The 2016 legislative session kicked off quietly last week. Typically, the governor unveils his legislative program on the first day. His State of the State address serves as the legislative curtain raiser for the session. This year, the governor has chosen to postpone his address for one week and has used that time to make daily announcements highlighting his upcoming initiatives.

As a result, lawmakers returned to a more subdued Capitol to begin the 2016 session. Both houses began their sessions with each house’s leadership discussing the top issues as they see them. Not surprisingly, both the Senate Majority Leader and the Assembly Speaker discussed the looming debate over how to strengthen the state’s ethics.

It was one year ago that the now-former Senate Majority Leader and now-former Assembly Speaker unveiled their legislative priorities. Little did they know at that time that one year later they would both be booted from office and facing prison time for corruption convictions.

But that is what happened and the new leaders had to at least tip their hats to the need for additional ethics measures.

During his opening address, the new Assembly Speaker offered his priorities for ethics reforms. He identified a number of reforms that the Assembly would advance, including closing the LLC campaign finance loophole, limiting the influence of big money in politics, and allowing for the pension forfeiture of corrupt public officials.

He then stated, “Make no mistake – over the coming weeks, discussions around proposals on ethics WILL be a priority of this house. The Assembly is serious about ethics reform and we know that words are not enough.”

Over on the Senate side, the statement was less sweeping and less definitive as to what the Senate Majority would do in the area, but very clear in what it would not do – support public financing of elections.

The Senate Majority Leader did echo the Assembly Speaker by stating that actions will speak louder than words.

And he’s right: For too long, New Yorkers have heard a lot about ethics reforms, but limited actions. The unprecedented corruption convictions create a unique historical moment, a moment that should lead to sweeping changes.

All eyes turn to the governor. His State of the State address this week can offer New Yorkers a glimpse of what may happen. It is the governor that has the power to leverage real changes in the state’s ethics laws.

And it is safe to say that the governor understands that he has this opportunity. In recent weeks, the governor has ramped up his rhetoric about the need for changes.

In a recent media interview, the governor stated that addressing the issue of corruption in state government is a top priority, “The top of my agenda is going to be ethics reform,” he said. “We have done a lot in Albany but we haven’t done enough. And I’m going to push the legislature very hard to adopt more aggressive ethics legislation, more disclosure, more enforcement.”

The governor is right. But soaring rhetoric, while important, does not mean change. As the legislative leaders correctly pointed out, at the end of the day what matters is whether that rhetoric meets the reality found in new laws.

Albany’s soaring reform rhetoric has rarely met the actual changes. The governor’s Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption was disbanded before it ever got off the ground, at least in part because the governor and the legislative leaders wanted a deal more than an independent investigation.

The governor will set the stage this week. How he uses his power will determine whether there is an historic change in Albany’s ethical climate that matches the opportunity.

2015 was a bad year for openness at the state Capitol. It ended with Governor Cuomo vetoing two bills which had been supported by the Committee on Open Government. The Committee is a widely-respected state agency created in the 1970s to offer an independent judgment on New York’s Freedom of Information and Open Meetings Laws.

The bills the governor vetoed were designed to make state agencies accountable for violating the state’s Freedom of Information Law. 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 Committee on Open Government. Both proposals were part of the agency’s annual analysis examining what should be done to improve governmental accountability.

The Committee issues an annual report every year in December offering its views on the state’s “sunshine” laws and making recommendations on how to make government more transparent. Unfortunately, too often the governors and legislative leaders who receive these recommendations, ignore them. As a result, each year government openness advocates outside of government review the Committees’ recommendations and see if there is any appetite for legislative action.

In December 2014, the Committee on Open Government made a number of recommendations, including the two bills vetoed by the governor. In his State of the State 2015 address, the governor said nothing about the Committee’s recommendations. Thus, reformers focused on the two bills to strengthen the Freedom of Information Law.

Both bills passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, yet were vetoed by the governor. Why? Largely technical reasons – the type of reasons that are usually worked out. In addition, the governor had a more specific concern that was not easily remedied. In his veto message the governor wrote, “the bills are limited to one branch of government further advancing a fractured system.”

In short, the governor has chosen to oppose piecemeal changes – no matter how necessary – unless he gets everything he wants. The governor’s argument means that he will never approve improvements to the FOIL unless it is also extended to the Legislature.

This is, of course, exactly the opposite of how the governor operates in all other circumstances.

For example, the governor supports closing the so-called “LLC loophole” and is willing to do so without complete overhaul of the campaign finance law.

