One of the dirtiest, most corrupt political machines in history (and that's saying a mouthful) could be ready to hand the job of New Jersey’s top boxing regulator to an unqualified candidate whose non-profit organization is rife with conflicts of interest, and whose accounting practices have come into very serious question. Can we stop it before it's too late? Let's hope so

"It is time to take back our government, so that New Jersey gives you back as much as it asks of you. And time to make clear, from one end of this state to the other, that the only special interests in New Jersey will be those of the hard-working men, women and families who call this place home."-- Mayor James E. McGreevey of Woodbridge, N.J., in announcing his candidacy for governor of New Jersey - March 12, 2001

''My truth is that I am a gay American. Shamefully, I engaged in adult consensual affairs with another man, which violates my bonds of matrimony. It was wrong, it was foolish, it was inexcusable.''-- New Jersey Gov. James E. McGreevey, in announcing his resignation from office - August 12, 2004

Believe me, that's not even the half of it.

Most of you who have not been living under a rock are aware that on August 12, New Jersey Governor James McGreevey tendered his resignation from office in order to get out ahead of a brewing scandal, involving his homosexual affair with a former aide, Golan Cipel, who was at the time threatening to sue him for sexual harassment.

Obviously, McGreevey had shielded this affair from his constituents, and had also concealed it from his wife (yes, he's married too). He lied to the press about his sexual orientation - in fact, in a March 2003 press conference he was asked straight out if he was gay and responded by deeming the question preposterous.

I can't say I really have a problem with the fact that McGreevey is gay; it wouldn't make much of a difference to me as a voter. I will say, though, that it wasn't too cool to subject his wife to that kind of public humiliation, especially as she had to stand there next to him at a press conference that, as it turned out, was carried throughout the entire country.

From a political standpoint, what I have a problem with is that as a by-product of his affair, McGreevey had given Cipel a patronage job as homeland security advisor for the state, at a salary of $110,000 a year. This presented something of a problem, in that Cipel was not a U.S. citizen and thus was not able to get security clearance.

Think about that concept for a second - a homeland security advisor who can't get security clearance.

Cipel had never gone through a background check, and when Senate Judiciary Committee asked him to testify before it, McGreevey reversed field, yanking Cipel out of the homeland security slot and giving him a job of  "counselor to the governor" at the same salary. The press, which had questioned Cipel's credentials from the outset, didn't let up all that much. The rumors that McGreevey was gay had started up even then.

What we had in front of us was a textbook example of the wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars with ulterior motives in mind. It's hardly the extent of the scandal facing McGreevey. Associates of this governor are dropping like flies. And at this juncture there is really no guarantee he won't drop even farther.

Here are just some of the examples of the governor's "gang that wouldn't shoot straight":

McGreevey's Secretary of Commerce, William Watley, resigned after being caught siphoning off state money to his own businesses and to members of his family. In one instance, he had been instrumental in an $11.5 million loan offer to a church, which was later canceled by the state when it was discovered that Watley, a pastor, was himself part of the partnership that was about to receive those funds.

In June of 2003, Roger Chugh, an Indian-American former cab driver who had left a history of failed businesses in his wake, and had been investigated by the FBI, resigned a job McGreevey had given him as Assistant Commissioner in the Secretary of State's office when he was confronted by the Hackensack Record with federal documents indicating he had written over $50,000 in bad checks to Air India while operating a travel business. As an added attraction, it had also been revealed that under the threat of code and zoning violations, Chugh had coerced tens of thousands of dollars in contributions to McGreevey out of Indian business people, and had received zoning variances of his own for businesses he was involved with after making hefty campaign donations.

Charles Kushner was a multi-millionaire real estate developer who, after Cipel had left his state job, hired him at the request of McGreevey. He was also the governor's biggest donor, contributing $1.5 million to his political campaigns. McGreevey reciprocated, in part, by appointing Kushner the head of the Port Authority, a powerful position that would afford Kushner the opportunity to cut himself in on any number of development deals. Kushner, however, was never confirmed, because like Cipel, he refused to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. By 2003, Kushner found himself the subject of a federal investigation into his campaign contributions, and those he assigned to executives in his companies without their knowledge, most likely the result of a lawsuit filed by his brother Murray over a money dispute. Kushner's brother-in-law, William Schulder, was a witness for the government in the investigation, so Kushner decided to go the blackmail route.

Knowing his brother-in-law's weakness, and the troubles he was having in his marriage, Kushner set Schulder up with a prostitute, videotaped the sexual event that ensued, then sent the tape to Schulder's wife (that's right, Kushner's own sister) on the day of a family party. To show what a nice guy he really was, Kushner also reportedly considered sending the tape to his sister's children, but was talked out of it by a colleague. The plan backfired, however, when the Schulders turned the tape in to the police, and Kushner was subsequently indicted for witness tampering.

In August, he pleaded guilty to eighteen federal charges. Those included retaliating against a federal witness, violating campaign finance laws, and also filing false tax returns in association with his multitude of real estate partnerships, almost all of which made separate contributions to the Democratic campaigns of McGreevey and other New Jersey politicians.

Oddly enough, there had been a split between Kushner and McGreevey some time earlier. It seems Kushner was trying to put together a bid to buy the NBA's New Jersey Nets and prevent them from moving to Brooklyn. During this process, Kushner, obviously emboldened from having helped put the governor in office, approached McGreevey with a request for a $25 million subsidy from the state in order to bolster his bid. With his state in financial crisis, McGreevey balked, leading to a tirade from Kushner, the content of which is unknown. But insiders speculate that Kushner, who had originally "sponsored" Cipel's entry into the U.S., may have engineered the scenario in which Cipel threatened the sexual harassment suit against McGreevey. Past performance indicates that could be well within the sphere of his capability.

