Russell Unger
Counsel to the Committee

Nahreen Khandker
Policy Analyst to the Committee

THE NY CITY COUNCIL:

Report of the Governmental Affairs Division
Marcel Van Ooyen, Legislative Director

COMMITTEE ON FIRE & CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES
Hon. Yvette D. Clarke, Chair

October 18, 2004

OVERSIGHT: New York City Conditional Release Commission:
Post-Hearing Amendment

I. Introduction
On October 18, 2004, the Committee on Fire and Criminal Justice Services, chaired by Council Member Yvette D. Clarke, will hold an oversight hearing on the New York City Conditional Release Commission. Those expected to testify include Professor Daniel Richman, Acting Chairman of the Commission, and criminal justice experts.

II. Local Conditional Release Commissions
New York Correction Law requires New York City and each county in the state to establish a local conditional release commission. Each commission must have at least three members, who are appointed by the mayor or county executive and who must have experience relevant to the work of the commission. The term of office of each member is four years, and no member may be an employee or representative of any political organization, nor be a judge, sheriff or district attorney. State law grants the mayor or county executive the power to remove any member "for cause, after notice and an opportunity to be heard."

A local conditional release commission has the power to release from jail any person serving a term of imprisonment of more than 90 days in jail, and who has served at least 60 days of the sentence. No decision granting or denying a request for release is "valid unless made by a majority vote of at least three members present." Once released from jail, a person remains in the legal custody of the commission for a period of one year, but under the supervision of the local department of probation. Conditions of release must be set in accordance with rules established by the State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives.

A commission may only review the sentences of people who have submitted applications to the commission, and must make a determination on an application within 30 days of receipt. A commission may require the local department of probation to conduct supplemental investigations of the background of applicants, and has the power to issue subpoenas, to compel the attendance of witnesses, and to require the production of documents related to the commission's duties. If conditional release is not granted, an inmate may reapply "sixty days after the date of submission of the denied application."
A local conditional release commission may revoke or modify the conditional release of any person who violates the terms of the release or otherwise "has lapsed into criminal ways or company." State law details the procedure required in such circumstances, including a hearing before the commission or any member of the commission, and the right to counsel. If done in accordance with the law, decisions of a commission or its members are not reviewable by court.

No provision in Article 12 of the N.Y. Correction Law details any factors that must be considered by a commission in assessing an application or otherwise limits the discretion of a commission in reviewing sentences. Local conditional release commissions thus have absolute discretion in determining whether a conditional release is warranted. Unless renewed by the legislature, Article 12 of the N.Y. Correction Law will expire on September 1, 2005.

III. Open Meetings Law
New York's Open Meetings Law details procedures that public bodies must follow in their meetings and decisions making. The law requires that meetings of public bodies be open to the general public unless conducted as an executive session, and that advance notice of meetings be given to the news media and be posted in public locations. Public bodies must also take minutes of meetings, which must include summaries of any matters voted upon at the meeting, and which must be made available to the public within two weeks of the meeting.

According to the only court to weigh on this matter and the opinion of the State Committee on Open Government, which was created under the Open Meetings Law and is authorized to issue advisory opinions, "voting and action by a public body may be carried out only at a meeting during which a quorum has physically convened, or during a meeting held by videoconference." Thus, a vote taken by telephone, mail or email would be inconsistent with the law. In Cheevers v. Town of Union, for example, a New York Supreme Court voided a tax assessment decision that was made by a town board through a series of telephone calls.

Courts have the authority to "declare any action or part thereof taken in violation of [the Open Meetings Law] void in whole or in part." However, the statute states that an unintentional failure to "fully comply" with notice provisions is not on its own grounds to invalidate an action of a public body.
The Open Meetings Law exempts "judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings" and N.Y Correction Law states that any action of a conditional release commission is "a judicial function." While no court has weighed directly on this matter, it is the opinion of the Committee on Open Government that Correction Law grants commissions the power to "deliberate in private when considering the release of an individual." At the same time, however, according to the Committee on Open Government, actual actions or votes must be held in accordance with the Open Meetings Law.

