A consistent theme in Albany’s unceasing parade of ethics scandals has been the abuse of power: Lawmakers using their public position to enrich themselves personally.  As U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara put it while commenting on his successful prosecutions of the former Assembly Speaker and former Senate Majority Leader, “Both of those cases, by the way, were awful and sad stories. No one says that those two men never did anything good for their state, but they threw it all away by forgetting that their jobs we’re not meant to be vehicles for massive personal profit.”

Not surprisingly, addressing this problem is central to the ethics reform debate.  But the “talking points” of opponents are already emerging.  Essentially, some lawmakers are arguing that it is good for lawmakers to have outside jobs in order to better inform policy choices.

This is a classic straw man argument.

No one is arguing that individuals with expertise should be prohibited from holding office.  That would be absurd.  However, reformers are arguing that while holding power, lawmakers should be focusing on their public job, not their private ones.

Governor Cuomo is a lawyer.  Imagine how long the line would be if he was allowed to set up a private practice.  The line would be long and filled with wealthy powerful interests, looking for legal “help.”

Attorney General Schneiderman is also a lawyer.  He regulates much of the real estate industry.  Guess who would show up if he were allowed to open a private law practice?

Neither of these men is allowed to do so.  The most obvious reason is that they run sprawling governmental enterprises and it takes time to do it right.  But another important reason is to remove a clear conflict of interest.

State lawmakers argue that they are part-time, that their staff sizes are relatively small.  Thus, they should be allowed to moonlight.  But the temptation to use their public power to enrich themselves is still there.

The U.S. Attorney found that the former Speaker used his legislative perch to enrich himself to the tune of a cool $4 million.  Sadly, his is not the only case.  Former Assemblymember Seminerio was convicted on influence-peddling charges related to his operation of a private consulting business that used his legislative position to generate income.

In 2004, former Senator Guy Velella pled guilty to bribery charges for taking money to secure bridge painting contracts as part of his outside legal work.

Why allow that temptation?

The Congress has already acted.  In the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, the Congress drastically restricted outside income for its members.  As the Congressional panel responsible for drafting the new rules stated, “substantial outside income creates at least the appearance of impropriety and thereby undermines public confidence in the integrity of government officials.”

The same logic applies to Albany today.

Lawmakers with outside jobs must have to put them aside while they serve as public servants.  It’s not a radical idea – statewide elected officials and the Congress live with similar rules.  And if you are a firefighter, a police officer or a teacher, you have to put those jobs aside in order to be a lawmaker.  Why should the small percentage of legislators who are lawyers and other professionals get a sweeter deal?

Unfortunately, only silence has been heard on the “debate” over ethics.  That is likely to mean that a small number of well-compensated legislators plying their profession on the side have jammed up the debate.  Only the governor can break that logjam.

And the governor can only succeed if he takes the fight out of the dark rooms of the Capitol and has it in full public view.  Nearly 90 percent of New Yorkers agree that Albany’s ethics is a problem.  If the ethics debate is open, the public has the chance to weigh in.

Over the next few weeks, New Yorkers will see if the governor has the interest and the power to break that logjam.

Lawmakers return to Albany this week to tackle an agreement on the upcoming budget.  The state’s fiscal year starts on April 1^st.  As part of his budget, and in reaction to the political crime wave that has swept the Capitol, Governor Cuomo included ethics reforms.

How do we know there is a political crime wave?  Crime-fighting U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara recently spoke in Albany and here are some of the observations he made:

• He hammered away at the complacency and implicit collaboration of other lawmakers, whom he called “enablers,” in the “rancid culture” of Albany.
• “What’s been going on in New York State government lately is simultaneously heartbreaking, head-scratching and almost comic,” he said.
• At an event organized by the New York State Conference of Mayors, Bharara said that the job of local officials is made harder because of the “culture of corruption” in state government.
• Bharara described New York State politics as a “rancid, show me the money culture.” He added, “The standard to maintain one of the most powerful public positions in our state [must be] something higher than ‘I have not yet been convicted of a crime.”

Since Bharara’s statements in Albany earlier this month, shockingly little has been said by the governor or the majority parties’ legislative leaders.  While the minority leaders in both houses have argued for reforms, the majorities’ leaders have been quiet.

No hearings have been called, no news conferences by the governor or the majority party legislative leaders have been held to urge reforms, and it’s been eerily quiet.  It appears that they are hoping it all blows over and that Albany’s political status quo stays largely intact.

If history is any guide, Albany’s “muscle memory” will be to discuss ideas over the next few weeks and then secretly hammer out an ethics deal.  That deal will then be heralded as “historic” with “unprecedented new reforms” that will govern the state’s ethics.

Over time, it will then become clear that loopholes in those “reforms” will have little positive impact and that the status quo will return.

We’ve seen this “movie” before, virtually every year, Governor Cuomo and the legislative leaders have enacted ethics reforms – but little changes.  Why?  Because secret, last minute deals are designed more to provide political cover than real change.

It’s time to change the ending to that “movie.”  It’s time for meaningful actions, changes that are hammered out in public, not behind closed doors.

There is a reason that 90 percent of New Yorkers think that corruption is a big problem in state government.  Yet, New York’s political class has been intent on appearing to act, while really doing little to change the political culture.

When the U.S. Attorney spoke, he said “This moment in history calls for something more than just talk.  There’s been a lot of talk.”

Unfortunately, there has been little more than talk.  And left to its own devices, Albany’s political establishment will move toward a behind-closed-doors deal, one in which a press release can be written, but one which does little.

New Yorkers must demand more: hearings, public debate, negotiations in the open.  Anything less will just be an unsatisfying ethics reform “rerun.”

