When Ravi exhales

A chill wind is blowing over JCOPE.

One of its members, Ravi Batra, is calling for an investigation of . .  JCOPE.

It looks like at least one person learned from the Herb Teitelbaum troopergate fiasco.  When the music stops you can bet Ravi will have a seat waiting for him in his chauffer driven Maybach.

I love this guy.  I blog that everyone should relax on Libous and 1 hour later Mr. Magoo is calling for an investigation.

And just who should investigate to find the leak?

And how will they do it?

Here's a road map:

Who knew that Libous got a letter?

Who did they tell?

Who did they tell?

Who did they tell?

Eventually you get to Jim Odato, eventually.

By the time you get there I bet you have over 1000 people to interview.

Hell I blogged about it a month ago, and yes I heard the rumours Monday.

So Ravi if you want to investigate JCOPE, start with me I'd love to tell you what I know about this stuff.

You want to stop leaks? drain the pool.  No secrets no secrets to leak.  It worked for the old lobby commission.

Pause. Take a Deep Breath. Now Exhale and Relax.

Everybody is getting worked up on this Libous matter. They are jumping to conclusions based upon a lack of understanding of the process involved.

Yes, there appears to be a preliminary review underway, but I doubt that a final decision has been made on whether to commence an investigation.

This is as it should be. This is the way the system is supposed to work.

Start at the beginning. Binghamton Mayor Matt Ryan filed a sworn complaint against Mr. Libous.

When this happens, JCOPE is obliged to follow a certain process.

JCOPE should read the sworn complaint.

What happens next is key.  JCOPE should review the complaint and decide whether additional action is necessary and appropriate.

If, for example, the sworn complaint includes credible evidence of wrongdoing on a matter that JCOPE has jurisdiction over, then JCOPE might take the next step.

If the sworn complaint contains no evidence or the jurisdiction is questionable in some respect, then JCOPE is likely to conclude the matter without a formal inquiry.

Again, this is how it should be.

If all Ryan is doing is trying to make trouble for a political rival, then JCOPE, wisely, will probably take a pass.

But if there’s new information – something other than what appears in some news articles, then JCOPE would take it to the next level and consider whether it actually has the authority to investigate.  If they believe they have jurisdiction they must present to the full commission all their evidence and a subpoena plan and they have to do so within 45 days of the complaint.  Then comes the vote of the commissioners. 

As I’ve written before, I don’t believe it has such jurisdiction.

The ultimate point is that ethics enforcement action must be carefully conceived. Ethics bodies can’t go launching probes with political overtones where they have no jurisdiction. That would be folly.

To the extent JCOPE staff may have made a mistake in sending Senator Libous a letter probing his involvement in a matter that occurred 5 years ago I say every new agency has to get their feet under them.  My advice admit the letter was sent in error, close your probe and start spending more time in Albany so you can keep an eye on what's going on.

Hopefully JCOPE is going to follow the book on this matter. If it does, I’ll be the first to commend them. If not, I’ll be the first and most aggressive in criticizing them.  Jerk that I am.

Dave Grandeau, Starring as The Jerk

There was a brilliant American movie that came out in the late 70s. I rank it right up there with Rashomon as a profound statement on the nature of reality or The Seventh Seal as a meditation on the meaning of life. Some might even argue it had more appeal than Sixteen Candles.  It was called The Jerk.

The hero of the movie, an idiot played by Steve Martin, invents an eye glass extension called the Opti-Grab that allows people to put on and take of their glasses with ease. His invention becomes a rage and he makes millions of dollars, only to be bankrupted as the invention turns everybody cross-eyed.

I’m beginning to feel like the character in that movie. In this regard, I have an invention. No, it isn’t a thing. It’s an idea. It’s a concept -- a way of approaching ethics enforcement. And it’s pretty simple:

I say that ethics enforcers need to be independent, that they ought not to be too close to the people they are supposed to regulate.

I say that ethics enforcers should hold themselves to a higher standard than anyone else – that is, obey all laws (including parking laws) and avoid any conflicts of appearance.

I say that ethics enforcement bodies ought to focus first on core responsibilities and not delve into areas where their jurisdiction is questionable at best.

I say that when your commissioners vote that you don’t have jurisdiction over legislative actions before your agency was created you ought to listen.

I say that the perception of being controlled by your appointing authority is becoming reality.

I say that ethics enforcement isn’t a secret process in which a special chosen few mete out justice in the form of infallible writs, but a highly subjective endeavor that can only be rationalized through a deliberative public process.

