President-elect Donald Trump has been revealing his proposed leadership team for the new Administration set to take office next month.  According to media reports, it appears that his nominee for Secretary of State will be the head of oil-giant ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson.  Of course, we do not know if in fact Mr. Tillerson will be the nominee, but the leaks of his nomination will undoubtedly trigger controversy.

Being the head of one of the world’s largest and most profitable corporations offers possible advantages in the Department of State.  Despite no experience in diplomacy, Mr. Tillerson has traveled widely and likely has an extensive network of global contacts, including those at the highest levels of foreign governments. In addition, having run a behemoth corporation, managing the Department of State with its far-flung global activities should be something Mr. Tillerson is familiar with.

Like any other wealthy corporate executive, however, there will be appropriate questions raised that should force Mr. Tillerson to explain how he plans to address the inevitable conflicts of interest arising from his personal financial investments, as well as the corporate interests of ExxonMobil.

But the Tillerson nomination raises a unique question: How does he explain the decades of ExxonMobil’s strategies of attacking global efforts to combat climate change – changes in the earth’s climate that are largely the result of the burning of greenhouse gases?

In recent media reports, it has been revealed that Exxon’s scientists had been sounding the alarm within the company over the heating up of the planet and that oil and gas were key ingredients of that warming.  Those scientists were at the cutting edge of research and had discovered the connections between the burning of coal, oil and gas and global warming.

Those scientists were clamoring for action – not only for the sake of the environment, but for the sake of the company as well.  They claimed, correctly, that as the planet heated up there would be more regulatory actions to reduce the use of fossil fuels.  Those individuals wanted Exxon to get ahead of the policy curve.

Exxon’s reaction was to essentially shut down their science and double down of the use of fossil fuels – all the while hammering away that there was no such thing.

The company hired legions of advocates to muddy the waters and attack those who were advocating for actions to minimize the damage from climate change.  They even funded “front groups” to make their case so that the public would be deceived into thinking that these groups were truly independent.

And it worked, decades later there is little evidence that the United States will seriously address the issue, despite the overwhelming evidence that the world is on a soon-to-be irreversible trajectory toward runaway global warming.

If that happens, tens of millions of people – most of whom live in societies that have played virtually no role in the warming of the planet – will face misery, disease, and incredible hardship.

Mr. Tillerson has worked at ExxonMobil for over 4 decades, during the time of the company’s internal, and world’s external, debates over climate change.  While he may not have been the architect of ExxonMobil’s strategies, he has defended them, often aggressively.

If he is the nominee of the new President, he will have questions to answer: How he will handle his conflicts of interest, his relations with other nations’ leaders, and how does he justify his company’s use of its enormous wealth to essentially snuff out an effort to avert a global disaster? A disaster that for decades Exxon’s scientists had predicted would come – climate changes that would profoundly, and disastrously, affect the planet.

The talk of a special legislative session heated up last week.  State legislators – particularly those in the Assembly – were still smarting from the governor’s moves to kill their long-awaited pay increase.  In 2015, the governor and the legislature created a pay commission to establish whether lawmakers – and top ranking members of the executive branch – should get a pay hike, and if so how much.

There hadn’t been a pay increase for lawmakers since 1999 and they assumed that this commission would approve one.  Billed at the time as an independent commission, it turned out to be anything but that.  The governor’s appointees apparently took direction from him and killed the pay increase proposal after the governor stated his opposition, unless lawmakers agreed to ethics reforms.

Last week, the governor unveiled a new package of changes that he wanted, tying it to a pay increase.

If state lawmakers return for a special legislative session this month, the governor not only wants additional ethics changes, he wants financing for a new hate-crime task force and reforms for the state and New York City university systems.

The governor also proposed two amendments to the state’s Constitution that would create a full-time legislature with four-year terms and set term limits for officials that hold statewide posts.

The legislature reacted with hostility, essentially saying that the governor’s linkage of these items to a pass raise was the equivalent of legislative extortion.  And they have a point, it has happened before.

The last time a pay raise was approved; then-Governor Pataki tied pay increases to policies that established charter schools, a budget reform measure and a dairy farm mandate.

Depending how you feel on those issues, of course, may determine whether you think it was a good idea for Governor Pataki to extract them as the price of a pay hike.  But is it right?

The point of the commission was to stop the legislative stick up process and instead try to depoliticize salaries.  Unfortunately for New Yorkers, neither the governor nor the legislative leaders were ever serious about setting up an independent pay commission.  What they really wanted was a pay increase – for both the legislative and executive branches – without them having to take a public position or take a tough vote.