In what became known as "BillboardGate", McGreevey's chief of staff Gary Taffet (yes, the brother of HBO boxing exec Mark Taffet) and chief counsel Paul Levinsohn were discovered to have profited to the tune of $2.2 million apiece from a billboard business they secretly owned, and perhaps as a direct result of McGreevey having just been elected as governor. Apparently the pair, while working on McGreevey's transition team, had, through state agencies, obtained approvals for their billboard projects in up to fourteen areas where there were zoning ordinances against them, and yes, were involved with Charles Kushner in some of their dealings. They continued to operate the billboard business in the days leading up to the inauguration, in many cases selling advertising space to companies who might be affected by prospective legislation. They then sold their interests in many of the projects just before McGreevey was sworn in. And New Jersey officials, including Paul Josephson, who later succeeded Levinsohn as McGreevey's chief counsel, were involved in blocking billboard approvals for Taffet and Levinsohn's competitors, namely Drew Katz - son of Nets owner Lewis Katz - who evidently had his own sweetheart deals going before McGreevey was elected.

Katz went to Taffet (who was McGreevey's campaign manager) and Levinsohn (the chief fund-raiser for the governor) and threatened to expose them. McGreevey's reaction? According to his spokesman, Micah Rasmussen, "He (McGreevey) thinks it's outrageous and makes him more convinced than ever it was a deal that should have been halted."

After one year, Taffet stepped down from his position as chief of staff. This past June, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against Taffet for insider trading. Although the case is not directly related to his duties in the governor's office, the complaint alleges Taffet received illegal stock tips from Ronald Manzo, an insurance broker who is connected to over $150,000 in campaign contributions to New Jersey Democrats.

In 2002, State Police Superintendent Joseph Santiago, who was appointed by McGreevey, was forced to resign when it was revealed that he had written a memo demanding that subordinates turn over all originals and copies of an internal state police investigation into him - an investigation that had turned up alleged misappropriation of funds and a past misdemeanor conviction. The attorney general, Peter Harvey, also came under fire for refusing to investigate Santiago himself. According to Bob Ingle, a columnist for the Gannett newspapers in New Jersey, "Harvey couldn't find political corruption with a detailed road map." Especially if it was corruption Harvey was a part of. The AG, whose office oversees the State Athletic Control Board, was found to have used the athletic commission’s discounted hotel rate from Atlantic City casinos, and also reportedly accepted excess complimentary tickets for boxing events (through then-chairman Gerald Gormley, brother of an influential state senator whose committee originally approved Harvey's AG nomination), which were distributed to family members and his politically-connected friends. In the end, he settled with the state ethics board, and was fined $1500, the first time in state history that has happened to an attorney general.

But in what may be the most egregious incident of all, the governor and one of his key fundraisers were involved in an extortion plot in which campaign contributions were squeezed out of a farmer.

Mark Halper, a resident of Piscataway, wanted to accept an offer to sell his 74-acre dairy farm to a developer. But the county, and the state, wanted to preserve the land for its own development plans, and were prepared to exercise eminent domain over it, thus holding Halper over a barrel. Up stepped David D'Amiano, a former high school classmate of McGreevey, and major fundraiser for the governor, who proposed a solution. He suggested that if Halper were to make $40,000 in campaign contributions to Democratic Party interests in New Jersey, he might be able to persuade the government to make a much higher bid than the $3 million Halper had been offered previously for the condemned land.

Halper agreed to do it, but wanted something in the way of assurances. So as D'Amiano arranged for a meeting between the farmer and the governor, Halper demanded to D'Amiano that when the meeting took place, McGreevey utter a special code word - Machiavelli - to confirm that he was on board with the illicit deal before Halper made the first payment - in the sum of $15,000 - to the fundraiser.

Sure enough, when everyone sat down, McGreevey playfully suggested to an aide seated nearby (said to be a woman named Amy Mansue) that Halper was reading Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince" - a classic of philosophy - as a way of preparing himself for the negotiations that would be involved in selling the farm.

With McGreevey having said the magic word, Halper was satisfied. He made the payment, and in subsequent meetings, another state official, as well as a Middlesex County official, both mentioned "Machiavelli" to Halper, indicating they were in on the scam too. The offer on the farm turned out to be $7.4 million - $4.4 million higher than what the standing offer from the county had been.

There was one small problem. All the meetings were recorded - by investigators.

D'Amiano got indicted on a number of counts, including extortion, and ultimately pled guilty to two counts of mail fraud. McGreevey was not mentioned by name, but has acknowledged that he is indeed the unidentified "State Official No. 1" who was referred to in the indictment an incredible EIGHTY-THREE times.

Machiavelli himself could not be reached for comment.

It will probably get worse before it gets better. Not that something like this wasn't destined to happen.

According to Alan Marcus, a long-time political consultant in New Jersey, the concept of public service always took a backseat to self-service where McGreevey and his people were concerned.

"From day one of the McGreevey administration, everything became a fix again. You couldn't discuss a policy issue with them," Marcus told one reporter. "They were only interested in who the contributor was and who they had to take care of."

So you may be asking - why do I bring all this up?

Well, McGreevey does not officially leave office until November 15 - that in and of itself was the product of some fancy footwork in an attempt to avoid a special election for the office this year (one in which Republicans could capitalize on the latest news).

My point, though, is that it still leaves enough time for a public official to feed boxing one last poison pill in the name of politics - another chance to show us it's not at all about what you know, but WHO you know. An opportunity to reaffirm the notion that politics is every bit as corrupt as we think it is. It may be something that, in the general scheme of things in New Jersey, doesn't make a whole lot of difference, but it promises to hit a little closer to home for those who follow the sport, and particularly those who read this book.

