We can find no support for the proposition that Tedesco broke any criminal law. It has been suggested that the letter may have violated Election Law Sec. 17-110:
§ 17-110. Misdemeanors concerning police commissioners or officers or members of any police force
Any person who, being a police commissioner or any officer or member of any police force in this state:
1. Uses or threatens or attempts to use his official power or authority, in any manner, directly or indirectly, in aid of or against any political party, organization, association or society, or to control, affect, influence, reward or punish, the political adherence, affiliation, action, expression or opinion of any citizen; or
2. Appoints, promotes, transfers, retires or punishes an officer or member of a police force, or asks for or aids in the promotion, transfer, retirement or punishment of an officer or member of a police force because of the party adherence or affiliation of such officer or member, or for or on the request, direct or indirect, of any political party, organization, association or society, or of any officer, member of a committee or representative official or otherwise of any political party, organization, association or society; or
3. Solicits, collects or receives any money for, any political fund, club, association, society or committee, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Paragraph 1 does not include aiding a candidate. True, one could argue that the GOP received indirect aid because Collier ran as a Republican. One could argue that. Not us. If the legislature wanted to include 'candidate' in that list, it would have included candidate.
We believe that Sec. 17-110 was designed to prohibit the use of official power in a broader, partisan context, not necessarily in a single political race. For example, Tedesco could have sent a letter supporting Campana and one supporting Collier. That would not be aiding a political party, organization, association....It would be aiding a candidate. Tedesco was not writing on behalf of the GOP.
That's not to say that the Teddy-Gram was appropriate and not violative of an internal, departmental order, rule or regulation. We suspect it is but do not know for sure.
JOHN SWEENEY PROVISION
Thanks to Talespin, we have an inside track on who may be joining the Tutunjian Administration as we enter his second term.
The provision in the new proposed draft of the non-represented employee policy we agree most with is the restriction on employees coming to work under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. It states no city employee shall report to work with a BAC of .20 or greater. The legal limit to drive is .08.
Looks like the person who drafted provision is already in violation of same. All we can say is, send us an application.
And finally, we'd like to thank you, the reader, for your visits. Here's a look at traffic during election week:
Quite a few unique visitors that week. Thank you.