10900: Seabrook Heading Into Tank.

From The New York Times…

Ex-Lawmaker Gets 5 Years in Corruption

By Benjamin Weiser

Larry B. Seabrook, a pillar of Bronx politics whose nearly three-decade tenure included stints as an assemblyman, state senator and city councilman, was sentenced to five years in prison in a corruption case on Tuesday by a federal judge who said he had betrayed the public trust.

Mr. Seabrook, 61, was also ordered to pay $620,000 in restitution to New York City.

Mr. Seabrook automatically lost his City Council seat in July after he was convicted of orchestrating a broad scheme to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars in city money to friends, relatives and a girlfriend through a network of nonprofit groups he controlled.

His lawyers had asked that he not be sent to prison, citing his years of public service and what they called his immense shame and his potential for rehabilitation.

But the judge, Deborah A. Batts of Federal District Court in Manhattan, said that while she did not doubt Mr. Seabrook’s contributions as an elected official, the evidence had “clearly established that his qualities and accomplishments as a public servant are vastly diminished because of his sense of entitlement, arrogance, nepotism and greed.

“Instead of holding himself to a higher fiduciary standard as a councilman,” Judge Batts continued, Mr. Seabrook had “held himself above the law” and “betrayed the public trust by using his office to enrich himself and others.”

Mr. Seabrook was given until March 8 to surrender.

In speaking briefly to the judge before she imposed the sentence, Mr. Seabrook appeared to blame others for his predicament, much as his lawyers had sought to do during his trial last year.

He said that some of the people to whom he had given opportunities “did not do what they were supposed to do.”

“And I guess I will take the responsibility of that which they did,” he said, “but I know that the level of criminality that they might have done certainly was not a part of me.”

A prosecutor, Karl Metzner, responded briefly, telling Judge Batts that the jury had not found “that someone else was responsible for these frauds.”

“They found that Larry Seabrook was responsible for these frauds,” he said.

Mr. Seabrook’s lawyers, Anthony L. Ricco and Edward D. Wilford, said that their client would appeal.

They had contended that Mr. Seabrook, a Democrat who as a councilman represented communities like Co-op City, Williamsbridge and Baychester, had created programs to help Bronx residents, but had been betrayed by people he had brought in to run the groups, who stole money without his knowledge.

Mr. Seabrook’s first trial ended in a mistrial in December 2011 after a jury said that it could not reach a verdict. In a retrial, which lasted just over a month, he was convicted on 9 of 12 counts, including mail and wire fraud.

Prosecutors said, for example, that Mr. Seabrook had appointed his girlfriend, Gloria Jones-Grant, executive director of the nonprofit groups, even though he knew she was unqualified.

Ms. Jones-Grant received more than $300,000 in city money from those positions and consulting, the government said.

The judge noted that Mr. Seabrook’s lawyers had argued “that there should be some adjustment to the amount” of money considered lost through the frauds “for work actually performed on the contracts awarded” to Mr. Seabrook’s nonprofit groups.

But, the judge added, “The trial record is devoid of evidence of work actually performed.”

After Mr. Seabrook’s conviction last summer, Rose Gill Hearn, the commissioner of the Department of Investigation, which had opened the inquiry into him, called him “a master of diversion and misdirection.”

Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, whose office had sought a sentence of at least 7 ¼ years, said after the sentencing on Tuesday that Mr. Seabrook had been “a flagrant and serial abuser of City Council discretionary funds in a far-too-familiar New York tale of corruption.”

“We remain committed to making those who are corrupted by power pay the price,” Mr. Bharara added, “and the public can expect more arrests of politicians who have not learned this lesson.”

Mr. Seabrook declined to comment after the proceeding. His City Council seat has been filled by Andy King Jr., a community activist elected in November.

10740: Seeking Seven For Seabrook.

From The New York Times…

Prosecutors Seek Prison Term for Seabrook of More Than 7 Years

By Benjamin Weiser

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan have asked a judge to sentence former City Councilman Larry B. Seabrook to at least seven and a quarter years in prison for his conviction on political corruption charges in July.

Mr. Seabrook, 61, a Bronx Democrat, was found guilty of orchestrating a broad scheme to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars in city funds to relatives, friends and a girlfriend through a network of nonprofit groups that he controlled.

“There is no serious question that Councilman Seabrook abused a position of public trust,” the office of Preet Bharara, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, said in a sentencing memorandum filed late Tuesday.

Mr. Seabrook was convicted on 9 of 12 counts, including wire and mail fraud, after a trial that lasted just over a month. In an earlier trial, a judge declared a mistrial late last year when the jury said it was unable to reach a verdict.

With his conviction, Mr. Seabrook automatically lost his Council seat, which a community activist, Andy King Jr., was elected to fill this month.

In the sentencing memo, three prosecutors — Randall W. Jackson, Karl Metzner and Steve C. Lee — asked Judge Deborah A. Batts to impose a term within the advisory sentencing guidelines, seven and a quarter years to nine years in prison.

Mr. Seabrook’s lawyers have not yet filed a sentencing recommendation. One of them, Anthony L. Ricco, declined on Wednesday to say what the defense would recommend, but added, “The law requires the court to consider many factors in determining the proper sentence, not just the federal sentencing guidelines.”

The prosecutors’ memo summarized the evidence at trial, asserting that between 2002 and 2009, Mr. Seabrook used his role as a city councilman “to steer hundreds of thousands of dollars” to the nonprofits, despite knowing that they were improperly staffed, failing to fulfill their responsibilities under various contracts and submitting fraudulent documentation to the city.

“This activity inevitably eroded public confidence in government and promoted cynicism regarding important government programs,” the prosecutors wrote.

Mr. Seabrook is scheduled to be sentenced on Jan. 8.

10355: NYC Councilman Larry Seabrook Cooked.

From The New York Times…

Bronx Councilman Is Convicted of Fraud and Loses Seat

By Benjamin Weiser

City Councilman Larry B. Seabrook, a mainstay of Bronx politics for nearly three decades, was convicted on Thursday of orchestrating a broad corruption scheme to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars in city money to his relatives, friends and a girlfriend through a network of nonprofit organizations that he controlled.

A federal jury in Manhattan, which deliberated over the course of three days, convicted Mr. Seabrook on 9 of the 12 counts he faced, including wire and mail fraud. He faces maximum sentences of 20 years on each of the nine counts.

The conviction of Mr. Seabrook, 61, a Democrat, automatically vacates his Council seat; a special election to fill the remainder of his term will be held on Nov. 6, a city official said.

His undoing was his use of Council discretionary funds, or earmarks, to finance the nonprofit groups that purportedly ran job training and diversity programs.

Instead, Mr. Seabrook used the money to enrich those closest to him: Prosecutors said that Mr. Seabrook installed his girlfriend, Gloria Jones-Grant, as executive director of the nonprofit groups even though he knew she was “incompetent,” and that through those positions and consulting, she received more than $300,000 in city money.

The trial, which lasted just over a month, was the government’s second effort to convict Mr. Seabrook, a veteran Democratic politician. In a trial last year, a jury considered the same charges for more than a week before it reported on Dec. 9 that it was deadlocked, and a judge declared a mistrial.

