DGA

SHOCKING

2012-02-02T14:36:00.000-05:00

JCOPE’s New Leadership

I am shocked, not about Ellen Biben’s appointment, that’s a pleasant surprise.

I am shocked that none of the media folks that contacted me today for comment used any of the things I had to say about the appointment.

So to the extent I can be my own media outlet here is what I think.

Is Ellen Biben a first-rate attorney? Yes, there’s no question about that.

Can Ellen Biben do the job at JCOPE? Absolutely, she’s proven herself a capable administrator.

Will Ellen Biben be independent? I’d bank on it.

Will she understand the proper role of the state’s top ethics enforcer? I hope so, but I don’t know for sure, and only time will tell about this point.

Let’s drill down on those last two matters:

Will she be independent? This is the concern of some pundits. They think that because she’s a former Cuomo staffer, she must be in the tank. I disagree. Ms. Biben was a career prosecutor who had a life before her association with Andrew Cuomo. She established a rock solid reputation for herself. Is she going to throw that away now and become a hack? No, that’s not going to happen.

(Remember that I was a Joe Bruno appointee. I had great affection for him, but I wasn’t going to let him or anyone else tell me how to do my job. This is the only attitude to have.)

Will Ms. Biben understand the proper role of being E.D. at JCOPE? I’ll break this down into two broad areas:

First, will she be both aggressive and fair? I think she’s proven to be both as IG. Some people may say that there haven’t been a lot of cases advanced by her office, but those who say that don’t understand the lag time between investigation and resolution. Any new IG (or AG) spends his or her first year putting the office in order and launching investigations. Results come later on. In this regard, all the reports I have read indicate that she has done a good job and has earned the respect of her staff. (This alone will set her apart from the Teitelbaums, Cherkaskys, Feericks and Ginsbergs of the world.)

Second, does she get the intangible ‘it?” Does she know what JCOPE really is and what it isn’t? I really have my doubts that Janet DiFiore gets it. Yes, Ms. DiFiore is a tough prosecutor, but she thinks she’s running a DA’s office when in Albany.

My fear about the Biben selection is only that as a former prosecutor Ms. Biben will have the same bent as Ms DiFiore. But only time will tell.

The Adventures of David Grandeau

2012-01-31T17:50:00.002-05:00

Casey Seiler has it pegged. It’s the Adventures of David Grandeau – a goofy, madcap series with some truly memorable characters.

There’s Janet DiFiore, erstwhile head of the state’s new ethics panel who is trying to make Kathy Black look good.

There’s the JCOPE commissioners, all well-intentioned and accomplished people who, with few exceptions, are Dorothys who don’t yet realize they aren’t in Kansas anymore.

And there’s me – Don Quixote of ethics -- sitting in the back of the room as JCOPE began its third public meeting. All of a sudden, Ms. Black, oops, Ms. DiFiore, insisted that I and the other 4 people present identify ourselves for the record.

Why she insisted upon this, I do not know. But I wasn’t going to let it pass. As reported by Mr. Seiler, I just had to note the pure irony of such a secretive body requiring disclosure of those watching its proceedings.

Think about this. Who asks people at a public meeting to “disclose their identities?”

And what about all the people watching online?

If you want people addressing the commission to identify themselves that’s fair and appropriate. But we are not allowed to ask the commission questions anymore. The “guests” are truly spectators.

On top of this bizarre episode, there was another revelation from the day. It turns out that Ms. Black, oops, Ms. DiFiore has received yet another parking ticket in Albany.

OK, it’s just a parking ticket. I get that. But it’s every meeting. What? She’s too good to obey the parking laws in the City of Albany?

What message does this send? Is it: The law is the law and everyone must comply? Nah. It’s more like: “I’m the Westchester District Attorney, and I, don’t have to follow the rules when I’m with the yokels up in Aww-bany.”

Are we filming some new reality TV series here? Is that what this is?

And I get that as a high profile public official my antics won’t sit well with Ms. DiFiore, but before Janet sends anyone to deliver a message to me remember I got along just fine with the last Chairwomen. Mitra understood the value of dialogue and working towards a common goal. As for the chairpeople before Mitra, well we didn't get along and they resigned.

Mark Twain’s definition of insanity?

2012-01-31T16:45:00.002-05:00

JCOPE’s chairwomen Janet Difiore continuing to park at an expired parking meter and thinking her POLICE card on the dashboard will prevent Albany’s meter maids from giving her a ticket.
This behavior is also a glimpse into the mind of an arrogant public official that is comfortable using her official position to obtain a benefit the rest of us common folks don’t get.
This is the third JCOPE meeting in a row with her royal highness parking her official Westchester county vehicle outside the JCOPE office at an expired meter. She knows it’s wrong because as soon as the car was ticketed her bodyguard (I’m sorry security detail) went into the meeting room to whisper in her ear that it happened again and then went and moved the car.
I hate to say it but Ms. Difiore needs an intervention or a resignation. YOU ARE EMBARRASING THE GOVERNOR. If you can’t regulate your own ethical behavior how can you sit in judgment of others? Caesar’s wife shouldn’t get parking tickets.
Is it too late to bring Mitra Hormozi back as chair? I didn’t always agree with her (there is a lifetime ban opinion that needs revisiting) but she never embarrassed herself or the governor and she did get rid of most of the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.

