I could say the exact same about you, brother. Always learn a lot when we talk and look forward to the next convo.Chris Christie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 8:31 pmThank you, sir. I take my hat off. Every time we speak I learn something new.PolackTony wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 5:54 pmWe were posting at the same time, so I just saw this now. Very well-stated and I fully agree.
This board is truly honored to have you here. You bring so much to the knowledge-base. Salut.
Agreed. As we have no info to support that they had any formal or semi-formal position, their formal status may have amounted to semi-retired "former boss" (again, as Nick C named JB). While several CIs referred to them as "Chairmen", that may just be an informal/descriptive term for their role, as the senior members that represented the interests and will/authority of the family as a whole (in the way that an actual "chairman of the board" is the representative of the shareholders of a company and is generally responsible for setting the direction of the company's activities and evaluating the performance of executive officers, etc.). "Chairmen", along with "segretari" or "capi consiglieri," I think are accurate descriptors of their role and power vis-a-vis the family, the "board", and the official boss, though there doesn't seem to be anything beyond the FBI referring to them as "consiglieri" that points to them having any formal position aside from former boss. CI accounts are consistent that they were semi-retired, removed from the formal chain of command, but were the ultimate word, and were responsible for advising the boss, directing family policy, and dealing with disputes. Even during the period of leadership crisis following Giancana's exile, CIs still say that they were semi-retired, and just acting as the executive until one could be appointed.
Yes, and it takes nothing away from someone like Ricca, Accardo, or Zerilli to note that decisions and policy in these families were not reached by dictatorial decree, but via deliberation and consensus among the most senior members along with the official boss. Ricca and Accardo weren't despots, and they weren't controlling Giancana and Aiuppa like the man behind the curtain in the City of Oz. From what we can tell, they interfered little in the official boss's exercise of his duties and prerogatives, though they actively advised them in strategy and approach to problems. The board of directors of a company evaluates the performance of the executive officer, is responsible for appointing said officer, and if the executive is derelict in their duty or actively damaging the interests of the company and its shareholders, they can remove the executive and replace them. While I don't think that Chicago was explicitly modeled on a corporate boardroom (I suspect that, if there was a deeper continuity to the "board" in Chicago, its remote origins -- as with the consigli in the mafia more generally -- may lie in the communal model of government in 19th century Western Sicily and the relationships between the sindaco and communal council), it is a similar model for understanding the interplay between an official executive officer and the body of interests that this officer represents and acts in the interest of. No one would think of the CEO as being the "puppet" of the board, just that the CEO is appointed to act in the interests and goals of the company, as defined and evaluated by the board.Chris Christie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 8:42 pm 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.
Of course, as of now we don't have the evidence to really address that either way and likely never will. But, to be fair, we don't ask that about Milwaukee or Detroit or San Jose. If we don't assume that the consigli in those families were de novo latter-day innovations, then I don't think there's any reason to assume that Chicago would've been manifestly different.B. wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 10:55 pm 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).
Hard to say with the Humphreys thing what Pierce meant by that. There were CIs who stated that Alex was on the "board' while other CIs carefully and explicitly stated that he wasn't and could not be because he wasn't Italian and couldn't be a member in the first place. Now, Humphreys and Alex certainly attended meetings of the "board". I'd suspect that there were meetings that dealt with internal mafia matters that they did not attend, or when talk turned to that and away from "business", they had to excuse themselves, as when Aiuppa asked Maishe Rockman to leave his meeting with Cleveland. If they weren't letting these guys attend the ceremony when new members were being inducted (which should surprise no one, after all), I doubt that they were allowing Humphreys or Alex to formally vote or select the rappresentante (though they were apprised of the decisions and their opinions also sought out, from the perspective of how family policy might impact important areas like political/judicial corruption and labor/business racketeering operations that these guys were in charge of directing).B. wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 10:55 pm 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.
B. wrote: 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.
[...]
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.
The DeRose comment on the ancestry of the "board' members is very interesting. If a Jewish dude was aware of these things and thought it was worth relating to the FBI, one can imagine that a lot of the Italian guys thought it was important. Clearly, the distinction between Sicilian/non-Sicilians was still important enough to warrant commentary. Several of the Chicago CIs report that membership in the past was restricted to Sicilians; obviously, people knew that the mafia was originally a Sicilian thing before the other Italians were allowed to join. This was still going to be a salient category for people, and there were plenty of Italian-born guys still around. Regardless of who DeRose was close to, I'm sure that in this era both Sicilians and mainlanders were well aware that the mafia was originally a Sicilian thing, and were probably at least aware of which members were Sicilians. IIRC correctly Frank Cullotta said that originally it was just a Sicilian thing, before Capone, and I doubt he necessarily got that from a book or movie -- his paternal grandparents were from Cefalu and he grew up on Grand Ave where people very much knew if you were Sicilian or Bares'. As a kid, I recall that Sicilians were still looked upon as different than the other Italians. Subtle, but people would react if you said that someone was Sicilian, and my impression was that there was an implicit assumption that Sicilians were still seen as having an essentialized link to the mafia.
One thing LaPorte's favor for being a possible "board" member was that he went way back and was Dom Ruberto's cousin -- he was a core member of the Heights crew for almost 40 years at that time. We know, however, that he seemed to have become negligent in his duties as capo in the 60s, his members were disgruntled, he seems to have wanted out of "the life" and was spending as much time as he could in California. So he had the seniority, but may not have been stable enough at that time to continue to serve in that capacity. Hard to say. Battaglia, Prio, and Buccieri I think are shoe-ins (and one CI in the 70s stated that DiBella was on the "board", suggesting that the Northside crew's input was considered important beyond Prio as an individual member).B. wrote: 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.