IV. Practices of Local Conditional Release Commissions
New York State has 62 counties, all of which are required to have a conditional release commission. The City Council obtained data from approximately one-third of New York's local conditional release commissions, including the following information: the number of applications received by the commissions each year since their formation in 1989; the number of releases granted each year; and, for each year, the convictions and sentences of each applicant and those who were released. Very few commissions have established formal guidelines on how to evaluate applications; in the vast majority of counties, release decisions are ad hoc.

• Number of Applicants: The number of inmates applying for conditional release varied greatly by county and by year. See Appendix A. The majority of counties, especially those with small populations, received approximately 3 to 20 applications per year, counties with moderate sized populations received between 30 and 100 applications per year, while larger counties received approximately 100 to 300 applications per year. In some counties, such as Jefferson County and Niagara County, the number of applicants has declined over the years. The number of applicants in most other counties, however, remained fairly constant. Nonetheless, during the past two years most counties have experienced a drop in the number of applications.

• Number of Releases: Most local commissions release few inmates each year, with the average number of conditional releases ranging from approximately 0 to 7. See Appendix A. Some county commissions are more generous and grant significantly more releases annually. In Ulster County, for example, the commission releases nearly 1 to 3 inmates per month or approximately 24 inmates in any given year. Niagara County also has high release numbers, ranging from 15 to 31 inmates released each year from 1989 to 1997, after which time the number of releases significantly decreased. According to the Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives, nearly 80 inmates were released statewide by local commissions last year. In general, the percentage of applications approved for early release has declined since 1989.

• Convictions and Sentences: The City Council obtained information on the charges and sentences of applicants and those approved for early conditional release from seven counties. Those released had convictions including driving while intoxicated (DWI), petit and grand larceny, assault, criminal possession of a controlled substance, criminal possession of a weapon, criminal mischief, trespassing, forgery, endangering the welfare of a child and manslaughter. Applicants who were denied release had convictions that included criminal contempt, rape, sodomy, robbery, violation of probation, sexual abuse/misconduct, arson and fraud. The applicants and those approved for release were serving mostly 1-year sentences with some 6-month, 8-month or 9-month terms.

• New York City: Initially, New York City's Local Conditional Release Commission released a lot more inmates than it does today. In 1990, 206 out of 1,326 applications were approved for early release and, in 1991, the Commission approved 14% (approximately 443) of 2,085 applications for conditional release. During 1990s, the number of approvals sharply decreased. In the last five years, a total of 15 inmates have been granted conditional release and within the past year the Commission reviewed nearly 7,000 applications and granted 5 releases, including the release of former senator Guy J. Velella, Hector Del Toro and Manuel Gonzalez. Most of the other people released in the last five years were first time drug offenders. At any given time, there are approximately 14,000 inmates in city jails, most of whom are detainees awaiting trial, rather than sentenced inmates.

V. Indictment and Plea Agreements of Guy Velella, Vincent Velella, Hector Del Toro and Manuel Gonzalez

On May 9, 2002, Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau announced the indictment of four individuals, including one current and one former state official, for taking bribes in return for assistance in obtaining public funding on New York State and City projects. Those indicted were:

• Guy J. Velella, former New York State senator, who represented the 34th Senatorial District in the Bronx and Westchester;
• Vincent J. Velella, the father and law partner of Guy J. Velella;
• Hector Del Toro, who had been the Vice President of the New York State Housing Finance Agency ("HFA") and in charge of its subsidiary, the Affordable Housing Corporation ("AHC"); and
• Manuel Gonzalez, a consultant with the Hunts Point Multi-Service Centers ("Hunts Point"), a not-for-profit social service provider in the Bronx and two construction companies, Terra Firma Construction Management and General Contracting LLC., and Kafci Corporation.