Ironically, playing games with the commission has come back to bite lawmakers.  Whatever they agreed to in order to get the commission was now given away for free and the legislature now faces a governor determined to extract even more.

What should happen?

No one should go nearly two decades without a pay raise.  While New York legislators are currently the third highest paid in the nation, California is number one and pays its lawmakers $100,000.

Should New York lawmakers be the highest paid after essentially failing to deliver real corruption busting ethics reforms?  Absolutely not.

The governor and the legislature should create a real independent compensation commission, not filled with their allies, but with individuals who have no skin in the game – other than the public’s best interests.

Should the legislature capitulate to the governor in order to get a pay hike?  I say no.  Some of the governor’s plans – such as changing the state constitution to allow lawmakers to run for office less frequently, deserves a real public debate – not a rush job.

But let’s get a real independent commission.  And the governor and lawmakers should really tackle the culture of corruption at the state Capitol.

Thanksgiving is the start of the holiday shopping season.  It is a time when many adults look for gifts for children.  And while the holidays are a time for fun and giving, it is important that it be a safe time as well.

A recent survey of toys found some that posed health and safety threats to children.  The report identified toys recalled by the federal government’s Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) from January 2015 to October 2016. For large items such as cars, when they get recalled, owners will usually be contacted immediately through VIN numbers. However, that’s not the case with toy recalls.

Some of the recalled toys that the researchers found were still available for sale at online stores include:

• A toy glockenspiel which was recalled in February 2016 due to high levels of lead in the paint. If the paint is scraped off and ingested lead can cause adverse health effects.
• A remote-controlled flying toy which was recalled in June 2016. The toy’s USB charging cord can overheat, posing a hazard.
• A pencil case which contains two magnets that hold the case lid closed can detach, posing an ingestion hazard. If these two magnets are swallowed, they can link together inside a child’s intestines and result in serious internal injuries.

It is illegal to sell a recalled product under CPSC rules. The authors of the report have notified the CPSC about these potentially illegal sales and have asked them to investigate these toys further and take appropriate action.

In addition to this call for an investigation, the report urged that the CPSC improve its recall effectiveness by:

• Engaging in efforts to increase consumer and researcher awareness of the public hazard database SaferProducts.gov.
• Aggressively seeking to increase recall effectiveness by making sellers agree to conduct more effective outreach campaigns that stress the real hazard posed, rather than simply promoting the purported good will of the firm.
• Performing regular online sweeps checking for the availability of previously-recalled toys.
• Holding companies reselling recalled products accountable, this will also send a message to others.

Of course, government oversight, while important, is not enough.  The report urged that parents and caregivers take steps to protect children from potential hazards. The report recommended that parents:

• Subscribe to email recall updates from the CPSC and other U.S. government safety agencies available at www.recalls.gov.
• Examine toys carefully for hazards before purchase – and don’t trust that they are safe just because they are on a store shelf. Check the CPSC recall database at CPSC.gov before buying toys online.
• Report unsafe toys or toy-related injuries to the CPSC at Saferproducts.gov.

Of course, the report only identified toys that had been previously recalled. Other hazards may exist.

To help consumer ensure that all toys are safe, the report’s authors offered some additional tips for parents and other consumers of toys:

• Review the recalled toys list in this report and compare it to toys in children’s toy boxes.
• Put small parts, or toys broken into small parts, out of reach. Regularly check that toys appropriate for older children are not left within reach of younger children who still put things in their mouths.

To get a copy of the report, you can view it on the website of the New York Public Interest Research Group at www.nypirg.org.

Smarter toy choices can help keep this holiday season safe.

Corruption and ethics continue to dominate the headlines out of Albany.  Last week, the verbal sparring over ethics reforms spilled into public view.

Early in the week, Governor Cuomo’s appointees on a panel reviewing pay levels for the legislative and executive branches killed a proposal to hike salaries – after the governor announced his opposition.  The governor’s stated opposition to a pay increase stemmed from the legislature’s reluctance to approve a Congressional-style limit on outside income for lawmakers.

Later in the week, the governor announced another package of ethics reforms that he promised would end the unrelenting scandals that have plagued state government.

In his statement, the governor said

“I believe this public trust and integrity issue must be addressed – directly and forthrightly. I don’t believe in denial as a life strategy. I believe you must face your problems, no matter how unpleasant, and do your best to resolve them.

It is time for action, not words.”

Of course, no statement can explain every detail and when it comes to ethics and government accountability, details matter.  For example, the governor’s proposal to cut off campaign contributions from those seeking government contracts is a welcome addition to the debate, but the details on how that would be accomplished really do matter.

