Dance of the Districts

Political Panel Praises

Partisan Redistricting,

Solons Are Discomfited

At Koch Remonstrance

The reapportionment dance took a few steps forward and backward today as LATFOR (The New York State Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research) held a public hearing in lower Manhattan. The committee has been traveling around the state to hear from the public, but that is no indication that they will respond to the complaints that have been received from academics, good government groups and potential candidates.

The first grievance, which has been expressed by speakers who caught the road show before it arrived in New York City, was that LATFOR should not exist all, but that an independent redistricting commission should be appointed, rather than leaving the task to the assembly of incumbents now conducting the hearings and charged with preparing a plan for the approval of the Legislature, the body that will be affected by the plan.

The reformers want to prevent self-serving partisan districting, which fulfills the desires of a political party at the expense of non-members of that party. They want nonpartisan districting, either this year by law or permanently by Constitutional amendment. The incumbents' idea of avoiding one-party favoritism is bi-partisan districting, which serves the needs of both the Democratic and Republican parties, at the expense of challengers and independents of all stripes.

The star witness at the hearing was former Mayor Edward I. Koch, co-founder of New York Uprising, which is a coalition of former public officials favoring independent non-political districting. Click here to read Mayor Koch's testimony, an informative review of current state of efforts to draw fair lines.

Under the Constitution of the United States, a census of the population is taken every ten years, and the results determine the apportionment of seats in Congress. Because of New York State's comparatively slow growth, it will lose two seats as a result of the 2010 census. The usual political tradition when New York loses two seats has been to take one upstate Republican seat and one downstate Democratic seat. The situation has been complicated since 2010 by the departure of three members of Congress from New York State because of sexual misconduct, in three cases different from each other and all involving unrequited desires.

The custom in New York has been for the Democrats to draw Assembly district lines and the Republicans the Senate lines. For seats in Congress, the parties had to reach agreement on district boundaries. Because of changing demographics and social attitudes, the Republican hold on the Senate has becoming ever more tenuous. A law adopted when the Senate was in Democratic hands changed the districts that would benefit from the head count of inmates from the upstate counties were they were incarcerated, providing employment to local residents, to the downstate counties where they lived while committing the crimes, largely, felonies that resulted in their being sent upstate.

Some people want the Democrats to win both houses, so responsibility for whatever happens or does not happen can be placed on one party. Others prefer a divided legislature, so that conservatives as well as liberals will be heard. A number of players publicly prefer domination by their own party, but their private opinion is another matter. Common sense tells us that moderate government is more likely to be achieved under diverse leadership than when the legislature is under the control of one party. A political system dominated by either party tends to reduce the importance of general elections and increase the effect of party primaries, where the more extreme members of each party have proportionately greater influence, in part because independents are forbidden to vote.

Redistricting will be an important issue in the months to come, and much will said on the subject. The argument is not ideological, the left against the right, the spenders against the savers, or liberals against social conservatives. The issue here is one of equity and fairness, of expressing the wishes of the people, as opposed to those in both parties who would manipulate the system, deny ballot access to challengers, preserve incumbents by any means available, and place individual legislators under the thrall of the legislative leadership, where any expression of autonomy is punished.

The New York State legislature, periodically derided as the most dysfunctional in the United States, has earned its ill repute, not only through acts of dishonesty by members of both houses, some of which have resulted in prison sentences, but by an arbitrary system of rules and protective walls around the leadership, so that although the great majority of the members are honest, there is precious little they can accomplish without the consent of men who, to put it politely, are more responsive to special interests and individual desires, often paid for by political contributions.

To allow the leaders to retain the power to choose their followers by drawing their districts condemns the backbenchers to little more authority than their constituents, who may decennially be moved like cattle from one district to another to serve the political interests of those whose lack of responsibility and desire for re-election have helped give rise to the state's now acute financial problems.

Do not take this commentary as indicating that any particular legislator is better or worse than any other. Some considered paragons of virtue may never have been subject to temptation. Others usually reviled are not only smarter than most others but are better politicians. And when people elected to high office as reformers are found to have several screws loose which prevent positive interaction with other people, the distinction between intellect and insanity becomes difficult to find.

But regardless of their intellect, ability, integrity or state of rage, all public officials should run in honestly drawn districts, equal in size, compact and contiguous, and linking communities by interest. Political boundaries should not be perpetrated on the public by self-serving incumbents, who have systematically manipulated the electoral system to serve their personal needs at the expense of the public interest in honest government.

Big Apple Turnover

Turner Tops Weprin

Koch's Intervention,

Distaste for Obama

Reflected in Vote.

The election yesterday of Republican Robert Turner to Congress is significant for several reasons.

One is that the result will be widely perceived as a rebuke to President Obama and the Democratic Party, which it is. For some, the issue was jobs and the economy. For others, the administration's hostility to Israel is an important issue, which affected Catholic voters as well as Jews. The hostility of Muslim extremists extends to all other religions, and the Catholics were the original crusaders in the Middle Ages.

The Democrat, David Weprin, was clearly the machine candidate, chosen in part because he could be counted on not to squawk too loudly when his district was eliminated. Mr. Weprin, a retiring person and a hard worker, would not be in politics except that his father, the distinguished Saul Weprin, rose to be Speaker of the Assembly before he passed away in 1994, to be succeeded by Sheldon Silver. David's younger brother, Mark Weprin, was also a member of the Assembly before he was elected to the City Council in 2009. The Weprins are the last remaining political dynasty in the Queens delegation to Albany, the Hevesi clan having been reduced to son Andrew, an assemblyman since 2005.

There was no Democratic or Republican primary to select the candidate to fill the seat vacated by Anthony Weiner, whose troubles have been recounted at length and need no further exposition here. Normally party nominations are the result of primary elections, but in all five elections held yesterday, the departing officials left at a point on the calendar when a primary was not required, and the nominee could be selected by the county leader. Observers believe that Melinda Katz, the former Councilmember and Asssemblywoman, would have been a stronger candidate. She came in third while Weprin ran fourth in the 2009 contest for City Comptroller. But she would have been less likely to take a dive to suit the county leader.

In Queens, that is Congressman Joseph Crowley, in Kings it is Assemblyman Vito Lopez. For the Brooklyn-Queens congressional district, both leaders concurred in the choice of David Weprin; he would have been the only person in recent memory to have been a member of the City Council, the state legislature, and the U.S. Congress. That, however was not to be, although he could be consoled by the words of Meat Loaf, "Two out of three ain't bad" (Rule 20-T).

Many voters had negative views on the economy and the Obama administration, which were reflected in the vote. When seen together, Turner, at 70, was physically more imposing than Weprin, who is 55. Turner was a more folksy and less political figure, running at a time when politicians are not held in high regard for good and sufficient reasons.