TWO FOR THE PRICE OF ONE

2012-01-30T13:32:00.001-05:00

JCOPE: Joint Commission on Preposterous Edicts

JCOPE stumbled out of the gate over open meetings and FOIL issues, and now, in my opinion, falls flat with its first official decisions.
Those decisions were issued this week in the form of enforcement actions that are now available for review on its website. If you are interested in making an assessment of the new panel’s commitment to sound legal reasoning and fairness, read the decisions involving Ben Masaitis and Robin Korherr. http://www.jcope.ny.gov/enforcement/
Masaitis was the former budget director of the New York Theater Institute who was accused of “knowingly and intentionally accepting and processing cash reimbursements with back-dated memoranda” for himself and his supervisor at a time when his agency was under investigation by the State Inspector General.
The commission found no violation in this case – not even a section 74 (h.) That’s the famous “you created an appearance problem if nothing else” violation. “H” carries no sanction except an implied “shame on you.”
Good for the JCOPE commissioners. I’m not surprised at the outcome. Here is what I said on the blog in March 2011 after watching the hearing “A complete waste of state resources that failed to prove a trivial violation of the public officers’ law that the PIC staff was unable to competently present to a wholly owned hearing officer. One has to wonder if they could devote resources to this case why not go after Teitelbaum, Ginsberg and Feerick for what they did in leaking information in the troopergate investigation and in failing to cooperate with the IG?” Credit goes to JCOPE for at least recognizing the failure of PIC to prove its case.
What grabbed my attention in this decision was a bizarre reference to Troopergate: “It is well established that the Commission need not show that a State officer or employee provided an unwarranted privilege to another to prove a violation (of state law.) It is enough for the Commission to show that a State officer used or attempted to use his official position in such a way that he or she or any other person received an unwarranted privilege.” They then cite the Dopp/Troopergate case as an example.
So according to the staff member at the Commission that drafted the decision, the release of public records on use of state aircraft by elected officials was problematic, but not the backdating of reimbursement checks during a malfeasance probe. Hmmm. I thought in the Patterson Yankee ticket case that backdating a check was a big no no. More likely it’s just one last cheap shot by the former PIC staff at Darren Dopp, that’s a vindictive bunch of PIC staffers now writing JCOPE decisions and policy. I told JCOPE to get rid of those PIC lawyers and top staff before they hurt somebody (more on that in the déjà vu piece below) but I guess actions speak louder than words.
The second decision involved a former Office of Homeland Security employee who, while still employed in her state position, looked for similar job with the federal government. In making its decision to fine Ms. Korherr, the Commission cited a previous opinion that states that state employees “may not solicit a post-government opportunity” until 30 days after separating from government service.
Full disclosure here: I represented Ms. Korherr pro bono after her hearing on procedural matters because she was and is a person truly dedicated to trying to do the right thing in a difficult situation. I made a number of procedural arguments in this matter that the decision failed to address, but the argument I really wanted to make was one of sheer hypocrisy.
At a time when she was being investigated, the commission’s executive director was actively looking for other employment opportunities within the current administration. His new gig was actually announced before he left his old one. And it’s my understanding that the current acting executive director might be doing the same thing now.
These two decisions do not bode well for JCOPE. Again, what we’re all looking for is sound reasoning, good judgment, and a logical approach that inspires confidence. But so far, it’s just not there, although if you take out the Dopp reference in the Theater case it would have been a solid piece of work, so maybe there is hope yet if the commissioners can get a grip on what staff is doing when they are left alone to make decisions.
On that point:

Its déjà vu all over again

Insider X has tipped me that JCOPE will be rehiring one of the lawyers that former chairwomen now just a commissioner Mitra Hormozi fired in September.
At the last JCOPE meeting the commissioners decided to give acting executive director Terri Schillaci (why doesn’t she use her title on letters she sends and why does her voice mail still announce her as a special counsel?) the authority to hire lawyers and investigators to reduce the backlog caused by the previous gang that couldn’t shoot straight. So who does Terri turn to? According to Insider X its one of those lawyers that caused the backlog. And if Insider X is correct in the identity of this rehire I know this person well and the ability to clear a backlog is not one of this person’s strength.
So let’s review:
1. The COPI left a backlog
2. Mitra fired the lawyers responsible in large part for that backlog
3. Terri is going to hire back at least one of those lawyers to clear the backlog s/he caused
What’s wrong with this picture?
I can only think of two possible reasons for this hire both of which are problematic.
Either the returning lawyer is a friend of Terri’s and she is willing to risk upsetting Commissioner Mitra
Or
The returning employee must have used some political connection to get rehired. Perhaps a large donation to someone’s campaign.
Either way it spells potential trouble for a career bureaucrat who has made a career of hiding in the organizational chart shadows. I’ve said it before, Ms. Schillaci, your instincts are sound it’s time to find other employment. But remember to follow the rules under the Public Officers Law for seeking new employment while employed by the State. I’ve heard JCOPE is a stickler for those rules unless your name is Barry or Herb.
By the way when you leave your post during an emergency to take a stroll with Herb Teitelbaum you are certainly in the running to work for Costa Cruise lines as a cruise captain. It’s every person for themselves once Terri runs the ship onto the rocks.

WHILE JCOPE BURNS

2012-01-27T14:56:00.002-05:00

Herb and Terri strolling down Broadway. Even Nero stayed while Rome burned

Inquiring minds want to know why Herb Teitelbaum was at JCOPE today?
Was he interviewing for the executive director’s job?
Was he interviewing for a temporary counsels job?
Was he practicing before his old agency, that is, representing a client?
Was he developing a new niche practice of leaking information to the targets of an investigation?
Or was he offering advice to JCOPE and, specifically, the acting executive director Terri Shilacci, on how to thoroughly embarrass the agency and undermine ethics enforcement in New York?
In case anyone has forgotten: See the following, which made New York a national laughing stock:
http://www.ig.state.ny.us/pdfs/Report%20of%20an%20Investigation%20Concerning%20the%20Commission%20on%20Public%20Integrity.pdf
On the subject of the acting executive director Terri Shilacci why did she abandon her post during an emergency to go for a stroll with Herb?
Or maybe Herb needed to use the state car to go deer hunting again.
So many questions so few answers.

Four words a politician never wants to hear

2012-01-26T13:12:00.003-05:00

“You are under investigation” and/or “the report is out.”
On that note there’s an interesting subtext to the Republican presidential primary. It involves a report written by the House Ethics Committee in 1997. This is the famous report that sharply criticized then Speaker Newt Gingrich. He was fined $300,000 for a series of transgressions, marking the first time a Speaker had ever been reprimanded in such a manner.
What is happening now is that Gingrich’s rivals are calling for disclosure of all the information surrounding the production of that ethics report, including full interview transcripts and all documentary evidence. The implication is that there’s more there -- that maybe Gingrich’s conduct 15 years ago might have merited more than a critical report and a fine.
This brings me back to 1999 when the old Lobby Commission was investigating Phillip Morris Co. for possible lobbying violations in New York. An intrepid attorney general by the name of Eliot Spitzer was questioning our review and punishment of the tobacco company.
My response? I put every scrap of paper associated with the investigation including our internal notes and discussions on a CD-ROM and provided it to the Governor’s office and the legislature and released it publically. This took people by surprise. It’s not something that’s usually done. In fact, as a rule, prosecutors only release the information that supports their interpretation of the facts and the law. Or they release the testimony and evidence relied upon at trial. The public rarely gets to see the information that might be subject to a different interpretation or the internal strife that accompanies many an ethics investigation. I don’t know about you but I would love to have seen Teitelbaum’s notes on troopergate and his phone logs and anything else that would show how Darren Dopp got thrown under that bus and by whom.
But my attitude then and now was: “Here’s the whole case file. If you, Mr. AG, or anybody else can tell me what we missed or why we’re wrong, have at it.”
Interestingly, nobody ever raised a substantive issue with my handling of the case after the release of the case file. Spitzer’s threat to pillory me in the press never materialized.
Now there are some in the legal community who will maintain that such disclosure is not a good idea. They’ll insist that it could somehow undermine confidence in the investigatory process or that it might somehow be unfair to people who are investigated.
To both claims, I say: “BS.” What really undermines confidence in an investigatory process is a panel that operates in secrecy and fails to explain its actions and decisions. That was why COPI under Teitelbaum, Ginsberg, Feerick and Cherkasky was such a disaster. (Unfortunately, I see JCOPE under Ms. DiFiore, a sitting DA, heading down the same path. Some commissioners are otherwise inclined, but they may not be able to carry the day.)
As for disclosure of investigatory material and its effect on those who are investigated – that’s more interesting. I think there’d be instances where it would cut both ways. There’d be situations where people would review the evidence and say: “There’s nothing here at all. It’s much ado about nothing.” That would clearly be in the interest of an individual who was investigated.
And there’d be times when people would review the case file and say: “Wow, he (or she) really got away with it.” Could this make a person uncomfortable? You bet.
My answer to that would be to remind everyone of the deterrent role of the investigatory process. If disclosure of your conduct would cause embarrassment to you, maybe you should reconsider the conduct, eh?
Either way, I say: “Let the facts speak for themselves.” It’s the only real way that an ethics panel should work – by being completely open and transparent.
Once you pick and choose what is made public it is natural and understandable for the public to be cynical and believe there is more to the story. And that provides fodder for those that want to use ethics as a club.
Bad things happen to good people in dark places.

