Reformers kept up the pressure last week for Governor Cuomo and the state Legislature to overhaul the state’s economic development programs.  In a letter to the state’s political leaders, the groups urged that steps be taken to reduce the risk of corruption in how the state doles out government contracts.

For anyone reading the recent news, reducing the possibility of corruption in how the state spends billions of taxpayer dollars seems appropriate, timely and absolutely necessary.  The recent charges brought by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara have highlighted the reality that New York’s government contracting process is ripe for abuse.  Currently, New York uses an array government-created non-profits and branches of the State University of New York to award billions in subsidies.

Yet, at the same time the governor sought these new ways to spur the state’s economy he pushed measures to reduce public accountability of those programs.  For example, in 2011 the governor and the legislative leaders agreed to a deal that removed oversight by the state’s chief fiscal watchdog, the Comptroller, of certain government contracts.

And the bid-rigging charges brought by the U.S. Attorney show that the combination of shadow government entities and inadequate oversight only increase the likelihood of corruption.

In light of the U.S. Attorney’s investigations, the governor’s response has been to hire an attorney to review the state’s procurement process.  The outside attorney’s company, Guidepost Solutions, has conducted its own internal investigation of the state’s contracting process and is being used by the governor as the plan for how to improve the oversight of awarding contracts.

But this company was hired and is being paid by the governor and has been reported to have other government contracts involving New York, which raises the question, “Is it truly independent?”

When you look across the landscape of state government, there are no good examples of watchdogs that are adequately structured to be independent.  The board members of the state’s top ethics watchdog agency are all appointed by elected officials – the same people who are subject to its oversight.  Not surprisingly, after three national searches, all three of the executive directors to this agency have been former employees of the governor.

And a recent report by the news outlet Politico NY found that the agency, the Joint Commission on Public Ethics, has focused its sanctions on mid-to-low level public officials and lobbyists at a time when the U.S. Attorney has found evidence of widespread unethical activities at the highest levels in both the legislative and executive branches.

The state’s Comptroller is a separately-elected official, which is supposed to make him or her independent of the governor.  Yet, often the two elected officials are from the same political party, which can raise questions of adequate independence.  Yet in the most recent case, the governor has used his power to limit the Comptroller’s oversight over the New York’s economic development activities.

The state’s Inspector General is supposed to root out corruption in the executive branch of state government, but is appointed by the governor, with the consent of the state Senate.  The Board of Elections has equal numbers of political-appointees from the two major parties, which limits its aggressiveness.  A recent law created an independent elections enforcement counsel that is supposed to be free of political influence.  However, that person is chosen by the governor as well, with the approval of both houses of the Legislature.

All of these entities can act independently, but the political nature of their structures and approval of their budgets can seriously limit their aggressiveness.

It’s long part time to set up entities that are as independent as possible.  There are effective models that the governor can look to and build on.  For example, the New York City Independent Budget Office’s budget is pegged to the size of the budget office of the Mayor.  The state of Hawaii has an ethics commission in which a special judicial entity chooses two nominees for the commission and the governor chooses one.

However Governor Cuomo decides to move, the goal must be to unshackle the state’s fiscal and ethics watchdogs from the political elite that runs the state.  Those entities must follow investigations without fear or political favor.

And he must act now.  Preet Bharara’s term as U.S. Attorney runs out at the end of this year.  New Yorkers deserve open and accountable government and shouldn’t have to rely on the feds to get it.

Another week, another scandal.  Once again, it was U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara who brought the charges.  What’s different is that the focus of the investigation was the governor’s office, not the legislature. According to the U.S. Attorney, “It turns out the state Legislature does not have any kind of monopoly on crass corruption in New York.”

Among the nine individuals charged were a former top aide and close confidante to Governor Cuomo, as well as the head of the State University of New York’s efforts to expand technologies.  Eight of the nine have said that they are not guilty; the ninth has admitted guilt and is cooperating in the ongoing investigation.

Bharara’s described his investigation as shining “a light on yet another sordid side of the show-me-the-money culture that has so plagued government in Albany.”  According to the U.S. Attorney, a former top aide to the governor accepted more than $315,000 in bribes and other perks, including a Hamptons fishing trip, in exchange for using his official position to perform valuable favors for an energy company, and $35,000 more in bribes from a Syracuse-based developer.