The solidarity of Democrats, practically all the legislators lining up like sparrows on a wire to support colleague Weprin, left the field open for independent Mayor Koch and Assemblyman Dov Hikind, both of whom occasionally support Republicans. Both Liberal Party members and Conservative leader Michael Long supported Turner. The Liberals want Obama to win in 2012, and urgently wish him to change course before it is too late. The Conservatives simply oppose Obama, and are promoting the Turner victory as a national uprising.

Basically, this was an election between boss-picked candidates to fill a vacancy created when party leaders decided that a wayward Congressman guilty of infantile behavior was dispensable. The problem they must face is that the cure for Weiner's bizarre misconduct may be worse for the Democrats than the disease.

The wild card in the primary turned out to be Mayor Koch, a popular and credible octogenerian leader who seeks no public office, and is therefore more susceptible to the dictates of conscience. He has never been shy about expressing his opinions, and the fate of the Jewish people is an issue of great importance to him, although he is a secular Jew. His early intervention made the sleepy race competitive. The vigorous Turner campaign attracted both Russians and Orthodox Jews, neither of whom has particularly high regard for the other. Politically, the Russians are mostly conservative, having lived under an all-powerful state.

The Orthodox were upset that Weprin favored gay marriage, and said that his position was consistent with his Orthodoxy. His co-religionists disputed his claim. I support gay marriage, although I was late to the cause. Turner promised Koch not to exploit the issue, and he kept his word. The Orthodox, however, consider this an important matter, even though the State legislature had approved it and will not change its position, in part because of demographics and in part because of increasing public acceptance of same-sex marriage.

So it is that Mr. Turner will go to Washington, and the Ninth District, in its present gerrymandered dumb-bell configuration, with a narrow link between Brooklyn and Queens, will retire to well-deserved oblivion, having enjoying its moment in the spotlight. Unless there is another major hurricane or other disaster, the television towers will not return to Broad Channel and Howard Beach.

Let us hope that the President gains insight from the events in New York-9, as they call it, and returns to the foreign policy of American presidents starting with Harry Truman in 1948, with the exception of Jimmy Carter, who has established a Center in Georgia that requires continuous infusions of funds, provided by friends in the Middle East.

More will be written about New York-9. It may be remembered like one of those towns whose high point was a battle in the Civil War, and after which has slept quietly for a century. But, on September 13, 2011, ten years and two days after the fateful 9/11, the people of the district spoke. I believe they were influenced to some extent by the national tragedy whose anniversary they had so recently observed. In any event, an election is a great public event and an expression of the views of the community which people who believe in democracy are bound to respect.

September Surprise?

Turner-Weprin Contest

Seen as Vote on Obama

The possibility of an upset in the special election September 13 to fill Anthony Weiner's congressional seat should cause Democratic leaders some anxiety.

Although Assemblyman David Weprin, the Democratic candidate, must be considered the favorite in view of the heavy Democratic edge in registration, the Republican nominee, Bob Turner, is running hard. In 2010, Turner opposed incumbent Weiner last year and won 40% of the vote in what had been considered a deep blue district. When Weiner was forced to resign June 16 as a result of a sexting scandal, Governor Cuomo chose September 13, primary day, as the date for an election to fill the remainder of Weiner's term, which would have expired January 3, 2013.

Anthony Weiner, who had served eleven years in Congress before he was brought down by scandal, was not convicted or even indicted for any crime. He did not have sexual intercourse with any of his online acquaintances. He did not pay anyone for sex, nor did he threaten or abuse anyone to secure sexual favors.

Weiner did not cheat on his taxes or claim fictitious deductions. He did not assault anyone of either gender. He did not betray his office by seeking bribes for his vote. He did not kill, steal, or commit physical adultery. He did covet higher office, but that is no sin. Millions of men around the world have gone on the internet to find sexual excitation or release. Unless it involves minors, such behavior is not a crime.

What he did, in circulating nude pictures of himself and sending salacious messages to his pen pals, is ludicrous and pathetic. If a private citizen behaved that way, it would be the height of folly and a matter of serious concern to his family. For a public figure, an elected official, a candidate for mayor, to do such a thing and jeopardize one's career and one's marriage indicates a serious mental disorder, which certainly requires treatment. For a start, they should take away his computer and only allow it to be used under supervision.

However, foolishness and narcissism are not sufficient grounds for the removal of an elected official, particularly if his conduct did not violate the standards set by criminal law. Nor did his constituents demand his removal, according to public opinion polls at the time. They knew him, and wanted to reserve to themselves the right to pass judgment on his aberration. There was some sympathy for a nice boy gone astray. Nor did he want to resign; he desperately clung to his job, because that was the validation of his existence.

In the end, it was Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership that compelled him to go, because they felt his misconduct would injure the party in the November 2012 elections. It was a 'holier than thou' attitude which carried the day, as well as the mob mentality which often accompanies lynchings, physical or judicial. Weiner's abrasive personality, his arrogance and his self-promotion had won him no friends among his colleagues, and his office manners led to frequent turnover on his beleaguered staff. Weiner was not an appealing figure, and his public downfall created no mourning on Capitol Hill.

What is fascinating here is that Nancy Pelosi and company drove him out, not because they were necessarily horrified by his juvenile behavior, but because they thought it was to their political advantage to lance the boil, to cull the black sheep from the block, to fumigate and sanitize the party label. This was Pelosi's judgment even though Weiner had supported her for speaker in January 2007 over Steny Hoyer, a more moderate and less divisive Democrat. Perhaps she objected to the fact that he objectified women in his correspondence. Her attitude recalls Rule 32-Y: "Yes, but what have you done for me lately?"

HISTORICAL INTERLUDE -- HOW THE SEAT WAS WON AND HELD, 1923-2011

The Congressional seat itself has a noteworthy political history. Originally thought of as the Jewish seat in Brooklyn, it was occupied for fifty years (1923-72) by Emanuel Celler, who rose to become chair of the Judiciary Committee. He was the fourth-longest Representative in the history of the House. The record holder is John D. Dingell of Michigan, who assumed office on December 13, 1955, succeeding his father and namesake, who served a mere 22 years. The silver medalist is Jamie Whitten of Mississippi (1941-1995), who chaired the Appropriations Committee. Third was Carl Vinson of Georgia (1914-65), who chaired the Armed Services Commitee. A nuclear powered aircraft carrier was named in his honor in 1980 when he was 96 years old. He is a grand-uncle of former Senator Sam Nunn (D-Ga).

Three other men had longer tenure, aggregating the years in the House and in the Senate. They are Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia (1953-2010), Carl Hayden of Arizona (1912-69) and Daniel Inouye (1959 to the present). Hayden had been sheriff of Maricopa County and Inouye was a Territorial legislator before Arizona and Hawaii gained statehood.

Celler, a stalwart of the Brooklyn Democratic organization, was upset by 31-year-old Elizabeth Holtzman in the 1972 Democratic primary. She served eight years before running for the Senate in 1980. She won the Democratic primary over Bess Myerson, John V. Lindsay and John J. Santucci, the Queens DA, but she lost the general election to the town supervisor of Hempstead, Alfonse D'Amato, who had defeated incumbent Jacob K. Javits in the Republican primary. Javits stayed in the race, polling 664,544 votes on the Liberal line from New Yorkers who were not enchanted with either major party candidate.

