptroller’s Office for all documents pertaining to the granting of the six “211” waivers granted to the Comptroller’s staffers. “It’s time for Richard Brodsky to prove he is actually a fiscal watchdog and not the Pavlov’s partisan puppy he is proving himself to be now,” said Chairman Long.

At the time of his investigation in 2003, Chairman Brodsky threatened to use his subpoena power, and was quoted in published news stories referring to the practice as “double-dipping.” Speaker Silver was quoted in an Associated Press article stating: “The issue should be the process by which those waivers are granted, and whether the process shouldn’t be tightened up or eliminated.”

Chairman Long said, “Especially following the shocking news that the Comptroller spends twice as much on his security team than the Attorney General does, it’s clear that we need an immediate investigation into these special waivers. If there was a reason to hold hearings into just one waiver that was issued back in 2003, then there is clearly an overwhelming need for an investigation into the 6 special waivers being granted to members of the State Comptroller’s staff.

Under New York State law, before a 211 waiver can be granted state government entities must conduct a search for other possible candidates for the positions in question, and must show that “there are not readily available for recruitment persons qualified to perform the duties of such position.” The Comptroller’s office has not yet indicated whether or not such a search was conducted, whether the positions were advertised publicly, or whether there were any other individuals “qualified to perform the duties of such position.”
 

-30-