In a statement, Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, said that Mr. Seabrook had “abused the power of his office to influence public contracts and to fund his own corrupt friends and family plan.”

“Today’s conviction,” Mr. Bharara added, “ensures that the councilman will pay for betraying the public trust.” Judge Deborah A. Batts of Federal District Court will sentence Mr. Seabrook on Jan. 8.

After the verdict, Mr. Seabrook, accompanied by his wife, lawyers and other supporters, spoke briefly outside the courthouse.

“My reaction is that I continue to have faith in God, faith in the system, faith in my attorneys,” he said, adding that he would “now prepare myself for whatever is next.”

Mr. Seabrook’s lawyers said they would consider all of his legal options.

“I’ve known Councilman Seabrook since the beginning,” one lawyer, Anthony L. Ricco, said, “and it was very sad to sit in the courtroom and experience what I knew to be the end of his political career.”

Mr. Seabrook, who served in both houses of the State Legislature, had been on the City Council since 2002, representing communities including Baychester, Co-op City and Williamsbridge.

The case, announced in 2010, stemmed from an inquiry by the city’s Department of Investigation, which referred its findings to Mr. Bharara’s office.

Calling Mr. Seabrook “a master of diversion and misdirection,” Rose Gill Hearn, the investigation commissioner, said that his conviction would end his “power to channel the flow of taxpayer funds to himself, his family and his cronies.”

Mr. Seabrook’s use of earmarks illustrated the lack of transparency and oversight in how such funds have been used in the past. The Council allocates about $50 million toward earmarks annually, a Council spokesman, Jamie McShane, said.

“We have enacted specific reforms to address the abuses highlighted by this case in an effort to prevent abuses like this from ever happening again,” Mr. McShane added.

Jurors left the courthouse without commenting. In closing arguments this week, the defense and the government clashed over whether Mr. Seabrook had been aware of fraud in the nonprofit groups.

Another of his defense lawyers, Edward D. Wilford, said in a closing argument on Monday that his client had put “good ideas” in place to benefit the people of the Bronx. “Unfortunately, the people that he hired to run those programs had a different agenda; their agenda was to steal, rob and pillage,” Mr. Wilford said.

But in a rebuttal summation Tuesday, a prosecutor, Randall W. Jackson, said the evidence showed Mr. Seabrook had clearly been involved in the fraud, which occurred from 2002 to 2009, the indictment says.

Mr. Jackson cited, for example, testimony by Mr. Seabrook’s girlfriend, Ms. Jones-Grant, that she had given Mr. Seabrook money to help with his legal defense.

“Of course Mr. Seabrook accepted the money,” Mr. Jackson told the jury, “because they were partners throughout this thing.”

In all, a government trial exhibit shows, the nonprofit groups made payments of more than $600,000 to Mr. Seabrook’s relatives and friends, including two of his sisters, a brother, two nephews, a granddaughter and Ms. Jones-Grant.

“Most of us spend money on our family members — that’s one of our big expenses,” the prosecutor, Mr. Jackson, said. “But Mr. Seabrook was outsourcing that expense to the city.”

In one scheme, Mr. Seabrook arranged for the nonprofit groups to rent office space through another company he controlled, which then billed the city at a higher price. The inflated rent scheme defrauded the city of about $100,000, prosecutors said.

At Mr. Seabrook’s district office on Boston Road in the Bronx, employees declined to comment on the conviction, and shut the door before any questions could be asked.

Mr. Seabrook was acquitted of three counts related to an alleged kickback scheme in which prosecutors said he had taken nearly $50,000 in payments from a Bronx businessman whom he had helped to win a contract to install boilers in the new Yankee Stadium in 2006.

The trial was not a duplicate of the earlier case, but throughout the retrial, the prosecutors, Mr. Jackson, Karl Metzner and Steve C. Lee, focused on the same central themes: that Mr. Seabrook had betrayed the people of the northeast Bronx who needed training and jobs, by “sending their money to his girlfriend and his family members,” as Mr. Metzner told the jury Monday.

“The people who have spent their lives on the outside looking in,” Mr. Metzner said, “they ended up being sold out by the man who could have helped them.”

Aaron Edwards and Colin Moynihan contributed reporting.

10232: Larry Seabrook, Round Two.

From The New York Times…

Retrial Begins for City Councilman in Corruption Case

By Benjamin Weiser

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan have again asked a jury to convict City Councilman Larry B. Seabrook on corruption charges, accusing him on Wednesday of having abused his office “to enrich himself, members of his family and a woman he was having an intimate relationship with.”

The government’s claim came in the opening of the retrial of Mr. Seabrook, a Bronx Democrat, in Federal District Court. His first trial ended in a mistrial in December after the jury was deadlocked.

As Round 2 began, the government had changed the order of witnesses from the first trial and thus the way the evidence would unfold before the jury.

But both sides’ arguments seemed largely unchanged. A prosecutor, Steve C. Lee, told the jury that Mr. Seabrook, 60, had engaged in a series of schemes that defrauded the city of more than $1 million in taxpayer money.

Mr. Lee said that the councilman had used “a dysfunctional network” of nonprofit organizations that he controlled to funnel money to family members and to his girlfriend.

In another scheme, Mr. Lee said, Mr. Seabrook helped a Bronx businessman win a contract to install boilers in the new Yankee Stadium, and then “helped himself to over $40,000 in corrupt and illegal payments” as a reward for what he had done.

Prosecutors say that Mr. Seabrook obtained the illegal payments by having the businessman donate money to a Bronx political club that Mr. Seabrook controlled, and that Mr. Seabrook then submitted fake receipts to the club for reimbursement.

Mr. Seabrook’s lawyer, Anthony L. Ricco, rejected the government’s portrait of his client. He depicted Mr. Seabrook as an honorable public servant who had established many job and educational programs, and said that any wrongdoing had occurred without the councilman’s knowledge.

“You are really being subjected to a false view of what the evidence is going to show,” Mr. Ricco told the jury. “The evidence is going to show that Mr. Seabrook is a distinguished man. He’s not the bum that was described.”

Mr. Seabrook represents communities like Co-op City, Williamsbridge and Baychester. A fixture in Bronx politics for three decades, he also served in the State Assembly and the State Senate.

He declined to comment on Wednesday. Judge Deborah A. Batts told both sides last week that she wanted the case “tried in this courtroom, not in the media.”

During the government statement, Mr. Lee told the jury about a $177 deli receipt for a bagel and a Snapple drink that in some ways has come to symbolize the government’s case against Mr. Seabrook. Prosecutors say the items originally cost about $7, but that the receipt was doctored and that Mr. Seabrook submitted it for reimbursement at the higher amount.

Mr. Lee cited the receipt as one of several examples of how Mr. Seabrook had sought reimbursement for false or personal expenses from the Bronx club, saying Mr. Seabrook ran it “as his personal piggy bank.”

Mr. Ricco, though, estimated that Mr. Seabrook submitted 2,500 to 5,000 receipts a year. “They’re going to put one receipt up there for a bagel, another receipt for some wine, and one trip to Washington, D.C.,” he said, adding that had Mr. Seabrook “ingratiated himself the way the government said, you would see hundreds of them.”

