Three of the four leaders of the legislature and the heads of three major good government groups stood together in Albany on Wednesday morning and patted each other on the back for a job partly done.
"It's not the best thing since sliced bread," said Barbara Bartoletti, legislative director of the League of Women Voters, speaking of the ethics package that was 16 months in the making. "This is, for all of us and all of you, a very good loaf of bran," Bartoletti concluded. Senate Democratic Conference Leader John Sampson described the package as a "down payment on other things to come."
The ethics deal, which came together after months of negotiation between Senate and Assembly Democrats, is not the "whole enchilada," as one legislator put it -- or as sweeping as a proposal put forth by Gov. David Paterson earlier this month.
However Blair Horner of New York Public Interest Research Group, Bartoletti and Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, decided to support the legislature's package. (Citizens Union's sister organization, Citizens Union Foundation, publishes Gotham Gazette.) This package would create three new ethics oversight committees, require more financial disclosure from politicians and lobbyists and strengthen the Board of Election's enforcement wing. It is, the three groups say, a good, solid step, and they hail the fact that the legislation will sunset in four years, meaning legislators will be forced to evaluate and perhaps improve the rules.
The fourth major good government group, Common Cause/ NY opposes the legislature's package.
"I think it's very disappointing," said Susan Lerner of Common Cause/ NY, "I don't think it should be enacted. We are not looking at it in terms of who proposed what. We are asking, 'Is this enough change to current law to address the crisis of corruption?'"
Lerner isn't the only one who is disappointed.
A number of Senate Democrats have complained privately that the package doesn't go far enough at a time when the public's awareness of corruption in Albany has reached a peak. From the conviction of former Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno on federal corruption charges to recent allegations against Sen. Pedro Espada, the public has been hammered with the reality of corruption in Albany.
Yesterday's meeting in Albany came as the atmosphere surrounding ethics in the capital had become increasingly contentious -- so much so that some say Patterson might veto the bill on the grounds that it does not go far enough or as far as his proposals do.
In his State of the State speech, Paterson proposed a package that Horner called the "kitchen sink and the stopper." It was so far-reaching -- instituting term limits and introducing public campaign financing -- that many observers thought it stood no chance of passing. "It's desirable, but it's dead on arrival," Dadey said of Paterson's proposal before the State of the State Address. "The Assembly and Senate will not agree to independent ethics oversight by an entity that they don't control."
As a result, Horner, Dadey and Bartoletti decided to back the legislators' plan. They admit it's not everything they want but believe it is what they can get right now.
Lerner disagrees. "There are those who are willing to settle for something less," she said, "and we can't give them the comfort that this will be enough in the eyes of the public."
Paterson chose to introduce his legislation without consulting the legislature or good government groups even though he knew the legislature was negotiating an ethics package. In addition, he lashed out at good government groups, calling them "drunk with power" and said he would require them to reveal their funding sources. Good government groups currently must disclose donations of over $5,000.
"We are not angry about the governor's package but angry at how he attacked us," said Horner. "We said nice things about his proposals. We are just skeptical of the governor's commitment. We are skeptical of his tactics and his assertions."
For his part, Paterson issued a statement Wednesday saying he was "stunned that legislative leaders would be so disrespectful to the public that only one week after he proposed a sweeping and real overhaul of the ethics system in Albany, they would try to pass this off as anything more than election year window dressing. This proposal does nothing to address the underlying issues that have caused the people of New York to lose faith and trust in their government."
He said he would "work with members of the legislature who are ready to pass meaningful ethics reform that changes the culture of Albany -- ending pay-to-play; full disclosure; breaking the special interests lock on Albany with strict campaign finance limits; and independent oversight."
The ethics package would discard the Commission on Public Integrity -- the ethics watchdog group that currently oversees all branches of state government. That group has 13 members -- seven appointed by the governor and one each by the attorney general, comptroller and the four legislative leaders. Scandals have rocked the board and many have already called for its abolishment following a report by the inspector general that found the head of the commission had illegally leaked information to Gov. Eliot Spitzer. Since then individual members have drawn fire for serving as legal advisors during the last year's Senate coup and hosting fundraisers for legislators. One member even held a fundraiser to help pay Bruno's legal fees.
