CityHallNews.com

Bill Mulrow Makes His Case

Says Relationship with Spitzer is Professional, Would Not Compromise Him as Comptroller

By Edward-Isaac Dovere

William Mulrow ran a Democratic primary against Alan Hevesi for comptroller in 2002. He lost, but now that Hevesi has resigned as part of a felony plea deal, Mulrow is one of the three finalists selected by the independent screening panel to replace Hevesi. As the Legislature wonders whether to bypass the recommendations of the panel and pick one of its own, Mulrow is continuing to make his case that he is most qualified for the job. Sitting in the City Hall offices Jan. 31, Mulrow discussed the process so far, what he would differently with the pension funds if picked, how often he talks to Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) and what he would do with Hevesi’s old staff.

City Hall: When will this all be resolved?
William Mulrow: I don’t think the vote happens probably at the earliest it will be next Wednesday, because the Assembly’s not back ‘til Monday, the special election [for former State Sen. Michael Balboni’s seat] is Tuesday, and there seems to be a sense not to disturb that with this. So if that’s the case, it could be Wednesday, it could be the week after. Who knows? It’s really not a perfect science.

CH: Shouldn’t it have been done by Jan. 31, when the governor submitted his budget proposal?
WM: I think that was the original intention. I think it got complicated along the way.

…

CH: Was it a political move to nominate Assembly Member Pete Grannis (D-Manhattan) for DEC commissioner, to take him out of the comptroller’s race?
WM: I don’t think so, because I got the sense that they had offered the job originally to Tom DiNapoli (D-Nassau). I think they wanted who had some interest in the environment, legislative background, so I guess Grannis kind of fit that. I really couldn’t tell who was the stronger candidate of all the Assembly people. It was always sort of hard to figure out. Rumor had it that DiNapoli had a little bloc of voters, [Assembly Member Joseph] Morelle (D-Rochester) had a bloc. I never really heard about Pete having a bloc of votes.

CH: Did you make any moves to get a bloc of legislators behind you?
WM: I’ve been speaking to a whole host of people—legislators, editorial boards, constituency groups, so because of kind of the uncertainty of when and how, it’s been a little difficult to do a traditional campaign, go around and shake hands and tell people why you’re the best. It’s clear that there’s some feeling in the Assembly conference, they’re trying to work out some issues right now. So in deference to them and deference to their process, I’ve been not actively campaigning inside the Assembly conference.

CH: Has anything changed in terms of why you want this job from when you ran in 2002?
WM: One of the reasons I ran four years ago and why I’m interested today: this office to me fits my skill sets. This is in my estimation a non-partisan, professional office with someone with financial skills who also understands government. … Having run for the office, I’m prepared to take it quickly, because the other unusual thing with what’s going on now is that whoever’s the comptroller is going to need to start immediately, really hit the ground running.

…

CH: Would you have run again in a regular election for comptroller or something else?
WM: I hadn’t thought about it because the opportunity for an office that fits me hadn’t come up again. Alan Hevesi I thought did a great job as comptroller, and I was happy to support him in his reelection. I never closed the door, but at the same time it wasn’t really open.

CH: Should Hevesi have resigned?
WM: It’s hard for me to make a judgment on what happened. To me, he made a mistake, which I think he’s admitted. He’s 35 years of public service at the city and state level. I look at it as an unfortunate thing for him, and unfortunate thing for the state. I think he’s a good man who’s done good things, and I just think it’s unfortunate what happened. I tend to look at him as a guy who spent 35 years doing some good things, and unfortunately this one thing came at the end.

CH: That’s how he tried to portray it. But was it fair, were people going after him?
WM: It’s hard for me to make a judgment on him. … It’s behind us.

CH: Did you think the screening panel was a good idea?
WM: I liked the open process, I liked that it was open to whoever wanted to put their name in the hopper. … To me, getting the input of comptrollers who’ve been there was a helpful thing. That doesn’t take away from the fact that the Legislature at the end of the day has the right constitutionally and the obligation to vote. I don’t think the panel takes that away.

…

CH: The panel was charged with picking “up to five,” but some people thought that that meant five people would be picked as finalists. What’s your take on that?
WM: I don’t know what the agreement was amongst the leadership, so I don’t think it matters for me what my opinion is on that. The committee did what they did and the Legislature will do what they will do. So I really don’t have an opinion on whether it should be three or five.

…

CH: If there had been an Assembly member or two on the finalist list, would your chances have been better as a compromise candidate? Or do you think the Assembly will reject the finalists because no members were picked as finalists, leaving you caught in the fray?
WM: Politics is a tough business. … To me the point, and why I thought I was the best option was that not only did you need qualifications and experience, however you define experience, but to me, because of the short nature of this person assuming the office, that preparedness to me was even more important, and so I tried to make the case that not only have I run for the office and spent 18 months thinking about what I’d do, how I would act in the office, I spent 25 years essentially with the skill sets that would be applicable to the office. So I was trying to make the case that we’re all qualified, you could probably pick any one of the 18 and they would probably do a good job. Who could take the job over immediately? Who hits the ground running? There are some things that are going to happen pretty quickly for the next comptroller. You’re going to be the umpire on revenue estimates. If there’s a difference between the executive and the legislative branch, you could play a major role in this budget which came out today and is going to be passed pretty soon. There’s been some changes in the investment portfolio mix where this prudent investor bill takes the alternative part of the pension fund from 15 up to 25. When you change an asset allocation like that, that’s some pretty big decisions. You make the wrong decision, it could be a $5 billion mistake. It could be a $10 billion mistake.

