The scandals and controversies that have engulfed Albany surely feed public cynicism.  However, the vast majority of the time, government is providing services that help people, and it does so in a reasonably efficient and ethical way.

But that doesn’t make news.

Last week, there was evidence of how effective New York’s policymaking has been – at least compared to the rest of the nation.

Recently, the Obama Administration unveiled its plan to combat global warming by ordering a cut in carbon emissions from power plants.  The plan calls for a 32 percent nationwide carbon reduction in power plant emissions by the year 2030.

The President’s plan makes sense.  2014 was the hottest year in recorded history.  The world’s experts have stated that global warming is largely due to human activity—primarily the result of reliance on fossil fuels.  They argue that the only way to respond to this crisis is to dramatically slash the use of fossil fuels, like coal, oil and gas, which, when burned, emit the greenhouse gases warming the planet.

New York State has been responding.  In June, the state’s energy plan committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent, decreasing energy consumption in buildings by 23 percent, and making sure half of the state’s energy is produced from renewable sources.  These goals are part of the state’s overall effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050, the goal set by the world’s climate experts as part of the overall worldwide strategy to reduce the impacts of global warming.

While the federal plan focuses on power plants, the state’s energy plan also looks at other sectors – suchas heating buildings and the transportation industry – toboost energy efficiency.

New York’s plans – if enacted – would ensure that the state meet the Obama Administration’s deadline a full decade ahead of the federal mandate.

New York’s head start is the result of its policymaking.  A key component has been New York’s participation in a nine-state effort known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which caps each state’s annual carbon emissions and requires power plants to purchase pollution allowances at auction, with the money supposed to be reserved for clean-energy projects in each state.

The potential program that could dramatically boost the state’s global warming efforts is New York’sReforming the Energy Vision (also known as “REV”) plan.  REV is under active development before the state’s Public Service Commission.  REV has the potential to fundamentally reshape the production and distribution of electric power and significantly reduce the creation of heat-trapping carbon emissions through the use of energy reductions, efficiency measures and the move to reliance on alternative energy sources, such as solar power.

The REV is also the vehicle for modernizing the state’s energy system.  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.  REV offers a way to modernize that system in a “green” and affordable way.

New York’s REV offers a vision for how to modernize the energy grid while mitigating the impacts from global warming.  At the moment, it is just a plan.  But if it succeeds, it can offer a model for the nation and perhaps the world.

And it is an example of innovation in state government.  It’s easy to get depressed by the news coming out of Albany.  It is, however, important to keep the bad news in perspective.  There is a lot happening in New York that’s good, too.  The state’s efforts to tackle global warming areexamples of its positive efforts to respond to the most daunting issue of our time.

When Albany is in the dog days of summer, it is usually quiet at the state Capitol.  Lawmakers are doing whatever they do during the summer and, in recent decades, the governor isusually downstate.

But this has not been a typical summer.  The arrests and indictments of Albany’s legislative leaders earlier in the year and the recent convictions of other leaders have kept the issue of ethics reform alive.

For reasons that are not entirely clear, the governor continues to do all that he can to keep throwing cold water on the calls for action.  Most recently he smothered calls for a special legislative session devoted solely to ethics reforms, declaring:  “I haven’t heard anything from the Senate or the Assembly saying, ‘Our minds are changed, we now want to pass a bill that we didn’t want to pass.’ So for the taxpayers to spend a lot of money to bring the legislators back to Albany for the same outcome they had several weeks ago makes no sense.”

It is certainly out of character for this governor to allow someone else to dictate his actions.  Let’s take at face value his statement that lawmakers have rejected, and will continue to reject, his reforms.  What reforms is the governor talking about?  He never mentions them at all.

There is one reform that the governor has not advanced and the legislature has not considered: strengthening the state’s ethics enforcement agencies.

The problems with the state’s leading ethics watchdog bubbled to the surface last week when the Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) held its monthly meeting.  Some of the members publicly complained that the governor’s staff had been meddling in its internal affairs (which, if true, is a violation of the law).