All four individuals were charged with conspiracy and bribe receiving for their roles in accepting money in exchange for the Senator's political assistance in obtaining funding on public works projects.
Specifically, Mr. Velella was charged with "with conspiracy in the fourth degree in violation of Penal Law § 105.10(1), four counts of bribe receiving in the second degree in violation of Penal Law § 200.11, and numerous violations of Public Officers Law §§ 73(2); (7)(a)(iv) and 77." According to the indictment, the defendants received more than $250,000 in illegal payments over the course of the conspiracy from late 1995 to June 2000. The payments were allegedly made principally through "legal fees" to law firms owned by Mr. Velella and his father, Vincent J. Velella, for which little of no work was performed. It was further alleged that the "illegal payments were sought in connection with applications for publicly financed housing construction projects in the Bronx and Poughkeepsie, a social service project in the Hunts Point section of the Bronx, bids for bridge painting contracts for the Verrazano Narrows Bridge and the Dunn Memorial Bridge in the Albany area, and the lifting of tax liens on a vacant Bronx car dealership that was being sold."

In addition to these charges, Hector Del Toro was charged with extortion for pressuring applicants for public funding to retain the Velellas' law firm in order to receive favorable decisions on their applications.
On May 17, 2004, Guy Velella plead guilty to conspiracy in the fourth degree, a class E felony and was sentenced to one year in jail. As part of the plea, Mr. Velella admitted to using his official position "to assist clients in obtaining business from [] government agencies, and that these clients paid fees in excess of $10,000 to [Vincent Velella's] law firm," from which Guy Velella received financial benefit. For these reasons, Guy Velella's law license was also revoked on September 20, 2004 by the First Department of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division. Charges were dropped against his father, Vincent Velella.

Hector Del Toro and Manuel Gonzalez also plead guilty to fourth-degree conspiracy, a felony, and were sentenced to 9 months and 8 months, respectively.

VI. Conditional Release of Guy Velella, Hector Del Toro and Manuel Gonzalez
The Committee learned of the circumstances surrounding the release of Guy Velella and the activities of the New York Conditional Release Commission, as detailed below, through conversations between Committee staff and a member of the Commission. The important details of that Commission member's account was subsequently verified by another member of the Commission.

Until the New York Conditional Release Commission considered Guy Velella's first application for release, it had not met as a group for at least the last two years. Instead, on a regular basis the Commission members would separately review applications, after having been called in by the Director of the Commission, Eileen Sullivan. Commission members did not review every application, but, rather, each member would conduct the first review of a limited number of applications. If approved by the member who conducted the first review, the application would be passed on to the other members for consideration. If an application was rejected in a first review, it was generally considered denied by the Commission and not reviewed by the other members. Commission members would vote whether to approve or deny an application by checking off the appropriate box on a written sheet and signing their name.

Ms. Sullivan conducted preliminary reviews of applications, and would indicate on a standardized form any reasons why an application should not be approved, such as whether there were outstanding bench warrants or if the person had a violent criminal past. Each applicant would have a separate folder with Ms. Sullivan's summary and the applicant's "rap" sheet, along with information about the person's current conviction. Members could request supplement information on any file, and would be provided with information such as the pre-sentencing report.
The only guideline the members considered in making release decisions was whether a person "posed a threat to public safety," which was an unofficial, rather than written, standard. In practice this meant the Commission would only consider the release of non-violent, first time offenders. In recent history, the Commission has never taken any minutes.

The Commission automatically deemed all eligible inmates to have applied for conditional release, after presumably having received sentencing information from the Department of Correction. As a result, inmates are generally unaware if the Commission is considering their sentence. Often, even when offered conditional release, inmates would elect to complete their sentence rather than accept one year of intensive probation supervision, which is the Commission's condition of release.

