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.

When former Assembly Speaker Silver was convicted of corruption on all counts, there was also a second conviction: Albany’s way of conducting the public’s business.  From the court proceedings’ first days,it was clear that Albany’s ethics were also on trial.

In fact, Silver’s attorneys made that very argument: “It’s impossible, absolutely impossible, for a member of the Assembly to do his or her job and to go out, make laws . . . and not have some form of conflict of interest.”

Now a jury has concluded that using the powers of a lawmaker’s office for private gain is illegal.

The heart of the case against Silver was that he used his powerful position as Assembly Speaker to exchange governmental favors for money, adding$4 million to his personal wealth.  The former Speaker is not the first, nor the last, to face these charges, but he is the highest ranking to be convicted.

So far, Albany’s political leadership has been whistling past the political graveyard, hoping that this court case would simply go away.  By ignoring calls for immediate action, Governor Cuomo and the current Assembly and Senate leadership have essentially argued that existing laws are good enough.  Inaction speaks louder than words.

But with the conviction of the Assembly Speaker, the conviction of the former Deputy Senate Majority Leader, and the ongoing court proceedings against the former Senate Majority Leader, the governor cannot hope that the public demand for action will melt away.

Here are four immediate steps to begin to rebuild trust in Albany:

1. The governor must convene a special legislative session devoted to ethics. 90 percent of New Yorkers believe that Albany’s ethics are too weak.  A special session forces lawmakers to return to Albany to take up an important issue.  It is far harder to ignore reforms under the withering glare of focused public attention. The governor must act this month.

2. Lawmakers’ outside income must be limited. A consistent pattern from the convictions against sitting lawmakers has been their use of public office for private gain.  The vast majority of legislators either do not have outside jobs, or have ones that pay very little—it’s a small minority that has too often gotten into legal trouble.  The Congress has significant limits on outside income, Albany should too.

3. Close the LLC “loophole.” Limited liability companies (LLCs) can make much larger campaign contributions than other businesses.  As a result, they have become a honey pot of political money for candidates.  LLCs are often used by wealthy real estate developers and who show up frequently in Albany’s wheeling and dealing – large LLC contributors were key witnesses in the Silver case and are part of the ongoing proceedings against the former Senate Majority Leader.  New York should close the honey pot and treat LLCs like other businesses for the purposes of campaign contributions.

4. Overhaul the state ethics watchdogs. New Yorkers spend millions of dollars for state ethics watchdogs, yet it has consistently been federal prosecutors who have brought justice to Albany.  U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara shouldn’t have to be the “Sheriff of Albany,” New Yorkers should get their money’s worth out of state agencies.  These agencies should be independent and functional – neither of which they are now.

Of course, more will need to be done to make Albany the nation’s leader in ethics, not its punch line.  But by taking those four steps, New Yorkers would have confidence that the governor and the legislature are beginning to clean up Albany. The next move should come from governor.

You see them everywhere – requirements that consumers go to an arbitration system instead of the courts.  If you look in your car’s manual, those arbitrations are mandatory, when you look at the fine print on your smart phones, they are there too.  If you want the car, or the phone, you have to agree to give up your right to go to court and resolve disputes through an arbitration system set up by the companies.

And while some may argue that these are bad practices, the cost to the consumer is financial.  Yet, as these arbitration practices move into more and more consumer contracts, the consequences could be much more severe.

According to a series written in the New York Times, nursing homes have begun to force residents into arbitration when a resident suffers harm from neglect or abuse.  That’s right, if an elderly person needs to be placed in a nursing home, he or she may have to give up their legal rights – or go somewhere else.

Thus, if a nursing home resident is harmed by a nursing home employee, the resident ends up having a private arbitrator – chosen by the nursing home – hear the case.  That’s a huge conflict.

Overturning a bad decision by an arbitrator borders on impossible – even if it’s deadwrong.  As one court noted, “a court’s conviction that the arbitrator has committed serious error” is not enough to overturn the decision as long as the arbitrator “is even arguably construing or applying the contract.”

Under these circumstances, an injured nursing home resident’s chances of getting justice are slim to none.

And without proper justice, the injured nursing home resident will suffer as critical basic needs go unmet. These may include the need for better quality care, health insurance co-payments, transportation or equipment costs, care not covered by insurance, or other help.