At the meeting, several members questioned whether the governor had too much influence over the agency, which is now looking for its third director in less than four years.  The first had served as Cuomo’s inspector general and worked for Cuomo when he was attorney general.  The second worked for Cuomo in both the governor’s office and the attorney general’s office before that. She left the commission to join Cuomo’s tax department.

Meddling by the governor is not the only problem:  The agency has been nearly invisible in combatting corruption.  Federal prosecutors, not state ones, have brought the vast majority of the high-profile corruption cases.

When the governor talks about the reforms that he cannot get approved by a recalcitrant legislature, he conveniently ignores the need for reform of the state’s ethics agencies.   And reforms are needed to ensure that ethics is monitored by an independent ethics agency that is looking out for the public interest, not the interests of either the governor or the legislature.  Here are a five needed reforms:

• In a rare, if not unique, provision, New York law allows JCOPE’s board to include elected officials. Given the role of the agency in monitoring elected officials, as well as monitoring the lobbying industry (which is also a rich source of campaign contributions), New York should ban the involvement of electedofficials from the ethics watchdog panel.
• New York law also allows the appointees of legislative leaders to veto JCOPEinvestigations of the legislators. That provision must be repealed.
• There should be a “revolving door” limitation that prohibits legislative or executive staff from becomingthe top staff of any of the state’s ethics watchdogs.
• Those executive directors should serve for a fixed term so as to enhance her or his independence from political retribution. And ethics agencies should be guaranteed budgets that are predictable, adequate, and not subject to political pressures.
• Ethics agencies should be covered by the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Open Meeting Laws requirements and make all investigation records open to public inspection when a matter is closed, as was the practice of the Temporary State Commission on Lobbying.

New York law requires that an independent commission review the work of JCOPE.  That group has been appointed and is beginning its work.  Its recommendations are due later this year.  When its reactions become public, the governor should use that opportunity to call lawmakers back to get cracking on ethics reforms.

The best laws in the world will not work without real oversight and enforcement.  It’s time New York State’s ethics watchdogs became more independent – entities that not only barked, but were free to bite.

Even by Albany’s scandal-stained record, last week was unique: 2 state Senators were found guilty of corruption in two separate trials.  Former State Senate Majority Leader John Sampson and current Deputy Majority leader Tom Libous are now facing prison time for violating the public’s trust.

Given the historic nature of those convictions, it would be reasonable to expect reaction from Albany’s political leadership.  But that was not the case.  Instead of news releases and calls for action, only the sounds of crickets were heard from the state Capitol.

When pressed, the governor made two, seemingly inconsistent arguments:

(1) That enough had been done to strengthen the state’s ethics laws; and,

(2) That the legislature wouldn’t agree to any additional changes.

Is the governor giving up on ethics reform?

Just a little background on how Albany got here.  After dozens of lawmakers were sanctioned due to ethical misconduct, a new low was hit earlier this year with the arrest and indictment of the now-former Assembly Speaker.  In reaction, the governor sprang into action.  Within days, the governor had organized a venue for him to discuss the need for sweeping, unprecedented ethics reforms.  The governor even promised to hold up the budget if his plan was not approved.

The budget that passed did contain new ethics measures, which at least to some extent, requires more disclosures of outside income by lawmakers.  Yet, the plan was widely viewed as an insufficient response to the weaknesses in the state’s ethics laws.

A month later, the now-former Senate Majority Leader was indicted for unethical conduct.  Once again, a member of Albany’s political leadership was under an ethics cloud.  But this time, no calls for reform were uttered by the governor.  In fact, for the rest of the legislative session, the governor and the legislative leaders ignored the growing chorus calling for new ethics measures.  Lawmakers wrapped up the end of the session with the obligatory pats on the back and headed home.

But the public views ethics as a big problem:  A recent poll found that 90 percent of New Yorkers agree that ethics at the state Capitol needs improvement.

Fast forward to last week, two more lawmakers were convicted for abusing their public office.

