Santa brought me not one, but two interesting new insider accounts. (I guess I was good boy last year!)
The first account concerns NYRA and the controversy over its “takeout.” The second concerns the development of a new engineering school in New York City.
Both matters have received a lot of media attention recently, but in neither case have reporters gotten to the bottom of things.
With regard to NYRA, a retired insider who was involved in setting up the pari-mutuel takeout rates many years ago, posed some fascinating questions. This individual took note of how state budget director Robert Megna recently slammed both NYRA and the State Racing and Wagering Board for failing to catch the mistake in the takeout rate. Megna wrote to officials at both agencies saying that they had failed “the most basic accounting task.”
Megna’s overblown response, the insider says, was curious because the primary oversight for NYRA’s takeout is not the Racing and Wagering Board, which focuses primarily on harness tracks, but another entity called the Franchise Oversight Board. NYRA reports directly to this board on takeout and other matters.
“Why no mention of the Franchise Oversight Board?” the insider asks. “Who is in charge of that board and where was he over the last 15 months when NYRA was charging bettors and extra 1 percent takeout and accruing $7 million in overpayments?”
Well, it turns out that the chair of the board is none other than Mr. Megna himself.
So, what gives? Why would Mr. Megna, whom most people regard as a straight shooter, be so disingenuous? Maybe reporters will ask and we’ll all find out.
With regard to the new engineering school in NYC, everyone is now marveling at how Cornell miraculously came from behind to win the competition to develop the facility. The New York Times and others are citing brilliant strategic moves by Cornell to outmaneuver Stanford in the competition.
“BS,” says an insider close to the process. “Mayor Bloomberg is an engineer. It was his vision to create the school, and he wanted Stanford, which he regarded as the premier engineering school in the world. He and Schumer, too, were solidly behind Stanford and it was a done deal.”
So what changed? The insider says that people close to Governor Cuomo intervened. They first had to kick the Cornell folks in the pants. “Cornell wasn’t going to buck Bloomberg or Schumer. They didn’t have the stomach for it.”
It was Cuomo’s people who rallied the higher education community in New York on the issue of “brain drain.” Their pitch: “Do you really want Stanford to get established in New York? First an engineering school, then a law school, and a medical school. Why don’t you just say goodbye now to all of our best talent? ”
The insider says powerful alums of New York schools start making calls to Bloomberg and Schumer, and it didn’t take long for both men to realize they’d be disappointing a lot of influential people. Stanford was then told it wasn’t going to happen, and they pulled out.
The end result, the insider said, is the right one. New York City gets a first rate new engineering school, and higher ed in New York is strengthened instead of weakened.
My thanks to these two insiders. As always, I provide the same caveat: I cannot vouch for the veracity of their comments. My only claim is that I think their viewpoint is worthy of consideration especially during a week that is light on news.
can you tell the difference between Rob Cohen and Cosmo Kramer?
monkeeys
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
The deal for the new executive director of JCOPE
As I write this, the new staff leadership of JCOPE is being decided. Barry Ginsberg is gone, and two long-time bureaucrats --Jeanine Clemente and Terri Schilacci – are providing guidance to the chair as needed. My guess is Terri wins the cat fight and is named acting executive director. And like everything else about JCOPE it will be done in secret behind closed doors.
Neither Clemente or Schilacci will be named executive director. That position – despite the claims of the JCOPE chair that she will select a group of commissioners to undertake the search that is underway and will be completed within 21 days (all in secret behind closed doors)– will go to someone who is known and acceptable to the governor and the legislative leaders.
I suspect a deal is being cut right now. It could occur in a number of ways, but one possibility is that the administration will get to place the executive director, but the Senate and Assembly will each get a counsel slot or co-deputies. This will allow the leaders to keep tabs on the commission.
My current thinking is that Jeremy Creelan won’t get the nod. He’s still too hot as the author of the famous Brennan Center report that laid bare the dysfunction of the legislature.
The nod will most likely go to a Cuomo associate whom the legislative leaders can live with. I’m sure this individual will be a competent attorney and solid administrator. The person will be a step up from Barry, but he or she won’t’ be truly independent.
This is a concern for me and ought to be a concern for everyone. (I’d say it ought to be a concern of the goo-goos, but, as usual, they are off somewhere with visions of sugar-plums dancing in their heads or in Dick Dadey’s case visions of Cuomo attending his annual fundraiser.)
No, there’ll be no outsider brought in to serve as executive director of JCOPE. There’ll be no “follow the facts without fear or favor” person. And no, the stalwart meter maid committed to equal enforcement of the law won’t get the job either.
To be sure, the appointment of the new executive director will be portrayed as the carefully considered choice of the JCOPE commissioners acting independently, but the reality will be that the new person has “connections.”
When this happens it will be another cause to question JCOPE – along with its largely status quo appointments and flouting of open meetings and FOIL laws.
It really hasn’t been a good rollout for the new ethics panel. But I’m still hopeful. Perhaps it’s the holiday spirit, but I really want to believe that despite the initial missteps of this panel, it will finally get down to the business of ethics enforcement and it will do a good job.
That’s my sincere hope for the New Year.
Neither Clemente or Schilacci will be named executive director. That position – despite the claims of the JCOPE chair that she will select a group of commissioners to undertake the search that is underway and will be completed within 21 days (all in secret behind closed doors)– will go to someone who is known and acceptable to the governor and the legislative leaders.
I suspect a deal is being cut right now. It could occur in a number of ways, but one possibility is that the administration will get to place the executive director, but the Senate and Assembly will each get a counsel slot or co-deputies. This will allow the leaders to keep tabs on the commission.
My current thinking is that Jeremy Creelan won’t get the nod. He’s still too hot as the author of the famous Brennan Center report that laid bare the dysfunction of the legislature.
The nod will most likely go to a Cuomo associate whom the legislative leaders can live with. I’m sure this individual will be a competent attorney and solid administrator. The person will be a step up from Barry, but he or she won’t’ be truly independent.
This is a concern for me and ought to be a concern for everyone. (I’d say it ought to be a concern of the goo-goos, but, as usual, they are off somewhere with visions of sugar-plums dancing in their heads or in Dick Dadey’s case visions of Cuomo attending his annual fundraiser.)
No, there’ll be no outsider brought in to serve as executive director of JCOPE. There’ll be no “follow the facts without fear or favor” person. And no, the stalwart meter maid committed to equal enforcement of the law won’t get the job either.
To be sure, the appointment of the new executive director will be portrayed as the carefully considered choice of the JCOPE commissioners acting independently, but the reality will be that the new person has “connections.”
When this happens it will be another cause to question JCOPE – along with its largely status quo appointments and flouting of open meetings and FOIL laws.
It really hasn’t been a good rollout for the new ethics panel. But I’m still hopeful. Perhaps it’s the holiday spirit, but I really want to believe that despite the initial missteps of this panel, it will finally get down to the business of ethics enforcement and it will do a good job.
That’s my sincere hope for the New Year.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Who should lead JCOPE?
Who would I select as the new executive director of JCOPE?
Well, I’d vote for the Albany meter maid who slapped a ticket on the SUV parked outside the JCOPE offices this afternoon. The SUV was the vehicle of the Westchester County District Attorney, who, as we all know, is the new JCOPE chair. It had an official Westchester County District Attorney Office parking placard displayed on the dashboard and a very serious looking man seated behind the wheel.
Why the meter maid? Because she’s clearly committed to holding everyone accountable to the same standard under the law. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Could there be a more fundamental rule?
If only the chair and rest of the commissioners understood this. Alas, I have my doubts after the first meeting of panel.
There was Barry Ginsberg sitting next to the new chair just like the old days. And Barry is explaining why JCOPE doesn’t have to abide by Open Meetings Law just like the old days. Some of the commissioners seemed hesitant to go along with the private executive session but they did.
