Spitzer Unilaterally Disarms...Somewhat - Part 2

The rest of the proposals from Spitzer's Transition Office:

The release then goes on to address the partisan nature of appointments and certain employments:

• Prohibit any hiring or contracting official from inquiring about the political affiliation of a prospective employee or contractor
  
  The Civil Service Law currently prohibits inquiries regarding the political affiliation of positions under the Civil Service Law. This same rule will now be extended to higher-level “exempt” positions, and also to individuals seeking government contracts. The only exceptions will be positions on those boards and commissions where the number of appointees in a particular party is limited.

If a prospective employee has experience working in politics, especially for campaigns, then the affiliation of that person will show in the resume without having to specifically ask for partisan affiliation.

Still, this should help to recruit the best people for whichever job comes up, regardless of their political ties.

The loophole that comes with the appointments to boards and commissions that restrict the number of appointees from a party is addressed in the next item.

• End the practice of having individuals change their party affiliation to meet the requirements for appointment.
  
  Several state boards and commissions (such as the Civil Service Commission, State Investigation Commission and PERB) are intended to be “non-partisan,” and the Legislature sought to implement that intent by limiting the number of board members who can be from the same party. However, that intent has been subverted by recent practices, in which individuals have been asked to change or drop their party affiliation in order to avoid violating the statute. That practice will end.

The problem with closing this loophole is that it might deter the recruitment of the best people for those boards, simply because the board has already had its fill of a certain party affiliation. Still, this loophole can be used for partisan purposes in packing the board with party faithful that agree to change their party affiliation for the sake of working for the board.

Perhaps the truest way to avoid this problem would be to make such boards truly non-partisan and not require a certain number of people from each party while not requiring the appointee to disclose their political ties. The problem is obviously that the board could be packed with partisan members without restriction.

In this situation, perhaps the suggestion to keep the bi-partisan boards with restrictions but disallowing changes of affiliation for the purposes of appointment is the best solution.


The release goes on to address the budget woes that have plagued the state for many years.

• Bring both houses of the Legislature into the budget making process as early as possible, and share with them as much information as possible about both expected revenues and plans for spending.
  
  One of the best ways to ensure enactment of an on-time budget is to start the process earlier. By starting the process sooner and facilitating a free flow of communication, we will more quickly learn about disagreements, and will be better equipped to address them.

This seems reasonable. If nothing else, it will help try to avoid a late budget simply by getting the budget fights out of the way earlier.

• Seek to reach a quick consensus with both houses on revenue projections, and if no consensus can be reached, agree to be bound by the projections issued by the Comptroller's Office, whose non-partisan professionals are widely recognized as issuing reliable estimates of State revenues, uninfluenced by politics.
  
  One of the main causes of delay every year is the inability of the Governor, Assembly and Senate to agree on the amount of revenue that is available to be spent. It is impossible to agree on how to spend money until you agree on how much can be spent. We will try to reach that consensus sooner, and if we are unable to do so, we will agree to be bound by the revenue projections of the professional staff of the Comptroller’s Office.

Again, this seems reasonable. Perhaps the Comptroller's Office (Hevesi's thefts notwithstanding) should release those projections from the beginning for the Governor and the Legislature. Of course, such a move would only lead to yet more fighting as each side will claim that their projections are different and the Comptroller's Office has this or that agenda.

• Require that all member item appropriations be set forth as separate line items in the budget
  
  Traditionally, “member item” appropriations have been set forth as separate line items, so that the public could see the specific spending proposals before the budget bills were voted on. More recently, however, the Governor and the Legislature have agreed to enact large “lump sum” appropriations, with the understanding that after the budget is passed, each side would be able to parcel out its share of the funding to its favored projects. We need to end these secretive practices, and instead require that the budget specify each recipient of such “member item” funding.

This looks like a good idea. Let's take it a step further and make such information availiable easily on the Internet through a searchable database.


The release then outlines a few ideas that aim to "promote openness."

• Hold regular news conferences and media interviews, both to ensure that the public is informed, and to promote a vigorous public debate on the issues
  
  The public has a right to know about the activities of the government, and the best way to achieve that goal is to make sure that the press has frequent access to the Governor and Lieutenant Governor.