The seat Ms. Holtzman vacated was taken by Charles E. Schumer, who had been an Assemblyman since 1974, the year he graduated from Harvard Law School. Schumer, who was 23 when he was first elected, had defeated an organization candidate to win the Assembly primary, which in that district was tantamount to election. Schumer held the House seat for 18 years, until he entered, and won, the Democratic Senate primary, handily defeating (with 51%) both Geraldine Ferraro (21%) and Mark Green (19%).

It was to fill Schumer's vacated seat that Anthony Weiner, then a City Councilmemember, was elected in 1998. Again, the real contest was the Democratic primary, where Weiner (28%) outpolled Melinda Katz (27%), Noach Dear (22%), and Daniel Feldman (22%). Weiner's margin over Ms. Katz was 285 votes. She was later elected to the City Council and chaired the Land Use Committee there. She came in third for City Comptroller in 2009, ahead of only David Weprin, who was fourth. Without making a judgment on the merits, it is clear that Katz and Weprin, both middle-class Jewish councilmembers from Queens and City Council committee chairs, appealed to precisely the same base.

Weiner was re-elected six times, and since Congressional terms end in even-numbered years, he had the odd-numbered years to pursue his quest for the mayoralty, which he did in 2005. After a surprisingly strong performance in the Democratic primary, Weiner could have made the runoff against Fernando Ferrer, the frontrunner, but he withdrew from the race rather than opposing the former Bronx Borough President in a bruising racially charged battle reminicent of the Ferrer-Green runoff in 2001. In any event, Weiner would most likely have lost to Bloomberg in the general election.

In 2009 Weiner planned to run but decided not to after Bloomberg's people said they would spend over $100 million on the campaign, twenty per cent of which was to be devoted to what is called "oppo research" on his rivals. We do not know what skeletons Weiner had in his closet at that time, which was two years ago, when Weiner was single. There is, however, a major rule, 16-J, "Nobody does it once." If you are curious, you can ask us who the J stands for.

BACK TO THE FUTURE

To return to 2011 and the current campaign, both sides have printed misleading offensive literature. Weprin says that Turner would abolish Social Security and Medicare, while Turner implies thats Weprin would support a mosque on every corner and uses 9/11 imagery to make his point, which is incredibly tacky. And the good stuff is usually saved for the last week. Money from outside the district is flooding it to support each of the candidates.

We do not know what will happen in the September 13 election. "As luck would have it" (Rule 17-A), this will be a closely watched contest, and the result may be taken as a measure of President Obama's popularity, which is not overwhelming at the moment. Adding the scalp of Qaddafi to that of Bin Laden would help the President, and no one can be certain of what will happen in the next three weeks. The political waters were roiled to an extent by Mayor Koch's vigorous endorsement of Turner, which Koch explained as an expression of displeasure at Obama's apparent lack of affection for Israel. Historically, many Jews are supportive of the authorities, who they believe will protect them from enemies. In the old country, they did not believe the Czar himself was anti-Semitic, it was just his ministers who gave him bad advice. Some older Jews still believe they are voting for Franklin D. Roosevelt.

It is more likely that economic conditions will affect the outcome of the special election. This is a heavily Democratic area, part Brooklyn, part Queens. No matter who wins, the district is likely to be partitioned in the imminent decennial reapportionment, so the election must be viewed as a one-term proposition. Its principal effect will be the potential embarrassment that a Republican victory would bring. At this moment, that seems unlikely, but special elections are particularly hard to predict. The polls as yet unreleased will have influence on the outcome.

One observation we can make is that when the House Democrats tried to play it safe by throwing Weiner under the train in June, rather than leaving that task to his constituents, no one anticipated that, in September, the party would be struggling to avoid a greater shame: the defeat of a regular Democrat in a blue New York City district by a candidate running against President Obama. The 24-hour media cycle makes it possible today for elections to turn on a dime on the basis of new disclosures, whether they are true or false.

The latest Democratic defection may be Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who is quoted on p6 of today's Post, saying, "I will not support David Weprin." Hikind objects to Weprin citing his religiion in voting for the gay marriage law in June. "Weprin basically used his Jewish orthodoxy to say gay marriage is OK. He used his orthodoxy to say gay marriage is kosher. That crossed the line." Hikind has previously supported Republican candidates in races where gay marriage was not an issue. He said he would meet with Turner in the coming days.

In the secrecy of the ballot box, one can only imagine how former Congressman Weiner will cast his vote. I suspect he will vote for Weprin, so he can answer questions truthfully and avoid responsibility for what may happen. What he wishes for in his heart I cannot tell, but I know how I would feel under the circumstances.

StarQuest #775 8.23.2011 1875 words

A Good Governor

Carey Was Indispensable

In City's '70s Fiscal Crisis

The obituaries for Governor Hugh L. Carey stress a major achievement, bringing fiscal responsibility to New York City government after the financial crisis of 1974 and 1975. Here are some facts about the situation at that time and Governor Carey's critical role.

Mayor Koch, who knew Governor Carey since they served in Congress thirty years ago, has written about Carey's achievements. Click here to read his commentary.

This article is a worm's eye view of the fiscal crisis and political events that surrounded and followed it. Back then, I was a City Councilmember at large, elected from the Borough of Manhattan. The City Council, at the time less powerful than it is today, had little to do with creating or resolving the city's near-bankruptcy. We offer some background and political history of the 1970's. Thirty-five years later, it is remarkable how many of these events have been forgotten, while the new generation of New Yorkers never knew them.

In Governor Carey's inaugural on January 1, 1975, he said that "the days of wine and roses were over." This was a sage prediction of the fiscal storms ahead. In response to the city's inability to borrow money to meet its obligations, Carey secured state legislation creating the Municipal Assistance Corporation (also known as Big Mac) and the Financial Control Board for New York City. MAC had the authority to borrow money on behalf of the city, and city tax revenue streams were required to give priority to MAC bonds over any other municipal obligations. The interest rate on some MAC bonds was set as high as 11 per cent, and that income was tax-free. The FCB had authority over the city budget, its approval was required before a budget could be adopted.

The city's fiscal crisis was different and more immediate than the one the Federal government is now enduring. For years, starting at the end of the mayoral term of Robert F. Wagner in 1965, and increasingly during the eight years of the Lindsay administration and the first year under Mayor Abe Beame, the city had consistently spent more than it received in revenues. The gap was filled by borrowing, and city officials devised a number of instrumentalities for short-term borrowing, which was in addition to regular long-term borrowing through the issuance of bonds. In addition, current expenses, which should have been paid for by current revenues, were allocated to the capital budget, which made them eligible for bonding.