This is Ginsberg’s approach: JCOPE doesn’t have to abide by Open Meetings Law. Nor does it have to abide by the Freedom of Information Laws.
Those laws apply to every other government body, but not the state ethics panel.
Tell me again why that is? Tell me how that inspires confidence in government? Tell me how it sets a standard for others to live up to? Tell me how it represents good government?
Never mind. Just give me the meter maid. She makes sense to me. Nobody else does.
Well, I’d vote for the Albany meter maid who slapped a ticket on the SUV parked outside the JCOPE offices this afternoon. The SUV was the vehicle of the Westchester County District Attorney, who, as we all know, is the new JCOPE chair. It had an official Westchester County District Attorney Office parking placard displayed on the dashboard and a very serious looking man seated behind the wheel.
Why the meter maid? Because she’s clearly committed to holding everyone accountable to the same standard under the law. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Could there be a more fundamental rule?
If only the chair and rest of the commissioners understood this. Alas, I have my doubts after the first meeting of panel.
There was Barry Ginsberg sitting next to the new chair just like the old days. And Barry is explaining why JCOPE doesn’t have to abide by Open Meetings Law just like the old days. Some of the commissioners seemed hesitant to go along with the private executive session but they did.
This is Ginsberg’s approach: JCOPE doesn’t have to abide by Open Meetings Law. Nor does it have to abide by the Freedom of Information Laws.
Those laws apply to every other government body, but not the state ethics panel.
Tell me again why that is? Tell me how that inspires confidence in government? Tell me how it sets a standard for others to live up to? Tell me how it represents good government?
Never mind. Just give me the meter maid. She makes sense to me. Nobody else does.
Friday, December 16, 2011
I told you so
I posted the following on my blog November 29th lets see how they did
Do it right the first time
The new Joint Commission on Public Ethics (J-COPE) is supposed to be fully operational by December 12th.
But let’s be real: Two weeks isn’t much time to get organized.
The new commissioners, have to be named soon and they will need all the help they can get. And in that spirit, I offer the following tips:
1. You’ll be in a rush to get going, but first things first. One of the easiest ways you’ll trip up is by failing to disclose everyone’s potential conflicts of interest. Such conflicts are inevitable. In most cases they aren’t a big deal, but before someone (like me) points out the conflicts and they become a news story, do it first along with a plan to address the situation through recusals. The previous ethics agency was riddled with conflicts and it showed, they even had commissioners that were part of lobbying firms. DON"T SAY I DIDN"T TELL YOU
2. You are the ones who should name the executive director, not the administration. You won’t be doing yourselves or the Governor any favors if you rubber stamp his selection. Your predecessor commissioners made this mistake and they were all tarnished (Teitebaumed) as a result. And take your time it is the single most important decision you will make as commissioners. The executive director will make or break this new agency. TO BE DETERMINED
3. In this same vein, you need to make a clean break with the current E.D., Barry Ginsberg. Keeping him on as an acting or advisory staffer would compromise you. Remember his role in Troopergate – as exposed by the Inspector General, and remember his rogue activities over the last several months when the Public Integrity Commission was supposed to have been suspended. The reason the Public Integrity Commission was a complete failure and embarrassment was the people, Barry represents all that was bad before. DON"T SAY I DIDN"T TELL YOU
4. There are some good people left at the agency who can form the nucleus of a new team. These individuals want nothing more than to restore the reputation of ethics enforcement in New York. But don’t take Ginsberg’s word on who should be hired or retained. Make your own determination based on an individual’s record. Anyone in a policy making position that did not stand up and try to make the old Public Integrity Commission do the right thing should be let go and quickly. You don't need institutional memory from the top staff, they are the ones that will tell you to do it the wrong way because thats the way they have always done it you need a fresh start and the top staff needs to be terminated before they have a chance to shape policy in a new agency. TO BE DETERMINED
5. Most importantly, be open about your official deliberations, and do everything you can to adhere to the clearest and highest standards of law. Your predecessors were a complete joke because they did everything in secret and because they made up the rules as they went along. This isn’t just my opinion. Everyone in the ethics community was shocked by the commission’s actions. You can and must operate differently. I'll be sending you requests for opinions and complaints that heve been ignored by the old regime, that will be my test to see if its a new era of ethics enforcement in Albany or just more rhetoric. DON"T SAY I DIDN"T TELL YOU
6. And finally listen to the non lawyers on the panel, they have a unique perspective that will serve the new commission well it’s called common sense something TO BE DETERMINED
So far they are 0 for 3 with 3 left to be determined. This wasn't a surprise to anyone that has some experience in the field and decent instincts
Do it right the first time
The new Joint Commission on Public Ethics (J-COPE) is supposed to be fully operational by December 12th.
But let’s be real: Two weeks isn’t much time to get organized.
The new commissioners, have to be named soon and they will need all the help they can get. And in that spirit, I offer the following tips:
1. You’ll be in a rush to get going, but first things first. One of the easiest ways you’ll trip up is by failing to disclose everyone’s potential conflicts of interest. Such conflicts are inevitable. In most cases they aren’t a big deal, but before someone (like me) points out the conflicts and they become a news story, do it first along with a plan to address the situation through recusals. The previous ethics agency was riddled with conflicts and it showed, they even had commissioners that were part of lobbying firms. DON"T SAY I DIDN"T TELL YOU
2. You are the ones who should name the executive director, not the administration. You won’t be doing yourselves or the Governor any favors if you rubber stamp his selection. Your predecessor commissioners made this mistake and they were all tarnished (Teitebaumed) as a result. And take your time it is the single most important decision you will make as commissioners. The executive director will make or break this new agency. TO BE DETERMINED
3. In this same vein, you need to make a clean break with the current E.D., Barry Ginsberg. Keeping him on as an acting or advisory staffer would compromise you. Remember his role in Troopergate – as exposed by the Inspector General, and remember his rogue activities over the last several months when the Public Integrity Commission was supposed to have been suspended. The reason the Public Integrity Commission was a complete failure and embarrassment was the people, Barry represents all that was bad before. DON"T SAY I DIDN"T TELL YOU
4. There are some good people left at the agency who can form the nucleus of a new team. These individuals want nothing more than to restore the reputation of ethics enforcement in New York. But don’t take Ginsberg’s word on who should be hired or retained. Make your own determination based on an individual’s record. Anyone in a policy making position that did not stand up and try to make the old Public Integrity Commission do the right thing should be let go and quickly. You don't need institutional memory from the top staff, they are the ones that will tell you to do it the wrong way because thats the way they have always done it you need a fresh start and the top staff needs to be terminated before they have a chance to shape policy in a new agency. TO BE DETERMINED
5. Most importantly, be open about your official deliberations, and do everything you can to adhere to the clearest and highest standards of law. Your predecessors were a complete joke because they did everything in secret and because they made up the rules as they went along. This isn’t just my opinion. Everyone in the ethics community was shocked by the commission’s actions. You can and must operate differently. I'll be sending you requests for opinions and complaints that heve been ignored by the old regime, that will be my test to see if its a new era of ethics enforcement in Albany or just more rhetoric. DON"T SAY I DIDN"T TELL YOU
6. And finally listen to the non lawyers on the panel, they have a unique perspective that will serve the new commission well it’s called common sense something TO BE DETERMINED
So far they are 0 for 3 with 3 left to be determined. This wasn't a surprise to anyone that has some experience in the field and decent instincts
JCOPE Day 4: Secret Meetings and Gag Orders?
This is becoming a storyline. Another day; another set of strange and disconcerting actions by JCOPE.
I’m the one who insisted that JCOPE be given some time and the benefit of doubt, but now I’m having my doubts.