The U.S. Attorney sent a warning to New Yorkers as well as to its establishment when he said “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”

We can’t let that happen.  Only an open, honest debate around reforms that limit outside income and create independent ethics enforcement can end the scandals that have plagued Albany.

Five years ago, Governor Cuomo and the Legislature approved annual tuition hikes for public colleges and universities.  At that time, the argument had two simple rationales to support the plan:

First, it was argued that college students and their families wanted “predictability” in tuition costs, so that annual increases could assure them that hikes would never exceed a predictable, annual amount.  That argument was weak, after all what could be more predictable than having no increases at all?

The second – and more compelling – argument was that the state was facing massive deficits and that it had no money to bolster public colleges.  The students would just have to pay more.

Fast forward five years.  The state has jacked up the cost of attending public college by a whopping 30 percent.  At the same time, the state has frozen its support for the State and City University systems.

In short, the students are paying a lot more and the state is not.

Yet, the governor has once again proposed hiking tuition.  He offers no new state support and wants students to continue to pay annual hikes in tuition.

The argument is the same – the far less compelling argument that students want the predictability of annual tuition hikes.  Which is simply not true.

In fact, it is the opposite that is true – students want predictability all right, but they want the predictability of no tuition hikes, they want the predictability of a state flush with cash adding revenues to enhance higher education.

The second argument used five years ago – that the state is facing deficits – is simply not true anymore.  In fact, according to the state Comptroller, the state has a $1 billion surplus this year.  While $650 million of that surplus is coming from state settlements, $350 million is coming from enhanced tax revenues.

Given that the state is flush with money, why should attending a college cost more?

In addition, the governor proposes no broad-based increases in state financial aid programs, thus leaving either the student, or the college, short.  He does propose to expand financial aid to those college students who are undocumented immigrants, but he proposes no expansions in the state’s Tuition Assistance Program, which provides benefits to all students in need.

As a result, the State and City University systems will have to offer financial assistance to needy students, and where will that money come from if not the state?  You guessed it, students.

Why do it?  One guess would be that the governor simply wants to spend less on public college and instead fund other projects.  Public colleges have no economic leverage, they can’t threaten to leave the state, and are, in fact part of government itself.  The students are the least likely group of adults to make campaign contributions, or even vote.

They are politically weak.

There can be no serious argument that making college more costly helps society.  The education level of the state (and the nation) is central to a growing economy – and it is important to ensuring that citizens can adequately participate in the policy debates of their own democracy.

Hiking college costs in an era of fiscal difficulty is bad, but understandable.  Hiking costs in an era of plenty is indefensible.

Recently, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announced that 2015 was by far the hottest year in recorded history.  For the first time, the Earth is 1.8 degrees warmer than in pre-industrial times.

At the recent Paris climate accord, the world’s leaders promised to limit the increase of the Earth’s atmosphere to no more than 2 degrees.  The 2015 temperature hike underscores how difficult that pledge will be to keep.

Experts have said that an increase in the world’s temperature that exceeds the 2 degree limit is likely to unleash global climate changes that may be extremely dangerous and perhaps impossible to reverse.

The increasing global temperature is being felt in New York.  New Yorkers who have suffered through extreme weather events like Sandy, Irene and Lee need no reminder that incredible heat spells, snow falls, rain, surging tides and floods are the new normal.  Climate change is not just an environmental issue: A warming climate is affecting New York’s agricultural and tourism sectors; deteriorating air quality results in more emergency room visits, illnesses and deaths; extreme heat is taking an increasing number of lives; and heat and frequent severe weather significantly increase the demands placed on the state’s infrastructure, particularly the state’s rickety electric grid.

And that’s why governments must act.

Here in New York, the Cuomo Administration has offered plans to curb the state’s contribution to global warming.  The first step was to block expanded exploitation of fossil fuels in New York through the ban on fracking.  The next steps were unveiled in the governor’s 2016 budget plan.

The Administration has mandated that New York double its reliance on renewable energy to power the electrical grid in just 15 years.  By 2030 the goal is for the state to get 50 percent of its power from renewable energy sources.

In its budget plan, the Administration highlighted its $5 billion Clean Energy Fund, which will combine existing and new programs to grow renewable energy across the state, and the Clean Energy Standard, which will mandate more renewables in a tight timeframe.  Both of these plans are essential to the Administration’s efforts to curb power plant emissions and stimulate the use of alternative energy, from battery storage to electric cars.

In addition, the governor is seeking to phase out its two coal plants, by converting them to natural gas or shutting them down entirely.

Under the governor’s plan, New York will add 150,000 solar panels on businesses and homes, as well as at State University of New York campuses by 2020.  The state will also have a goal of making 500,000 new homes more energy efficient.  In total, the state’s energy research agency will finance $1.5 billion in clean energy projects across state-owned buildings as well as local and municipal projects by 2020.

The Administration also calls for the construction of 300 wind turbines, a 40 percent increase, and to create a plan to develop offshore wind resources.

Of course, there are still issues that need to be finalized.  For example, while the state moves toward its goal of 50% renewable energy by 2030, it must not subsidize energy sources that are not renewable—such as nuclear energy and solid waste incineration.

The governor’s budget contained other important environmental initiatives – from boosting support for the state’s Environmental Protection Fund, to enhanced spending on upgrading drinking water and sewer lines, as well as wastewater treatment facility repairs and upgrades.  New York’s aging infrastructure is in desperate need, and the costs of repair and replacement only increase after system failures.

History will judge how our society handles the unprecedented threat posed by climate change.  The governor’s budget offers a blueprint, now it’s up to the legislature to improve and approve it.