It's really been no secret that former heavyweight contender Gerry Cooney has thrown his hat into the ring to fill the chairmanship of the New Jersey State Athletic Control Board, which was vacated when the aforementioned Gerald Gormley (whose brother, William Gormley, is the influential state senator referred to previously), a wasteful political patronage appointee himself - albeit from an administration previous to McGreevey's - was forced to resign (and pay a $14,000 fine, the stiffest in the ethics board’s history) amidst evidence, originally reported by Michael Diamond of the Atlantic City Press, that he shook down promoters for those excessive complimentary tickets.

Cooney is a storied fight figure - that much is without dispute. And his battle with drugs, alcohol and depression - which he fell into after losing his 1982 title bout to Larry Holmes - is well-known, as is his apparent triumph over those demons. But that doesn't necessarily make him qualified to head up a boxing commission in a state that is always a candidate for traffic because of the presence of casinos in Atlantic City. And furthermore, it doesn't justify him having what amounts to authority over Larry Hazzard, one of the more capable commissioners in the country, who happens to be the executive director of the NJSACB.

Cooney would be able to get the best of both worlds as the chair - he would be able to exercise considerable clout in the position, and since the job is largely ceremonial, he would only have to show up a few times a year for NJSACB meetings and occasional hearings. Even so, the position, part-time if you really want to stretch it, pays $80,000 a year, plus a benefits package that brings its value well above $100,000. No wonder Cooney, who likes making "celebrity appearances", wants the gig - it's like doing four autograph shows a year and getting paid over 25 dimes a pop.

Nice work, if you can get it.

One of the reasons I gave you all that background on the scandalous atmosphere surrounding McGreevey was to illustrate that it was not just a matter of isolated corruption, but rather, a culture of corruption that was embedded in this administration. It is incredibly costly to run a statewide political campaign in New Jersey; because there are no state-specific television stations, candidates must purchase commercial time in both the New York and Philadelphia markets – two of the most expensive in the country.

Given those parameters, and all the money that has to be raised, you’re going to be encountering an awful lot of donors looking for favors at the end. As Alan Marcus has described, there appeared to be a keen awareness of it. Thus, the McGreevey organization, as it was integrated with the Democratic Party effort, became like a well-managed corporation; a finely-tuned business enterprise, if you will, treating contributors like stockholders and dedicated to providing the optimum return on investment. That it did, for so many people, and with apparent disdain for troublesome things like laws and ethics.

And Cooney’s “goombah” here is the guy who may have presided over the whole shooting match.

Cooney's name was brought up for a possible nomination by State Senator Ray Lesniak, a prototypical old-line political boss who, it is fair to say, has been one of the strongest supporters McGreevey's had, and perhaps the most influential. In fact, he was referred to by one writer as "one of the architects of his (McGreevey's) political career", and is generally considered to be the person at the top of New Jersey's huge Democratic machine. McGreevey goes way back in terms of practicing patronage with Lesniak. After Lesniak helped him win election as mayor of the town of Woodbridge, McGreevey retained the law firm of Weiner Lesniak to handle the town's legal services. And the amount of that legal work was increased exponentially with McGreevey at the helm. Lesniak's firm reportedly realized hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of dollars as a direct result of its arrangement with the town.

Eyebrows have often been raised about Weiner Lesniak's exorbitant legal fees from municipalities. After the town of East Hanover was billed $600,000 by the firm in 1998 (to put it in perspective, that would constitute an average 58-hour work week, every week of the year, billed out at $200 per hour, dedicated exclusively to a relatively small municipality), the town council voted to cut ties with George Hanley, the town's former mayor and an attorney working for Weiner Lesniak. His substitute? Another Weiner Lesniak lawyer, Vito Bianco, who billed the town over $450,000 - a reduction, but still wildly excessive in comparison to neighboring Hanover, which is larger and spent less than one-third of that over the same period.

Lesniak's law partner, Paul Weiner, was found to also be a partner in the site of a proposed trash transfer station in Linden (located in Union County) which was going to handle New York City trash after the proposed shutdown of the Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island, then move it on to permanent trash facilities in other states. Weiner was the attorney for the partnership that owned the site of the station, but had not disclosed his equity interest in it. The group Weiner was a part of, Tremley Point Marine Terminal, included the son-in-law of Linden mayor John Gregorio and an alleged mobster, who was banned from handling trash in the state of New York. Tremley Point was to realize $1.2 million in monthly rent out of the deal, and Lesniak's law firm represented several of the towns through which trash would have to be transported to get to the station, including Linden, which was to receive free trash collection as part of the arrangement. When Weiner's financial interest was discovered, he was persuaded to divest himself of it. Who convinced him? Well, according to reports in the Newark Star-Ledger, it was one James McGreevey, then mayor of Woodbridge.

Lesniak's law partner is also among a group of five people who have been identified by the Star-Ledger as having received illegal stock tips from Taffet, although he has not been charged in the SEC case.

Lesniak has a vise grip around the concept that "all politics is local". He basically controls the Union County Board of Chosen Freeholders, and has arranged, through their sanction, to exercise plenty of patronage of his own, including the appointment of his nephew, George Devanney, to the post of Union County manager. To fill out his resume, Devanney, who had limited management experience, previously held two other posts with the county, both of which were non-existent before, and seemingly created just for him. Devanney and his wife, also a county employee, live on taxpayer money to the tune of over a quarter of a million dollars per year. In terms of his management, here are the results - Lesniak's nephew has "managed" to raise property taxes 40% while cutting services. He has swelled the salary levels of executives on the county payroll while cutting the wages of blue-collar county workers. While he's overseen it, the county budget has increased over 20% in just a couple of years. He has fed off the public trough like a champion, indicating he’s been taught well by his uncle.

