It’s easy to tell when elected officials focus on a policy priority.  They mobilize public attention, frame the problem in terms that the public can understand – and in ways that point to the solution they want – and then marshal the resources necessary for a successful implementation.

Ethics reform has never been such a priority.

Long on rhetoric, but short on commitment, for decades top elected officials have too often mouthed the words for ethics reforms, but these performative efforts always come up short.

Earlier this year, Governor Hochul pledged to “blow up” New York’s much maligned ethics agency, the Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE).  JCOPE had long been viewed as an ineffective watchdog, and it had been structured to be an agency that was controlled by the political leaders of the state, not an independent ethics enforcer.

The best evidence of that control was JCOPE’s legal blessing for former Governor Cuomo’s two book deals, worth nearly $6 million.  The second of those deals was reported to have used state resources – an ethics no-no – and the agency (after the former governor had resigned) attempted to reverse the second Cuomo book deal worth over $5 million.

JCOPE was indeed replaced by a new ethics agency, the Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government (CELIG).  This new agency was structured similarly to its predecessor (like JCOPE, the new commission members are appointed by the state’s political leadership), but with a twist: The state’s law school deans would vet candidates nominated by the state’s elected and legislative leaders.

The rationale for using law school deans to review candidates is that they are knowledgeable about the law and independent.  But that second reason was always suspect.  While the individuals may act independently, they all work for institutions that lobby state government and CELIG oversees lobbying.

The deal that created CELIG was hammered out behind the scenes in budget negotiations.  There were no hearings, no final legislation (other than a section in one of the budget bills), and as it turned out, no public support.  The deal was approved in secret in early April with the new agency scheduled to be in place this July.

Yet, the appointment process dragged on into that month.  It wasn’t until last week that enough CELIG commissioners were in place for the new agency to have its first meeting.

One of the reasons for the slow process was the inclusion of the law school deans.  While the nominations reached the commissioners very slowly, they were empowered under the new law to reject those nominations.  And they rejected three, although with no public rationales as to why.

That power – to reject nominations made by elected officials – is a questionable one.  Allowing unelected private individuals to reject nominations by elected officials is likely to be tested in the courts.  Nevertheless, seven of the eleven commissioners were appointed, and last week the CELIG held its first meeting – five full months after the law establishing the agency was approved.

Another wrinkle in the law was that the staff of the old agency were to be rehired after the new agency was constituted, which was expected to be around the same time as the old agency – JCOPE – went out of business.

But that was in July and the new Commission didn’t meet until mid-September.  Apparently the old JCOPE staff were kept in place in order to keep the lights on, but without leadership to do much else. 

Last week, CELIG’s first order of business was to rehire the old JCOPE staff. 

It’s become clearer every day that ethics reform is not reaching the bar met by a policy priority.  The secret deal never had public support, is based on dubious legal assumptions, the state’s elected leaders dragged their feet in making appointments (and still haven’t completed them), and as a result, the new state ethics watchdog agency is off to a sputtering start.

A bumpy start doesn’t doom the agency.  But it’s not a beginning that builds public confidence.

Over the past few weeks, colleges opened up across New York.  And for the first time since the beginning of the covid, colleges opened up more or less in the same manner as they did prior to the pandemic.  By and large, classroom instruction is being conducted in-person, students can live in dorms with few restrictions, and campus activities are back in swing.

It’s a good time to review how well they are doing.

For well over a decade, the direction of policy of New York has been to reduce public support for institutions of higher education.  Not every year – last year’s budget was notable for increasing support – but a clear trend.

The revenues needed to keep college running – both those in the public as well as the independent sectors – have been increasingly generated by tuition.  Over the past decade in particular, the conscious policy of the state was to reduce state supports, including financial aid, and shift those expenses to the colleges themselves.

Until recently, public college tuition was increased at an annual rate, the state’s main tuition assistance program (TAP) was frozen, and the state support for independent colleges (aka private) was slashed to about a third of what it was in the early 1990s.

Since 2010, the State University of New York’s (SUNY) four year and community colleges (but not its university centers) also saw reductions – in some cases staggering – in enrollment.  As the number of students dropped, so did revenues since tuition had become an integral part of college financing.  Without compensating state aid increases, which did not happen, services had to be reduced.  Reduced services, reduced appeal to would-be college students, leading to further drops in enrollments.

Outside of the big universities, the situation at many independent colleges was even more dire.  They typically do not have big endowments, so reliance on student tuition and government support kept them afloat.

