Rules? we don't need to follow the rules

It's day 2 of my candidacy to become a commissioner at JCOPE.

Carl Heastie still hasn't called.

Maybe I'll start researching Patrick Jenkins.

Had Carl called I would have updated him on some very troubling actions taking place at JCOPE.

I bet Marvin Jacobs and Renee Roth and the Gary Busey impersonater haven't provided him the insight I am about to share with the readers but that's why they suck at their jobs as commissioners and I would be fantastic (shameless self promotion until the lawn signs are printed).

In the last few days JCOPE has made news twice, both times the reporting was done by the Daily News (I wonder who gave them the helpful heads up).  First there was the news that JCOPE lost their Article 78 case with Donald Trump.  The Judge in no uncertain terms told JCOPE that they were dead wrong on their argument that they don't have to abide by the 45 day rule to present a complaint to the commissioners for action.  By the way I bet the same JJOKE lawyer that told them to ignore the statute is the one advising that commissioners cannot vote to open their proceedings.  Then it was reported that JCOPE had sent Shelly Silver a letter threatening to impose $120000 in fines for failure to properly file his financial disclosure reports (talk about a chickenshit kicking of a man when he is down).  But beyond the tactical move of trying to force a legislator facing a federal indictment to modify his financial disclosure reports that form the basis for that indictment ( kind of like taking candy from a baby at gunpoint) the important fact is that in both these news items JJOKE staffers had taken actions WITHOUT the commissioners approval and/or knowledge.

If I was a commissioner I'd be holding a press conference right now to demand answers from the staff as to why they have gone rogue and were they directed by others to take these actions.

Carl, Dean and especially the minority leaders of the legislature should be scared.  JCOPE was set up so no one faction could impose there will, but that is exactly what is happening.  If they could do it to Shelly they could do it to the next legislator on his way to a trial.

Put me on JCOPE and at least you will know who is gunning for you.

Come on Carl we could have a great ethics marriage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uLDneG8XJg

I am announcing my candidacy

For what you might rightly ask . . . and I'll get to that in a moment but first let me share with you what prompted this moment of lunacy.

I was awoken this morning by a text from a former classmate and frequent lunch partner previously known to those of us that attend the lunches he coordinates as "Judge Lunchalot" and now known as hopes to be "Sheriff Lunchalot".  This gourmand with short arms and deep pockets told me there was a letter to the editor in the Times Union about me that I should read.  So I fired up the Ipad and went looking on the Times Union hoping it wasn't one of their premium stories that you can't access without a subscription, which I will not get until Casey Seilor leaves.   I found it and here it is http://blog.timesunion.com/opinion/make-grandeau-new-ethics-officer/31818/

While I appreciate the positive comments from Mr. Burgdorf I had to rack my brain to figure out what I had done to him to deserve this fate.  Go work as an employee of the Assembly?  I would rather go ice fishing (which I have done twice, why I went the second time is still a mystery) I would rather slam my junk in a car door (which I have never done) in fact I would rather take Casey Seilor and John Milgram to dinner and pay (which I hope never to do).

Although I am very happy to see myself crowned the Preet of a decade ago, in fact Preet's comment that every time his investigators turn over an ethics rock in Albany something is crawling underneath it reminded me of the meeting I had with Bart Livolsi (then chairman of Lobby Commission) and Andy Celli (commissioner and Spitzer ethics bitch) where Bart asked me why I thought every rock I turned over had a guilty lobbyist under it (the answer is because they did).

But anyway back to my candidacy announcement.  What position do I want to be a candidate for?  I want to be appointed to replace one of the three Silver appointed commissioners on JCOPE.  Not JJOKE because once I'm appointed I will make sure it becomes JCOPE.

Not only do I want the position I intend to do everything possible to get it, up to and including bribing Mr. Heastie (that's a joke Preet)

Here are the steps I will take:

Step one create a vacancy.  Right now all three Silver appointees remain at JJOKE.  Marvin Jacobs, Renee Roth and that guy that looks like Gary Busey from New Jersey whose wife works in the assembly.  See this is how it starts if I don't get my way thru reason and logic I attack and destroy my opposition.  Anyway all three should resign they are clearly the worst commissioners and are only there to protect Shelly,  anyone that has watched their performance recognizes they have no knowledge or skills when it comes to ethics.  They are partisan hacks with personal connections to Shelly.