Of Parties and Punch Bowls

2012-01-23T07:01:00.000-05:00

I have a friend who is close to the Cuomo camp. He tells me that while administration officials consider me to be “a sharp guy,” they are also wary of me.
My friend said: “They are afraid that if they invited you to the party, you’d piss in the punch bowl.”
For the record, I have never relieved myself in such a manner.
In fact when invited to a party I usually enjoy a flavorful draught of punch myself.
Now that this misconception is cleared up, I’d like to address the sentiment that underlies this colorful metaphor.
I do so in a constructive spirit. I want to say again – for the benefit of young Mr. Vlasto and others-- that I really want the Cuomo administration to succeed. In fact the party they’re throwing has been one to be proud of so far every bit as good as Mardi Gras.
However the party could come to a screeching halt if the guests think the punch is watered down or even worse that it’s just plain bad. Enough of the cheap symbolism. The punch is ethics and integrity, the bowl is the new Joint Commission on Public Ethics. I get that the powers that be have a desire to control things. Yes, control is important. It’s how you get things done. But it’s both an illusion and a delusion to think you can control everything.
Nowhere is this truer than with ethics enforcement. In this regard, I know that ethical transgressions are occurring in state government right now. I think they might even be happening behind those closed doors at JCOPE.
But the tendency of the legislature and the administration is to pretend otherwise. “No, not us. Not on our watch.”
What matters most is not that transgressions occur, but how they are dealt with when they do occur.
What the people in charge of the punch need to understand is that rigorous scrutiny and constructive criticism should be encouraged.
It’s on this point that I again make the point that good government groups are an appalling disappointment. They’ve been engaged and flattered by top Cuomo aides and the goo-goos have abandoned their responsibilities. They are supposed to be institutional skeptics. They are supposed to question everything. Instead, they are nothing but cheerleaders.
As for JCOPE, the group that is in charge of the punchbowl, they have floundered and substituted a weak batch of cool-aid cooked up behind closed doors for the flavorful punch we need and expected. What is worse is that they allowed Barry Ginsberg to give them the recipe for this weak cool-aid and now there are turds floating in the punchbowl.
But it isn’t too late to save the party. Dump the cool-aid, wash out the bowl and start a new batch of punch. If the punch is good I say laissez les bons temps rouler, if it’s weak cool-aid with turds floating on top the reader’s of this blog will know it quick enough.
And don’t worry about me; I won’t be pissing in the punch bowl. I’m just a food critic; it’s an essential component of good government.

Want Ads

2012-01-21T15:52:00.002-05:00

Applications have closed for the new executive director position at JCOPE. I hope the meter maid applied, although I think the requirement that all applicants be attorneys was specifically written to eliminate her. I guess she will just have to keep practicing her brand of integrity by continuing to ticket the chair’s car at commission meetings (based on my last interaction with the serious looking gentleman driving the chair’s official Westchester county vehicle I am sure he will never put a quarter in the meter).
In the spirit of lending a helping hand here are some simple rules to follow in selecting employees for JCOPE especially the lawyers, DO NOT HIRE ANYONE:
1. If they are presently collecting a government pension. Double dipping looks bad and given the governor’s position on the subject when he was AG could prove embarrassing.
2. If they were fired by Mitra already. She fired them for a reason and hiring them back to reduce a backlog that they created would be a career killer (Terri just find a new position a la Barry and don’t look back).
3. For the executive director slot who presently works for the commission. They don’t have the skill set and have already done enough to prove that the new group is the same as the old group. Other than 5 or six existing employees the same holds true for any position at JCOPE.
4. With obvious ties to any commissioner. If you can connect them within two degrees to a commissioner the fix was in. I exclude Ravi Batra from this as everyone is connected to Ravi in one way or another.
5. The same holds true for the appointing authorities. At least make Blair Horner spend 15 minutes on Google before he finds the connection and tells Russ Haven who can then have his head explode as he tries to figure out who he is going to upset with the information Blair gives him.
6. Whose spouse or family member is a lobbyist (registered or otherwise, like Ginsberg’s wife).
7. Who lives south of 51st street in Manhattan (the track record of self proclaimed smart NY lawyers is horrible, read Joe Fisch’s report)
8. Anyone named Barry or Herb, nuff said.
Hope that helps. Although I am sure the selection was made long before the advertisements were placed, with any luck the pedigree of the next executive director will at least pass the sniff test.

recycle of my September 8, 2011 blog Its more timely now

2012-01-18T10:12:00.000-05:00

Ensuring the Integrity of Gaming in NY
The redoubtable James Featherstonhaugh made a presentation to a Senate committee recently and pleaded the case for “enhanced” gaming at the state’s existing racinos. His main point was that it makes no sense for New York to prohibit table games and other forms of gaming that are currently legal in neighboring states and Canada. He said New York is losing more than $5 billion a year as New Yorkers travel to those other venues to gamble.

It’s hard to argue with his reasoning, especially given the sorry state of New York’s economy, and yet…

We need to keep in mind the dubious history of this industry. It’s a sector that has been linked at times with organized crime. It’s a sector associated with various social ills. And it is a sector that has had far more than its share of scandals involving elected officials.

Thanks to very tight regulation and aggressive oversight bodies, some states, such as Nevada, have controlled these problems, but ethical breaches still occur. That’s why New York needs to think carefully about how it can better monitor its gaming industry.

Here’s an idea for New York policymakers to consider:

Why not create an entity in New York that would be an analog of the famed Nevada Gaming Commission? This body’s mission would be to ensure the integrity of gaming in New York. This responsibility is now split among various state agencies and oversight bodies without a single, bright-line set of rules for gaming interests to follow.

Establishing such a panel wouldn’t be difficult. You could draft someone from the State Police, the Comptroller’s Office, AG’s office and Racing and Wagering Board to staff it. You would then charge the panel with conducting a periodic reviews of the entities involved in gambling activities in New York.

Heeding the lessons that should have been learned by recent history in New York, we should ensure that the members of this review panel aren’t the friends and associates of prominent politicians, that they follow accepted oversight practices, and, most important, that they conduct themselves in the open.

I haven’t talked to Feathers about this, but I would think that he and his industry colleagues would welcome the concept, reasoning that anything that levels the playing field for honest business operators is a good thing. In fact, they probably ought to get together and pitch in the resources to adequately fund the panel.