Three new oversight bodies -- one for the executive branch, one for the legislature and one for lobbyists -- will replace the Commission on Public Integrity. This basically restores the system that existed before Spitzer led the charge in 2007 to combine the State Temporary Commission on Lobbying and the State Ethics Commission into one body. All would have directors appointed to fixed terms who could be removed only for cause.
The governor, attorney general and comptroller would each name two members to the six-person Executive Ethics and Compliance Commission. This means the governor would not name a majority.
A Joint Legislative Commission on Ethics and Standards, with eight members -- four of them legislators -- will keep an eye on the legislature. Members would be named by each legislative leader. In other words, legislators will be able to appoint their watchdog. Paterson has said this is a major problem for him and that he would not rule out vetoing any package that did not include an independent oversight board for the legislature.
The commission also would have a department of investigation that would have subpoena power.
The six-member Commission on Lobbying Ethics and Compliance will have two people appointed by the governor and one by each of the four legislative leaders.
David Grandeau, who served as the executive director of former state lobbying commission, said he supported the legislature's proposal simply because it brings back a lobbying oversight board. Under his watch, Grandeau said, the body gained national recognition. When asked if he would like to be part of the new panel, Grandeau said, "We have to focus on getting this passed."
Paterson's bill would replace the Commission on Public Integrity with one five-member Government Ethics Commission. It would oversee all of state government rather than splitting oversight into three sections. The five members would be designated by a 10-member commission. Good government groups favor this model, but are convinced the legislature will not vote for an oversight board that they do not control.
Under the bills in the ethics package, legislators for the first time would be required to disclose how much income they make from outside employment. Lobbyists with any business before the state would be required to reveal any relationships they have with lawmakers, including any money paid to a consulting group or a law firm that employs any public official.
The legislation does not require lawyers, along with doctors and other so-called protected professions, to disclose their clients, which journalists and good government groups have been demanding for years. Sen. Ruben Diaz has said he would not vote for a bill that does not include that requirement. However, such a provision would certainly irk Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Sampson, since they both work as trial lawyers at prominent law firms.
The legislature's package would create an enforcement unit within the New York State Board of Elections and direct 35 percent of the board's annual budget to the unit. It would be harder for investigations to be stopped and easier for them to be started than is currently the case.
Penalties for campaign finance law violation would get tougher. For example, the fine for failing to file disclosure reports would double from $500 to $1,000, and legislators who failed to file more than three times in an election cycle could face a penalty of up to $10,000.
Paterson's proposal would place more restrictions on campaign donations, create a public campaign finance system and institute term limits. These proposals are not in the legislature's package. Silver has said repeatedly that "there is no sentiment" for term limits. He has served in the Assembly since 1976.
While the legislators' bill is almost certain to pass the Assembly with immense bipartisan support, its fate in the Senate is uncertain.
The Democrats' thin majority faces more peril by the day -- the Senate might have to delay its punishment of Sen. Hiram Monserrate to insure the bill gets a speedy passage.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo filed court papers presenting what Common Cause New York's Lerner called "damning evidence" against Senate Majority Leader Pedro Espada. The papers allege that the contract between Espada's healthcare network and its management company allowed him to siphon off funds for his political campaigns.
Then there is the question of whether the Democrats can count on support from every member. Diaz is already threatening to vote no, and Monserrate -- or his friends -- could use their votes as leverage to protect the Queens Democrat.
Democrats may in fact need help from Senate Republicans to pass the ethics reform bill, but the Senate Republican conference seems to be preparing to oppose the package. "It is unfortunate that despite their claims of bipartisanship, Democrats in the Senate and Assembly refused to include Senate Republicans in the negotiation of ethics reform legislation, and that they chose not to give us a bill draft until late yesterday," the Republicans said in a statement released Wednesday. "Apparently Speaker Silver and Senate Democrats think it's more important to negotiate directly with special interests than with the other elected officials they want to support the bill."