Step two get appointed.  Once we have a vacancy, actually well before since I have already begun, I have been talking to people close to Mr. Heastie.  Most are existing or former clients of mine and there are a bunch.  They all know I am loyal to my clients and will make Mr. Heastie look good unless he does something unethical in which case he should talk to Joe Bruno about what comes next.

Step three refuse to sign a nondisclosure.  Not going to do it.  And if they refuse to allow me to attend meetings I'm going anyway and will participate from the audience.  That should give the media something to write about.

Step four at my first meeting I will move to have every issue discussed in public, including confidential matters.  And we can go from there.  If the motion is defeated I will invite the media into the executive session, I've done it before ask the folks at NYCLU about my deposition where they refused to ask a single question with the press in the room.

Step five any staff member or commissioner better bring their A game to meetings because I will not be polite, collegial or politically correct.

Before we get to the naysayers let me point out some other things I can bring to JCOPE.

I can get Pat Bulgaro, Peter Moschetti, Blair Horner, Ravi Batra and several other former Lobby Commission members to return and bring honesty and integrity to the commission.

My mere presence will get a bunch of commissioners to resign rather that be publicly abused by me.

The same goes for staff, I still know where the good ones are and what it will take for them to return.  And many of the existing staff will certainly find new positions rather than have to take responsibility for there lack of skills.  The world needs ditch diggers Milgram.

Now I would keep LT  I really think she can do a very good job with the right support and I would enjoy the arguments over the things I'm going to do.  How many times can she tell me I will lose credibility if I do this or that?

Lastly I have a list of things the new JCOPE should be investigating.  Including unregistered lobbying by many groups, the actions of state wide electeds as set forth in complaints filed with the commission, I'm even curious about some book deals I've read about.

Now I know what people are going to say how can I be a commissioner when I have all these lobby and ethics clients?  Am I going to give up my practice like Jeff Klein?  Not a chance.  If I have a client I'll practice the same hypocracy others have before me and recuse myself.  In fact I will go a step better and disclose my clients, that way no one at JCOPE would dare do anything to upset my clients and its a win win for me and my clients.  Kind of like ethics immunity.  Remember if you can't tell in the first five hands of a poker game who the sucker is  IT'S YOU!!!

So Carl if you really want to make an ethics impact

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=call+me+maybe+youtube+video&FORM=VIRE2#view=detail&mid=2D26EC8F34E224AF2F182D26EC8F34E224AF2F18

(518) 461-8635

I'll be waiting.

Of course if I don't get that call I have a real nasty habit of acting out.

Why do we need ethics reform?

No seriously WHY DO WE NEED ETHICS REFORM?

Do we need it because another State official has been accused or convicted of illegal behavior?

That happens all the time in Albany and has been happening for a long time and will be happening for a long time.  The very fact that they are accused and convicted is the proof the present laws are working we don't need ethics reforms to fix the laws WE NEED MORE PREET'S to enforce them.

What is the rationale for more ethics reform?  That a change in the laws will prevent the behavior?

That's complete bullshit.  Will just one public official come forward and admit that the bribery statutes are the reason they don't take bribes . . . please just one I'd like to know who this corrupt but completely rational individual is.  Because whomever it is we need more of them.  They are honest about there ethical deficiencies and rational enough not to act on them for fear of punishment under our existing system.  So who are you? step forward.  You are the one public official for whom "ETHICS REFORM" will work.  The rest are either so honest they would never consider doing something unethical (although one wonders why they never reported any of there brethren for corruption) or so corrupt and irrational they think they can get away with it.  Neither group needs "ETHICS REFORM"  It's wasted on them and just gives the public a false sense that things are going to get  better, they won't.  We have had at least 4 separate "ETHICS REFORM" in the last 8 years and arrests and convictions are increasing not decreasing.  The vast majority of them as a result of aggressive federal prosecutors not "ETHICS REFORM" nor state regulators nor state prosecutors.  Once again this is the proof the present laws are working we don't need ethics reforms to fix the laws WE NEED MORE PREET"S to enforce them.

