William C. Thompson Jr. walked into Tuesday night’s mayoral debate a likeable man who is being outspent 16 to 1, and whose views and background are more than a bit of a mystery to many New Yorkers.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
James Estrin/The New York Times

William Thompson greeted his supporters before his debate with Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Monday night.

Get up-to-the minute news from City Room, The New York Times and around the Web, including Twitter, YouTube and local blogs.
Campaign Tracker »
Multimedia
7 Candidates for the Mayor’s JobInteractive Feature
7 Candidates for the Mayor’s Job
Related
Bloomberg Defends His Record in First Mayoral Debate (October 14, 2009)
Dust-Up of the Debate Occasionally Obscures Some Facts (October 14, 2009)

Unfortunately for Mr. Thompson, he seemed to have exited in the same fashion.

Save for his accent, which carries the unmistakable cadence of his native Brooklyn, and for his insistent attacks on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s flip-flop on term limits, Mr. Thompson, the city comptroller, resembled a painter who left too much of his canvas blank.

He grew up as the high-achieving son of a prominent politician and a teacher in Bedford-Stuyvesant, a neighborhood of elegant brownstones that now suffers a plague of foreclosures and homelessness. During his time on the Board of Education, he voted for two chancellors who concentrated on the poorest students and wrested power from corrupt local school boards. Test scores rose sharply in his final years there.

A viewer would have learned little to nothing of these facts. Mr. Thompson’s personal anecdote count Tuesday totaled zero.

The conundrum for Mr. Thompson is that he’s carved a three-decade career in public life by being a conciliator, a nimble-footed inside player herded board members to votes and — with one notable exception — really tried to avoid annoying former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

He lacked power to make most policy decisions and seemed allergic to crusades. All of which is perfectly defensible, but public powerlessness is not the stuff of compelling narratives.

On Tuesday Mr. Bloomberg attacked him, erroneously, for being “in charge” of the schools in the 1990s. Mr. Thompson scrunched his face, incredulous.

“I was in charge?” he said, turning to look at the mayor. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Mr. Bloomberg replied with just a hint of a Cheshire cat smile.

In fairness, neither mayor nor comptroller made the night electric; Mr. Bloomberg in particular tended to dole out energy a miserly watt at a time. The city is sunk into recession’s mire, unemployment tops 10 percent — black male unemployment edges toward 50 percent — and foreclosure threatens working class families, and the candidates made glancing mentions of all of this. (Neither candidate uttered the word foreclosure).

A reporter asked the candidates about a controversial fact of life in minority communities: Police each year frisk more than half a million young men, more than 80 percent of them black or Latino. The number of frisks has increased during the past decade, sweeping up hundreds of thousands of teenagers and college students. Police have arrested fewer than 5 percent of this number.

Mr. Thompson wants to curtail it. “We know it’s being overused,” he said.

Mr. Bloomberg conceded no problem. “I do think the police have struck a good balance,” he said soothingly.

Mr. Bloomberg is not much for emoting. He rolls his eyes, his voice cuts monotone and his touch is rarely common. But he came into the night with considerable advantages. He is a reasonably popular two-term incumbent (residents tend to like his policies more so than him), and he sits atop a great green bag of personal swag, having so far spent $65 million of his own money on this campaign.

Mr. Bloomberg, an independent, is unsentimentally promiscuous about party loyalty. But in his governing style, he looks an awful lot like a moderate Democrat, which complicates matters for Mr. Thompson, who as it happens is a moderate Democrat.

None of which is to suggest that Mr. Thompson has no line of attack — the decaying economy suggests opportunity. But the Thompson campaign has been curiously relaxed — last weekend he appeared at two churches, according to his schedule. He offered passionate words Tuesday night about the plight of middle-class New Yorkers.

But he offered no storehouse of stories of actual suffering to put meat on the bones of his attack.

Instead Mr. Thompson concluded as he began, by doubling down on a single bet: term limits. The election, he said, will be New Yorkers’ referendum on term limits. “And that we say: We are not for sale!”