Mr. Ricco also told the jury that some government witnesses who had worked for the nonprofit organizations and received immunity would testify that they had forged documents or stolen money from the groups.

“But they’re going to be united in one truth,” he said. “They never brought it to the attention of Councilman Seabrook.”

9596: Seabrook Filleted.

From The New York Post…

Baloney on a bagel

City Councilman Larry Seabrook — you know, the guy who eats $177 bagels — must take New Yorkers for rank fools.

What else could explain his outrageously cynical appearance on NY1 Tuesday, portraying himself as a victim of run-amok prosecutors leveling spurious allegations?

Seabrook thinks folks will believe that he and those many friends and relatives of his who got jobs at taxpayer-funded nonprofits are no different than, say, John and Robert Kennedy or ex-Gov. Hugh Carey and his kin — even Mario Cuomo and son Andrew, the current governor.

“I think there was a president named John Kennedy, and he hired his brother, named Robert Kennedy,” Seabrook noted, contemptuously. “I think there was a governor named Mario Cuomo, and there was a son that ran his campaign and also ran a nonprofit,” he hissed. “I think he’s the governor now.”

Never mind that the decades-old appointments Seabrook cites bear absolutely no resemblance to the kind of corruption he’s accused of.

Never mind that Seabrook is facing a new trial, after a jury deadlocked on a mile-long list of charges against him — some with sentences as long as 20 years.

This is the guy, recall, with the $177 deli receipt — for a bagel and a Snapple! — that he used for an expense reimbursement.

(Guess he was trying to schmear New Yorkers then — just as he was Tuesday.)

And that’s just the tip of the whitefish spread: Seabrook’s charged with funneling more than $1.2 million in taxpayer cash to nonprofits where his mistress and relatives got more than $600,000. He’s also accused of squeezing a contractor for $40,000.

And the fact that his trial ended in a hung jury by no means vindicates him.

“We fully intend to retry the case and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the councilman criminally exploited his official position in order to enrich his friends, his family and himself,” insists Manhattan US Attorney Preet Bharara.

Best of luck to him.

And when he’s finished with Seabrook, there will be plenty of work remaining.

Fact is, city and state statutes practically beg pols to see what they can get away with.

Legislators get millions each year to butter their own bagels; they use the dough to buy political backing or enrich themselves and others — a sorry state of affairs indeed.

As long as the pols refuse to outlaw the underlying temptations and make it truly difficult for each other to steal from taxpayers, New Yorkers, alas, will continue to see more Larry Seabrooks.

And $177 bagels.

9585: Seabrook Sails Off.

From The New York Times…

With Jury Deadlocked, Mistrial Is Declared in Councilman’s Corruption Case

By Benjamin Weiser and Colin Moynihan

A federal judge declared a mistrial on Friday in the corruption case of City Councilman Larry B. Seabrook, who had been charged in an elaborate scheme to direct more than $1 million in New York City taxpayer money to a network of nonprofit organizations that he controlled, purportedly for community programs.

Prosecutors had claimed that Mr. Seabrook, a Democrat from the Bronx, then used the groups to funnel more than $600,000 to family members and friends, some of whom, the government said, shared their money with him.

But the jury, which deliberated in Federal District Court in Manhattan for more than a week, told Judge Robert P. Patterson Jr. in a note late Thursday that it remained deadlocked on all 12 counts in the indictment — an impasse it first reported on Monday. At Judge Patterson’s request, the jury renewed its efforts to reach a verdict in recent days, requesting large numbers of exhibits, witness testimony and other evidence.

On Friday morning, the jurors wrote that they remained deadlocked on each count. The judge encouraged them to keep deliberating. But shortly before 3 p.m., the jurors wrote, “We remain deadlocked on all counts, and it appears we will remain deadlocked.”

The mistrial, granted at the request of the defense, came on the heels of an acquittal of State Assemblyman William F. Boyland Jr., a Brooklyn Democrat, last month in the same courthouse, and could be seen as a setback for the government’s efforts to combat political corruption in New York.

Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, said his office would retry Mr. Seabrook and “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the councilman criminally exploited his official position in order to enrich his friends, his family and himself.”

Mr. Seabrook, 60, standing outside the court with his lawyers, family and other supporters, said he continued to have “faith in God and faith in the jury system.”

“I will continue to keep the faith,” he said.

The councilman made clear that he would continue to focus on representing his district, despite his legal problems. “I’ll be at the business of doing what has to be done for my constituents,” he said.

Most of the jurors declined to comment as they left the courthouse, although several remained to speak privately with prosecutors and defense lawyers. The foreman, Frank DiBrino, told reporters that “there was movement back and forth” on each of the 12 counts and that the split among the jurors was “different on different charges.”

“It wasn’t the same all the way down” the 12 charges, Mr. DiBrino said, attributing the split among jurors to “different views on the evidence.”

According to one person who was briefed on the deliberations, the jury was split 6 to 6 on the first count, which charged Mr. Seabrook with accepting thousands of dollars in illegal gratuities from a Bronx businessman whom he helped to obtain a boiler contract for the new Yankee Stadium.

On other counts, the jury was split in different ways, but typically there were groups of jurors on each side, not just single holdouts, the person who was briefed said.

For nearly three decades, Mr. Seabrook has been a fixture in Bronx politics, serving the last decade on the Council, representing communities like Co-op City, Williamsbridge and Baychester. He also served in the State Assembly and the State Senate.

During the three-week trial, his lawyers depicted Mr. Seabrook as a self-made man who had worked hard to create the kinds of jobs and diversity programs that prosecutors said he had cheated. They said Mr. Seabrook had been unaware of wrongdoing in the nonprofit organizations, and they invoked the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and other leaders who had been imprisoned, and said that they, too, had been subjected to the kinds of accusations that had been leveled at Mr. Seabrook.

The prosecutors, Brent Wible and Steve C. Lee, offered a much more tawdry picture, of an ensconced politician who used nonprofit groups as a kind of “employment program” for friends and family.

In one case, they said, he installed his girlfriend as the director of nonprofit organizations. She received more than $300,000 in payments, prosecutors said, and then kicked back “a piece of her profits” to Mr. Seabrook.

The counts against Mr. Seabrook included fraud, conspiracy, money laundering and other charges, a number of which carry prison terms of up to 20 years.

His lawyers, Anthony L. Ricco and Edward D. Wilford, did not seem surprised at the announcement that the government intended to retry the case.

“It’s certainly something that we anticipated and we look forward to the retrial of the case,” Mr. Ricco said.

9583: Seabrook Saga Continues.

From The New York Times…

Judge Chides Defense in Official’s Trial

By Benjamin Weiser

The jury in the federal corruption trial of City Councilman Larry B. Seabrook was sent home on Tuesday evening after deliberating for a third full day without reaching a verdict.

The jury told the judge on Monday that it was at an impasse on all 12 counts in the case, in which Mr. Seabrook, a Bronx Democrat, has been accused of participating in a series of fraud schemes to direct more than $1 million in taxpayer money to nonprofit groups he controlled, so that he could then funnel money to family members and friends.

