Family Councils / Consigli / Seggia / Elders / Inner Circle

[B.]

Maniaci also said there was a formal assembly of the entire Family called the "tourna" (ph -- not sure the Italian term) which went out of fashion for obvious reasons. Most Families probably had a consiglio / assemblea just like the early national mafia had its Gran Consiglio and Assemblea Generale. Allegra also referred to Assemblea Generale in Sicily, so that's another one that seems to be imported. Might imply the Gran Consiglio existed there too.

[PolackTony]

Maniaci also said there was a formal assembly of the entire Family called the "tourna" (ph -- not sure the Italian term) which went out of fashion for obvious reasons. Most Families probably had a consiglio / assemblea just like the early national mafia had its Gran Consiglio and Assemblea Generale. Allegra also referred to Assemblea Generale in Sicily, so that's another one that seems to be imported. Might imply the Gran Consiglio existed there too.

Yes, he said the tourna was a formal gathering of the entire family conducted infrequently. Haven't seen that specific term pop up elsewhere, though as you say the custom was very likely done elsewhere at the family level.

"Tourna" of course may not be Italian, but Sicilian, so maybe CC has some insight (though it could be a distortion or just an archaicism). The closest I can think of is "torneo" which means "tournament" in Italian.

[B.]

Made me think of tournament too. He said they could hold inductions at the tourna also. Philly held a meeting of the Family where a member was said to be made after other org stuff was done.

[PolackTony]

Statements by Valachi and another CI (NY T-5) regarding the "arguinameda" or sit-down to revolved disputes involving members of a family or between different families. Valachi refers to the "carpet" or "table" as the forum for the arguinamenda (a "board" of course is called such as they meet at a table, where they hold seats as "chairs"). NY T-5's description of the arguinamenda sounds like Chicago CI Teddy DeRose's description of the protocol to handle member disputes: the member first takes it to his sponsor (which in Chicago seems to have usually been the member's capo), and if the sponsor can't resolve it, the matter then goes to the "board" for deliberation:

[B.]

Angelo Bruno used "arguimendo" to refer to sitdowns at every level. A dispute between members in a Family would be settled with an arguimendo, as well as a dispute taken to the Commission. Early synonym for sitdown.

Thinking back to KC's "Men at the Bakery", Crapisi said the official boss of KC would take higher level decisions to the "Bakery" for approval, while member Joe Gurera told someone the "Bakery" had the power to okay the removal of the official boss and changes in leadership. Only two senior members were named as the "Men at the Bakery" but nobody assigned official ranks to them.

KC and St. Louis were closely involved with one another and we know St. Louis had the "council table" which included the leadership and select senior members. The San Jose council had the authority to have a boss removed, as they were considering doing that to Joe Cerrito, which sounds like the "Bakery" in KC.

What leaves the question open in KC is that only two men were named, though with Nick Civella that would make 3 men. Could have been the Family admin or they had a smaller council by that time, or sources weren't aware of a couple other council members. Neither of the old men at the "Bakery" seem like an underboss who operated at the boss's leisure given they were a higher authority than the boss, so I'd guess they were either the council or some remnant of one.

[PolackTony]

Angelo Bruno used "arguimendo" to refer to sitdowns at every level. A dispute between members in a Family would be settled with an arguimendo, as well as a dispute taken to the Commission. Early synonym for sitdown.

Thinking back to KC's "Men at the Bakery", Crapisi said the official boss of KC would take higher level decisions to the "Bakery" for approval, while member Joe Gurera told someone the "Bakery" had the power to okay the removal of the official boss and changes in leadership. Only two senior members were named as the "Men at the Bakery" but nobody assigned official ranks to them.

KC and St. Louis were closely involved with one another and we know St. Louis had the "council table" which included the leadership and select senior members. The San Jose council had the authority to have a boss removed, as they were considering doing that to Joe Cerrito, which sounds like the "Bakery" in KC.

What leaves the question open in KC is that only two men were named, though with Nick Civella that would make 3 men. Could have been the Family admin or they had a smaller council by that time, or sources weren't aware of a couple other council members. Neither of the old men at the "Bakery" seem like an underboss who operated at the boss's leisure given they were a higher authority than the boss, so I'd guess they were either the council or some remnant of one.

Great info about the "bakery". Definitely sounds like what we know about the relationship of the rappresentante to the "board" in Chicago.

[B.]

STL underboss John Vitale was recorded saying the "famiglia" (term he used, though they more commonly used "outfit") in St. Louis was dwindling because they didn't have younger members being groomed to take over, while he said Kansas City and Chicago did.