While the governor is correct that the Legislature should be covered in a manner similar to the executive, to hold all reforms hostage to the one he wants means nothing will get done.

Of course, the governor’s argument would be more compelling if he had been a champion of FOIL reforms. But he has not. As mentioned earlier, the governor said nothing about FOIL improvements in the beginning of the 2015 session.

In fact, in 2015 the governor did something that stunned the government openness community. The governor issued an executive order requiring that state agencies eliminate all emails after 90 days.

Emails are considered records under the Freedom of Information Law. If they are eliminated, those records which would have been accessible to the public, vanish. How can the public be knowledgeable about its government, if certain records are eliminated? They can’t.

The governor’s rationale for the order kept changing when confronted with the facts: 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 changed.

Then the governor said that the policy was something that it inherited. But that turned out to be a flimsy explanation when an internal Administration document surfaced that stated that the “90-day email retention policy was adopted by the State in June 2013.”

A true champion for government openness would not have made that decision. Coupled with the governor’s vetoes of bills advanced by the Administration’s openness watchdog weakens the claims that the governor will champion reforms in 2016.

The governor promises that things will change. We’ll see.

As 2015 recedes into the rear view mirror, it’s time to take stock of the year; its achievements and failures. And it’s a good time to look to the future.

Here are 2015’s the good, the bad, and the ugly.

The good: There were some significant policy achievements at the state Capitol and in the nation. The state broke a long-standing environmental logjam to reform and refinance its brownfields program, which offers assistance in cleaning up hazardous waste sites and then works to redevelop the land. The state approved funding for the Superfund program, which funds the clean-ups of the most hazardous toxic waste sites in New York. The governor and the New York City mayor also hammered out a deal to refinance the lifeblood of the city, its mass transit system.

The U.S. Supreme Court ended the legal debate over marriage equality, although the political debate continues.

The bad: New York’s reputation took a big hit with the unending political crime wave which has gripped the Capitol. Three former Senate Majority Leaders, a Senate Deputy Majority Leader, and a former Assembly Speaker were all among those convicted of crimes. While these all added up to an unprecedented political earthquake, what was more disturbing was the seeming disinterest by Albany’s ruling elite to tackle the problem of ethic reforms.

The ugly: Sadly, 2015 had some shockinglyugly events – most notably the terrible violence both at home and abroad. Also, the tenor of American political discourse took an ugly turn with speeches attacking immigrants and others who seek asylum in the United States.

Ugly as well were the continued attacks on the science of climate change. Leading political figures in the United States refuse to believe in the science documenting how the warming of the planet is the result of human activities – like the burning of fossil fuels. These political figures have done much to undermine the strength of the possible global treaties to curb the emission of greenhouse gases.

Opposing efforts to curb global warming is, in fact, the most violent act of all. If the planet continues to heat up, many millions will face unnecessary disease, hardship, and violence. Droughts will accelerate, exacerbating strife, triggering more violence and death. Low-lying coastal areas will be flooded, forcing millions to move.

Opposing efforts to curb global warming will result in higher levels of air pollution, leading to sickness and disability for many.

If left unabated, runaway climate change could even threaten civilization itself.

How can those who lead, or wish to lead, the nation ignore such a threat?

Because they are putting their political interests ahead of those of the public’s interest.
That is really ugly.

But there is hope. Despite Congressional opposition, the Obama Administration was able to thread the needle and work out a global agreement to begin to tackle climate change.

Here in New York, U.S. Attorney PreetBharara seems to be intent to continue in his quest to clean out Albany’s political stables.

Voters will go to the polls this year to elect a new President, a new Congress, and a new state legislature. Perhaps voters will change things for the better.

New years offer new hope, a clean slate. Here are some New Year’s resolutions for 2016:

1. Combat climate change. Unless we succeed in blocking the fossil fuel industry and developing non-carbon energy policies, millions will suffer. And those who will suffer most are those in the world’s poorest nations – the people who have contributed the least to global warming and are most vulnerable to a changing climate.

2. End inequality. The nation’s festering gap in equality of opportunity and civic participation has widened to a chasm. It will be important to remove obstacles such as those to college, particularly for those of modest means, and to eliminate unfair and predatory financial policies.

3. Strengthen and expand our democracy. From easing voter registration requirements, to demanding enhanced ethical standards for public officials, to opening government to those it is supposed to serve, there needs to be movement to enhance democracy.

It’s an ambitious agenda. But that’s what New Year’s resolutions are for – hopefully these are resolutions that are shared by voters and those whom they elect.