Recently the State Senate IDC (is it me or does that sound like a supermarket . . . for corruption) released it's plan for "ETHICS REFORM" and Senator Klein (will someone please make him the leader of something, anything at this point) announced that he would be leaving his law practice.  Once you get past the obvious grandstanding effect can you please explain why you are leaving your practice Jeff, and presumably foregoing outside income?  I know it's part of your "ETHICS REFORM" to eliminate outside income but why?  Did you engage in some type of Silver or Bruno type corruption in your practice? Did you have clients that benefitted from your public office?  If so fess up and go straight to jail, while you are a small fish I'm sure Preet wouldn't throw you back . . . he might use you as bait but he won't throw you back.  But if you were just practicing law unrelated to holding public office what is the harm in maintaining your practice and outside income?  Oh I know it's the Caesar's wife syndrome you think it is an appearance issue, the public will lose faith in you if you have outside income.  On this point I must respectfully disagree.  I think it's the exact opposite.  I have more faith in elected officials that are sharp enough to earn a substantial living from there talents outside politics.  The lawyers, doctors, dentists, landscapers, investment bankers, hair stylists, plumbers, consultants, businessmen and women and any other profession an elected official has that results in outside income without the use of their official position.  Those are the people I want making decisions for me about the budget, the safe act, common core, same sex marriage, charter schools and all the other issues the three men in the room decide on.  Not the elected official who has no other talent than living in a district where he or she can run unopposed or getting into office as a result of being part of the lucky sperm club and trading on family connections or just by being photogenic enough in this political climate to appeal to the below average voter.

On this point ask yourself who do you want as an elected official, the party hack who can't earn a living doing anything else and has credit card debt so high s/he needs to claim per diems to pay their bills or a successful professional that is a part time legislator with substantial outside income from work that does not derive from holding public office?  Give me the smart guy or gal you can keep the public official that can't make a better living doing anything else.

And on that point, when Mr. Klein suggests a full time legislature make sure to ask him why a full time legislature needs to be paid more?  Most legislators are lucky to have the job they have.  They can't make a better living and if they could they would be reporting more outside income.  And for those that say they are already full time and that s why they don't have outside income . . . good for you but why should we give you a raise you have already decided to work for the posted salary stop complaining about your pay or get a different job, there are plenty of talented people in your district that will do what you do for the same or less money.

As always it's not "ETHICS REFORM" we need it's a higher quality public official . . both in terms of integrity and talent.

When it comes to "ETHICS REFORM" someone should write a book, collect a big payment from a subsidiary of a lobbying client and pass laws that benefit that company . . . of course without PREET we would have to rely on "ETHICS REFORM" and the Jeff Klein's of the Albany system to insure pure motives.

Good Luck with that "ETHICS REFORM" . . . again.  Me? I'll put my faith in the smart talented ethical public officials and of course PREET.

From now on it's IN PREET WE TRUST.

JCOPE'S nose is growing

The Times Union's Casey Seiler wrote a story about JJOKE wanting to be more open but complaining it is constrained by the law it operates under.  You can read it here http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/State-ethics-panel-seeks-more-clout-leeway-6060354.php

Specifically Casey wrote "The panel has been criticized as ineffective in part due to laws that prevent it from giving a proper account of its level of activity."  Now that's not a quote from someone at JJOKE that's Casey's factual reporting.   Small problem Casey . . . there are no laws that PREVENT JJOKE from giving a proper account of it's level of activity.  There are laws that make much of it's activity confidential unless JCOPE decides to make that information publicly available.    It is up to JCOPE what information it chooses to keep confidential and which information it makes public.

The actual language is found in Executive Law section 94 sub 9-a(b) and reads as follows:

 

"Any confidential communication to any person or entity outside the commission related to the matters before the commission may occur only as authorized by the commission."

And not to belabor the point MAY OCCUR ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMISSION

MAY

Last I checked MAY means can all that JJOKE has to do if they really want to make information available, as they and you claim they do, is have a vote to authorize it.

ITS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE

But it does require a reporter to do more than spell check.

Here's hoping you get better at this stuff Casey.

As to JJOKE  aren't you tired of excuses and blaming the statute for things you do not have the integrity to take responsibility for?