The statement continued that the Republican would review the legislation to see "how it differs from the ethics reform bill that Senate Republicans were prepared to support last year, before Senate Democrats pulled it from the floor to prevent a vote." They also said they might "offer amendments that seek to strengthen the bill."
Democrats insist Republicans had every chance to be involved in the process. When asked whether Senate Republicans were left out of the process, Austin Shafran, spokesman for the Senate Majority Conference, scoffed and rolled his eyes. "Taking ethics advice from Senate Republicans, with their history of corruption, is like taking marriage advice from Tiger Woods and Charlie Sheen," Shafran later toldthe Daily News.
Sen. Daniel Squadron, who was instrumental in negotiating the package, said that he hoped legislators could get over any perceived slights in the process or imperfections in the legislation. "It is more important to have a good bill than to have a perfect press release," he said.
Then, of course, the bill must win the governor's approval. Legislators say that it would be "suicide" for Paterson to veto the measure. However, in the atmosphere created by Paterson's caustic state of the state address anything could happen. Sampson and Silver were scheduled to meet with Paterson on the reform measure days before a deal was reached. Both leaders canceled on the governor at the last minute.
After remaining on the sidelines for years, government now seems eager to keep up with the ever evolving world of technology and new media and even to advance it. Earlier this month, the New York State Senate continued with this trend, launching an Open Legislation website intended to make it easier for New Yorkers to find out about bills and comment on them.
Transparency initiatives should seem familiar to city residents. Since taking office as mayor in 2002, Michael Bloomberg has attempted use technology to achieve more transparency. While some of these efforts have been more successful than others, they have led to the creation of 311, a phone and internet hotline for government information, and to the city's offering an array of statistics on nyc.gov. The City Council has made the text of bills available through a keyword search on its website, as has the State Assembly. Unlike the State Senate's new program, though, these do not provide a place for people to leave comments.
Sen. Jose Serrano, who launched the site in front of students at Manhattan Center for Science and Mathematics, believes that growing disclosure of the actions of the State Senate will increase citizen participation and make representatives more accountable, while also encouraging young people to get involved.
"Albany has been shrouded in mystery for so long to the point where the disconnect between the Albany legislature and the average person is beyond apathy," Serrano said. "I think this is a good initial step at creating a vested feeling for folks who are trying to access information."
The site, which debuted on Nov. 5, provides the full text of bills as well as the memo summarizing the legislation and offering the reasons for it. In this way it effectively allows those outside of Albany access to information that used to be available only to insiders.
The site does not seek to simply provide access but also tries to make it easy. Previously, doing a search required knowing the bill number.
Now, though, Open Legislation includes a Google-like search mechanism allows users to find bills by typing in a keyword. They can, for instance, search anything from "crime" to "school nutrition" and have all relevant bills appear on the results page. Performing a search on a broad keyword issue like "zoning elicits over 30 responses. For now (there are plans to possibly rework this), the results appear by bill number, rather than some other sort of distinction such as date. Visitors can view the bill in HTML, XML, CSV, or JSON format. The page for the legislation includes sections for a summary, action on it, the memo and its full text, topped off with the comments section at the bottom.
Visitors also can conduct searches by sponsor, committee, recent action or recent votes.
"We tried to build a very simple, easy to use search interface that we think will be useful to a lot of people," explains Andrew Hoppin, chief information officer for the Senate, who helped create the site with lead developer Nathan Freitas.
Those involved with the site seem most excited about the comments section. Serrano believes it will have a positive effect on future legislation.
"Traditionally, you had to go lobby physically in Albany, or you had to write memos of supporter opposition or be invited to go testify at a meeting," he said. Now, he continued, "We're trying to get the community engaged in a way that it hasn't been before. I want people to say, 'That's a great job Serrano,' or, 'No, you're totally off-base on this one, Serrano, and here's why.'"
He believes fellow senators will be receptive to their constituents' suggestions. "If elected officials have learned anything over the last year or so, it's that the public's voice needs to be heard and it needs to be heard in a meaningful way. When you partner with the public on legislation, you actually create a much better product," Serrano said.