The Commission met in person on August 6, 2004 to discuss the release applications of Guy Velella, Hector Del Toro and Manuel Gonzalez after being called together by Chairman Raul Russi. Members speculate that Raul Russi called a physical meeting of the Commission for the first time in years because of the high profile of the case. Raul Russi, Amy Ianora and Irene Prager were present at the meeting, while Jeanne Hammock had recused herself from the decision. All three members who were present voted to deny Mr. Velella's and Mr. Del Toro's release application. Amy Ianora and Irene Prager voted to grant Mr. Gonzalez's release, but Mr. Russi recused himself from the matter, meaning only two members of the Commission voted on Mr. Gonzalez's application. One member noted to Committee staff that Director Eileen Sullivan appeared to also oppose Mr. Velella's release, while stressing that staff did not influence the decisions of members.

The Commission met again, on September 22, 2004, to consider Mr. Velella's second application for release, as well as to reconsider the application of Hector Del Toro. During this meeting only Irene Prager and Raul Russi were physically present, both of whom voted to grant Mr. Velella's application and the application of Mr. Del Toro. Some time after the meeting Mr. Russi telephoned Amy Ianora, and she assented to the release of Mr. Velella and Mr. Del Toro during the conversation. During these interactions, Mr. Russi expressed his concern that Guy Velella was going to commit suicide if not released and stressed that Mr. Velella was not a threat to the public. At least one member claims to have been unaware of the extent of Mr. Velella's public prominence, though Mr. Russi suggested the Commission could expect some criticism for releasing him. On September 28, 2004, Mr. Velella and Mr. Del Toro were released into an intensive supervision program run by the Department of Probation, which requires a bi-weekly visit to a probation officer.

In making the decision to release Mr. Velella, at least one member claims not to have read the letters sent by public officials, although members were aware letters had been sent by prominent officials. Commission members insist that the letters did not influence their decisions. Instead, members state that they agreed to release Mr. Velella because he was a broken man; they were worried he might commit suicide; Mr. Velella had already served 3 months of a sentence; and Mr. Velella would remain on probation for a full year, rather than just the 5 months remaining in his sentence.

VI. Potential Violations of State Law
The decisions of the Commission may have violated several provisions of state law. Only two Commission members apparently had not recused themselves from the August 6, 2004 vote to release Manuel Gonzalez, indicating that the Commission did not have a quorum of three as required under Correction Law when it voted on the release. Likewise, the September 22, 2004 vote to release Guy Velella and Hector Del Toro was reportedly not made with three commission members present, as required under state law. Instead, only two members were present and a third was subsequently contacted by telephone. Under Section 273(2) of New York Correction Law, it is very likely that the votes to release Manuel Gonzalez, Guy Velella and Hector Del Toro would not be considered valid. Moreover, the Commission apparently did not provide notice of its meetings or take minutes, in likely violation of the Open Meetings Law. As discussed previously, in a recent case a court invalidated a decision made by a town board over the telephone.

Media reports also note that about not long after rejecting Mr. Velella's initial application, the Commission released Mr. Velella on his renewed application. Under Correction Law, if a commission decides not to grant conditional release, an inmate may reapply "sixty days after the date of submission of the denied application." Since the law speaks to the date of submission of an initial application, rather than the date of a decision to deny release, it is possible that Mr. Velella submitted a second application for release after the required 60-day period had elapsed. There may, however, be grounds for annulment of the release if less than 60 days had passed when Mr. Velella submitted his second application. This year, for example, the Third Department Appellate Division affirmed a Supreme Court decision to annul the decision of a local conditional release commission on this basis. See In re Rensselaer County Conditional Release Commission, 775 N.Y.S.2d 412 (3d Dep't 2004).

Note: In order to maintain consistency and accuracy, totals were calculated only for those counties that provided complete statistics for all years.