The senator's name has been mentioned in connection with a scandal called "Gunitegate", where executives from United Gunite, a concrete company, were found to be paying off officials from various New Jersey municipalities in exchange for no-bid sewer contracts. In the late 1990's, the company donated to the New Jersey Democratic Committee and McGreevey's first gubernatorial campaign, presumably at the direction of Lesniak, while the senator raising money for the state's Democratic Party.It is estimated as well that United Gunite execs contributed and/or directed as much as $200,000 in contributions to Al Gore while Lesniak was New Jersey finance chairman of Gore's 2000 presidential campaign.

Lesniak does seem to have one thing in common with Senator John McCain, now a "campaign finance reformer", who had only undertaken that course of action after being caught with his hand in the cookie jar as a member of the infamous Keating Five.  Around the time of "Gunitegate", Lesniak underwent what he described as a "personal metamorphosis", an spiritual epiphany, if you will, which put his priorities in order. as he told the New York Times' Chris Hedges (Sept. 2), "I no longer run around trying to control outcomes. I was a typical power broker. I had to make sure everything happened the way I wanted it to happen."

Lesniak's critics claim it was his own calculated way of distancing himself from the quid pro quos and illicit campaign contributions made to McGreevey and other Democrats by Kushner and dozens of others - many of whom have been charged with crimes - while he was fund-raising head of the State Democratic Committee. Jeff Tittel, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, told the Times, "We've entered into bizarro-world. It's this alternate universe, where machine politicians say they have seen the light and are talking as if they are born-again reformers."

During a bitter struggle in the summer of 2000, when McGreevey was dueling U.S. Senator Robert Torricelli for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, Lesniak and Weiner were reportedly approaching county political leaders (critical to the nomination process under New Jersey's system) with the promise of access to funds from that same State Democratic Committee. They exercised incredible pressure on the state's Democratic chairman, Thomas Giblin (who had actually recruited Torricelli to run) to endorse checks over to county organizations from whom McGreevey was seeking an all-important endorsement.

Lesniak has engaged in public sparring exhibitions with Cooney in connection with fund-raisers - interestingly enough, exhibitions that were unsanctioned and unsupervised by the commission, and were thus probably illegal. According to New Jersey statute 5:2A-4,

“The State Athletic Control Board shall have and exercise sole discretion, management, control, and supervision overall public boxing, wrestling, extreme wrestling, kick-boxing, and combative sports exhibitions, events, performances, and contests.”

Not that we’re making a federal case of it, but isn’t it kind of ironic that the very law that Lesniak’s legislature passed, and Cooney would like to be in a position to enforce, has been broken by both of them?

The two developed a relationship as golf buddies (by all accounts playing by the rules on the course), and Lesniak had helped the former heavyweight title challenger land an $80,000-a-year contract with Union County to run a "fitness" program for troubled youths at the Linden Multi-Purpose Center, where Cooney allegedly made cameo appearances.

Not everyone was a fan of that move.

Within a month of Cooney's hiring, heavy bags and a boxing ring were installed in the center. That brought protests from Dorothy Ford, the influential head of the Chandler Avenue Community Coalition, who claimed local residents had been misled.

Gregorio, the mayor of Linden, had promised there would not be any boxing as part of the program, in response to the concerns of locals, who saw boxing as something that might exacerbate problems in the neighborhood around the center, which had been plagued with violent crime and drug dealing. The program was touted as something that wouldn't cost Union County taxpayers anything, but it was nonetheless being subsidized in part by the state. Many people felt that the money paid to Cooney, through the state, would have been better spent supplying more computers to Union County schools.

Cooney's contract with the county is not being renewed, at least for the time being, pending a decision on whether he is going to be appointed to the Athletic Control Board post.

Cooney, of course, is also a co-founder of F.I.S.T. (Fighter's Initiative for Support & Training), a 501(c)3 charity organization that ostensibly helped fighters with training and job placement after they retired. I really didn't take much notice of F.I.S.T. until March of 2003, when the organization called a gala press conference to announce that it had aligned itself with a union - the Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU), which describes itself as one of the largest unions within the AFL-CIO - and that it would be taking memberships from dues-paying active boxers as well who may want to avail themselves of the union's benefits. F.I.S.T. was offering some basic help to fighters in understanding their contracts with managers, promoters, etc., and would assist on obtaining legal help for them from OPEIU attorneys (at a reasonable rate, naturally) if they had a dispute with an adversarial entity that had to be resolved in court.

That was all well and good, except for the fact that some of the very same people who might conceivably be on the other side of the table in one of those disputes were actually sitting on the F.I.S.T. Board of Directors - folks like promoter Lou DiBella, and network executives Ross Greenberg and Kery Davis of HBO and Jay Larkin of Showtime. Since these were people who had likely contributed to F.I.S.T. and had to vote on important matters involving the organization (including offering benefits to active fighters), I thought it might be interesting to speculate as to what would happen to a fighter who asked F.I.S.T. to come to their aid in a situation like that. Clearly it presented a possible conflict of interest that could disadvantage fighters. I'm not the type to send a "mole" forward in an attempt to gain "intelligence"; well, not if I can help it. Instead, I wrote about it in the 43rd Round of "Operation Cleanup 2", hoping that maybe someone would come to their senses.

Come to their senses they did not. No one at F.I.S.T. had considered the issue beforehand, and they didn't seem to care about it afterward. In fact, they were unusually defensive about it. Joe Sano, the President of F.I.S.T., responded by insisting that his group was not a union, and not trying to be one (even though the fighters would be members), and that I didn't understand the dynamics of unions.

Well, the dynamic I understand is this - that if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck and smells like a duck, the chances of it not being a duck are rather remote.

And in this particular case, the duck was getting office space that belonged to the OPEIU.

I've seen where F.I.S.T. has held quite a few fund-raising events and has garnered itself more than its share of positive press. They seem to have an aptitude for that. But what they don't seem so good at is fulfilling the mission statement:

"To help current and retired professional boxers, sparring partners and amateurs become healthy, well-adjusted, productive members of society by helping them to make the transition from the ring to the real world."