In less than four weeks, he’ll find out if that is enough.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has been asked to investigate whether Panama tortured an Ecuadorian citizen who was being held as an illegal immigrant, an official hemispheric human rights organization said.

Jesus Tranquilino Velez Loor was arrested November 11, 2002, and deported to Ecuador on September 10, 2003. During that time, he was held without receiving procedural guarantees, the right to be heard and the right to present a defense, said the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

"The case also involves the lack of investigation of complaints of torture presented by Mr. Velez Loor before the Panamanian authorities, as well as the inhumane conditions of detention under which he was held in several Panamanian penitentiaries," the human rights commission said in a release Tuesday.

The human rights panel, which is part of the 35-nation Organization of American States, said it referred the case to the court last week because Panama did not adopt sufficient measures to address issues raised in a previous commission report.

Velez Loor "was sentenced to a prison term for having repeatedly entered Panama illegally. ... Panamanian law provides that foreign nationals, who repeatedly enter Panama, without the necessary papers, will be imprisoned for two years and then deported," Panama said in a 2006 report.

Velez Loor admitted he had gone into Panama without proper papers or visas.

The commission said it received an e-mailed complaint from Velez Loor on February 10, 2004, "in which he claims to have undergone torture, forced isolation, and mistreatment at the hands of Panamanian police officers at two Panamanian detention centers without being given the opportunity to defend himself, without the benefit of any court of law, without being allowed to make a telephone call and while being deprived of all medical care."

Panama denied those allegations in the 2006 human rights commission report.

Officials at the Panamanian embassy in Washington did not return a telephone request Tuesday from CNN for comment on the latest development.

The human rights commission consists of seven members who act in a personal capacity, without representing any country, and who are elected by the OAS General Assembly.

So now what?

The Senate Finance Committee had barely voted on the big health care legislation when the infinitesimally short attention span of Capitol Hill shifted to the next step. And it sounds like the debut of a 1950’s doo-wop band: ladies and gentlemen, give it up for Harry Reid and the Bill Blenders.

That would be the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, and the team of senators, aides and White House officials who will meld the Finance Committee bill with an alternate version of the health-care legislation that was approved back in July by the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.

Mr. Reid will gather the group in his office on the second floor of the Capitol for its first official meeting on Wednesday. The group includes Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and the Finance Committee chairman; Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, who was acting chairman of the HELP committee when it passed its health care bill; and representatives of the White House.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid, said that Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, the lone Republican on the Finance Committee to vote in favor of the bill, would be invited to future sessions. And Mr. Manley said the Democratic leader was prepared to go to substantial lengths to keep Ms. Snowe’s support.

“He is prepared to do what he can to keep her on board while putting together a bill that can get the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster,” Mr. Manley said.

Senate Democrats have already held some preliminary discussions about blending the two bills, and the White House lobbying team is already fully deployed across the Capitol.

The more liberal HELP bill was approved on a strict party-line vote,
with Republicans unanimously opposed. And in many ways, it was only half of a bill, because the Finance Committee has jurisdiction over
the tax provisions needed to finance the legislation, as well as
spending on Medicare and Medicaid.

The HELP bill, for instance, anticipated a major expansion of
Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for the poor, but it is the
Finance Committee bill that includes the expansion, which extends
eligibility to all Americans earning less than 133 percent of the federal
poverty level, including childless adults currently excluded.

Speaking of the other side of the Capitol, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, continues to work on her own blending project, pulling together the bills reported out by three different committees into a single legislative proposal for full floor debate.

The House bill will include a government-run insurance plan, or public option, to compete with private insurers. But Mr. Reid, and perhaps President Obama himself, may have to mediate that issue in the Senate.

Liberal senators want the public option. But Ms. Snowe is firmly opposed. She has expressed openness to a compromise that would allow a government-run health plan to be “triggered” in states where the legislation otherwise does not succeed in providing affordable insurance.

