‘ON RECORD’ VERSUS ‘OFF RECORD:’

On Record (What We Can Say Without Being Sued):

“Two weeks ago, change came to the ranks of Community Board 5, as several board members found themselves opted off the Maspeth, Glendale, Ridgewood and Middle Village local governmental arm.

David Hendrickson, Camille Horowitz, Martin J. Hanrahan, Thomas P. Nillawafer, and Richard Paloma were let go (not reappointed).

Nillawafer, along with being a board member, also served on CB5’s executive committee and was chairman of the Environmental Committee. When contacted by the Ledger, he said that he could not comment officially on the matter, except to say that it was common knowledge he had been removed, and that the news had taken him by surprise, given his years of service to the community.

Community board members are appointed by the Borough President with the recommendation of the councilwoman. Councilwoman Nutcracker admitted that she did not reappoint Mr. Nillawafer. Instead, she made an additional appointment of Dan O'Conner, a Ridgewood resident to the board.

CB5’s new roster will take effect as of April 1st.

While he may no longer be a member of CB5, Nillawafer, who owns a flower shop called The Emerald Florist located on Grand Ave, also serves in the Juniper Park Civic Association. Two weeks ago, he presented the First Annual Maspeth Is America Award to Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

He has served as president of Maspeth Town Hall. However, the most recent slate of officers reportedly does not include his name.”

Off Record (What We Know But Cannot Publish):

According to Nutcracker, Nillawafer got kicked off of Community Board 5 for verbally abusing her subordinates on two separate occasions. These subordinates demanded that Nillawafer be removed from the board, but said they would relent on the grounds that he apologize to them. The flower shop-owning politician steadfastly refused, and reportedly said words to the councilwoman equivalent to: “I don’t have to apologize to anybody. I pack the most suck of anybody on the community board. Don’t even think of messing with me, because I got powerful friends in city government, and I can crush you easy.” Several weeks later, Nillawafer found himself voted off the board.

When contacted by the Ledger, Nillawafer admitted that he was no longer on the board. Initially, he said that the vote was “probably incorrectly tabulated,” implying that the 50-2 vote against Nillawafer as reported by Nutcracker was somehow miscounted. The florist soldiered on. “Give it a few days,” he said. “That board hasn’t seen the last of me.”

A few days later, we contacted Nillawafer again. This time, he seemed decidedly less confident, but a lot more resentful. After telling the Ledger that what he was going to say had to stay “off the record,” so as not to cause reprisal against two cousins who work in Brooklyn and Queens assemblymen’s offices, he said that he was the victim of a dirty political trick. He claims that the week before the crucial voting session to reappoint members, Councilwoman Nutcracker made a number phone calls to board members – many of whom usually stay home on voting days – and encouraged them to vote against him. Nillawafer himself did not make it to the meeting, but a friend of his did.

“It was packed like no meeting he had ever been to,” said Nillawafer. “And there were at least fifty members on that day that never showed up to a vote before.” Not surprisingly, all of these newbies voted against the bloviating botanist, easily outnumbering those who supported keeping him on.

Nillawafer also said that any verbal abuse allegations are a crock. He accused Nutcracker and the rest of the community board – off record, of course – of voting him off as punishment for what they perceived as interest in the local assembly seat. Nillawafer would neither confirm nor deny that he was planning to run for assemblyman against the popular incumbent, Marge Monroe, but he claimed to have as much right as anyone to seek elected office. He cited his recent ouster as a sign that the local political machine is less concerned with representing the will of the people, and more involved in protecting their own interests. Of course, all of this was said “as background,” another way of saying “off the record.”

Upon being asked if a hypothetical board member could run for office against the will of the board, Councilwoman Nutcracker would not comment. But off record, she said that any internal competition between board members, which would include an assemblywoman such as Marge Monroe, could be viewed negatively by special interest groups or The Mayor’s Office. That could potentially cost CB5 lots of money, so they actively try to prevent such a scenario. In the case of a rogue member with political ambitions, Nutcracker said that the board – hypothetically – would try to talk him/her out of their plans. Of course, should that fail to persuade them, more drastic steps would be taken.

And what steps might those be? How about engineering a vote so that said rogue member would find him/herself facing a decidedly stacked deck? I didn't ask Nutcracker in those exact words, but however I said it, she couldn't give me a decisive answer. After all, she said, the situation we were talking about was strictly hypothetical. She also reminded me that it was to remain off the record, something I was hardly surprised to hear.