It's been well over a month since I have blogged and anyone that follows the blog has realized even before then I had cut down on the amount of blogging I was doing dramatically.
I'm not sure I know the actual reason why I've limited my blogging, maybe I don't have the time . . . nah I could always find the time in the past to voice my opinion. Maybe I don't want to embarrass certain clients that are not wild about my observations being tied to them . . . nah I've always told clients that I write for myself and my views are my own if you are embarrassed by my blog find someone else to do for you what I do. Maybe I was giving the new ED at JJOKE a honeymoon period, after all LT has been exceedingly friendly to me, regular sessions discussing JJOKE it's personnel and the issues that it faces. At least she was until last week.
And then she reverted to a typical JJOKEr and fell back on the old JJOKE propensity for secrecy and "lets make up the rules as we go along" attitude that Ellen Biben was famous for.
And lo and behold my blogging juices start flowing again.
It's always the little things that show you the true measure of a person or an institution.
In this case it was a simple request.
Over a week ago I asked LT for the names and locations of any commissioner that was planning to attend the commission meeting on the 29th by video conference.
No big deal and it is provided for by the open meetings law.
LT's first reaction? why do you need that information.
Now I get the paranoia. In fact it's healthy for someone in LT's position to be paranoid. There are people out to get her they have been and they always will be, but we've become friends so if you ask I'll tell you and I did tell her. I have a client that wants to have observers at these locations to make sure what we see and hear on camera is actually the opinion of the commissioner and not some political fixer off camera feeding the commissioner lines. And the fact that the lazy commissioners will be uncomfortable with strangers in their posh law offices that are not open to the public is just a bonus.
And then the waiting begins. Now I've been around long enough to know the waiting means LT is taking direction from someone. Even though this is an easy request that requires a simple yes or no it takes a week and several more written requests to get a response. And that response comes from Biben's hand picked fixer Monica Stamm. Bright women whose main talent seems to be her willingness to do exactly as she is told to do. And it's a shame because my guess is left to her own devices she is capable of giving sound legal advice.
Monica's written response is we will not tell you that information because we are not subject to the open meetings law.
One small problem that is not what the statute says. As I had previously pointed out to LT and reproduce here
"It is my understanding that the commission may take the position that it is not
subject to the open meetings law or has not had sufficient time to research the
issue. To the extent that is the case I have provided the relevant portion of
your enabling legislation Executive Law section 94 it states as follows:
Notwithstanding the provisions of article seven of the public officers law, no
meeting or proceeding, including any such proceeding contemplated under
paragraph (h) or (i) of subdivision nine of this section, of the commission
shall be open to the public, except if expressly provided otherwise by the
commission or as is required by article one‐A of the legislative law.”
believe a clear reading of the statute by even the most marginal attorney
admitted to practice law would result in the interpretation that the Commission
may hold secret meetings on any subject other than those “required by article
one‐A of the legislative law.” However once the Commission provides that a
meeting shall be open to the public, as is the April 29th meeting, the relevant
provisions of “article seven of the public officers law” are
Your enabling legislation may allow you to control an on/off
switch for transparency in your meetings but it does not provide a dimmer switch
that would allow you to pick and choose what sections of the open meetings law
you choose to be governed by once you decide to turn on the transparency light
and have a public meeting."
So if it is so clear that even a reporter can understand it why does JJOKE take the route of maximum resistance and try to rationalize it unethical behaviour by perverting the clear statutory construction?
Well that brings me to the title of the blog insecurity and incompetence. They have an overabundance of both. They are so insecure and afraid of making a mistake that will upset the Cuomo administration that they revert to there go to move of keep it confidential. If it's kept a secret they think they are safe.
Bad decision in fact an incompetent decision.
And one that has proven to me that LT is no different than Ellen Biben or Regina Calcaterra for that matter. What is it about these Cuomo ethics officials that makes them so insecure?
I still hope I can piss off LT enough to get her to react and show she has the independence to make the hard decisions no matter what they are because so far she appears to be a scared rabbit just trying to avoid Elmer Fudd.
And by the way if tomorrows meeting is not a public meeting under the open meetings law what is it and what rules will apply? I love meetings without rules anarchy is my bread and butter.