Is there even a commission anymore?

[SonnyBlackstein]

You'e got the mouth of a young Muhammed Ali and the brain of an old Muhammed Ali.

I kid you, man.

Dude, you know I love you. Sonny cuddles his teddy every bedtime. His name is also B. We debate that walking diabetes every night.

Then we cuddle.

You also had NYC Families carrying out secret wars against each other, something the Commission would normally be mediating but it seems like there was a political free-for-all which does support Massino's point that something happened at the end of 1985. Contrast that with the late 1970s and early 1980s when the formal Commission was directly involved with the Colombo dispute, the Galante + three captains murders, etc. There's no question some of the core functions of the Commission were no longer happening during the period in question.

Whispers gently into Teddy's ear "You remember the Bonnano wars Teddy?"

Maybe we can agree that Massino genuinely believed the Commission stopped functioning after 1985 whether you believe that to be the absolute truth or not.

B. Bear.
Sonny's position has always been he doesnt give a left F if Massino is lying, mistaken, misinformed, MISINTERPRETED. I just think hes wrong. Thats all. In which medium he is wrong, who gives a F. Im not Scott writing the Massino (Vitale?) Biography here. No hurt feelings from the walking set of folds.

Im almost sad I won the debate.
HOLLA!

[Pogo The Clown]

The meeting Gravano describes from 1988 isn't just bosses meeting to sort out issues. It is described as a "formal meeting of the Cosa Nostra commission" and the key item to be addressed were the two vacant seats - the Bonannos and the Colombos. They voted on Vic Orena becoming acting boss and he was supposed to be there the next time they met. Gotti wanted the Bonannos to have their seat back but Chin shot it down and it was to be discussed at the next meeting.

This goes to a point I brought up earlier. The Bonannos did not have a seat in 1988. The next meeting where it was to be discussed never took place since all the Bosses were indicted in 1990. So if the Commission was still functioning as a formal body in the 1990s they would have had to have met and voted to give them their seat back. When did this happen? If they did they would have had to have informed Massino that he now had a seat on the Commission. If they did inform him he was now on the Commssion then why is he saying that were was no Commission when he was the Boss?


Pogo

[SonnyBlackstein]

This goes to a point I brought up earlier. The Bonannos did not have a seat in 1988. The next meeting where it was to be discussed never took place since all the Bosses were indicted in 1990. So if the Commission was still functioning as a formal body in the 1990s they would have had to have met and voted to give them their seat back. When did this happen? If they did they would have had to have informed Massino that he now had a seat on the Commission. If they did inform him he was now on the Commssion then why is he saying that were was no Commission when he was the Boss?
Pogo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1XgFsi ... oiterClips

[Angelo Santino]

As someone who isn't as interested in the more recent stuff, I found this back and forth between SonnyBlackstein and B very educational. Very well argued on both sides.

Same. A Testament to how far these forums have come.

[thekiduknow]

Violi was discussing his own firsthand experience being promoted to underboss of Buffalo-Ontario. With NYC he was relaying what Todaro told him and we don't know if what he said to Morena was what Todaro told him verbatim or if he was paraphrasing or generalizing. I'm agnostic, as I said, so sounds like you're arguing just to argue if you think I'm for/against the idea of a reformed Commission.

When it comes to the so-called "Commission" meeting Massino addressed, I don't know what his incentive would be to lie. It would actually make Massino out to be more important if he claimed to have presided over a Commission meeting and the result is still the same, that the Families had an important meeting. If Massino says it wasn't a Commission meeting I believe him.

I don't want to derail this thread, but i find it interesting Gotti would not recognize Stanfa. I believe Stanfa was asking for the Gambinos to intervene on his behalf. Didn't the feds catch Stanfa talking to Tommy Gambino on a wiretap about this? Rosario's son Tommy, to be specific. I believe Tommy told him it wasn't possible. Maybe because of Gotti. Does this timeline sound correct?

I think you're putting the thread back on track, not derailing haha.