Kansas City had a lot of parallels with Chicago at the time:

- American-born bosses with Castelvetrano heritage (Civella's father first arrived to Chicago, as I mentioned elsewhere).
- Boss was under the authority of at least two senior members (both of which in KC were from Castelvetrano, while Accardo in Chicago had Castelvetrano heritage).
- Crapisi said he never heard official/traditional terms used for the ranks, knowing the official boss to be "the Man", a term he used for both Civella and Tony Accardo when he visited. Obviously just a euphemism.
- Crapisi also said he knew some men in KC to be under the authority of others but was unfamiliar with terms like capodecina/caporegime/captain.
- Strict about murder requirement (Vitale said KC refused to induct Gurera until he committed murder for them).

Some of these parallels are no doubt coincidental but some of them seem to be consistent with general trends among the midwest Families. Obviously a lot of differences too, as they were much different cities and KC stayed heavily Sicilian. The Families had a close relationship though and definitely had elements in common.

Crapisi's info shouldn't be seen as a definitive confirmation of the terms/formalities, as he was a non-member and may have been excluded from many internal details though obviously he had a great perspective on how things operated.

My opinion at this point is Chicago formally governed itself similarly to the way Families with a "consiglio" did, it's just a matter of whether they considered it a continuation of this traditional body. So far I haven't seen a source who can confirm that one way or another.

[Frank]

Yes it sounds very possible that they had a form of consiglio. I had always thought that Ricca and than Accardo were just using a boss as basically a day to day operations boss, with Ricca and than Accardo being the official boss. But also had read charts with a board that included Prio. What your saying is you want more proof that it is a consiglio based leadership or 2 bosses more in the background, with a boss out front. Riccas been mentioned by Accardo as the boss during the Giancana era. Do we take Accardos words literal? Isnt the consiglio a group of equals.

[Frank]

If I remember right. One CI said Ricca listened to the board and made a decision. Would that indicate Ricca was not part of the board, but above it. Also interesting was Accardo saying Pauls position would not be replaced following Riccas death.

[Angelo Santino]

The families of Detroit, Rockford, Milwaukee and Kansas City all had a council, we are now learning that Chicago did. I stay out of Chicago due to the... passionate intensity that comes with the territory... but I see Chicago having the same set up- a formal administration with a council that worked as a sort of checks and and balances amongst each other. Giancana was the boss, period. But his power that came with the position was kept in check by a council composed of senior members.

On other flipside, the 1960's, across multiple cities, there were guys getting older and passing the torch or thinking of doing so but didn't want to relinquish full power so assumed or planned to assume consigliere or council positions with a younger boss whom they could influence if need be.

[PolackTony]

Yes it sounds very possible that they had a form of consiglio. I had always thought that Ricca and than Accardo were just using a boss as basically a day to day operations boss, with Ricca and than Accardo being the official boss. But also had read charts with a board that included Prio. What your saying is you want more proof that it is a consiglio based leadership or 2 bosses more in the background, with a boss out front. Riccas been mentioned by Accardo as the boss during the Giancana era. Do we take Accardos words literal? Isnt the consiglio a group of equals.

To me at least, it’s pretty clear that Ricca and Accardo, from Giancana’s appointment as boss on, were no longer official bosses. In terms of formal titles, I think Nick C’s description of Accardo as a “retired boss” is not inaccurate for both him and Ricca, again, in formal terms. Giancana and then Aiuppa were the official bosses (boss as in “rappresentante”, regardless of the word used it’s the same position), and were thus the official head of the chain of command and representative for the family to the Commission and LCN as a whole. But as in other families, the “boss” was neither a king nor a dictator, but was limited, whether in theory or practice, in terms of the power of the office. As one early 70s CI stated, Aiuppa was the boss but “served under” the ruling board/committee. Your question about members of a Consiglio being equals is a good question. As B has reported here, however, there were families where a soldier could serve on the Consiglio, so not every member at the “table” necessarily had the same formal rank. My belief is that these bodies served to represent the collective interest of the family as a whole, as a check and balance against the rappresentante acting as a “tyrant”, and to make decisions, mediate beefs, and direct family policy without having to have the entire family membership vote for every decision. I strongly suspect that with the “board” in Chicago, while Ricca and Accardo were the “chairmen”, the general ideal and practice was probably to reach consensus with the input of highly respected senior members of the family, like Battaglia and Prio (maybe LaPorte and Buccieri, and possibly older guys that we don’t know as much about. I wonder about Sam Luisi, for example, who seems to have formally been a soldier but was a powerful individual with a direct line as Ricca’s buddy. Just speculating, but if Chicago ever had guys who weren’t at least captains on the “board”, guys like Luisi or Phil Bacino could’ve been highly respected “soldiers” who were also family elders).

