Non-ethics in NYS: more of the same

New York state’s new ethics panel has already destroyed its own credibility after a mere two meetings. I reported here about its first introductory meeting, held behind closed doors.

Earlier this week, it had its first working meeting. The Associated Press reported that members of the panel receive $300 for each day they attend meetings, members will be asked to sign non-disclosure' agreements barring public comment, and that its secretive practices will continue.

Then, the board went behind closed doors. The reason? None was given.

This is how ethics oversight works in New York... even under a 'reform' minded governor. Secret meetings with no public announcements. Going behind closed doors without even contriving an excuse. The fact that all this is legal, that this body charged with regulating ethics and transparency is exempt from the Open Meetings Law in the first place, is a damning indictment of what passes for ethics in state government.

Bob over at Planet Albany doesn't appear to be impressed. He quotes someone named David Grandeau: the state ethics body "doesn’t have to abide by Open Meetings Law. Nor does it have to abide by the Freedom of Information Laws... Those laws apply to every other government body, but not the state ethics panel... Tell me again why that is? Tell me how that inspires confidence in government? Tell me how it sets a standard for others to live up to? Tell me how it represents good government?"

The answer is simple. It doesn't.

How ethics and transparency work in NYS

The new panel charged with regulating ethics in state government met late last week.

It met in secret.

It met with no public notice.

A spokesman for the Joint Commission on Public Ethics defended the move, citing the board’s exemption from the state’s Open Meetings Law.

That’s right: a committee set up to regulate public ethics and transparency is legally allowed to meet in complete secrecy.

Is it any wonder why New York state government has such an abysmal reputation for good governance?

Occupy vs the Tea Party

"When I give food to the poor, I'm called a saint. When I ask why they are poor, I'm called a communist." -Archbishop Dom Helder Camara.

The American political system pretty much boils down to the craven and corrupted Democratic Party, the venal and corrupted Republican Party and smaller parties who are mostly well-intentioned but don’t show the tiniest desire to become remotely electable (bearing in mind there are thousands of public offices below the presidency). What a depressing state of affairs. No wonder there’s so much frustration and anger that’s been expressed via the non-partisan Occupy movement and the formerly non-partisan Tea Party.

The Tea Party has been taken over by the Republican Party (the Dems would love to co-opt Occupy but they haven't succeeded yet), but there are still strains within it that remain independent and certainly the anger that originally animated it was organic; most of them are part of The 99 Percent too. The left likes to look down their noses at the Tea Party as comprising The Other, ignorant, racist rubes, but this ignores what the two movements share.

Both the Tea Party and Occupy reflect the anger of ordinary people against a corrupt system that serves the elites and not the people... or rather, at the expense of the people. The main difference lies in the response. The objective of the Tea Party is to starve government of money, since cash is what feeds the beast of corruption. Occupy's is to re-direct that money so it's used in a more humane manner. Both want to blow it up. One wants to replace it with something better; the other believes that something better is not possible so replace it with nothing.

Both really diagnosis the same problem, but offer different prescriptions.

Panning the New York state ethics bill

The Glens Falls Post-Star is generally known for offering poorly thought out, small-minded editorial positions completely devoid of any nuance or forward thinking. The one exception is that they typically run pretty good editorials on issues related to governmental transparency, the topic which earned its editorial writer, Mark Mahoney, his Pulitzer Prize.


An editorial earlier this week dealt with the proposed bill in the New York state legislature on ethics and public integrity (try saying that without a snicker). The governor and two legislative leaders fell over themselves patting themselves on the back and describing the agreement as ‘historic’ about as often as Rudy Giuliani invokes 9/11.

The Post-Star points out that the bill is seriously flawed and said that it is, at best, a mere first step. Unfortunately, we know that it’s not to be; Albany only ever does the bare minimum necessary to give the illusion of something meaningful.

It points out that the new ethics commission would have even fewer investigators and less time to do its work than the current, ineffectual panel. The bill makes it virtually impossible for the commission to actually take action, since nearly everyone has veto power.

State electoral law is rigged to ensure that the two corporate parties are the only ones realistically able to win any party-based election. Leaders are so confident of the rigged system that the ethics bill contains no provision for enforcement against elected officials who are outside the two corporate parties. They can’t conceive that there would ever be a non-Democrat or –Republican in state government to worry about.

Ethical standards as well as the organization and conduct of elections are supposed to be non-partisan, not bipartisan. Kudos to my friend Bob over at Planet Albany for being one of those rare mainstream journalists aware enough to actually understand the difference.

Lying weasels

When I lived in West Africa, one of my Guinean friends often remarked a bit sarcastically, “Toute opposition est démocrate” -- all opposition parties believe in democracy. The implication being that parties advocate democracy, good governance and all sorts of neat things when they are in opposition because it sounds good and are quick to jettison those 'principles' when they actually gain power.

As Bob over at Planet Albany blog noted, this phenomenon is just as prevalent in the banana republic of Albany as in West Africa.

He points out that New York Senate Republicans have ran away from their promise to support a non-partisan process to draw electoral districts. It’s a process they supported when they were in opposition last year (and campaigning against the incompetent and corrupt Democrats then running the chamber) and are now weaseling out of now that they’re in power.

And it’s pretty impressive. Most politicians take time to weasel out of their promises. Senate Republicans have only taken a few weeks. Of course, that is not the only example we've seen recently.

Though actually, my earlier characterization is not quite fair. Legislators from West Africa have higher standards and would not tolerate Albany’s level of dysfunction and corruption.

"Fair fight" elections

How rigged is the legislative redistricting process (gerrymandering)? If they have to combine two districts, sometimes they resolve it by a solution know as a "fair fight" district.

Shouldn't "fair fights" be the rule rather than the exception?

This is why our we should have an independent redistricting commission, as the New York Public Interest Research Group and other good government groups have called for, as has the Green Party of New York State.

The NYPIRG report points out that in 2002, only 5 legislative races out of 212 were decided by a margin of 10 percent of less.

It also noted that only 25 of the 212 legislative districts (11 percent) have close enough enrollments that could allow frequent competitive elections.

Legislators, particularly in the Assembly, do not want an independent redistricting because it would take away of the biggest powers: the power to pick the voters that would pick them. Citizens are supposed to choose their representatives, not vice versa.