To meet its cash needs, the city began to issue new instruments, called RANs, TANs and BANs. These were respectively Revenue Anticipation Notes, Tax Anticipation Notes, and Bond Anticipation Notes. When they came due, the city rolled them over, renewing them for a short period of time. The sum of money borrowed in this way steadily rose, and there came a time in 1975 when the banks, fearful of default as the city's debt increased, stopped buying the freshly issued notes. This caused an immediate cash crisis, as the city did not have the money to pay its employees, having become dependent on the proceeds of the short-term notes which had been rolled over.

The Emergency Financial Control Board (as it was called at the time) had effective control of the city government, since it controlled the cash flow. Its seven-man board consisted of the governor, the mayor, the state and city comptrollers, and three private citizens chosen by the governor and confirmed by the state senate. Other elected officials were allowed to appoint non-voting representatives to the Board.

Governor Carey, who had become proconsul for the city, first secured the retirement of Deputy Mayor James Cavanagh, a longtime civil servant and the appointee of Mayor Beame. Cavanagh, an honorable man who came to symbolize the old way, was replaced by John E. Zuccotti, a 38-year-old who had been chairman of the City Planning Commission. The city reduced its expenditures sharply, mainly by laying off 50,000 employees on June 30, 1975, the end of the fiscal year.

Politically, Carey concluded that Beame was indecisive and not competent to manage the city. He and former Mayor Wagner set about finding a challenger for the 1977 Democratic primary. The usual partner of Wagner and Carey was Alex Rose, the Liberal Party leader who had brought about Mayor Lindsay's re-election in 1969 after Lindsay, at the time a Republican, lost the primary in his own party. Lindsay was re-elected on the Liberal Party line.

Sadly, Alex Rose had passed away on December 28, 1976 and Wagner and Carey were left on their own. They settled on Mario Cuomo, at the time New York's secretary of state under Governor Carey. Cuomo came in second in the seven-person primary race (Bella Abzug, who had just left Congress after narrowly losing a Senate primary to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, came in fourth). The top two, Congressman Ed Koch and Cuomo, made the runoff. Beame had been eliminated because he came in third, Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton ran fifth and Bronx Congressman Herman Badillo was sixth. Joel Harnett, a civic reformer, was a distant seventh. The results were so close that the top six candidates each received more than 10 per cent of the vote, but none of them won 20 per cent. Koch was barely one per cent above Cuomo in the initial voting.

The law provided for a runoff between the top two candidates if no one received 40 per cent of the ballots. Koch defeated Cuomo in the primary runoff by ten points, and in the general election when Cuomo ran a strong race on the Liberal line. On winning, Koch declared peace with Carey, and the two men became political allies and friends. In 1982, when Mayor Koch ran against Carey's Lieutenant Governor, Mario Cuomo, for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, Carey endorsed Koch, who ended up losing to Cuomo.

The breakthrough in Hugh Carey's political career came in 1974, when he defeated the better-known Howard J. Samuels by a 3-2 margin to become the Democratic and Liberal Party candidate for governor. Carey had been a Congressman from Brooklyn for seven terms. Samuels, known affectionately as "Howie the Horse", had been the first chairman of the Off-Track Betting Corporation. He had the support of Democratic Party leaders and was personally wealthy due to the success of Kordite, a plastic product used in baggies, wax paper, plastic wrap, disposable kitchenware, and sturdy trash bags, which he invented and developed. Samuels came from upstate Canandaigua, and was widely referred to as "the upstate industrialist". Carey was the downstate politician.

As governor, Carey made first-rate appointments to his staff, including David Burke and Robert Morgado as successive Secretaries to the Governor, Judah Gribetz as counsel and Michael Del Giudice as policy director. After he left office, Carey led a relatively private life with his family.

In addition to the extensive obituary by Richard Perez-Pena which began on A1 of the Times, the Carey family placed a lengthy and detailed notice on pA17, the obituary page of the newspaper. Mayor Koch wrote a tribute to the former governor, titled HUGH CAREY: NEW YORK'S GREATEST GOVERNOR OF THE MODERN ERA. Click here to find the column, republished on New York Civic's website. It is well worth reading.

BTW, many years ago, Governor Carey received the park name "Leonine". It was a reference to his middle name, Leo, and his stately appearance. In New York State, he was, at an important time in history, the king of beasts.



StarQuest #773 8.8.2011 1247 words

Beware the Gerrymander

Common Cause Drawing Lines

For Legislative Redistricting,

LATFOR Holding Hearings

Writing a blog has many satisfactions. One can share information and opinions with thousands of people who have elected to receive them. One can affect the public's view of issues. On some occasions, one can publish material previously unknown or unconnected to the larger universe of public policy issues.

A blog also has its frustrations. The blogger can draw conclusions and make proposals, in a loud or soft voice, but there is no assurance that anyone will do what he recommends. In most cases, there is a reason that officials will not do what you suggest. The most common reason is their own self-interest.

It is an ancient truism that the first law of nature is self-preservation. The thought was expressed elegantly by Andrew Marvell in 1675 in England in a metaphysical poem, "Hodge's Vision from the Monument".

"Self-preservation, nature's first great law,
All the creatures, except man, doth awe."

BTW, the gifted Marvell (1621-1678) is the author of another iconic couplet, well known for centuries:

"The grave's a fine and private place,
But none I think do there embrace."

The importance of self-preservation was doubtless in the minds of our ancestors, the cavepeople, whether they expressed that view in their speech or not. When one watches nature programs on public television, and sees the way animals treat, and eat, each other, the priority of survival for any living creature is evident.

The relevance of these observations to today's politics arises when we consider the decennial issue of redistricting. The Constitution of the United States (Art. I, Sec. 2) requires the enumeration of the population by means of a census to be taken every ten years (the first was in 1790), and the assignment of seats in the House of Representatives based on roughly equal districts. It is left to the state legislatures to draw the lines, either as a body, through a committee, or by taking recommendations from a group they appoint for that purpose, be it judicial, academic, nonpartisan or bipartisan.

New York State is historically noted for egregious gerrymandering. For roughly the last half century, the Assembly has been districted to elect Democrats, whereas the Senate lines favor Republicans. The steady growth in allegiance to the Democrats and the relative depopulation of upstate has made it increasingly difficult to draw Senate lines to keep the Republican Senate majority.

In 2008, the Democrats actually gained a Senate majority because of the high vote for President Obama. They managed their majority so shamefully and corruptly that the Republicans narrowly regained control in 2010. During the campaign, all the Republicans promised in writing to support an independent redistricting commission in order to win the approval of Mayor Koch and an organization he and others formed called New York Uprising.

After the Republican victory, owing in part to the use of the Koch pledge in their literature, they concluded that the independent commission they promised to support could not come into effect until the state Constitution was amended, an event that would not take place before 2013, at the earliest, and would not apply until the 2022 election. What happened, of course, was that once they had a majority, the Republicans repudiated their pledge, as it was no longer in their self-interest to honor it.

