Bible-Quoting, Unapologetic Councilman Is Censured and Fined in Sexual Harassment
By MIKE McINTIRE, NY TIMES, April 21, 2005

LINK

He compared his suffering to that of Christ and dismissed one of his accusers as a psychiatric case, but in the end City Councilman Allan W. Jennings Jr. could not dissuade his colleagues from censuring him yesterday for sexually harassing female subordinates.

In a packed City Hall chamber that echoed with cries of embarrassment, anger and denial, council members struggled to give voice to their disgust at Mr. Jennings's conduct while preserving a shred of collegial acceptance of his continued presence on the 51-member legislative body. Members voted 43 to 2 to fine him $5,000, strip him of committee assignments and require him to submit to sensitivity training.

"By leveling the strongest penalty ever assessed against a City Council member in the history of this body, this Council today sends a strong message that we have no tolerance for harassment or discrimination of any kind, whatsoever," said Gifford Miller, the Council speaker.

The two dissenters were Charles Barron and Mr. Jennings.

After the vote, Mr. Jennings, a Democrat from Queens, emerged on the City Hall steps, where he continued to proclaim his innocence and declared that not only would he not resign, but that he intended to seek re-election this fall and would fight the censure in State Supreme Court. He characterized his travails as a battle "between good and evil."

"There are evil people in the world, and evil people do evil things," said Mr. Jennings, surrounded by a few supporters, one of whom brandished a sign that said, "Stop the Political Lynching of Allan W. Jennings Jr."

Threatening at times to enter the realm of the absurd, the day's proceedings seemed a fitting conclusion to a strange sideshow that has preoccupied and distracted council members since the first allegations came to light more than a year ago. It was in December 2003 when news broke that at least two female aides had complained that Mr. Jennings harassed them, required one to clean his house and gave another a pornographic gift.

The number of accusers eventually grew to five, accompanied by a stream of allegations of unsavory and bizarre conduct by Mr. Jennings. At one point, when a television reporter set up outside Mr. Jennings's home to file a report, Mr. Jennings was accused of throwing a metal object, hitting the reporter in the back.

As the dimensions of the case expanded, there were accusations that the women's complaints were mishandled by council leaders, including Mr. Miller, who is a Democratic candidate for mayor. Among the procedural complaints that have been leveled are that the Council failed to intervene earlier to stop the harassment, took too long to investigate it, was too secretive in its deliberations and did not mete out a harsh enough punishment.

Mr. Miller defended his actions, but yesterday, his handling of the case found its way into the mayoral race. Asked whether he thought the Council had handled the case properly, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said yesterday that he "would have addressed it differently."

"But keep in mind I have a lot more experience," he said, adding that as the founder of a news media company he had "decades of working in a business where you always have issues coming up and you have to face these things."

"I would have had a much more open process and done it much more expeditiously, and I think the next time it comes up maybe the speaker would feel that way," Mr. Bloomberg said.

The mayor's remarks were seized upon by Council Democrats, who pointed out that Mr. Bloomberg's company, Bloomberg L.P., was the subject of three harassment suits in the mid-1990's.

"He does have a lot more experience in these matters, all the wrong kinds of experience," Mr. Miller said. "I don't think he's in a position to lecture me or anybody else on this subject."

One of the Bloomberg L.P. suits was withdrawn and another was dismissed, but the company settled the third suit for an undisclosed sum. That suit included a charge that Mr. Bloomberg had made inappropriate comments to a pregnant woman.

Mr. Bloomberg denied the charges, citing a polygraph examination showing he had been truthful in his denial. But, he said at the time, company lawyers advised a settlement because it would otherwise distract from his business.

In the Jennings case, the Council's ethics panel spent nine months interviewing witnesses and hearing evidence before producing a 105-page report that supported the claims of two of the women. It recommended the censure that was adopted by the full Council yesterday.

Some council members said they believed that Mr. Jennings deserved harsher punishment. Domenic M. Recchia Jr., a Democrat from Brooklyn, grew incensed when Mr. Jennings appealed for sympathy by asking his colleagues to think how they would feel if their grown child were forced to endure his ordeal.

"I am thinking about if this was my child," said Mr. Recchia, his voice rising. "I have three little girls, and God forbid if an elected official ever did what he's accused of doing. "It's a shame that he's not being expelled. And I stand up in saying this is only a slap on the wrist."

When it came his time to speak. Mr. Jennings gave a somewhat rambling denial of all the allegations, and said that one of his accusers had sought psychiatric treatment. He ended by invoking a passage from the Bible, which he recited as other council members sat in awkward silence, some staring at the ceiling or down at their shoes.

"When he was abused, he did not return abuse. When he suffered, he did not threaten," Mr. Jennings intoned. "But he answered himself to the one who judges justly. I forgive you all, for you all know not what you do."

Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting for this article.

Jennings: I'm innocent
BY BRYAN VIRASAMI, Newsday, April 20, 2005

LINK

In asserting his innocence Wednesday, Allan Jennings quoted the Bible and invoked images of the crucifiction.

"I forgive you all, for you all know not what you do," he said reading from the Bible before the City Council voted 43-2 to slap him with penalties for creating a hostile work environment for female staffers.

The readings, however, were in sharp contrast to thousands of pages of transcripts from the council trial in which he was portrayed as a verbally abusive boss and often sexual predator.

During two separate speeches to the council, which approved a $5,000 fine, censure and other penalties against him, Jennings denied any wrongdoing.