Now some might say: Is this really needed? In answering that question, I would point to the glaring example of Aqueduct, where we are still awaiting the fallout from federal investigations of the whole AEG mess.

For these reasons and more, I think a rigorous oversight panel could help make casino gaming a better bet in New York.

Of Meter Maids and Meter Men

2012-01-11T15:05:00.000-05:00

Today’s JCOPE meeting lasted all of 19 minutes before an executive session was called. It would have lasted six minutes were it not for Commissioner Pat Bulgaro’s appeal to his colleagues that they conduct at least some of their business in an open session.
The raised eyebrows from last month’s secret session meant nothing. Editorials questioning the board’s initial actions meant nothing. Advice and counsel offered by former ethics officials meant nothing.* No, this commission was eager to retire to a private session for lunch and for a discussion of . . . well we don’t know it’s a secret.
JCOPE is picking up right where PIC left off in not caring about public perception of its activities, and it’s a very sad thing.
Who is to blame? The new chair may be a very capable prosecutor, but she doesn’t appear to understand her new role where everything should be about openness, transparency, even-handedness and, most importantly, awareness of the message that gets sent by the commission’s actions and by her actions.
Here’s an example that is admittedly both absurd and profound:
Remember my previous blog about the meter maid who ticketed her Westchester County DA vehicle in front of the commission offices for parking at an expired meter. I posited that meter maid as someone who applies the law equally to everyone. I half-seriously suggested she ought to be the next executive director of JCOPE for that very reason.
Well, get this: The chair’s car was parked in the same spot today – right out in front of the main entrance at an expired meter. And you guessed it a meter man came by. But this time, the meter person (an Albany traffic compliance officer) stopped, saw the Westchester DA Official Business placard and walked right by. No ticket. He ignored the violation.
And the apparent message of the day is this: The chair of JCOPE can flout Albany traffic laws because she’s a VIP.
Not only that, JCOPE, itself, gets to do whatever it wants without so much as a nod toward transparency.
It looks like a meter man who knows how to use discretion towards the powerful is a more viable candidate for executive director of JCOPE than the meter maid who treats everyone equally. Keep that thought in mind if you are applying for the executive directors job.
* FOIL law, open meetings laws and the enabling legislation for JCOPE do not, do not, do not require JCOPE to go into executive session. The chair and the commissioners can choose to conduct business in the open. Of course, there’ll come a time when a truly sensitive and/or confidential matter may require a private session, but making secrecy the rule is a major mistake. It speaks only of a secretive, imperial agency that operates in the dark.

A Typical Tuesday at the Capitol

2012-01-10T19:47:00.002-05:00

Yesterday was a typical day at the State Capitol for this time of year.
There were multiple news conferences on fracking. There were 500 education advocates demonstrating in the stairways. Gaming company representatives were making the rounds on the second and third floors. And, there was a contentious LATFOR meeting.
These four matters – fracking, education funding, casino gaming and redistricting – are this year’s hot button issues. Forces on all sides are engaging in lobbying these issues, and they are doing so aggressively.
Here’s what I’d being doing right now if I was still the ED at the old Lobbying Commission: I’d be reviewing everyone’s lobby registration related to these issues. Well I wouldn’t be doing it personally (unless I had a hunch or the parties involved were too hot to touch) but staff would be. I would want to make sure that if an organization was engaged in lobbying that it was properly registered and abiding by all relevant disclosure requirements.
Some might think that proactively checking everyone’s status is some kind of gotcha game. Yes and no.
The truth is that if I found a party hadn’t bothered to properly register because they were too lazy, arrogant or downright corrupt; I really enjoyed commencing a full blown investigation, which usually found other related violations. I still feel that way but now I only do it for clients not for altruistic motives.
But if I found that the “Church Ladies Coalition to Save the Magnolia Trees in Pleasant Park” wasn’t properly registered because they didn’t know the law, the commission would typically give them an opportunity (and sometimes actually helped) rectify the problem.
This kind of calibration hasn’t always been applied by ethics officials in New York. We’ve had extremes of hyper-technical interpretation of rules and too many examples of a look-the-other-way approach.
What will it be with JCOPE? Even though there’s no executive director at the commission yet, it’s imperative that the existing staff proactively review lobbying activities.
Take fracking: There’s a high stakes competition underway between environmental groups and gas companies. Everyone is busy building coalitions of people to influence officials. They are all doing news conferences. In fact, there were five dueling news conferences on fracking on Tuesday.
In a competitive situation like this, someone will skirt the rules. You can bet on it.
JCOPE needs to get in the game on this issue and others. It needs to be aggressively checking up on people who are involved. It needs to be smart about how it reacts. Unfortunately it has stumbled out of the gate. The acting executive director is overwhelmed with a backlog of cases and unable to focus on building a new agency let alone start stabilizing the existing one. It’s gotten so bad that she is personally sending out audit letters rather than delegating to the audit staff. Why? I can’t tell you it’s a mystery. Whoever was in charge of making decisions regarding administrative issues during the transition has not just stumbled but has fallen and cannot get up. The new website domain for JCOPE is experiencing compatibility issues and a filing deadline is fast approaching. Why they didn’t wait until after the filing deadline is a mystery. No employees have been hired by JCOPE, the existing workforce is in limbo awaiting their fate, not a great way to build employee morale in an agency that has been rocked by past blunders. Anyone that has received a letter from JCOPE should notice that the signatory has no title, that’s because no one is being allowed to use titles, why? I can’t tell you it’s a mystery.
So while there is real work that needs to occur JCOPE is distracted. But there is a meeting wednesday at 10:30 am maybe some questions can start being answered. One thing I know for sure is that JCOPE, like PIC before them, is diligent about getting that catered lunch. Deb Novak ordered it before she ever got around to sending out a public notice for the meeting, after all in times like these you have to get your priorities straight.

Ambitious Plans Require Ambitious Oversight

2012-01-05T11:35:00.000-05:00

A banner proclaiming integrity hung behind the podium. The Governor mentioned ethics prominently at the beginning of his remarks yesterday. He noted passage of the Public Integrity Reform Act as one of the big achievements from last year.
And it was. The creation of JCOPE, new disclosure requirements on outside income for lawmakers and expanded reporting by those engaged in lobby campaigns are all positive developments.
Yes, the Governor and lawmakers can and should congratulate themselves, but the game isn’t over; it’s just begun. There’s so much more to do.
As I noted in my last post, I believe that all of our key regulatory and enforcement officials should get together to talk about ways to improve ethics enforcement in New York. They need to think about how their jurisdictions overlap and how they might cooperate and make the most of limited resources.
That’s one idea for 2012. Here’s another: The Governor, wisely, focused on building in his remarks. He outlined a series of development plans -- a new convention center, new economic development grants, energy transmission upgrades and more.
Statewide, we’re talking mega bucks. (More than $1 billion for Buffalo alone.)
Whenever I hear of major building programs, I naturally think about fraud, abuse and waste. That’s inevitable.
Think federal TARP money. Hundreds of billions of dollars were dumped without close monitoring.
Also, think about those NYC projects the Governor is talking about. Take the Javits Center and Aqueduct.
With regard to Javits, the state created an authority to govern its operation to help avoid organized crime involvement. But even with that authority, a state investigation in 1995 determined that jobs at Javits were under the control of organized crime. So maybe the Mob isn’t what it once was, but it still exists and the state needs to do something to ensure proper oversight of redevelopment, wouldn’t you agree?
This is also true with the Aqueduct project. This is a multi-billion casino/convention center complex that will one day be quite a landmark. What is the state going to do to ensure that questionable people aren’t involved and that the project is not derailed by ethical lapses? A while back, I suggested the possibility of creating an entity similar to the Nevada Gaming Commission. Given the expansion of gaming in New York, shouldn’t we at least talk about the idea?
Ambitious plans require ambitious oversight, and a failure to plan for that oversight can be a fatal flaw.