DiLeonardo's info indicated they may have stopped recognizing Stanfa later. He mentioned the fact that Stanfa inducted an ex-cop as one of the reasons. I'm not sure if he initially had support from the Gambino Family to take over or what.

One source said John Gambino intially backed Reds Pontani as acting boss in the 1980s but Pontani went to prison before that could happen. Stanfa was very close to the Gambino Sicilian faction so he may well have had their support as we've long believed, but by the time things got rolling John Gambino was in prison. Tommy Gambino said he couldn't help Stanfa, with the implication being the Sicilians lacked the resources to do so at the time (probably true), but with the new info in mind it's possible Tommy was trying to be respectful to his father Rosario's close friend while also honoring the Gambino's edict to not recognize Stanfa.

There might be more to this I don't know, but Mafia Prince, it's said that the Commission took down Scarfo and replaced him with Stanfa in 1990.

[B.]

He flipped in 1989 so would be curious what he was still hearing in 1990. The Luccheses still recognized Scarfo as boss until at least 2010 and we don't know if/when Stanfa was recognized by the other Families. The Gambinos stopped recognizing him if they ever truly did.

It does speak to the idea that they still regarded the NYC bosses as the Commission up until Leonetti flipped, but one function of the Commission was to establish who was recognized and who wasn't but it seems in the 1990s to present there isn't concensus between the Families about it. They just sort of individually decide who they want to recognize.

[thekiduknow]

I figured there was something I was missing. Leonetti goes on to say that by doing that, Philadelphia's "proxy vote" swung back to the Gambinos, so he still believed that they had a vote on the Commission in 1990, even if was just a "proxy vote".

[B.]

I think the point DR/Sonny made about the 1988 meeting described by Gravano is pretty compelling in that they were still discussing whether the Bonannos should have a seat. It does come across like a last-ditch effort to keep what was left of the Commission functioning, though.

Leonetti's take adds to that as it sounds like he still saw the Commission having votes and representing non-NYC Families before he flipped.

[Angelo Santino]

One thing to consider, imagine being around in 1985-1990 after the Commission has been in power for 55 years, I imagine many expected it to keep going as it had for 2 generations. It's not like it was ever formally disbanded, it was just that there was constant pressure from law enforcement and boss turnover increased more than it had at any time in history. From 1985 to 2005, bosses/acting bosses were lasting on average about 5 years.

[NothingNew44]

One thing to consider, imagine being around in 1985-1990 after the Commission has been in power for 55 years, I imagine many expected it to keep going as it had for 2 generations. It's not like it was ever formally disbanded, it was just that there was constant pressure from law enforcement and boss turnover increased more than it had at any time in history. From 1985 to 2005, bosses/acting bosses were lasting on average about 5 years.

These are great points. The associates coming up as made at that time had heard of this governing body for years. It was a foundational fabric of being in that life that the NY bosses comprised its membership. The natural inclination after the commission case itself is to assume and interpret the next leaders of the Families will pick up the pieces to carry on. So if you hear of bosses meeting your assumption is to consider that a commission meeting. Good stuff CC

[Angelo Santino]

One thing to consider, imagine being around in 1985-1990 after the Commission has been in power for 55 years, I imagine many expected it to keep going as it had for 2 generations. It's not like it was ever formally disbanded, it was just that there was constant pressure from law enforcement and boss turnover increased more than it had at any time in history. From 1985 to 2005, bosses/acting bosses were lasting on average about 5 years.

These are great points. The associates coming up as made at that time had heard of this governing body for years. It was a foundational fabric of being in that life that the NY bosses comprised its membership. The natural inclination after the commission case itself is to assume and interpret the next leaders of the Families will pick up the pieces to carry on. So if you hear of bosses meeting your assumption is to consider that a commission meeting. Good stuff CC

Thanks. This brings us to the present argument of what qualifies as a Commission meeting. Do we only consider Formal Meetings involving all members of the Body as meetings or do we factor in one-off meets like the 2000 one? As previously mentioned, Gravano considered the 88 meeting to be a Commission meeting. I will pose the question to Michael DiLeonardo and introduce both sides of the argument to him and see what his take is.