As B notes, a question remains whether Chicago’s “board” was a traditional Consiglio, and thus presumably a structural characteristic of the family from way back that was retained in some form after Capone and Ricca took over, or if it was just something that Chicago re-invented independently because it was a useful way to organize the family and manage conflict. In other words, are the apparent similarities between the Chicago “board” and other families’ consiglie due to “common descent” or “parallel evolution”. Not sure if we’ll ever know for sure, but given that so many families closely linked to Chicago were using what were clearly traditional consiglie, it’s a good bet that Chicago was as well. The body of evidence as it exists at this point indicates that Chicago wasn’t structurally different than other families in any marked way, so if Milwaukee or KC or Detroit had traditional consiglie and Chicago had something that, based on the sparse info we have, does seem to really look like one, it probably was the same concept. That’s my take at least.

The families of Detroit, Rockford, Milwaukee and Kansas City all had a council, we are now learning that Chicago did. I stay out of Chicago due to the... passionate intensity that comes with the territory... but I see Chicago having the same set up- a formal administration with a council that worked as a sort of checks and and balances amongst each other. Giancana was the boss, period. But his power that came with the position was kept in check by a council composed of senior members.

On other flipside, the 1960's, across multiple cities, there were guys getting older and passing the torch or thinking of doing so but didn't want to relinquish full power so assumed or planned to assume consigliere or council positions with a younger boss whom they could influence if need be.

We were posting at the same time, so I just saw this now. Very well-stated and I fully agree.

[B.]

There is zero question who the most respected and powerful members in Chicago were and who the membership was loyal to: Ricca and Accardo. That loyalty aspect is crucial to it.

In Milwaukee, Ferrara was the former boss but still alive through Alioto and Balistrieri's time as boss. Ferrara had a faction of loyalists who were continually strategizing with him to remove Balistrieri from power, but Balistrieri had his own faction and the support of Chicago. I don't think Ferrara sat on the consiglio after he stepped down, at least during the short time the consiglio still existed under Balistrieri, but the fact that he was still influencing Family politics so much is interesting -- it doesn't seem he wanted to be official boss again, just wanted to influence the direction of the Family. He also reportedly raised a beef because he wasn't shown the proper respect typically afforded to a former boss during a Family get together.

Former boss John Alioto on the other hand did sit on the consiglio after he stepped down as boss and served as capodecina over the old time members. That seggia meeting the FBI recorded shows Alioto and the other senior members felt comfortable challenging Balistrieri in a heated argument which I assume was traditionally acceptable but too much for Balistrieri's ego. Hard to fully gauge the Milwaukee seggia though because we only saw it when it was breaking down due to Balistrieri's ruthlessness and support from Chicago.

Whatever Accardo and Ricca's formal rank was in Cosa Nostra, most if not all of the organization appears to have been loyal to them and trusted their judgment. That seems to have been the case for the "Bakery" in KC and the council in San Jose, so Ricca/Accardo's position to me isn't at odds with the function of a consiglio. Detroit and San Jose both had a segretario on their council so there was even a first among equals within the consiglio that wasn't the boss -- remember Joe Bonanno said the Commission had someone who was a secretary too. My opinion is the Commission was basically an evolution of the Gran Consiglio without the capo dei capi and it looks to me like the Gran Consiglio mirrored the Family consiglio but on a national level.

I'm not comfortable saying Ricca or Accardo were definitely senior council members and/or in a sort of segretario position over the council, but I do believe their positions were consistent with that kind of structure. Their credibility as former bosses with intense loyalty made them kingmakers and gave them total authority over Family politics, whereas in Milwaukee former bosses in a similar position didn't have that kind of loyalty outside of a smaller faction. The unique characteristics of Accardo and Ricca inspired absolute respect and loyalty.

[Angelo Santino]

We were posting at the same time, so I just saw this now. Very well-stated and I fully agree.

Not for nothing but whatever you have to say might be a similar but would very interesting take other than my own. Thanks to you I now have an interest in Chicago, a city I largely avoided. Thank you, sir. I take my hat off. Every time we speak I learn something new.

This board is truly honored to have you here. You bring so much to the knowledge-base. Salut.

[Angelo Santino]

There is zero question who the most respected and powerful members in Chicago were and who the membership was loyal to: Ricca and Accardo. That loyalty aspect is crucial to it.

In Milwaukee, Ferrara was the former boss but still alive through Alioto and Balistrieri's time as boss. Ferrara had a faction of loyalists who were continually strategizing with him to remove Balistrieri from power, but Balistrieri had his own faction and the support of Chicago. I don't think Ferrara sat on the consiglio after he stepped down, at least during the short time the consiglio still existed under Balistrieri, but the fact that he was still influencing Family politics so much is interesting -- it doesn't seem he wanted to be official boss again, just wanted to influence the direction of the Family. He also reportedly raised a beef because he wasn't shown the proper respect typically afforded to a former boss during a Family get together.

