A happy ending for the JERKOFF review commission

The long awaited review of JJOKE's operations has finally come out

YAWN

Once again proving in the world of ethical masturbation the pleasure given equals the pleasure received.

YAWN

Casey Sailer has the story here http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/242589/report-jcope-should-be-smaller-more-transparent/ but not having seen the press release I do not know if it is original reporting by Casey or another case of press release plagerism.

YAWN

I don't recommend you read the report as it's the same old same old retreaded pablum the shallow thinkers in the ethics world have been harping on for 3 years (and yes I mean the good government groups.)

Too big

Too secretive

Needs more money

YAWN

Well at least Patty Salkin's husband no longer has to fear losing state contracts if Cuomo gets pissed.  There is nothing in the report to upset anyone.  That is because there is nothing in the report at all.  JERKOFF was supposed to review and evaluate the activities and performance of JJOKE instead it wrote a 2nd graders book report without reading the book and dressed it up as a first year law students attempt at a law review article.  Lot's of foot notes and no substance.

While you shouldn't read it I have to since it is in my area of expertise (ethics not good government masturbation)

The report starts with a cite to Richard Rivkin (enough said, nice man but should be considered the father of ethical boredom and was neck deep in the Spitzer troopergate scandal as I recall) that "PIRA’s formal title has likely led to some of the criticisms surrounding the purpose and  performance of JCOPE."  Right, it is the name that lead to the criticism about the purpose and performance of JJOKE"  I criticize JJOKE more than anyone and I've never thought the Public Integrity Reform Act's title was the cause of JJOKE being ineffective.  IT'S THE PEOPLE STUPID

YAWN

But if JERKOFF says it's the name the least they can do is point to empirical data to back up their claim but NOOOOO we just get a conclusion without analysis.  I think JERKOFF's formal title as "The New York Ethics Review Commission . . .  commonly referred to as the JCOPE Review Commission" has likely lead to some of the criticisms surrounding the purpose and performance of JERKOFF.  WOW this is easy even a lawyer could write that.

YAWN

After a boring recap of how JJOKE was formed and it's legislatively mandated structure JERKOFF talks about their process and the limited number of people they reached out to.  They didn't include their reach around to me and my request for the type of data they should have asked for but never did.  The least JERKOFF could have done if they were going to stroke us was provide some ethics porn to help the process along.  The report provides no metrics, no data and none of the material a competent expert would need to review and evaluate the activities and performance of JJOKE with one notable exception they included material Blair Horner sent to JJOKE about his complaint regarding the Andrew Cuomo book deal.  Pay attention here Mr. Gagan the material provides a sound basis for investigating the book deal and for investigating JJOKE's actions in failing to investigate Mr. Cuomo.  It's found in the appendix at page 80 in the form of a letter from Ellen Biben to Seth Agata wherein JJOKE sets forth what Mr. Cuomo could and could not do as part of the book deal.  Point 2 states that no State property personnel or other State resources are utilized in producing or promoting the book like wise point 7 states the state official (Cuomo) does not advertise, promote or otherwise endorse the book while performing state duties.  I've blogged about Cuomo's promotion of the book while in his State office with the State seal over his shoulder and while on State time before do you think JERKOFF asked JJOKE or Biben or Agata about this complaint and violation?  They were on the JERKOFF reach around list but no mention of this potential ethical violation and JJOKE's failure to investigate it can be found in the JERKOFF report.  It would have made for a valuable case study but I guess that is asking too much of JERKOFF and it's volunteer lawyers with no budget.  Get a free haircut and it is going to look like a free haircut

Now we get to the body of the JERKOFF report.  They utilized a unique form for their review.  They tell us what they "heard" and then what they recommend.  I heard that JERKOFF was never intended to do an actual review and I recommend that the report they issue be used to wipe Volker's shriveled old ass.  Not very helpful I know so back to JERKOFF.

JERKOFF heard JJOKE is too big and recommends that the number of commissioners be reduced. but will not recommend a number.

EARTH SHATTERING and indicative of the depth of thought that went into this book report.  14 is too many?  How about just 1 and we can skip all this nonsense about anyone other that Cuomo having a say in what JJOKE does.  It's not the number IT"S THE PEOPLE STUPID

JERKOFF heard that people thought JJOKE should publish vote tallies on investigations and end the minority veto but will not recommend the disclosure of the identity of those commissioners that veto.

I just went limp.  What a bunch of pussies.  Let's keep protecting the problem guys  we can give lip service to transparency but when it comes to actually seeing whose doing the fucking . . . keep it behind closed doors.

I could do this for every point in the report but I'm putting my hand to sleep so just one or two more.

JERKOFF heard that JJOKE should be encouraged to adhere to the Freedom of Information Law and Open Meetings Law.  But JERKOFF only recommends that JCOPE review their policies regarding transparency.

That is particularly weak.  How about JERKOFF and all their bright lawyers determine if the existing statute provides a mechanism for JJOKE to disclose anything they want?  I've been making that argument for years.  And JJOKE lawyers say I'm wrong but never say why.  JERKOFF could have weighed in on that.  A law review article on my approach vs the JJOKE status quo would have been worthwhile but NOOOO just more bullshit from a bunch of ass clown lawyers who don't want to rock the boat.

One last example of how bad this JERKOFF report is.

JERKOFF heard that the threshold for lobby disclosure should be increased and recommended that it be increased from $5000 to $10000.

Why did you pick $10000? why not $15000 or $18000 or $20000?  My guess some good government group picked the number without the data to back up it's effect.  But not to worry I already did that for you a decade ago.  The lobby commission in 2005 I believe recommended raising the threshold from $5000 to $20000 after a statistical analysis established that at that level you would reduce the number of groups required to file  by over 25% while only losing under 10% of the total dollars reported.  I might not remember that actual statistics but it is an easy calculation to do as compared to picking $10000 out of Dick Dadey's ass.

LAZY

I could go on and on with how useless this report was, is and will be and I'm sure I will revisit it because just like a JERKOFF I am sure of 2 things I like it and I am going to do it again.