This does bring me to the "Taking Over Cali" thread which had informants like Bomp considering Roselli the real boss of Cali because its bosses deferred to him while he was formally a soldier of Chicago. There are some who would probably chart that out as the 3 Cali bosses with a line going up to Roselli and then a line going above him to Chicago. This wouldn't be completely wrong but it wouldn't be completely right either as there was no formal decision made, Giancana never contacted California and said, "Ok, Bosses, you're going to report to my soldier John Roselli."

De Facto and De Jure. People have an interest in the de facto, they are fascinated by the idea of a "secret" or "real" bosses. To me, Roselli just serves as an indicator on how influential members can be without having to hold a formal office within the Organization. But the Sopranos really drove home this idea that the rules are just disregarded and who holds the power holds the power, positions be damned. While I agree the rules are broken I would argue fervently that they aren't overlooked. It's like running red lights, many do but they don't do it freely, they look and make sure no cops are around when they do it. So while running the red light is breaking the rule, the fact that you look before doing so shows that you know the rule is in place and that there are repercussions for breaking it if caught. Also, had the Sopranos S1 played out in real life and Junior sought permission to kill Soprano, had a sit went down with NY over it, out of rules, tradition and self-protection, NY would not side with Tony's "I made him boss but everything is ran by me." They would support Junior's claim that, "This is MY Family which I was elected boss of and my nephew is out of line and undermining my position."

[CabriniGreen]

One thing to consider, imagine being around in 1985-1990 after the Commission has been in power for 55 years, I imagine many expected it to keep going as it had for 2 generations. It's not like it was ever formally disbanded, it was just that there was constant pressure from law enforcement and boss turnover increased more than it had at any time in history. From 1985 to 2005, bosses/acting bosses were lasting on average about 5 years.

These are great points. The associates coming up as made at that time had heard of this governing body for years. It was a foundational fabric of being in that life that the NY bosses comprised its membership. The natural inclination after the commission case itself is to assume and interpret the next leaders of the Families will pick up the pieces to carry on. So if you hear of bosses meeting your assumption is to consider that a commission meeting. Good stuff CC

Thanks. This brings us to the present argument of what qualifies as a Commission meeting. Do we only consider Formal Meetings involving all members of the Body as meetings or do we factor in one-off meets like the 2000 one? As previously mentioned, Gravano considered the 88 meeting to be a Commission meeting. I will pose the question to Michael DiLeonardo and introduce both sides of the argument to him and see what his take is.

This does bring me to the "Taking Over Cali" thread which had informants like Bomp considering Roselli the real boss of Cali because its bosses deferred to him while he was formally a soldier of Chicago. There are some who would probably chart that out as the 3 Cali bosses with a line going up to Roselli and then a line going above him to Chicago. This wouldn't be completely wrong but it wouldn't be completely right either as there was no formal decision made, Giancana never contacted California and said, "Ok, Bosses, you're going to report to my soldier John Roselli."

De Facto and De Jure. People have an interest in the de facto, they are fascinated by the idea of a "secret" or "real" bosses. To me, Roselli just serves as an indicator on how influential members can be without having to hold a formal office within the Organization. But the Sopranos really drove home this idea that the rules are just disregarded and who holds the power holds the power, positions be damned. While I agree the rules are broken I would argue fervently that they aren't overlooked. It's like running red lights, many do but they don't do it freely, they look and make sure no cops are around when they do it. So while running the red light is breaking the rule, the fact that you look before doing so shows that you know the rule is in place and that there are repercussions for breaking it if caught. Also, had the Sopranos S1 played out in real life and Junior sought permission to kill Soprano, had a sit went down with NY over it, out of rules, tradition and self-protection, NY would not side with Tony's "I made him boss but everything is ran by me." They would support Junior's claim that, "This is MY Family which I was elected boss of and my nephew is out of line and undermining my position."