Former boss John Alioto on the other hand did sit on the consiglio after he stepped down as boss and served as capodecina over the old time members. That seggia meeting the FBI recorded shows Alioto and the other senior members felt comfortable challenging Balistrieri in a heated argument which I assume was traditionally acceptable but too much for Balistrieri's ego. Hard to fully gauge the Milwaukee seggia though because we only saw it when it was breaking down due to Balistrieri's ruthlessness and support from Chicago.

Whatever Accardo and Ricca's formal rank was in Cosa Nostra, most if not all of the organization appears to have been loyal to them and trusted their judgment. That seems to have been the case for the "Bakery" in KC and the council in San Jose, so Ricca/Accardo's position to me isn't at odds with the function of a consiglio. Detroit and San Jose both had a segretario on their council so there was even a first among equals within the consiglio that wasn't the boss -- remember Joe Bonanno said the Commission had someone who was a secretary too. My opinion is the Commission was basically an evolution of the Gran Consiglio without the capo dei capi and it looks to me like the Gran Consiglio mirrored the Family consiglio but on a national level.

I'm not comfortable saying Ricca or Accardo were definitely senior council members and/or in a sort of segretario position over the council, but I do believe their positions were consistent with that kind of structure. Their credibility as former bosses with intense loyalty made them kingmakers and gave them total authority over Family politics, whereas in Milwaukee former bosses in a similar position didn't have that kind of loyalty outside of a smaller faction. The unique characteristics of Accardo and Ricca inspired absolute respect and loyalty.

Had Zerilli's plan actually came to fruition, he would have become Consig and Mike Polizzi would have become boss and today there'd be arguments today over whether or not Polizzi was a puppet boss. If people cared more about Pittsburgh they'd argue that Amato was the real power behind La Rocca. I think people get hung up on "the real power" when the admin all serve as different components of the larger power. These Consigli, when they were still in existence were an extended addition to that. That, being managing a Famil/borgata/network. We, as outsiders, see these people who fall outside the hierarchy or their position as unknown as rightfully very important people. But that doesn't allow for us to give them ranks that don't exist outside of the hierarchy. But then there's the argument that outsiders are trying their best to describe the functional setup. If I say Ricca or Gotti were the "DJ Rockefellers of the mob" that carries resonance. People may not know how JD is and just remember being used in Carlito's Way but they get the gist.

[B.]

A question with Chicago is continuity. Were there senior members/leaders who formed a committee/board/council before Giancana? Not necessarily people with Accardo and Ricca's stature but some sort of body involved in policy/admin (Ricca would have already been part of it under Accardo if that's the case and would have been as dominant as he was later, but you get my question).

Based on Pierce's info there was a group of leaders involved in the selection of Giancana as boss which could indicate something like that was in place. He included Humphreys in it, whose opinion was important, but hard to gauge all the ins-and-outs from a meeting where a non-member was told about the change. Sort of like DeRose saying important non-Italians couldn't attend the induction ceremony but celebrated with the members afterward, the selection of a new boss likely included non-members in the process maybe with some invisible guardrails in place when it came to informing made members vs. someone like Pierce who was significant but still not a made member.

DeRose said Accardo and Ricca were the most influential members on a "committee" that advised Giancana. He said Buccieri, Cerone, and Battaglia were on it as well and thought Prio might be. He also said Buccieri and Ricca were the only non-Sicilians on the committee -- he was wrong about Cerone but right about everyone else. It's very interesting DeRose, a Jewish transplant from New York, knew the heritage of certain leaders and noted this in context with the committee. DeRose was not in a position to have researched that and it's unlikely he discovered it himself. Whoever relayed it to him must have considered it a noteworthy conversational detail if nothing else that deserved to be mentioned or it was more widely discussed than we know. Tells us there were people who still thought about heritage as idle organizational gossip if nothing else.

When Bomp visited a drunken LaPorte later on, he said Accardo, Ricca, and a group of captains were running the organization with Giancana gone. LaPorte may or may not have been part of this group, as he told Bomp he only met with Accardo and Ricca once or twice a month (which could have been how often the committee met or could indicate LaPorte was less involved) and Bomp's perception was that LaPorte was largely inactive. Interesting DeRose didn't name LaPorte as being on the committee earlier.

Side note but DeRose's info comes across like he got his info on the org from a Sicilian. The language he uses, his knowledge of the 100% Sicilian Benevento faction (though he got the years wrong), references to Capone as a "Camorra" man in the 1920s, and feeling it necessary to tell the FBI most of the committee was Sicilian point to him getting a more Sicilian-centric perspective from someone. EDIT: Alternately, DeRose didn't get his info from a Sicilian which is equally if not more interesting.