Governor Cuomo has repeatedly pledged to veto any districting plan that is not prepared by an independent commission. He does, however, leave himself some wiggle room by requiring that the plan be fair, reasonable and nonpartisan, without re-emphasizing the necessity for an independent commission.

To his credit, the Governor has stated that he does not believe that the committee of state legislators charged with statutory authority to draw the lines, the New York State Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment (LATFOR), can see past their own personal and political interests and create district boundaries that are equitable. LATFOR has so far had two hearings upstate, with another scheduled tomorrow in Albany. Five hearings will be held in New York City in September, one in each borough (Queens - Sept. 7; Bronx - Sept. 8; Brooklyn - Sept. 20; Manhattan - Sept. 21; and Staten Island - Sept. 22). Their locations have not yet been announced.

If the Governor vetoes a districting plan, it will be up to the legislature to sustain or override the veto. To override requires a two-thirds vote in each house, which means that both the Democratic and Republican leadership would have to agree on a plan. Enough legislators have signed the Koch pledge to sustain a Cuomo veto, but will they keep their word?

Another possible scenario is that, anticipating Governor Cuomo's veto, the Legislature will avoid the political consequences of overriding the Governor's honest and populist stance and instead stall as long as it can, perhaps until February 2012, before issuing its suggested lines.

The aim of this strategy would be for the legislature to make the case to the state or federal courts, which would be charged with drawing the lines in the event the state does not adopt any, that there would not be enough time before the April 24, 2012 primary date to come up with new lines, and thus there would be no alternative but to adopt the LATFOR lines.

To thwart this potential manipulation, Governor Cuomo should take Bill Samuels' suggestion and appoint a nonpartisan, independent commission now that would draw up equitable lines which the Governor would be comfortable adopting. This commission's recommendations would not be binding, nor would they carry official weight, but they would be valuable if the redistricting battle winds up in the courts, and the judiciary needs a viable alternative to the LATFOR lines to consider in a short period of time.

Common Cause New York deserves praise for the substantial labor that it is currently performing to create their own set of lines, drawn up according to the principles commonly held by good government groups. Basic fairness requires that legislative districts be compact, contiguous, equal in population, reflect communities of interest, and not be stacked, packed, hacked or cracked, which are terms used to describing either stuffing members of one group into a district in order to control it, or breaking up natural concentrations of people to diminish their power to elect a member of their group.

It will be interesting to see how different Common Cause's lines will be, when they are completed in the coming months, from the ones LATFOR ultimately draws. Close examination of the differences are likely to reveal the partisan self-serving motives of the legislators.

There is still a possibility that the Legislature will honor the pledge it made to Mayor Koch, the former mayors and governors who are part of New York Uprising, and Citizens Union, a leader in the struggle and the organizing force behind the ReShape New York coalition, of which New York Civic is a member, and hold a special session to appoint an independent commission in place of LATFOR. That is, however, highly unlikely as it would almost certainly frustrate the Senate Republicans's desire to maintain their majority, which they may lose unless President Obama's defeat in 2012 is as massive as his victory was in 2008.

There are many injustices in politics, such as the denial of ballot access to independent candidates, the use of technicalities in the election law to exclude legitimate candidates, the use of public resources by incumbents to promote their re-election, soliciting and securing campaign contributions from people and organizations candidates have assisted financially, usually with public funds, vacancies artfully created by timely resignations of incumbents, so the positions will be filled by special or midsummer elections with minimal voter turnout, and the prevention and suppression of primary elections through political or economic intimidation, not to mention old-fashioned voter fraud, such as multiple voting, and a variety of other 'dirty tricks'.

The struggle for clean elections and clean district lines are part of the effort to insure fair, open and honest elections so that the voters' choices will be respected. Unfortunately, insiders in the political system will often use every sort of chicanery to prevent a free election. In these contests, the insiders have a great deal at stake. It is their boodle, pelf and spoils that they are trying to preserve.

The voters have a right to choose their elected officials. The officials do not have a right to choose their voters, although in fact they try to do just that. Sometimes they even succeed. In New York State they usually do.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" was said by Wendell Phillips in 1852, in a speech to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society. That statement is still true today, and applies particularly to those who would tamper with the electoral process in order to gain private, personal or partisan preference.

The least one can expect in a competitive election is a map with clean district boundaries. Sadly, for far too many office holders, that is the last thing they want to see happen. We will watch closely for the next few months, looking out for attempts to manipulate the process. If the past is any indicator, machinations are likely to be attempted by those who hold legislative power. This is an early warning that there will be trickery afoot.

Four Wheels Bad

Today, we are told, is the one hundredth anniversary of the removal of tolls from the East River bridges, which at the time ranged from one to ten cents.

One would think that such an occasion would be a day of celebration, people rejoicing at the freedom to travel from Manhattan to Brooklyn and Queens and to return without stopping to pay a toll to a troll. A bridge is a street over water was the prevailing philosophy when the city was young and growing.

For most of us, that is our sentiment today, but a cadre of transit activists insistently desires a return to the days of the toll collector on the bridge, as well as charging motorists to go from one neighborhood to another in Manhattan.

There is a politically correct sentiment that the automobile is an evil contraption, similar to the feeling in the 19th century that horseless carriages were infernal machines, whereas horse droppings, which are organic, were no problem. The truly committed car-haters try one scheme after another to make using a car in the city expensive, uncomfortable and, where they can, illegal. These nanny-staters want you to travel their way or not at all. Their credo: two wheels good, four wheels bad.

One technique the Luddites employ is to expand vastly a network of lanes reserved exclusively for bicyclists, even in narrow streets of lower Manhattan, where there is barely room for one lane of traffic alongside the parked vehicles. This experiment was tried on a much more modest scale in the Koch administration; it ended with the mayor over-ruling the transportation commissioner, declaring the experiment unsuccessful and closing down the lanes. Bicycling on city streets is desirable, but it can have tragic outcomes, with the death of the gifted Marilyn Dershowitz, mowed down by a mail truck on West 29th Street in Manhattan, the most recent example.

We recognize that there are various modes of transportation in New York City: railroads, subways, buses, cars and trucks, taxicabs, motorcycles, ferries, pedicabs, bicycles and travel by foot. They should all be encouraged and supported where their use is appropriate because they are needed to take New Yorkers where they want to go. One type of vehicle should not be considered as the enemy of every other.

Three years ago, the Assembly defeated a proposal to charge fees for travel on the city streets. It was called "congestion pricing", as if it were a remedy for a disease, congestion of the lung or the throat. In fact, once such a scheme is adopted, toll gates could be placed anywhere, at any hours, if not immediately, then by amendment of the law, which would be much easier to achieve than its adoption. The income tax began in 1913 ranging from 1 to 7 per cent.

London has already raised its congestion fee from 5 to 12 pounds, and increased the area in which it is charged. If the purpose of the plan is to meet the capital or operating deficits of the transit system, a new revenue stream will lead to increased expenditures, both for labor and for capital costs.

