Parker’s Problems Persist

New York State Senator Kevin Parker has been found guilty of two misdemeanor counts of criminal mischief after a recent altercation he had with a NY Post photographer. In the altercation, the photographer was taking pictures of Parker’s house to accompany a story on the Senator’s financial problems. Parker realizing the pictures were being taken, ran out of his home and proceeded to pull the photographers car door off with his bare hands and then break one of the guys fingers.

This is not the first ridiculously violent act Senator Parker has committed. In 2005, he punched a traffic cop in the face for writing him a ticket. Also, on countless occasions Parker has had violent outbursts on the Senate floor and in committee. During which he has called people names, accused them of racism, and has directly threatened fellow Senators. All of which has led to court-ordered anger management classes.

The good news is that the New York State Senate set a precedent of kicking members out of office who have committed misdemeanor offenses with the ousting of Hiram Monserrate last year after he slashed his Girlfriend in the face with a piece of glass. However, the law does not require them to do so. Only if a Senator is found guilty of a felony can he be kicked out without question.

Politically speaking, Parker is tolerated in his own party and the Democrats have not announced any action one way or another. However, it would be difficult to differentiate between Parker’s flagrant violent actions and Monserrates. Plus, the seat is in a heavily democratic district that would easily be won in a special session. Personally, I say vote the lunatic out.

Mischief Managed?

Only two weeks after Governor Paterson gave the State of the State address, where he outlined comprehensive ethics reform in Albany, the issue has been picked up by the legislature. There is only one issue, the Governor hates it.

Thats right, Paterson’s spokesmen has stated quite clearly that the new ethics reform bill is nothing more than “election-year window dressing” . I am going to have to agree with Paterson on this one.

Everyone knows that come election time incumbets, specifically democrats, are going to have to answer for the screeching halt of the state government that occured last year. No better way to deflect the question than by being able to say, “yes, but we also past ethics reform legislation that will make New York a better state.” But, have they really passed ethics reform that voters can look at, and like Harry Potter to the Marauder’s Map, say mischief managed?

That answer would be NO. Now, i am a proponet of progress, and the legislature is making steps in the right direction. However, if ethics reform is going to be a central issue for this legislative session and election (and it clearly is), than why not attack the issue comprehensivly rather than picking out a few problems here and there.

For a little background information, the new bill would create a bi-cameral system that would monitor legislators and legislative activities, such as outside income (or the Bruno clause after former Senate Majority Leader Bruno).

But here is the kicker. In all of the shuffling around of committee’s and definitions the law fails to do one very important thing…DEFINE WHAT PUNISHMENTS WILL BE.

The single biggest problem with ethics in the State of New York is that people do not get punished if they do something wrong. For example, Senator Espada owes several thousands of dollars in campaign contribution violations, yet he still recieves his paycheck and is still in office. Creating another bill with no teeth is like trying to discipline a child without actually punishing them…”please billy stop stealing from other kids…now go play with your friends”.

I agree that reform is needed and if this waterdowned version of Governor Paterson’s proposal is all we can get, then lets pass it. But it will do little to actually fix the problem. I suggest we go back to the drawing board and try again.

(for those who read my posts, you will notice that in my state of the state analysis I predicted comprehensive ethics refom would be stripped and watered down)

State of the State Address

So here is the Post-Game Analysis

1. Paterson spoke fairly well today. He was clear and concise with his comments. There was not a whole lot of detail on all points but for the most part he shared an outline of his plans. However, I would say the speech overall was not that impressive. It was mediocre and passable.

2. Paterson did focus mostly on re-building the economy and finding a way to get New Yorkers back to work. At the beginning of the speech Paterson announced he will re-submit a bill that would institute a spending cap for the state government. I think this is a great idea, although, he did not go into too much detail other than a spending cap would help keep spending down….which is fairly obvious.

3. The most expansive he got on any one topic was Ethics Reform. The Reform Albany Act which was submitted in bill form to the legislature today would end “pay to play”, drive contribution limits down, institute public financing at a 4:1 ratio, and lastly, put term limits on public officials. I believe the Governor has submitted a comprehensive reform package that needs to be passed in New York. However, to be realistic, i believe there is a better than average chance that the Reform Albany Act will end up stripped down and gutted, leaving it useless on its face. I hope not, but we shall see.

4. On the topic of ethics, Paterson spoke to the legislature directly by saying that if the legislature does not act, he will. Paterson hinted at the idea of Executive Orders and Constitutional changes if the legislature does not do the “work of the people”. I predicted he would treat the legislature like a child and he did. He ended this section of the speech saying the legislature should have the voice of people by enacting the laws that people want. Like a father to a son, he told them to shape up.

5. Paterson also spoke clearly about oppertunities and ideas he would like implimented to help create a better economy and more jobs in New York. Specifically, he brought up the idea of re-developing the manufacturing districts of our state through a new program called the Excelsior Program. This would aim to bring Green Technology Manufacturing, Green Jobs, and Technology Jobs to the state. The plan also allows the government to buy old manufacturing sites and retro-fit them, bringing them back to operational status, and then sell them to companies. I like this plan overall and I think it could be the biggest success our state has seen in a long time.

(Alongside the Excelsior Program, Paterson suggested we end the Enterprise Zone program due to its continual failure.)

6. Lastly, Paterson spoke about a revolving door start up/small business loan program that would allow small companies to get their legs and build root. This program could be a huge success, or it could be a money pit. He did not go into a whole lot of detail of the program or how it would be implimented. I am not opposed to this though because small companies do contribute a fair share to the economy of upstate, less in downstate, and therefore need to be maintained.

Overall rating for the speech….3/5

Please add your comments of what you saw and heard!

Ethics Reform In Albany

This is an undeniable, absolute must if Albany is ever going to turn its back from the pay-to-play culture it has developed. The debate on Ethics Reform has gone on long enough. We have heard from both sides of the table and it is time to take some action.

Recently, Speaker Sheldon Silver has proposed ethics reform that creates 3 seperate commissions, one for the legislature, one for the executive, and one for lobbyists. While I applaud his committement to the issue his apprach is ugly, about as smooth as sandpaper, and worst of all a waste of tax payer dollars. The Speaker asks for an executive oversight board comprised of members picked by the Governor, the Attorney General, and the Comptroller.

I agree that oversight is necessary to the governement and A, notice i said A, singular, watchdog is pertainent to a successful democracy. However, no matter how many commissions you make, if the members are comprised of people picked by partisan politicians it will never live up to its intent.

I will not hide my support for what I think is the best option. Blair Horner of the New York Interest Research Group has dedicated his life to Ethics Reform in Albany. He has waged the same war on the same issue for more years than I have been alive. He understands the issues and how to achieve real reform. WHY ARE WE NOT LISTENING TO HIM THEN????

Recently, he has proposed a plan that would create an independent Commission on Governmental Ethics. The commission would oversee all branches of the state government and lobbyist activities. The members would be picked by several…not three…members of state government, inculding both minority and majority parties explicitly.

This is the kind of reform New York doesn’t just need, but it deserves. It is time for the state to stop playing politics with the issue and give the constituants of New York their pride back.

When a National, or State, security matter is at hand often times governement will ask the electorate to allow their freedoms to be stepped on in the name of safety and security. Often government envokes the phrase, “if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.” Well, now that has come full circle. Albany, you have nothing to fear, if you have done nothing wrong, PASS ETHICS REFORM NOW.