Quinn, The Times, Her Members and Member Items

It seems that Christine Quinn has two important factions to please. On one side are the 50 other members of the City Council. On the other are good-government groups and, particularly, The New York Times editorial board.

When Quinn began discussing the slush fund scandal at the City Council, The Times editorial board--a big voice in Democratic primaries for offices like, say, mayor--held out hope that Quinn could set things straight, writing, "[her] reformist zeal is still needed."

The first package of reforms Quinn announced, on April 11, would have stripped the City Council of the ability to determine how $20 million in discretionary money from the council speaker's office is spent, giving that power instead to the mayor's agencies. The Times called it "sensible" but added, "[S]he must do a lot more."

Then, council members objected. Loudly. Strongly.

So this week, Quinn unveiled another set of reforms that are more palatable to her members.

The major difference between Quinn's old plan and new plan is that the new plan leaves a majority of decision-making power with council members. The Times was not pleased:

“They do not pass muster as real reform,” they said. The problem, writes the Times, is that, “[I]t still allows a council member to funnel money to an organization with personal or political connections.”

To be clear, this puts liberal The Times editorial board on the side as people like New York State Conservative Party chairman Michael Long, who want not only to prevent officials from stealing money, but from deciding, without a check on their discretion, which legitimate entities get it.

"Disrectionary money leads to curruption -- I think we've seen that," Long told me. "Discretionary money leads to buying special interest groups off. The practice should be eliminated" and "it's taxpayer's money, not City Council members' money to just dole out as they see fit."

It’s a position that a number of actual lawmakers, not surprisingly, aren't embracing.

Congressman Jerry Nadler, a liberal good-government type, spoke out in favor of this kind discretionary spending, telling me, “[T]o say you’re against all earmarks is saying that no member of Congress ever knows better than a bureaucrat in [for example] the Department of Transportation. That’s insane.”

Lew Fidler, a councilman and ally of Quinn, told me earlier this week that there is no such thing as an “immaculate” council member, who comes to office without a connection to the district that they serve.

"If that’s what you think should be elected to the City Council, God bless you,” Fidler told me. “I don’t think that people want that. I would prefer that my councilman was involved in community groups, that [he or she] knows the people doing the work on the front lines in their neighborhoods. They shouldn’t be penalized for that.”

Interestingly, Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, seems to side with the lawmakers on this one too.

Dadey said his group “believes that there is value in council members awarding member items to groups that they know, so long as it is above-board and transparent."