Next meeting all those JJOKE commissioners that want more openness make a motion pursuant to Executive Law section 94 sub 9-a(b) and if it doesn't pass demand the resignation of those that vote against it.

If you will not ask for openness then shut up and stop complaining that you are an orphan after you killed your parents.  

Groundhog Day

It has been reported that "Albany Andy" emerged from his mansion in Albany and saw his shadow so we will have 6 more years of corruption in our state government.

That was going to be the start of a blog that did a takeoff on the Bill Murray classic "Groundhog Day" but when I googled Albany ethics reform to get some juicy quotes I was laughing so hard I couldn't write a word.

So lets play a game I'll list some quotes below and you tell me are they editorials? statements from elected officials? or statements from good government groups?

If you think you are right then guess if they were made pre 2010? 2011 to 2014? or After Shelly's arrest?

Get more than half right and you win a "ALBANY GOT CORRUPTION? tee shirt.  Let's try a sample:

"What makes it even worse is that the Legislature’s rules on reporting outside income are so weak that the public had no way of recognizing a scam like this one. As State Senator Daniel Squadron, a Manhattan Democrat, puts it simply: “Nobody’s minding the candy store.”

We are not suggesting that Mr. Silver has done anything illegal. But without robust disclosure requirements, it is impossible for the public to know whether a lawmaker is maintaining an unbreachable wall between his or her private practice and public service."

 

That's from a New York Times editorial from 2009 . . . 2009 for Christ's sake!!!!  Do you think in the six years after they wrote that editorial the crack investigator's at the Times might have been able to figure out if "Mr. Silver has done anything illegal"?

 

OK if you got that one right try this one:

 

 

"At some point, New Yorkers have to ask themselves whether they want lawmakers with outside jobs. But there is a lot that needs to be fixed right now, including limits on whose money legislators can accept and rigorous public reporting requirements for all outside income.

The corruption in Albany has to end."

 

Give up?  has to be a googoo or an elected in the last week right?   NOPE same editorial in the Times from 2009.

 

See what I mean about laughing so hard you cry.

 

Here's an easy one

 

 

 

"But Cuomo’s inclusion of the reform proposals in the budget raises the stakes, said XXXXXXXX, executive director of the advocacy group XXXXXXXX.

“This is big news,” she said. XXXX had high praise for Cuomo’s campaign finance proposals"

 

Fill in the blanks are usually easy  This one was Susan Lerner fro  wait for it . . . I'm not going to tell you do your own Google search

 

Here's a harder one:

 

 

"“What ethics reform says to the people of this state is, ‘I get it. I get that that’s wrong,’” he said"

along with:

 

 

XXXX said he wanted to leverage the current scandals to pressure lawmakers to pass the reforms quickly.

"I want to strike while the iron is hot," he said. “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste."

 

Don't worry Governor in Albany there is always another ethics crisis right around the corner Now the tough part was this leverage Moreland? or a pay raise or a refusal to pass the budget?

 

And my personal favorite:

 

 

"While no legislation can prevent someone from committing a corrupt act, using one's public office for personal gain is never acceptable," he said in a statement. "In light of the charges brought last week by the U.S. Attorney against members of the Legislature, we must redouble our efforts to create a government New Yorkers can be proud of."

I'll give you the author it was "Albany Andy" the tricky part was which year?  Lets make this multiple choice 2011 or 2013 or 2014 or 2015?   It's like an ethics SAT test.

Correct answer  2013

Try another

"We'll be getting ethics reform one way or the other," Cuomo said.

Correct answer  2011

 

And this Preet gem is from ?

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who has been involved in previous prosecutions of state lawmakers, said a mouthful: "Every single time we arrest a state senator or assemblyman, it should be a jarring wake-up call. Instead, it seems that no matter how many times the alarm goes off, Albany just hits the snooze button."

See how the Bill Murray movie would have been perfect hit the snooze button and tomorrow will be the same as today  LOLOLOLOL  the year? 2011

I'll leave you with my favorite quotes below   they are from the governors press release in 2011 do you think any of the people quoted should be taken seriously in the future on ethics?