MIKE SACKS VELELLA'S GET-OUT-OF-JAIL PANEL
By DAVID SEIFMAN City Hall Bureau Chief, NY POST, October 14, 2004

October 14, 2004 -- Mayor Bloomberg cleaned house yesterday at the commission that released former state Sen. Guy Velella from jail just three months into his one-year sentence for taking bribes.
In a tersely worded statement dropped on reporters' desks at 6:40 p.m., Bloomberg said he had spoken with three remaining members of the Local Conditional Release Commission and "accepted their resignations and thanked them for their service."

The panel's chairman, Raul Russi, quit Tuesday after meeting with the mayor at City Hall.

Two of the departing members, Jeanne Hammack and Irene Prager, were appointed by Bloomberg; the third, Amy Ianora, was a holdover from the Giuliani administration.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg said he wouldn't oppose a move to return Velella to the slammer to complete his sentence for taking bribes, aides said.

In his strongest criticism to date of the little-known commission that sprung Velella, the mayor declared earlier yesterday:

"I don't know what possessed them to do it . . . I would not have gone and released him."

The mayor also said that elected officials "should be held to an even higher standard" than everyone else."

"The public has a right to see that elected officials, that the law applies to everybody," Bloomberg went on. "And when somebody is in the public view, whether elected official or celebrity, they shouldn't get special treatment."

Velella Scandal Unfolds, Commission Under Fire.
Letter Writers Didn't Know About Early Release,
Neighbors Welcome Senator Home to the Bronx
By Henry J. Stern
October 7, 2004

LINK

We continue to track the Velella story. Today, October 7, is the tenth day of press coverage of the senator's early release. The intense interest in this case is in response to an apparent example of inequality in the criminal justice system. The press accounts demand further inquiries and corrective action. In fact, the newspapers are conducting their own inquiries into what really happened, who pulled the strings, and who the commission told what it planned to do.

Our interest in this case has nothing to do with any personal feelings about the senator. Our dealings have always been cordial; four years ago he did something I seriously disagreed with, but it was nothing that would lead me to harbor any hostility towards him, and I have no such feelings. Among politicians, he is one of the more likeable, and his many friends in Albany and in his home community are supportive of him. He is probably not even the worst crook in the Legislature, but he did get caught, thanks to the persistence of one of our ablest public officials, New York County District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau.

The most specific exposition yet of the background of this case appears in today's Newsday, ppA6, A47, in a lengthy investigative article by Dan Janison. It is headlined: "Crime and politics: Connect the dots; From the time he entered Rikers Island to the time he was released - and beyond - Guy Velella was hardly your average prisoner." The lead: "State Sen. Guy Velella's stunning release from Rikers Island last week has evolved into a jagged tale, revealing the dense web of relationships that bind city politics to the local penal system."

Janison's article is well worth reading. Newsday, on pA50, also ran an editorial on the subject: "Velella's special deal - Why does 'release commission' exist?," which expresses its distaste for the favoritism shown here.

The Post, on p7, gives the case banner treatment. It carries the headline, "GUY CREEPS OUT; But Eliot eyes 2nd jail stint," exclusive, by Fredric U. Dicker, state editor. It begins: "Guy Velella finally emerged yesterday from the Bronx house where he's been holed up - as Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said the disgraced former state senator should go back to jail if he used false claims to gain a controversial early release." According to Dicker, Spitzer said the release board should "reconvene and reconsider its decision" last week for early release. Both said that some letter writers did not know their names would be used to petition.

Dicker cites an editorial in yesterday's Albany Times-Union. Entitled "Justice, Capitol style; A downstate legislator who was serving time for taking bribes is now a free man," the editorial quotes Senate Majority Leader Bruno as calling the release "a good thing." The editorial continues: "Mr. Bruno goes so far as to entertain the possibility that Mr. Velella might run for the Senate again in two years." He would be unable to vote for himself because of his felony conviction, but he could still run.

The Post's lead editorial today, "A Challenge for Spitzer," ridicules the ex-senator and the man who released him with their characteristic vigor. If you are angry about this case, you will savor the editorial. It concludes forcefully: "Raul Russi may not come to the phone for the Post; he won't be so shy if Spitzer's gumshoes show up with subpoenas. That can't happen too soon. Rarely has the public trust been abused in so flagrant a manner. Rarely is the need for redress so urgent."