The federal pay czar is trying to force the American International Group to reduce $198 million in bonuses promised to employees of its trading unit, where problems posed a threat to the global financial system last year.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Times Topics: Kenneth R. Feinberg | American International Group Inc.
Add to Portfolio

* American International Group

Go to your Portfolio »

But the Treasury’s special master for compensation, Kenneth Feinberg, is running into legal hurdles because those bonuses fall outside new rules against bonus payments at companies receiving government assistance. The bonus agreements at issue were struck before last year’s emergency rescues by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, and thus are not directly covered by the new rules.

The problem is a recurring one. A.I.G. payments early this year to the same employees elicited public outrage, though government officials said then that they had little legal authority to rescind pre-existing contracts.

To strengthen his hand, Mr. Feinberg is threatening to reduce the compensation packages he does control, according to a person close to the talks. That could mean shrinking the pay of other A.I.G. executives — including its new chief, Robert Benmosche — if the firm does not claw back part of the bonuses for the people in its trading unit, known as A.I.G. Financial Products.

At companies that received extraordinary government support, Mr. Feinberg’s task is to monitor and enforce rules governing new pay packages. He can approve or reject cash pay that exceeds $500,000 for top executives.

Mr. Benmosche, hired by A.I.G. late this summer, received a compensation package that includes $3 million initially and about $4 million in stock that he must hold for five years, as well as annual bonuses based on performance.

A.I.G. has a variety of employee bonus programs. The Financial Products group began a two-year retention program in January 2008, before its government rescue, designed to keep skilled employees from leaving and jeopardizing its derivatives portfolio .

After A.I.G. paid $165 million in retention bonuses to that group in March, it promised to try to recover much of the money to quell the uproar that ensued.

But the insurance company has recovered only $19 million of the $45 million it asked the recipients to repay, according to an audit of its compensation program and the government’s oversight.

A company spokeswoman, Christina Pretto, said in a statement that the people who had received that money had “until the end of the year to fulfill their commitments,” and that the company believed those people would honor them.

But the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Neil M. Barofsky, who conducted the audit, said some of the money appeared to be unrecoverable, because the employees had resigned rather than return the pay.

Other people are still weighing tax issues arising from those bonuses, and some have asked the insurer to dock their paychecks in the future, rather than make a single payment now.

The inspector general’s audit will be the subject of a hearing Wednesday by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The report stated that Mr. Feinberg had “informally advised A.I.G. not to pay the full $198 million,” scheduled for payment next March, but did not reveal how sharply Mr. Feinberg hoped to pare the bonuses.

The amount of the bonuses at A.I.G. is quite small relative to the record amount of government assistance received by the firm over the last year, roughly $182 billion.

The $165 million in bonus pay made last March coincided with the news that A.I.G. had just posted the biggest loss in American history and would need a bigger rescue package. That led to stormy Congressional hearings and tours of the suburbs where some bonus recipients lived.

Company officials argued at the time that only a handful of the employees of financial products bore responsibility for the disastrous derivatives trading, and it was unfair to blame everybody for the harm caused by a few. The company also said it wanted to honor its commitments because skilled people might resign en masse if bonuses were rescinded.

The new audit pointed out that the bonus program for the Financial Products unit was unusual because it included payments to unessential people. It cited a $7,700 bonus for a kitchen assistant, a $7,000 bonus for a mailroom assistant and $700 for a file administrator.

The audit also described the lack of coordination between the Federal Reserve and the Treasury over A.I.G.’s compensation program. It said Fed officials had their own conversations with company officials about compensation last fall, and were further briefed over the winter by compensation specialists at Ernst & Young brought in to help.

But the Fed did not convey any of the information it had gathered to the Treasury until just before the bonuses were scheduled to be paid in March. Then, the Fed sent an e-mail message to the general counsel at the Treasury, the report stated, warning that the looming bonuses had “garnered press and congressional attention” and would “not be easy for Treasury and the Fed to defend.”

That message promised to supply more detail, but nothing followed for about a week.

“Despite the strong language” of the Fed’s messages, the audit found “that the e-mail did not raise any flags in Treasury.”

Stephen Labaton contributed reporting.