The recent construction history of the MTA is exemplified by the 2 Broadway fiasco, which in terms of wasted money, adjusted for inflation, exceeds CityTime in the annals of municipal scandal. A prime office building location, in the financial district at the southern tip of Manhattan, was selected for back-office use, when space could have been acquired in Brooklyn or Queens for far less money. Then, extensive renovations, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, were paid for by the MTA. People from the MTA and union officials were convicted and sent to jail for their role in the corruption. On top of all that, the MTA does not even own the building; it leases it from one Tamir Sapir, an immigrant from the Soviet Union who drove a taxicab and later became a real estate magnate. Sapir is a good example of the opportunities available in America, but leasing from him is by no means the best way to spend public funds, which have to be made up out of the farebox or taxation revenues. Google Sapir for information about his legal and political connections.

The concept of observing 2011 by regressing to a system discarded in 1911 is simply a method for a wasteful free-spending agency to meet its chronic financial needs by imposing additional taxes on the people. Here are ideas the MTA does not seem to have thought of yet: impose a sales tax on transit fares; put odometers on automobiles and charge for each mile the streets are used; increase municipal garage fees to the level of privately-owned garages and parking lots. In case you didn't know, the last sentence is irony, like Swift's "A Modest Proposal", but not as well done.

The extravagant reconstruction of the Fulton Street subway connection is a prime example of overbuilding at public expense, which exceeded a billion dollars for what is essentially a pre-existing subway interchange. The excuse here was that there was Federal money available which had to be spent in lower Manhattan. The half-billion dollar reconstruction of the South Ferry station was marginally more useful, but also over-engineered. The wholesale destruction of trees in Battery Park has yet to be remedied.

Mass transit is important and needs adequate support. The lockbox should be kept locked. The MTA, however, does not deserve a blank check, nor should it acquire a new revenue streams by burdening New Yorkers whose only taxable act is trying to go from one part of the city to another.

Public officials who oppose new taxes should realize that this scheme is a particularly burdensome tax whose impact will be felt by people whose jobs require local travel. Whatever costs accrue to business will be passed on to consumers in the form of price increases.

New York City did the right thing a century ago. Let us not undo the good work of our ancestors.

Win Some, Lose Some

Cuomo Reaffirms Commitment

To Independent Redistricting,

But Promulgates Calendar

That Will Bar Primaries

Politics has its ups and downs, as this week's events show.

There was a bright spot. Governor Cuomo reaffirmed his decision, first announced in February, that he would veto any redistricting bill passed by the Legislature that did not provide for an independent districting commission to draw the boundaries of Congressional, state senate and assembly districts.

Under the Constitution of the United States, (Art. I, Sec. 2), a census is to be taken every ten years, and seats in the House of Representatives are to be allocated to the states in proportion to their population. Since 1790, the enumeration has been conducted in years ending in zero. It is called the decennial census.

Under the first census, the population of the United States was counted at 3,922,214, and New York State had 340,120 residents, which was 8.656 per cent of the U.S. total. The most recent census, taken in 2010 and reported in 2011, showed the population of the United States at 308,745,538, of whom 19,378,102 lived in New York State.

In the ten years since the previous census, New York State gained only 2.1 per cent in population while the nation's population rose 9.7 per cent. New York State's share of the nation's population is 6.276 per cent. Since there are now 50 states while in 1790 there were 13, New York has held up fairly well over the 220 years of counting heads. The last half-century, however, has not been kind to the Empire State, which peaked at 45 Congressional districts in 1930 and 1940, but has steadily declined in political strength since World War II.

New York's slow increase in the most recent decade, compared with the much faster gains of states in the South and Southwest, has resulted in the state's loss of two House seats, which in the 2012 election will bring our total number of districts down from 31 to 29. Texas gained the largest number of seats in the last decade, going from 32 to 36. Nevada had the highest percentage increase, 35.1 per cent. The Silver State still has fewer people than the norm for one district, now about 710,000. The red states generally outgrew the blue states in the early 21st century, and as the Constitution makes this a zero-sum game, the gains came at the expense of the blue states.

With the loss of two New York seats, the question arises: which two districts out of the 31 will be made to disappear by whichever legislative body, independent commission or Federal court ends up drawing the final lines? Normally when the flock is culled, the weaker sheep are slaughtered, but New York has a plethora of rookies, as a result of libidinous mishaps.

The last seventeen months have seen three sudden departures of New York State Congressmen, all based on a variety of sexual acts and images, although none involved actual intercourse. The first to go was Democrat Eric Massa, from the southern tier of upstate counties, who was credibly accused of groping his young male staffers and resigned in March 2010. Next was Chris Lee, a Republican whose district lies between the suburbs of Buffalo and Rochester, who resigned in February 9, 2011, the day a photograph of the shirtless legislator appeared on Craigslist. He was outed by Gawker, but exposure is almost inevitable when one trolls for companionship on the Internet.

The most important legislator to fall, also entangled by the Web, was Democrat Anthony Weiner, who accidentally posted a sexually suggestive photo of himself on Twitter on May 27. After a prolonged period of denial, followed by apology and refusal to resign, Weiner gave in on June 16 and left his Democratic seat in Brooklyn and Queens vacant. Queens Democratic leader Joseph Crowley selected Assemblyman David Weprin to run in a special election September 13 to fill the position through the end of next year, when it is likely to be abolished. If that does occur, David Weprin will be in the unique position of being a former member of the State Assembly, the City Council and the United States Congress, as well as being the son of the late Assembly Speaker, Saul Weprin, and the brother of City Councilman Mark Weprin, who is regarded as upwardly mobile.

The reform movement in New York State public affairs, which consists of traditional, well-regarded government organizations, joined by Mayor Ed Koch's New York Uprising, has made independent redistricting a priority for 2011. So far the legislature has ignored their wishes, instead convening its own instrument for redistricting, called LATFOR, an acronym for Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment. The Albany Times-Union, in a well-written account by Casey Seiler and Jimmy Vielkind, brings us up to date on the latest skirmish. The article is worth your attention.

LATFOR met Wednesday for the first time. Its co-chairs are Republican Senator Michael Nozzolio from Seneca Falls and Democratic Assemblyman Jack McEneny of Albany. The meeting was brief and uneventful, but after it ended Mr. McEneny called Governor Cuomo's potential rejection "a very petty approach" based on "a dumb reason". Those remarks were gratuitous and injudicious, even from the assemblyman's point of view. One does not attack a popular governor without some preparation, definition of the issue, and sophisticated choice of language.

Reformers had worried about Governor Cuomo's adherence to his pledge to veto lines not drawn by an independent commission, fearing that as the price for the enormously successful legislative session, he may have promised to let the legislative leaders have their way on redistricting, which is of the utmost concern to them because it may determine who controls the Senate next year. The Assembly is 2-1 Democratic so the Senate will be the battle ground. The last time the Democrats organized the Senate, 2009-10, was considered a disaster. Previously the Republicans had held power for 44 years, in good part due to gerrymandering under an unspoken understanding in which each party controlled one house. Divided government was helpful to whomever was governor. At the same time, it made it more difficult to fix responsibility for anything, and in the long term was not helpful to the State or its fisc.