As Mike Gormley reports today, JCOPE held a secret meeting. And ever since that AP story moved, I’ve been inundated with insider tips about what happened. I’ll get to the details in a minute, but first, why is JCOPE having secret meetings? Is this the way to start the tenure – with less transparency than the previous ethics commission?
And while we’re at it, was it appropriate for an employee of the Westchester County DA’s office, presumably Ms. DiFiore’s secretary, to arrange the meeting? Apparently, this individual sent around an email to commissioners to arrange a conference call.
While this might not seem like a huge deal, just think about the consequences moving forward. You can bet there’ll be a case in upcoming months in which a government employee is accused of misuse of public resources. Deputy Commissioner X will be called to account for his actions in directing his secretary to arrange a teleconference call for his friends who are part of a fantasy baseball league.
Guess what? The law does not distinguish between an activity like this and the arranging of a JCOPE meeting. Both activities are unrelated to the secretary’s official duties and the person who ordered her to do non-official work might be in violation of the law.
Now back to the details of the meeting as related to me by anonymous insider tips and published reports:
In a bizarre exchange, the Chair apparently tried to get the commissioners to authorize her to act on their behalf. The only problem: She wouldn’t tell the commissioners what the issue was or provide any details of why it was necessary. Other commissioners were put off, and they rightfully refused the request.
It apparently went downhill from there. The chair then notified the other commissioners that she and her spokesperson would speak for the commission – no one else. This, too, went over like a lead balloon. In this regard, the appointees of other branches of government cannot be gagged by such a directive from the governor’s appointee. In addition to violating the spirit of openness, this is wrong and cannot be enforced. Politically it is tone deaf, the last thing I would think the governor’s office would want is the inevitable comparison to how Spitzer ran COPI.
It’s hard to imagine what the new chair could possibly be thinking with these two actions. It’s been reported she’s getting advice from Barry Ginsberg who reportedly also participated in the call and after the fact acted as JCOPE’s spokesperson. You know my opinion of Barry’s coup de tat of JCOPE. And you can’t unring the bell by having him resign at the end of the payroll period; he doesn’t have a position to resign from.
If all of this wasn’t enough, it’s been reported that the JCOPE Chair used her Westchester County DA’s public information officer to answer reporters’ questions about the JCOPE meeting. As noted above, JCOPE activities have nothing to do with DA office work.
As I said yesterday, this is not a good start for JCOPE. And it’s getting worse. These aren’t just rookie mistakes. These are serious problems that show a total lack of understanding of ethics law enforcement.
I want JCOPE to succeed, I’m rooting for the chairwomen to do for JCOPE what she has done for her constituents in Westchester County, and I know there are solid people on this commission, but . . .
Somebody needs to do an intervention, and quick.
As Justice Potter Stewart said "ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do"
I’m the one who insisted that JCOPE be given some time and the benefit of doubt, but now I’m having my doubts.
As Mike Gormley reports today, JCOPE held a secret meeting. And ever since that AP story moved, I’ve been inundated with insider tips about what happened. I’ll get to the details in a minute, but first, why is JCOPE having secret meetings? Is this the way to start the tenure – with less transparency than the previous ethics commission?
And while we’re at it, was it appropriate for an employee of the Westchester County DA’s office, presumably Ms. DiFiore’s secretary, to arrange the meeting? Apparently, this individual sent around an email to commissioners to arrange a conference call.
While this might not seem like a huge deal, just think about the consequences moving forward. You can bet there’ll be a case in upcoming months in which a government employee is accused of misuse of public resources. Deputy Commissioner X will be called to account for his actions in directing his secretary to arrange a teleconference call for his friends who are part of a fantasy baseball league.
Guess what? The law does not distinguish between an activity like this and the arranging of a JCOPE meeting. Both activities are unrelated to the secretary’s official duties and the person who ordered her to do non-official work might be in violation of the law.
Now back to the details of the meeting as related to me by anonymous insider tips and published reports:
In a bizarre exchange, the Chair apparently tried to get the commissioners to authorize her to act on their behalf. The only problem: She wouldn’t tell the commissioners what the issue was or provide any details of why it was necessary. Other commissioners were put off, and they rightfully refused the request.
It apparently went downhill from there. The chair then notified the other commissioners that she and her spokesperson would speak for the commission – no one else. This, too, went over like a lead balloon. In this regard, the appointees of other branches of government cannot be gagged by such a directive from the governor’s appointee. In addition to violating the spirit of openness, this is wrong and cannot be enforced. Politically it is tone deaf, the last thing I would think the governor’s office would want is the inevitable comparison to how Spitzer ran COPI.
It’s hard to imagine what the new chair could possibly be thinking with these two actions. It’s been reported she’s getting advice from Barry Ginsberg who reportedly also participated in the call and after the fact acted as JCOPE’s spokesperson. You know my opinion of Barry’s coup de tat of JCOPE. And you can’t unring the bell by having him resign at the end of the payroll period; he doesn’t have a position to resign from.
If all of this wasn’t enough, it’s been reported that the JCOPE Chair used her Westchester County DA’s public information officer to answer reporters’ questions about the JCOPE meeting. As noted above, JCOPE activities have nothing to do with DA office work.
As I said yesterday, this is not a good start for JCOPE. And it’s getting worse. These aren’t just rookie mistakes. These are serious problems that show a total lack of understanding of ethics law enforcement.
I want JCOPE to succeed, I’m rooting for the chairwomen to do for JCOPE what she has done for her constituents in Westchester County, and I know there are solid people on this commission, but . . .
Somebody needs to do an intervention, and quick.
As Justice Potter Stewart said "ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do"
Thursday, December 15, 2011
JCOPE: Day3 – Ms. DiFiore’s Challenge
I’ve sat back and watched for the last three days as JCOPE officials have struggled with a series of awkward issues.
It began with a less than enthusiastic reception for the announcement of the appointees. Then, the continuing involvement of Barry Ginsberg became an issue. And now the new chair is being scrutinized for her status as an elected official and as head of an organization that lobbies.
This was not a textbook rollout.
Let’s analyze each issue.
The Governor has admitted difficulty in getting people to serve on the commission. I guess that’s why it took so long to name the panel. But you know what? I don’t believe in conventional wisdom. I don’t believe in resumes and perceived reputations. What I believe in is actions.
And in this regard, one appointee who has stepped right up already is Ravi Batra. This is a guy whom some people questioned, but he’s showing himself to be independent and engaged from the start, and that’s really encouraging.
Batra spoke out yesterday about the urgent need to remove Barry Ginsberg from what is now an occupy JCOPE movement, and he couldn’t have been more right.
This commission, for obvious reasons from recent history, needs to follow the letter of the law and not fudge things. It cannot simply say that the old executive director will continue to serve until a new executive director is designated. Barry Ginsberg has no authority to act. None. He should be gone. It’s as simple as that.
The issues with the new chair are less clear cut.
When asked about a potential conflict of serving as both elected official and JCOPE Chair and specifically about her campaign accounts, Ms. DiFiore said: “That’s a good question… Honestly, I haven’t thought about that yet."
While, I admire her honesty, I would have hoped that everyone involved would have thought through this issue before she was appointed.
Serving as chair means she’s truly under a microscope. She is obligated to do a number of things, such as disclosing all donations she has received from lobbyists or their clients, as well as disclosing any and all connections to entities regulated by JCOPE.
In addition, she needs, asap, to sort out potential conflicts in serving as the president of the District Attorneys Association. If the association meets the registration requirements as a lobbying entity (and it sure appears that way) it must register and disclose immediately.
Ms. DiFiore must state that she will not engage in activity that would require her being listed as an additional lobbyist for the association.
I think she should go a step further and order an investigation of the association’s past activity and registration status and then recuse herself from any further discussion or action related to that investigation.
