I never thought I would say this but I agree with the NYCLU. Nyclu stated in response to JJOKE denying their application for an exemption from the source of funding disclosure that "commission itself meets in private, is "selectively secret" and has unclear and
constantly changing standards." I'm afraid that's an understatement.
Yesterday's meeting was a rare chance to watch the JJOKE commissioners operate in public and anyone that saw it knows why these JDOPES do everything in secret. WHAT AN EMBARRASSMENT!!!!
Who appointed these dopes?
From the moment Mike Gormley of Newsday asked Dan Horowitz to state which section of the Open Meetings Law he was invoking to move into executive session it was nonstop stupidity.
Horwitz clearly does not know what the open meetings law is or how it is applicable to JJOKE. As he stumbled and bumbled his way to his statement that they were going into an executive session under the "open motions law" (whatever that is) because they wanted to discuss confidential stuff the audience clearly saw someone appointed by Governor Cuomo for his outstanding legal talent unable to articulate a coherent response to one of the easiest question a government official trying to hide behind the closed doors of an executive session could be asked. Here is a hint Dan next time just say you are discussing issues that relate the health and safety of donors. It really isn't that hard. As to the rest of the JDOPE staff that stood around with their mouths open read the law every now and then.
When they returned from their secret illegal executive session Dan stepped on his . . .vestigial appendage by announcing that while in executive session the commission acted on three revolving door applications. WHAT you stated the reason you were doing this executive session was to discuss confidential matters related to application for exemptions from the source of funding. You have to stop lying to the public Dan it just looks bad and continues to erode any faith the public has that JDOPE is not an incompetent highly partisan bunch of clowns.
And speaking of partisan next came the motions by Speaker Silver's appointees to grant exceptions from the source of funding disclosure requirements for the 3 progressive liberal groups that applied but not a peep for the right wing conservative group that also applied. Even though all 4 groups were active on the same highly charged political issue Shelly's appointees, Marvin "the mushroom" Jacobs, Renee "forever" Roth and the newest addition from New Jersey sitting in a place of honor to Dan's left and doing his Gary Busey impersonation only were interested in granting exemptions to the progressive liberal groups. Hmmm I wonder what they based there rationale on? I'm sure we will see it in there written dissent to all 4 denials.
And then came NARAL. After a public discussion on the first 4 applications and a public vote we learn that NARAL gets to keep there exemption after a secret deal was reached, who knows what and why but they clearly got treated differently than the other 4.
When you add it all up NYCLU has a pretty easy case to prove that JDOPE was arbitrary and capricious in there application of the arbitrary and capricious regulations they passed to implement the arbitrary and capricious source of funding legislation.
I can't wait to watch the transparency that will occur as part of that litigation.
Do you guys remember when you tried to depose me and I invited all the media to the deposition and NYCLU refused to ask a single question at there own deposition? Transparency my ass but give JDOPE hell guys you got screwed by a bunch of dopes.
HOLD THE APPOINTING AUTHORITIES RESPONSIBLE FOR APPOINTING DOPES
As to the few non dopes at JDOPE resign your reputations are being ruined by your association with these clowns.
can you tell the difference between Rob Cohen and Cosmo Kramer?
monkeeys
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Monday, January 27, 2014
Black boxes and black holes
Blair Horner has recently described JJOKE as a black box. That mythical creation that one deposits items in and they are never seen again.
I'm hearing rumors from inside the JOKE that it is much worse than a black box it is actually a black hole. Complaints, correspondence and data are provided to staff and just like a black hole they never see the light of day again.
I've been hearing rumblings for years that staff was not providing the commissioners with information, or was selectively picking those commissioners who would be in the know and those they would treat like mushrooms (you remember Marvin how much in the dark you are kept and after watching Gary Levine shut down dissent at the October meeting how much manure is being heaped on the legislative appointees). Now it appears under Chairman Dan Horwitz the censorship has reached new heights with only certain commissioners being shown complaints and even fewer commissioners deciding what matters staff will be allowed to pursue and how.
My insiders tell me certain commissioners have had enough of being bullied by Dan and his minions and fireworks may be in store at the next commission meeting. Of course with this bunch that may just mean someone will have the temerity to actually ask if they can see their own mail.
And remember Dan now has a secret ally, his new law partner and fellow commissioner Renee Roth. You see Dan has left the law firm with his name on the door to join Ms. Roth's firm. Not since the days of Andrew Celli and Richard Emery have two partners in the same firm been on New York's ethics commission (and everyone remembers how well that turned out). There must be a story behind the move and I'll do my best to find out the why but it does explain why Ms. Roth has seemed so helpful to Dan when the other legislative appointees are getting mouthy about how Dan is running JJOKE, and make no mistake Dan Horwitz is running JJOKE.