"I have a confession to make," he said. "I am a sinner. And throughout my life I have committed many sins, but the sins I am accused of today I did not commit. I am innocent."

After a long investigation followed by a nine-month trial by the Standards and Ethics Committee, three charges were substantiated from two of the five women last week.

"We should make the City Council a sexual harassment-free zone," Councilwoman Letitia James of Brooklyn said.

A report last week and excerpts of the 3,800-page transcript offered shocking sexual and racial allegations against Jennings, including asking for sex, groping women, ordering them to clean his house and wash dishes.

In addition to the fine, Jennings will be required to attend sexual harassment and anger-management training, agree to outside monitoring of his staff, public censure and suspension from committees.

Some members criticized the closed-door trial while others said the accusers were not taken seriously by Speaker Gifford Miller.

Jennings suggested some colleagues voted for the penalties for political reasons.

"Right now is budget time," he said. "A lot of my colleagues feel pressured and some people were maybe even given offers because this is budget season."

Miller fired back at the allegation.

"Councilman Jennings has a long history of making erratic and unfounded comments. This is another one and the sad thing is that he will continue to refuse to take responsibility for his unacceptable, apalling and intolerable conduct," he said.

Jennings has complained his constitutional rights were violated and yesterday he retiterated claims that top Queens Democrats were going after him. His attorney, Robert Ellis, said he plans to seek redress in State Supreme Court. Jennings said he will seek re-election in November.

Councilman Charles Barron, the only member besides Jennings to vote against the penalties, berated the trial process and urged a more open trial in the future.

"The stuff I read is disturbing but I don't know whether it was true because I couldn't come to the trial," he said.

The E-Accountability Foundation was told yesterday that Charles Barron was, indeed, forbidden from the trial because, it was alleged, the Council wanted to "get" Mr. Jennings and members knew that Barron would support him. He may get re-elected because voters dont like this form of gang behavior.

April 22, 2005
Constituents Remain Unswayed by Vote
By JONATHAN P. HICKS, NY TIMES

LINK

n the chambers and corridors of City Hall, Allan W. Jennings Jr. has been roundly denounced this week, censured for sexually harassing two female subordinates after a City Council inquiry found that he had ordered one aide to clean his house and given another a pornographic gift, among other allegations.

But in his home district in Queens, the situation is different. There, in the neighborhoods of the 28th Council District, which Mr. Jennings has represented since his election four years ago, many civic and community leaders were rallying around him yesterday, strongly supporting him despite the charges against him.

"Councilman Jennings's problems are with the Council and the Democratic Party in Queens, not with us," said Ruth Bryan, the president of Southeast Queens Concerned Neighbors. "He and his staff have always been available to the people in this community. He has made mistakes, like we all do. But some of us feel that he was the victim of an unfair process."

By a vote of 43 to 2, the 51-member Council voted on Wednesday to fine Mr. Jennings $5,000, strip him of committee assignments and require him to submit to sensitivity training. In response, Mr. Jennings, comparing his suffering to that of Christ, has maintained that he will not resign and that he intends to seek re-election this year in his district, which includes Jamaica, Richmond Hill, Rochdale Village and South Ozone Park. He also said that he viewed his troubles with the Council as a battle "between good and evil."

Indeed, conversations with many leaders of civic and neighborhood organizations suggest that while support for him is not universal, Mr. Jennings might well remain a formidable candidate against even a well-organized challenger. To them, he is better known for his constituent services, like providing laptop computers to every third-, fourth- and fifth-grade student in his district.

Many in the district insist that the councilman has been a target of a Queens Democratic Party organization that has never supported him and that has used all of its muscle unsuccessfully to challenge him.

Furthermore, they insist, Mr. Jennings drew the ire of the Council speaker, Gifford Miller, by voting against an 18.5 percent property tax increase that the mayor and Council had agreed on three years ago.

Leaders of community organizations in the district describe Mr. Jennings as someone who works tirelessly, citing his office hours, which often extend to 9 p.m., and his willingness to respond to a constituent's problem with a personal visit.

"If the election were held today, would I vote for him?" said Michael Duvalle, vice president of the South Ozone Park Civic Association. "Yes, I would."

"I have called his office at 8:30 at night and he has personally answered the phone," Mr. Duvalle said. "You don't get that from other officials who are backed by the party. They know they are getting re-elected, and they feel they don't have to be responsive. They close their offices at 4:30."

Mr. Duvalle added that every time there is a civic association meeting, a community event or even a violent incident like a shooting or stabbing, Mr. Jennings or his representative is on hand. "His support is very strong in the community because he is always there and always involved."

Even Mr. Jennings's likely opponent in the Democratic primary seemed reluctant to criticize him. Thomas White Jr., who represented the district in the Council before Mr. Jennings and is considering running for his old seat, said that he had not yet formed any opinion as to whether Mr. Jennings was vulnerable.

"To be perfectly honest, I made it a point not to really discuss this," Mr. White said yesterday. "The Council voted on this, but I haven't had an opportunity to see what they voted on. And I have really spoken about it with people in the community."

Audrey L. Lucas, a board member of the Sutphin Boulevard Civic Association, acknowledged that Mr. Jennings "might be a flirt."

"I mean, he's a man and men are always hitting on women," she said. But, she added, "It still seems like some kind of kangaroo court thing down there. Gifford Miller hates him and so do the Queens Democratic Party leaders. And many people here feel that Allan Jennings is still our representative. Who else is going to stand up for us?"

Is NYC Councilmember Allan Jennings' Sexual Harassment Case an Example of Election Without Merit?

Allan Jennings Web page