Ms. DiFiore is now the face of ethics law enforcement in New York. Everyone needs to understand that, especially her. She has stated that she will “familiarize herself with the commission’s code of conduct and recusal rules and follow them to the letter.”
Again, that’s good, but…
What exactly are the commission’s code of conduct and recusal rules?
I actually FOIL-ed for the code and the rules a while back and the old COPI – in a move that was hypocritical at best and most likely corrupt -- refused to disclose them. (Does it even exist?)
Think about that one. COPI would not tell anyone what its own policies were with regard to compliance, and yet COPI stood in judgment of others on compliance.
Some people say I’m too harsh in my assessment of COPI. Really?
The point, in the end, is that I hope Ms. DiFiore really wants to set a new course and have the commission succeed where predecessor organizations failed so miserably, but to achieve that she needs to do things differently than COPI. No more secret meetings and undisclosed conflicts. Think of FOIL as a floor not a ceiling. And follow the rules no matter how petty you may think they are, they matter.
It began with a less than enthusiastic reception for the announcement of the appointees. Then, the continuing involvement of Barry Ginsberg became an issue. And now the new chair is being scrutinized for her status as an elected official and as head of an organization that lobbies.
This was not a textbook rollout.
Let’s analyze each issue.
The Governor has admitted difficulty in getting people to serve on the commission. I guess that’s why it took so long to name the panel. But you know what? I don’t believe in conventional wisdom. I don’t believe in resumes and perceived reputations. What I believe in is actions.
And in this regard, one appointee who has stepped right up already is Ravi Batra. This is a guy whom some people questioned, but he’s showing himself to be independent and engaged from the start, and that’s really encouraging.
Batra spoke out yesterday about the urgent need to remove Barry Ginsberg from what is now an occupy JCOPE movement, and he couldn’t have been more right.
This commission, for obvious reasons from recent history, needs to follow the letter of the law and not fudge things. It cannot simply say that the old executive director will continue to serve until a new executive director is designated. Barry Ginsberg has no authority to act. None. He should be gone. It’s as simple as that.
The issues with the new chair are less clear cut.
When asked about a potential conflict of serving as both elected official and JCOPE Chair and specifically about her campaign accounts, Ms. DiFiore said: “That’s a good question… Honestly, I haven’t thought about that yet."
While, I admire her honesty, I would have hoped that everyone involved would have thought through this issue before she was appointed.
Serving as chair means she’s truly under a microscope. She is obligated to do a number of things, such as disclosing all donations she has received from lobbyists or their clients, as well as disclosing any and all connections to entities regulated by JCOPE.
In addition, she needs, asap, to sort out potential conflicts in serving as the president of the District Attorneys Association. If the association meets the registration requirements as a lobbying entity (and it sure appears that way) it must register and disclose immediately.
Ms. DiFiore must state that she will not engage in activity that would require her being listed as an additional lobbyist for the association.
I think she should go a step further and order an investigation of the association’s past activity and registration status and then recuse herself from any further discussion or action related to that investigation.
Ms. DiFiore is now the face of ethics law enforcement in New York. Everyone needs to understand that, especially her. She has stated that she will “familiarize herself with the commission’s code of conduct and recusal rules and follow them to the letter.”
Again, that’s good, but…
What exactly are the commission’s code of conduct and recusal rules?
I actually FOIL-ed for the code and the rules a while back and the old COPI – in a move that was hypocritical at best and most likely corrupt -- refused to disclose them. (Does it even exist?)
Think about that one. COPI would not tell anyone what its own policies were with regard to compliance, and yet COPI stood in judgment of others on compliance.
Some people say I’m too harsh in my assessment of COPI. Really?
The point, in the end, is that I hope Ms. DiFiore really wants to set a new course and have the commission succeed where predecessor organizations failed so miserably, but to achieve that she needs to do things differently than COPI. No more secret meetings and undisclosed conflicts. Think of FOIL as a floor not a ceiling. And follow the rules no matter how petty you may think they are, they matter.
Follow the rules
Does anyone know if this statute applies to what Barry Ginsberg is doing?
§ 190.25 Criminal impersonation in the second degree.
A person is guilty of criminal impersonation in the second degree when
he:
3. (a) … falsely expresses by his words or actions that he is a public servant or is acting with approval or authority of a public agency or department; and (b) so acts with intent to induce another to submit to such pretended official authority, to solicit funds or to otherwise cause another to act in reliance upon that pretense.
I’ve never worked as a prosecutor but there seems to be enough of them on the new JCOPE to explain what Barry Ginsberg is doing at JCOPE today and if the statute set forth above is applicable.
Be careful folks it was Plato that said “The beginning is the most important part of the work”
It was the new chairwomen who said ““That’s the way I lead my life, playing by the rules.”
It was the governor’s young spox Josh Vlasto who said “You can’t do better in terms of credentials than a sitting district attorney who is sworn to enforce the law and has an impeccable track record in doing so,”
It was Justice Potter Stewart who said “Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.”
It was me who said “I’ve always believed actions speak louder than words.”
Well I’m sure someone famous said it before me, heck I KNOW my mom said it but you get the point.
Enough words it’s time for some action.
§ 190.25 Criminal impersonation in the second degree.
A person is guilty of criminal impersonation in the second degree when
he:
3. (a) … falsely expresses by his words or actions that he is a public servant or is acting with approval or authority of a public agency or department; and (b) so acts with intent to induce another to submit to such pretended official authority, to solicit funds or to otherwise cause another to act in reliance upon that pretense.
I’ve never worked as a prosecutor but there seems to be enough of them on the new JCOPE to explain what Barry Ginsberg is doing at JCOPE today and if the statute set forth above is applicable.
Be careful folks it was Plato that said “The beginning is the most important part of the work”
It was the new chairwomen who said ““That’s the way I lead my life, playing by the rules.”
It was the governor’s young spox Josh Vlasto who said “You can’t do better in terms of credentials than a sitting district attorney who is sworn to enforce the law and has an impeccable track record in doing so,”
It was Justice Potter Stewart who said “Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.”
It was me who said “I’ve always believed actions speak louder than words.”
Well I’m sure someone famous said it before me, heck I KNOW my mom said it but you get the point.
Enough words it’s time for some action.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
JCOPE day 2 is anyone in charge?
Who’s in charge? Who’s calling the shots?
Things are changing at JCOPE. Someone took down all the old PIC logos from the doors. And someone ordered the phones to be answered differently. No more “Commission on Public Integrity.” Now it’s “Public Ethics, may I help you?”
Hey, it’s a start.
That’s said, Barry Ginsberg is still in the office. According to the new statute, he can have no official role or title or job without the new commission authorizing it.
This begs the question of who will be signing off on payroll this week? It’s also raises the prospect of the first potential violation of law by the commission. See various statutes about individuals impersonating a public official to receive a benefit.
The new chairwomen was quoted as follows in today’s Daily News “That’s the way I lead my life, playing by the rules.”
I’ve always believed actions speak louder than words.
Things are changing at JCOPE. Someone took down all the old PIC logos from the doors. And someone ordered the phones to be answered differently. No more “Commission on Public Integrity.” Now it’s “Public Ethics, may I help you?”
Hey, it’s a start.
That’s said, Barry Ginsberg is still in the office. According to the new statute, he can have no official role or title or job without the new commission authorizing it.
This begs the question of who will be signing off on payroll this week? It’s also raises the prospect of the first potential violation of law by the commission. See various statutes about individuals impersonating a public official to receive a benefit.
The new chairwomen was quoted as follows in today’s Daily News “That’s the way I lead my life, playing by the rules.”
I’ve always believed actions speak louder than words.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
The JCOPE Start Day one and things need to change
How do I write this and be fair and constructive? Hmm. Double hmm.