On Tuesday, federal prosecutors accused Mr. Seabrook’s lawyers of making comments outside court that could influence the jury’s deliberations.

Writing to Judge Robert P. Patterson Jr. of Federal District Court in Manhattan, prosecutors cited comments by one lawyer, Anthony L. Ricco, to reporters after deliberations ended on Monday that the jury “hasn’t accepted the government’s theory of the case.”

Mr. Ricco was also quoted as saying that he hoped jurors would “continue to deliberate but not really abandon their heartfelt views.” And, he added, “People shouldn’t be asked to compromise their views for efficiency or expediency.”

In court, the judge cited the prosecutors’ letter and said it was unfortunate that news accounts of Mr. Ricco’s statements “could interfere” with the deliberations. He cautioned Mr. Seabrook’s lawyers to “be careful” about what they said to the news media.

In their letter, prosecutors said Mr. Ricco’s comments were “misleading” because deliberations were continuing and the jury “plainly has not yet accepted or rejected any theory.”

Although the judge had warned jurors not to read news accounts of the case, prosecutors said, there remained a risk that they could inadvertently be exposed to such reports.

Mr. Ricco’s comment that jurors “shouldn’t be asked to compromise their views,” prosecutors added, “could have the effect of hardening the lack of consensus and negating any further instructions by the court that the jurors should keep an open mind to each other’s views so that they may in good faith reach a consensus if one is available.”

“The government’s concern is a valid one,” Mr. Ricco said later on Tuesday. “We have the same concern.” At day’s end, Mr. Seabrook, joined by lawyers outside the courthouse, told reporters, “Well, I will continue to have faith, faith in the Creator and certainly faith in the jury system.”

Mr. Ricco said, “We’re hoping that the jury will continue its deliberations and reach a just verdict.”

The jury’s notes on Tuesday offered no further clues about the impasse. One request listed more than two dozen exhibits; another said simply, “We would like a calculator.”

Colin Moynihan contributed reporting.

9581: The Jury Is Still Out On Seabrook.

From The New York Times..

Jury in Councilman’s Trial Says Its Split Has Widened

By Benjamin Weiser and Colin Moynihan

Halfway through its second full day of deliberations, the jury in the federal corruption trial of City Councilman Larry B. Seabrook indicated on Monday that it was at an impasse on all 12 counts in the case.

A note from the jury offered no clue as to how it was split, except to suggest that it was divided into two groups, rather than there being a holdout juror or two. “Neither side” had been able “to persuade each other to a verdict,” the note said.

The judge, Robert P. Patterson Jr. of Federal District Court in Manhattan, told the jury to renew its efforts to reach a unanimous verdict.

Mr. Seabrook, a Democrat from the Bronx, has been accused of participating in a series of fraudulent schemes to direct more than $1 million in taxpayer money to nonprofit organizations he controlled, so that he, in turn, could funnel over $600,000 to family members and friends.

On Friday, the jury reported that it was at an impasse on the first count, which charged Mr. Seabrook, 60, with accepting thousands of dollars in illegal gratuities from a Bronx businessman whom he had helped obtain a boiler contract for the new Yankee Stadium.

The note delivered at 1 p.m. Monday said the impasse had broadened. “After much discussion,” the note said, “we are unable to reach a consensus on any individual count verdict.” The jury continued to deliberate through the afternoon before being sent home at day’s end, and it was expected to resume deliberations on Tuesday.

Mr. Seabrook spoke briefly with reporters outside the courthouse after the jury was sent home.

“I think we are just going to wait and see what the jury has to say,” he said. “The jury will speak and we will follow what the jury says. I’ve always had the faith.”

One of Mr. Seabrook’s lawyers, Anthony L. Ricco, said, “The important thing to realize is that the jury hasn’t accepted the government’s theory of the case.”

As the jurors worked to resolve the case, he added, he hoped they would “continue to deliberate, but not really abandon their heartfelt views.”

“People shouldn’t be asked to compromise their views for efficiency or expediency,” Mr. Ricco said.

Prosecutors had no comment.

Judge Patterson said outside the jury’s presence that he was somewhat troubled to think the deliberations might have taken the form of the jurors’ “taking sides.” When he addressed the panel, he encouraged the jurors to take another look at the evidence to see if a verdict could be reached.

9570: Speculating On Seabrook.

The New York Times reported on City Councilman Larry Seabrook, who was a key figure in battling Madison Avenue on diversity.

City Councilman’s Lawyer Calls Charges ‘Speculation’

By Colin Moynihan

During closing arguments in the federal corruption trial against City Councilman Larry B. Seabrook on Thursday, a defense lawyer urged the jury to weigh 30 years of public service against “so-called evidence.”

In their summation a day before, prosecutors had told jurors in Federal District Court in Manhattan that Mr. Seabrook carried out several schemes to funnel money to himself and others through nonprofit groups and a political club that he controlled.

But on Thursday, Edward Wilford, one of Mr. Seabrook’s two lawyers, compared that argument to “a shell game” or a street-corner game of three-card monte.

“There’s no evidence to connect the dots,” he told the jurors. “There’s only speculation to support the government’s theory.”

During a closing argument that lasted about an hour, Mr. Wilford assailed the prosecution’s case from several directions. He reminded jurors that Arlington Leon Eastmond, a Bronx businessman who prosecutors said gave unlawful gratuities to Mr. Seabrook, testified that he had a long history of giving money to the councilman’s political club and wanted to help the community with those donations.

Mr. Wilford went on to portray Mr. Seabrook as an unwitting victim who had entrusted nonprofit groups like the Northeast Bronx Redevelopment Corporation and the African-American Legal and Civic Hall of Fame to seemingly qualified appointees, only to be surprised and disappointed by their actions.

He also questioned the credibility of several government witnesses who had worked for those groups and who had implicated Mr. Seabrook in wrongdoing, but had also acknowledged that they too had committed crimes, including forgery and falsifying financial records.

Under cross-examination, those witnesses, including Tyrone Mitch Duren, an executive director at two nonprofit groups, and Felicia Jude, a secretary at the Northeast Bronx Redevelopment Corporation, told jurors that they had hidden their misdeeds from Mr. Seabrook.

“Where’s the proof that Councilman Seabrook joined a conspiracy?” Mr. Wilford asked. “There is none.”

In a rebuttal, a federal prosecutor, Steve C. Lee, told jurors that Mr. Wilford had engaged in misdirection and distractions during his summation, and he urged them to focus on evidence supporting the charges against the councilman, who did not testify.

“The government has met its burden of proof and surpassed it,” he said. “Larry Seabrook lied and cheated time and time again to get money into his pockets.”

After the summation, Judge Robert P. Patterson Jr. gave instructions to the jury, which then began deliberations.

7115: When Racists Relax.

Read this Chicago Sun-Times editorial quickly, then peruse the brief MultiCultClassics commentary immediately following…

Racism debate takes focus off real issues

Jimmy Carter is probably on to something. “There’s an inherent feeling among many people in this country that an African American ought not to be the president,” the former president said last week.

