William Neuman

De Blasio let the executive know to expect a follow-up call about the fund.

Another meeting with a real estate executive, whose firm was developing affordable housing for the city, went much the same way.

As de Blasio nears a decision this month on whether to enter the crowded Democratic field of presidential contenders, his history of questionable fundraising tactics, and the subsequent investigations into them, will likely weigh on his chances.

And those two interactions with the real estate executives, which occurred in 2015, are now casting a new shadow over his tenure.

The conversations were cited by the city Department of Investigation in a confidential and heavily redacted report that concluded that the mayor had solicited contributions from people who had business pending with the city, an apparent violation of the City Charter’s ethics law.

The matter was referred to the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board, which has jurisdiction over potential violations of the ethics law.

But de Blasio in recent days has refused to say whether the Conflicts of Interest Board sent him a letter addressing the matter.

The board itself has said that it cannot disclose whether it even took action against the mayor because of confidentiality rules.

The secrecy surrounding the proceedings has deepened questions about how ethics are policed in his administration — and whether the officials who are supposed to evaluate conflicts of interest have their own conflicts.

The board’s five members are appointed by the mayor and approved by the City Council. Four of the five current members were appointed or reappointed by de Blasio. One of them, Fernando A. Bohorquez, a lawyer, contributed $2,675 to the mayor’s election campaign in 2013.

After de Blasio won that election, he named Bohorquez to his inaugural committee, a ceremonial position conferred on many other donors, including two who have since pleaded guilty to using contributions to bribe or seek favors from the mayor.

Bohorquez and a fellow member, Erika Thomas, are lawyers at Baker &amp; Hostetler, a firm that has additional ties to the mayor. Thomas was appointed by de Blasio’s predecessor, Michael Bloomberg, and remains on the board as a holdover even though her term expired in 2016. That means that she serves essentially at the discretion of de Blasio, who could replace her at any time.

Employees of Baker &amp; Hostetler have given de Blasio contributions totaling $17,515 during his two mayoral races, according to city records. Campaign finance records also show that the law firm was involved in two fundraising events for de Blasio while he campaigned for mayor in 2013, both apparently held at its Rockefeller Center offices and organized with the help of Bohorquez.

The board’s monthly meetings are frequently held in a conference room at the Baker &amp; Hostetler offices as well.

Bohorquez said in an email that “the law does not require a public servant to be recused from matters involving an elected official to whose campaign that public servant has donated.” He refused to say if he had recused himself from the mayor’s case, “because doing so would disclose that such a case exists, in violation of the strict confidentiality restrictions in the city’s conflicts of interest law.”

Thomas did not respond to phone and email messages.

Ritchie Torres, a Bronx councilman who leads the Council Committee on Oversight and Investigations, took issue with Bohorquez’s position on the conflicts board.

“The optics of appointing a donor to the Conflicts of Interest Board is troubling,” he said, noting that he abstained from voting on Bohorquez’s reappointment last year. “It creates the appearance of impropriety, which I felt was disqualifying.”

The board’s chairman, Richard Briffault, acknowledged that the board should be concerned about the appearance of potential conflicts of interest, especially as it relates to the mayor.

“It’s a legitimate question,” he said. “Maybe we should look into changing the rules about what we’re required to disclose, and maybe more disclosure should be required of us with respect to elected officials.”

Nonetheless, Briffault refused to say whether any board members recused themselves from the case. His term expires in 2020, when the mayor will be able to reappoint or replace him.

Briffault said that restrictions built into the City Charter’s conflicts of interest law barred the board from issuing a fine or even issuing a public admonishment in de Blasio's case.

The only other action available to the board was to issue what is known as a private warning letter — an option that the board chose 62 times last year. The board, for confidentiality reasons, will not say whether that happened in the mayor’s case.

“I can say that the board took seriously its obligation and spent a considerable amount of time addressing the matter,” Briffault said.

He added that the board, prompted by the issues raised in the Department of Investigation inquiry into de Blasio’s fundraising, is working to create a formal rule that would specifically bar public officials from seeking donations to nonprofit groups from people or companies with business pending before the city.

The board is expected to approve the rule at an upcoming meeting, perhaps as early as this week.

While the board is barred from making a private warning public, de Blasio is free to do so. But he has steadfastly refused to discuss the Department of Investigation inquiry into his fundraising and he pleaded ignorance last week when asked if he had received a private warning letter from the conflicts board.

“I know what the Conflicts of Interest Board is but I don’t know what a private warning letter is,” the mayor said in response to a question at a news conference April 29. “I can’t answer you but I can have our lawyers update you.”

The following day, the mayor’s press secretary, Freddi Goldstein, was asked for the update promised by the mayor.

