When it comes to cleaning up Albany, last week’s events indicate that the broom has been put away for now.  Governor Cuomo announced that the ethics issue had fallen off the table of the budget deliberations.  He added that he would make sure it was a top priority in the post-budget session.

We’ll see.

It was the governor, after all, who put the ethics issue in the budget in the first place.  Yet, the governor has done virtually nothing to galvanize public support for his reform package in the two months it was released– despite nearly 90 percent of New Yorkers wanting changes.

At the same time, a commission appointed by the governor, the legislative leaders, and the courts, is examining whether New York’s public officials deserve a pay raise. That commission will hold a hearing this week to allow for public comment on pay raises.

New York pays its state lawmakers comparatively well: the governor gets the third highest salary in the country (Tennessee pays the most) and our legislature gets the third highest salary (behind California and Pennsylvania).  So what’s the argument for pay increases?

The argument stems from the fact that state elected officials haven’t had a pay increase since 1999, which is a long time.  And when that decision was made, then-Governor Pataki linked his approval of pay increases to non-related policy changes—that is, horse trading for lawmaker pay.  The pay raise before that one was also linked to policies.

This time around, the governor and the legislature agreed to create a commission to review salaries.  They gave it the power to hike pay without additional legislative approval.  However, the governor and the legislature will still be able to roll back the pay raise if they choose.

The commission idea makes sense – lawmakers shouldn’t have to face linkages between appropriate pay and policies advanced by the governor.

It only makes sense, however, if the commission is independent and relies on objective analyses conducted in a public manner.  Whether this commission meets those standards remains to be seen.  The majority of the pay raise commissioners are picked by the governor and the legislative leaders.

New Yorkers have seen far too many commissions that serve at the beck and call of the political establishment.  Time will tell if this commission is free to follow its objective analysis.

Also, given Albany’s seemingly unending series of political scandals, how will a pay raise sit with the public who has to pay for it?  As mentioned earlier, the governor and the legislature have decided to drop (at least for now) the issue of ethics reform.  And the reason that ethics reform is on the table is the direct result of the arrests and convictions of the state’s top legislative leaders.  And these convictions followed dozens of other instances in which lawmakers behaved badly; conduct that doesn’t seem to be abating.

How will the public feel about a pay raise for Albany when the governor and the legislature are not tackling the biggest scandals in New York modern political history?

My guess is that New Yorkers will not be happy.

Of course, that does not argue that public officials don’t deserve a pay raise, that’s up to the commission to independently and publicly discuss.  However, if the governor and the legislature can’t agree on cleaning out Albany’s political stables, then the public has every right to be angry.

The pay commission does not have authority to make changes on key ethics reforms – like limiting the outside employment income of elected officials – but it can create some pressure to keep the governor and the legislature focused on doing their jobs and fixing Albany.

The commissioners can promise to release their recommendations well in advance of this November’s elections, but after the legislative session ends in June.  In that way, the public can hold candidates for office accountable.  If they have truly improved Albany’s ethical climate, defending a pay raise would be relatively easy.

Failing to substantially reform ethics, on the other hand, would make a pay raise indefensible.

The commission must remember who picks up the tab for governmental salaries and who has had to endure years of broken promises to reform Albany.  They deserve a say.

Sunday marked the beginning of “Sunshine Week,” a week in which the nation focuses its attention on government openness.  The “Week” makes it clear that it is important to maintain an open government, in order to ensure the proper relationship between public officials and the citizens they are pledged to serve.

The critical tool for holding policymakers accountable, as well as ensuring that the public is educated on policymaking, is the Freedom of Information Law.  The Law operates on one basic concept – that government information should be accessible to the public.  Without a strong open access law, it is virtually impossible for the public to adequately participate in, and monitor, governmental decision making.

Weaker laws can result in public officials losing their way.  It was one year ago, that the Cuomo Administration was called out for its policy of requiring the deletion of state governmental emails after 90 days.

At first, the governor’s office argued that the policy was simply due to technological limitations.  When faced with the fact that the federal government – which has far more emails than New York – now has a seven year retention policy, the justification has changed.

But the Administration did not back off and the policy went into place.  Later last year, the governor vetoed two bills that were designed to make it easier for the public to get access to government records.

One bill would have required that state agencies not drag their feet on disclosing information to the public; another raised the likelihood of penalties if the agencies wrongfully denied the public access to public information.