The McEneny sally Wednesday and the press inquiry that followed it provided an opportunity for Cuomo to express his views. The governor said that his attitude "is crystal clear, has been for a long time: I understand the assemblyman's point of view, he wants to draw his own lines... I want to have lines drawn that represent the people of the state of New York, not a particular assemblyman."

In a move announced late last Friday (considered the optimal time to put out stories of divorces and other possibly ill-received news), Governor Cuomo did make a concession to the state's party bosses, in particular Democratic Leaders Joseph Crowley of Queens and Vito Lopez of Brooklyn. In a move slammed by the editorial pages of The Daily News and The Times, Cuomo set dates for special elections to fill six vacant Assembly seats and one Congressional seat (Anthony Weiner's). The election date is September 13, which coincides with Primary Day, if there are any primaries.

Cuomo was not mandated to call special elections, and could have let the voters in the affected districts select their own party nominees in a September primary leading to a November general election. Instead, the party leader in each county will choose their party's nominees for the vacant public offices. Since Democrats prevail in most districts, that means the Democratic county leaders will decide who the incoming elected officials will be. In the normal course of events, this would make the elected officials particularly responsive to the wishes and preferences of the county leaders who have selected them to hold office. The public is effectively removed from the selection process until two years have passed, during which the selected nominee will have all the privileges of incumbency.

On one hand, how much heavy lifting is it fair to ask Governor Cuomo to do? On the other, what kind of democracy allows one man to choose so many public officials without the consent of the governed?

P.S. It doesn't bother me much that the Queens leader, Joe Crowley, lives in Virginia with his wife and kids. Why pick on one elected official who really seems to want a relatively normal family life, which at a minimum requires the presence of one's family, particularly young children? I object to a few of Crowley's political decisions, but choosing to live with his wife and kids is not one of them. In fact, for a public official, it is wholesome.

Adam and Steve

Gay Marriage Squeezes By, 33-29,

Tax Limit, Rent Bills Approved,

Sweet Corn Is State Vegetable.

Our last column, sent out late Friday afternoon, reported that the Legislature had not reached a decision on the major issues before it: rent control, property tax cap and gay marriage. The Senate also voted to name sweet corn the state vegetable. It defeated the onion by 56-6, with six downstate Democrats dissenting, including Liz Krueger.

Shortly thereafter, the dam burst and the bills involving money: extension of rent stabilization and a 2 per cent cap on property tax increases were approved overwhelmingly. Gay marriage was considered in the late evening. In the rush to make the 11 p.m. news programs and get the bill signed by Governor Cuomo before midnight, many legislators were not allowed to make statements explaining their votes, which would have been their moment in the sun.

The Gotham Gazette reported the gory details of the silencing and confinement of Senators, including Kevin Parker of Brooklyn, who is known for his fierce temper and physical confrontations with others. The story, a unique narrative of what actually happened on and off the floor, is worth reading here. Although Parker is reported to have cursed out the governor, he did not beat up anybody, although he was justifiably angry at being denied the right to explain his vote to his community, which is divided on the issue of gay marriage.

Some Legislative History

When I was first elected to the City Council in 1973, I signed on as a co-sponsor of what was called the "gay rights bill", which had been introduced in 1971 but had not even received the courtesy of a hearing by a Council committee. The bill would have prohibited discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodation because of sexual orientation. Its opponents at the time said that passing this bill would lead to gay marriage. We responded that this was simply a civil rights bill and had nothing to do with gay marriage, which at the time was inconceivable.

Mayor Koch led the way to equality by issuing executive orders in January 1978, the first month he was in office, which prohibited the City and its agencies from discriminating in any way against gays and lesbians. But for the prohibition to apply to the much larger private sector, legislation was necessary that required City Council approval.

Despite pleas from the mayor, Council Majority Leader Thomas J. Cuite refused to allow the gay rights bill to come to the Council floor. He made his opposition, based on his intense religious belief, very clear. He is said to have gone as far as reaching the father of Councilman Thomas J. Manton of Queens (1932-2006) to implore his son not to support the bill. Manton, a former police officer and a future Congressman from Queens and Democratic county leader, yielded to his father's request. Manton was just one Councilmember, but an influential one throughout his long career.

The Roman Catholic Church was more politically powerful a generation ago than it is today in New York. Under the leadership of Francis Cardinal Spellman (1889-1967), the church wielded enormous influence in political circles. Spellman had publicly quarreled in 1956 with Eleanor Roosevelt over a movie, "Baby Doll", starring Carroll Baker, which he called 'sinful'. The fact that some clerics engaged in homosexual acts only seemed to intensify the church's opposition to any legislation in this area.

In 1985, Cuite retired. He was succeeded by Councilman Peter F. Vallone of Queens. As part of the negotiations over the leadership, in which Mayor Koch took part, Vallone promised to allow the gay rights bill to come to the Council floor for a vote, although he was personally opposed to it. He kept his word and on March 21, 1986, fifteen years after it was introduced, the bill was approved by the City Council, 21 to 14, and subsequently signed by Mayor Koch.

A Federal non-discrimination bill was first introduced in the House of Representatives in 1974 by Congresswoman Bella Abzug and Edward Koch, who served nine years in Congress before he was elected mayor in 1977, defeating Mario Cuomo in a runoff, after Mayor Abe Beame, Ms. Abzug, Percy Sutton and Herman Badillo were eliminated in the first round of voting. Thirty-four years ago, we seem to have had more distinguished candidates for mayor than the current field of aspirants. The Daily Kos reports that the anti-discrimination bill was once again introduced by Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts in March 2011. Its prospects remain dim in the national legislature.

Importance of the Event

The enormous satisfaction the gay community has demonstrated in the last two days is based on the end of what they regarded as the final legal impediment imposed by New York State to full citizenship. They called the cause "Marriage Equality". The bill was supported by many in the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community who have no intentions or immediate prospects of marriage, but want the same rights that straight people take for granted.

There are ten nations which allow same-sex marriage, according to CBC (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). They are Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. Denmark and other countries, including France, are not included because they allow same-sex partnerships but not marriages. It was a surprise to see the full list; it contains countries on every continent except Asia and Australia.

The passage of this bill will not end discrimination and violence against gays. In some places homosexuality is still a crime, punishable by death by stoning. Nor would gay marriage necessarily win popular referenda today in most states. It is ironic that in a California vote gay marriage won in white communities but was defeated by black and Latino voters. Not all minorities are supportive of other minorities, but ethnicity and victimization should not be a basis for people to make decisions on what many, on each side, consider an issue of faith, morals and civil rights.

I support marriage equality, in part because I know people who love each other and should be allowed to commit themselves, and assume the protections and the burdens of marriage. In principle, capacity to reproduce should not be a requirement for couples - many people choose not to have children or are unable to do so. With 300 million Americans and millions more seeking to enter this country, there is no risk of running out of people if gays are allowed to marry.