“Declining comment on whether or not we’ve ever received one,” Goldstein said in an email. Goldstein later explained that City Hall officials had consulted with lawyers for the city and the mayor’s private lawyer, and that she would not provide any additional information.

In 2017, federal and state prosecutors ended inquiries without bringing charges against the mayor, even as the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office concluded that some of the practices ran “contrary to the intent and spirit of the laws.”

The Department of Investigation inquiry began in 2016 and looked at whether de Blasio had violated the City Charter’s conflict of interest statute while fundraising for the Campaign for One New York, a nonprofit group he created to support his policy initiatives.

The department’s findings were revealed in the online news site The City last month and Briffault confirmed in an interview last week that the board had received a referral on the inquiry from the investigation department.

The investigation department, in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Law, also confirmed last week that it sent its referral to the conflicts board Jan. 31, 2018. The department refused to provide the content of the referral, citing confidentiality requirements.

The department formally closed its investigation in October, suggesting that the board spent much of 2018 deliberating on what to do about the mayor’s case.

In a seeming coincidence, de Blasio sent letters to the City Council reappointing two of the board members, Bohorquez and Anthony Crowell, to new terms Jan. 31, 2018, the same day that the investigations department made its referral to the board.

The investigation department’s inquiry focused on whether de Blasio’s fundraising violated a section of the charter’s conflict of interest law that prohibits a public servant from engaging in an activity “which is in conflict with the proper discharge of his or her official duties.”

That section of the law is known as the “catchall” provision — but it comes with a Catch-22.

The charter says that no penalty can be assessed for violating the catchall provision unless the conflicts board has promulgated a rule specifically barring the conduct involved. And in the case of the mayor’s fundraising for the Campaign for One New York, no such rule existed.

The board’s lawyers advised that the board did not have the option of issuing a fine or a public warning letter.

“COIB will impose draconian penalties on the lowest of municipal employees, but will give the mayor a pass,” Torres said. “The disconnect is not lost on people.”

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/07/nyregion/deblasio-conflict-interest.html" id="e03c5644-3f5c-3b28-a4cd-d29b5631f21b">The New York Times</a>.

Ethics Cloud Hangs Over de Blasio as He Weighs Presidential Run

A real estate executive, whose company had been seeking a zoning change for one of its projects in New York City, got a call from Mayor Bill de Blasio. After mostly political talk, the mayor changed the subject: Suddenly they were discussing the mayor’s nonprofit group, which he had created to raise money to back his policy agenda.

The investigation was revealed in news reports last month and Briffault confirmed in an interview last week that the board had received a referral on the inquiry from the investigation department. The department is required by law to report to the board any violations of the city conflicts of interest law that it uncovers.

The investigation department said last week, in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Law, that it sent a referral regarding the inquiry’s conclusions to the conflicts board Jan. 31, 2018. The department refused to provide the content of the referral, citing confidentiality requirements.

City officials first estimated the total value of the buildings at about $50 million. A private appraiser later hired by the city determined the value was $143 million. The city has kept the appraisal secret; no other appraisal was commissioned.

The city closed a deal Thursday to pay the landlords $173 million for the buildings. City officials said the purchase price for the buildings rose during the normal course of negotiations.

At the center of the deal was Frank Carone, the lawyer for the landlords, and an influential figure in the Brooklyn Democratic Party and a longtime ally of de Blasio.

As negotiations were continuing with the city over the buildings’ sale last fall, Carone donated the maximum $5,000 to the mayor’s federal political action committee, Fairness PAC, which de Blasio is using to explore a run for president.

Then, as the parties prepared to close on the deal, Carone turned to others to boost the mayor’s PAC.

Carone acknowledged through a representative that he had helped de Blasio solicit donors for Fairness PAC, which the mayor has used to pay for his travel this year to early primary states like Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire; he plans to visit Boston on Thursday and Nevada this weekend.

In his first term, de Blasio repeatedly came under scrutiny for blurring the line between city business and political fundraising. Several state and federal investigations examined his ties to donors, two of whom pleaded guilty to corruption-related charges.

The investigations were closed without de Blasio facing charges, but federal prosecutors released a statement citing “circumstances in which Mayor de Blasio and others acting on his behalf solicited donations from individuals who sought official favors from the city.”

Both de Blasio and Carone said that they had not discussed the real estate deal that calls for the city to pay the landlords, Stuart and Jay Podolsky, $173 million for the buildings in Brooklyn and the Bronx.

The city comptroller, Scott M. Stringer, wrote to the mayor’s office on March 25 to express concern over the purchase price, and asked to see the appraisals of the properties, which have been used by the city to house the homeless.

But Steven Banks, the commissioner of the Department of Social Services, replied three days later, saying that the city’s policy was not to release appraisals because they might contain information that could affect the city’s negotiating position in future transactions. Banks said the city was paying an average of $237,000 per apartment, a price he said was in the range of the median price for rent-stabilized units in Brooklyn and the Bronx.

