Family Councils / Consigli / Seggia / Elders / Inner Circle

[Pogo The Clown]

I don't know if it was mentioned, but in The Last Mafioso when Fratianno was in New York he met with the Genovese leaders. He described a vote being taken to order a hit. I think the leaders were Funzi Tieri, Fat Tony Salerno, and the Chin. This administration meeting sounds like a partial consiglio.

If I remember right Eli Zeccardi was also a part of that.


Pogo

[B.]

Does sound similar to a consiglio. Whether the Genovese had that at some point or not they seem to have run their Family like a council during the 1960s-80s which probably added to the confusion of who the boss was.

[PolackTony]

- If it's true the Chicago rappresentante operated at the discretion of the committee to some degree, that would be consistent with the San Jose consiglio's authority over Cerrito. I know the early 1970s member informant (Gianola?) said Ricca and Accardo were primarily concerned with preventing murders at that time. The "chairman" term is also consistent with the consiglio, as it was called the "chair" in Detroit and Milwaukee, therefore those with a seat were "chairmen".

Great info on the SJ Consiglio. We know that at least ideally/in theory, the rappresentante served at the discretion of the family as a collective and was elected by the group to represent the collectivity. In that they were typically composed of senior members, and given the authorities and duties they seem to have been responsible for, I see these councils as embodying the authority and will of the collectivity, so it would make sense if people saw the boss as “under” the council in this way. All part of the checks and balances system that was a holdover from a model of the family as (at least in its ideal-type version) a more democratic institution.

- Like Antiliar kind of hit upon, ruling panels and committees are also a natural development in any org, mafia or not. I don't want someone to take this info and apply it to every single ruling panel up to present day, but there is no question the Sicilian mafia and early US had a formal body called the consiglio with specific duties and huge power. The boss was part of the consiglio in every example we have, so it wasn't apart from him though it offered other avenues of authority than just rappresentante controlling everything.

I think you’ve made and supported this claim very strongly and I don’t think at this point there is any doubt on the matter. As noted by Cabrini above, the entire forum should be grateful to be able to participate in a discussion of this significance and to have watched as your excellent research and theorizing on this topic has taken shape and developed.

[Antiliar]

- If it's true the Chicago rappresentante operated at the discretion of the committee to some degree, that would be consistent with the San Jose consiglio's authority over Cerrito. I know the early 1970s member informant (Gianola?) said Ricca and Accardo were primarily concerned with preventing murders at that time. The "chairman" term is also consistent with the consiglio, as it was called the "chair" in Detroit and Milwaukee, therefore those with a seat were "chairmen".

- Like Antiliar kind of hit upon, ruling panels and committees are also a natural development in any org, mafia or not. I don't want someone to take this info and apply it to every single ruling panel up to present day, but there is no question the Sicilian mafia and early US had a formal body called the consiglio with specific duties and huge power. The boss was part of the consiglio in every example we have, so it wasn't apart from him though it offered other avenues of authority than just rappresentante controlling everything.

With regards to Chicago, it depends on what is meant by "rappresentante." During Sam Giancana's reign as boss he was the official rappresentante, yet was still under the authority of Paul Ricca. From 1932 to 1972, Ricca was the final word over any decision made by the consiglio whenever he decided to intervene and exercise his authority. Typically he left most of the decisions to the day-to-day boss (who did sit on the Commission and was over an underboss), but occasionally he would intervene and override decisions. So in my mind the Chicago consiglio was more like an advisory panel that included the boss, and the boss would either agree or disagree with the panel's advice. The boss's word was then final - unless Ricca determined otherwise. After Ricca died I believe Accardo maintained this arrangement until 1986. After that he mostly withdrew but was still available for advice.

[Angelo Santino]

Sounds like the arrangement that would have played out for Joe Z had he vacated the office and became a "consigliere of power" while Mike Polizzi assumed the position of boss/rappresentante.

[PolackTony]

- If it's true the Chicago rappresentante operated at the discretion of the committee to some degree, that would be consistent with the San Jose consiglio's authority over Cerrito. I know the early 1970s member informant (Gianola?) said Ricca and Accardo were primarily concerned with preventing murders at that time. The "chairman" term is also consistent with the consiglio, as it was called the "chair" in Detroit and Milwaukee, therefore those with a seat were "chairmen".

- Like Antiliar kind of hit upon, ruling panels and committees are also a natural development in any org, mafia or not. I don't want someone to take this info and apply it to every single ruling panel up to present day, but there is no question the Sicilian mafia and early US had a formal body called the consiglio with specific duties and huge power. The boss was part of the consiglio in every example we have, so it wasn't apart from him though it offered other avenues of authority than just rappresentante controlling everything.

With regards to Chicago, it depends on what is meant by "rappresentante." During Sam Giancana's reign as boss he was the official rappresentante, yet was still under the authority of Paul Ricca. From 1932 to 1972, Ricca was the final word over any decision made by the consiglio whenever he decided to intervene and exercise his authority. Typically he left most of the decisions to the day-to-day boss (who did sit on the Commission and was over an underboss), but occasionally he would intervene and override decisions. So in my mind the Chicago consiglio was more like an advisory panel that included the boss, and the boss would either agree or disagree with the panel's advice. The boss's word was then final - unless Ricca determined otherwise. After Ricca died I believe Accardo maintained this arrangement until 1986. After that he mostly withdrew but was still available for advice.

A+ and a reasonable take on what we know. The boss was the day-to-day executive and had a lot of authority to act and make decisions on his own call. But ultimately he was beholden and subject to the most senior member who was the "Chairman" of the body of senior members, so the authority of the boss was formally limited and limited in practice if and when the "Chairman" felt that he had to step in.