I think the first point is that we ought not to rush to judgment. Let’s give JCOPE a chance. We should all want it to succeed.
Thinking positively now: Some of the appointments are very good. For example, Pat Bulgaro is one of the most honorable guys in Albany. If he’s on board, it’s a real insurance policy against the kind of shenanigans we saw in the past. He simply wouldn’t tolerate that. Gary Lavine is cut from the same cloth and an additional guarantee that the old Spitzer days are a thing of the past.
That said several of the commissioners have issues from conflicts to past associations.
These issues need to be handled properly – through a clearly-defined policy of disclosure and recusal. (Cherkasy operated for months with a host of conflicts he never fully disclosed.)
JCOPE must follow the rules right from the beginning. And in this regard, here’s another important issue: There is no provision under the law for the old executive director to continue to function under the new commission, but that is what appears to be happening this morning.
What does it say about the new commission that its first action is to flout the rules and fudge it? Isn’t that what previous discredited ethics panels did? Not good.
Fortunately, there’s a way to address all of these issues. The new chair of the commission must act today. Step one: Pick up the phone and tell Barry Ginsberg, who was linked to so many past problems, that he has no more right under the statute to be sitting in his chair than Pedro Espada does. Step two: Convene a meeting and appoint one of the commissioners to act in a caretaker role until such time as a search for new ED is concluded. Step three: Develop a protocol for internal conflicts. Before any substantive, non-organizational votes can be taken, this is imperative. In this regard, people need to know that the new panel is committed to handling internal ethical matters appropriately and not making expedient decisions.
The noted philosopher Lao Tzu stated “expediency is the mere shadow of right and truth; it is the beginning of disorder”
Hopefully, JCOPE will take Tzu’s advice to heart and do all of this as soon as possible. If it does, it will get off to a legitimate start. If it doesn’t it will prove T. S. Elliot’s point that “In my beginning is my end”
Don’t you love Google quotes?
I think the first point is that we ought not to rush to judgment. Let’s give JCOPE a chance. We should all want it to succeed.
Thinking positively now: Some of the appointments are very good. For example, Pat Bulgaro is one of the most honorable guys in Albany. If he’s on board, it’s a real insurance policy against the kind of shenanigans we saw in the past. He simply wouldn’t tolerate that. Gary Lavine is cut from the same cloth and an additional guarantee that the old Spitzer days are a thing of the past.
That said several of the commissioners have issues from conflicts to past associations.
These issues need to be handled properly – through a clearly-defined policy of disclosure and recusal. (Cherkasy operated for months with a host of conflicts he never fully disclosed.)
JCOPE must follow the rules right from the beginning. And in this regard, here’s another important issue: There is no provision under the law for the old executive director to continue to function under the new commission, but that is what appears to be happening this morning.
What does it say about the new commission that its first action is to flout the rules and fudge it? Isn’t that what previous discredited ethics panels did? Not good.
Fortunately, there’s a way to address all of these issues. The new chair of the commission must act today. Step one: Pick up the phone and tell Barry Ginsberg, who was linked to so many past problems, that he has no more right under the statute to be sitting in his chair than Pedro Espada does. Step two: Convene a meeting and appoint one of the commissioners to act in a caretaker role until such time as a search for new ED is concluded. Step three: Develop a protocol for internal conflicts. Before any substantive, non-organizational votes can be taken, this is imperative. In this regard, people need to know that the new panel is committed to handling internal ethical matters appropriately and not making expedient decisions.
The noted philosopher Lao Tzu stated “expediency is the mere shadow of right and truth; it is the beginning of disorder”
Hopefully, JCOPE will take Tzu’s advice to heart and do all of this as soon as possible. If it does, it will get off to a legitimate start. If it doesn’t it will prove T. S. Elliot’s point that “In my beginning is my end”
Don’t you love Google quotes?
Monday, December 12, 2011
Blasto flexes his muscle
Aggressive young spox for the governor Josh Vlasto was quoted today saying the following on the subject of new employees for JCOPE “those still on the payroll will remain in place and begin working immediately”
Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/From-floor-vote-to-the-buffet-line-2396157.php#ixzz1gKaxvc8P
I am sure Josh meant all the employees except the executive director Barry Ginsberg. And not because I have and will continue to blog about the ramifications of keeping Barry but rather because the law doesn’t allow it. That’s right the statute sets forth how an executive director must be selected and it doesn’t say by Josh Vlasto or even the governor. In case the powers that be or are to be haven’t read it (and btw I’m told new commissioners have not been provided a copy of the statute yet) it states as follows:
“9. The commission shall: (a) Appoint an executive director who shall act in accordance with the policies of the commission. The appointment and removal of the executive director shall be made solely by a vote of a majority of the commission, which majority shall include at least one member appointed by the governor from each of the two major political parties, and one member appointed by a legislative leader from each of the two major political parties. “
Just trying to be helpful I don’t want to see the new commission step on its teitelbaum before it gets up and running.
Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/From-floor-vote-to-the-buffet-line-2396157.php#ixzz1gKaxvc8P
I am sure Josh meant all the employees except the executive director Barry Ginsberg. And not because I have and will continue to blog about the ramifications of keeping Barry but rather because the law doesn’t allow it. That’s right the statute sets forth how an executive director must be selected and it doesn’t say by Josh Vlasto or even the governor. In case the powers that be or are to be haven’t read it (and btw I’m told new commissioners have not been provided a copy of the statute yet) it states as follows:
“9. The commission shall: (a) Appoint an executive director who shall act in accordance with the policies of the commission. The appointment and removal of the executive director shall be made solely by a vote of a majority of the commission, which majority shall include at least one member appointed by the governor from each of the two major political parties, and one member appointed by a legislative leader from each of the two major political parties. “
Just trying to be helpful I don’t want to see the new commission step on its teitelbaum before it gets up and running.
The NEW JCOPE
Insiders have told the blog that the new commissioners of the Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) will be announced today. I’m sure some people will want to say that ethics reform has been accomplished, but the reality is that the task has really just begun.
The governor and the legislature have provided a mechanism to change the status quo, to change the perception of a corrupt state and usher in a new era of integrity.
It took leadership to put the pieces in place – and I commend everyone involved, especially the governor. But now the governor has to take a big step back, and JCOPE leadership must emerge.
What kind of leadership exactly?
First, consider what we don’t need or want. We don’t need a Feerick, a Cherkasky, a Teitelbaum or a Ginsberg-type leader. These were all people who acted as though they were appointed by God. They made up the rules as they went along. And their decisions, as this blog pointed out for months, completely undermined ethics enforcement in New York.
What is needed now to give JCOPE a good start is sound judgment. I know that sounds simple, even trite, but it’s the key. So much of being an integrity official involves looking at a situation and asking fundamental questions:
What is the real nature of the situation in question?
For example:
Is there a clear conflict of interest involved?
Is the person enriching himself or herself?
How strong is the evidence?
What do we know for sure, and what do we surmise?
Are we handling the matter in a way that is tailored to the specific facts and circumstances?
This last point is important. Each case should be handled almost in a vacuum. I know that will sound strange to some. They’ll want JCOPE to come out like gangbusters and make cases that send a message to all of Albany. This is a recipe for disaster.
The new commissioners need to resist the temptation to seize on sweeping cases that send messages. The best message they can send is that there is a new ethics panel that will handle each case in an aggressive, but fair way.
Ginsberg and the others never understood that. They were more concerned about their image and their connections to people in power than doing the right thing.
Now is the time for a fresh start, a new approach that focuses on restoring the integrity of ethics enforcement one step at a time.
And that first step must be to tell Barry Ginsberg that he is not a part of JCOPE.
The statute that created JCOPE is silent on the transfer of employees, and I think there is a good reason for that. Upon creation JCOPE has a blank slate and no employees.