A spokeswoman for the comptroller, who oversees city spending, said that his office did not have the authority to block the deal.

Eric F. Phillips, de Blasio’s press secretary, said that Carone’s association with the mayor did not influence the real estate transaction.

“This deal is about improving and securing affordable homes for 2,000 people,” Phillips said in a written statement. “The personal political activity of one of the many lawyers involved never entered into the equation.”

Referring to the mayor and Carone, he added, “They’ve never spoken about any details of the deal.”

Carone, a lawyer at Abrams Fensterman and counsel to the Brooklyn Democratic Party, said that it made sense for him to represent the Podolskys because he had known the “family for more than 30 years.”

“It was only natural for myself and my team to represent the family in its eminent domain negotiations with the city,” Carone said in a statement provided by a representative, George Arzt. “Ultimately, all parties came to an agreement on what an amicable settlement would look like.”

For years, hundreds of the apartments in the Podolskys’ buildings have been used by the city to house homeless families, as part of what is known as the cluster-site program. Under the deal, the city will pay for the buildings but nonprofit groups will convert them to permanent affordable housing, own and operate them.

The deal had already attracted questions because of the Podolskys’ history. Along with their father, Zenek Podolsky, the brothers were indicted in the 1980s by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office for allegedly using a “terror” campaign to drive tenants out of three Upper West Side buildings, which they filled with drug dealers and prostitutes. The Podolskys pleaded guilty but were spared a prison term by agreeing to turn the buildings over to a nonprofit that worked with homeless families.

More recently, the buildings they are selling, like others in the cluster-site program, have been plagued by violations and subpar conditions. City officials, however, refused to identify the buildings involved in the sale, citing privacy concerns of the homeless families living there.

The Podolskys also operate single-room occupancy hotels used by the city to house homeless people. The city said it began contracting with the Podolsky companies for the cluster sites in 2001; from July 2013 through June 2018, the Department of Homeless Services paid companies controlled by the Podolskys a total of $189 million for use of the cluster-site apartments and the single-room occupancy locations.

The city announced in December that it was in the process of buying 17 cluster-site buildings. It was later revealed by The Daily News that the buildings were owned by the Podolsky brothers. De Blasio said then that the negotiations would be delayed while the deal was reviewed; the city later determined that it could proceed.

The city at first said it might use eminent domain to seize the properties but ultimately worked out a deal for their purchase.

A review in 2017 by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development first set the total value of the 17 buildings at about $50 million. But Banks said that review was not suitable for an eminent domain proceeding, which is intended to capture the value of the properties’ highest- and best-use potential, and a professional appraisal by Metropolitan Valuation Services later estimated the value at $143 million.

City officials said that a “reputable independent appraiser” had prepared an “evaluation for potential condemnation that was consistent with the correct legal standard, so there was no need for another appraisal.”

But Jonathan Miller, the president and chief executive of Miller Samuel, a real estate appraisal company not involved in the transaction, said that it was typical in comparable situations to get more than one appraisal.

“We do a lot of litigation, arbitration, mediation, and there’s almost always multiple appraisals,” Miller said, adding that if two appraisals are far apart, then a third would typically be called for, to ensure that “no money was left on the table, or that a party ended up paying much more than what something is worth.”

He said that the large gap between the Housing Preservation Department estimate and the professional appraisal was a cause for concern, and “with that kind of disparity I would think that would necessitate more than one alternative valuation.”

Banks said the $173 million purchase price was justified because if the city were to take the buildings through eminent domain, the process could have dragged on for years and could have ended up costing the city even more money.

Banks said that Carone’s ties to the mayor did not influence the outcome. He said that the buildings have a total of 729 apartments, of which 468 were used as cluster housing.

All of the families in the cluster units, which include about 1,200 people, will now get affordable leases to their apartments. About 2,000 people live in the buildings, when noncluster apartments are included.

“There’s 1,200 human beings here, children and adults, that are getting permanent housing at one fell swoop,” Banks said.

De Blasio has vowed to end the cluster-site program because it is costly and because it is often difficult to provide services to families placed in the apartments. Banks said that negotiations were continuing with the owners of other cluster-site buildings, and similar deals could be announced soon. He said that Carone was not involved in those negotiations.

Carone said there was nothing untoward in his financial support of the mayor. (He and his wife, Diana, each made the maximum donation of $4,950 to the mayor’s 2017 re-election campaign.)

“I am a Brooklynite and an attorney representing the Kings County Democratic Organization, and I am proud to say I regularly support people from Brooklyn,” Carone said in a statement. “So it should be of no astonishment why I am supporting our Brooklyn mayor as he explores a run for president.”

