It's my understanding he appoints some members, another poster stated 9 or 19, it could be 8 or could be all, for two year terms.
They're not two different scenarios, they're two different actions.
On the one hand I don't consider the political party of municipal apointments particularly important if they're tough on crime. But Rudy brought the topic up, so it's relevant. Hopefully someone will post his nominations to the commission. 8 years as mayor, 2 year terms, even if he gets 9 slots that's several dozen apointments.
Here is a blog response from the fellow who first raised the questions about Rudy's appointments. It seems to him that neither Rudy's boosters nor worst detractors are demonstrably right.
Rudy could have simply abolished the committee and done the work himself (or made any number of other changes), for the EXISTENCE of the committee is owed solely to an Executive Order.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0307/Simons_Spin.html
I don't doubt that there might have been "political capital" hell to pay, if Rudy had abolished it, etc., and I can see why he may have chosen NOT to blow capital over local (non-statewide) judges' appointments.
But if I were Rudy, I would say THAT instead of insinuating that I were ALREADY a big appointer of conservative judges.