In fact, Mike Indri, a New Jersey police officer who writes for The Sweet Science among others, says he routinely got calls from people on the F.I.S.T. staff asking if he could help a fighter they couldn't. That's a little unusual, since Indri is associated not with F.I.S.T., but with the Retired Boxers Foundation (RBF).

There are not a whole lot of success stories of fighters whose post-fight careers were aided in significant part by F.I.S.T. Alex Ramos, founder of the RBF, says one of the things he heard when he started his non-profit was that "you'll have to prove it's not just about another washed-up fighter looking for pocket change."

That having been said, the most notable success of F.I.S.T. appears to be Cooney himself, and undoubtedly the Long Island native's post-fight career would take a giant leap forward if he were named to the NJSACB position. There might also be an advancement of what F.I.S.T. had laid out as one of its objectives for 2004 - "Develop formal plans regarding expansion of F.I.S.T. services to other parts of the country.".But as this "expansion policy" was being undertaken, what would happen if, for example, Cooney were to have been named chairman of the New Jersey commission, and a fighter who had signed up and paid dues to F.I.S.T. was awarded a very questionable decision in an Atlantic City ring over a fighter who was not a dues-paying member of F.I.S.T.? Not that there would be anything corrupt in the officiating, but really, does the boxing world need those kind of controversies, this appearance of conflict of interest, when it can be avoided very easily? And would it be wise to appoint someone who evidently has very little sensitivity to those types of conflicts?

That Cooney lacked regulatory credentials was obvious. That there was some political machinery in place to push him through as a nominee was readily apparent.

There was hardly a doubt in my mind, however, that even the slightest bit of due diligence on the part of legislators would have knocked Cooney out of the box in the confirmation process. But people had to be enlightened.

So I started at the top.

In the name of the International Brotherhood of Prizefighters' Boxing Oversight Task Force (IBOPBOTF, if you’re into acronyms), I wrote the following letter to Governor McGreevey and distributed it to the press:

International Brotherhood of PrizefightersBoxing Oversight Task Force

”We ARE watching”

The State of New Jersey     May 14, 2004Governor James E. McGreeveyPO Box 001 Trenton, NJ 08625

Via:* E-MAIL (with attachments)* REGISTERED U.S. MAIL* FAX

Dear Governor McGreevey,

It is my understanding that former heavyweight contender Gerry Cooney has expressed great interest in, and is under strong consideration for, the position of Chairman of the New Jersey State Athletic Control Board.

While I appreciate that the state is trying to act in what it feels is the best interests of the agency, there are nonetheless some grave concerns about this pending appointment - some of which the state may not be aware.

As a native of New Jersey who has been proud of the way boxing has been regulated in the state; who has been involved in this industry extensively, and has been a leading voice in the area of positive boxing reform for the past several years, I feel it incumbent upon myself to bring all of the potential concerns to your attention.

First and foremost, based on what is required to achieve efficient regulation in New Jersey, and what exists elsewhere in this country, a full-time chairman of the NJSACB, with the accompanying salary, is highly unusual, and completely unnecessary. In the vast majority of states (New York being the lone exception I can think of), the commission chairman is not a full-time position. The standard, in fact, is that chairmen receive either no pay or very minimal pay, and even then only in the form of a stipend or per diem relative to their attendance of the periodic meetings. Accordingly, even the $15,000 that was previously earmarked for the chairman's position was excessive, using this standard.

At a level of $80,000, derived from taxpayers, for a position that, in function, should be ceremonial at best, the state is exercising an alarming degree of fiscal irresponsibility - something that is rather inexplicable in light of the fact that it has had to borrow and take advances on settlement money in order to escape a budgetary crisis.

According to State Senator Raymond Lesniak, who appears to be Mr. Cooney's benefactor here, Mr. Cooney offers "a unique opportunity to help regulate and promote boxing in New Jersey."

I can assure you that is hardly the case.

One would have to identify, definitively, what special attributes Mr. Cooney (whom I'm guessing is not well-versed in parliamentary procedure) - or ANY prospective "full-time" chairman, for that matter - could possibly bring to the table to justify an $80,000 salary, regardless of whether it is taxpayer-subsidized or generated out of NJSACB revenues, especially as the NJSACB's administrative head (Larry Hazzard) is one of the more capable individuals in his field.

That kind of expenditure, or a portion thereof, would be more judiciously dedicated toward funding additional "man-hours" for administrative personnel in the NJSACB office than on what is, for all intents and purposes, a "no-show" position. And in terms of any "image-building" value Mr. Cooney has, vis-a-vis New Jersey boxing regulation, the real world effect of his visibility is negligible.

If Mr. Cooney's desire is to be a "figurehead" with some public relations purpose in mind, perhaps he should consider volunteering his services.

Under the circumstances, however, his involvement, on any level, may be inappropriate.

There are other concerns that may, from a different perspective, be even more pressing. Mr. Cooney is currently co-founder and chairman of F.I.S.T. (Fighters Initiative for Support and Training), a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that is, in its own words, "dedicated to providing treatment, counseling and career path assistance to fighters who lack the resources needed for a successful transition after prizefighting."

There is something very problematic about the dynamic Mr. Cooney's involvement in F.I.S.T. creates, particularly as it relates to a position as a public official with the boxing commission. Traditionally, charity organizations that purport to benefit fighters or ex-fighters have drawn upon those connected with the boxing industry for its individual contributions. The idea that a regulator, or his organization, would, or could, be in a position to solicit contributions from those under his regulation is something that anyone advocating good public policy should avoid at all costs.

That's because, at the very least, the appearance of conflict of interest will always be present. Licensees could very easily be operating under the assumption that it would be preferable for them to pay "tribute" for the privilege of conducting business in the state, or that if they refuse to make contributions, they could find themselves disadvantaged, especially in actual licensing matters and/or disputes that may, in the future, come before the commission.