State of the State: Ethics

2012-01-03T15:04:00.002-05:00

What is the state of compliance with ethical rules and regulations in New York?
The only honest answer to that question is that nobody really knows. How could we? JCOPE was just formed. It has no executive director or staff. It’s barely operational. And what it has done it has done in secret with gag orders imposed on the “independent” commissioners. In fact, there really hasn’t been a functioning ethics panel in New York since last spring.
Soooo. Does anybody think that ethical transgressions simply stopped in the second half of 2011?
The steady pace of federal indictments of New York elected officials ought to dispel that notion pretty quickly. And here’s something to ponder: The Feds are very, very selective. For every case they make, they’ll probably take a pass on three or four other cases.
And what happens to those other cases? Well, in an ideal world they would be handled by state authorities – by JCOPE, the state IG, the state AG, Comptroller, and by local DAs.
Alas, I think things are falling through the cracks. I just don’t think there is robust enforcement of ethics laws in New York.
I’m not trying to be a crank here. I’m not criticizing anyone. I’m simply saying this:
Maybe it’s time for all of the officials in New York who have a stake in ethics enforcement to get together for a discussion. What is being done right? What is being done wrong? What is left undone? How can they all – by working together – improve ethics enforcement in the New Year?
An ethics summit. This has never happened before in New York. But maybe it’s an idea whose time has come.

Holiday Presents from Two Insiders

2011-12-29T12:26:00.002-05:00

Santa brought me not one, but two interesting new insider accounts. (I guess I was good boy last year!)
The first account concerns NYRA and the controversy over its “takeout.” The second concerns the development of a new engineering school in New York City.
Both matters have received a lot of media attention recently, but in neither case have reporters gotten to the bottom of things.
With regard to NYRA, a retired insider who was involved in setting up the pari-mutuel takeout rates many years ago, posed some fascinating questions. This individual took note of how state budget director Robert Megna recently slammed both NYRA and the State Racing and Wagering Board for failing to catch the mistake in the takeout rate. Megna wrote to officials at both agencies saying that they had failed “the most basic accounting task.”
Megna’s overblown response, the insider says, was curious because the primary oversight for NYRA’s takeout is not the Racing and Wagering Board, which focuses primarily on harness tracks, but another entity called the Franchise Oversight Board. NYRA reports directly to this board on takeout and other matters.
“Why no mention of the Franchise Oversight Board?” the insider asks. “Who is in charge of that board and where was he over the last 15 months when NYRA was charging bettors and extra 1 percent takeout and accruing $7 million in overpayments?”
Well, it turns out that the chair of the board is none other than Mr. Megna himself.
So, what gives? Why would Mr. Megna, whom most people regard as a straight shooter, be so disingenuous? Maybe reporters will ask and we’ll all find out.
With regard to the new engineering school in NYC, everyone is now marveling at how Cornell miraculously came from behind to win the competition to develop the facility. The New York Times and others are citing brilliant strategic moves by Cornell to outmaneuver Stanford in the competition.
“BS,” says an insider close to the process. “Mayor Bloomberg is an engineer. It was his vision to create the school, and he wanted Stanford, which he regarded as the premier engineering school in the world. He and Schumer, too, were solidly behind Stanford and it was a done deal.”
So what changed? The insider says that people close to Governor Cuomo intervened. They first had to kick the Cornell folks in the pants. “Cornell wasn’t going to buck Bloomberg or Schumer. They didn’t have the stomach for it.”
It was Cuomo’s people who rallied the higher education community in New York on the issue of “brain drain.” Their pitch: “Do you really want Stanford to get established in New York? First an engineering school, then a law school, and a medical school. Why don’t you just say goodbye now to all of our best talent? ”
The insider says powerful alums of New York schools start making calls to Bloomberg and Schumer, and it didn’t take long for both men to realize they’d be disappointing a lot of influential people. Stanford was then told it wasn’t going to happen, and they pulled out.
The end result, the insider said, is the right one. New York City gets a first rate new engineering school, and higher ed in New York is strengthened instead of weakened.
My thanks to these two insiders. As always, I provide the same caveat: I cannot vouch for the veracity of their comments. My only claim is that I think their viewpoint is worthy of consideration especially during a week that is light on news.

The deal for the new executive director of JCOPE

2011-12-23T12:32:00.000-05:00

As I write this, the new staff leadership of JCOPE is being decided. Barry Ginsberg is gone, and two long-time bureaucrats --Jeanine Clemente and Terri Schilacci – are providing guidance to the chair as needed. My guess is Terri wins the cat fight and is named acting executive director. And like everything else about JCOPE it will be done in secret behind closed doors.

Neither Clemente or Schilacci will be named executive director. That position – despite the claims of the JCOPE chair that she will select a group of commissioners to undertake the search that is underway and will be completed within 21 days (all in secret behind closed doors)– will go to someone who is known and acceptable to the governor and the legislative leaders.

I suspect a deal is being cut right now. It could occur in a number of ways, but one possibility is that the administration will get to place the executive director, but the Senate and Assembly will each get a counsel slot or co-deputies. This will allow the leaders to keep tabs on the commission.

My current thinking is that Jeremy Creelan won’t get the nod. He’s still too hot as the author of the famous Brennan Center report that laid bare the dysfunction of the legislature.

The nod will most likely go to a Cuomo associate whom the legislative leaders can live with. I’m sure this individual will be a competent attorney and solid administrator. The person will be a step up from Barry, but he or she won’t’ be truly independent.

This is a concern for me and ought to be a concern for everyone. (I’d say it ought to be a concern of the goo-goos, but, as usual, they are off somewhere with visions of sugar-plums dancing in their heads or in Dick Dadey’s case visions of Cuomo attending his annual fundraiser.)

No, there’ll be no outsider brought in to serve as executive director of JCOPE. There’ll be no “follow the facts without fear or favor” person. And no, the stalwart meter maid committed to equal enforcement of the law won’t get the job either.

To be sure, the appointment of the new executive director will be portrayed as the carefully considered choice of the JCOPE commissioners acting independently, but the reality will be that the new person has “connections.”