Also among those charged was the former president of the State University of New York Polytechnic Institute, who has been suspended without pay.  According to the allegations in the complaint, the now-former head of the Institute and a lobbyist with close ties to the governor conspired with executives at two companies to rig the bidding process for a massive state-financed redevelopment project known as the Buffalo Billion.

In addition, the governor’s former aide and the lobbyist allegedly shook down companies seeking government contracts for large campaign contributions to the governor as part of their scheme to get contracts for the contributors.

Governor Cuomo has stated that he was unaware of these activities.

Yet, the charges brought by the U.S. Attorney are devastating political blows for the governor.  It was Governor Cuomo who ran for office in 2010 vowing to clean up Albany and now, according to the allegations, appears to have surrounded himself with allies who were exploiting his Administration for their own personal gain.

Of course, these are only allegations, but even if half of them turn out to be true, actions must be taken by the governor in order to begin to restore the public’s trust.

The U.S. Attorney’s complaint should offer a roadmap to the governor and the legislature on how to proceed.

First, end the secrecy surrounding the state’s economic development plans.  What is clear from the complaint is that the governor’s management style of surrounding himself with a handful of trusted aides, and then making decisions largely in secret, is flawed.  Such an approach relies on the trustworthiness of those aides.  Apparently in these cases, that trust was misplaced.

As U.S. Justice Brandeis once remarked, “If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects.”  While openness can make decisions harder to implement, it makes it far less likely that people get away with dishonesty.

Second, empower the state’s fiscal watchdog, the state Comptroller, to examine contracts more closely.  Early in his term, the governor approved a law that removed state comptroller oversight of contracts through the state SUNY system.  Removing such oversight made it less likely that contracts would get the independent scrutiny they deserve.  It’s clear from the complaint that independent oversight may have deterred wrongdoing.

Third, advance campaign finance reforms.  Through the U.S. Attorney’s complaint there are allegations that the schemers were using the state contracting process as a way to shake down bidders for government contracts in order to obtain huge campaign contributions for the governor’s reelection effort.  New York’s campaign finance system should eliminate campaign contributions from those seeking – or receiving – government contracts, the campaign finance limits should be much lower, and a voluntary system of public financing should be established.  Such a voluntary system would help electoral challengers mount serious efforts, thus helping to hold incumbent elected officials more publicly accountable.

As the governor said in his first inaugural, “You have nothing without trust.  And we are not going to back it up until we clean up Albany and there’s real transparency and real disclosure and real accountability and real ethics and real ethics enforcement. That’s what the people have voted for. That’s what the people deserve.”

Sadly, what has become increasingly clear is that the governor has failed in his pledge to clean up state government and to ensure that it operates openly.  But he still has time.  The governor must fulfill his pledge.

New York’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has been battling with Texas based oil giant ExxonMobil for nearly a year.  Last year, the Attorney General launched an investigation into whether ExxonMobil had deliberately ignored its own research about the dangers of global warming and instead set about a campaign to mislead the public – and investors – about the dangers caused by burning fossil fuels, one of which is oil.

The AG’s investigation seemed focused on whether the company, as well as other oil businesses, had taken a page from the tobacco companies by twisting and mischaracterizing research to manufacture doubt and undermine the legitimate scientific evidence showing that human activities are warming the planet.  Moreover, the AG was looking to see if ExxonMobil’s actions to undermine the science misled investors about the financial threats the industry faced from possible global regulatory efforts to curb fossil fuel use.

After initially looking at whether the company misled investors about the risks of climate change, the New York Attorney General is reportedly looking at the potential impact on the valuation of ExxonMobil‘s assets from a global crack down on carbon pollution.

The valuation of a company’s assets is an accounting practice used to determine the worth of the resources under its control.  In this case, oil is the key asset for ExxonMobil.  Yet, the company reportedly is the only one of the major oil producers which has not reduced the value of its assets despite a 60 percent drop in oil prices.

Whether that allegation turns out to be a threat to the company remains to be seen, but the fact that New York’s AG is widening his investigation is not good news for the nation’s biggest oil company.  Over the past two years, as the price of oil has dropped, so has the value of Exxon’s stocks.  An AG investigation adds more pressure.

