Wednesday, May 4, 2016

What the New York Times editorial about Sheldon Silver's sentance says about Albany and ethics reform

Predictably the New York Times has written an editorial using the recent corruption conviction and sentencing of Sheldon Silver as the basis for it's call yet again for "ethics reform" in Albany.

I wonder does the New York Times editorial board know what they mean by "ethics reform"?

They've been calling for it for a long time.

"Better Albany Ethics" an editorial about the need for "far more exactness and detail" in a code of ethics was not written this session it was written November 1 1963.

"Ethics now - not next year" was an editorial about disclosing and recusing lawyer legislators from taking fees from those with business before the legislature.  Sound familiar?  it wasn't written about Shelly it was written January 16, 1964.

"Status Quo on Ethics?" an editorial about the benefits of a blue ribbon panel drafting proposed ethics reforms.  I'm still laughing about the fact it was written on February 13, 1964 and has been rewritten so many times in the last 50 years any amateur politician has learned that the media just can not resist writing of the benefits of blue ribbon panels . . . especially when it comes to ethics reform.

"Why give Politicians $50000?" an editorial calling for . . . wait for it . . . campaign finance reform published on January 30, 1986.  But right now is our Watergate moment for ethics reform?  Don't make me laugh every decade is our Watergate moment for ethics reform.

"Waiting, Waiting for Albany on Ethics" this editorial written on June 8, 1987 had this gem "Governor Cuomo and the leaders have remained locked in a desultory dance over terms of a better bill.  Each passing day deepens the Legislature's embarrassment and tries the public's patience"  Yea right, each passing day for the last 30 years.  Long enough for the son to repeat the fathers mistakes.

"Albany's Last Chance on Ethics" an editorial that when discussing ethics reform stated "Albany can gain some measure of redemption in the time remaining, but that time is swiftly running out".  Swiftly running out? that was written 23 years ago on June 30 1993.  I guess the New York Times defines swiftly differently than it's common interpretation.

And the New York Times is by no means alone in repeating the same editorial about ethics reform over and over and over again.  They just have the easiest data base to search.  Type in Albany ethics reform and laugh your ass off as the editorials go all the way back to the late 1800's.

So you might rightly ask what else can they do other than spit into the wind?

How about being realistic?  IT"S NOT THE LAWS IT'S THE PEOPLE STUPID

So write about the people, write about what they are or are not doing before you end up just reporting the news a prosecutor makes.

Here is an easy one.

Insist on an interview of JJOKE's new leader Seth Agata.  Write about Seth Agata until he answers questions about what he is or is not doing at New York's ethics agency.  We all know about Percoco's disclosure statement that JCOPE turned over to Preet under subpoena but what is Agata doing about it?  Is he barred because he was the governor's counsel during the relevant time period?  Is JJOKE looking at Alain Kalyeros?  or are the too busy going after DiBlasio and issuing subpoenas to those who donated to the Mayor?  How does JJOKE pick and choose it's targets? or does the governor pick the targets for them? 

Write about that and maybe you will not have to keep writing the same ethics editorial for the next 50 years.

And speaking of Alain Kalyeros, the rumor I'm hearing is that those expensive criminal defense attorneys the Nano folks hired LAST SUMMER, have already gotten Alain to do what he does best and save his own ass by rolling over on everybody else he possibly could.  In my opinion and for my money Kalyeros will go down in history as the greatest Ponzi schemer in the government tech world.  Think the Bernie Madoff for government tech.  In the words of Robin Williams . . . Nano Nano suckers.

No comments:

Post a Comment