I say that you don’t hold hearings about an ethics law that’s already gone into effect unless you state that you will not enforce that law until after the hearings conclude and regulations are published.

I say that ethics enforcers ought to get off their well-attired and arrogant asses and actually do something after being in office for months other than complain that they are too busy and don’t have enough funding.  You can start by actually speaking to your staff individually as you promised you would.

And I say top ethics enforcers during the creation of an agency ought to put in a 40-hour work week at the office – not a make believe office in a different city, but the headquarters where they should be motivating and supervising the staff.

These apparently radical notions have made some people lose their sense of humor and become positively cross-eyed. They are angry at me and calling me, yes, dear old lovable me, a jerk!

I suppose it had to come to this, right? And I’ve been called worse, but you only get two free passes when it comes to calling me names, after that . . .

Oh well, just like the character in the movie, I think I’m about to find both my “special purpose” and my rhythm.

Stay tuned.  It might be time to shoot some oil cans.

Lessons For JCOPE in the Kindlon Matter

I’m thinking that this Kindlon mess might be a teaching moment for JCOPE. Yeah, it’s a minor local controversy, but it does raise broader issues.

Let me start with the reason I first took note of the matter. It was when Lee Kindlon claimed he was being “swiftboated” by a county review of the time he spent working for the public defenders’ office. As I wrote in previous posts, I think Kindlon was wrong to claim this review was some kind of political dirty trick. It wasn’t his opponent conducting the review, but his former employer.

On this point I am unwavering, and this is a lesson for JCOPE: Never allow someone to politicize an ethics probe. Nip it in the bud or the whole atmosphere gets poisoned.

Now in order to nip it in the bud, you have to make sure that the ethics prober himself or herself really isn’t being political. And on this score let me say something definitive. I don’t give a damn about either man in the race. This isn’t to say either man is good or bad. It’s just to say that I set aside personal considerations when analyzing a matter. To me, this is the essence of being fair.

This is an important lesson for JCOPE: Forget who you are probing. Whether it’s the governor or the janitor treat them the same. (The Meter Maid approach) PIC never got this. Teitelbaum, Feerick, Ginsberg and Cherkasy had all kinds of side relationships with people touched by their probes – people in power – and it affected their judgment and actions.

The next important lesson for JCOPE is not to pretend that you are infallible. In a previous post, I was quick to amend what I had written when a key question was raised. I wasn’t embarrassed by that. Hell, I did it all the time when I was running the Lobbying Commission. Whenever a legitimate question is raised or when new information becomes available, you respond accordingly. PIC would never do that. They would ignore information that conflicted with their intended outcome.

Now a quick digression to focus on the facts in the Kindlon matter. In a previous post, I responded to a statement by the Kindlon camp  that Mr. Kindlon’s position as an alternate defender was a part time job. After hearing from multiple sources (whom I’m sure are Soares supporters) that it was a full time job I decided to research the matter myself.  It took 5 minutes. Contained at page 89 of the Albany County Budget (available online) is the following description  “In 2009, the Division of the Alternate Public Defender completed a transition plan in which all attorney positions were converted from part-time to full-time County employees.” 

So, strictly speaking, the Kindlon supporters are wrong in their pushback against me. But -- practicing what I preach about fairness -- I’m inclined to cut them some slack based upon a re-evaluation of the overall situation.

Here’s what I think was going on: Kindlon was hired as a part time employee. Kindlon was juggling this job and another. This isn’t unusual for young attorneys who are trying to establish themselves. I assume that he tried to do right by both sets of clients. In this regard, he does not strike me as the kind of person who would be dishonest. In 2009 the job title was changed from part time to full time and Mr. Kindlon continued to work in the same manner he did prior to the change.

I assume that the county will tell us soon that while his time sheets may contain a few inaccuracies, he wasn’t bilking the system. And if this is the case, I don’t think there is a big ethical problem for him.

That said, the defense of his actions, was deceptive.

Here again, I find myself criticizing him, and cutting him some slack. I think he’s probably a very decent person, but I don’t think he’s ready for the political game, not yet. I actually told this to the Kindlon supporter who called me. (It was a nice conversation. The individual that called is colorful, intense and opinionated. I have some of those same failings myself, and I found myself really liking the man.  Although I am sure after this blog they will think me unfair unless they take a hard look at themselves.)

