JJOKE is responding to the blog
I opened the Times Union newspaper
this morning and was surprised to see James Odato’s story about the Gaming
Association’s source of funding.
The story said that Mr. Odato got the
data from JCOPE documents.
And that is what caused my
surprise. I wondered how Jim got those
documents.
I wondered because I had submitted a
FOIL request for those very documents on January 23, 2013 and had not received
a response from JJOKE or Milgram much less the documents in question.
I thought maybe Jim had made his own
FOIL and Milgram has some relationship with Odato that allowed Jim to get a head
start on me and everyone else.
Or maybe Jim had gotten them directly
from Feathers (if you don't know who Feathers is this blog might not be for you)because I know that they do have a relationship.
But rather than wonder I called Jim
because he and I also have a relationship, sometimes good and sometimes not so
good but good enough that I could call and ask, so I did.
And Jim graciously explained that he
got the documents from the JJOKE web site.
THE WEBSITE? WOW who would have
thought that JJOKE would have responded to the blogs criticism so swiftly?
So a little sheepishly, since I had
not looked at the website since Friday morning, I took a look and sure enough
there it was . . . 45 clients semiannual reports that include source of funding
and 5 that include business relationships.
Now the fun begins, but before I dig
into the substance of the reports I thought I’d look at the process to see if
it could help me understand what is going on at JJOKE.
So I looked at the report that I had
FOILed on January 23, The Gaming Association.
Why hadn’t Milgram provided it?
That was an easy answer the form had
not been filed until January 29, 2013 the day of the infamous open mic at
JJOKE.
But that means JJOKE had received the
form reviewed it and posted it online in 3 days that’s pretty good but it also
means that you might expect that every report filed before the 29th
that had source of funding is also available, 45 might very well be all we are
going to see or if there are more than 45 that means JJOKE is picking and
choosing which forms to make available and when.
Nah they wouldn’t do that would they? Not this bunch. I don’t know, go ask Speaker Silver if they are that calculating in their actions.
Nah they wouldn’t do that would they? Not this bunch. I don’t know, go ask Speaker Silver if they are that calculating in their actions.
Anyway back to the review.
The form says it is an amendment which
makes sense because the reason I FOILed it originally is the actual form was
filed electronically online and I was able to review it to see that it met the
threshold for source of funding.
Now I wonder why did it take Feathers
who knows these rules as well as I do 2 weeks to amend? Hmmm?
Could it be someone at JJOKE gave him a friendly heads up that the FOIL
had been filed?
Sounds paranoid I know but when I
first got to the old Lobby Commission in 1995 I was told a story of how the staff at
the commission used to hold out paper forms from lobbyists that showed illegal
gifts and would call the lobbyist to suggest they “correct” their form before
it was available for public review. The
person who told me the story is still working at JJOKE in a high level
executive position and had and has close ties to the Republican Party and was
always my guess of who leaked the Silver/Las Vegas Casino story to Dicker back
in the day. A story that involved
Feathers by the way.
Or maybe my FOIL got back to Feathers
thru some other channel. I didn’t
exactly keep my request a secret. So if
I helped you avoid a compliance violation Feathers you are welcome. I’ve always liked you even when you and Bruno
tried to get me fired. It was always
business never personal. . . right?
But as far as the Gaming Association
report itself goes no harm no foul.
But then I looked at the list of
reports that have been disclosed and lo and behold I see COMMOM CAUSE. Susan Lerner the Caesar’s wife of ethics I
have to look at that one.
And it’s even more telling than
Feathers report.
To begin with it was received on
January 22, 2013 a full week late,
It is signed by Susan Lerner on
January 16, 2013 a day after the statutory due date.
It is not marked as an amendment but
the word amend is handwritten on it in the box marked for office use which
means the commission staff think it’s an amendment.
But if it’s an amendment that means
the original report should be available online.
As of this moment (Saturday February 2
at 1 pm) it isn’t.
Why would the commission make the hand
written report (amendment) available before the electronic version?
The handwritten form does NOT contain
information on who the lobbyist for Common Cause are.
How much they received in
compensation.
How much they had in lobbying
expenses.
What subjects they lobbied on.
Who they lobbied.
What bill numbers they lobbied.
In short none of the data that is
useful in a transparent ethical environment.
It does tell us that Common Cause only
had one source of funding, someone named Merck Friedrike who gave them $5000 on
December 31, 2012. I think I’d have to
call BS on that as a full disclosure that aids the public in the pursuit of
transparency.
What it does tell me is that JJOKE is
using its total staff resources to get the reports with source of funding on
the web asap.
Even if it means reports with
meaningful data sit in electronic limbo waiting for review.
On one hand I’m empowered knowing my criticism
has such an effect on the clowns at JJOKE on the other hand I wish they could
learn to get it right before I have to point out their failures.
Coming soon business relationships or
as they are now known the Will Barclay filings.
And by the way Susan Lerner feel free
to explain what the hell you are doing when it comes to hypocrisy and
ethics. At this rate you could be the
next Executive Director of JJOKE.
Time to go FOIL Dick Dadey’s filings.
No comments:
Post a Comment