Reformers are urging that the governor convene a special session devoted exclusively to ethics.  But the governor will have none of it.

When pressed by reporters, the governor stated, “A special session to do what? I mean, we’ve proposed every ethics law imaginable. We’ve proposed and accomplished unprecedented disclosure.”  The governor also told reporters in another media scrum, “I haven’t heard anything from the Senate or the Assembly saying, ‘Our minds are changed, we now want to pass a bill that we didn’t want to pass.’ So for the taxpayers to spend a lot of money to bring the legislators back to Albany for the same outcome they had several weeks ago makes no sense.”

In one key way, the governor is quite right:  While the governor can call the legislature back to Albany, he can’t make them do anything.  But doing nothing makes it clear to New Yorkers exactly where their elected officials are when it comes to cleaning up Albany.

By giving up, the governor is giving political cover to those lawmakers who oppose reform.  The governor is, in effect, defending the status quo.

That’s not what New Yorkers want.  90 percent of New Yorkers see Albany’s ethics as a problem.  They send elected officials to Albany to solve problems, not dodge them.

Right now the governor is helping the dodge.  Governor Cuomo is someone who prides himself on getting things done, on bringing people together.  When it comes to ethics, the long parade of crooked pols underscores just how much more needs to be done.

The governor shouldn’t be throwing in the towel; he should be taking up the challenge.

Four years ago, state lawmakers approved a plan that changed its relationship with the state’s public colleges and students.  The plan contained two major changes: public college tuition would be raised automatically and the state would commit not to cut state support for those institutions and would not use the increased tuition to close budget holes.

As part of the deal to increase tuition up to $300 annually, the state pledged to maintain its support.  According to state officials, “In return, the State committed to maintain [the state and New York city university systems] current funding year-to-year – this preserved budgets for curriculum innovation and ensured students were not back filling State cuts.”

This component of the plan was a Maintenance of Effort (MOE) provision, which mandated the state provide a steady level of funding to public colleges that would not depend on revenue generated from tuition.

The idea was that this MOE should have allowed the State University of New York and the City University of New York to invest the funds generated by the tuition hikes toward expanded academic and student support services.

But it turns out that there was a major caveat to the state’s promise.

Buried in the fine print of the 2011 legislation was that the MOE was defined to mean that the state would spend no less than the total amount it spent the year before.  Yet, annual inflation erodes the purchasing power of the dollar; in essence keeping state support at a steady level meant a cut.  Moreover, the fine print also left vague what services would be covered by the MOE.

When the plan was approved in 2011, critics thought the result of annual tuition hikes would be a shift in the cost of attending public college from Albany to the students and their families.  Sadly, it appears that they were right.

Tuition at state public colleges is expected to increase by as much as 42% by the time the law expires on July 1, 2016.   While tuition has jumped dramatically, state support for SUNY and CUNY has remained largely flat.  As a result, the cost to maintain SUNY and CUNY’s services at the same level as it was in 2011 has increased by nearly $200 million combined.

The state made up the difference by using the increased tuition dollars, undermining its promise to students and their families.  Eroding state support coupled with rising tuition has had an impact: Prior to the 2008 recession, the state paid more than half of SUNY’s operating costs. Now student tuition and fees account for 64 percent of SUNY’s operating costs and the state pays a mere 36 percent of those costs.

During that time, the state has not felt budgetary shortfalls: In fact,New York State’sbudget has grown from $134.8 billion in 2011 to $143.8 billion in 2015, roughly a 7.5 percent increase.That’s right, while the state has spent 7.5 percent more than it did at the beginning of the Cuomo Administration, students have been forced to pay more and the state has shortchanged public colleges in the budget.  Clearly, priorities have been elsewhere.

The effect has been to shift the burden of operating New York’s public colleges from the state to college students and their families.