And a regulator who has a close association with a non-profit can compromise himself, as well as the integrity of the industry, in other ways. Please see the attached stories from my special report, "Sirb-Gate", for more detail in that regard.

In addition, non-profit organizations engaging in similar functions to F.I.S.T. could, with a considerable degree of justification, see themselves in a non-competitive position. After all, there would be no reason for anyone to donate to a competing organization when they are under the impression that giving money to F.I.S.T. could carry with it the strength of an "investment" with residual benefits. At that point, it becomes akin to a campaign contribution, where vendors perceive themselves to be in a position where they have to "pay to play".

That creates a landscape where integrity can always be in question. Does the state of New Jersey really wish to co-opt that kind of atmosphere?

Also, the makeup of F.I.S.T. brings forward serious questions as to what its role creates. The "Board of Directors", as it is listed on the F.I.S.T. website, www.helpboxers.org, contains the names of a number of operatives in the industry who may, at any given time, be doing business in the state of New Jersey, including Ross Greenberg of HBO, Jay Larkin of Showtime, promoter Lou DiBella, and others. Certainly, promoters are licensed, and if the newly-proposed Professional Boxing Amendments Act becomes law, the regulation and/or oversight of "network as promoter" will be under contemplation. Why would a state want to place itself in a position where its commission chairman has regulatory domain over his own colleagues/contributors - and their competitors as well?

With regard to matters that may come before the NJSACB, will the contestants in such matters be prejudiced according to their level of financial participation (or lack of same) in F.I.S.T.'s non-profit activities? Couldn’t that be brought up as an issue at any time?

F.I.S.T. has positioned itself as an advocate not only for ex-fighters, but active fighters as well, by virtue of its association with Office and Professional Employees Union (OPEIU) and the AFL-CIO, an announcement that came with much pomp and circumstance on March 11, 2003 (http://www.helpboxers.org/opeiu.htm). When F.I.S.T. made this alliance, apparently it did not take into consideration that the aforementioned board members might potentially find themselves on the other side of the table in a dispute, arbitration, or litigation, if F.I.S.T. actually followed through in this "support" role for active fighters. This problem is explored extensively in an attached story from my book, "Operation Cleanup 2: Unfinished Business" (also available through http://www.ibopboxing.com/boxing-reform-2/op_cleanup_44.asp).

F.I.S.T. has never endeavored to address any of the concerns that were outlined in this story, which originally appeared (with F.I.S.T.'s full awareness) on March 13, 2003. In my opinion, that demonstrates a severe lack of sensitivity toward possible conflicts of interest. And that is not what anyone should be looking for out of a boxing regulator.

I would suggest that if there are active fighters paying dues to F.I.S.T., or licensees contributing to it, and if Mr. Cooney were to be drawing salaries or stipends, subsidizing his travel and/or other expenses out of a general fund that includes such dues or donations, AND he were to become an appointee or employee of the boxing commission, it may well test Section 6308 of the Professional Boxer Safety Act of 1996:

"§ 6308. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.     No member or employee of a boxing commission, no person who administers or enforces State boxing laws, and no member of the Association of Boxing Commissions may belong to, contract with, or receive any compensation from, any person who sanctions, arranges, or promotes professional boxing matches or who otherwise has a financial interest in an active boxer currently registered with a boxer registry. For purposes of this section, the term "compensation" does not include funds held in escrow for payment to another person in connection with a professional boxing match. The prohibition set forth in this section shall not apply to any contract entered into, or any reasonable compensation received, by a boxing commission to supervise a professional boxing match in another State as described in Section 6303 of title."

With regard to a proposition that will no doubt be put forward - that Mr. Cooney might offer to recuse himself from his involvement in F.I.S.T. in order to facilitate serving as an $80,000-a-year "full-time" chairman of the NJSACB, can he REALLY divorce himself from the organization, considering his strong name identification with it (F.I.S.T. is commonly known throughout boxing as "Cooney's charity")? Would it not lead to speculation as to whether the organization could actually exist without some level of involvement on his part? And should Mr. Cooney's wife, Jennifer Cooney (also a F.I.S.T. officer) assume control of the organization in his absence, would this constitute a recusal that wouldn't strain credulity?

Those things having been said, if Mr. Cooney is going to remain under consideration for the chairman's position with the NJSACB, and acknowledging that such consideration is, at least in part, a by-product of "goodwill" generated by Mr. Cooney's association with F.I.S.T., it would certainly not be inappropriate that certain questions be asked about F.I.S.T.'s operations and past activities.

For example, using information provided in F.I.S.T.'s Form 990 for the year 2002, I would be curious to know why a total of only $31,944 in "Program Services" was produced out of $158,087 in total revenue, or why it required $66,207 in "Fund Raising Expenses" to produce less than half that amount in "Program Services". The ratio of "Administrative Expenses" ($79,585) compared to total revenues ($92,163), according to F.I.S.T.'s Form 990 for 2001, was an astounding 86%. To put this into perspective, according to information from the National Center for Charitable Statistics, regarding "Nonprofit Fundraising and Administrative Costs" (also see attached):

"Focus group research has found that donors expect worthy organizations to have low fund-raising costs. Groups like the United Way and international relief organizations often tout their low overhead ratios in their mailings to the donors. Most striking, the federal government’s Combined Federal Campaign, which raised more than $197 million for nonprofits in 1998, requires that participating organizations certify that their combined fund-raising and administrative costs constitute no more than 25 percent of the organizations’ total support." (Also available through http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/FAQ/index.php?category=40)

And, referring again to the Form 990 from 2002, I would ask why there was a necessity for $30,260 to be paid to "consultants"; an amount equaling 94.7% of the sum total of program services! Who were these consultants? Why were they needed? And exactly what services did they perform?

