Have over other bosses?

The of chairman of the commission was built to abolish the position of Bosses of all Bosses, so what benefits does a boss have from being the chairman?

As far as I know, there is no official chairman of the Commission, although an individual Don might be a kind of de facto chairman by force of personality--Carlo Gambino pretty much fulfilled that role. The only influence he'd have as de facto chairman would, again, be through force of personality and persuasiveness, rather than by any "rules" of the Commission (if there are any).

As you allude to, Charlie Luciano created the Commission in part to eliminate the struggle over who was the "boss of bosses" that resulted in the Castellemmarese War and the murders of Joe Masseria and Salvatore Maranzano. Luciano didn't have to appoint himself chairman--everyone knew he was first among equals because of his pivotal role in the War, and in creating the Commission.

But what benefits would bosses like Castellano and Gambino receive as Chairman? For example, would they have final say on the no-drugs policy?

Not out-and-out veto over something as big (and profitable) as drugs. But they could steer things their way if they were influential enough. For example, Gambino effectively installed Joe Columbo as boss of the former Profaci family after the Commission (at Gambino's urging) forced Profaci's successor, Joe Magliocco, to step down. Columbo then became his protégé.

Though 'demacratic' in theory (5 families, 5 votes) the reality is that historically it has generally been two power blocs. Lucchese, Gambino and Genevese v Bonanno and Columbo. The initial power bloc post Joe Bonnano's exile has held away since with the leading family within that bloc calling terms (Gambino, Chin).
As a functioning commission has not been around since the late 80's the issue relative since, is moot.

Yeah that makes sense. If you look at the history of who was chairman, its always been Gambino or Genovese leaders. Except for Joe Massino being the unofficial one, but that was after the commission case.

I think I´ve said this before (I don´t know) but the chairman of the Commission did not have more formal authority or a higher rank than the other members, but he could influence the outcome of a vote. His main purpose was to act as the contact man for any boss who requested a Commission meeting. Then it was up to him to organize the meeting and call in the other members. He was NOT a boss of bosses. And also, like Bonanno explained in the pax Bonanno, the chairman´s job was to bring different views into agreement. He was also the one who opened the meetings and closed them.

The first chairman was Vincent Mangano. The second one was Joe Bonanno with Magaddino filling in for him. Later in the 1960s, Gambino filled the role of the chairman, possibly Lucchese in between before he died in 1967. So Lucky Luciano was never the chairman of the Commission.

I guess all it is really is a sign of who the most powerful boss is then. Should Gigante technically been chairman over Castellano before the commission case (if you could argue who was more powerful) or was he just trying to stay in the shadows from law enforcement?

The chairman was selected by the other Commission members and could only be replaced by death or if he stepped down from his boss´ position. So it wasn´t only power that put him there but also reverence and seniority (longevity as boss). Mangano was not the most powerful boss in 1931, neither was Bonanno in 1951 but they were both held in highest regard at the time of their election. Castellano became boss in 1976, Gigante in 1981. So naturally, if Castellano was the chairman immediately after he became boss, he could not be removed from the chairman´s position, even if Gigante may have been considered more powerful later on.

I say if because I´m not sure Castellano was the chairman of the Commission right after Gambino´s death. Does anyone know/have any sources for this?

From what we've seen of Mafia politics over the years,it appears that (at least in New York), all Family Bosses are equal,but some are more equal than others.

The Chairman of the Commission has no powers because there's no such position except in the imaginations of the media and wikipedia. This Chairman and Boss of Bosses talk is silly Godfather fanboy imagination.

In Sicily it has been documented and proven there was a chairman, why would America be different? Every board of directors has a chief executive, it may be just a formal position without real power, but complete equality is a fairy tale in both legal and illegal societies.

The confusion here is based on the difference in understanding between a formal position (chair) and the relative power of a boss.

There is no official chair of the commission. But each families (and hence boss) power is also different. Resulting in boss's differing powers of influence. That is to say though Chin, for example, never officially held a formal 'chair' role, his power and hence influence was such that he could be considered to have held the defacto role.