We may get a sneak peak at the divisions in JJOKE tomorrow during the first attempt to go into executive session. And I say first because JJOKE has scheduled two executive sessions for tomorrow's meeting. I've never seen that before. Why two? My guess is they want to get behind closed doors to talk about granting exemptions to pro choice and pro life groups from the source of funding disclosures contained in the Lobby Act. Now remember the commission is subject to Open Meetings Law for any business they transact under the Lobby Act with the exceptions of those topics that the Open Meetings Law allows to be done in executive session. Discussing exemptions to the disclosure requirements is not one of the subjects you are allowed to discuss in executive session. Of course a tree only makes noise in the forest when it falls if someone is there to hear it. Will anyone complain tomorrow when they move to go into executive session? Not me its not my issue and not my clients. Will anyone ask the JOKE to specify why they are going into executive session? I hope the media does but if they don't I might just to see Dan's reaction. I would hope the commissioners that have been trying to make JJOKE "more transparent" can muster the moral outrage to insist this topic be discussed in public,
The JJOKE executive sessions are a long way from transparent and there is no way to really know if the gravitational pull of JJOKE's black hole will reach that far.
I'm hearing rumors from inside the JOKE that it is much worse than a black box it is actually a black hole. Complaints, correspondence and data are provided to staff and just like a black hole they never see the light of day again.
I've been hearing rumblings for years that staff was not providing the commissioners with information, or was selectively picking those commissioners who would be in the know and those they would treat like mushrooms (you remember Marvin how much in the dark you are kept and after watching Gary Levine shut down dissent at the October meeting how much manure is being heaped on the legislative appointees). Now it appears under Chairman Dan Horwitz the censorship has reached new heights with only certain commissioners being shown complaints and even fewer commissioners deciding what matters staff will be allowed to pursue and how.
My insiders tell me certain commissioners have had enough of being bullied by Dan and his minions and fireworks may be in store at the next commission meeting. Of course with this bunch that may just mean someone will have the temerity to actually ask if they can see their own mail.
And remember Dan now has a secret ally, his new law partner and fellow commissioner Renee Roth. You see Dan has left the law firm with his name on the door to join Ms. Roth's firm. Not since the days of Andrew Celli and Richard Emery have two partners in the same firm been on New York's ethics commission (and everyone remembers how well that turned out). There must be a story behind the move and I'll do my best to find out the why but it does explain why Ms. Roth has seemed so helpful to Dan when the other legislative appointees are getting mouthy about how Dan is running JJOKE, and make no mistake Dan Horwitz is running JJOKE.
We may get a sneak peak at the divisions in JJOKE tomorrow during the first attempt to go into executive session. And I say first because JJOKE has scheduled two executive sessions for tomorrow's meeting. I've never seen that before. Why two? My guess is they want to get behind closed doors to talk about granting exemptions to pro choice and pro life groups from the source of funding disclosures contained in the Lobby Act. Now remember the commission is subject to Open Meetings Law for any business they transact under the Lobby Act with the exceptions of those topics that the Open Meetings Law allows to be done in executive session. Discussing exemptions to the disclosure requirements is not one of the subjects you are allowed to discuss in executive session. Of course a tree only makes noise in the forest when it falls if someone is there to hear it. Will anyone complain tomorrow when they move to go into executive session? Not me its not my issue and not my clients. Will anyone ask the JOKE to specify why they are going into executive session? I hope the media does but if they don't I might just to see Dan's reaction. I would hope the commissioners that have been trying to make JJOKE "more transparent" can muster the moral outrage to insist this topic be discussed in public,
The JJOKE executive sessions are a long way from transparent and there is no way to really know if the gravitational pull of JJOKE's black hole will reach that far.
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Source of funding update
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE
I spoke too soon and JJOKE is overreacting to the blog.
They have just modified the paper forms to match the electronic forms (SMART) but did so by requiring an addendum to be filed to existing paper filings (DUMB TIMING)
I get that you want to be consistent and had the addendum been part of the original csa form no big deal but it is seperate, it requires another signature by the client and THEY DID IT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LAST WEEK TO FILE
Are they crazy?
And no notice or announcement either.
It's like we are at a jersey shore house party and the cast forgot the red solo cups and are telling guests go out and buy your own.
Do they know how many clients will not know to file the addendum?
Do they have any idea of the additional work they just made for the regulated community?
Do they care?
Just when you think things are improving it is like they brought back the old Ginsberg crowd or the old Biben crowd . . . wait a minute most of them are still there now it makes sense.
Monday, January 6, 2014
New JJOKE Commissioner is perfect for JJOKE
So Shelly replaced Ellen Yaroshefsky.
