Cuomo Says Ethics Overhaul Needed — Again

“This is a rare moment for sweeping change,” Cuomo, a Democrat, said. “…We could all write a treatise on what needs to be done. It’s not like we don’t know the ideas.”

But he isn’t releasing any remedies yet in his call for another overhaul of ethics laws and enforcement in two years, and so far he won’t order a powerful corruption commission to investigate state politics as his father, Gov. Mario Cuomo, did in 1987.

But a report that Cuomo would attempt to have Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) removed created waves in political circles.

Fred Dicker, a New York Post editor, reported in his widely regarded column Monday that top aides to the governor, stung by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s statement that corruption in New York State is “pervasive,” are seeking to use the week of scandal to stage a coup against the longtime speaker.

“The governor is weighing whether he wants to take that step,” Dicker wrote, quoting “sources.”

Cuomo would first privately demand the resignation of Silver, according to Dicker, and reccomend he be replaced with Assemblyman Joseph Morelle, the Democratic majority leader who is regarded as a “straight shooter” on ethics. Failing that, he would issue a public call.

Fears that Silver, who had been forthcoming with the Orthodox community in the past, may be forced out of office in favor of a Rochester official with whom they have no contact, is causing concern.

Shimon Ostreicher, a community askan, told Hamodia that in his “15 years of working with Shelly he helped the community so much in so many different ways,” and if true, it would be “a big loss to the Jewish community and for the state overall” if Silver were not leading the chamber.

Cuomo pushed back strongly on the report.

“It is wholly up to the legislative bodies to select a leader,” Cuomo said at a press conference Monday. “I would never, even for a moment, try to influence that decision.”

Cuomo defended Silver, who has been speaker since 1994, saying that the scandal was not even an Albany problem but a New York City one.

“In terms of Speaker Silver, remember again the context. First of all, this is basically — the actions that have been revealed, the majority of the actions and the players — it was about a New York City mayoral scandal,” he said. “It was not an Albany scandal; I know we now use ‘Albany’ as sort of a broad brush to mean all electoral and campaign issues, but it was primarily about New York City.”

Cuomo said that Assemblymen Nelson Castro and Eric Stevenson, who are accused in a separate case of accepting bribes to write laws that would benefit a developer, “were relative newcomers to the Assembly.”

Silver himself did not comment on the report beyond that he is in discussions with Cuomo for ideas to crack down on corruption.

But an internal email he wrote to members of the Assembly indicates he also considers the scandals beyond the purview of Albany.

“Despite the events of the past week, I have always and will maintain that the New York State Assembly is one of the finest legislative bodies in the world,” Silver wrote on Friday. “That is why I am deeply disappointed by yesterday’s shocking developments.”

“We have faced challenges before,” he added, “and as before, we will get through this difficult time, together.”

Also drawing attention is Bharara’s decision to indict Assemblyman Nelson Castro (D-Bronx), and then keep it sealed for years as he used him to spy on fellow legislators.

“It raises questions,” one legislative official said. “He’s useless to [prosecutors] if he’s not elected. Did they help him? And if I’m a voter in his district, this guy’s a criminal. Shouldn’t the public know that?”

Bharara acknowledged the “difficult balancing question” each case brings of “how long you let an investigation run.”

“Sometimes, it’s the case that you have to allow people to stay in place so you can get the full extent of accountability that I think the people in New York want,” Bharara said.

Cuomo’s policy prescription to keep Albany trustworthy appears to include a Moreland Act Commission that would put influential lobbyists under oath to testify on how the system of corruption works, a ban on political parties endorsing a candidate from another party, and, possibly, a repeal of the “Wilson-Pakula” law.

Wilson-Pakula allowed candidates from one party to run on another party’s ticket. State Sen. Malcolm Smith used that law illicitly when he planned to run for mayor on the GOP ticket but was busted by the feds last week for paying off Republican county chairmen in exchange for endorsements.

However, those who have regulated state government say the latest rhetoric follows a pattern over decades following scandals where, despite numerous press announcements, reforms came up short.

Lobbying watchdogs want to break down political hurdles so people can run for office without making concessions to party bosses, and to require state officials to report suspicious behavior of colleagues.

But they admit that last week’s bombshell revelations may not be enough to get anything substantial done.

“It’s a collegial environment,” said Karl Sleight, who led the 2006 investigation into former state Comptroller Alan Hevesi that resulted in one of Albany biggest corruption convictions. “They all go through the same political battles of getting themselves on the ballot. There’s a certain collegiality that develops, and I think it transcends party labels.

“The larger issue is how to attract quality candidates with the right moral compass and improving ballot access for those people,” Sleight said.

State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli agreed.

“Ultimately, it gets back to we need more honest people doing this kind of work and unfortunately, as we have seen in too many cases, people feel discouraged about being involved in government and running for office,” DiNapoli told reporters Monday.

The way to get those people to run for office, DiNapoli, who was holding a press conference to highlight a report on stressed local municipalities, suggested, is by raising legislators’ salaries and increase the penalties for bribery.

But Sleight said that consequences only deter honest people out for the public good.

“At the end of the day, crooks are crooks,” he said. “It doesn’t matter what ethics law you pass. If you are willing to take a bribe, you take a bribe.”

This article appeared in print on page 1 of the April 9th, 2013 edition of Hamodia.