Chin didn't even go to the meetings, he sent Fat Tony in his stead and the other families still respected that. That's how much power Chin had.

Not sure if I follow you, but are you talking about present time or times in the past? As long as there was a Commission, the was also a chairman.

There has never been an official chairman. At times there has been one boss that is much more powerful than the others, but never a boss of bosses except in the media's imagination. The Gambinos and Genovese have always been pretty equal in numbers and strength, so neither side would allow the other to chair any meeting or be allowed to be a boss of them. Even when Carlo Gambino was the most powerful in the late 1960's til his death, I doubt that the Genovese would back down to him when it came to the labor rackets, construction, and gambling territory.

Then you had the two FBI agents who wrote the biography on Castellano calling him boss of bosses. Yet it was the Genovese who were behind the Angelo Bruno hit. It was the Genovese who had Castellano whack one of his own capos over a dispute.

Well, Castellano was the most powerful boss while the Genoveses were the most powerful family. Maybe that's why they are number one and always have been.

sorry dude,i respect your posts but...what the fuck!? hahaha

Most powerful for the time period.

I´m amazed by statements like these. Wathever dude.

Ok dude name the alleged chairmen during the past 30-40 years. Who was the chairman between gotti and gigante? Its a ridiculous joke from the movies. This isn't some corporation

I never thought there was an official chair position either.
That was one of the reasons Luciano reshaped LCN into the its current structure was specifically to avoid a 'boss of bosses' mantle.

Now there have been defacto 'Chairs' IE Bonanno, Gambino, Chin etc and powerblocs within the commission itself, but imo, never an official chair title.

I think the chair only existed through the sixties, then it was sort of done away with as Commission meetings became more and more scarce. At that point, whomever called the meeting probably acted as some type of unofficial chair.

"Massino Crime Family". Kind of had a ring to it. Wonder if any of the crime family names will ever change. Doubt it.

I wonder if any of the other/aspiring bosses wanted to change the name of their crime families? Perhaps Gotti; Galante.

I always thought the Genovese crime family deserved to be named after Luciano rather than Vito Genovese.

It's only Genovese because that's who was in charge when the feds first identified the five families. The name just stuck. Only one that didn't was Magliocco and that's because he died right around the time of the Valachi Hearings and Colombo took over. If Joe Profaci would have lasted another couple of years, they would have been the Profaci family.

Castellano (probably) was the last one. After the Commission case, the Commission ceased to exist. So neither Gotti or Gigante were chairmen. The Gotti/Gigante meeting in 1988 was not a Commission meeting. The one in 2000, which was hosted by Massino, is debatable whether it can be considered a Commission meeting or not.

There are overwhelming information, testemonies and evidence of the existence of an official chairman. How can you deny that? Pick up some books and read up on the matter. Off the top of my head, my first suggestion would be Bill Bonanno´s latest. There are no reasons for him to lie about it. If the existence of an official chairman only existed in Bill´s mind, he would have made the laughing stock by Mafia experts, LE and others in the know. You can also go to the Mary Ferrell site and read documents about it. To be honest, I feel it´s kinda ridiculous arguing with you on this. It´s like arguing with somebody who´s denying the existence of the Mafia. Over and out.

What would the chairmans duties be? I cant see the other bosses aloowing one person to set the agenda. It seens like the mythical boss of bosses.

The chairman is not a position of authority, per se. It is mainly someone who has the respect of the remaining bosses and who can be used as a sort of "Speaker of the House" for the Commission.

The Chairman is the same as a Segretario in the Sicilian Mafia Commission before that position became powerful. The Chairman's sole role was to organize the meetings and provide security, in other words he was responsible for the commission meetings and had to be available and reached if other commission members want to have a commission meeting. He did not have to be a more powerful boss then the others or had to be from the strongest family in the country, but that did happened. He was still considered an equal and had no power above that, but did have to serve as arbiter once in awhile if things were getting out of hand at the commission meeting.