That might help explain why Rep. Joe Wilson tried to shout the president down during his speech to Congress on health care. It might also help explain some of the scary vitriol aimed at Obama during the health-care debates this summer.

But that doesn’t mean we’re due for a national conversation on race.

Obama is keeping his focus where it belongs—on health-care reform.

Wading into the racism debate won’t get health-care reform through Congress. It won’t bridge the partisan divide. It will only distract us—as opponents would love to do—from hammering out a deal on one of the most important challenges of our time.

In the end, a successful Obama presidency—featuring bills to reform health care, stem global warming and improve schools—will do more to counter real racism than anything he or we or you might say now.

Obama loves his “teachable moments,” and he has used them well.

When the Rev. Jeremiah Wright surfaced during the presidential campaign, Obama was right to pause—against the advice of several top aides—to deliver a historic speech on race.

When Obama inelegantly stepped into the middle of a dispute between the Cambridge Police and Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., he was wise to invite both sides to the White House for a beer and a debriefing.

But this is not such a moment.

The charge of racism this time is too much in debate. President Carter holds one view. Plenty of reasonable people hold another.

And the risk of distraction is too high.

There’s something about this editorial that seems cowardly per Eric Holder’s contention. It doesn’t help that the bizarro times present a White President seeing racial bias while the Black President insists it’s not the cause of conflict. And why would it be so difficult to discuss race while also addressing the other issues of the moment?

This stall tactic is so typical on Madison Avenue too, where it’s been executed to perfection since at least the 1930s. As Advertising Week commences, it will be interesting to see how the patronizing prioritizing continues.

Given his political problems, it seems unlikely that New York City Councilman Larry Seabrook will make his annual appearance. Adweek recently published Sanford Moore’s accusations of apartheid, so the fiery activist might be quiet as well. Haven’t heard much from Cyrus Mehri lately either.

Let’s hope the celebrations don’t turn into a staged lovefest via the yearly AAF Mosaic Awards and probable support for the ADCOLOR® Coalition. The Advertising Week schedule includes a handful of events MultiCultClassics will attempt to spotlight in the days ahead—including a diversity soiree sponsored by Draftfcb. Um, Draftfcb hosting a diversity bash is like the KKK partying for Kwanzaa.

MultiCultClassics predicts industry leaders will seek to emphasize the importance of solving agency downsizings, countering reduced client billings and obsessing over the imperative for embracing digital.

As for diversity, well, the risk of distraction is too high.

6869: The Seedy Sides Of Seabrook.

Wanted to spend a minute revisiting the recent revelations involving New York City Councilman Larry Seabrook. The man who has been a key figure in the Madison Avenue diversity drama is suddenly generating headlines for lots of lousy reasons.

In April, The New York Times reported the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board and the Council’s Standards and Ethics Committee were investigating Seabrook’s role in helping his sister land a job with Omnicom’s diversity committee. This month, Seabrook is under the microscope for allegedly running shady rental schemes.

So far, the councilman is as quiet as, well, advertising executives ditching a special diversity hearing. Madison Avenue honchos are probably snickering behind closed doors, hatching plenty of chicken-ass-related jokes.

It just goes to the global problem of the industry’s diversity battles being waged by outsiders. After all, Seabrook’s supposed indiscretions only confirm the fact that he’s a stereotypical big city politician. Nepotism, cronyism and real estate scandals are common occurrences in Seabrook’s world.

Does it disqualify the accomplishments Seabrook has made to bring inclusiveness to the industry? Are the statements he uttered and the injustices he exposed any less valid? Should his apparent bad acts negate the deliberate inequities that have infested Madison Avenue for generations?

Hey, nobody has denied the charges against the industry. Au contraire, Dan Wieden admits things are “fucked up,” 4As President and CEO Nancy Hill acknowledges the “dearth of African Americans in middle and senior ranks,” and 4As members declare, “We suck at [diversity].” Nope, Seabrook remains credible and even supported on his Madison Avenue positions.

Would it be better to have a more upstanding citizen on the starting squad? Perhaps. But until the multicultural messiah arrives, we’re forced to back the head huckster.

6850: Seabrook Is Fishy.

Great. The New York Times is reporting that New York City Councilman Larry Seabrook—a key figure in the diversity drama with Madison Avenue advertising agencies—is now being investigated for shady rental schemes. Let’s hope he’s not involved with the new Ogilvy headquarters.

Subpoenas Issued to Landlords Who Rented to Councilman

By Ray Rivera

Federal investigators have begun issuing subpoenas to landlords who leased space to City Councilman Larry B. Seabrook and several nonprofit groups closely linked to him after a published report last week that the groups had billed New York City more than $100,000 in inflated rent payments.

At least one of the landlords confirmed receiving a subpoena this week from the Justice Department but said he was instructed not to discuss it.

“I got it, that’s all I can say,” said Herb Brooks, who leases a building at 3687 White Plains Road in the Bronx and sublets it to Mr. Seabrook for his City Council district office and for nonprofit groups linked to him.

The New York Times reported last week that in at least two cases, Mr. Seabrook rented buildings from landlords at one price and struck side deals with the landlords to share the space, for an additional fee, with a nonprofit organization he founded. The organization, the African-American Bronx Unity Day Parade Inc., then sublet the space at far higher rates to three other nonprofit groups that were run by the councilman’s associates and funded through his Council discretionary funds, city records and interviews showed. Two of the nonprofit groups also billed the city for a building they did not occupy.

From July 2004 through March 2007, the city paid more than $156,900 in rent reimbursements for space that cost the parade organization only $40,000 to rent, The Times found.

Mr. Brooks, for example, said Mr. Seabrook personally arranged a deal with him in 2005 to rent part of the building at $30,000 a year for his district office to be paid directly by the City Council, and to use the remaining space for nonprofit groups for an additional $10,000 a year.

But city records show that two nonprofit groups, the Northeast Bronx Redevelopment Corporation and the African-American Legal and Civic Hall of Fame, submitted invoices to the city indicating they had paid $72,000 a year, on top of the $30,000 paid by the Council. The invoices listed the African-American Bronx Unity Day Parade as the landlord. Mr. Brooks said he had nothing to do with the city billings and only received the $40,000 he billed directly to Mr. Seabrook.

A lawyer for another landlord said he could not discuss whether his client had been subpoenaed. A third landlord said she had not yet been contacted by the authorities.

The subpoenas appear to be an expansion of an investigation underway by the city’s Department of Investigation and the United States attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York, which have been looking into the spending practices of nonprofit groups that receive money through the City Council and other government agencies. The inquiry has led to the arrests of two Council aides and two nonprofit officials, but has not implicated any council member. Both agencies declined comment on Wednesday, and calls to Mr. Seabrook’s office were not returned.

Russ Buettner contributed reporting.

6793: I Got All My Sisters With Me.

The New York Times ran this piece in April, but MultiCultClassics missed it. Better late than never, which also applies to the perspective immediately following the story.

N.Y. Councilman’s Role in Sister’s Hiring Is Examined

By Ray Rivera and Russ Buettner

A few years ago, when New York City was pressuring advertising agencies to hire more black executives, City Councilman Larry B. Seabrook, chairman of the Council’s Civil Rights Committee, approached one of the largest companies with a plan to address the issue.