Also, sexual preference is known to be ingrained; it is rarely a matter of voluntary choice. There was a time, until 1967 and the Loving v. Virginia case, that states could prohibit marriage between people of different races. Today, a child of such a marriage is President of the United States. Who can say that some time in the future, a President will have been born to and reared by a gay or lesbian couple?

Finally, it is somewhat gratifying to see New York State resume its historic role as a place of legislative initiative on social issues. Credit goes to Governor Cuomo and the State legislative leadership in both parties. We hope that the success in securing marriage equality will lead to further accomplishments in Albany. As you know, we have frequently been disappointed, but this year we do appear to have a functioning, intelligent and mature governor.

It can make an enormous difference, if our leaders work together and stay on track. They have shown the capacity to do so, now we look to them for performance.

Greed Rules

Legislature Stalls on Ethics Reform

Despite Cuomo's Emphasis on Issue.

The Reason for Delay is Self-Evident:

Rules Would Impact Their Incomes.

We turn today to one of New York State's oldest oxymorons: Albany ethics. The legislature, having exhausted itself by adopting a budget on time, appears to be coasting toward a proposed June 20 adjournment. That would leave about three weeks for actions of substance. In the hopper are bills to limit increases in the property tax, to legalize gay marriage, to redraw the boundaries of Congressional and legislative lines districts, and to require the disclosure of legislators' clients and earnings in addition to their state salaries. Several hundred matters of local importance also await action by the two houses.

One important proposal is in limbo. Governor Cuomo has sent an ethics package to the Senate and the Assembly, and is speaking up for it on a statewide tour. We quote from his statement:

"New York State government used to be a symbol of integrity and performance, but we have lost that standard. To clean up the government and restore trust with New Yorkers, we need to pass a new ethics law that mandates transparency and full disclosure as well as a law that calls for a real independent monitor.

"Among many reforms, the Governor's ethics reform agenda would:

* Require disclosure of clients doing business with the state that are represented by legislators before the state and disclosure of how much they get paid.

* Require the creation of an independent body to provide oversight and enforcement of ethics rules because, as we have seen in the past, self-policing does not work.

* Require lobbyists to disclose any business relationship with legislators in excess of $1,000.

* Strip pensions from those public officials convicted of a felony related to the abuse of their official duties."

The legislators have reacted to these proposals as an intrusion of roaches would to a can of Raid, or, if you prefer to avoid product placement, as Dracula would to a crucifix.

The current pretext for Speaker Silver's opposition to ethics reform is that creating an independent body to enforce ethics rules would interfere with the Assembly's exclusive authority to discipline its members, and therefore violate the principle of separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. This excuse is comparable to the Senate's belated discovery, after all the Republicans signed pledges to support an independent redistricting commission, that such a panel could only be created by an amendment to the State Constitution which takes two years to adopt, and therefore could not take effect until after the 2020 census.

These "reasons" are so spurious as to be amusing, were it not for the fact that those who offer them dominate their legislative bodies, and, in any event, are acting in the interest of their members who also desire to avoid detection of and prosecution for conflicts of interest that may be engendered by their extra-curricular activities. They do not want to go without the undisclosed loose change that they may pick up either for their acts or their failure to act, depending on the needs of the client. Some of our solons are versatile; one could even say subtle. Many of them are hungry.

There are also principled and honest elected officials in the Legislature, most of whom have little or no power. If they speak too loudly, they risk decapitation by their masters. But to be fair, it is only when a politician attains authority on his own that his ethical standards may truly be tested. Most never reach that stage, and their principal vice turns out to be remaining silent in the face of outrage. They feel that, by keeping quiet, they will advance to positions where they will be able to use their influence in the public interest. "As luck would have it" (Rule 17-A), the few salmon who swim that far upstream forget the high principles they espoused as alevin, fry, parr and smolts.

Around the state, the media are getting sick and tired of the legislature's evasion, procrastination and rationalization.


Today, Bill Hammond of the Daily News expresses his disgust at the situation in a column on p27 entitled "YOUR OUTCRIES, THEIR DEAF EARS: The Public's Priorities Couldn't Be Clearer; Albany's Arrogance Couldn't Be More Profound." Hammond asks, rhetorically: "How much louder do the people of New York have to scream before the Legislature starts listening?


"The people overwhelmingly elected Gov. Cuomo with a mandate to fundamentally change how their infamously dysfunctional state government does business.


"The people overwhelmingly back Cuomo's top two priorities - cleaning up Albany sleaze and stemming relentless property tax hikes - as repeatedly documented by opinion polls.


"Yet the elected officials who supposedly represent those people stymie and stall, balk and bluster - and accomplish nothing. They're hunkered down in the Capitol bubble, deaf to their constituents' unmistakable outcry for reform." You can click here for the rest of Hammond's powerful column, which makes enormous sense to us.


This month, The Utica Observer-Dispatch editorial page articulated similar frustrations, as did The Albany Times Union.

A 2011 report, written for the Brennan Center for Justice by Lawrence Norden, Kelly Williams and John Travis and entitled MEANINGFUL ETHICS REFORM FOR THE 'NEW' ALBANY, encapsulates the long-ignored complaints of New York State's good government groups. It includes a list of the 14 members of the Legislature who have been indicted, convicted or pleaded guilty to crimes in the last decade.

Those of you looking for fresh scandal may be disappointed by this article. The leaders of the Senate and Assembly, reflecting the fears and feelings of many of the members, support unlimited outside income for themselves, even though the handsome but undisclosed legal fees they demand and receive for their representation of clients doing business with the state are in fact often rewards for their political influence and access.

Those who represent plaintiffs are particularly shameless in shaping legislation for their personal benefit and fighting any proposal which could have a negative effect on their incomes. In matters of the purse, they fight with the tenacity of the National Rifle Association, keeping their cold, dead hands on their moneybelts.

Mayor Koch has attempted to breach this old boys' network with New York Uprising. Other groups have fought for reform for generations. Saints Matthew and Mark remind us that the poor will always be with us. The same applies to the predators, people who use public office for personal enrichment, while possessing the political power to make certain that the tainted transactions by which they do this are totally legal, under the laws they adopt.

We believe that, eventually, justice will prevail, and elected officials will no longer be able to receive secret income, particularly from those who have matters pending before the State of New York. The City Charter inhibits such transactions; the State Legislature should do no less.

In the interest of your health, however, we advise you not to stand on one leg until the legislators succumb to the pangs of conscience, if any. Your interest in these matters is idealistic and intellectual. Theirs is personal. You vote once or twice a year, depending on primaries. They vote hundreds of times on bills, and there is a reason for each vote they cast: it can be the merits of an issue, submission to a leader, ignorance, naivete or self-interest. Motives vary with each vote and each legislator. The aggregate is an unwholesome brew.