And I think his pick is perfect.
It ticks all the boxes you would want from a New York Ethics Commissioner.
He is married to the Chief of Staff of an Assembly person so he knows what's what in the Capital.
He is a criminal defense attorney so he has first hand experience with the types of cases the Joke likes to focus on.
Hopefully he has experience with sex related cases.
He appears to specialize in freeing wrongfully convicted defendants which should come in handy with all the cases that have been sitting at JJOKE waiting for action.
And best of all . . . wait for it . . . he is a lawyer in . . . here it comes . . . New Jersey. Hoboken to be precise. David Paterson is rolling over in his Saturday Night Live cameo.
Which means he will drive all these smart New York City lawyers on JJOKE absolutely insane. I can't stop laughing. . . New Jersey whats next Chris Christie running New York?
Anyway good luck Paul and don't take no shit from those smart New York City lawyers that run the JOKE, you are only seperated by a river and a state of mind.
New Jersey . . . you gotta love Shelly's sense of humor
And I think his pick is perfect.
It ticks all the boxes you would want from a New York Ethics Commissioner.
He is married to the Chief of Staff of an Assembly person so he knows what's what in the Capital.
He is a criminal defense attorney so he has first hand experience with the types of cases the Joke likes to focus on.
Hopefully he has experience with sex related cases.
He appears to specialize in freeing wrongfully convicted defendants which should come in handy with all the cases that have been sitting at JJOKE waiting for action.
And best of all . . . wait for it . . . he is a lawyer in . . . here it comes . . . New Jersey. Hoboken to be precise. David Paterson is rolling over in his Saturday Night Live cameo.
Which means he will drive all these smart New York City lawyers on JJOKE absolutely insane. I can't stop laughing. . . New Jersey whats next Chris Christie running New York?
Anyway good luck Paul and don't take no shit from those smart New York City lawyers that run the JOKE, you are only seperated by a river and a state of mind.
New Jersey . . . you gotta love Shelly's sense of humor
Friday, January 3, 2014
Source of Funding electronic forms a year late and a C3 short
Well here we go again.
It's time to file client semi annual reports.
And after a solid year of delay and incompetence the JOKE has finally provided for the disclosure of source of funding on the electronic filing system.
CONGRATULATIONS
Now please tell us who gets the credit for this giant leap forward in technology use?
A solid year to get this up and running.
Had to be done by outside consultants.
I wonder what they charged?
As long as it took they must have charged by the hour.
But here is the strange part . . . after a year did anyone actually think about the regulated community and how they would use it?
Here is my point, and you would have to be a regular user of the system to understand the frustration.
As you are filling out the form you get to the tab for source of funding.
Now if you meet the requirements the system tells you to select either "Reporting is required and will be uploaded" or "Reporting is required and will be filed on paper" simple and straight forward and there are directions online that tell you how to fill out the excell spreadsheet.
Now if you have an exemption pending or granted (you know those groups that requested exemptions even though they had not filed in the past - but that's for another blog) there is a selection for that as well.
If you do not meet the $50000 or 3% threshold there is a selection that states "Reporting is not required - under spending threshold". Now its not clear if that is the $50000 threshold or the 3% but lets give the Joke the benefit of the doubt and say it applies to either. And this will be the vast majority of filers.
If you meet threshold but have no applicable contributions there is a selection that says "Reporting is not required - no applicable contributions" Now I'm not sure what that means and the directions do not explain it but it must mean you have met the threshold but have no one who has contributed over $5000. I can't imagine how that happens but all those for profit businesses that hire lobbyists and meet the threshold will probably select this one.
And it's important that you select one because you cannot complete the form without doing so.
And that is the first problem because the electronic filing forms are suppose to mirror the paper forms and those filers using paper forms do not have to disclose why they are not submitting the source of funding disclosure they just leave it blank.
Electronic filers will now have to make an affirmative statement under oath. I don't know about anyone else but I like to be sure my statement is truthful when I have to do so under oath.
Well whats the big deal you may ask. From what I stated above it might be a little bit of a blurred line for those selecting the last option and I would suggest a selection of not reporting would have been more consistent but who is hurt by the specificity contained in the selections?
501c3 are hurt that's who.
You see a c3 is exempt from reporting.
Not because they are under threshold, not because they don't have contributors but because they are EXEMPT by statute.
Which selection does a c3 make under oath?
Come on JOKE you had a year to get it right it's not that hard.
As for those of us who have to live with JJOKE screwups just put out an eblast that says either reporting not required is permissable for those that don't have to report.
UPDATE UPDATE
Is there a new competent well informed regime at JCOPE?