When this happens it will be another cause to question JCOPE – along with its largely status quo appointments and flouting of open meetings and FOIL laws.

It really hasn’t been a good rollout for the new ethics panel. But I’m still hopeful. Perhaps it’s the holiday spirit, but I really want to believe that despite the initial missteps of this panel, it will finally get down to the business of ethics enforcement and it will do a good job.

That’s my sincere hope for the New Year.

Who should lead JCOPE?

2011-12-20T16:16:00.003-05:00

Who would I select as the new executive director of JCOPE?
Well, I’d vote for the Albany meter maid who slapped a ticket on the SUV parked outside the JCOPE offices this afternoon. The SUV was the vehicle of the Westchester County District Attorney, who, as we all know, is the new JCOPE chair. It had an official Westchester County District Attorney Office parking placard displayed on the dashboard and a very serious looking man seated behind the wheel.
Why the meter maid? Because she’s clearly committed to holding everyone accountable to the same standard under the law. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Could there be a more fundamental rule?
If only the chair and rest of the commissioners understood this. Alas, I have my doubts after the first meeting of panel.
There was Barry Ginsberg sitting next to the new chair just like the old days. And Barry is explaining why JCOPE doesn’t have to abide by Open Meetings Law just like the old days. Some of the commissioners seemed hesitant to go along with the private executive session but they did.
This is Ginsberg’s approach: JCOPE 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?
Never mind. Just give me the meter maid. She makes sense to me. Nobody else does.

I told you so

2011-12-16T16:04:00.000-05:00

I posted the following on my blog November 29th lets see how they did

Do it right the first time

The new Joint Commission on Public Ethics (J-COPE) is supposed to be fully operational by December 12th.

But let’s be real: Two weeks isn’t much time to get organized.

The new commissioners, have to be named soon and they will need all the help they can get. And in that spirit, I offer the following tips:

1. You’ll be in a rush to get going, but first things first. One of the easiest ways you’ll trip up is by failing to disclose everyone’s potential conflicts of interest. Such conflicts are inevitable. In most cases they aren’t a big deal, but before someone (like me) points out the conflicts and they become a news story, do it first along with a plan to address the situation through recusals. The previous ethics agency was riddled with conflicts and it showed, they even had commissioners that were part of lobbying firms. DON"T SAY I DIDN"T TELL YOU

2. You are the ones who should name the executive director, not the administration. You won’t be doing yourselves or the Governor any favors if you rubber stamp his selection. Your predecessor commissioners made this mistake and they were all tarnished (Teitebaumed) as a result. And take your time it is the single most important decision you will make as commissioners. The executive director will make or break this new agency. TO BE DETERMINED

3. In this same vein, you need to make a clean break with the current E.D., Barry Ginsberg. Keeping him on as an acting or advisory staffer would compromise you. Remember his role in Troopergate – as exposed by the Inspector General, and remember his rogue activities over the last several months when the Public Integrity Commission was supposed to have been suspended. The reason the Public Integrity Commission was a complete failure and embarrassment was the people, Barry represents all that was bad before. DON"T SAY I DIDN"T TELL YOU

4. There are some good people left at the agency who can form the nucleus of a new team. These individuals want nothing more than to restore the reputation of ethics enforcement in New York. But don’t take Ginsberg’s word on who should be hired or retained. Make your own determination based on an individual’s record. Anyone in a policy making position that did not stand up and try to make the old Public Integrity Commission do the right thing should be let go and quickly. You don't need institutional memory from the top staff, they are the ones that will tell you to do it the wrong way because thats the way they have always done it you need a fresh start and the top staff needs to be terminated before they have a chance to shape policy in a new agency. TO BE DETERMINED

5. Most importantly, be open about your official deliberations, and do everything you can to adhere to the clearest and highest standards of law. Your predecessors were a complete joke because they did everything in secret and because they made up the rules as they went along. This isn’t just my opinion. Everyone in the ethics community was shocked by the commission’s actions. You can and must operate differently. I'll be sending you requests for opinions and complaints that heve been ignored by the old regime, that will be my test to see if its a new era of ethics enforcement in Albany or just more rhetoric. DON"T SAY I DIDN"T TELL YOU

6. And finally listen to the non lawyers on the panel, they have a unique perspective that will serve the new commission well it’s called common sense something TO BE DETERMINED

So far they are 0 for 3 with 3 left to be determined. This wasn't a surprise to anyone that has some experience in the field and decent instincts

JCOPE Day 4: Secret Meetings and Gag Orders?

2011-12-16T09:45:00.001-05:00

This is becoming a storyline. Another day; another set of strange and disconcerting actions by JCOPE.

I’m the one who insisted that JCOPE be given some time and the benefit of doubt, but now I’m having my doubts.

As Mike Gormley reports today, JCOPE held a secret meeting. And ever since that AP story moved, I’ve been inundated with insider tips about what happened. I’ll get to the details in a minute, but first, why is JCOPE having secret meetings? Is this the way to start the tenure – with less transparency than the previous ethics commission?

And while we’re at it, was it appropriate for an employee of the Westchester County DA’s office, presumably Ms. DiFiore’s secretary, to arrange the meeting? Apparently, this individual sent around an email to commissioners to arrange a conference call.

While this might not seem like a huge deal, just think about the consequences moving forward. You can bet there’ll be a case in upcoming months in which a government employee is accused of misuse of public resources. Deputy Commissioner X will be called to account for his actions in directing his secretary to arrange a teleconference call for his friends who are part of a fantasy baseball league.

Guess what? The law does not distinguish between an activity like this and the arranging of a JCOPE meeting. Both activities are unrelated to the secretary’s official duties and the person who ordered her to do non-official work might be in violation of the law.

Now back to the details of the meeting as related to me by anonymous insider tips and published reports:

In a bizarre exchange, the Chair apparently tried to get the commissioners to authorize her to act on their behalf. The only problem: She wouldn’t tell the commissioners what the issue was or provide any details of why it was necessary. Other commissioners were put off, and they rightfully refused the request.

It apparently went downhill from there. The chair then notified the other commissioners that she and her spokesperson would speak for the commission – no one else. This, too, went over like a lead balloon. In this regard, the appointees of other branches of government cannot be gagged by such a directive from the governor’s appointee. In addition to violating the spirit of openness, this is wrong and cannot be enforced. Politically it is tone deaf, the last thing I would think the governor’s office would want is the inevitable comparison to how Spitzer ran COPI.

It’s hard to imagine what the new chair could possibly be thinking with these two actions. It’s been reported she’s getting advice from Barry Ginsberg who reportedly also participated in the call and after the fact acted as JCOPE’s spokesperson. You know my opinion of Barry’s coup de tat of JCOPE. And you can’t unring the bell by having him resign at the end of the payroll period; he doesn’t have a position to resign from.

If all of this wasn’t enough, it’s been reported that the JCOPE Chair used her Westchester County DA’s public information officer to answer reporters’ questions about the JCOPE meeting. As noted above, JCOPE activities have nothing to do with DA office work.