The company, the Omnicom Group, ultimately endorsed Mr. Seabrook’s plan to create a high-powered diversity committee and agreed to spend $2.25 million on initiatives. It also decided to retain a consultant from Atlanta whom Mr. Seabrook had proposed to help run the committee.

The City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, praised the plan. H. Carl McCall, a former state comptroller, agreed to serve on the committee. And Omnicom saw the plan as an effective response to concerns that just 2 percent of the higher-ranking jobs at New York advertising firms were held by blacks.

But Ms. Quinn, Mr. McCall and the company say they were never told that the candidate recommended by Mr. Seabrook in early 2007 was his sister.

Omnicom officials said they did not learn of the sibling relationship until they discovered it on their own, shortly before they settled on Mr. Seabrook’s sister, Priscilla A. Jenkins, for the job of coordinating the committee’s work.

Ms. Jenkins was a former college administrator who ran a consulting business out of her home. Company officials said they were not concerned that Mr. Seabrook never mentioned the relationship to them. And the officials would not say what the company pays Ms. Jenkins.

The company decided to retain Ms. Jenkins as the committee’s executive director because of her “extremely impressive résumé,” said Weldon H. Latham, the company’s outside legal counsel on diversity.

“Her experience in management, administration, education, diversity and corporate and community liaison made her an attractive candidate,” added Mr. Latham, who said he could not release her résumé. He said that apart from recommending Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Seabrook played no role in the decision to retain her.

Ms. Quinn referred the matter this month to the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board and the Council’s Standards and Ethics Committee after learning of the relationship from a reporter.

City regulations prohibit elected officials from using their positions to obtain financial gain or personal advantage for themselves or close family members.

“Obviously, now that we have knowledge of this, it’s an issue we take very seriously,” Ms. Quinn said.

Mr. Seabrook, a Bronx Democrat, and his sister did not respond to several requests for comment. But Cleveland Beckett Jr., a spokesman for Mr. Seabrook, said the company had reviewed other candidates and had complete control over the selection. “This was by all means an open process,” he said.

Ms. Jenkins’s duties include administrative, communication and coordination tasks, and she plays a role in setting the committee’s agenda, the company said. In addition to hourly consulting fees commensurate with industry standards, Ms. Jenkins is compensated for her expenses, including travel costs from Atlanta, Mr. Latham said. The committee and its subcommittees have met numerous times and “have been instrumental in helping shape and enhance Omnicom and its agencies’ diversity efforts,” he said.

When Mr. Seabrook came up with his plan to address diversity, the city’s Commission on Human Rights, a mayoral agency, was just finishing a two-year investigation of hiring practices in the advertising industry.

The commission had investigated 16 of the city’s largest agencies and was threatening to hold potentially embarrassing hearings if the companies did not sign pacts agreeing to set hiring goals and to report on their progress annually. Patricia L. Gatling, the agency’s commissioner, said she had not been aware that Mr. Seabrook was working with Omnicom on a separate plan.

Most of the companies signed agreements with the commission. But four agencies affiliated with Omnicom objected to numeric hiring goals and instead pursued the proposal by Mr. Seabrook, who was also planning hearings.

As a result of its discussions with Mr. Seabrook, the firm agreed to provide $1.25 million to the eight-member committee over five years to finance programs on diversity and to devote an additional $1 million to establish a marketing and communications curriculum at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn. Omnicom’s plan with Mr. Seabrook did not satisfy the Human Rights Commission, however, and two weeks later, the company signed the pact with the commission.

In the most recent numbers released by the city, the advertising industry reported that it was largely meeting the hiring targets that it had agreed to with the commission. In 2008, for example, 30 percent of those hired into upper-echelon positions were minorities, according to the industry numbers.

Before assuming her role with Omnicom, Ms. Jenkins, 55, directed the Center for Academic Excellence and Leadership at Morris Brown College in Atlanta. She worked at the small historically black college for 15 years, until 2003. Many staff members left the college after it lost its accreditation in 2002. The program she had managed was designed to offer remedial assistance and to help students find internships, and she oversaw a staff of two to four people, according to Milford W. Greene, a former professor and a former assistant dean at Morris Brown.

She also helped the school’s staff apply for grants, Dr. Greene said.

“Priscilla was a very dedicated and hard worker who was very serious about her work,” he said.

After that, she set up a consulting business with her sister. The scope of the consulting work Ms. Jenkins has performed is unclear. Omnicom would not specify her professional credentials.

According to city records, Ms. Jenkins has also done consulting work for at least three Bronx-based nonprofit groups financed by Mr. Seabrook through City Council discretionary funds.

The groups, the Mercy Foundation, the Northeast Bronx Redevelopment Corporation and the African-American Legal and Civic Hall of Fame, were run at the time by Gloria Jones-Grant, a close associate of Mr. Seabrook’s. The groups are among those that investigators are scrutinizing as part of an investigation that began last year into how the Council spends its discretionary funds.

Since Mr. Seabrook joined the Council in 2002, the groups have secured more than $1 million in city contracts, mostly through Mr. Seabrook.

The Mercy Foundation, which paid Ms. Jenkins $7,500 in 2007 to help with what city records describe as an immigration seminar, has received nearly $200,000 in grants from the Council. It is unclear how much Ms. Jenkins has been paid by the groups in total because the city would not release additional documents, citing the continuing investigation.

In the mid-1990s, when Mr. Seabrook was a state legislator, federal investigators looked into his role in financing the Northeast Bronx Redevelopment Corporation and how the money was spent. The investigation did not produce any criminal charges, but a state audit later criticized how the group had spent $260,000 it had received, saying that it should return $46,000 because it had not adequately documented the expenses.

In approaching Omnicom, Mr. Seabrook envisioned an industrywide committee, with a full-time executive director, that would work with the Council and use a combination of public and private money, Mr. Latham said. Later, Mr. Seabrook gave the company a list of recommendations for committee members and one name for executive director, Ms. Jenkins’s, Mr. Latham said.

As discussions continued, he said, Omnicom realized that it would be the only source of financing and that this would be, essentially, its committee. Omnicom made the executive director position part time, Mr. Latham said, and discovered that Ms. Jenkins was Mr. Seabrook’s sister. He said the company never brought it up with Mr. Seabrook.

Mr. McCall, the Omnicom committee’s chairman, said of Ms. Jenkins: “The fact is she had a job and she did the job. I don’t know how she got the job.”

--------------------------------

It’s odd that few sources picked up this story, with Jim Edwards at BNET being nearly the only person to comment on it.

Or maybe not. Diversity in advertising continues to generate little interest in the scheme of things, especially as the industry implodes along with the collapsing economy. The hiring of Councilman Larry Seabrook’s sister for a private Omnicom group receiving $1.25 million over five years is nothing compared to, say, Doner in Detroit messing with its employee pension fund and apparently owing one ex-executive $55 million. Even in alleged scandals, the minority efforts receive significantly less money than the White majority maneuvers.

MultiCultClassics won’t speculate on the legal issues surrounding Seabrook’s actions, as New York City’s Conflicts of Interest Board and the Council’s Standards and Ethics Committee will hopefully figure it out. Rather, let’s examine the scenario from a variety of scattered angles.