It appears there just might be.
Lo and behold the Source of funding electronic form has been modified to include a selection for 501c3 entities.
Now I'm not going to take credit even though it was on the blog before the change Lets just say the new JCOPE administration is on the ball and reacting in a positive manner to the regulated community and there issues,
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE
I spoke too soon and JJOKE is overreacting to the blog.
They have just modified the paper forms to match the electronic forms (SMART) but did so by requiring an addendum to be filed to existing paper filings (DUMB TIMING)
I get that you want to be consistent and had the addendum been part of the original csa form no big deal but it is seperate, it requires another signature by the client and THEY DID IT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LAST WEEK TO FILE
Are they crazy?
And no notice or announcement either.
It's like we are at a jersey shore house party and the cast forgot the red solo cups and are telling guests go out and buy your own.
Do they know how many clients will not know to file the addendum?
Do they have any idea of the additional work they just made for the regulated community?
Do they care?
Just when you think things are improving it is like they brought back the old Ginsberg crowd or the old Biben crowd . . . wait a minute most of them are still there now it makes sense.
It's time to file client semi annual reports.
And after a solid year of delay and incompetence the JOKE has finally provided for the disclosure of source of funding on the electronic filing system.
CONGRATULATIONS
Now please tell us who gets the credit for this giant leap forward in technology use?
A solid year to get this up and running.
Had to be done by outside consultants.
I wonder what they charged?
As long as it took they must have charged by the hour.
But here is the strange part . . . after a year did anyone actually think about the regulated community and how they would use it?
Here is my point, and you would have to be a regular user of the system to understand the frustration.
As you are filling out the form you get to the tab for source of funding.
Now if you meet the requirements the system tells you to select either "Reporting is required and will be uploaded" or "Reporting is required and will be filed on paper" simple and straight forward and there are directions online that tell you how to fill out the excell spreadsheet.
Now if you have an exemption pending or granted (you know those groups that requested exemptions even though they had not filed in the past - but that's for another blog) there is a selection for that as well.
If you do not meet the $50000 or 3% threshold there is a selection that states "Reporting is not required - under spending threshold". Now its not clear if that is the $50000 threshold or the 3% but lets give the Joke the benefit of the doubt and say it applies to either. And this will be the vast majority of filers.
If you meet threshold but have no applicable contributions there is a selection that says "Reporting is not required - no applicable contributions" Now I'm not sure what that means and the directions do not explain it but it must mean you have met the threshold but have no one who has contributed over $5000. I can't imagine how that happens but all those for profit businesses that hire lobbyists and meet the threshold will probably select this one.
And it's important that you select one because you cannot complete the form without doing so.
And that is the first problem because the electronic filing forms are suppose to mirror the paper forms and those filers using paper forms do not have to disclose why they are not submitting the source of funding disclosure they just leave it blank.
Electronic filers will now have to make an affirmative statement under oath. I don't know about anyone else but I like to be sure my statement is truthful when I have to do so under oath.
Well whats the big deal you may ask. From what I stated above it might be a little bit of a blurred line for those selecting the last option and I would suggest a selection of not reporting would have been more consistent but who is hurt by the specificity contained in the selections?
501c3 are hurt that's who.
You see a c3 is exempt from reporting.
Not because they are under threshold, not because they don't have contributors but because they are EXEMPT by statute.
Which selection does a c3 make under oath?
Come on JOKE you had a year to get it right it's not that hard.
As for those of us who have to live with JJOKE screwups just put out an eblast that says either reporting not required is permissable for those that don't have to report.
UPDATE UPDATE
Is there a new competent well informed regime at JCOPE?
It appears there just might be.
Lo and behold the Source of funding electronic form has been modified to include a selection for 501c3 entities.
Now I'm not going to take credit even though it was on the blog before the change Lets just say the new JCOPE administration is on the ball and reacting in a positive manner to the regulated community and there issues,
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE
I spoke too soon and JJOKE is overreacting to the blog.
They have just modified the paper forms to match the electronic forms (SMART) but did so by requiring an addendum to be filed to existing paper filings (DUMB TIMING)
I get that you want to be consistent and had the addendum been part of the original csa form no big deal but it is seperate, it requires another signature by the client and THEY DID IT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LAST WEEK TO FILE
Are they crazy?
And no notice or announcement either.
It's like we are at a jersey shore house party and the cast forgot the red solo cups and are telling guests go out and buy your own.
Do they know how many clients will not know to file the addendum?
Do they have any idea of the additional work they just made for the regulated community?
Do they care?
Just when you think things are improving it is like they brought back the old Ginsberg crowd or the old Biben crowd . . . wait a minute most of them are still there now it makes sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)