There will be a temptation to just transfer everyone to the new agency. I hope the new commissioners resist that temptation.
Sure you could transfer all the non policy makers there is no harm in that and you can always cull the herd after a new executive director is selected.
But if you allow the top policy makers to remain it will take a strong executive and a ton of political dynamite to pry their cold bureaucratic fingers from the controls.
And should you allow Barry Ginsberg to remain for even one second you will have provided those of us that pay attention to this stuff all the proof we need to know the new boss is just the same as the old boss.
And that would not be ethics reform by anyone’s measure.
The governor and the legislature have provided a mechanism to change the status quo, to change the perception of a corrupt state and usher in a new era of integrity.
It took leadership to put the pieces in place – and I commend everyone involved, especially the governor. But now the governor has to take a big step back, and JCOPE leadership must emerge.
What kind of leadership exactly?
First, consider what we don’t need or want. We don’t need a Feerick, a Cherkasky, a Teitelbaum or a Ginsberg-type leader. These were all people who acted as though they were appointed by God. They made up the rules as they went along. And their decisions, as this blog pointed out for months, completely undermined ethics enforcement in New York.
What is needed now to give JCOPE a good start is sound judgment. I know that sounds simple, even trite, but it’s the key. So much of being an integrity official involves looking at a situation and asking fundamental questions:
What is the real nature of the situation in question?
For example:
Is there a clear conflict of interest involved?
Is the person enriching himself or herself?
How strong is the evidence?
What do we know for sure, and what do we surmise?
Are we handling the matter in a way that is tailored to the specific facts and circumstances?
This last point is important. Each case should be handled almost in a vacuum. I know that will sound strange to some. They’ll want JCOPE to come out like gangbusters and make cases that send a message to all of Albany. This is a recipe for disaster.
The new commissioners need to resist the temptation to seize on sweeping cases that send messages. The best message they can send is that there is a new ethics panel that will handle each case in an aggressive, but fair way.
Ginsberg and the others never understood that. They were more concerned about their image and their connections to people in power than doing the right thing.
Now is the time for a fresh start, a new approach that focuses on restoring the integrity of ethics enforcement one step at a time.
And that first step must be to tell Barry Ginsberg that he is not a part of JCOPE.
The statute that created JCOPE is silent on the transfer of employees, and I think there is a good reason for that. Upon creation JCOPE has a blank slate and no employees.
There will be a temptation to just transfer everyone to the new agency. I hope the new commissioners resist that temptation.
Sure you could transfer all the non policy makers there is no harm in that and you can always cull the herd after a new executive director is selected.
But if you allow the top policy makers to remain it will take a strong executive and a ton of political dynamite to pry their cold bureaucratic fingers from the controls.
And should you allow Barry Ginsberg to remain for even one second you will have provided those of us that pay attention to this stuff all the proof we need to know the new boss is just the same as the old boss.
And that would not be ethics reform by anyone’s measure.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Drink the cool-aid and eat the pizza
Well well well Barry finally got the call I referenced in twas the night before JCOPE. "Tell your employees to come to work until further notice" I wonder who called you Barry? And are they right? Come on Barry you're a smart NY lawyer how do you read the statute? And now do you change your website that says you are defunct on Monday?
I am laughing so hard I don't know if I can finish the blog.
But here comes the best part.
After 4 months of silence, when he failed to communicate with PIC staff about their future Barry did not even have the class, skill or talent to call a staff meeting and announce this news in person. He wasn't available to answer questions, he just told a couple of supervisors and left it to them to spread the "good"? word. Thats how Barry spells leadership. Let those passengers on the Titanic know we have a leak.
I guess I'm not surprised he could'nt sack up and face the rank and file but he did tell them to pass the word that he might buy everyone pizza today. Free ice for everyone on the ship just collect it from the deck chairs. Hey Barry here's a free hint next time do it yourself it has more meaning.
BTW I think the pizza is a great idea make a list of who eats the pizza and give it to the new executive director so he/she will know who to fire immediately.
If you are afraid to lose your job in an integrity agency you don't deserve to have it to begin with.
Speaking of drinking the cool-aid look at what Dick Dadey the googoo leader said in todays Wonkster "Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union (Gotham Gazette is published by Citizens Union Foundation the sister organization to the Citizens Union) Said that he is not concerned if there is a small gap between the 120 day deadline and the start of JCOPE. “I expect the governor will apply the law and meet the required deadline,” said Dadey adding. “A couple days won’t hurt.”
Compare that to Dadey's comments made several months ago:
“There is no reason to believe at the moment that the deadline will not be met,” said Dadey. “There are weeks to go. There is a strong argument for the appointments to not be rolled out in phases but announced as one. I don’t think piecemeal announcements make sense. We are not concerned, because this governor has kept to his commitments and he will keep to this one. He owns it all. All eyes will be on him. He has to make sure it is fully ready.”
“We were satisfied, but we didn’t have any great expectation that this would be pulled together much prior to the 12th,”
Dadey says the rationale behind the delay was that the agency had to be built from the ground up. “CPI was essentially a merger between two state agencies into one. This effort is essentially tearing down a house and starting from scratch. We accepted that explanation and we look forward to seeing a strong new house.”
Hey Dick about that house I think you are going to need a tent at this point because the closing is next week and nothings built.
And when it comes to missing deadlines do you think the new JCOPE will let the lobbyists be a couple of days late with their filings? remember when it comes to ethics “A couple days won’t hurt.”
Too funny the GOOGOOS are doing a pretty good Charlie Brown impersonation.
I am laughing so hard I don't know if I can finish the blog.
But here comes the best part.
After 4 months of silence, when he failed to communicate with PIC staff about their future Barry did not even have the class, skill or talent to call a staff meeting and announce this news in person. He wasn't available to answer questions, he just told a couple of supervisors and left it to them to spread the "good"? word. Thats how Barry spells leadership. Let those passengers on the Titanic know we have a leak.
I guess I'm not surprised he could'nt sack up and face the rank and file but he did tell them to pass the word that he might buy everyone pizza today. Free ice for everyone on the ship just collect it from the deck chairs. Hey Barry here's a free hint next time do it yourself it has more meaning.
BTW I think the pizza is a great idea make a list of who eats the pizza and give it to the new executive director so he/she will know who to fire immediately.
If you are afraid to lose your job in an integrity agency you don't deserve to have it to begin with.
Speaking of drinking the cool-aid look at what Dick Dadey the googoo leader said in todays Wonkster "Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union (Gotham Gazette is published by Citizens Union Foundation the sister organization to the Citizens Union) Said that he is not concerned if there is a small gap between the 120 day deadline and the start of JCOPE. “I expect the governor will apply the law and meet the required deadline,” said Dadey adding. “A couple days won’t hurt.”
Compare that to Dadey's comments made several months ago:
“There is no reason to believe at the moment that the deadline will not be met,” said Dadey. “There are weeks to go. There is a strong argument for the appointments to not be rolled out in phases but announced as one. I don’t think piecemeal announcements make sense. We are not concerned, because this governor has kept to his commitments and he will keep to this one. He owns it all. All eyes will be on him. He has to make sure it is fully ready.”
“We were satisfied, but we didn’t have any great expectation that this would be pulled together much prior to the 12th,”
Dadey says the rationale behind the delay was that the agency had to be built from the ground up. “CPI was essentially a merger between two state agencies into one. This effort is essentially tearing down a house and starting from scratch. We accepted that explanation and we look forward to seeing a strong new house.”
Hey Dick about that house I think you are going to need a tent at this point because the closing is next week and nothings built.
And when it comes to missing deadlines do you think the new JCOPE will let the lobbyists be a couple of days late with their filings? remember when it comes to ethics “A couple days won’t hurt.”