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/nyregion/homeless-buildings-sold-de-blasio-democrats.html" id="89d2d847-cf06-333d-a467-bd0fdb9dc1aa">The New York Times</a>.

Landlords Get a $173 Million Deal From City as Their Lawyer Raises Funds for de Blasio

NEW YORK — Two years ago, the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio decided to buy 17 buildings, which it planned to use for affordable housing, from a pair of notorious landlords with an extensive record of violations.

After the Proud Boys’ founder, Gavin McInnes, spoke at the club, vandalism and violence ensued, as people associated with the group squared off with protesters on the streets of the Upper East Side.

Now the brawl has moved inside the century-old club. The fight mirrors broader tensions within the Republican Party around the country, pitting far-right conservatives energized by President Donald Trump against a Republican establishment that was once a bastion of New York moderates like John Lindsay and Nelson Rockefeller.

The election for club president will be held Wednesday, and one of the two candidates, Ian Walsh Reilly, has won support from another right-wing provocateur, Milo Yiannopoulos, who posted a New Year’s Eve appeal on Facebook, urging his followers to join the club and vote for Reilly.

Yiannopoulos warned of “an anti-MAGA coup d'état” at the club and said, “We need to keep this bastion of real conservatism alive and well in the belly of the beast.”

Reilly, who is in his 30s, did not respond to numerous requests for an interview. But on social media, he has seemed eager to capitalize on the notoriety of the Proud Boys visit, calling on supporters to join the club by Jan. 1, the cutoff point for new members to be eligible to vote in the election.

“I am writing you today because I need your help,” Reilly wrote Dec. 28 on a Facebook page called Ian Reilly for Met Club President, featuring a red banner with a cartoonish drawing of Trump’s profile and the slogan, “Keeping the Met Club Great.”

“After being driven from power in 2016, the anti-Trump forces of the Republican Establishment are reasserting themselves and plotting a takeover of the Metropolitan Republican Club.”

Club members said they cannot remember another time in decades when there was a contested election for the club presidency. In the past, a nominating committee typically chose a candidate who was then elected unopposed.

Yet Trump, much as he has in the rest of the country, has become a polarizing force. He remains unpopular in his home state and especially in New York City, where Democrats outnumber Republicans 6-to-1.

His unpopularity even extends to Manhattan Republicans: In the 2016 Republican primary, Trump won every county in New York state except Manhattan, where John Kasich defeated him, 45 percent to 42 percent.

Reilly and his opponent, Robert Morgan, 66, both support the president, but it is the injection of a far-right brand of Trumpism that has divided the organization.

“It’s a larger example of what’s happening to the party nationally,” said William F.B. O’Reilly, a political consultant who is a former club president. “If it can infect the Metropolitan Republican Club, it is now complete in its infection.”

The Metropolitan Club, he added, “would be the last place that type of angry populism” would take hold.

Reilly’s campaign tactics led to a counter membership drive to support Morgan, a Manhattan lawyer who is a previous club president.

Andrea Catsimatidis, chairwoman of the Manhattan Republican Party, sent out an urgent email Dec. 31 in support of Morgan’s bid for the club presidency, calling him “a community-oriented leader who will avoid needless controversies.”

Referring to him only as “Bob’s opponent,” Catsimatidis accused Reilly of “sending out blast emails to many thousands of individuals, many of whom have no prior connection to the club or our Republican community, spreading rumors absurdly claiming that Bob is part of an ‘anti-Trump takeover’ of the Met Club.”

She added, “We just can’t let the ballot box in effect be stuffed by false claims,” and went on to urge the recipients of her email to join the club before midnight so that they could provide an electoral counterweight to the new members recruited by Reilly.

The dueling membership drives more than doubled the club’s size. In early December, there were slightly more than 300 members, according to Morgan’s son, Robert Morgan Jr., who is on the club’s executive committee and supports his father. He said nearly 500 people joined that month.

Members can vote by attending a meeting Wednesday or by proxy.

Interviews with club officials left it unclear how McInnes was invited to speak at the club in October and what Reilly’s role was.

In the Dec. 28 Facebook post, Reilly boasted that as executive committee chairman, he had transformed the club “into New York City’s conservative stronghold,” and he cited other speakers who have appeared there during his tenure, including Newt Gingrich and Ann Coulter.

Morgan, the candidate, said in an interview that he voted for Trump and supports him. At the same time, he sees the club as belonging to a long tradition of New York Republicanism, associated with moderate figures like former state Sen. Roy M. Goodman. He said Rudy Giuliani, too, drew club support in his mayoral campaigns, at a time when Giuliani was far more liberal than he is today.

“Our club has a long tradition of electing conservative-to-moderate Republicans who fit in with the community,” Morgan said. “It’s an important pillar of the Republican community, and I think my election will mean that it will continue to represent the mainstream Republicans on the East Side and in Manhattan.”

