At yesterday’s City Council oversight hearing on Randy Mastro, Mayor Adams’ nominee for Corporation Counsel, New York City Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams questioned Mastro on both his past tactics and current controversies related to his ability to serve the people of New York and represent their interests. In the months since Mastro was first mentioned for the role and the weeks since his formal nomination, the Public Advocate and others have highlighted extensive concerns with the appointment.
“New York City’s top lawyer should promote public confidence in our City and in the legal profession. The people of New York City deserve an independent attorney who will protect the City and its people, defend the interests of all New Yorkers, and ensure the primacy of the public interest. I have concerns about moving forward with his nomination as Corp Counsel,” said Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams in his statement. ”My most cynical concern is that this administration has a record of obfuscation – including around the costs and awarding of contracts, and seeming unpreparedness that has caused real harm at times. As Public Advocate I have to question whether the intended appointment of someone with a history of theatrics and ethically questionable practice of law is a symptom of the same problem.”
The Public Advocate’s opening statement as prepared is below, and his questioning of Mr. Mastro can be seen at this link. Watch it here.
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC ADVOCATE JUMAANE D. WILLIAMS
TO THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON
RULES, PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS
August 27 2024
Good morning, my name is Jumaane D. Williams, and I am the Public Advocate for the City of New York. I thank Chair Powers and the members of the Committee on Rules, Privileges and Elections for holding this hearing today and giving me the opportunity to testify.
In 2019, the New York City Charter was amended by a public referendum to, among other things, require the advice and consent of the City Council for the appointment of the City’s top lawyer, the Corporation Counsel. New York City’s Corporation Counsel has significant and unique responsibilities – they serve as both attorney and counsel for the City. As emphasized in our Charter, Corporation Counsel is “to be attorney and counsel for the City and every agency thereof and shall have charge and conduct of all the law business of the city and its agencies and in which the city is interested.” They are the sole person authorized to represent New York City in court. As chief legal officer of the City, they are charged with interpreting municipal law and providing independent analysis to the Mayor, City agencies and even independent City offices. These duties should serve all New Yorkers – our constituents – in an ethical, balanced and fair manner. I have concerns that Mr. Mastro would impartially advance these goals without bias, but I look forward to hearing anything further that would allay these concerns.
Although everyone is entitled to legal representation in our system, the cases a lawyer argues and the strategies they employ to win may speak to their character. For much of his career, Mr. Mastro has seldom represented the interests of the people of New York. He represented fast food owners in attempting to block a minimum wage increase for their workers. He represented a group of landlords, which led to partially blocking the eviction moratorium during a global pandemic. He has represented landlords in attempting to block a rent stabilization law. He also represented property owners to oppose enforcement of Local Law 97 to create more sustainable buildings.
In addition, he represented restaurants against enforcement of a polystyrene container ban. And, in an ongoing case, he is arguing that Madison Square Garden should be allowed to continue using facial recognition software to block entry to lawyers litigating against the company that owns it. Finally, it is troubling that Mr. Mastro is involved in New Jersey’s litigation against NYC’s congestion pricing plan, which could pose a significant conflict of interest should he become New York City’s top lawyer.
In addition to the cases he’s chosen to represent, many against the interests of the City of New York, his tactics are also a cause for concern. For example, in representing plaintiffs in a case to remove 283 homeless men staying at the Lucerne hotel, Mr. Mastro hired private investigators to spy on activists advocating for basic shelter for some of the most marginalized New Yorkers. As has been widely reported, Mr. Mastro oversaw the “Bridgegate” scandal of former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. The federal judge overseeing the Bridgegate investigation harshly criticized Mastro’s tactic of deliberately ensuring investigation notes were unavailable in the future – a serious ethics concern. As the judge noted, “The taxpayers of the State of New Jersey paid… millions of dollars to conduct a transparent and thorough investigation. What they got instead was opacity and gamesmanship. They deserve better. So do New Yorkers.
Similarly, the council should be concerned about instances in his history does not espouse appropriate professionalism. For instance, during his tenure with the Guiliani administration, he was instrumental in dismantling the rights and privileges of many groups, including by removing necessary funding to a social services organization in the midst of the HIV/AIDS pandemic within NYC. It has been said by others that his past career should be reviewed beyond the surface. As a deputy Mayor under the Guiliani administration, he was with Guiliani as the former Mayor went overboard many times to defend the police when Black and Brown individuals were murdered by NYPD. How do you treat the former, and now disgraced, mayor as a role model?
New York City’s top lawyer should promote public confidence in our City and in the legal profession. The people of New York City deserve an independent attorney who will protect the City and its people, defend the interests of all New Yorkers, and ensure the primacy of the public interest. I have concerns about moving forward with his nomination as Corp Counsel.
My most cynical concern is that this administration has a record of obfuscation – including around the costs and awarding of contracts, and seeming unpreparedness that has caused real harm at times. As Public Advocate I have to question whether the intended appointment of someone with a history of theatrics and ethically questionable practice of law is a symptom of the same problem. As Public Advocate I have to question whether the intended appointment of someone with a history of theatrics and ethically questionable practice of law is a symptom of the same problem. Are you here today as a favor from an administration and/or as the preferred choice of a mayor who would like every council hearing to be an exercise in futility in order to prevent the people of New York City from getting real answers from the public agencies entrusted to provide services and keep our city running?
Thank you again.
No comments:
Post a Comment