CH: Some have complained that none of the three comptrollers on the panel had as much experience going into the office themselves as most of the 18 people they were choosing between. What’s your take on that?
WM: From wherever they were, I guess they’re looking at it as former comptroller and trying to figure out what was most important from their perspective as former comptrollers. I don’t discount the fact that they came in under different circumstances also. But you’d have to ask them why they did what they did.

CH: If you had won the 2002 election and been comptroller from 2003-2006 instead of Alan Hevesi, what would have been different?
WM: His audits were aggressive and focused, and I think he did some good stuff with school districts which hadn’t been done before, so I think that’s a big plus. I thought he did a good job with the pension fund. The pension fund performed well. He diversified it further than what it had been before. So I would have been equally as aggressive with the audits. I think my focus on investing probably wouldn’t have been all that different.

I don’t know how much they did specifically on the in-state investing program, but to me your key job as a comptroller on the pension side is the fiduciary side of trying to get the maximum return. I think what was started under McCall and continued under Hevesi, I might even do it more so: there’s a program where there’s private equity money invested into New York State, which to me is a two-fer—you get the fiduciary return and you get some job production in New York State.

…

The California fund has done some interesting things with their system. One of the things that they’ve done which I think is interesting: there’s been an awful lot of investing recently in the natural resources area, because the worldwide demand for natural resources is increasing dramatically. I think that’s an area I would probably look at even more so than that’s been looked at in New York.

CH: So that’s what the difference between Comptroller Hevesi and a Comptroller Mulrow would have been in the last term?
WM: I would think on balance it wouldn’t have been all that different, because I frankly think he did a terrific job as comptroller. … but with the two big changes on the government side, being the umpire, I think you now play a real serious role in the budget and I think with this change in the investment portfolio mix, I think you now have an opportunity to do some things that hadn’t been allowed for the state comptroller before. Changing this alternative mix which was limited to 15, now going to 25. Without getting too complicated, when you change those numbers like that, you’ll have an ability to invest more in real estate, more in private equity (which is quite often job creation). So I tend to think as a comptroller with $145 billion and more flexibility within the portfolio, you’ll be able to not only get the returns that you want, but play a larger role in what happens in the state.

CH: Describe your relationship with Eliot Spitzer.
WM: I certainly voted for him. I both like and respect Eliot, and I would say he probably likes and respects me. I hope he does. I think he’s already done a terrific job as governor, and I hope that he continues with the same sort of focus and passion that he’s already shown. I’ve been tagged as a friend of Eliot Spitzer for a long time there, and the funny thing is that though we’re friendly, I’ve only known him for really four years. My relationship with him is professional. It’s not social, it’s not anything like that. I think we respect each other because we’re both kind of outsiders to politics. .. But if I’m the comptroller and he obviously is the governor, then my job is to keep an eye on what goes on in the executive branch. And I would certainly do that.

CH: Have you talked to Spitzer over the course of this process?
WM: I haven’t had a conversation with him at all. The only thing I told him was that I was going to enter, and I haven’t had a conversation with him before or after.

CH: So, since the beginning of January?
WM: Not a single conversation. Not about anything.

CH: Have you heard anything from him?
WM: No, as far as I know he’s been completely out of it. I think he’s been clear and certainly vocal about the type of comptroller he’d like to see.

CH: Have you talked to Sheldon Silver?
WM: I have not talked to Shelly. I also talked to him about my interest in entering, but I haven’t had any conversation with him.

CH: Should there be change in the state constitution to provide for special elections?
WM: I think you should always be accountable to the voters. Clearly the constitution now gives the Legislature the rights. But I think politics, public office is all about the public’s voice. So it seems to me that that’s where it should be.

CH: Should that change before 2010?
WM: To get a constitutional change is that two legislatures? I think it’s two, so I don’t think you’d get it before 2010. Obviously, whoever is selected for this spot, the voters will have the opportunity to say yea or nay in four years.

CH: If you’re picked, would you run again in 2010?
WM: I’ll cross that barrier if I get picked.

CH: Have you read the executive budget proposal?
WM: I have not.

CH: Have you read any of the coverage of it?
WM: I have not. So I’ve got to do a little homework tonight and tomorrow and catch up to speed on it. it seems to me from the little I’ve heard—property tax cut, some changes in spending for Medicare, healthcare and meeting some of the education needs that were mandated by the court order. So I don’t have any thoughts on it yet.

…

CH: How do you proceed from here? How do you get to be the one picked?
WM: I imagine as the focus for the next few days will be on the budget, maybe next week return to the comptroller’s spot. I would imagine there will be opportunities to speak to legislators and make my case. Again, I felt fortunate that the process allowed me considerable time in front of most of the legislators to make the case.

CH: At this stage, is it about working the phones, calling on individual legislators?
WM: Yeah.

CH: Is it a bad thing that there has not been a comptroller picked before the executive budget was submitted?
WM: I don’t think so. Once we get closer to the budget, if there’s differences on the revenue projection that would be bad. I think you’re going to need a comptroller there. … It would be nice to have someone at the top who’s accountable, but I think the office is pretty professional.

CH: Would you bring on your own staff, or keep most of Hevesi’s?
WM: From what I understand, it’s a very professional and confident and good-performing office, so I’d be inclined to keep the folks who want to stay.