In a year of much bad news – both in New York and across the world – something positive has happened.  In Paris, France 195 countries met to hammer out an agreement to commit to curbing global warming.

The agreement adopted a target for limiting global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius. If that were to be achieved, it would likely ward off some of the most severe effects of climate change.

Proponents argue that this agreement sends a clear message that much of the world’s coal, oil and gas reserves must stay in the ground. The agreement allows that at least some fossil fuels can continue to burn, as long as a larger number of “greenhouse sinks,” like new forests, absorbs the greenhouse gas emissions.

The agreement requires nations every five years to review how well they are on target for the emission reductions. Also every five years, starting in 2018, the United Nations will “take stock” of the pledges to see how much progress has been made in curbing greenhouse gas emissions and limiting the increase in the temperature of the planet.

But the agreement is voluntary.

Here in the U.S., the agreement makes it difficult for Congressional opponents to derail the deal – for example, the Administration argues that since the agreement is voluntary, it does not bind the United States to a course of action.  In addition, since the Paris accord is tied to a previous agreement (approved during the Bush 1 Administration), the Obama Administration argues that they have the authority to carry out climate commitments without going to the Congress for approval.

But Congressional opposition continues to exist.  Powerful members of Congress not only oppose the agreement, some don’t even believe the science documenting that global warming is occurring largely as the result of human activities.

While the Obama Administration has done all it can to keep the agreement in force, the Congressional opposition – and disbelief in scientific fact – could undermine the Paris accord.

Given that the deal is voluntary, a new President who does not believe in the science of climate change could work to undermine the agreement.  If he or she succeeded, the limited progress achieved under the Paris agreement could be weakened.

And the world cannot afford a weaker agreement.

With nearly every nation having now promised to gradually reduce greenhouse gas emissions,much of the burden for keeping those promises shifts back to the countries to take the steps needed to deliver on their pledges.

While national actions are important in the U.S., the ongoing Congressional opposition makes it important for state actions to help build support for policies that boost reliance on alternative energy sources and which seek to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

New York State must be such a leader.

New York is developing a plan to make its energy grid “smarter.” Under the current utility structure, the power sector in New York is on track to spend an estimated $30 billion to replace and modernize the state’s aging energy infrastructure over the next decade.

The Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) initiative recognizes that the existing energy model is unsustainable and that the increasing frequency of extreme weather events and the long term environmental and public health degradation caused by continued reliance on antiquated technology requires a wholesale transformation of the state’s energy systems.  REV offers a unique opportunity for New York State to create a new, national model for generating, distributing and using energy while reducing the emissions that fuel global climate change.

The Paris accord is on the books.  Now is the time for action – and New York’s REV process could offer the nation a way toward a more efficient and greener energy future.

Another week, another conviction of a high-ranking elected official.  It’s hard to know if this is the tipping point for change.  New Yorkers can only hope so.

Last week, former Senate Majority Leader Skelos was convicted of corruption, essentially for using his public office for private gain. He now joins the former Assembly Speaker as they contemplate time in the slammer.

And they both join an incredible number of elected officials who have disgraced their public office.  Both parties and both the legislative and executive branches have been caught acting illegal or unethically – totaling a stunning 41 elected officials over the past 15 years.

New Yorkers should hope that these latest convictions should force Albany to clean up its act.  While the dust is settling, the first indications are not great.

Governor Cuomo issued a statement arguing that it is up to the legislature to respond to the ethics crisis gripping the state Capitol.  To his credit, the governor stated that he would be offering additional reforms, but did not specify all of what he thought should be done.

The legislative leaders said that they too supported reforms, but offered no specifics.

Poll after poll shows that New Yorkers overwhelmingly want reforms.  Unfortunately, there is some evidence that Albany still hasn’t gotten the message.

One thing was clear from the court proceedings against both the former Speaker and the former Majority Leader: the secrecy surrounding governmental decisions raises the corruption possibilities and New York should be doing more to open up government to public scrutiny.

Yet, last week, the opposite seems to have occurred.

The governor vetoed two bills designed to make state agencies accountable for violating the state’s Freedom of Information Law.  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.

As of now, it seems more like Albany muscle memory is taking over – keep things secret.  And that is exactly the wrong lesson that the governor and state leaders should have learned from the recent convictions.

Here’s hoping that the governor and other state leaders will embrace reforms, not figure out new ways to deflect public scrutiny. Openness, public accountability, new independent enforcement, high ethical standards should be the new standards.  Not finger pointing, kicking the can, and public relations head fakes.

New Yorkers deserve better.