Posted on 11/28/2007 11:56:43 AM PST by Fred
Giuliani billed obscure agencies for trips By: Ben Smith November 28, 2007 02:55 PM EST
As New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records.
The documents, obtained by Politico under New York’s Freedom of Information Law, show that the mayoral costs had nothing to do with the functions of the little-known city offices that defrayed his tabs, including agencies responsible for regulating loft apartments, aiding the disabled and providing lawyers for indigent defendants.
At the time, the mayor’s office refused to explain the accounting to city auditors, citing “security.”
The Hamptons visits resulted in hotel, gas and other costs for Giuliani’s New York Police Department security detail.
Giuliani’s relationship with Nathan is old news now, and Giuliani regularly asks voters on the campaign trail to forgive his "mistakes."
It’s also impossible to know whether the purpose of all the Hamptons trips was to see Nathan. A Giuliani spokeswoman declined to discuss any aspect of this story, which was explained in detail to her earlier this week.
But the practice of transferring the travel expenses of Giuliani's security detail to the accounts of obscure mayoral offices has never been brought to light, despite behind-the-scenes criticism from the city comptroller weeks after Giuliani left office.
The expenses first surfaced as Giuliani's two terms as mayor of New York drew to a close in 2001, when a city auditor stumbled across something unusual: $34,000 worth of travel expenses buried in the accounts of the New York City Loft Board.
When the city's fiscal monitor asked for an explanation, Giuliani's aides refused, citing "security," said Jeff Simmons, a spokesman for the city comptroller.
But American Express bills and travel documents obtained by Politico suggest another reason City Hall may have considered the documents sensitive: They detail three summers of visits to Southampton, the Long Island town where Nathan had an apartment.
Auditors "were unable to verify that these expenses were for legitimate or necessary purposes," City Comptroller William Thompson wrote of the expenses from Fiscal Year 2000, which covers parts of 1999 and 2000.
The letter, whose existence has not been previously reported, was also obtained under the Freedom of Information Law.
Long Island bills
The receipts tally the costs of hotel and gas bills for the police detectives who traveled everywhere with the mayor, according to cover sheets that label them “PD expenses” and travel authorizations that describe the trips.
Many are from hotels and gas stations on Long Island, where Giuliani reportedly began visiting Nathan’s Southampton condominium in the summer of 1999, though Giuliani and Nathan have never discussed the beginning of their relationship.
Nathan would go on to become Giuliani’s third wife, but his second marriage was officially intact until the spring of 2000, and City Hall officials at the time responded to questions about his absences by saying he was spending time with his son and playing golf.
The receipts have languished in city files since Giuliani left office, apparently in part because of City Hall's decision to bill police expenses to a range of little-known city offices.
"There is no really good reason to do this except to have nobody know about it," Carol O'Cleireacain, a Brookings Institution senior fellow who was budget director under Giuliani's predecessor, David Dinkins, said of the unusual billing practices.
A Giuliani spokeswoman, Sunny Mindel, declined to comment on any aspect of the travel documents or the billing arrangements.
A Giuliani aide who would speak only on the condition of anonymity denied that the unorthodox billing practices were aimed at hiding the expenses, citing "accounting" and noting that they were billed to units of the mayor's office, not to outside city agencies.
The aide declined to discuss Giuliani's visits to Long Island.
The trips themselves were a departure for a mayor who had prided himself on spending every waking moment in the city and on the job, and offer a glimpse into the dramatic and controversial finale to his tenure in office.
Receipts show him in Southampton every weekend in August and the first weekend in September of 2001, before the terror attacks of Sept. 11 disrupted the routines of his city.
Both the travel expenses and the appearance that his office made efforts to conceal them could open Giuliani to criticism that his personal life spilled over into his official duties and his expenses grew in his final years in office.
It is impossible to say which of the 11 Long Island trips indicated by credit card receipts were to visit Nathan and which were for other purposes.
Eight of those trips, however, were not noted on Giuliani's official schedule, which is now available in the city's municipal archive and contains many details of Giuliani's official and unofficial life.
The billing practices, however, drew formal attention on Jan. 24, 2002, when Thompson, the city comptroller, wrote the newly elected mayor, Michael Bloomberg, a confidential letter.
One of his auditors, he wrote, had stumbled upon the unexplained travel expenses during a routine audit of the Loft Board, a tiny branch of city government that regulates certain apartments.