Yet he resisted characterizing the bitterness dividing the club today as a sign of broader pressures within the Republican Party.

“I agree that there are stresses, but what I don’t want is to say this is just anti-Trump vs. pro-Trump,” Morgan said. “Most people support President Trump, but there are degrees of emphasis within our membership.”

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/25/nyregion/metropolitan-republican-club-trump.html" id="1abf1519-975a-34b4-acf3-c77f050e549f">The New York Times</a>.

Trump and Far-Right Movement Battle Over Manhattan GOP Club After Proud Boys Brawl

NEW YORK — Less than four months ago, the staid Metropolitan Republican Club in Manhattan became an unlikely battleground between anti-fascism activists and a far-right group known as the Proud Boys.

“He has done an outstanding job,” the mayor said of O’Brien, “particularly as we went through a very intense 2017.”

Less than three months later, O’Brien was gone. According to documents obtained by The New York Times, O’Brien was quietly forced to resign after complaints of sexual harassment filed by two female city employees were substantiated.

Yet City Hall officials did not announce his departure or the reason for it.

At least some of the harassment occurred while O’Brien, 36, was working as acting chief of staff, Eric F. Phillips, the mayor’s press secretary, said, adding that City Hall officials first became aware of the allegations in February and acted on them promptly.

“The misconduct in this case literally makes me sick to my stomach,” de Blasio said Thursday, deliberately devoting a third of his news conference to addressing O’Brien’s case, which had been reported online by The New York Times earlier in the day. “Angry does not describe my view. I am livid. I’m disgusted by what happened. I am deeply disappointed in this individual.”

De Blasio said that he had not been aware of any allegations of improper behavior against O’Brien when he praised him in November 2017 during a wider announcement of personnel actions that included moving O’Brien to a senior adviser position.

Referring to the women who accused O’Brien, the mayor said, “Let me say to them I am deeply sorry; I am deeply sorry this happened on our team. It shocks me, and it is absolutely inconsistent with the values of this administration.”

A report on O’Brien’s conduct prepared by the city’s Law Department and the office of the mayor’s counsel says that investigators interviewed the two women and found their statements credible. The investigators said that O’Brien’s account was found “to be not credible,” and recommended that he be “terminated from employment at the mayor’s office.”

The report, dated Feb. 13, was obtained in response to a request under the state’s Freedom of Information Law. It was heavily redacted, and details of the harassment allegations, including when they took place, were not included in the material provided to The Times.

But de Blasio on Thursday implied that O’Brien’s behavior had been egregious. He said that two or three other sex harassment cases had been substantiated during his administration against employees of the mayor’s office, which has about 1,000 employees, but that those cases were “nothing like this incident.”

After leaving City Hall, O’Brien went to work for Hilltop Public Solutions, a political consulting and lobbying firm founded by Nicholas R. Baldick, a close ally of the mayor who initially recommended O’Brien to City Hall.

O’Brien’s ouster in February came at a delicate moment for City Hall, as the national #MeToo movement focused attention on sexual harassment, and de Blasio at the time struggled to answer questions about how his administration handled harassment complaints.

Administration officials, after months of delays, eventually released data on the sexual harassment complaints filed against city employees: From mid-2013 through 2017, there were 1,312 such complaints lodged at all city agencies, with 221 substantiated, the city said at the time. Those substantiated claims were said to involve as many as five mayor’s office employees. But the administration gave no details and did not identify the workers.

The report on O’Brien states that because the two complainants requested anonymity, their names and identifying information were omitted from the document.

The first assistant corporation counsel, Georgia Pestana, who was one of the authors of the investigative report, said the circumstances of O’Brien’s departure were kept private to protect his accusers.

“The privacy interest of these women was paramount,” Pestana said, sitting beside the mayor Thursday in City Hall’s Blue Room. “If you don’t create a space where people can believe us when we say we will hold your information and your identities confidential, women are not going to come forward.”

The Times was able to independently confirm the identity of one of the women, and is withholding her name and details about her job that could identify her because she is a victim of harassment. When contacted by The Times, the woman, who is younger than O’Brien and was a much more junior employee, declined to speak about the case.

“The complaint alleges sexual harassment in violation of the city’s equal employment opportunity policy,” the report said.

“Determination: After investigation, the allegations of sexual harassment are substantiated,” the report concluded. Referring to O’Brien, it said: “It is recommended that the respondent be terminated from employment at the mayor’s office.”

Phillips said that O’Brien, whose portfolio as senior adviser — after his stint as acting chief of staff — included issues like the opioid crisis and mental health initiatives, was forced to resign within a day or two of the report’s completion. He said the decision to ask for O’Brien’s resignation was made by the first deputy mayor, Dean Fuleihan, and Emma Wolfe, O’Brien’s replacement as chief of staff.