Too funny the GOOGOOS are doing a pretty good Charlie Brown impersonation.
A Zombie Agency
Zero hour is less than 10 hours away. COB today is effectively when the state Commission on Public Integrity will cease to exist. At least that’s what the Commission says on their website, but as regular readers of the blog know sometimes the Commission has been known to use math that only they understand.
And what will happen if the commission's math is correct?
My guess is nothing.
This is Albany so deadlines are transactional.
But, barring the extraordinary action of ignoring the statute and just saying JCOPE starts when we say it does and therefore PIC can live on as a zombie agency, one thing that will happen is that 30 or so employees of the commission will no longer have jobs, which is a pretty lousy thing to do to people during the holiday season.
Another thing that will happen is that there’ll be no place to report an ethical violation, no place to file a required report, no place to seek a legal opinion on ethical matters.
As regular readers of this blog know, I’ve been warning about this very situation for months. And now it looks like it’s going to happen, and I’m stunned.
Will someone please explain this to me: Why couldn’t the Governor and the Legislature get together and constitute a state ethics panel after more than six months?
This is absurd. Don't they care about ethics?
And making matters worse is the cavalier attitude of the current executive director of the commission. Barry Ginsberg could care less about his staff. He’s busy giving interviews to media outlets in which he touts his stellar achievements as head of the commission.
Ginsberg should have crept away months ago, but he’s hung around and is telling people that he’ll have a prominent role in the next ethics panel if and when it is constituted.
This is chutzpah to the max. Ginsberg’s “leadership” brought us embarrassment after embarrassment.
It started with Inspector General Joe Fisch’s damning Troopergate report about Barry’s “leadership”.
Ginsberg also brought us the ridiculous hors d’ourve decision. He gave us the hard line PSA announcement rules. He gave Paterson and his people a pass for leaking private documents about Caroline Kennedy. He ignored numerous conflicts of interest on the commission (see Mike Cherkasky.) He even stood by as certain commissioners law firms were directly involved in lobbying. And in one case prevented the records from being disclosed on the commission website for months.
Does anyone remember when the new legislation passed it was Barry’s “leadership” that allowed the commissions spokesperson to state that legislators would now be allowed to fill their bellies with Scotch.
I could go on, but you get the point: The commission and it “leadership” was a travesty and it is now being followed by another travesty.
At a minimum the governor and the legislature should appoint the commissioners as soon as possible, terminate Barry and his “leadership”, tell the employees that they will continue until a new executive director is selected and usher in a new beginning.
As a fan of the ends justify the means style of government we've seen lately I can even accept the twisted logic that says let PIC continue until JCOPE is ready (even though an ethics agency is the last place you should play fast and loose with the rules) as long as the end result is a new agency without Barry and committed to excellence.
Fail to do so though and this new commission will begin right where the old one ended. As the walking dead.
And what will happen if the commission's math is correct?
My guess is nothing.
This is Albany so deadlines are transactional.
But, barring the extraordinary action of ignoring the statute and just saying JCOPE starts when we say it does and therefore PIC can live on as a zombie agency, one thing that will happen is that 30 or so employees of the commission will no longer have jobs, which is a pretty lousy thing to do to people during the holiday season.
Another thing that will happen is that there’ll be no place to report an ethical violation, no place to file a required report, no place to seek a legal opinion on ethical matters.
As regular readers of this blog know, I’ve been warning about this very situation for months. And now it looks like it’s going to happen, and I’m stunned.
Will someone please explain this to me: Why couldn’t the Governor and the Legislature get together and constitute a state ethics panel after more than six months?
This is absurd. Don't they care about ethics?
And making matters worse is the cavalier attitude of the current executive director of the commission. Barry Ginsberg could care less about his staff. He’s busy giving interviews to media outlets in which he touts his stellar achievements as head of the commission.
Ginsberg should have crept away months ago, but he’s hung around and is telling people that he’ll have a prominent role in the next ethics panel if and when it is constituted.
This is chutzpah to the max. Ginsberg’s “leadership” brought us embarrassment after embarrassment.
It started with Inspector General Joe Fisch’s damning Troopergate report about Barry’s “leadership”.
Ginsberg also brought us the ridiculous hors d’ourve decision. He gave us the hard line PSA announcement rules. He gave Paterson and his people a pass for leaking private documents about Caroline Kennedy. He ignored numerous conflicts of interest on the commission (see Mike Cherkasky.) He even stood by as certain commissioners law firms were directly involved in lobbying. And in one case prevented the records from being disclosed on the commission website for months.
Does anyone remember when the new legislation passed it was Barry’s “leadership” that allowed the commissions spokesperson to state that legislators would now be allowed to fill their bellies with Scotch.
I could go on, but you get the point: The commission and it “leadership” was a travesty and it is now being followed by another travesty.
At a minimum the governor and the legislature should appoint the commissioners as soon as possible, terminate Barry and his “leadership”, tell the employees that they will continue until a new executive director is selected and usher in a new beginning.
As a fan of the ends justify the means style of government we've seen lately I can even accept the twisted logic that says let PIC continue until JCOPE is ready (even though an ethics agency is the last place you should play fast and loose with the rules) as long as the end result is a new agency without Barry and committed to excellence.
Fail to do so though and this new commission will begin right where the old one ended. As the walking dead.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Twas the night before JCOPE
In what has become a holiday tradition on the blog we present an insiders version of Twas the night before christmas. For those readers who do not know the employees of PIC mentioned, trust us they know who they are. For those who say we should not digress to the old mean spirited blog we say sorry but get over yourself its comedy if you don't like it don't read it.
Twas the night before JCOPE
Twas the night before JCOPE was set to begin
No commissioners yet named and that was a sin
120 days had gone by in a flash
Hope for an orderly transition had been thrown in the trash
Top staffers were busy featherbedding their nest
As long as they kept their jobs to hell with the rest
Barry was nervous he had lost all his hair
Would the 2nd floor keep its promise did they really even care?
The old commissioners thought they were off the hook now
They hadn’t held a meeting all year, something the law did not allow
When out on the web there was a growing emotion
The Goo Goos had screwed up again; it was more than a notion
What would happen on Monday, Barry wouldn’t say
He was on his knees to the administration begging to stay
In the past year Barry’s minions had became so unruly
Mitra fired them all, with help from yours truly
No more Ralphie or Bridget but somehow she missed Terri
Jeanine is still there but not Bob, Scott or the wooden Indian named Larry
When asked by his staff should we keep working or just pout?
Barry said let’s have a staff meeting to figure this out
With their heads filled with nothing cause their dopes one and all
Jeanine and Deb said not us we’re taking a long lunch at the mall
When all of a sudden the phone it did ring
It was a reprieve the caller did sing
Whatever do you mean, Barry exclaimed
The date on your web site is wrong the lawyer explained
Add a day And a day they hollered at Barry
The gov needs more time, his water you must carry
I heard Barry muttering as off he went to join the long line
For all that I’ve done they are still going to make me resign
Twas the night before JCOPE
Twas the night before JCOPE was set to begin
No commissioners yet named and that was a sin
120 days had gone by in a flash
Hope for an orderly transition had been thrown in the trash
Top staffers were busy featherbedding their nest
As long as they kept their jobs to hell with the rest
Barry was nervous he had lost all his hair
Would the 2nd floor keep its promise did they really even care?
The old commissioners thought they were off the hook now
They hadn’t held a meeting all year, something the law did not allow
When out on the web there was a growing emotion
The Goo Goos had screwed up again; it was more than a notion
What would happen on Monday, Barry wouldn’t say
He was on his knees to the administration begging to stay
In the past year Barry’s minions had became so unruly
Mitra fired them all, with help from yours truly
No more Ralphie or Bridget but somehow she missed Terri
Jeanine is still there but not Bob, Scott or the wooden Indian named Larry
When asked by his staff should we keep working or just pout?
