Annabel Palma

Last week, Council member Annabel Palma was fined $30,000 by the city’s Campaign Finance Board for essentially having 1199 SEIU run her 2003 campaign. The union, the CFB said, illegally coordinated with the campaign, providing in-kind contributions in excess of local limits.

Palma told me she’s happy just to pay up and put the matter behind her, and that she'll be holding fund-raisers to help cover the cost of the fine, one of the largest (the largest?) to be levied against anyone for such an infraction.

“I’m just glad it is over," she said on the City Hall steps this morning. "I’m glad I got a fine and can move on."

When I asked her if she’ll take matching funds again (she’s term-limited in 2013), she said, “I don’t think I will. I don’t think--my treasurer will probably kill me, but, I don’t want to accept campaign funds, public funds.”

Will that affect her ability to seek higher office?

“I don’t think so. I think this experience made me a little wiser in terms of what I need to do and  who I surround myself with. And I definitely don’t think this will discourage me from seeking higher office after I’m term-limited. And I won’t let campaign finance get me into thinking I can’t serve the public.”

Palma is having a fund-raiser tomorrow at Laces Out (1040 Castle Hill Avenue), from 6 to 8 p.m., and another on October 25 at Latin Quarters (511 Lexington Avenue), also from 6 to 8 p.m.

I just got off the phone with the executive director of the city Campaign Finance Board, Amy Loprest, whose agency found that Larry Seabrook’s purchase of things like furniture for his campaign one day before his re-election wasn’t really a legal use of the taxpayer dollars he received from the matching-funds program.

Searbrook’s lawyer, Larry Laufer, offered a defense of the expenditures, saying, “There is no provision in the act for the CFB to approve or disapprove any particular campaign expenditure.” Which is a little funny, since Laufer is one of the people who wrote the law.

Loprest conceded the difficulty of formalizing the determination of what's allowed and what's not.

“Short of providing a 40-page list of every single thing someone can spend money on and things you can’t spend money on, you know, there’s no way to make it absolutely clear. I think, you know, campaigns are always coming up with new ways, new legitimate ways to talk to voters and to run their campaigns. And you wouldn’t want to limit that ability for campaigns to find ingenious ways to reach their constituents.”

Also, City Councilwoman Annabel Palma, who used to work for SEIU local 1199, was fined $30,000 for coordinating her campaign events with that union, one of the the most poweful ones in the city.

From my quick search online, it seems to be the largest fine against any candidate for such an offense. A woman in Palma’s Bronx office said neither she nor a spokesperson was available to comment. I emailed a spokeswoman at 1199 and am waiting to hear back.

It is possible that Palma or the union could appeal the decision in court, which would be interesting. Well, to me, at least.

After the jump, Loprest discusses the Palma case.  read more »

On Monday, the City Council will hold a hearing on the 421-a housing development program, which regulates the ratio of market-rate housing to "affordable" housing that need to be built on-site in order to qualify for tax breaks.

The main bills being considered on the subject are Speaker Christine Quinn's and Council member Annabel Palma's.

Here's the essential difference between the two:

Quinn wants the expensive-to-cheap ratio to be 80/20 in certain parts of the city, without requiring that any units be set aside for local residents. The bill also defines "affordable" as 80 percent of the federally defined Area Medium Income ($70,000), which comes out to $56,000. Palma wants the ratio to be 70/30 for all developments in the all parts of the city. She also wants half of the cheap units reserved for local residents, and defines "affordable" as 60 percent of the AMI, which comes out to about $42,000.

The Council fight is a test of political muscle between the real estate developers who support Quinn's bill and the lower income housing advocates who are backing Palma's.

(The ultimate power to change the 421-a program rests in Albany, not the City Council, making the bills being fought over in the council more like a resolution that lobbyists can use for leverage with state lawmakers.)

So far, Quinn's bill has the backing of most of the Queens delegation; Palma's bill is backed by members in Brooklyn.

The chair of the Assembly's Housing Committee and Brooklyn County Democratic Leader Vito Lopez, told me, "I believe Quinn's bill is an improvement on the city's 421-a bill but does not adequately address the affordable housing crisis in New York City and especially in Brooklyn."

-- Azi Paybarah