The situation at the City University of New York has been different.  Until the pandemic, its four year public colleges and universities held their own financially.

Why has there been a drop in enrollments?  As mentioned earlier, some of it results from public policy choices – the state’s drop in support hurt all but the biggest universities – both public and private.  Demographics hurt as well: while not all college students are not the traditional 18-24 year old group, many are and that demographic has declined. 

So the policies may make sense IF policymakers are deciding to allow the weaker campuses to “whither on the vine.”  But that would cause more harm than good.

There is a strong case to be made that the state should enhance its support even if enrollments have declined.

Colleges and universities do more than simply educate – as important as that is.  They are also mini-economic engines that financially bolster local communities with jobs, spending on businesses, and provide a cultural hub that attracts well-educated residents.

In addition to boosting racial and economic equity, public higher education helps to strengthen New York’s economy.  The research into the economic benefits of investing in higher education have been overwhelmingly positive.

Yet too often the state’s economic development strategies ignore well-documented benefits and instead spend taxpayer dollars on programs that sound good in press releases, but rarely deliver. 

As one think-tank comments, “In New York State, various agencies and entities administer economic development programs with a total cost of $10 billion annually in 2019.  While New York is a leader in the scope and amount of its economic development spending, it is not a leader in job-creating projects.  It fails to rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of its economic development spending and does not demonstrate that this spending is producing sufficient results.”

There have been, moreover, instances of well-documented abuses of the system.  The most obvious was the investigation and prosecution by the U.S. Attorney’s office into the “Buffalo Billion” scandal which found that state contracts were rigged to benefit campaign contributors.

Of course, this is not to say that all economic development projects fail.  The point is that current policy in this area disregards the evidence that investing in the state’s higher education sector has some of the best bang for the buck.  And that it is this disregard that starves a proven economic engine while steering resources into too often dubious projects.

When it comes to higher education, we can’t overlook that college yields benefits that extend well beyond individual economic returns.  A primary function of postsecondary education is to develop college students’ involvement in the nation’s civic life and democratic processes, engender a sense of social responsibility, and develop an appreciation and respect for differences across cultures and peoples.  College students are more likely to vote and volunteer, in addition to paying more in taxes upon graduation.

As colleges open up and students stream onto campuses, policymakers should take note of the economic benefits to New York of having a robust, statewide system.  Allowing some of these institutions to wither away while spending billions on development schemes that often provide limited benefits makes no sense.  Investing in making New York a model for how to make smart investments, train future workers, and enhance its civic life must be its investment direction.

August is heading toward a close.  The summer has once again been hot and dry.  In fact, experts are predicting that this could be the hottest – or among the hottest – in modern history.  As everyone who pays attention to climate science knows, with each passing year, the world will keep getting hotter.

Even if the world adheres to the Paris Accord – and the global climate agreement’s nonbinding and thus unenforceable goals – the planet will keep getting hotter for the rest of the Century.  Keeping the planet from exceeding the Paris goal of holding the heating to no more than an average 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than in pre-industrial times (the late 1800s), will still mean significant damage to the planet, but not a catastrophe. 

But there is no time to waste: Experts say that the world’s greenhouse gas emissions must be heading down no later than the end of this decade and be eliminated by the year 2050.  The world can’t wait for the development of new technologies, it must act now.

Nationally, the transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.  Fortunately, technology does exist to fundamentally change the way we travel – electronic-powered vehicles. 

Last week, stunning displays of the devastating impacts from the heating of planet stemming from the burning of fossil fuels – oil, gas, and coal have been incredible.

Economic powerhouse China is reeling from a record-setting drought and an eleven-week-long heat wave that is forcing a drastic curbing of power supplies, threatening crops and setting off wildfires.  Reduced electricity from hydroelectric dams has prompted China to impose rolling blackouts or limit energy use.

It’s not just the heat.  The drought has dried up dozens of rivers and reservoirs in the region and cut hydropower generation capacity.  The Yangtze River has receded so low that many oceangoing ships can no longer reach upstream ports.

China is not alone.  In Europe this summer, record-breaking heat waves featuring temperatures upward of 100 degrees Fahrenheit have cooked the continent and caused thousands of deaths. France, Spain and other countries are suffering from related droughts, the drying up of rivers, and a wildfire season on pace to be the worst on record.

Here in the United States, Lake Mead, a reservoir providing water to millions and fed by the Colorado River, is now at only 27 percent capacity.  The decades-long drought in the American West has also contributed to intense wildfires that have swept the region.