Broadening the inquiry, the comptroller wrote, auditors found similar expenses at a range of other unlikely agencies: $10,054 billed to the Office for People with Disabilities and $29,757 to the Procurement Policy Board.
The next year, yet another obscure department, the Assigned Counsel Administrative Office, was billed around $400,000 for travel.
Increasing costs
"The Comptroller's Office made repeated requests for the information in 2001 and 2002 but was informed that due to security concerns the information could not be provided," said Simmons. Thompson took office in 2002.
Thompson also warned that travel costs had increased by 151 percent in Giuliani's final fiscal year, to more than $618,000, a number which also includes police security on campaign swings for Giuliani’s abortive 2000 Senate run and trips to Los Angeles by Donna Hanover, who remained Giuliani's wife and the city's official first lady, in the fall of 2000.
Most of that travel also was billed to obscure agencies, though portions — much of it trips to and from Washington by Giuliani deputies — were accounted for more conventionally, with a more visible charge to the mayor's office.
Thompson suggested Bloomberg "review…the cost of Mayoralty travel expenses, given your administration's focus on fiscal constraints."
A spokesman for Mayor Bloomberg, Stu Loeser, said: "When we received the letter from the comptroller, we referred the matter to the department of Investigations as we would in any case like this."
A spokeswoman for the department of Investigations declined to comment.
The executive director of the Loft Board referred Politico to Bloomberg's office for comment.
The first trip to Southampton appearing in the travel documents runs from Aug. 31 to Sept. 1, 1999.
Four police officers spent the night at the Atlantic Utopia Lifestyle Inn, according to an approval request for official out-of-city travel, billing the city $1,016.20.
Giuliani’s private schedule, available from the municipal archive, lists no events on Long Island that day.
The New York Post reported the following year that Giuliani "had long weekend visits with gal pal Judi Nathan at her Southampton, L.I., condo last summer, according to neighbors who said the mayor did little to conceal their relationship.”
The neighbors called their relationship and their time in Nathan's two-bedroom condo overlooking Noyack Bay "an open secret.”
"Several residents of the condo sometimes asked Giuliani's driver and members of his security entourage to turn off their car engines," the Post reported.
That first trip was followed by at least 10 more, according to the travel and credit card documents.
One of those trips, on Aug. 20-21 of 1999, included a fundraiser on the evening of the 21st. Giuliani’s four-man detail arrived 24 hours early, billing the city $1704.43 at the Southampton Inn, according to their approval request.
More trips followed in the summer of 2000, after the mayor's affair with Nathan became public and they were seen together publicly in Southampton. The trips accelerated in the summer of 2001, when he visited Southampton every weekend in August, as well as on Sept. 2.
Many of the trips only show expenses for gas, though his police detail billed the city $1371.40 for the nights of Aug. 3-4 of 2001 at the Village Latch Inn in Southampton.
Giuliani's police detail also spent a night in Palm Beach, Fla., according to the bill for the American Express card under Giuliani's name. The detectives spent $1714.99 at The Breakers, a sprawling hotel and resort.
There is no indication that Nathan visited Palm Beach. Giuliani's aide did not recall the trip.
The 2001 travel expenses were billed to the Assigned Counsel Administrative Office, a little-known unit of the mayor's office involved in programs that provide lawyers to poor defendants.
None of the 2001 trips to Southampton appear in Giuliani's official schedule. However, the schedule does contain a potential clue to his destination. Before three of them, Giuliani paid a visit to his barber, Carlo Fargnoli, on York Avenue near the mayor's official residence, Gracie Mansion.
Politico intern Kate Linthicum contributed to this article.
TM & © THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton Communications Company
RG proved once again that when it comes to women, most men are incredibly dumb.
I have a BIG problem with all the secrecy, as well as the fact that he also used taxpayer money for bodyguards and drivers for his mistress.
Giuliani and Clinton would make a great team.
See... that's what I mean. You're reading what you want to read, not what's there. There's nothing in the story about security for Nathan. It's the Mayor's security detail, for his trips. It may come as a surprise to you, but the mayor's security detail even goes along on personal trips. Imagine that.
I know you hate the guy. That's pretty clear. But making stuff up just makes your side look pathetic.
Well said. I don’t know what the law says about whether or not the mayor is supposed to reimburse the city for security on personal trips. However, the fact that he appears to have hidden tens of thousands of dollars in obscure parts of the budget is very suspicious. The fact that he cited “security” as an excuse to stonewall auditors’ questions is even worse.