According to a summary provided to the website Guidestar.org - the National Database of Nonprofit Organizations (www.guidestar.org - see attached), F.I.S.T. claimed to have "assisted over 30 individuals from the boxing profession in gaining employment outside of the boxing profession (this included job and/or vocational training)".

Stipulating that for an organization pulling in over $158,000 in revenue, "over 30 individuals" is not that many to have assisted, I'd still want to know exactly who those fighters were, and precisely what F.I.S.T. did for them.

It seems interesting that if F.I.S.T. is in the business of "career path assistance to fighters who lack the resources needed for a successful transition after prizefighting", and that if, as it says on the F.I.S.T. website, "looking out for other boxers is now his (Mr. Cooney's) cause", then why, when the opportunity presented itself for an ex-fighter to earn $80,000 for a job assisting youth and running a boxing program in Union County, it was Mr. Cooney's decision not to, in accordance with his "mission statement", steer a retired fighter into the opportunity, but to seize upon it himself?

Not to sound harsh, but it begs the question as to whether F.I.S.T. was really created to provide for post-career employment, training, and opportunities for ex-fighters, or to provide a post-career income for one Gerald Cooney.

Though I would not begrudge him the opportunity to make a living, it appears Mr. Cooney is keenly interested in various sources of income that may very well be derived as a residual benefit of his association with F.I.S.T. For example, when the American Association of Professional Ringside Physicians (AAPRP), a 501(c)6 non-profit organization, asked Mr. Cooney to speak at its annual convention in Las Vegas regarding fighter safety, Mr. Cooney reportedly demanded $15,000 for the appearance, and not in the form of a donation to F.I.S.T.

It's nothing new for people to realize profit - either directly or indirectly - from a non-profit. But the point is, does the state of New Jersey, and specifically its Athletic Control Board, really desire to be the "enabler", serving as a vehicle for Mr. Cooney, using his association with F.I.S.T. as leverage, to "diversify" his income streams, as if the chairmanship of the NJSACB was just another "paying gig", and the salary connected with it another "endorsement' or "appearance fee"?

I should hope not - if for no other reason than out of respect for the taxpayers of the Garden State.

In boxing, as in many other institutions (including government), perception is reality. And the involvement of Mr. Cooney with the NJSACB, particularly in a position that would afford him some genuine authority - moral or otherwise - will create the perception of conflict of interest, if not the very real conflict itself.

Ironically, Mr. Cooney's candidacy for this position grew out of an uncomfortable scenario involving former chairman Gerald Gormley, who had to step down as a result. Mr. Cooney's appointment would create a controversial - and compromising - situation of a different kind. Does the state really want to go down that road, pushing an appointment through as a political favor, in the process ignoring factors that may endanger the sport's reputation even further in the consciousness of the public?

What boxing needs is not to continue to move in such a direction that observers have justification to question the integrity of its relationships and institutions. It needs to gravitate away from that, to the point where it begins to make up ground in the quest for credibility. One of the purposes of our task force is to help boxing move in the direction of positive change, bringing the industry toward a greater understanding of what is proper and what can do the sport harm.

In that vein, I certainly hope this letter has been useful.

I respectfully urge you to give this matter your full attention, and to devote the kind of due diligence that will enable your office to make a decision that will, ultimately, be beneficial to the interests of public policy, the sport of boxing, and the state of New Jersey.

Thanking you in advance for your consideration, I am,

Sincerely,

Charles JayChairman, Boxing Oversight Task ForceInternational Brotherhood of Prizefighters

---

I also attached other documents I thought McGreevey might find helpful, and left him the corresponding internet links. I'll list them here for your edification:

OPERATION CLEANUP 2 - STORY ABOUT F.I.S.T. AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
http://www.ibopboxing.com/boxing-reform-2/op_cleanup_44.asp

SIRB-GATE STORIES
http://www.totalaction.com/fightpage/sirbgate/Part3_Money.htm

http://www.totalaction.com/fightpage/sirbgate/Part4_Fundraiser.htm

http://www.totalaction.com/fightpage/sirbgate/Part5_Conflict.htm

STANDARDS FOR NON-PROFITS
http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/FAQ/index.php?category=40

F.I.S.T.'S ASSOCIATION WITH THE OPEIU & AFL-CIO
http://www.helpboxers.org/opeiu.htm

F.I.S.T. BOARD OF DIRECTORS
http://www.helpboxers.org/who.htm

COONEY'S JOB IN UNION COUNTY
http://www.thnt.com/thnt/story/0,21282,656681,00.html

F.I.S.T. REPORT AT GUIDESTAR.ORG
http://www.guidestar.org/controller/searchResults.gs?action_gsReport=1&npoId=104573

 I probably should add a couple of things here:

-- Even if Cooney were to quit his post with F.I.S.T. and turn things over to his wife, a conflict of interest of sorts would still exist, because under the benefits package Cooney would be entitled to as a full-time state appointee, his wife would "benefit" as well.

-- As I have previously addressed in writing my "Sirb-Gate" series, and briefly in the letter to McGreevey, I have a tremendous concern when a state regulator is in a position to "do business" on behalf of a charity he represents with people he regulates. That is very definitely a concern with Greg Sirb, the Pennsylvania commission's executive director, who has demonstrated he has no sense of propriety in continuing to involve himself with a boxing-related charity. I am not alone in my opinion.

"I do not believe that it is appropriate for state officials who regulate boxing to get involved with other boxing activities beyond that of being a regulator,” Tom Mishou, executive director of the Georgia Boxing Commission, told me for Sirb-Gate. "A pension fund is a great idea. But it should not be run by state officials, or state boxing commissions. Boxer assistance programs? Great idea. But a boxer assistance program means that you're going to have to solicit contributions from people you regulate, and in Georgia, clearly that is illegal. How do I know that someone who's never put on a show here isn't going to apply? If you regulate boxing promoters, you have to assume that if a promoter gets involved in this thing, even though you've never issued him a license before, you're going to, if the opportunity presents itself."