Couple things...

1. It's just a show, but why would Junior ASK permission to hit one of his own capos? Chin didnt, in real life. Just following your logic here. It's HIS underling, right?


2. Again, keeping with this logic, how does Mancuso get appointed boss by the, acting? Or was Basciano official?
How does he get the slot through legitimate appointment, but Cammaranno can take a vote to oust him? Then.... what exactly? They threw the vote out? Why? Why did they go along with it? This goes to the question of a a families " True Power".

3. There a convo going right now about the Vitales and Tre Dita. I know ge was a soldier, but Coppola was definitely a " True Power", no?

[jmack]

This discussion to me is fascinating. I think we are definitely splitting hairs in terms of formal vs. perceived. One thing I will opine on is why Massino may be motivated to somewhat stretch the truth. It could be the same thing we’ve seen with almost all cooperators over the years. How they were the last gangster and they only turned because the “old ways” were dead and there was nothing left to protect. Massino saying there is no commission reinforces that image and justifies why he did what he did. The implication being that he would never have done it except the old days were gone. He can’t say he was approved by the commission to take over in 1991 but also say it didn’t exist after 1985.

This is a way of increasing his own self importance and his own historical value. “I was at the last commission meeting” helps him rationalize in his own mind turning on something he lived his entire life for.

[Wiseguy]

This is why I didn't take a strong stance either way on the subject. Even the mob guys themselves don't necessarily agree.

[Angelo Santino]

Couple things...

1. It's just a show, but why would Junior ASK permission to hit one of his own capos? Chin didnt, in real life. Just following your logic here. It's HIS underling, right?


2. Again, keeping with this logic, how does Mancuso get appointed boss by the, acting? Or was Basciano official?
How does he get the slot through legitimate appointment, but Cammaranno can take a vote to oust him? Then.... what exactly? They threw the vote out? Why? Why did they go along with it? This goes to the question of a a families " True Power".

3. There a convo going right now about the Vitales and Tre Dita. I know ge was a soldier, but Coppola was definitely a " True Power", no?

1 He wouldn't have to, but had the 3rd act been Tony going to New York to settle the war or NY had somehow gotten involved, they wouldn't have recognized his claim or excuse as legitimate over Junior.

2 No idea, not my era and I only know those guys by name.

3 Don't know their situation so cannot speak on it.

This is why I didn't take a strong stance either way on the subject. Even the mob guys themselves don't necessarily agree.

I will ask a former insider and get his take. From an outsider perspective, I think we could argue that "The Commission" has evolved over the years. 1931-1956 it was a formal body that met infrequently and hosted national meetings of bosses every five years. 1961-1975 would be a second era, Appalachin ended the national meetings that they hosted and things fell back on the system of representation that went on between the annual five year meets ie each boss was assigned to a boss that sat on the Commission. Bruno and Detroit were added during this era to share the burden since general assemblies were no longer an option. 1975 the Commission was reduced to NY and Chicago. The informants we have in the 1980's don't cover Chicago's involvement at that time but one can infer their interaction was limited by this point and the Commission's influence directly impacted NYC and then indirectly the nation. 1985 was the beheading of NY, hadn't happened since 1910. 1985 to the present, we don't have evidence of any organized body that meets like they did from 1931-1985 but a lack of evidence doesn't mean confirmation either or. Perhaps during this era, bosses meeting rarely and making decisions could constitute a "Commission Meeting," especially when Massino gathered 5 reps and it was agreed to reinstate the 100% Italian rule. We can argue over the legitimacy of the meeting constituting a Commission meet, but the decisions made during that meet is remnant of the type of decision makings that the traditional Commission used to make. I would argue that there was the 1985-2000 era where bosses were hammered and then 2000-present where, while cases are still coming out, it seems the Bosses/Acting bosses tenure has stabilized which could end up leading to the Commission's reformation. Not saying it has, but it's possible. We'll need evidence before speculating further.