The rest of us also suffer because if fewer claims get fully investigated, “bad actors” are not brought to light and harmful wrongdoing against vulnerable people is allowed to continue.  And in what is right out of Kafka, there’s no public record of private arbitration decisions, so no one can review the types of claims being brought against nursing homes and how they are decided.

People who seek residency in a nursing home typically have little or no choice about where they go for the care they need, so refusing to sign such a contract – or even expressing reluctance to do so – is not a practical option.

Nursing home residents are by definition vulnerable.  The decision to enter a nursing home is fraught with emotion and often made under extreme time pressure.  Yet when they do so, they must entrust the nursing home with their very safety.

Given these circumstances, nursing homes should never pressure residents to give up their right to go to court.  Yet this is exactly what is happening.

And it is wrong.

New York State agrees.  Long ago, it amended the state law to ban forced arbitration clauses in nursing home contracts.

But recent litigation is threatening this protection, with nursing homes claiming that a federal law (originally intended for business contracts) preempts New York’s, blocking state lawmakers from protecting nursing home residents.

At the national level, the situation is so problematic that the federal government is proposing to impose some restrictions on the practice.

The bottom line is that forced arbitration agreements are all wrong for the nursing home setting.

After all, if arbitration were beneficial for nursing home residents, why make it mandatory?Let residents (or their personal family representatives) decide voluntarily whether or not to choose it, on a case-by-case basis, after – not before – something really bad happens.

As the former New York State Senate Majority Leader goes to trial and his former counterpart Assembly Speaker is still in court, it has become clear that whatever the outcome, Albany’s ethics is on trial.

And business as usual at the state Capitol is facing a conviction in the court of public opinion.

While both cases are different, they share a common theme – abuse of public office for private gain.

In the case involving the former Assembly Speaker, the prosecutor’s case is built on the allegation that the former Speaker used his legislative power to drive state aid to legal clients and in return received millions of dollars for himself – even though he did no legal work.

The former Speaker denies the charges and argues that this form of quid-pro-quo is legal.

In the case involving the former Senate Majority Leader, the prosecutor’s case is built on the allegation that the Senator used his considerable power to force those with business before him to do business with his son – even though little work was done by him.

The former Senator denies the charges and argues that what he did was legal.

With both cases moving through the legal system, and with both lawmakers presumed innocent until action by the courts, we cannot draw a conclusion about their guilt or innocence.  That’s for the juries to decide.

But what is clear is that business as usual in Albany looks terrible in these court proceedings.  If it turns out that the actions by these two men are legal, the cries for change will be deafening.  If they are convicted, the public should demand that Albany’s ethical standards be improved so that no one thinks that using public office for private gain is acceptable.

It should be a time for real change.

Reformers are pushing for such changes.  A coalition of civic organizations last week urged Governor Cuomo to convene a special session devoted strictly to ethics.  In addition to the court cases, the groups cited a recent national ranking which gave New York State a D-minus grade in how it handles issues of integrity.

The groups issued a call to the governor and the legislative leaders to embrace a wide-ranging package of reforms that included placing strict limits on public officials’ outside income.

As mentioned earlier, in both cases the legislators are accused of using their public office for private gain.  Most New York State lawmakers currently do not have outside income, or they make a small amount.  The Congress places limits on outside income, New York should too.

The groups also called for an overhaul of the state’s system of monitoring ethics.  Specifically, the groups noted that it has been federal prosecutors, not state ones, which have been responsible for the lion’s share of the ethics actions brought in recent years.  The groups called for changes to increase transparency of the state’s ethics watchdogs’ operations, meetings and votes; expand jurisdiction to include all executive and legislative branch employees; and elevate the independence of the commissioners from their appointing authorities.

The groups also called for new campaign financing changes in response to what has been found in the cases against the former legislative leaders.

While there have been some improvements to ethics laws over the past ten years, the core problem of lawmakers using their public posts for private gain still persists.  New Yorkers have lost faith in state government to make decisions without using the interest and influence of those who do business with the state.

The governor and the state legislature must act so public trust can be restored in New York’s democratic institutions and political processes.  There is no shortage of solutions that New York’s political leaders can draw upon in enacting comprehensive change, instead of incremental reform, and in doing so give hope to the public that can trust can be restored.