And while the investigations of possible illegality will play out in the courts, what is clear is that ExxonMobil used its knowledge of global warming not as a tool to educate the world on the rising dangers to the planet, but instead to confuse the public and muddy the debate – in order to continue to maximize its profits.

According to media reports, Exxon was well aware of the dangers caused by the burning of fossil fuels at least as early as the 1980s.  According to corporate documents a obtained by the Los Angeles Times, a leading Exxon researcher told an audience of engineers at a conference in 1991, greenhouse gases are rising “due to the burning of fossil fuels. Nobody disputes this fact.”  The senior Exxon researcher went on to add that there was no doubt those levels would double by the middle of the 21st century.

Yet at the same time, the company was telling board members concerned about climate change that it had studied the science of global warming and concluded it was too murky to warrant action. The company said that its “examination of the issue supports the conclusions that the facts today and the projection of future effects are very unclear.”

Why would a company with well-documented research hide its conclusions and publicly argue the opposite? According to the Times, it was that Exxon feared a growing public consensus would lead to financially burdensome policies. And Exxon saw an upside to a warmer climate: Less expensive exploration and drilling in the Arctic.

According to the Times, top officials proposed “a plan for the ‘Exxon Position’: In order to stop the momentum behind the issue, Exxon should emphasize that doubt. Tell the public that more science is needed before regulatory action is taken and emphasize the ‘costs and economics’ of restricting carbon dioxide emissions.”

And they succeeded.  So much so that national political figures still argue that global warming is a hoax.

Exxon now argues that their internal science led them to make statements that at the time they believed were the truth.  The AG’s investigation may well shed light on the truth of that statement.

But what cannot be ignored is that climate changes are occurring due to global warming – and that such warming is primarily the result of human activity. The world has lost valuable time due to the tactics of the opponents of that scientific fact. As a result, millions worldwide will suffer.

Setting the record straight about what Exxon knew and when it knew it is important to moving forward decisively on climate change in 2016. Exxon fully understood that denying climate science was influencing not only investors and members of the general public, but the lawmakers and regulators who had the power and responsibility to craft policies to act by clamping down on climate pollution.

The world cannot ignore this rising threat. As one of the world’s leading contributors to global warming, the United States must take the lead in curbing the damage that is due to come. And it must do so by the following the advice of the world’s leading scientists: leave fossil fuels in the ground and rely on safe, non-polluting, energy sources.

This week, New Yorkers will vote again – for the third time in six months – in primary elections. Yup, that’s right, New Yorkers vote in, and pay for, two primary elections, and this year a Presidential primary as well.  In June, New Yorkers enrolled in political parties, voted in Congressional primaries and this week they voted for state legislative candidates.

And people wonder why New York has such a lousy voter participation record.

The multiple primaries are just an example of a system that has gotten twisted for the benefit of the two major parties and not the public’s best interests.  Here’s another example of a rigged system: If a voter wanted to switch parties to vote in last April’s Presidential primary, they would have had to do it by October 9, 2015 – 193 days before the primary and the earliest voter registration deadline in the nation.

There are more examples of voting roadblocks: New York State prohibits citizens from registering to vote a full 25 days before a general election – one of the earliest in the nation.

New York is one of eleven states that have “closed primaries” – primaries that only allow voters of the political party to participate.

The stories go on and on; from the purging of over 100,000 voters in Brooklyn, to tiny fonts on the ballot, even policy gridlock at the state Board of Elections (which is run, incidentally, by the two major political parties).

As a result of these, among other, restrictions, New York State ranks near the bottom of the nation’s barrel in terms of voter participation. In the Presidential primary, New York had the second lowest turnout.  In the 2014 general election, the Empire State also ranked 49^th among the states in voter eligible turnout.

Why does a state that prides itself on its openness have some of the nation’s worst voting laws?

Part of the problem rests with politicians themselves.  In order to win elected office, you have to convince your voters to show up.  Newly registered voters are political unknowns and could throw a monkey wrench into a candidate’s campaign.  The fact that New York legislators have benefited from the noncompetitive nature of elections and the status quo may have helped.  If the few voters who do vote keep reelecting the same politicians —even though the public at large claims to be endlessly frustrated with status quo representation–why would you change the rules?