Larry Hazzard of New Jersey chimed in. "That is, in my view, a total conflict of interest. It certainly flies in the face of anyone's credibility in a situation like that. And I would even go so far as questioning the motives - the real motives - of an individual who would get involved in a situation like that, knowing that it is in fact a conflict of interest. That is the least of the problem when an individual in a position such as a commissioner or executive director licenses and regulates people in an industry and solicits money from them."

Yes, but then I ask myself - in a state where campaign contributions were routinely accepted in exchange for favors, or simply extorted, would questions about conflicts arising from a non-profit organization resonate at all with such unscrupulous, unethical politicians?

Apparently not.

No one from the governor's office has ever responded my letter, but I did get some reaction from reporters. One of them - Judy DeHaven of the Newark Star-Ledger - was intrigued by this story and endeavored to follow up on it by interviewing me and performing what appeared to be much more research on F.I.S.T. and non-profits than Governor McGreevey or State Senator Lesniak had.

DeHaven was somewhat puzzled by the ratio between F.I.S.T.'s revenue and the amount spent on program services. Specifically, her curiosity was sparked by the fact that the organization had never listed any quantitative figures attributed to fund-raising expenses. In speaking with an expert - Bennett Weiner, COO of the better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance, she discovered that the generally accepted standard for a charity is that they spend 65% of its total expenses on program services (i.e., doing what they allegedly set out to do). F.I.S.T.'s numbers were out of line in that regard.

Weiner also said that the required financial forms F.I.S.T. submitted to the Internal Revenue Service were not filled out properly. "The fact that they're not reporting any fund-raising costs raises questions about the accuracy of the completion of the form with any charity," he said.

He went on to point out that because of Cooney's celebrity status, the matter was of even greater concern, due to the higher level of trust the public might put in that kind of person.

Sure enough, Ann Weiss, who is F.I.S.T.'s executive director, admitted to DeHaven that indeed the organization's IRS forms had not been filled out the right way, and, in the words of DeHaven's June 6 Star-Ledger story, it had  "hired a new accountant to file the 2003 forms. She said the charity has high fund-raising expenses because it is often difficult to convince people that giving money to former fighters is a worthy cause."

Will giving a lot of money to a former fighter be a worthy cause for the state of New Jersey?

I think not. But since Cooney's name has not been disqualified by the governor's office, they may have to learn the hard way.

The ex-fighter is still campaigning for the job. In a July 11 story in the New York Times, he told the reporter, Jeremy Pearce, who obviously hadn't done much in the way of research, that. "We need to have more fights here. There are a lot of great fighters here, and we need to bring boxing back to where it should be, to make the revenues for the state that should be made."

Governors have a way of sneaking things in under the radar during their waning days in office - among others, the granting of pardons and certain patronage appointments.

Senator Ray Lesniak was the first "straight" person to who McGreevey revealed his homosexuality. As Lesniak recounts the story, after the admission, "it was a moment of liberation" for the governor. The two men stood and embraced.

Since then, Lesniak "has become McGreevey's best friend, chief advisor and psychoanalyst", in the words of Star-Ledger columnist John McLaughlin. He has also floated trial balloons about McGreevey serving out the rest of his term, telling the Star-Ledger, "He doesn’t have to deal with the political bosses anymore. He found out who his friends are. He beat them back. And he doesn’t have to hide his identity. He could be free to do what he thinks is absolutely right, unfettered by political or personal concerns."

New Jersey political consultant Paul Swibinski responded, "He should keep a very low profile for the next three months and concern himself with what his lawyers tell him. And he should be thinking about what he's going to do after Nov. 15."

But will the governor do his benefactor a favor and execute Cooney's appointment before leaving office? There's no doubt he's considering it, and Lesniak is pushing for it.

If that indeed happens, things can go in either of two different directions.

The scariest scenario - the one we hope doesn't happen - is that Cooney is confirmed by the State Senate by way of voice vote. That would effectively grease him through the process without any examination, due diligence, or organized resistance whatsoever. However, if a member of the legislature chooses to make an issue of it, Cooney might have to go through the process of being "vetted" by the state legislature. During that time, evidence can be submitted that would be germane to the former heavyweight's status as a viable candidate. That means that this story, my previous letter, and the stories written by Judy DeHaven and Sandy McClure, can be introduced, and Cooney may have to explain in detail the discrepancies on F.I.S.T.'s tax forms.

At that point, I imagine an IRS investigation would not be completely out of line.

"Boxing has taken one hit after another in this state, in terms of scandals and controversy. It needs someone who could bring hope and an uplifting attitude," says Lesniak.

If his conceptualization, and the state legislature's, is that Gerry Cooney is that person, they may be in for a very unpleasant surprise.

Or then again, maybe not.

After all, it could be just business as usual in the Garden State.

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

There is something you can do to help. If you're tired of boxing decisions made by corrupt politicians and inept regulation that saps your taxpayer dollar unnecessarily, you may want to join our new initiative:

S.C.A.M.

Stop Cooney's Appointment by McGreevey

Write up your own thoughts, attach a link to this story if you'd like, and send a letter to the following address:

The State of New Jersey
Governor James E. McGreevey
P.O. Box 001
Trenton, NJ 08625

You can also write to McGreevey's chief of staff - Jamie Fox - at the same address.

E-mail to the governor's office needs to be sent from the following web page: http://www.state.nj.us/governor/govmail.html

Also, copy your message to the following people:
Mark Fleming, Appointments -- mark.fleming@gov.state.nj.us
Rita L. Strmensky, State Ethics Board -- ethics@eces.state.nj.us

The phone number to the governor's office is:
609-292-6000

Ciao