Susan Lerner, Executive Director of Common Cause/NY said, "The ethics reform proposal that the Governor and the legislative leaders have hammered out announces significant, long-awaited changes in the framework of New York's ethics laws. It addresses challenging ethics issues such as disclosure of legislators' outside income and external review of legislative and executive conduct and includes important new provisions such as regulating independent campaign expenditures and providing the public with relevant information about who is paying for certain groups' lobbying activities. Common Cause/NY commends the Governor, Speaker Silver, and Temporary President Skelos for their perseverance in unraveling what has for decades been the Gordian knot of ethics reform. We look forward to working with them to accomplish the remainder of the Governor's reform agenda - campaign finance reform and fair redistricting."

Steve Younger, Former President of the New York Bar Association said, "This is an historic moment for all New Yorkers. This new measure will enhance transparency in our government and ensure both independent and fair enforcement of our ethics laws. Today's agreement on comprehensive ethics reform is a tribute to Governor Cuomo, Senate Majority Leader Skelos and Assembly Speaker Silver."

Dick Dadey, Executive Director of Citizens Union said, "Today's announcement on a far-reaching ethics deal is welcomed and significant. It is an important and much needed achievement because it brings about several historic actions such as the first-ever client and rainmaker disclosure by legislators, narrower bands of income disclosure, publicly available financial disclosure statements, outside investigatory authority of legislative ethics, pension forfeiture options, as well as a reconfiguration of the state ethics panel resulting in no one elected official controlling a majority of the appointments. Governor Cuomo, Speaker Silver and Majority Leader Dean Skelos deserve praise and our appreciation for reaching agreement on a remarkable milestone in the effort to restore public confidence in the way in which business is conducted in Albany. Hopefully now with stronger disclosure, and more effective oversight and enforcement of state ethics, winning back the public's trust in our state government will be possible."

Russ Haven, Executive Director of the New York State Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), said, "These ethics reforms for the first time will open a huge window on the outside work and pay of state lawmakers. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and these disclosures will allow New Yorkers to judge whether a legislator's private job creates a conflict with their responsibilities to the public. The legislation also ensures that no one political leader controls the state's ethics and lobbying oversight commission, a substantial change from the current system that gives the governor the majority of votes, a longstanding issue of concern to government watchdogs. And since democracy is a work in progress and it is impossible to fully anticipate the technical, legal and political changes that occur in government at an ever-increasing pace, this legislation wisely incorporates an independent review process that will require a 'look back' at the features and performance of the law after it's been up and running for a while."

Lawrence Norden, Deputy Director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Democracy Program at NYU School of Law, said, "The Brennan Center applauds the Governor and the Legislature for reaching this important agreement to bring needed reform to the state's ethics laws. Among many positive changes, the agreement announced today will bring unprecedented transparency to Albany, including much fuller disclosure of public officials' outside income. Loopholes in existing laws in this area have been abused by some unethical officials. We are especially pleased that these gaps will be closed. We look forward to working with Gov. Cuomo and legislative leaders to help put this proposed legislation on the books, and we encourage full public hearings on the proposal as soon as possible, so that experts and the public can review and comment on the legislation. Today's agreement lays the foundation for the renewal of New York's government. We look forward to working just as hard with Gov. Cuomo and legislative leaders on the next crucial elements in changing Albany: rebuilding our campaign finance system and establishing a voluntary public funding system to end the domination of New York politics by special interests."

Sally Robinson, Issues and Advocacy Vice President of the League of Women Voters of New York State said, "The League of Women Voters of New York State applauds Governor Cuomo, Speaker Silver, and Majority Leader Skelos for coming together to complete this historic ethics agreement which will strengthen oversight protections and achieve significantly greater transparency in our state government. For the first time there will be an external investigatory body for the state legislature and disclosure of outside income. This ethics legislation will begin the journey toward restoring public trust in the integrity of state government. We look forward to working with the Governor and the legislative leaders next session to complete the remaining parts of the League's reform agenda."

For thirteen months, I've traveled the state calling on our government to take action on the three basic, fundamental reforms our government needs, including meaningful Ethics Reform, said Former New York City Mayor Edward I. Koch. Standing in Buffalo, I called for outside income disclosure; in Long Island I called for disclosure of client lists; and in Albany I called for a state ethics commission with teeth. Today, I'm proud to congratulate Governor Andrew Cuomo and the Legislative leaders for reaching an agreement on a proposal that will accomplish these goals. Thanks to them, the 138 Legislators who signed the three New York Uprising pledges will be able to honor the ethics portion by casting a vote on the bill described today, and I will be asking them to do so.