An interesting note (1963) here on two CIs' take on potential tensions between rappresentante and council. We know what wound up happening with Giancana. While there were plenty of other grounds for him falling out of favor and eventually having to step down, the indication that he was bucking convening with the "board" I imagine was a contributing factor in this dynamic.

[B.]

Good info all around guys. And thank you for the kind word, Tony.

From a convo between San Fran boss Jimmy Lanza and San Jose council secretary Steve Zoccoli. Hard to make out the context as it's vague but they are talking about some kind of leadership issue related to running a Family:



Lanza refers to Zoccoli as a "counselor" and Zoccoli acknowledges the responsibility. Appears to refer to his position on SJ's council given we know he presided over it and shows they used counselor/consigliere to refer to council members like we see might see elsewhere.

Here is where Bomp talks about the rumor that Zerilli was going to become a "a consigliere of power". Question is if he meant the official consigliere (in the usual sense we hear it) who still remained very powerful, or given we know Detroit had a council if the rumor was that Zerilli would stay on as a member of the council. Might be reading into it but he says "a" and not "the" consigliere.



Scott hadn't heard of the traditional consiglio when he started reporting on Detroit and has always been adamant that they kept on former leaders as "consigliere emeritus" -- could well be what Bomp's Detroit friends were referring to given "a consigliere of power" isn't a normal way to refer to the official rank, i.e. nobody says "underboss of power". For some reason a qualifier was included even though it'd be implied Zerilli would remain powerful no matter his rank.

[Angelo Santino]

Angelo "the chairman" Meli was both Consig (according to Bomp and other informants) and also had a seat on the consiglio along with Black Bill Tocco, Pete Licavoli (semi retired capo), Joe Z (boss) and Priziola (under). All of these men were quite elderly and in their twilight years so it made sense to start thinking of succession.

Under these guys you had captains who were more or less their successors- Jack Tocco, Tony Z, Mike Rubino, Mike Polizzi and acted as their moxy from a functional perspective. But by 1963 it wasnt decided who would get the official slots as we can see from your evidence that Z was considering Polizzi.

[Antiliar]

A couple of FBI file excerpts help illustrate the relationship between Ricca, Accardo and Giancana in the early 1960s.

Ricca - Accardo FBI NARA 124-10198-10112.jpg

[PolackTony]

Maniaci's definition of the Seggia in Milwaukee. B., I'm sure that you're aware of this already and have likely referenced it elsewhere in this thread, but I thought it worth posting, as to me it sounds like how I believe the board/committee in Chicago was structured. The "committee" referenced above during Aiuppa's tenure in the 70s allegedly included Accardo and Di Bella, a capo:

[B.]

Yeah, I wonder if the Milwaukee one also had soldiers. We have other examples of it being admin+select captains but there's a trend of it being admin+one captain+one soldier, maybe even multiple soldiers.

Milwaukee also shows a former boss could sit on it. When John Alioto stepped down he became capodecina over the elder members and sat on the seggia.

He also didn't mince words when he disagreed with his son-in-law / boss Balistrieri's impulsive anger:



Balistrieri is said to have dissolved the seggia or they stopped meeting soon after.

[PolackTony]

Yeah, I wonder if the Milwaukee one also had soldiers. We have other examples of it being admin+select captains but there's a trend of it being admin+one captain+one soldier, maybe even multiple soldiers.

Milwaukee also shows a former boss could sit on it. When John Alioto stepped down he became capodecina over the elder members and sat on the seggia.

He also didn't mince words when he disagreed with his son-in-law / boss Balistrieri's impulsive anger:



Balistrieri is said to have dissolved the seggia or they stopped meeting soon after.

Balistrieri was a similar dynamic to Giancana, I think. I suspect that Giancana would've loved to dissolve the committee in Chicago and rule alone. Reportedly he didn't even want an underboss. Very different family and thus a very different outcome, of course. Balistrieri dissolved (or let decay) the Seggia but then just wound up turning to Chicago as his new "Seggia" anyway, as Maniaci reported that he stopped meeting with his family but instead went to Chicago to clear important policy decisions.

[B.]

Much less to manage in Milwaukee too. The Family was fading, most members were old Sicilians/paesani, and it quickly became the Balistrieri and Sycophants show run by a few select people.

[davidf1989]

Yeah, I wonder if the Milwaukee one also had soldiers. We have other examples of it being admin+select captains but there's a trend of it being admin+one captain+one soldier, maybe even multiple soldiers.

Milwaukee also shows a former boss could sit on it. When John Alioto stepped down he became capodecina over the elder members and sat on the seggia.

He also didn't mince words when he disagreed with his son-in-law / boss Balistrieri's impulsive anger:



Balistrieri is said to have dissolved the seggia or they stopped meeting soon after.

Balistrieri was a similar dynamic to Giancana, I think. I suspect that Giancana would've loved to dissolve the committee in Chicago and rule alone. Reportedly he didn't even want an underboss. Very different family and thus a very different outcome, of course. Balistrieri dissolved (or let decay) the Seggia but then just wound up turning to Chicago as his new "Seggia" anyway, as Maniaci reported that he stopped meeting with his family but instead went to Chicago to clear important policy decisions.

Was Balistrieri's operation part of the Chicago Outfit? I think that he was a suspect in trying to blow up Rosenthal's car in Vegas

[PolackTony]

Much less to manage in Milwaukee too. The Family was fading, most members were old Sicilians/paesani, and it quickly became the Balistrieri and Sycophants show run by a few select people.

Accurate, lol.