Even wet parts of the United States are drying out.  Last week, the U.S. Drought Monitor listed key parts of the Northeast as being in “severe drought.”  And Governor Hochul has announced that much of New York is suffering from a drought. 

It will only get worse; these conditions may not be exceptional and may instead represent the new normal.

When it comes to the climate crisis, the United States must play a leadership role.  It is this nation that has been the historic leader in releasing greenhouse gases and thus it is obliged to show the world how to address this growing menace.

Sadly, we haven’t been doing that.  The stranglehold that the oil, gas, and coal industries have had on national public policy has resulted in far too few steps being taken to address the existential crisis posed by global warming.

The nation’s climate leadership must come from the states.  Last week, the state of California targeted the largest national source of GHG when it announced that it will prohibit the sale of fossil-fuel-powered cars by the year 2035.  New York has a goal of phasing out fossil fuel powered cars by 2035, but California’s new regulation is mandatory, not aspirational.  California, which has one of the biggest economies in the world – can drive U.S. auto manufacturers to change the products that they sell nationally.  It makes no sense to make two different types of cars, one for California and one for the rest of the states.

In fact, it is expected that fifteen other states will follow California’s lead.  And those states must act.  Ten states – including California and New York – are the source of half of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions.  Reducing emissions in those states will have a dramatic impact on the world’s climate crisis.

This is the blueprint for winning the climate war: states leading on attacking the major sources of heat-trapping emissions.  If California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey and the others (Colorado, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington) mandate that in a decade or so all new cars must be electric, then the nation will follow.  And if the U.S. embraces electric cars, the world will too.  We don’t have a moment to spare.

New York State collects and spends an enormous amount of money.  Last year’s state budget, for example, exceeded $220 billion, second only to the state of California.  The state is also home to some of the loosest campaign finance rules in the nation.  Using the leverage of state spending powers to rake in campaign contributions has been a time-honored practice among New York’s elected officials. 

In light of this reality, oversight of state spending is an important check on the obvious abuses that can – and too often do – occur.  But governors resist having fiscal watchdogs.  Most recently, former Governor Cuomo successfully championed a measure in 2011 to curtail the oversight functions of the state Comptroller – the state’s top fiscal watchdog.  The former governor’s argument was that the Comptroller’s review of state contracting moved too slowly and that he needed quick actions on his plans for economic development.  The Comptroller denied that claim, but the then-popular governor steamrolled opposition and the Legislature agreed to reduce the Comptroller’s oversight.

In hindsight, that move proved the old proverb “haste makes waste.”

New York State’s Comptroller is a separately elected official.   The state Constitution established a separately elected Comptroller who is supposed to be free of interference from other governmental offices.  It is the Comptroller who is charged with monitoring the state finances.

The 2011 move had its consequences.  As a result of federal investigations into the Cuomo-era “Buffalo Billion” and other economic development actions, top aides to the former governor were sentenced to prison for shaking down campaign contributors who were interested in state government contracts – known as a “pay-to-play” scheme. 

Had the Comptroller retained his oversight powers, would that – and other – schemes have occurred?  Of course there is no way to know for sure, but people do behave differently when they are being watched.  Experience shows that stronger oversight reduces corruption risks; more lax oversight leads to the opposite.

During the recent legislative session, lawmakers acted to restore the Comptroller’s powers.  While the evidence of oversight omissions alone should have moved them to act, having a new governor likely played a role as well.

The governor has yet to say if she’ll approve the bill restoring Comptroller oversight.  Approval of the legislation would send a powerful signal that Governor Hochul understands the need for stronger independent oversight of contracting.  She has seen how the previous Administration’s preference for speed over accountability can lead to corruption. 

She also knows that it’s not just members of the previous Administration or only the executive branch.  Members of the Legislature have themselves been caught up in corruption investigations in which they were doing the bidding of campaign contributors as part of their “pay-to-play” arrangements.  Most recently, the former Lt. Governor was charged by federal prosecutors in a scheme to pay back a campaign contributor by directing state monies to his organization.  That matter is still pending.

Governor Hochul is currently building an enormous warchest in her effort to win the election this November.  According to reporting in The New York Times – the governor set a target of raising a total of $50 to $70 million by Election Day.  A mind-boggling amount of money in little over a year of being governor.

Also according to the Times, many of her campaign contributions came from those with business before the government.  The Times reported Hochul raised over $200,000 from the gambling industry, which is waiting for three new licenses to be issued by the state for casinos in and around New York City.