 

 

 

 

 

 

JJOKE steps on its JJOHNSON

Leave it to JJOKE to try to do something to help the regulated community and end up causing even more confusion and potential liability.

If you or your clients have never filed a client semi annual report late you have no idea what I'm talking about.  If you filed late during the previous PIC regime you are looking at a letter from JJOKE signed by Brooke Gander and saying wtf is this and wtf does it mean.

or you are calling someone like me and asking the same questions.

Here is the answer as far as I can tell, I tried to call LT today to get some clarity but she was "unavailable" (which means she was either at the funeral or swamped with calls complaining about JJOKE)  In any event it appears JJOKE has granted a general amnesty on all the backlog of late filings Ginsberg and the old Biben crowd could not figure out how to clear - just an aside didn't Uncle Vinny's niece get hired back to do that work?

Now I'm not going to criticize LT for throwing up her hands and deciding not to issue late fees for reports that were filed or not filed 2, 3 or even 4 years ago.  Although one has to ask what is going on.  When you see a big stack of forms deal with it.  But I am going to criticize JJOKE, because I doubt LT even knows, this one feels like a lawyers strategy, for granting amnesty and sending a letter that doesn't state what form you are granting the amnesty for and has a general tone of gotcha.  The phone must be ringing off the hook for Brooke.  Her voice mail is full and cannot accept anymore calls.  Bet the lawyer never considered how clients would react to a vague threatening letter.  But wait there is more.

Did anyone think about how those that did pay late fees are going to react?  Or how those in the future threatened with late fees will respond.  Seems like an arbitrary and capricious decision.

I'm combing my files to see if anyone I know got a late fee for that time period.

Or maybe I'll take a new approach and says its not my problem my clients are never late and don't get fined.

JJOKE is out to lunch

1:45 pm on Wednesday December 17, 2014 I made a trip to the JJOKE offices in Albany to hand file a stack of 2015 registration authorizations.  I got the prime parking spot right in front of the office dropped a quarter in the meter (more than former JJOKE Chairwomen DiFiore ever did) and went to the front door and rang the bell.  No one answered and the lights were all off.  WEIRD.  Well maybe they were in the bathroom I waited but no lights ever came on so I called the main number and got the recording that says if you are calling during work hours and you get the message it's because they are helping other people.   BULLSHIT I can see that no one is at the reception desk.  So I call LT's private line, no answer just another recording, then I call LT's cell no answer.  Now I'm worried  maybe it's a hostage situation, it's possible a disgruntled former employee (fill in the blank . . . Biben Ginsberg Teitelbaum etc etc) has returned.   I better check.

So with the guards permission I go up to the Agency office on the second floor and ring the bell and just like downstairs no one is there.

It's obvious the office is closed.  But how is that possible?  Has a very localized storm hit JJOKE with enough snow to cause the governor to close just JJOKE?  Boy that state weather forecasting is getting pretty precise.  Has a natural disaster hit so as to cause the governor to close JJOKE lord knows their performance has been enough of a disaster to qualify.

It isn't until 4pm that I learn that JJOKE closed for a holiday lunch out of the office.

Are you kidding me?  Who closes a state office without notice and without leaving a staffer to keep the office open to go to a holiday lunch?  And where did the authority come from to close JJOKE?

For the JJOKE staffer that thought they could close the office on their own see if you can figure out where this comes from

"While agency management and/or appropriate emergency personnel may direct an "emergency evacuation" of a state facility due to building safety conditions, individual appointing authorities do not have the authority to close an office or facility or send employees home without charge to leave accruals. Offices or facilities may only be closed by order of the Governor.
In an instance when a facility is to be closed, agencies must obtain authorization to close from the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations (“GOER”), after GOER has consulted with the New York State Office of General Services and/or the Director of State Operations"

You can't make this stuff up. 

No question JJOKE continues to reach new lows and somebody owes me a quarter.

UPDATE: It appears I'm the only one that noticed the difference between JJOKE open and JJOKE closed.   And that is all you need to know about ethics reform.