First, the Omnicom Diversity Development Advisory Committee was always bullshit, a seemingly stereotypical PR stunt designed to deflect attention from the holding company’s dismal minority-hiring record. Plus, the DDAC represents yet another instance of delegating diversity.

It is peculiar to discover Seabrook suggested the idea—although its ultimate form did not match his original hope for an industry-wide collective. Perhaps it became a negotiating chip for the politician; that is, it was a concession attached to the $1 million to establish special curriculum at Medgar Evers College. Or maybe Seabrook truly believed the DDAC would work. Or it just shows that outsiders who don’t understand how the business really operates often experience difficulty when trying to ignite change. The possible reasons are endless. Whatever.

Was Seabrook wrong to recommend a family member for a DDAC role? Probably. It certainly looks bad. Yet Omnicom was aware when they hired Jenkins. And based on the comments, company officials believe the woman performed her duties. Remember, Omnicom shops whine that it’s tough to find qualified minorities for agency positions. Imagine their reaction to attempting to locate candidates for a committee invented to bring diversity to Madison Avenue. There can’t be many résumés listing qualifications in that fantasy category.

Besides, nepotism and cronyism are completely familiar to Omnicom. At DDB, for example, leaders like Keith Reinhard and Bob Scarpelli have offspring in the industry—and in the network. Any adperson who wants to cry foul here is the pot calling the kettle black. Madison Avenue is actually displaying evolution by expanding its nepotism and cronyism to include minorities. Think of it as taking baby steps.

Of course, there will be those who use this as an excuse to blast the global goal and delay forward movement. Complainers will brand Seabrook as an opportunistic race-baiter in the Jesse Jackson-Al Sharpton mold. However, it’s important to note that Seabrook has been pushing the cause for many years, originally facing off with past 4As leader O. Burtch Drake. He didn’t orchestrate everything to land a gig for his sister.

Did Seabrook pull a fast one—or simply beat Madison Avenue at its own game? Folks better check to see if the councilman plucked their asses clean.

6425: Culturally Clueless FAQs—Number 1.

Change has come to America. But it took a detour around Madison Avenue. While citizens have adopted phrases like “post-racial,” the advertising industry operates in a pre-Civil Rights time warp. Whenever the topics of diversity and inclusion appear, ad executives consistently display stunning ignorance. MultiCultClassics has sought to address the issues in the past. However, the matters have evolved along with society, despite Madison Avenue’s retarded development. As a public service, this blog will answer a series of Frequently Asked Questions to enlighten the asses… er, masses.

Question: Why do all the diversity discussions focus on Blacks—what about Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, People With Disabilities, Gays, Lesbians, Women, Veterans, Older Employees, Pit Bull Lovers, Mutants and The Rest Of Us?

Answer: Get in line. Unfortunately, the deeper you dig into Madison Avenue’s corporate closet, the more skeletons you’ll find. Recent years have seen work and deeds demeaning everyone listed above, including a Jewish creative director allegedly sexually harassed by a neo-Japanese warlord.

Blacks are in the spotlight for a few reasons. First, the group has been officially fighting for change since the 1930s. To understand the details, read Madison Avenue and the Color Line by Jason Chambers. The author presents a fair and frank documentation of events, showing the successes and failures to date. Additionally, the New York City Commission on Human Rights’ latest efforts have been led by New York City Councilman Larry Seabrook and activist Sanford Moore, who are strongly pushing a predominately Black agenda. Finally, attorney Cyrus Mehri is building a class-action lawsuit focused on the inequities Blacks seemingly always face in the ad game.

However, it’s important to realize the real battle is not being waged exclusively for any single group. The Bendick and Egan Economic Consultants, Inc. report stated the following:

Although this paper focuses on African Americans, the same issues of employment bias in the advertising industry simultaneously affect other “outgroups” -- race-ethnic minorities such as Latinos and Asians; women; older workers; persons with disabilities; and even White males who do not share the cultural or stylistic characteristics of the White males who dominate the industry. These other groups would benefit alongside African Americans from a reformed, inclusive advertising industry culture. This broad potential enhances the urgency of addressing the problems raised in this report -- and addressing them in effective ways.

In closing, a recent story published at AdAge.com inspired this comment:

I find a couple of things interesting. To think that addressing the evident discrimination of Blacks in advertising won’t benefit the other discriminatory issues in advertising is naïve. Nearly all of the fights for equality use the struggle of Blacks in history and especially the Civil Rights Movement as their standard. While I applaud the office of Chief Diversity Officer in its motives, I think it is a shame that any company or industry has to have someone in charge of doing what is right by people. The idea of respectful accountability should be a tenet of leadership. Instead, someone has to be paid to make sure that a company is exhausting all recruiting resources to look for the best talent, which, in my opinion, is hiring smart people (they come in all colors, genders, orientations, etc.) with a good work ethic, who never tire of learning. Someone is paid to make sure everyone is treated with respect from recruiting through their tenure with the company. It is a shame that someone has to tell my company we need to pay and promote fairly. It is a shame that the integrity in how we treat each other has to be regulated, mandated and disguised. While we may not have control of ensuring respect in society at large, I would like to think in a corporate structure that respect is such an intrinsic part of the company culture and values, that there is no need for a Chief Diversity Officer. I will go further into diversity blasphemy by stating that I would do away with the word “diversity” and all of the affinity groups having lunch and going to happy hours. My company statement would be simple: “We treat everyone with respect.” This is the plumb line for all we do. It captures every issue of diversity and beyond. It would solve the issue of this group being left out or feeling this or that. Now that this is off my chest, I understand my views are idealistic, but I also know it would work. Who will be the first to make a stand against diversity and promote true respect to the point where a Chief Diversity Officer is a position of the past?

5982: Did Anyone Listen At The Mad Ave Hearing?

While he’s never been known for championing diversity, Woody Allen made a famous statement that applies to Tuesday’s hearing with Madison Avenue honchos and the New York City Civil Rights Committee: 80 percent of success is showing up. Granted, the advertising industry is still well over 80 percent White, but it’s a start.

In 2006, New York City Councilman Larry Seabrook blasted agencies for completely ignoring a meeting to discuss the issues. Ad Age editor Ken Wheaton did likewise when shops opted to skip a July powwow with New York City’s Commission on Human Rights. Seems the third time’s the charm, as Tuesday’s attendees included 4As President-CEO Nancy Hill.

What a difference a reporter and editor can make as well. Last April, Advertising Age wrote about the first-year results of the agencies that signed diversity pacts with New York City’s Commission on Human Rights, and the story’s headline read: Agencies Chase Rainbow, but Diversity Progress Still Cloudy. The latest Ad Age story essentially delivered the same stats, but the headline read: Ad Agencies Making Progress on Hiring Minorities, After All.

So what the hell actually happened in New York this week? No idea. But here’s some commentary anyway.

While Commissioner Patricia Gatling repeated the numbers revealed this spring, the reality of the situation remains unclear. Remember, the agencies were allowed to set their own goals, like convicted criminals selecting a sentence—or chickens choosing which feathers to pluck from their asses. Additionally, no one has ever defined what constitutes a minority. It would be nice to see faces attached to the figures.