Serrano held the launch at the East Harlem high school not only because it is located in his district, but also because he hopes it will encourage young people, who tend to be technically savvy, to get involved in government.
After giving a brief explanation of the process of law making, Serrano invited the students to conduct their own searches. Some looked into education while others delved housing related bills.
"They live in apartments that may or may not be there for them in the coming future," the senator said, noting one student investigated vacancy decontrol. "Knowing that there's a bill that will protect affordable housing, they may want to get behind that."
The website will remain in its beta form until it has been "battle tested by thousands of people using it for a number of months," said Hoppin.
And, while this may be the largest project aimed at transparency from the state in a while Hoppin said it will not be the last. A major overhaul of committee websites within nysenate.gov is also in the works. The goal is to better disclose information about committee meetings and hearing, while also providing live streaming video.
Serrano is working on launching a channel for the State Senate similar to CSPAN, where meetings would be broadcast live. He previously broadcast a committee meeting on YouTube and received what he felt were meaningful responses.
Winners appear in bold. These results are based on the unofficial vote tally as reported by the wire services and, as much as possible, directly from the New York City Board of Elections.
The official count from the Board of Elections can take weeks to complete and will be posted as soon as they are available. The results below are subject to change as the official count is made public.
Office | Candidates | Date Posted |
MAYOR | Michael R. Bloomberg (R, I), 50.62 percent Stephen Christopher (C), 1.65 percent Joseph Dobrian (L), 0.18 percent Dan Fein (Socialist Worker), 0.14 percent Jimmy McMillan (Rent is Too High), 0.24 percent Billy Talen (Green), 0.82 percent William C Thompson (D, WF), 46.04 percent Francisca Villar (Socialism & L), 0.32 percent |
- |
PUBLIC ADVOCATE | Bill de Blasio (D), 76.90 percent Maura Deluca (Socialist Worker), 0.95 percent William J Lee (C), 3.56 percent Jim Lesczynski (L), 0.69 percent Alex T Zablocki (R), 17.90 percent |
- |
CITY COMPTROLLER | Stuart Avrick (C), 2.44 percent John Clifton (L), 1 percent Salim Ejaz (Rent Is Too High), 1.26 percent John C Liu (D, WF), 76.02 percent Joseph A Mendola (R), 19.27 percent |
- |
Office | Candidates | Date Posted |
BROOKLYN | Marc L D'Ottavio (R, C), 13.24 percent Marty Markowitz (D, WF), 84.87 percent Michael Sanchez (L), 1.89 percent |
- |
BRONX | Ruben Diaz Jr. (D, C), 86.87 percent Allison M Oldak (R), 13.13 percent |
- |
MANHATTAN | David B Casavis (R), 15.92 percent Tom Baumann (Socialist Worker), 1.74 percent Scott M Stringer (D, WF), 82.34 percent |
- |
QUEENS | Robert A Hornak (R), 20.31 percent Helen M Marshall (D, WF), 75.61 percent Robert Schwartz (C), 4.08 percent |
- |
STATEN ISLAND | John V Luisi (D, WF), 37.26 percent James P Molinaro (R, I, C), 62.74 percent |
- |