Now back to JCOPE: I still think that part-time lawyering and consulting gigs by government entities ought to be reviewed by JCOPE. The recent news about lawyers who work 20 or 30 hours in the state legislature for large salaries may be the tip of the iceberg. The Daily News did some good reporting on this last week and somebody at JCOPE could use it to start a review.  And remember integrity starts in your own office.

Spin Cycle

Well I should have known to keep the blog out of local politics.

After being contacted by the Kindlon camp and told that Kindlon the younger had a part-time county job, thereby necessitating my last blog to set the record straight, I've now been contacted by what I must assume are those from the Soares camp telling me that all the lawyers in the conflict defender's office became full time employees in 2009.

It's not a difficult question to research and I'm going to do it myself.  If he was a part-time employee my setting the record straight blog will be my last word.

If Mr. Kindlon was a full time county employee I'm going to have to post yet another blog addressing the integrity issue.

And after that I'm going to write a blog reminding myself how dirty politics really is.

Setting the record straight

The blog prides itself on being accurate and if not accurate at least being careful enough to avoid looking foolish.

Unfortunately in our latest entry regarding the Lee Kindlon story we may have relied too heavily on the Times Union’s reporting and ended up being both.

Here’s what we wrote:

“The problem – based on what I’ve read in the TU – is that Kindlon was working full time in a private law firm while he was supposedly working full time on county-assigned cases.”

Members of the Kindlon camp have contacted us (and I give them credit for having the stones to make the call and discuss this issue like professionals) to set the record straight.  Here’s part of what they have to say:

“The Times Union articles, now two of them, are fiendishly inaccurate. Here are some true facts:

Lee Kindlon was a part time conflict defender. He has never been a full time conflict defender.”

If indeed this is true then the blog entry is based on a false premise and our apologies to all concerned.

Now it’s up to the Times Union to get an answer to the only question that matters to the blog was Lee Kindlon a full time or part time county employee?

On Swift Boats and Time Sheets

I don’t usually delve into local politics, but there’s an interesting little drama being played out in the Albany DA’s race.

The challenger in the race, Lee Kindlon, is facing what amounts to an ethics probe. County officials are trying to determine whether he filed false time sheets while serving as an alternate public defender.

The problem – based on what I’ve read in the TU – is that Kindlon was working full time in a private law firm while he was supposedly working full time on county-assigned cases.

From an ethics review standpoint, this shouldn’t be a complicated case. The basic questions are:

Are the time sheets accurate?

Was he working on his private legal practice when his time sheets indicate that he was working for the county?

Are full time county employees allowed to have an outside practice of law?

Was he treated like every other attorney in the alternate defender's office?

A report in today’s TU pits Kindlon against the Albany County Sheriff, with Kindlon saying that he was at the county jail many more times than the sign-in sheets would indicate, and the sheriff saying no one gets in without being signed in.

My presumption is that Kindlon was remiss at times in following proper procedures, but probably didn’t bilk the county in an egregious way. Kindlon doesn’t strike me as that kind of individual.

That said, desperation in a political race will make people do ill-advised things – like claim that the county’s probe of his time sheets is politically-motivated.

In this regard, Kindlon is now on the attack, claiming that he is being “swiftboated” by the campaign of his opponent, the incumbent DA David Soares.

For the record, I’m agnostic on Mr. Soares. He’s done some good things (like helping get rid of Herb Teitelbaum) and there are some matters where I’ve disagreed with him (like not doing more to clean up Albany political corruption.)

What I really don’t like and what disturbs me most, however, is when ethics probes, even simple ones like the review of Kindlon’s time sheets, get politicized. And the person doing that now is Kindlon himself.

I get what he’s doing – the best defense is a good offense, but this is ridiculous.

Kindlon needs to cooperate fully with the county officials conducting the review. If he made a mistake on the time sheets, he should say so and be done with the matter – not carry on about political conspiracies.

Kindlon says this is a matter of “honor” for him, but the honorable thing to have done is to work full time in a full time job.

And by the way, I’m sure Mr. Kindlon is not the only public official in Albany whose time sheets ought to be reviewed. The easiest way to avoid a time sheet scandal is for full time employees to have just one full time job, and to work full time at that job.  I’ve got to wonder if Mr. Kindlon were to become DA would he still maintain his law practice? And if not what is the difference between the way he would treat the DA job and the way he treated his full time job at the alternate defenders office?  I just convinced myself that Mr. Kindlon has a serious ethics issue to come to grips with, not with his timesheets but with his own sense of honor.