Given that dismal picture, what should be done?  The most obvious step is to encourage widespread voter participation–no matter how awful the current system itself is.  The jolt of this year’s Presidential primary season may help.  According to the New York City Campaign Finance Board, its Spring registration effort was “very encouraging.” During its drive to register eligible 18-year-old high school students, the Board saw a big jump in interest.  Before the drive, there were 16,000 18-year-olds registered to vote.  Around 8,500 students were newly registered during its drive, about a 50 percent increase. “These students are willing and hungry to get involved,” the Board said, “but they simply want to be asked to participate.”

The rest of the adult voting population has to be asked too.

In an effort to get the ball rolling, here is some voting information.  For those who are not registered, forms are available online at the state Board of Elections website (see http://www.elections.ny.gov/NYSBOE/download/voting/voteform_enterable.pdf).  If you want to register, you must do so before October 14^th – the deadline.  You can download and print the form and mail it in or complete an online form if you have or create a state DMV account.

For those who are registered, you can verify your registration and also find out your polling place through the Board’s website too (it’s a little tricky, but use the term “look up voter information” available at: https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/votersearch.aspx).

If you’re not sure who your state or federal representatives are, the Board has information on that too at http://www.elections.ny.gov/district-map/district-map.html.  If you want some background on each legislator, you can get it on the website of the New York Public Interest Research Group and go to the “legislative profiles” option (available at https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/votersearch.aspx)

Of course, policy changes are needed.  Voter registration is a right, not a privilege.  But it’s also our responsibility to vote and improve the work-in-progress that is our democracy.  Public policies should center on making it easier, not harder, to vote.  Governor Cuomo and state lawmakers must do a lot more to fix New York’s voting crisis.

Colleges and universities are kicking off their Fall semesters across the state.  As the summer winds down and the dorms open up, it is a good time to review how state policies are impacting higher education.

The case for public investments in higher education is compelling.  A college-educated workforce is in demand; a recent Georgetown University study found that by 2018, nearly two-thirds of New York jobs would require a post-secondary education.   What’s more, college-educated workers still earn more than their high-school educated peers – in fact, by an average of $17,500 per year.   Higher education institutions also boost civic empowerment by exposing students to new and enriching experiences.   For one, college graduates are more likely to vote and to volunteer.  For another, higher education institutions house key democracy-building groups such as student government associations and public interest groups who empower students to be active participants in their own democracy and bring about meaningful social change.

Unfortunately, despite the compelling arguments in support of state investments, the opposite has occurred.  On top of mounting textbook, housing, and transit costs, New York’s so-called “rational tuition” policy jacked-up the cost of tuition at public colleges by over 30% since 2011.  At the same time, state funding had remained largely flat and funding for financial aid programs has stagnated.  Programs like the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) don’t cover college costs for many who qualify and have not kept up with the needs of all students, beyond just the straight-from-high-school-to-college full-time student. This combination has eroded college affordability and has resulted in rising debt for too many college students.

As the state’s policies have been to increase the cost of attending college and limiting the availability of financial assistance, the income growth of New Yorkers has remained stagnant.  In a recent analysis, nationwide from 2000 to 2014, the average cost of in-state tuition and fees for public colleges in America has risen dramatically. During that same time period, the median American household income dropped.

In New York State during that same period, the cost of public college is up nearly 40 percent, while media income in New York has declined by 3 percent.  Rising college costs have been neither offset by rising wages nor offset by rising state-funded grants.

Rising costs and stagnant support have contributed to another problem: a college student “brain drain.”  According to the New York Times, budget cuts have led to sharply higher tuition in New York State, which now exports far more college students than it imports from other states.   And one can see it in the numbers: last year over 3,600 college students came to New York to attend public college, while over 10,000 New York students left the state to attend college – a ratio of 3 to 1.

Just as New York invests in Kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) because full and equal educational opportunity is a public good, expanding investment to higher education will benefit New York’s economy and communities at large.

Without increased public funding, CUNY and SUNY cannot improve rising full-time faculty-to-student ratios, provide adequate counseling and mentorship services, and fund support services critical for students’ success.  Increased state funding will alleviate future pressure for a tuition hike, provide critical resources to protect the quality of a CUNY and SUNY education, and provide higher education accessibility for all students.

Let’s hope that this academic year sees government policy get it right and that it invests more in colleges and universities.  That’s one investment that has guaranteed payoffs.