District | Candidates | Date Posted |
Dist 1 | Margaret S Chin(D), 86 percent Irene Horvath (R), 14 percent |
- |
Dist 2 | Bryan A Cooper (R), 16.09 percent Rosie Mendez (D, WF), 83.91 percent |
- |
Dist 3 | Brian C Merritt (R), 19.15 percent Christine C Quinn (D), 80.85 percent |
- |
Dist 4 | Ashok G Chandra (R, C), 24.99 percent Daniel R Garodnick (D, WF), 75.01 percent |
- |
Dist 5 | Stephen F Kaufman (R, I), 25.68 percent Jessica S Lappin (D, WF), 74.32 percent |
- |
Dist 6 | Gale A Brewer (D, WF), 80.34 percent Joshua J Goldberg (R), 19.66 percent |
- |
Dist 7 | Robert Jackson (D, WF), 95.49 percent Firma Shlimel (L), 1.92 percent Julius Tajiddin (Free Just & Equal), 2.58 percent |
- |
Dist 8 | Melissa Mark-Viverito (D, WF) | - |
Dist 9 | Inez E Dickens (D, WF), 91.38 percent Abbi Lee Rogers-Haff (R), 8.62 percent |
- |
Dist 10 | Ydanis A Rodriguez (D, WF), 94.74 percent Ruben Dario Vargas (I), 5.26 percent |
- |
Dist 11 | Stephen Bradian (C), 4.37 percent G Oliver Koppell (D, WF), 79.09 percent Stylo A Sapaskis (R), 16.54 percent |
- |
Dist 12 | Martin D Badonsky (R), 10.13 percent Larry B Seabrook (D), 89.87 percent |
- |
Dist 13 | Frank Della Valle (R), 7.22 percent James Vacca (D, R), 92.78 percent |
- |
Dist 14 | Fernando Cabrera (D, WF), 87.11 percent Lisa Marie Campbell (C), 2.21 percent Yessenia A Duran (R), 10.68 percent |
- |
Dist 15 | Joel Rivera (D, WF), 96.64 percent Steven M Stern (R), 3.36 percent |
- |
Dist 16 | Tanya Carmichael (R), 6.72 percent Helen Diane Foster (D, WF), 92.41 percent Keesha Weiner (C), 0.87 percent |
- |
Dist 17 | Maria Del Carmen Arroyo (D), 96.86 percent Robert Goodman (R), 3.14 percent |
- |
Dist 18 | Walter G Nestler (Green) Annabel Palma (D, WF), 87.77 percent Leopold L Paul (R), 7.79 percent Arqui Sanders (C), 1.36 percent Walter Nestler (G), 3.08 percent |
- |
Dist 19 | Daniel J Halloran III (R, I/L, C), 52.52 percent Kevin D Kim (D, WF), 47.48 percent |
- |
Dist 20 | Evergreen C Chou (Green), 1.66 percent Yen S Chou (D), 44.67 percent Peter A Koo (R, I, C), 49.60 percent SJ Jung (WF), 4.08 percent |
- |
Dist 21 | Julissa Ferreras (D, WF) | - |
Dist 22 | Gerald F Kann (Populist), 2.05 percent Lynne Serpe (Green), 23.44 percent Peter F Vallone Jr. (D, C), 74.52 percent |
- |
Dist 23 | Richard W Burns (C), 2.55 percent Bob Friedrich (R), 30.05 percent Mark S Weprin (D, I, WF), 67.40 percent |
- |
Dist 24 | James F Gennaro (D, WF) | - |
Dist 25 | Daniel Dromm (D, WF), 74.58 percent Mujib U Rahman (R, I, C), 25.42 percent |
- |
Dist 26 | James G Van Bramer (D, WF), 70.40 percent Deirdre A Feerick (I), 5.87 percent Angelo Maragos (R, C), 23.72 percent |
- |
Dist 27 | Leroy G Comrie Jr. (D, WF) | - |
Dist 28 | Thomas White Jr. (D), 88.43 percent Ruben Wills (C), 11.57 percent |
- |
Dist 29 | Bartholomew F Bruno (R), 21.30 percent Karen Koslowitz (D, I), 63.40 percent Lynn C Schulman (WF), 15.31 percent |
- |
Dist 30 | Elizabeth S Crowley (D, WF), 59.36 percent Thomas V Ognibene (R, I, C), 40.64 percent |
- |
Dist 31 | Scherie S Murray (R, C), 11.01 percent James Sanders Jr. (D, WF), 88.99 percent |
- |
Dist 32 | Frank P Gulluscio (D, WF), 41 percent Eric A Ulrich (R, I, C), 59 percent |