However, a resignation form signed by O’Brien and obtained by The Times is dated March 23, which coincides with the date of O’Brien’s final paycheck. Phillips said that O’Brien continued to be paid for several weeks to account for unused vacation days. He was paid a salary of $220,652 a year, according to city records. Only about 10 people in the mayor’s office had higher salaries.

O’Brien, who is married, blamed his actions on alcohol.

“There’s no excuse for what I’ve done; I’m embarrassed and ashamed,” O’Brien said in a written statement. “At an after-work event, I drank too much and acted inappropriately. No one deserves to be treated that way. I’ve apologized to the people I’ve hurt and will continue to do so because I am truly sorry.

“My use of alcohol has led me to make horrible decisions,” he said, adding that he was getting “professional help.”

On Wednesday, a spokeswoman for Hilltop said that O’Brien had taken a leave of absence. On Thursday, Baldick said he had been fired.

“We weren’t aware of the allegations when we hired him,” Baldick said in an email. “When I learned more about the full scope of Kevin’s actions today, I asked him to leave the firm.”

The company has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for work for de Blasio’s mayoral campaigns and for the Campaign for One New York, a defunct nonprofit the mayor had used to support his agenda.

Hilltop had listed O’Brien on its website as a principal in its New York office. That webpage was taken down Wednesday; it had previously chronicled O’Brien’s experience in politics, saying that he had “helped campaigns and causes survive and communicate through crisis.”

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/nyregion/de-blasio-sexual-harassment-kevin-obrien.html" id="f144b7f9-f10b-3be7-a1ff-f07cad85eddf">The New York Times</a>.

NEW YORK — After winning a commanding re-election in 2017, Mayor Bill de Blasio was effusive in praising a key member of his core City Hall team: Kevin O’Brien, his acting chief of staff.

Top Aide to de Blasio Was Quietly Ousted Over Sexual Harassment Claims

At least some of the harassment occurred while O’Brien was working as acting chief of staff, Eric F. Phillips, the mayor’s press secretary, said, adding that City Hall officials first became aware of the allegations in February and acted on them promptly.

Phillips said that de Blasio was not aware of any allegations of improper behavior against O’Brien when he praised him in November 2017; the praise came during a wider announcement of personnel moves that included O’Brien moving to a senior adviser position.

“The mayor was told very broadly about the complaint almost as soon as City Hall received it,” Phillips said. “He was then made aware of the results of the very quick investigation.”

Investigators conducted interviews with the two women and O’Brien, according to a report prepared by the city’s Law Department and the office of the mayor’s counsel. The investigators said that O’Brien’s account was found “to be not credible” and recommended that he be “terminated from employment at the mayor’s office.”

The report, which was obtained in response to a request under the state’s Freedom of Information Law, was heavily redacted, and details of the harassment allegations, including when they took place, were not included in the material provided to The Times.

O’Brien’s ouster came at a delicate moment for City Hall, as the national #MeToo movement focused attention on sexual harassment, and de Blasio struggled to answer questions about how his administration handled harassment complaints.

Administration officials, after months of delays, eventually released data on the sexual harassment complaints filed against city employees: From mid 2013 through 2017, there were 1,312 such complaints lodged at all city agencies, with 221 substantiated, the city said at the time. Those substantiated claims involved as many as five mayor’s office employees. But the administration gave no details and did not identify the workers.

The report on O’Brien states that the two complainants requested anonymity and therefore their names and identifying information were omitted from the document.

The first assistant corporation counsel, Georgia Pestana, who was one of the authors of the investigative report, said the circumstances of O’Brien’s departure were not made public in order to protect his accusers.

“Making a spectacle of his resignation absolutely would have increased the chances of our complainants’ identities being known against their consent,” she said, adding that it might also have made victims in other cases wary of coming forward.

“The complaint alleges sexual harassment in violation of the city’s equal employment opportunity policy,” the report stated.

The report, dated Feb. 13, 2018, said that the two women who accused O’Brien were interviewed in early February 2018 and that their accounts were deemed to be credible.

Phillips said that O’Brien, whose portfolio as senior adviser — following his stint as acting chief of staff — included issues like the opioid crisis and mental health initiatives, was forced to resign within a day or two of the report’s completion. He said the decision to ask for O’Brien’s resignation was made by the first deputy mayor, Dean Fuleihan, and Emma Wolfe, O’Brien’s replacement as chief of staff.

However, a resignation form signed by O’Brien, and obtained by The Times, is dated March 23, which coincides with the date of O’Brien’s final paycheck. Phillips said that O’Brien continued to be paid for several weeks to account for unused vacation days.

O’Brien was paid a salary of $220,652 a year, according to city records. Only about 10 people in the mayor’s office had higher salaries.