As I said yesterday, this is not a good start for JCOPE. And it’s getting worse. These aren’t just rookie mistakes. These are serious problems that show a total lack of understanding of ethics law enforcement.

I want JCOPE to succeed, I’m rooting for the chairwomen to do for JCOPE what she has done for her constituents in Westchester County, and I know there are solid people on this commission, but . . .

Somebody needs to do an intervention, and quick.

As Justice Potter Stewart said "ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do"

JCOPE: Day3 – Ms. DiFiore’s Challenge

2011-12-15T13:29:00.000-05:00

I’ve sat back and watched for the last three days as JCOPE officials have struggled with a series of awkward issues.

It began with a less than enthusiastic reception for the announcement of the appointees. Then, the continuing involvement of Barry Ginsberg became an issue. And now the new chair is being scrutinized for her status as an elected official and as head of an organization that lobbies.

This was not a textbook rollout.

Let’s analyze each issue.

The Governor has admitted difficulty in getting people to serve on the commission. I guess that’s why it took so long to name the panel. But you know what? I don’t believe in conventional wisdom. I don’t believe in resumes and perceived reputations. What I believe in is actions.

And in this regard, one appointee who has stepped right up already is Ravi Batra. This is a guy whom some people questioned, but he’s showing himself to be independent and engaged from the start, and that’s really encouraging.
Batra spoke out yesterday about the urgent need to remove Barry Ginsberg from what is now an occupy JCOPE movement, and he couldn’t have been more right.

This commission, for obvious reasons from recent history, needs to follow the letter of the law and not fudge things. It cannot simply say that the old executive director will continue to serve until a new executive director is designated. Barry Ginsberg has no authority to act. None. He should be gone. It’s as simple as that.

The issues with the new chair are less clear cut.

When asked about a potential conflict of serving as both elected official and JCOPE Chair and specifically about her campaign accounts, Ms. DiFiore said: “That’s a good question… Honestly, I haven’t thought about that yet."
While, I admire her honesty, I would have hoped that everyone involved would have thought through this issue before she was appointed.

Serving as chair means she’s truly under a microscope. She is obligated to do a number of things, such as disclosing all donations she has received from lobbyists or their clients, as well as disclosing any and all connections to entities regulated by JCOPE.

In addition, she needs, asap, to sort out potential conflicts in serving as the president of the District Attorneys Association. If the association meets the registration requirements as a lobbying entity (and it sure appears that way) it must register and disclose immediately.

Ms. DiFiore must state that she will not engage in activity that would require her being listed as an additional lobbyist for the association.

I think she should go a step further and order an investigation of the association’s past activity and registration status and then recuse herself from any further discussion or action related to that investigation.

Ms. DiFiore is now the face of ethics law enforcement in New York. Everyone needs to understand that, especially her. She has stated that she will “familiarize herself with the commission’s code of conduct and recusal rules and follow them to the letter.”

Again, that’s good, but…

What exactly are the commission’s code of conduct and recusal rules?

I actually FOIL-ed for the code and the rules a while back and the old COPI – in a move that was hypocritical at best and most likely corrupt -- refused to disclose them. (Does it even exist?)

Think about that one. COPI would not tell anyone what its own policies were with regard to compliance, and yet COPI stood in judgment of others on compliance.

Some people say I’m too harsh in my assessment of COPI. Really?

The point, in the end, is that I hope Ms. DiFiore really wants to set a new course and have the commission succeed where predecessor organizations failed so miserably, but to achieve that she needs to do things differently than COPI. No more secret meetings and undisclosed conflicts. Think of FOIL as a floor not a ceiling. And follow the rules no matter how petty you may think they are, they matter.

Follow the rules

2011-12-15T08:14:00.000-05:00

Does anyone know if this statute applies to what Barry Ginsberg is doing?

§ 190.25 Criminal impersonation in the second degree.
A person is guilty of criminal impersonation in the second degree when
he:

3. (a) … falsely expresses by his words or actions that he is a public servant or is acting with approval or authority of a public agency or department; and (b) so acts with intent to induce another to submit to such pretended official authority, to solicit funds or to otherwise cause another to act in reliance upon that pretense.

I’ve never worked as a prosecutor but there seems to be enough of them on the new JCOPE to explain what Barry Ginsberg is doing at JCOPE today and if the statute set forth above is applicable.

Be careful folks it was Plato that said “The beginning is the most important part of the work”

It was the new chairwomen who said ““That’s the way I lead my life, playing by the rules.”

It was the governor’s young spox Josh Vlasto who said “You can’t do better in terms of credentials than a sitting district attorney who is sworn to enforce the law and has an impeccable track record in doing so,”

It was Justice Potter Stewart who said “Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.”

It was me who said “I’ve always believed actions speak louder than words.”

Well I’m sure someone famous said it before me, heck I KNOW my mom said it but you get the point.

Enough words it’s time for some action.

JCOPE day 2 is anyone in charge?

2011-12-14T10:21:00.000-05:00

Who’s in charge? Who’s calling the shots?

Things are changing at JCOPE. Someone took down all the old PIC logos from the doors. And someone ordered the phones to be answered differently. No more “Commission on Public Integrity.” Now it’s “Public Ethics, may I help you?”

Hey, it’s a start.

That’s said, Barry Ginsberg is still in the office. According to the new statute, he can have no official role or title or job without the new commission authorizing it.

This begs the question of who will be signing off on payroll this week? It’s also raises the prospect of the first potential violation of law by the commission. See various statutes about individuals impersonating a public official to receive a benefit.

The new chairwomen was quoted as follows in today’s Daily News “That’s the way I lead my life, playing by the rules.”

I’ve always believed actions speak louder than words.

The JCOPE Start Day one and things need to change

2011-12-13T13:39:00.001-05:00

How do I write this and be fair and constructive? Hmm. Double hmm.

I think the first point is that we ought not to rush to judgment. Let’s give JCOPE a chance. We should all want it to succeed.

Thinking positively now: Some of the appointments are very good. For example, Pat Bulgaro is one of the most honorable guys in Albany. If he’s on board, it’s a real insurance policy against the kind of shenanigans we saw in the past. He simply wouldn’t tolerate that. Gary Lavine is cut from the same cloth and an additional guarantee that the old Spitzer days are a thing of the past.

That said several of the commissioners have issues from conflicts to past associations.

These issues need to be handled properly – through a clearly-defined policy of disclosure and recusal. (Cherkasy operated for months with a host of conflicts he never fully disclosed.)

JCOPE must follow the rules right from the beginning. And in this regard, here’s another important issue: There is no provision under the law for the old executive director to continue to function under the new commission, but that is what appears to be happening this morning.

What does it say about the new commission that its first action is to flout the rules and fudge it? Isn’t that what previous discredited ethics panels did? Not good.

Fortunately, there’s a way to address all of these issues. The new chair of the commission must act today. Step one: Pick up the phone and tell Barry Ginsberg, who was linked to so many past problems, that he has no more right under the statute to be sitting in his chair than Pedro Espada does. Step two: Convene a meeting and appoint one of the commissioners to act in a caretaker role until such time as a search for new ED is concluded. Step three: Develop a protocol for internal conflicts. Before any substantive, non-organizational votes can be taken, this is imperative. In this regard, people need to know that the new panel is committed to handling internal ethical matters appropriately and not making expedient decisions.