Both proposals were advanced by the state agency responsible for ensuring government openness – the Committee on Open Government.  Both proposals were part of the agency’s annual analysis examining what should be done to improve governmental accountability.

Both bills passed the legislature with overwhelming bipartisan support.  But both were vetoed by the governor.

Why?  The governor argued that there were technical defects in the bills.  The governor followed up with an executive order requiring that state agencies respond more quickly to FOIL requests.
Unfortunately, the governor’s executive order does nothing to ensure openness by local governments (also covered by FOIL) and does nothing to punish state agencies that ignore the FOIL.

The governor vetoed those bills saying that he would not agree to any legislation that did not comprehensively overhaul the state’s Freedom of Information Law.  In short, he was saying that it was his way or there was no way.

This session the governor proposed legislation that he said would comprehensively improve public access to its own government.  Last week, a coalition of civic groups sent a letter to the governor and the legislative leaders identifying instances in which the governor’s proposed legislation would weaken the Freedom of Information Law, not strengthen it.

For example, the bill makes it harder for citizens to obtain attorneys fees in the event that they are successful in taking a state agency to court for failing to appropriately disclosure public records.

Pledging to make New York’s notoriously secretive state government more open has become a staple of promises by candidates for public office.  In his 2010 campaign book, “Clean Up Albany,” then-candidate Andrew Cuomo pledged “to make the State government the most transparent and accountable in history.”

It turns out that that pledge remains unfulfilled.  Let’s hope that this “Sunshine Week” stimulates Albany’s leaders to throw open the windows of state government, not keep the curtains closed.

Buried in Governor Cuomo’s $154 billion state budget plan is an appropriation of $1 million to establish a commission to consider the possibility of a state constitutional convention.  The governor’s commission, if approved, would be charged with developing a blueprint for the process of running a constitutional convention, if one is called by the voters in 2017.

New Yorkers get an opportunity every 20 years to decide whether they wish to convene a constitutional convention.  The goal of a convention would be to make changes to the state’s current constitution.  The next vote to decide whether to convene a convention is in November 2017.

Since the first constitution was written in 1777, New York has chosen to significantly rewrite it on eight occasions.  The Constitution in effect today was produced by the convention in 1894, with significant changes resulting from the 1938 convention.  While there have been amendments to the Constitution since then, the basic structure of it has not undergone a comprehensive updating, and currently there are provisions that are simply ignored as invalid under federal law.

Voters turned down opportunities to convene a convention in 1957, 1977, and again in 1997. In the last vote in 1997, 63% of voters said no.   The next constitutionally mandated vote is in 2017.

The possibility of additional changes occurred in 1967, when as a result of federal court decisions on voting rights and reapportionment that invalidated New York constitutional provisions, state lawmakers put a referendum on the 1965 ballot to call a convention.    The referendum was approved by voters, but the product of that 1967 convention was voted down.

In November, 2017, the public votes on whether to hold a convention.  If the majority of votes cast on the convention question are “yes,” then the process continues.  If the majority votes no on convening a convention, no convention happens and the “road” to a convention ends.

If voters choose to convene a convention, in November, 2018 voters then choose delegates to that convention.  204 delegates are chosen by voters; 3 delegates for each of the state’s 63 senate districts and 15 selected statewide.

The convention, consisting of its delegates, would begin its deliberations the first Tuesday of April 2019 and continues until work is completed.

As the convention begins, the delegates will likely organize themselves to consider changes to the Constitution, such as creating committees to examine specific areas of the constitution (e.g., environmental policies).  The commission proposal in this year’s budget could help by doing the preparatory work that the delegates would need to begin their work in earnest.

If delegates have thoughtful, independent, and fair plans ready to go, they will be able to move quickly.  The absence of such planning will ensure a more drawn out process.

At the convention, the delegates would decide on which changes they agree should be part of a new Constitution.

Whatever changes emerge from the convention is then sent to the voters for final approval. New Yorkers go to the polls the following November (2019 at the earliest) to approve or reject the changes.  If rejected, the Constitution does not change.

Will history repeat itself in 2017 with voters giving the convention idea thumbs down?  If not, the work done by the governor’s commission could be very helpful.  Lawmakers should support it.

If you want more details on the convention process, go to http://www.nypirg.org/goodgov/concon/.

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.