“There’s no excuse for what I’ve done; I’m embarrassed and ashamed,” O’Brien, 36, said in a written statement. “At an after-work event, I drank too much and acted inappropriately. No one deserves to be treated that way. I’ve apologized to the people I’ve hurt and will continue to do so because I am truly sorry.”

O’Brien now works at Hilltop Public Solutions, a political consulting firm founded by Nicholas R. Baldick, a close ally of the mayor who initially recommended O’Brien to City Hall.

In a written statement, de Blasio called the harassment within his inner circle “an absolutely unacceptable situation.”

“To the courageous women who stepped forward, I am sorry this happened,” the statement said. “We have a responsibility to foster a safe and respectful workplace. I hope the speed and thoroughness with which this was handled show how seriously we take that standard.”

A spokeswoman for Hilltop said that O’Brien had taken a leave of absence from the company this week.

The company, which has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for work for de Blasio’s mayoral campaigns and for the Campaign for One New York, a defunct nonprofit the mayor had used to support his agenda, had listed O’Brien on its website as a principal in its New York office.

That web page was blank Wednesday; it had chronicled O’Brien’s experience in politics, saying that he had “helped campaigns and causes survive and communicate through crisis.”

The aide, Kevin O’Brien, was the highest-ranking city official known to have been ousted over sexual harassment charges in the #MeToo era, but the circumstances of his departure are not unique.

In at least three other cases in which employees were pushed out because of substantiated sexual harassment allegations in recent years, the city agreed to conceal the behavior from future employers who might inquire as part of a reference check.

In the three cases, all at the Department of Parks and Recreation, investigators determined that the employees had sexually harassed co-workers and officials moved to have them fired.

The men challenged their dismissals but ultimately agreed to resign after securing assurances that the city would provide a “neutral reference” to prospective employers seeking information. If asked, city officials would verify only basic details, such as employment dates, job title and description.

Richard Washington, a lawyer who specializes in city labor cases and represented all three parks employees, said that neutral reference agreements are “something that most attorneys in this field would be requesting,” adding that they were relatively common in cases where employees agree to resign after accusations of misbehavior.

Olivia Lapeyrolerie, a City Hall spokeswoman, acknowledged that beyond the three parks department cases, the city had likely made other neutral reference guarantees with other employees, but said that the city had no comprehensive way to track such cases.

“While this information is only currently tracked at an agency level, we will be asking agencies to submit their dismissal stipulations to DCAS moving forward,” Lapeyrolerie said, referring to the Department of Citywide Administrative Services.

She said that, following inquiries from The New York Times about these cases, the city had decided to hire an outside law firm to review the way it handles requests for references about current or former employees and would seek “to establish more uniform protocols that promote transparency and accountability.”

Lapeyrolerie said that under current policy, neutral referrals were given only “in rare instances when they believe any other route could compromise the confidentiality of the complainant.”

That did not seem to be borne out, however, in at least two of the parks department cases. In those cases, the harassment victims had filed legal papers, either a lawsuit or a notice of claim, which effectively made their cases public and no longer confidential, well before the city negotiated with the men over the terms of their resignation.

In one of those cases, in 2016, investigators determined that Jeffrey Blount, a parks supervisor, had threatened to fire Makeda Stevenson, a park cleaner, for arriving late to work unless she agreed to have sex with him.

Two separate investigations, by the parks department’s Equal Employment Opportunity office and the Department of Investigation, found that Blount pressured Stevenson, a seasonal worker in a welfare-to-work program, into at least three sexual encounters.

Stevenson, a single mother in the program that places low-income New Yorkers in temporary jobs, said she was afraid he would retaliate if she resisted.

“I don’t want to do anything to jeopardize my job because I do have to take care of my son, too,” she said.

Even after she was transferred to a different location, at Betsy Head Park in Brooklyn, Blount tracked her down and cornered her in a park building, where he performed oral sex on her, according to the investigations. Stevenson used her cellphone to make an audio recording of part of the encounter.

After Stevenson’s accusations were substantiated, the parks department moved to fire Blount. He fought back, and took the case to the city’s Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, where he could have forced a trial.

The city entered into a negotiation and Blount agreed to resign after securing the stipulation that the city would provide a neutral referral to any potential employer — essentially agreeing to conceal Blount’s history of repeated harassment allegations.

“The determination was made that it was the most prudent course to end Mr. Blount’s employment as soon as possible,” the parks department general counsel, Alessandro Olivieri, said. “I would not describe a neutral evaluation as hiding anything.”

Stevenson was stunned when she was told about the arrangement during an interview with The Times.

“People should know what type of person he is because he’s going to continue to do it,” she said.

It was not even the first accusation against Blount.

Two years earlier, in 2014, parks department investigators substantiated a claim that Blount had grabbed and tried to kiss a woman who worked under his supervision as a parks cleaner in Queens. But a department manager later found Blount not guilty at an internal hearing and he was not disciplined.