The Times tells us today that "Velella Got Ride to Freedom From Guards' Union Chief." It continues with the pull-quote: "Inmates usually leave Rikers Island by bus. But not in this case." The story, by Kevin Flynn and Paul von Zielbauer, reports that "Norman Seabrook, president of the Correction Officers Benevolent Association, said he extended the courtesy because Mr. Velella, a Bronx Republican, had been a loyal friend to the union." The way he showed his friendship was by carrying legislation for increased benefits and pensions for correction officers which the union could not obtain by collective bargaining with the city. This practice, which is commonplace among unions and pliant assemblymembers and senators, mandates expenses of millions of dollars. The legislators get union endorsements when they run for reelection, the union members get higher benefits and pensions, and the city gets the bill. But that's another scandal.

Wednesday's Times leads pB1 and B6 (the Metro Section) with an article based on an investigation by Mike McIntyre: "Writers Say Freeing Velella Was Not Intent; Letters May Have Been Get Out of Jail Cards." The story quotes widely-respected Councilmember Madeline Provenzano:

"One of his staff people called and asked me to write a letter to Guy Velella to lift his spirits. If they intended to use it to get him out by going before this commission, which I'd never even heard of, I would have liked to have known that. That was not my intent when I wrote it. I had no idea this is what they were going to use it for."

A spokesman for Congressman Eliot Engel expressed similar sentiments.

Wednesday's Post carried two prominent stories on the affair. Under the headline, "'Guy' bill would nix crook-pol pensions," Kenneth Lovett reports from Albany that Senator Liz Krueger has introduced a bill to block pensions for elected officials who are convicted of felonies related to their public duties. Her bill would also have applied to former Assemblywoman Gloria Davis, convicted last year for accepting bribes. Senator Krueger's bill has as much chance of passing as a measure to cut the legislators' salaries by half.

The Post story also carried Governor Pataki's statement on the issue: "I'm concerned about the message it sends. We want to have equal justice for people. I think that's an important part of the criminal justice system."

He said the state should give "serious consideration" to abolishing the previously unknown commission. He could accomplish that by not signing any bill extending it beyond its current sunset date of September 1, 2005.

Under the 'Guy' story, Andrea Peyser, identified as 'Columnist Of The Year,' wrote a biting piece. "Bronx bozos give a hail to the thief" describes the enthusiastic welcome Senator Velella received in the neighborhood. She was particularly incensed at the display of "a yellow ribbon, as if to suggest Velella spent time fighting for his country in Iraq, rather than fighting for the right to stuff his face..." Peyser observes: "He could get reelected tomorrow." Agree with her or not, she writes vividly.

In a substantial and substantive editorial Wednesday the Sun wrote "Take Off the Kid Gloves." The first part deals with Senator Bruno's support for his fallen colleague. "This is the same Mr. Bruno who - when the allegations against Velella first surfaced years ago - accused the district attorney pursuing the investigation, Robert Morgenthau of Manhattan, of engaging in a politically motivated witch hunt." The Sun notes that Mr. Bruno has not criticized Mr. Velella, or apologized to Mr. Morgenthau. The editorial almost explodes in anger:
"Perhaps those who empathize with Mr. Velella - particularly his fans in the Legislature - recognize that there is a fine line between his misbehavior and business as usual at the Capitol. What is he guilty of, in the end, but using his power as an elected official to squeeze money out of those with business before state government? This is the standard way that Albany pols fill their campaign accounts. If Velella had retired from the Senate, and hung up a shingle as a lobbyist, he could no doubt have peddled his influence for millions of dollars without fear of retribution from Mr. Morgenthau.

"Even before he crossed the line to bribe-taking, Velella embodied much of what is corrupt about the Albany culture. He thrived not by advancing good government, but by trading favors with special interests.