- |
Dist 33 | Stephen Levin (D), 91.29 percent Elizabeth Tretter (C), 8.71 percent |
- |
Dist 34 | Maritza Davila (WF), 34.56 percent Jacqueline Haro (R, C), 5.58 percent Diana Reyna (D), 59.87 percent |
- |
Dist 35 | Letitia James (D), 92.27 percent Stuart Balberg (R), 7.73 percent |
- |
Dist 36 | Al Vann (D), 63.70 percent Mark Winston Griffith (WF), 32.34 percent Robert Hunter (R), 3.96 percent |
- |
Dist 37 | Erik Martin Dilan (D), 85.52 percent Michael Freeman-Saulsberre (R), 10.95 percent Melvin Brown (I), 3.52 percent |
- |
Dist 38 | Sara Gonzalez (D), 81.49 percent Allan Romaguera (R), 18.51 percent |
- |
Dist 39 | Bradford Lander (D), 69.68 percent Joe Nardiello (R), 16.65 percent David Pechefsky (G), 6.95 percent Roger Sarrabo (L), 3.72 percent George Smith (C), 3.00 percent- |
|
Dist 40 | Mathieu Eugene (D), 94.27 percent Noel Burke (L), 3.01 percent Hugh Carr (C), 2.72 percent |
- |
Dist 41 | Darlene Mealy (D), 95.52 percent Rose Laney (R), 4.48 percent |
- |
Dist 42 | Charles Barron (D), 93.04 percent Godfrey Jelks (R), 6.96 percent |
- |
Dist 43 | Vincent Gentile (D), 59.73 percent Bob Capano (R), 40.27 percent |
- |
Dist 44 | Simcha Felder (D) | - |
Dist 45 | Jumaane Williams (D), 76.52 percent Kendall Stewart (I), 17.42 percent Salvatore Grupico (R), 6.06 percent |
- |
Dist 46 | Lewis Fidler (D), 79.23 percent Gene Berardelli (R), 19.46 percent Derek Sacerdote (L), 1.31 percent |
- |
Dist 47 | Domenic Recchia Jr. (D), 87.51 percent Jennifer Adornato (C), 9.39 percent Elon Harpaz (WF), 3.10 percent |
- |
Dist 48 | Michael Nelson (D), 89.83 percent Stephen Walters (C), 10.17 percent |
- |
Dist 49 | Timothy K Kuhn (R), 16.47 percent Kenneth C Mitchell (C), 25.36 percent Deborah L Rose (D, WF), 58.17 percent |
- |
Dist 50 | James S Oddo (R, I, C, WF), 74.84 percent James M Pocchia (D), 25.16 percent |
- |
Dist 51 | Vincent Ignizio (R), 66.10 percent Janine Materna (D), 33.90 percent |
- |
Ballot Proposal Number One | Passed / Not Passed |
Ballot Proposal Number Two | Passed / Not Passed |
Office | Candidates | Date Posted |
District Attorney, Manhattan | Richard M Aborn (WF), 8.93 percent Cyrus Vance Jr. (D), 91.07 percent |
- |
District Attorney, Brooklyn | Charles J Hynes (D, R, C, WF) | - |
Supreme Court - 1st Judicial District | Lucy Billings (D) Sherilyn Dandridge (R) |
- |
Supreme Court - Supreme Court - 11th Judicial District | Robert Beltrani (R, C) John F Casey (R, C) Joseph F Kasper (R) Daniel Lewis (D) Diccia T Pineda-Kirwan (D) Thomas D Raffaele (D) |
- |
Supreme Court - 12th Judicial District | Sharon A M Aarons (D) Loraine Corsa (C) Kenneth Thompson Jr. (D, C) Lucindo Suarez (D) John H Wilson (R, C) |
- |
Supreme Court - 13th Judicial District | Philip Minardo (D, R, I, C) | - |
Judge of the Civil Court - Bronx | Ruben Franco (D), 41.54 percent Stanley Green (D), 41.02 percent Marcos A Pagan III (R, C), 9.37 percent Charles F Taibi (R, C), 8.07 percent |
- |
Judge of the Civil Court - Brooklyn | Reginald A Boddie (D), 74.95 percent Vincent F Martusciello (R, C), 25.05 percent |
- |
Judge of the Civil Court - Queens | Jodi Orlow Mackoff (D) Richard G Latin (D) |
- |