It’s easy to understand why the governor wants a huge campaign warchest – it will pay for an expensive campaign and ensure that donors think twice about funding her opponents.  But it does raise the policy question of what the state should do to ensure that the influence of campaign donors is not influencing the awarding of government contracts.

One way to ensure that such oversight exists hinges on how the governor chooses to act on the legislation restoring the powers of the state Comptroller.  Stating her support for the legislation will help re-assure public confidence in state governmental decision-making; staying mum will raise concerns that the bad old days may be here to stay.

New York voters are once again trooping to the polls this week.  In what can only be described as maddeningly confusing, primaries for some of New York’s representatives will be voted on through August 23^rd, the first primaries held during August in New York’s modern political history.

In June, primaries were held for Democratic and Republican candidates for statewide offices – Governor, Lt. Governor, Comptroller, and Attorney General, as well as for candidates for the state Assembly.  This go round includes primaries for candidates running for the state Senate and to represent New York in the Congressional House of Representatives. 

New York runs “closed primaries,” meaning that only voters enrolled in a political party can vote for that party’s primary candidates.  Traditionally, primaries are low turnout affairs and that was the case in June.  Given that at least some New York Democrats and Republicans who voted in June will assume that they’re done, it is widely expected that turnout will be even lower for the August vote.

And for voters in the Hudson Valley, this August vote adds even more confusion.  When Antonio Delgado resigned from the House of Representatives to become New York’s Lt. Governor, state law required a special election to replace him.

So voters in Congressional District 19, the seat that Delgado held, will choose a replacement for the remainder of his term, through the end of the calendar year.  That vote also is going on this week and into August 23^rd.  The candidates for that race feature Democratic Ulster County Executive Pat Ryan running against Republican County Executive Marc Molinaro.  As mentioned the winner fills in Delgado’s seat through the end of the calendar year.

But due to redistricting, that seat’s boundaries shifted.  At the same time as Ryan and Molinaro are running against each other to fill the seat that is vacant for the rest of the year, they are both running in different districts to be their respective party’s nominees for this November’s general election.  Ryan is running for the Democratic nomination for a full term in the new 18th District, which encompasses a swath of the Hudson Valley, while Molinaro is seeking a full tern in the new 19th, which stretches west to include the cities of Binghamton and Ithaca.  (There is a special election for an open Congressional seat in the Rochester area as well.)

New Yorkers can’t be faulted for failing to keep this all straight.  The question is why is this the case?

The reason for two sets of primaries is the result of legal decisions that upended New York’s defective redistricting process.  Under the state Constitution, after the census is conducted every ten years, a Redistricting Commission is supposed to draw the new political boundaries to reflect changes in the state’s population.  A new approach was designed and advanced by then-Governor Cuomo and approved by voters in 2014.

Yet, there was a fatal flaw in New York’s redistricting program: The Commission was made up of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats.  Many predicted partisan gridlock and sure enough the Commission could not agree on the new maps.

Instead they advanced two sets of maps – one drawn by Democrats and one by Republicans.  Under the Constitution, the Legislature is required to vote on the plan.  If they reject the Commission’s proposal, the Commission must react by drawing a second set of maps for legislative approval.  The equally-divided Commission failed to advance a second set of maps.  So, the Legislature – as seemingly allowed under the Constitution, drew its own maps, approved them, and Governor Hochul signed them into law. 

The state’s courts, however, ruled that action impermissible, meaning that the Legislature should have waited for the second set of maps – even if the Commission didn’t or couldn’t act. 

The courts threw out the Senate and Congressional maps drawn by the Legislature and then had an outside expert redraw new ones and moved those primaries to August to account for the delays while the cases moved through the courts.

The system for replacing elected representatives who do not finish their terms also stems from the Cuomo era.  During that time, Governor Cuomo would often hold special elections (replacing elected officials who no longer served) as part of a negotiated deal with lawmakers.  There were times when then-Governor Cuomo failed to call a special election for months in order apparently to secure some agreement with the legislative leaders.  Such delays left voters without representation in either Albany or Washington.

To respond to that tactic, legislation was ultimately approved that requires the governor to set the date for a special election within ten days of an elected official leaving office – such as Lt. Governor Delgado did.

Those Cuomo era changes – to redistricting and special elections – are the root causes of the confusing situation some voters find themselves in today.

In addition to the flawed ethics system, these election changes call out for reform when lawmakers return to Albany: a new redistricting system that relies on an independent non-partisan commission and a primary election system that encourages maximum turnout, not one that requires voters to go to the polls during the dog days of August.