The noted philosopher Lao Tzu stated “expediency is the mere shadow of right and truth; it is the beginning of disorder”

Hopefully, JCOPE will take Tzu’s advice to heart and do all of this as soon as possible. If it does, it will get off to a legitimate start. If it doesn’t it will prove T. S. Elliot’s point that “In my beginning is my end”

Don’t you love Google quotes?

Blasto flexes his muscle

2011-12-12T09:47:00.000-05:00

Aggressive young spox for the governor Josh Vlasto was quoted today saying the following on the subject of new employees for JCOPE “those still on the payroll will remain in place and begin working immediately”

Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/From-floor-vote-to-the-buffet-line-2396157.php#ixzz1gKaxvc8P

I am sure Josh meant all the employees except the executive director Barry Ginsberg. And not because I have and will continue to blog about the ramifications of keeping Barry but rather because the law doesn’t allow it. That’s right the statute sets forth how an executive director must be selected and it doesn’t say by Josh Vlasto or even the governor. In case the powers that be or are to be haven’t read it (and btw I’m told new commissioners have not been provided a copy of the statute yet) it states as follows:

“9. The commission shall: (a) Appoint an executive director who shall act in accordance with the policies of the commission. The appointment and removal of the executive director shall be made solely by a vote of a majority of the commission, which majority shall include at least one member appointed by the governor from each of the two major political parties, and one member appointed by a legislative leader from each of the two major political parties. “

Just trying to be helpful I don’t want to see the new commission step on its teitelbaum before it gets up and running.

The NEW JCOPE

2011-12-12T00:36:00.000-05:00

Insiders have told the blog that the new commissioners of the Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) will be announced today. I’m sure some people will want to say that ethics reform has been accomplished, but the reality is that the task has really just begun.

The governor and the legislature have provided a mechanism to change the status quo, to change the perception of a corrupt state and usher in a new era of integrity.

It took leadership to put the pieces in place – and I commend everyone involved, especially the governor. But now the governor has to take a big step back, and JCOPE leadership must emerge.

What kind of leadership exactly?

First, consider what we don’t need or want. We don’t need a Feerick, a Cherkasky, a Teitelbaum or a Ginsberg-type leader. These were all people who acted as though they were appointed by God. They made up the rules as they went along. And their decisions, as this blog pointed out for months, completely undermined ethics enforcement in New York.

What is needed now to give JCOPE a good start is sound judgment. I know that sounds simple, even trite, but it’s the key. So much of being an integrity official involves looking at a situation and asking fundamental questions:

What is the real nature of the situation in question?

For example:

Is there a clear conflict of interest involved?

Is the person enriching himself or herself?

How strong is the evidence?

What do we know for sure, and what do we surmise?

Are we handling the matter in a way that is tailored to the specific facts and circumstances?

This last point is important. Each case should be handled almost in a vacuum. I know that will sound strange to some. They’ll want JCOPE to come out like gangbusters and make cases that send a message to all of Albany. This is a recipe for disaster.

The new commissioners need to resist the temptation to seize on sweeping cases that send messages. The best message they can send is that there is a new ethics panel that will handle each case in an aggressive, but fair way.

Ginsberg and the others never understood that. They were more concerned about their image and their connections to people in power than doing the right thing.

Now is the time for a fresh start, a new approach that focuses on restoring the integrity of ethics enforcement one step at a time.

And that first step must be to tell Barry Ginsberg that he is not a part of JCOPE.

The statute that created JCOPE is silent on the transfer of employees, and I think there is a good reason for that. Upon creation JCOPE has a blank slate and no employees.

There will be a temptation to just transfer everyone to the new agency. I hope the new commissioners resist that temptation.

Sure you could transfer all the non policy makers there is no harm in that and you can always cull the herd after a new executive director is selected.

But if you allow the top policy makers to remain it will take a strong executive and a ton of political dynamite to pry their cold bureaucratic fingers from the controls.

And should you allow Barry Ginsberg to remain for even one second you will have provided those of us that pay attention to this stuff all the proof we need to know the new boss is just the same as the old boss.

And that would not be ethics reform by anyone’s measure.

Drink the cool-aid and eat the pizza

2011-12-09T13:14:00.000-05:00

Well well well Barry finally got the call I referenced in twas the night before JCOPE. "Tell your employees to come to work until further notice" I wonder who called you Barry? And are they right? Come on Barry you're a smart NY lawyer how do you read the statute? And now do you change your website that says you are defunct on Monday?

I am laughing so hard I don't know if I can finish the blog.

But here comes the best part.

After 4 months of silence, when he failed to communicate with PIC staff about their future Barry did not even have the class, skill or talent to call a staff meeting and announce this news in person. He wasn't available to answer questions, he just told a couple of supervisors and left it to them to spread the "good"? word. Thats how Barry spells leadership. Let those passengers on the Titanic know we have a leak.

I guess I'm not surprised he could'nt sack up and face the rank and file but he did tell them to pass the word that he might buy everyone pizza today. Free ice for everyone on the ship just collect it from the deck chairs. Hey Barry here's a free hint next time do it yourself it has more meaning.

BTW I think the pizza is a great idea make a list of who eats the pizza and give it to the new executive director so he/she will know who to fire immediately.

If you are afraid to lose your job in an integrity agency you don't deserve to have it to begin with.

Speaking of drinking the cool-aid look at what Dick Dadey the googoo leader said in todays Wonkster "Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union (Gotham Gazette is published by Citizens Union Foundation the sister organization to the Citizens Union) Said that he is not concerned if there is a small gap between the 120 day deadline and the start of JCOPE. “I expect the governor will apply the law and meet the required deadline,” said Dadey adding. “A couple days won’t hurt.”

Compare that to Dadey's comments made several months ago:

“There is no reason to believe at the moment that the deadline will not be met,” said Dadey. “There are weeks to go. There is a strong argument for the appointments to not be rolled out in phases but announced as one. I don’t think piecemeal announcements make sense. We are not concerned, because this governor has kept to his commitments and he will keep to this one. He owns it all. All eyes will be on him. He has to make sure it is fully ready.”

“We were satisfied, but we didn’t have any great expectation that this would be pulled together much prior to the 12th,”

Dadey says the rationale behind the delay was that the agency had to be built from the ground up. “CPI was essentially a merger between two state agencies into one. This effort is essentially tearing down a house and starting from scratch. We accepted that explanation and we look forward to seeing a strong new house.”

Hey Dick about that house I think you are going to need a tent at this point because the closing is next week and nothings built.

And when it comes to missing deadlines do you think the new JCOPE will let the lobbyists be a couple of days late with their filings? remember when it comes to ethics “A couple days won’t hurt.”

Too funny the GOOGOOS are doing a pretty good Charlie Brown impersonation.