|
By Donna Lamb |
|
| |
|
Process in Jennings Case Questioned
 he April 20th
City Council meeting, much time was given to discussing and voting on
the penalties that the council’s eight-member Standards and Ethics
Committee filed against Queens Councilmember Allan Jennings. These
penalties had been arrived at after a nine-month internal investigation
during which the committee spent close to 104 hours in 26 different
hearings diligently interviewing witnesses and hearing evidence about
the charges put forth by five women that Jennings had touched them
inappropriately, subjected them to racist remarks, and intimated them.
The investigation resulted in almost 4,000 pages of written
testimony, out of which the ethics committee produced a 105-page report
supporting the claims of two of the women. The committee found Jennings
guilty of improperly firing one employee and creating a hostile work
environment. The committee recommended that he be allowed to stay in
office, but be required to pay a $5,000 fine; undergo court-certified
anger management as well as gender, racial and harassment sensitivity
training; receive a public censure; and be suspended from all his
committee assignments.
The full council was not required to consider the validity of the
charges against Jennings – that was solely up to the Standards and
Ethics Committee. The council was, however, asked to vote on the
penalties the committee was recommending against Jennings, even though
they had been barred from the hearings and were only allowed to read the
transcripts.
It was evident that the Standards and Ethics Committee had put an
incredible amount of time and careful effort into the hearings, and, as
a result, when the full council voted on the sanctions, it came out 43
in favor, 2 against, and 4 abstentions.
Jennings himself voted against the sanctions, stating firmly, "The
sins I am accused of today, I did not commit. I am innocent." He vowed
to take his case to court.
 Also
voting "no" was Council Member Charles Barron who said that this is
probably the most difficult decision that he’d ever had to make in the
City Council, "But I find it ironic that now you’re calling on me to be
the jury though I wasn’t invited to the trial."
Barron made it clear that he hadn’t voted no as a means of defending
Jennings or making a statement about whether he thought the report was
accurate or not. As a great protector of women, particularly of Black
women, he found what was in the report extremely disturbing and thought
that if any of it is true, Jennings should get help. "My vote no is
against the process," Barron declared. "It’s like a judge holding
a bench trial and then telling the jury, ‘You couldn’t come to the
trial, but now you can make a decision on the final conclusion.’"
Barron stated, too, that he was concerned about the precedent this
would set for the future. He thought that if the council ever had
another case, there could be an eight-member ethics committee, but the
other 43 councilmembers should be able to come and go during the
hearings because just reading transcripts isn’t enough. They need to be
able to see for themselves the faces and body language, hear the tones
of voices of both the accused and the accusers in order to make an
intelligent decision.
"I’m sure people who had the opportunity to sit through the whole
trial are convinced," Barron commented, "but for me, I think we need to
abstain from this, and we need to get it right. Because you may get
Jennings today, but they may come for you tomorrow."
 One
of the four councilmembers who did abstain was Kendall Stewart, who also
felt that in having been excluded from the hearings he was in no
position to make a valid decision, even though he was appalled by what
he read in the report and thought that anyone who would commit such
deeds deserves to be punished. "But I cannot see how, in good
conscience, I can vote on this issue," he said. "So I abstain."
Stewart questioned, too, whether the City Council is the right venue
for a decision in a case of this nature. "If the committee feels there
is enough evidence to charge a councilmember, it should go to a court of
law where he can openly defend himself and the public can see what is
happening," he said. Stewart also thought this would take care of the
problem of a person being punished first by the City Council and then,
perhaps, being taken to court and punished again, which he thought was
unfair.
 Another
member who addressed the issue of the process was Council Member Lewis
Fidler. Even though he voted for the sanctions, he said that there are
issues that need to be addressed as to whether these proceedings should
be public or private. "But while the process was not perfect, it
certainly was not a rush to judgment, and it certainly was not, as far
as this council was concerned, a political witch hunt," Fidler said.
"And it certainly was not something any of us wanted to happen. It was
an embarrassment."
Fidler said that short of retrying the entire case in public from
beginning to end, he didn’t see any alternative other than to trust
their eight colleagues who had been designated to try the case. "I would
ask Leroy Comrie, Chair of the Rules Committee, to convened a meeting,"
Fidler concluded, "so we can look at the process, in case, God help us,
we ever have to come back here again for another member."
Read Donna's Last Column
Read more of Donna’s articles at
http://www.donnalamb.com/
|
