Another Family Error

While Vito’s underestimation of Sollozzo was his greatest mistake, the family made another critical error, even earlier, that may have contributed significantly to the setup:

While pondering how to whack Paulie, Clemenza believes that his treason did not “reflect on the caporegime’s judgment.” But, as we read on, we learn that Paulie, despite being given a “good living” (a percentage of an East Side book and a union payroll slot), augmented his income by engaging in “free-lance stickups, strictly against the Family rules…” [emphasis added]. But Clemenza regarded this violation as “a sign of the man’s worth…high-spiritedness.”

Uh, Pete: how can violating strict family rules constitute a measure of a man’s worth to the family? It’s prima facie evidence of dissatisfaction with the income you rewarded him with, and a leading indicator of more such activity to come. Those free-lance stickups could have exposed Paulie to the danger of arrest for armed robbery—a charge that carried a sufficiently lengthy sentence as to loosen the tongue and break omerta. And, at minimum, it shows contempt for your (and your Don’s) authority—a leading indicator for the treason that lay ahead. You should have disciplined him severely the first time he violated the “strict” family rule—and whacked him if he did it again. In fact, Vito or Sonny should have disciplined or whacked you for your negligence.

Well, Tessio was always smarter....

One factor: Clemenza had taken the question of higher pay for buttonmen to Vito, but upper management had not done anything about it.

Sort of like Big Paul Castellano's NO DEALING DRUGS rule, huh?

Just make sure you send the money up the chain of command.

Paulie was young and of high spirit. His acting against the family rules showed that he was more than just a button to be pushed around. In fact, all of the Dons broke the rules from time to time, because they refused to dance on the strings held by others. They created their own rules. So did Tessio and Clemenza in the beginning of their criminal carreer.
So I think, Clemenza sees that Paulie has some sort of character. But Clemenza eventually has to admit to himself that he had let him go to far.

As the novel points out, Paulie's stick-ups, although aviolation of fmily rules, illustrated his high spirit. Such spirit can definitely be a characteristic that sets one above others who lack such spirit and, thus, prove to be a more valuable asset to the organization.

I can't disagree with this theory. Paulie Gatto was suplementing his income with these armed robberies showing that he was not greatful or happy with the income he was making through the family and that he did not care about bringing unneccessary "heat" on the family. Clemenza should have seen this as a sign that his soldier was a bit of a "loose cannon" and likely could be bought by one of the other families.

In my post above I should have pointed out that Clemenza thought Pauli's stick-ups were a sign of his high spirit and appreciated by Clemenza.