On Thursday afternoon, Gov. Hochul continued her contribution to New York City’s bizarre quadricentennial year. She will not, she proclaimed, remove Mayor Adams from office.
Well, she will not remove him right now. Instead, after tea and crumpets with Al Sharpton, Hochul decided to address the “emergency” engulfing the city by introducing legislation that will do something or other in state inspector general’s office and that will allow the other citywide officials, without the mayor’s consent, to sue the federal government on behalf of the city.
There is no actual legislation nor are there any sponsors for the bill. The phantom proposal would need approval by the City Council and the Legislature. If passed, Hochul would have to erect the bureaucracy to administer her “guardrails.” Then the new powers would expire at the end of the year.
While Hochul was performing her tough gal act (earlier in the week she compared herself to Rambo), Adams was cruising around town without a care for the guardrails. Before the federal judge overseeing his corruption indictment, the mayor unequivocally trumpeted his innocence. He is not a bit worried that the Justice Department might re-file the charges because he has “not committed a crime.” He is praying all over Queens and Brooklyn, pushing on with his mission from God.
If Casey Stengel and Jimmy Breslin could see this unlikeable political version of the 1962 Mets they would ask over again “Can’t anybody here play this game?”
Adams should not be removed from office because he claims that he was unfairly targeted for prosecution. He should not be removed from office because he supports Donald Trump or his immigration policies. The question of Adams’ removal is not a political one. The sole issue in contemplating his ouster concerns his fidelity to his oath of office.
State law and the City Charter bestow upon the governor the power and duty to superintend the mayor. The governor can remove the mayor for misconduct after allowing the mayor the right to answer the charges lodged against him. The removal power is premised upon the review of a mayor’s ethics, not his political machinations.
While it is true that a governor has never removed a mayor, there is precedent to guide the consideration of such an action. Gov. Franklin Roosevelt considered the removal of Mayor Jimmy Walker — his friend, fellow Democrat, former leader of the Senate, one-time Albany roommate of Al Smith — based upon evidence adduced against Walker by a Roosevelt-appointed anti-corruption commission led by Samuel Seabury. As a result of the investigation and facing removal by the governor, Walker resigned.
Hochul should close the political circus and follow the example of her illustrious predecessor. The nature of Adams’ alleged misconduct is well-known. Contrary to the yarn the mayor tells, the case against him is not about airline perks, but centers on his alleged use of “straw donors” to make phony campaign contributions that allowed the mayor’s campaign to evade laws prohibiting contributions from foreigners and that enabled the mayor to secure millions in city matching funds to which he was not entitled.
These claims against the mayor originated in his own Department of Investigation, not the federal DOJ. In December, the city’s Campaign Finance Board, the body charged with administering the matching funds program, essentially expelled the Adams campaign from the program on the grounds that the mayor’s filings for the matching funds were permeated with fraud. Adams did not appeal the board’s adverse ruling.
Thus, on these grounds alone, Hochul could easily erect an investigatory process to review Adams’ conduct. Such an investigation would have nothing to do with Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Al Sharpton or immigration policy. Rather, in the tradition of the Seabury Commission that investigated Walker, a joint city-state body, composed of qualified persons with minimal political attachments, can take a hard look at the charges against the mayor.
If the body finds, for example, sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the mayor ripped off the campaign finance system, it can present such evidence to the governor. She can then decide whether the evidence of misconduct rises to a level that warrants removal. The mayor, in turn, would have the right to defend himself before the governor takes a final action.
Incompetence and hucksterism have obscured the critical question of the mayor’s fitness for office. The public deserves a simple, clear process that can bring to light such evidence as there may be of the mayor’s malfeasance and his fate ought to be decided thereon.
Browne is a lawyer.
Leave a comment