Barry said let’s have a staff meeting to figure this out
With their heads filled with nothing cause their dopes one and all
Jeanine and Deb said not us we’re taking a long lunch at the mall
When all of a sudden the phone it did ring
It was a reprieve the caller did sing
Whatever do you mean, Barry exclaimed
The date on your web site is wrong the lawyer explained
Add a day And a day they hollered at Barry
The gov needs more time, his water you must carry
I heard Barry muttering as off he went to join the long line
For all that I’ve done they are still going to make me resign
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
A Word about Openness (updated)
Revising the state tax code might be a very positive thing. The deal announced today by the governor and legislative leaders certainly sounds encouraging.
But…
Is this the way government is supposed to work? Two weeks ago, nobody had heard a thing about reforming the tax code. Yeah, there was talk about the millionaire’s tax, but if there was public dialogue on reforming the tax code, I must have missed it.
Like everyone else, I’m looking at it right now and I thinking that might have good news for me if I'm a middle income person, but I don’t know whether this is a well-conceived plan or not. I assume it is, but I don’t know.
I’m surprised, and pleasantly so. But still, what’s going on here? Where did this issue come from? Why are lawmakers returning in December to take it up in special session? Isn’t this the type of issue that normally is taken up around budget time?
A few years back there was outrage and indignation from the reporters, columnists and editorial boards, as well as all the goo-goos, about state business being conducted behind closed doors.
Remember that time? Everyone was demanding more transparency in the way state government functioned, and there was a positive response – public leaders meetings, public conference committees, public hearings, more news conferences.
Think about that time and think about now. Isn’t anyone else concerned by current events? Not even a little?
Just think about the magnitude of what is happening – a complete overhaul of the state tax code that will affect every single resident of the State of New York.
Aren’t major policy shifts supposed to be the subject of careful review and vigorous and informed public debate?
While I admire the Governor for being bold and creative, and while I’m encouraged that state leaders are trying to get things done, I have real concerns about how this is going down.
But…
Is this the way government is supposed to work? Two weeks ago, nobody had heard a thing about reforming the tax code. Yeah, there was talk about the millionaire’s tax, but if there was public dialogue on reforming the tax code, I must have missed it.
Like everyone else, I’m looking at it right now and I thinking that might have good news for me if I'm a middle income person, but I don’t know whether this is a well-conceived plan or not. I assume it is, but I don’t know.
I’m surprised, and pleasantly so. But still, what’s going on here? Where did this issue come from? Why are lawmakers returning in December to take it up in special session? Isn’t this the type of issue that normally is taken up around budget time?
A few years back there was outrage and indignation from the reporters, columnists and editorial boards, as well as all the goo-goos, about state business being conducted behind closed doors.
Remember that time? Everyone was demanding more transparency in the way state government functioned, and there was a positive response – public leaders meetings, public conference committees, public hearings, more news conferences.
Think about that time and think about now. Isn’t anyone else concerned by current events? Not even a little?
Just think about the magnitude of what is happening – a complete overhaul of the state tax code that will affect every single resident of the State of New York.
Aren’t major policy shifts supposed to be the subject of careful review and vigorous and informed public debate?
While I admire the Governor for being bold and creative, and while I’m encouraged that state leaders are trying to get things done, I have real concerns about how this is going down.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Odds on Integrity
This is going to be another one of those posts that upsets some people.
Legislators will think I’m being unfair. The administration will think I’m taking a shot at the Governor. And other observers will say my critique is too harsh.
To each I say: Too bad. Take a step back. I’m trying to be helpful here.
At issue is William Boyland, Jr. I just read the new indictment of the young Assemblyman. It’s truly fascinating. It turns out that the feds ran a sting operation against him. They posed as businessmen and offered sizeable campaign contributions in return for assistance with a development project. And guess what? Boyland and his staff were only too eager to help.
Is anyone surprised by this scenario?
Now comes the part that will offend the lawmakers: If the same sting operation had been run against all 211 New York state lawmakers (and who is to say that it’s not), what do you think the results would be? How many lawmakers would take the bait? Be honest now.
Do you think a quarter of the lawmakers would do it. Half? More, perhaps?
I actually believe the majority of lawmakers could easily fallen prey to this sting. No, I’m not saying that they are all evil people. What I am saying is that there is a culture in Albany that perpetuates this sort of thing. And I’m also saying that the failure of state leaders to set up an aggressive independent ethics panel only worsens the problem.
Why? Because when Andrew Cuomo was elected, ethical transgressions did not suddenly cease. In fact, violations of varying severity are occurring every single day and no one, except the Feds, seems to care.
Once again, I make the point that not having a functioning ethics panel is an outrage. And it’s the state legislature itself that should be most upset about this situation. The feds are only filling the ethical vacuum. By failing to constitute a proper investigatory panel in New York, lawmakers have invited this level of federal scrutiny.
In fact, I’ll bet the Feds are salivating. They read the papers. Boyland is just one type of problem; there are many more categories of abuse.
For example, lawmakers are also abusing the “per diem” system. Does anybody doubt that? (BTW, where is DiNapoli or Schneiderman on per diem abuse. Either one could investigate.)
Another abuse involves “bundling.” John Liu is the current poster child for this problem, but it also has been linked to City Council member (and former top Cuomo operative) Bill DiBlasio.
Do the mental exercise again. What if all 211 lawmakers were scrutinized for their per diem claims and bundling practices? How many of the lawmakers would have issues?
It’s not often you can bet on a sure thing.
Legislators will think I’m being unfair. The administration will think I’m taking a shot at the Governor. And other observers will say my critique is too harsh.
To each I say: Too bad. Take a step back. I’m trying to be helpful here.
At issue is William Boyland, Jr. I just read the new indictment of the young Assemblyman. It’s truly fascinating. It turns out that the feds ran a sting operation against him. They posed as businessmen and offered sizeable campaign contributions in return for assistance with a development project. And guess what? Boyland and his staff were only too eager to help.
Is anyone surprised by this scenario?
Now comes the part that will offend the lawmakers: If the same sting operation had been run against all 211 New York state lawmakers (and who is to say that it’s not), what do you think the results would be? How many lawmakers would take the bait? Be honest now.
Do you think a quarter of the lawmakers would do it. Half? More, perhaps?
I actually believe the majority of lawmakers could easily fallen prey to this sting. No, I’m not saying that they are all evil people. What I am saying is that there is a culture in Albany that perpetuates this sort of thing. And I’m also saying that the failure of state leaders to set up an aggressive independent ethics panel only worsens the problem.
Why? Because when Andrew Cuomo was elected, ethical transgressions did not suddenly cease. In fact, violations of varying severity are occurring every single day and no one, except the Feds, seems to care.
Once again, I make the point that not having a functioning ethics panel is an outrage. And it’s the state legislature itself that should be most upset about this situation. The feds are only filling the ethical vacuum. By failing to constitute a proper investigatory panel in New York, lawmakers have invited this level of federal scrutiny.
In fact, I’ll bet the Feds are salivating. They read the papers. Boyland is just one type of problem; there are many more categories of abuse.
For example, lawmakers are also abusing the “per diem” system. Does anybody doubt that? (BTW, where is DiNapoli or Schneiderman on per diem abuse. Either one could investigate.)
Another abuse involves “bundling.” John Liu is the current poster child for this problem, but it also has been linked to City Council member (and former top Cuomo operative) Bill DiBlasio.
Do the mental exercise again. What if all 211 lawmakers were scrutinized for their per diem claims and bundling practices? How many of the lawmakers would have issues?
It’s not often you can bet on a sure thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)