His claim to fame was his ability to funnel pork-barrel dollars to the Bronx from Albany... He was also the poster boy of Albany gerrymandering. The Republicans who drew his district went so far out of their way to exclude minorities that one civil rights attorney liked its outline to a 'dismembered lobster.'"

In the Daily News, Joe Mahoney reports "Pataki's troubled by Velella's release," p36. "I'm concerned about the message that it sends," Pataki told reporters outside the State Capitol. "You know, you want to have equal justice for people." I believe that his remarks were correctly reported.

Back to Tuesday (we're doing LIFO), Newsday publishes, pA41, an op-ed by Stephen J. Singer, a former president of the Queens County Bar Association. It is titled: "ABOVE THE LAW; Velella's release turns out legal system upside down." The author concludes:

"It is difficult enough to obtain any consideration for prisoners who have terminal illnesses, are suffering constant physical abuse from other prisoners because of the nature of their crime, their avocation or their size, or who cry out for relief for some other truly unique reason.

"It is unheard of that all three white-collar criminals in the same case, who already received a relatively light sentence for stealing large sums of money, are released for no apparent good reason except that they know the right people. This commission has shaken public confidence in the entire system of justice. New York may be more similar to a Third World country than we had a right to expect."

The Post: Oct. 5, p2, "MIKE TO GRILL GUY'S SPRINGER," by David Seifman and Tom Topousis, quotes the mayor:

"I will sit down with the chairman and have a conversation with him, and I want to better understand on what basis he had made his decision. And at that time, I'll determine whether it is time to have somebody else in that slot."

The News, Oct. 5, p16, "Mike Sharpens Ax for Velella's Angel," by Lisa L. Colangelo and Russ Buettner: "I think that there's a real question as to why this commission and lots of other small commissions that nobody really pays any attention to - why they exist," Bloomberg said.

The News, Oct. 5, p34, editorial, "The Last Mile" (scroll to third editorial):

"Now that we are dry-eyed again after hearing about all these sufferings beyond human ken that poor Guy Velella was forced to endure while doing his 90 days of hard time, it occurs to us that here is an instructive lesson for all you other legislators who've got their snouts in the trough, or are thinking about sticking them there ... we propose that the Senate and Assembly be taken through Rikers Island ... and shown what incarceration is actually like ... Well, some of you are going to insist upon getting convicted of something sooner or later anyway, we expect. May God have mercy on your souls."

To read the vivid language we left out to save space, link to the article.

Guy Velella Goes Back to Jail December 27, 2004:

LINK

'FALL' GUY FINALLY BACK IN JAIL
By LAURA ITALIANO and DAREH GREGORIAN
December 28, 2004 -- Bye-bye, Guy.

Guy Velella's get-out-of-jail free card expired yesterday, when the former state senator and crybaby crook turned himself in to serve the remainder of his sentence on Rikers Island.

"I have no comment. Thank you," an annoyed Velella told reporters as he walked into the Department of Correction at 100 Centre St. at 3:15 p.m. - one hour and 45 minutes before the deadline for him to surrender imposed by the state's highest court.

The once-mighty state Republican, dressed in dark corduroys, a flannel shirt, gray zip-up hooded sweatshirt and a black hip-length jacket, took a tumble on the steps leading up to the courthouse as he was mobbed by a swarm of reporters, photographers and TV cameras.

Velella wasn't the only freed jailbird to return to the Rikers roost - four others who were sprung illegally earlier this year by the obscure city Local Conditional Release Commission also turned themselves in.

The most notorious was Velella, 60, who had been the subject of a three-year investigation by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office for taking kickbacks on state contracts. Facing up to 15 years in prison if convicted at trial, Velella pleaded guilty to felony conspiracy in return for a one-year sentence.

He had only served 100 days when the LCRC released him on Sept. 28 in a move the city Department of Investigation found was "illegal" because it ignored proper procedures.