Lawmakers now understand the mistake in the MOE and have overwhelming approved a fix.  The legislation requires the state to provide funding tocover all mandatory costs of bothSUNY and CUNY.  Those mandatory costs include items like utility bills, building rentals and other inflationary expenses incurred by both the state and city universities and the state university health science centers.  The legislation has broad support:  SUNY, CUNY, faculty and student groups all supported the bill and it passed the Senate 62-1 and passed Assembly 146-1.

Now the ball is in Governor Cuomo’s court.  When the legislation is sent to his desk, will he approve it and keep New York’s promise to ensure that increases in public college tuition enhance public higher education?  New Yorkers will soon see.

Last week, a Siena Research Institute poll reported that 90 percent of New Yorkers thought that government corruption is a serious problem.  When 90 percent of New Yorkers agree on anything, it’s amazing.  So you’d expect that elected officials would get the message and respond.

Unfortunately, there is evidence that they simply don’t care enough.

Albany’s failure to enact ethics reforms was highlighted last week with the release of the first campaign finance reports of 2015.  The report showed New York’s campaign finance system is essentially a “Wild West” – with no sheriff.

The campaign reports showed that big bucks continued to flow to Albany’s leadership. Governor Cuomo reported collecting over $5 million in campaign dollars, with 3 ½ years to go before his possible reelection.  Attorney General Schneiderman reported raising $2.3 million.  The new Speaker, Carl Heastie, started the year with only $30,000 in his campaign warchest.  By mid-year, the new Speaker had collected over $300,000 in campaign contributions.  The new Senate Majority Leader, John Flanagan, was equally successful in collecting campaign bucks, raising nearly $280,000 in the first half of the year.

But the loopholes in the campaign finance system were striking.  According to Capital New York, a network of limited liability companies tied to Orange County developers funneled the governor $250,000 in 2015, more than any other source. These donations were made less than a week after the governor vetoed a bill that leaders of a Hasidic village tied to the developers described as restricting its development.

In addition, the donations highlighted the problems with the much-maligned way it treats contributions from limited liability companies.  A series of nine checks from vaguely-titled LLCs entered Cuomo’s campaign account.  Eight of these checks had Brooklyn, NY addresses listed in Cuomo’s campaign disclosures.  According to Capital NY, however, those LLCs’corporate addresses were listed in the town of Monroe, NY – a town which contains the Hasidic village.

The campaign filings also disclosed the legal, but still lousy, ways that campaign contributions can be used.  Of the $5 million raised by the governor, $100,000 was paid to a law firm which is representing the governor’s office in a federal probe into how the governor killed off the Moreland Commission Investigating Public Integrity.

The state Senate Republican Campaign Committee was reported by the Daily News to have sent $50,000 to former Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, just two weeks after he was indicted by the US Attorney for allegedly shaking down a real-estate developer and a medical-malpractice insurance firm to hire his son with no-show jobs and business deals.

Why?  There is rampant speculation that the $50,000 was to help cover the Senator’s legal bills.

And the filings showed that the influence of big money is trickling down to the local level as well.  According to the Albany Times Union, a new political action committee created by several business owners located in Saratoga had raised over $46,000 in five weeks.  The PAC is

Interviewing candidates for city elections and support those who support its agenda.  The Saratoga PAC’s fundraising has exceeded the amount raised by the political parties and candidates.

Unfortunately, for New Yorkers, the state’s disgraceful campaign finance system continues to thrive.  And despite the rhetoric about the need to reform Albany’s ways, there have been no serious efforts to curb campaign finance abuses.

The governor needs to do more.  While no one would expect him to politically unilaterally disarm, he must take steps to force a real debate over ethics and campaign finance reforms.  Reforms that would plug campaign finance loopholes and end the use of contributions for legal defenses; that would curb campaign donations from lobbyists and those with business before the government; that would cap the amount of money lawmakers can receive from their outside business dealings; and that would finally put in place an independent watchdog to monitor the system.  The governor must take the first step by calling lawmakers back to Albany for a special session devoted exclusively to ethics reforms.

Until then, New Yorkers should focus their anger by keeping in mind Albany’s failures when they troop to the polling place next year.