Investigators were also told in 2014 of a separate allegation that Blount had had improper involvement with yet another subordinate. But that investigation was closed when the woman denied the relationship. Attempts to reach Blount were unsuccessful.

A lawyer for Stevenson, Robert P. Valletti, filed a lawsuit against the city and Blount in February 2017, in state Supreme Court in Brooklyn. Six months later, the parks department granted Blount the neutral reference guarantee in exchange for his resignation.

Lapeyrolerie said that neutral reference agreements were given to two other men with substantiated sex harassment claims against them. One was a parks supervisor who resigned in 2017, and the other was a park worker named Vincent Lloyde, who resigned in 2015.

In Lloyde’s case, a welfare-to-work employee, Taalibah Thiam, filed a notice of claim with the city in September 2015, alleging harassment; a month later, the city agreed on the terms of Lloyde’s resignation. The following year, Thiam filed a lawsuit in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, alleging that Lloyde had groped her and threatened to rape and kill her. The court papers said that she told a supervisor and that he did nothing to protect her or stop the behavior.

The city paid Thiam a $150,000 settlement to end the lawsuit.

Neither Blount nor Lloyde could be reached for comment. Washington, the lawyer, said he could not comment on the particulars of any of the three cases.

The parks department has seen a spate of complaints over sexual harassment, much of it targeting women employed as park cleaners in a welfare-to-work program known as the Parks Opportunity Program. The problems prompted an inquiry in 2017 by the city’s Department of Investigation.

A July 2017 letter from the investigation commissioner, Mark G. Peters, to the parks commissioner, Mitchell J. Silver, identified “a number of systemic vulnerabilities.” Neither the letter nor the investigation has been previously reported.

In response to that investigation, parks officials agreed to make improvements, including to seek more severe penalties in sexual harassment cases and to create “a watch list of employees with histories of sexual harassment allegations.” The letter did not address the practice of guaranteeing neutral references to harassers who resign.

The case involving O’Brien was different in some key ways from the parks department cases. O’Brien was a management-level employee who could be fired at will and could not challenge his firing in the city’s administrative trial system.

O’Brien, who served as the mayor’s acting chief of staff in 2017 and later as a senior adviser, also did not have a written dismissal agreement, according to City Hall officials, and was not guaranteed a neutral reference in the same way as the parks workers. The city said that it would tell prospective employers only that O’Brien had resigned in lieu of termination, which de Blasio said would have been a red flag to prospective employers who inquired.

O’Brien remained on the city payroll for an additional five weeks after he agreed to resign. This period allowed him to say that he was still working for the mayor as he negotiated a new job with Hilltop Public Strategies, a political consulting firm founded by Nick Baldick, a top campaign adviser to de Blasio who had first recommended O’Brien for the City Hall job.

This article originally appeared in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/nyregion/sexual-harassment-neutral-reference.html" id="9384e9eb-4382-3074-abc6-7a3cc72675f3">The New York Times</a>.

NEW YORK — When a top aide to Mayor Bill de Blasio was allowed to quietly resign last year over sexual harassment charges, the city decided to keep the reason for his departure secret. Officials said that they wanted to protect his accusers, but the secrecy had another effect: It helped shield the aide from scrutiny as he sought a new job.

William Neuman

Articles written by the author

Ethics Cloud Hangs Over de Blasio as He Weighs Presidential Run

Ethics Cloud Hangs Over de Blasio as He Weighs Presidential Run

Ethics Cloud Hangs Over de Blasio as He Weighs Presidential Run

Landlords Get a $173 Million Deal From City as Their Lawyer Raises Funds for de Blasio

Trump and Far-Right Movement Battle Over Manhattan GOP Club After Proud Boys Brawl

Trump and Far-Right Movement Battle Over Manhattan GOP Club After Proud Boys Brawl

Top Aide to de Blasio Was Quietly Ousted Over Sexual Harassment Claims

Top Aide to de Blasio Was Quietly Ousted Over Sexual Harassment Claims

They Were Accused of Sexual Harassment, but the City Hid It From Future Employers

In mayor's gaffe, perils of serving and running

A bug crashed city's wireless network, report says it was avoidable

5 takeaways from New York City's $93 billion budget deal

Mayor uses Trump Tower for (not campaign) event, fiasco promptly unfolds

Bronx councilman is accused of serial misconduct, including sexual harassment

Climate Change: New York City buildings to face greenhouse gas limits

Glitch takes down city wireless network and seals many lips

They were accused of sexual harassment, but the city hid it from future employers

Citing detective's death, de Blasio scraps political trip to New Hampshire

De Blasio blames Democratic governors' group for hiding sexual harassment case

De Blasio aide who was forced out had been fired over sexual harassment before