Gatling also announced the failing agencies have hired consultants to help them get their acts together. Um, Omnicom originally created the Diversity Development Advisory Committee, and the holding company wound up doing the worst of all participants. Somebody needs to offer consultation to improve their ability to find consultants.

Omnicom lawyer Weldon H. Latham claimed CEO John Wren has demanded his shops must come into compliance by the end of the year. Hell, Wren hasn’t yet responded to Bob Garfield’s request that Omnicom cease producing homophobic commercials.

Can someone please explain the inconsistency between agencies? If so many have gone from Jim Crow to Jim Dandy, shouldn’t they conspire to draft best practices? Let’s share trade secrets, gang!

OK, give credit to Hill and others for making the cab ride to City Hall. And kudos to Seabrook for continuing to tighten the screws. But instruct everybody to pick up Madison Avenue and the Color Line by Jason Chambers. This 21st century drama is a carbon copy of 1970. Except with fewer afros.

5977: Mad Ave Chiefs Earn Feathers…?

From Adage.com…

Ad Agencies Making Progress on Hiring Minorities, After All
Human Rights Commission: Most Met or Exceeded Pact Goals

By Rupal Parekh

NEW YORK -- Many people aren’t satisfied with Madison Avenue’s progress on the diversity front, but Patricia Gatling, head of the New York City Human Rights Commission, today said she is “cautiously optimistic” that ad agencies will ramp up the numbers of minority executives in their ranks.

Ms. Gatling was speaking at a public hearing at City Hall called by New York City Councilman and Civil Rights Committee Chairman Larry B. Seabrook. The goal of the hearing was to discuss the progress (and lack thereof, in some cases) of the agencies that two years ago signed a pact to boost minority hiring and set individual goals.

As part of her testimony, Ms. Gatling reiterated statistics released this spring that found that five of the 16 ad agencies that signed on have not met all their minority-hiring goals in the first year of their diversity pact with the New York City Commission on Human Rights. However, the remaining agencies either met or exceeded all their 2007 goals.

BBDO, DDB behind
Of the shops that signed a memorandum of understanding with the commission in 2006 vowing to boost diversity, five did not meet their goals. Four of them were from the country’s biggest holding company, Omnicom Group: BBDO, DDB, Merkley & Partners and PHD. The fifth was Publicis Groupe’s Kaplan Thaler Group.

While it eventually caved and signed the pact with its competitors, Omnicom went its own way at first. It pledged more than $2 million for diversity initiatives, including the establishment of an advertising, media and marketing curriculum at the historically black Medgar Evers College.

Weldon H. Latham, a diversity counsel to Omnicom who testified at today’s hearing, said the holding company’s CEO, John Wren, has firmly communicated to those shops that they must come into compliance by the end of 2008. “We gotta make sure that those numbers get up,” Mr. Seabrook told Mr. Latham, recommending that Omnicom appoint an executive solely to monitor the agencies’ progress.

Those that failed to meet their self-created diversity goals have hired consultants to help them improve their numbers, Ms. Gatling said as part of her testimony.

Hiring up 25%
Meanwhile, the other agencies that signed the agreement have all met or exceeded their goals, said Ms. Gatling. They are: Havas’ Arnold and Euro RSCG; WPP Group’s Grey Direct and Grey Interactive, Young & Rubicam and Ogilvy & Mather; and Interpublic Group of Cos.’ Avrett Free Ginsberg, Gotham and DraftFCB (counted as two agencies because it was created out of the merger of Draft and FCB Worldwide). The average goal was 18% for minority hiring and the average result was 25%, Ms. Gatling said.

In certain cases, the agencies have raised their minority-hiring goals for 2008. For example, Ogilvy this year increased its goals 2%, and is aiming for 18% of its senior management and 35% of all staff to be of color.

The hearing garnered a far better turnout compared with those called two years ago, though agency and holding company chiefs were still absent. During Advertising Week 2006, Mr. Seabrook had called hearings decrying minority-owned media outlets’ lack of advertising, and nobody turned up. The agencies, Mr. Seabrook said at the time, “ran like chickens with their asses plucked clean.”

Reviving that metaphor today, Mr. Seabook said, “I’m putting some feathers back on you now,” as a means of commending the majority of the agencies for their progress.

In addition to an attorney for Omnicom, Interpublic Exec VP-Strategy Philippe Krakowsky and representatives for WPP also testified today about the status of their companies’ diversity initiatives, as did executives from Publicis Groupe’s Saatchi & Saatchi.

Saatchi was also one of two ad agencies that turned up for a public meeting called by the Human Rights Commission about the issue in July.

Representatives for Havas or Havas agencies did not testify.

Nancy Hill speaks
Also submitting testimony was Nancy Hill, president-CEO of the American Association of Advertising Agencies, who Mr. Seabrook commended on her presence, noting that her predecessor, O. Burtch Drake, had not shown up for hearings in the past.

There was strangely no talk of a potential threat of a class action lawsuit against the industry, but Mr. Seabrook promised to stay on top of the issue. “The commission is going to stay on your case and I’m going to stay on the commission’s case until we get it done and get it right,” Mr. Seabrook said at the conclusion of the hearing.

5959: Calling All Ass-Plucked Chickens.

From AdAge.com…

Diversity Hearing to Be Held Second Day of Advertising Week
Seabrook’s Committee on Civil Rights Back in Action

By Rupal Parekh and Ken Wheaton

The New York City Committee on Civil Rights is holding a hearing on Tuesday, Sept. 23, the second day of Advertising Week on the topic of diversity and the advertising industry. Advertising Age obtained a memo, issued by the office of Gary Altman, the legislative counsel for the City Council, to participants. It was dated Sept. 10.

It was unclear which agencies were invited to attend, though industry executives said that many of those who signed on to the agreement with the Commission on Human Rights were invited. A couple of those executives groused that the invite was sent out at the last minute and, scheduled as it is for Advertising Week, was part of an attempt to embarrass the agencies.

The Committee on Civil Rights is headed by City Councilman Larry Seabrook and is not to be confused with the New York City Commission on Human Rights that reached an agreement with 16 ad agencies regarding their minority hiring practices. The Committee technically has oversight power over the Commission.

Further, according to all sides involved, this meeting has nothing to do with recent news that attorney Cyrus Mehri has commissioned a study examining diversity in the ad industry. The memo was issued before news of the study broke.

The last time Mr. Seabrook’s committee involved itself directly with agency affairs was in March of 2006 when it vowed to hold hearings on the subject of diversity. Back then, he said he’d likely subpoena industry executives to testify. He also raised the possibility of asking clients for their positions on diversity.

But the deal worked out by the Commission on Human Rights and 16 agencies seemed to have eclipsed the hearings at the time.

During Advertising Week of 2006, Mr. Seabrook held hearings as to why minority-owned media outlets don’t get more advertising. No one showed up. The agencies, Mr. Seabrook said at the time, “ran like chickens with their asses plucked clean.”

Mr. Seabrook did not return calls by press time.