Much like the ‘toons, the guy has a long pattern of behaving as if the law does not apply to him. I will not vote for a would-be king who believes he’s above the law.
No, I am going on another story from early in the year.
He hired police bodyguards for her. They drove her to get her hair and nails done and to pick her daughter up at school.
And I’m not the one who jumped to conclusions and now looks pathetic.
Sorry, but all the anti-Rudy hatefest is pretty pathetic. I suppose you actually believe he’s a transvestite too, huh?
Heh.
But back to the security detail... once they’re having a relationship of some sort there’s pretty good argument that she should get a protection detail. Just like any other prominent targetable person. Whether that happened here or not... this is really small potatoes.
I guess it’s kinda pointless to discuss it, isn’t it? You don’t care what I think and I don’t care about nitpicks. So... enjoy your evening.
It’s time to bury this liberal crook so Republican voters can focus in on the other candidates...
He is a political man, like most.
Hey now baby, get into my big black car.
Hey now baby, get into my big black car.
I want to just show you what my politics are.
Im a political man and I practice what I preach.
Im a political man and I practice what I preach.
So dont deny me baby, not while youre in my reach.
I support the left, though Im leaning, leaning to the right.
I support the left, though Im leaning to the right.
But Im just not there when its coming to a fight.
Hey now baby, get into my big black car.
Hey now baby, get into my big black car.
I want to just show you what my politics are.
It is creepy that you could replace the names “Giuliani” and “Clinton” in this instance, although I don’t think Clinton tried as hard to hide it while he ran Arkansas.
Maybe, maybe not. We haven't heard the details of exactly what was said and in what context, nor do we know anything about the political loyalties of any particular auditors who may have said or implied that he "stonewalled" them. I'm sure there were plenty of Dinkins era staffers still around who didn't like Rudy's toughness on petty crime, tax-cutting (read cutting programs that employ leftist hacks), and other un-Dinkins-like crusades.
With the mayor's relationship with Judy Nathan already making the gossip columns, there were some genuine security concerns re tabloid stringers and paparazzi chasing them around, causing trouble at various private and public venues where Rudy & Judy and other well-known people were meeting for both social and political purposes, etc. The risk of sketchy unionized civil servants in the mayor's office tipping off tabloid stringers and paparazzi (for a fee, of course) could have been a real concern based on real experiences, and led to the desire to spread details of his outings around different little fiefdoms within the mayor's office, to avoid any of these people catching on to a pattern that they might share with unauthorized parties (e.g. "He's heading out to Long Island, and the last 5 times he did that on a weeknight, he always had dinner at either Restaurant X or or Country Club Y).
Sadly, our high profile public figures and their close family members and friends really do have to deal with this kind of crap on a daily basis. If he hadn't been mayor nobody would have cared who he ate dinner with or where, so measures to secure a reasonable degree of personal privacy are legitimate job-related expenses in my book. That MAY have been what was going on here. I do think Rudy needs to make some detailed explanations, and have them publicly accepted as reasonable by some of the people in a position to vet these things (e.g. current city auditors who were not employed in that capacity at the time).
OK... fair enough:
#1. No, it’s not OK. Does it disqualify him from the Presidency? No. I don’t really care that much. It’s a negative, but a small one.
#2. I don’t quite accept the premise. Need more info. I don’t see that anything was all that “hidden”, and none of the charges seem all that out of line.
#3. If it were Bill Clinton, I’d say what I said then when it was Bill Clinton. I don’t really care. I only really cared about his affairs when he was doing it in the Oval Office. That’s my business because it’s a huge security and blackmail risk.
That said, there’s light years of difference between the kind of sleazeball that Clinton is, and the affair that Rudy had. Really... Nobody in NYC *didn’t* know that his marriage was all but over and that they rarely even spoke to each other any more. That he was seeing someone else was hardly a secret let alone a surprise. Should he have gotten the divorce first? Yes. That would’ve been better, but it was slow documentation of a forgone marriage.
Bill is just a sleazy poon-hound. He’s chasing skirts whenever anybody isn’t looking. Or maybe even when they are. Different critter, that.
Truth be told, if Rudy goes down say hello to “President Clinton” again.
It is looking like the nomination is going to narrow down to Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson. If this pans out then Rudy is OUT.
When anybody chooses to run for national office, you can be sure they’d better expect this sort of “digital exam”....all the way back to wanking in Junior High Skool.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.