A good idea, though such conferences may end up becoming nothing more than attempts to promote themselves or to put down the Legislature (which may or may not deserve it). After the self-imposed restrictions on things such as not appearing in "I Love NY" commercials citing that it would give the Governor-Elect and the Lieutenant Governor-Elect an advantage for the next campaign, that restriction may be paid back by the press conferences and interviews that the Governor-Elect and Lieutenant Governor-Elect plan to hold.

Still, such invitations to the media and the public have great potential in shedding light on the government, in good times and bad. Furthermore, it could crush attempts by the Legislature (or the other two men in the room) to keep unattractive facts and fights from the public eye.

• Have an open-door policy for all members of the Legislature, so that they have the opportunity to discuss the concerns of their local constituencies
  
  Providing easy access for individual legislators of both parties to meet with the Governor, Lieutenant Governor and their staffs will help restore the public’s confidence that their concerns will be considered and addressed.

This seems reasonable. It leaves the question as to how many members of the Legislature would take advantage of this opportunity, especially those that sit in the minorities of the Assembly and the Senate, and whether the leaders of the Legislature will try to restrict such activities from taking place. Should that happen, it may be wise for the Governor-Elect to provide political cover for those representatives, especially now when he is wildly popular.

• Make the Executive Mansion and State Capitol more accessible, while still maintaining security.
  
  The Executive Mansion and the State Capitol belong to the people, but unfortunately have become barricaded symbols of an unresponsive government. There should be a full assessment of ways that these buildings can be made more accessible without compromising security, with a special emphasis on facilitating access for members of the press.

Again, this seems reasonable. Still unanswered is what kind of access the public and the press will enjoy. Walking the halls of the Executive Mansion and the State Capitol is wonderful, but it is useless if relevant activities are simply kept behind another closed door.

• Expand the use of the Internet to communicate with New York's residents, including by making meetings of the MTA, the Public Service Commission and other State entities available on real-time webcasts
  
  New York has an “Open Meetings Law,” but the vast majority of New Yorkers don’t have the time or the money to travel to Albany to attend such meetings. So instead, we will bring the meetings to the people, by having real-time webcasts of the meetings of major public boards and commissions.

Yet again, this seems reasonable. Such webcasts should also be made availiable for those that cannot watch the meetings in real-time and some of the meetings should be held at times when more members of the public can attend.


Lastly, the release has a couple of proposals that the incoming Spitzer administration hope will "institute accountability."

• Institute regular and rigorous evaluations of the Executive agencies, including requiring that agencies adopt performance measurements, establish goals, and track their performance over time.
  
  Measuring performance is a routine practice in the business world, because business leaders know that you cannot improve the bottom line if you do not have established performance goals. The State government should adopt these same practices, so that we can make government more efficient and cost-effective, thereby reducing the need for additional taxpayer dollars.

Hopefully there will be disclosures on how such performances will be measured and real, tangible action that will be taken depending on the outcome. This process should be accessible by the public and perhaps made with input from the public as well.

• Appoint a first-rate Inspector General, and give that office the resources it needs to pursue corruption in government without fear or favor.
  
  The State Inspector General is one of the most important officials in State government, because the IG is responsible for investigating corruption, fraud and waste throughout the Executive Branch of government, including the power to appoint deputy inspectors general assigned to individual agencies. No administration can claim that it is serious about reform unless it is willing to give the IG’s Office the resources needed to do its job effectively.

Again, this should be a wide open process that the public can view. The role of the Inspector General should be as far-reaching as possible and there should be oversight on the activities of the IG, though not so much as to put a damper on any and all investigations the IG may launch. Perhaps the information made public should be made easily accessible through the Internet.

---

There are some proposals in this release that give hope that perhaps everything will change on "Day One." Although this release is light on details, such details should be made public either before or right at the start of the Spitzer administration. The government must be more availiable and open to the public and we are all depending on the incoming Spitzer administration to make it possible.

However, there are many items on this release that appear to have little or no effect. It seems that many times the Spitzer administration will restrain itself on various issues, such restraints can easily be made because there are political victories or other advantages to counter those restrictions.

Perhaps I have become very cynical about New York's government. But here's to hoping that Day Two will bring even more changes and that the new Spitzer administration will keep its promises to make government more open to the public and the media.