publications | about us | on campus | jobs | alumni | cmap | straphangers campaign | fuel buyers group |
|
THE FIRST STUMBLE
Governor Spitzer hit the ground running. His administration, not even a month old, launched an attack on Albany’s political culture. It started even before he was sworn in when he issued a series of edicts that boosted the ethical standards for anyone wishing to serve in his administration and even voluntarily limited the size of campaign contributions that he would accept. Once in office, the governor approved a series of executive orders to codify his earlier decisions, and negotiated a budget reform agreement with the legislative leaders. It seemed clear that the governor had set high reform goals for the first month. Last week, however, that breakneck pace finally caught up with him. The governor unveiled an ethics reform agreement between the executive and the legislative leaders. The package included some very good things – expanding the current ban on gifts, tightening the “revolving door” restrictions, prohibiting elected officials at both the state and local level from using taxpayers’ dollars to advertise themselves, and toughening penalties for ethical violations. But the package included a serious flaw. As a product of these secret negotiations, the governor and the legislative leaders proposed the creation of a new state agency – the Commission on Public Integrity. This new commission would be the result of changes at the current state ethics commission and the elimination of the current lobbying commission. The most obvious problem was that the governor and the legislative leaders created a new state agency completely in secret. The proposal to eliminate the lobbying commission and fold it into a reformed state ethics commission had never been publicly debated. No reform groups had called for it, no reports had been done on the topic, there had been no hearings, and there had been no previously introduced legislation. This aspect of the proposal put off reformers who were supportive of the overall plan. Many were concerned that it was a bad precedent for any administration to secretly negotiate the creation of a new state agency. And some groups were unhappy to see the elimination of the Lobbying Commission – an entity widely viewed as an aggressive and honest enforcement agency. Moreover, the new plan itself was problematic. The current Lobbying Commission’s membership is set up so that no one politician is in control. The six members are chosen jointly with the governor appointing two and one member appointed from each of the four legislative leaders. The new Commission on Public Integrity, on the other hand, has a membership controlled by the governor. The governor appoints seven of the thirteen members, and chooses the chairperson of the Commission as well. As a result, the governor chooses his own watchdog and he also controls oversight of the entire lobbying industry, unlike the system that now exists. That raises a critical question – will advocacy groups be willing to challenge the governor if they believe they could face possible retribution? The proposed Commission on Public Integrity will have vast powers to audit and investigate any lobbying entity, and levy significant fines if it wishes. Vesting these powers in an agency that is controlled by the governor raises concern among reformers. It is not hard to imagine that a future governor could use such powers to shut down opponents. As a result, reformers are urging that the legislature back off this agreement. In a letter to the governor and the legislative leaders the groups urged that the legislature instead hold joint hearings in order to allow the public the opportunity to review the plan. The reason for openness in government is to allow people to inform themselves on the issues of the day and to participate if they so choose. And while there will always be a reason to negotiate behind closed doors, secretly creating a new state agency crosses the line. It makes sense for the governor and the legislature to heed the recommendations of the reformers. A more thoroughly considered plan would mean a better plan. Reforms are important, but poorly conceived reforms can backfire and undermine public confidence. That’s all for now. I’ll be keeping an eye on the Capitol and will talk to you again next week. |
 |
