One chain concerned charter schools; another dealt with affordable housing in East New York, Brooklyn. Three discussed “the most effective message to employ in raising funds to advance the mayor’s policy agendas.”

These internal discussions about public matters are now part of a court battle here, as lawyers for a nonprofit aligned with the mayor are fighting to keep those emails confidential, resisting subpoenas for that information by the state’s Joint Commission on Public Ethics.

The legal strategy appeared to clarify what had been one of the more puzzling moments of the de Blasio era: the description in May of five outside consultants as “agents of the city.” The designation of “agents” appeared months earlier, in a December letter from the nonprofit’s lawyers to the state ethics panel, and applied to a dozen advisers with close ties to the city.

The de Blasio administration has argued that the nonprofit, the Campaign for One New York, and a small group of outside consultants are so close to City Hall that they essentially work for the city. For that reason, the argument goes, their emails with the mayor and his staff are immune from public disclosure under the state’s Freedom of Information Law.

[. . .]

“If such documents were made public, elected officials might be reluctant — and might not even choose — to obtain the information derived from public opinion surveys,” Ms. Wolfe said.

Arguing before Justice Denise A. Hartman in a courtroom here on Wednesday, a lawyer for the nonprofit, Lawrence A. Mandelker, said that communications between Mr. de Blasio and the nonprofit did not have to be disclosed to the panel because, among other reasons, of a “deliberative process” privilege that applies to executive branch communications.

Scott Kleinberg, who came to New York from the Chicago Tribune, was announced as City Hall’s new social media director in a May 3 memo that boasted that he and his team would “infuse personality and engagement into the social media channels for the Office of the Mayor and City government as a whole.”

Just eight weeks later, Kleinberg said he was out.

“Well, that was fast,” he wrote on Facebook Tuesday night. “I moved to NYC for a dream job and that’s not what I got.

“I tried to stick it out, but it was impossible,” he continued. “I don’t even know the word quit, but for the sake of my health and my sanity, I decided I needed to do just that. Now, for the first time in my life, I’m unemployed… I’ve learned a lot in the past several weeks, including something I’ve ignored in many a fortune cookie: If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.”

[. . .]

“I’m sure it’s impossible for someone of your caliber, with your work ethic and honesty, to survive in a sea of cut-throat political hacks,” one friend commented.

Kleinberg responded with thanks, adding, “I ended up with political hacks plus a boss who just couldn’t get it. It was a bad combination for sure.”

Another wrote that he was impressed Kleinberg had stayed with the job as long as he did, adding, “It clearly was not as advertised.”

A third commented, “Well, you are not the only one to be disappointed with our mayor’s office.”

[. . .]

Fernando Mateo, founder of the New York State Federation of Taxi Drivers, came clean about the blatant violation of election law after The Post learned he had personally solicited a donation for Hizzoner and then had Ahlam Jaoui take credit for it.

The 31-year-old Bay Ridge woman, who has no political or fundraising experience, claims in campaign finance records to have collected 15 donations totaling $18,800 that were given to the de Blasio campaign in January.

[. . .]

Mateo, a well-known Republican supporter, told The Post that he “called my people” to give money to Democrat de Blasio’s campaign and had Jaoui take credit for the donations. Mateo’s name does not appear on Jaoui’s January campaign finance report.

He claims that his motive was to help Jaoui land a city job.

“That’s the way politics works,” Mateo said. “If Ahlam worked hard for his candidacy, you’d think [the mayor] would say, ‘I employ thousands of people, why not at least bring her in for an interview?’

Surrogates have blasted out a litany of mayoral achievements by email, on Twitter and in op-eds articles. Aides have pointed to supportive words from a small number of voices rising to defend the mayor.

Returning to the “two cities” theme, the mayor has fashioned an array of boogeymen to rail against, from “billionaire media owners” and hedge fund managers to state investigatory agencies and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who has been increasingly willing to punch back publicly. It is a refrain that the mayor has underscored since a recent strategy discussion in which he embraced the idea, one adviser said.

[. . .]

Faced with the opposition, the mayor’s strategy has been threefold, aides said: Stay focused on the job; keep in constant communication with supporters and allies; and get the message out on the radio, in town-hall-style meetings and through community events.

His team assembled an elite spreadsheet of major campaign donors, powerful lobbyists and celebrities as candidates for the coveted slots doled out by de Blasio.

This internal spreadsheet — obtained by the Daily News — reveals a blatant and highly choreographed effort to reward donors and New York power players with high-profile VIP appointments.

The 2014 list even goes so far as to suggest that de Blasio appoint lobbyists who were and are actively lobbying his administration on behalf of their wealthy clients.

At least 14 of the mayor’s top “bundlers” who used a legal loophole to collect big bucks far in excess of donation restrictions made the list. So did four early donors to de Blasio’s now-defunct lobbying group, the Campaign for One New York.

“Confidential notes” on the list reveal the candidate’s business ties, but do not highlight actual qualifications for specific appointments. They do, however, reference support for the mayor, sometimes in financial terms.