Would a ban on contributions from those who receive government contracts apply to corporate affiliates, to unions, to family members?  Would the prohibition extend to all political committees – including local ones, not just those controlled by elected officials?

We don’t know the answers yet, but how the governor packages that proposal could go a long way toward whether it solves a real problem, or just creates the illusion of a solution.

Another example is the governor’s proposal to create a new position within his office — a Chief Procurement Officer.  The Chief Procurement Officer would, according to the governor’s statement, “be charged with reviewing all state contracts, with an eye towards eliminating any wrongdoing, conflicts of interest or collusion.”

There is good reason for better oversight of government contracts:  The U.S. Attorney has alleged serious instances of corruption involving the award of large economic development contracts from state government.  Yet, the state constitution already establishes someone to monitor the New York’s finances — the independently elected State Comptroller.

In recent years, however, the governor and the legislature have taken numerous actions to weaken the oversight provided by the Comptroller.

Instead, the governor and legislative leaders should be looking to enhance checks and balances and for ways to restore and strengthen the Comptroller’s powers to independently oversee government spending.

The governor’s ethics statement observed, “That fear of real problems, combined with mistrust about the government, is the toxic combination that this nation now faces.

Sadly, New York is no exception. Our state has suffered a few long years of seemingly endless scandals at all levels.”

And as the governor said “It is time for action, not words.”

Sadly, for far too long, Albany has been all talk and very little action.

The governor’s statement was another in series of public promises, New Yorkers can only hope that this time actions will follow words.

One of the notable surprises of last week’s Presidential Election is that it appears that Donald Trump has become President-elect while getting fewer votes than Mitt Romney received in his losing Presidential bid in 2012.  You heard that right, while there are still results being counted in Michigan, as of now Donald Trump received roughly 60.3 million votes, while Mitt Romney in 2012 received nearly 61 million votes.

Hillary Clinton appears to have garnered nearly 61 million votes (more than Trump), but far less than Barack Obama’s 66 million in 2012.

What happened?  We do know that the population of the nation grew during that time, as did the number of voters.  In 2016, there are an estimated 323.4 million Americans with nearly 226 million eligible voters.  In contrast, in 2012, there were 308.1 million Americans and 215 million eligible voters.

Yet fewer people voted.  Why?

Part of it is the increasing difficulty in voting in America.  As part of the ongoing – and false – campaign about so-called voter fraud, laws are now in place that makes it more difficult for eligible Americans to register and for voters to vote.

In 2016 alone, at least 14 states installed restrictive voting laws around the country, including limitations on voter registration, photo ID mandates and narrower time periods for early voting, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

But it’s also part of an “institutional voter suppression” effort.  By that I mean the way in which the elections are conducted.  In New York State, for example, the longest lines to vote are usually in the City of New York.  Voters who see long lines can be turned off and choose not to vote.  Low turnout in New York City is a key reason why New York State is at the “bottom of the nation’s barrel” in voter participation.

Since New York State is a “blue state” why would it allow long lines in the Democratic Party-dominated City?  Current elected officials win because the current crop of voters turns out.  Bringing in new voters can put incumbents – of any party – at risk.  There is less incentive to overhaul the system.

Another factor is the toxicity of the election itself.  The more ugly the election, the more likely voters will be turned off.  That has to have been a factor in last week’s election.  Less-partisan voters are less likely go to the polls and that suppresses turnout.

There is not much that can be done to reduce the toxic nature of American politics.  But there are things that can be done to make voting easier.

Americans have a constitutional right to vote.  However for some, voting is seen as a privilege that citizens should strive to achieve.  Thus, for those individuals, registration requirements are no big thing.

Yet, in other democracies, voting is treated as a right.  In most countries, the government takes the lead in getting people’s names on the rolls – whether by registering them automatically once they become eligible (as in, for example, Sweden or Germany) or by aggressively seeking out and registering eligible voters (as in the UK and Australia).

In the U.S., by contrast, registration is mainly an individual responsibility. And registered voters represent a much smaller share of potential voters in the U.S. than just about any other advanced democracy: Only about 65% of the U.S. voting-age population was registered in 2012, compared with 91% in Canada and the UK, 96% in Sweden and nearly 99% in Japan.

Democracy is a work in progress.  But when it comes to voting, progress – not retrenchment – is needed.  Hopefully, Governor Cuomo can figure out a way to move New York State from one of the worst states in the nation when it comes to voting, to an example of what should be done.