Follow-up on the news: NYS Comptroller Alan Hevesi easily won reelection, but there doesn't seem much chance that he can survive in office

Before the election, I expressed anguish over the damnably and unaccountably stupid behavior of New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi ("What happens when good people do bad things?"), a man I've admired for a lot of years, for a long time as a sensible, principled state assemblyman from Queens, then for two terms as New York City comptroller. I noted that I voted for him in the 2001 Democratic primary for mayor of New York City, which had its aborted first run on that least auspicious Election Day, Sept. 11.

Hevesi's troubles began when his obscure reelection opponent charged that he had regularly used a state employee to chauffeur his ailing wife. Unfortunately, it was true--and to make matters worse, he had already gotten in trouble for doing this while he was New York City comptroller. He had every reason to know this wasn't allowed, even if he had honestly intended to reimburse the state--an intention that was put in doubt by his not having done any reimbursing until he finally made an inadequate initial payment after the matter became public. He has offered the lame "explanation" that Mrs. Hevesi needed a state driver for some kind of "security" reasons.

The release of a damning State Ethics Commission report not long before the election seemed to seal the comptroller's doom, not least because the certain-to-be-elected new governor, State Attorney General Elliot Spitzer (they're seen together here in happier times), commented publicly that he had read the report carefully, and subsequently withdrew his endorsement of his fellow Democrat. Other state Democrats running for election or reelection fled from him.

Of course, state Republicans had thought so little of their prospects in the state comptroller's race that their nomination went to a barely known upstater, Saratoga County Treasurer J. Christopher Callaghan. Nevertheless, the New York Times took the extraordinary step of endorsing the unknown and clearly underqualified Callaghan. It was hard to argue the case: How could Hevesi possibly continue to serve as the state comptroller, whose primary responsibility is to serve as a watchdog over state expenditures to ensure their legitimacy?

Well, to the shock of no one, Hevesi was reelected, and by a fairly convincing 56 to 39 percent. (For what it's worth, I voted for him. I mean, what else could I do?) However, there are still several investigations underway, and on Nov. 17, Danny Hakim reported in the Times ("Spitzer Is Seen as Likely to Seek Hevesi's Ouster"):

Governor-elect Elliot Spitzer will almost certainly ask the State Senate to remove Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi, who used a state worker as a chauffeur for his ailing wife, after the new term begins in January, people involved in the discussions said on Thursday.

Mr. Spitzer, the attorney general until the end of the year, is awaiting the outcome of three inquiries into Mr. Hevesi's conduct--including one by his own office, from which he has recused himself--before he makes a final decision.

But the governor-elect is inclined to push for Mr. Hevesi's removal based on information disclosed in a scathing State Ethics Commission report issued last month, the people involved in the discussions said. Those people spoke on condition of anonymity because Mr. Spitzer's decision is not final.

''While a personally painful decision, it's an easy decision because the facts are clear,'' said one person with knowledge of the governor's thinking on the issue. ''What would the drive for greater accountability and a higher ethical standard mean if you tolerated that level of abuse? He will move swiftly and aggressively to remove him.''

In a way, outgoing Republican Gov. George Pataki was let off the hook by the circumstances of the timing. He could have tried to remove Hevesi from office, but of course any action he took would have applied only to Hevesi's current term as comptroller, with no direct bearing on his reelection.

What happens next? (Always bearing in mind, of course, that those ongoing investigations might affect the course of events. Realistically, though, they seem hardly likely to do anything except make Hevesi's position even more untenable.)

The Legislature can remove a statewide elected official in two ways. The Democratic-controlled Assembly could vote to impeach Mr. Hevesi. A trial would then be held in the Republican-controlled Senate, which would be joined by judges from the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. A two-thirds vote would be required to remove him.

Under the second procedure, the governor could call the Senate into session. A trial would then be held, and a two-thirds vote would be needed to remove Mr. Hevesi.

Because Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Democrat, has been supportive of Mr. Hevesi, Mr. Spitzer is more likely to refer the matter to the Senate, whose Republican leaders have called on Mr. Hevesi to resign. Many Democratic senators are also likely to be swayed by the new governor, who just won election by a record margin.

The Senate has never removed a statewide elected official from office under the second of these procedures. If it chose to do so with Mr. Hevesi, its action might be subject to legal challenge, some political analysts have said. In 1913, the Assembly impeached Gov. William Sulzer, and he was removed after a trial in the Senate.

If the Senate removed Mr. Hevesi, the governor would choose his successor. But if Mr. Hevesi resigned, the Legislature as a whole would choose his replacement, giving control to the Democrats.


POSTSCRIPT: WHY A LOT OF US VOTED FOR HEVESI

The day after Hakim's piece appeared, the Times published the following letter to the editor, which pretty well describes my feelings too:

To the Editor:

Re ''Spitzer Is Seen as Likely to Seek Hevesi's Ouster'' (front page, Nov. 17):

Alan G. Hevesi's remark that ''millions of New Yorkers elected me by an overwhelming percentage to serve another four-year term as comptroller'' and ''that is what I intend to do'' may be wishful thinking.

Rather than allowing his ill-considered behavior to wound his party twice over, I voted for him in hopes of keeping the comptroller's office in the Democrats' hands until the investigations are completed, and then having him replaced by a qualified and more circumspect Democrat.

Harold Stone
New York, Nov. 17, 2006