The Empire Page

Introduction:  New York Statea Senator Pedro Espada's hiring of his son raises the question "What is politics all about?"  Is Espada the norm -- i.e., someone who seems to view politics as a means to re-distribute public resources to friends, family and any organization that's willing to work for his re-election? 

While we can't overlook the fact that it costs big money to run for public office, we don't want to limit office holders to those who can afford to finance their own campaigns.

Is it naive to expect elected officials to hold themselves above the messy side of politics -- the spoils system, member items and the like -- or can we expect candidates for public office to be "public servants" who are in the game for the good of the whole?  We've asked Empire Page columnists -- Stuart Brody, Paul Bray, Doug Boettner,  Larry Hirsch as well as editor Peter Pollak to respond.  If you'd like to comment, please use the form at the bottom of the article.

 

Stuart Brody:  Of course, the ideal is in constant peril.  Most Americans view their public servants as preoccupied with private gain.  According to a recent poll, only eight percent of Americans trust Congress to do the right thing on a consistent basis. In New York, the selfishness of a few lawmakers has been so extreme that it has nearly exceeded the public capacity for outrage.

However, I still think the answer is:  "Yes, of course elected officials must serve the public and not themselves."  Without such an expectation, why would citizens pay any attention to public affairs, bother to vote, obey the law, or pay taxes?  True, the coercive power of the State binds the fabric of civil society together, but it is the aspiration to do good that renders the garment of our democracy both decorous and durable. 

Ted Kennedy exemplified this inspirational quality.  He was a good man who overcame personal weaknesses through public service.  We have survived and thrived as a nation because of men and women who believe that personal gain--the pursuit of happiness—can be happily accommodated to the good of the collective—our more perfect union.

We are tempted then to accept as true Reinhold Neibuhr’s ominous proclamation in Moral Man and Immoral Society:  “This insinuation of the interests of the self into even the most ideal enterprises…makes hypocrisy an inevitable by-product of all virtuous endeavor.”

 

From what quarter then can we expect resurgence of the ideal?  The movement must rest, like democracy itself, on the imagination and good sense of the many.  And it starts with public officials taking a risk to speak the truth about the ways things should be—not on every occasion, for neither prophet nor martyr can deliver us from this political wasteland.

 

Doug Boettner:  My belief is that individuals decide to run for public office primarily because they believe they can achieve accomplishments for the public good. They see things that are wrong and believe they can fix them. They see a dysfunctional government and think they can make the system run more properly or as it was designed.

 

I truly don't believe elected officials start out thinking that they can use their positions for personal financial gain or for patronage for their family or relatives. This concept enters into the equation after they are in office for some period of time and they start to realize they have the power and the political influence to make the kinds of poor decisions that Senator Espada is making.  The adage "power corrupts" is exactly what is happening.  It doesn't mean that the senator has abandoned his basic belief that he can accomplish good things or that he can make New York State a better place; it just means that he has comprised his principles and acted immorally.

 

Ideally, bad politicians should be voted out of office or impeached. But based on the voters track record that just does not happen. Voters as a whole are apathetic and that is what politicians count on. Voters are also very forgiving. Who knows, maybe we'll even see Eliot Spitzer back in an elected office. And therein lies the problem.

 

Paul Bray:  I agree with much of what Stuart and Doug have said, but also think the problem is much deeper than reflected in their comments. In a competitive consumer society there is greed in both private and public sectors. Individual attainment is valued rather than public achievement. It is too easy for an elected official to see their office as, in words of Andrew Jackson, "a species of property".

 

Sen. Espada is an especially egregious example of this. But do you remember Governor Pataki and Senator Bruno? They were both excellent at rewarding their friends and family with government jobs or, as in the case of Governor Pataki, having his wife be paid by the influential Republican, Ronald Lauder. That is the bad news.

The good news is that I sense an emerging idealism and desire to accomplish socially good things in the 20 something generation. The many local, national and international challenges we face coupled with the voice and example of President Obama may help sustain this idealism and translate it into a new generation of public officials unalterably faithful to the discharge of their public duties. A lot will depend on whether the current idealism can stay the course when the fruits from the idealism may be slow in coming.

 

Peter Pollak:  While it's possible that some elected officials are corrupted by the power of their office, I believe the problem is endemic to the party system.  Anyone who gets involved at the grass roots level with a political party learns that their party rewards those who pay their dues with jobs and opportunities to run for public office.  Thus, we require laws and "ethics commissions" to draw a clear line between what is permissible and what is not.  If, however, the ethics commission is made up of political appointees, only the most egregious violations will be punished. 

 

Earlier this year I interviewed David Grandeau who ran the NYS Lobby Commission for many years. Grandeau made enemies because he took his job seriously and as a result he feels the commission was abolished because that was the only way they could get rid of him.

I also see a danger in relying on "idealism" as our salvation from corrupt politicians.  Idealists will find they have little power to prevent others from milking the system and eventually they must play that game or be pushed aside.

In a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal 2006 GOP candidate John Faso made an interesting suggestion: "make the legislature a truly part-time enterprise."  What do you think about that suggestion?  What if we drastically cut the pay of legislators as well as the monies (member items or "pork") they have to give to their communities?  Would that make the job less of an attraction to those who are motivated by greed?  Would it result in better policy decisions for the state as a whole?

 

Larry Hirsch: Much of the problem for Espada is that for him, being a State Senator is a part-time position. He continues to draw a salary as head of Soundview and has various other financial interests. This is also the case for many other members of the State Legislature and the NY City Council (see Joe Bruno). Although many say that we have only a part-time legislature, when they look at the time spent in Albany, it really is a full time job for any legislator doing his/her job right.  When not in Albany they can be found tending to the many needs of their constituents. The public officials I know are busy in their district offices morning, noon and night working on district issues, often working weekends too.

The answer I think is the opposite of what you suggest which is it to really pay them a full time salary with strict limits on outside income and full transparency on how they distribute public funds. As a full time federal employee I make more than my Assemblyman and I know I don't work as hard as he does. If legislators were paid more, maybe better public servants would be attracted to the job and they would not be tempted to feather their nests as much as they do.

Espada's gluttony was an extreme case of what goes wrong in Albany as much needs to be done to change the culture and so there is a brick wall between public and private interests. Finally regarding the pork, while there a plenty of opportunities of abuse with discretionary funds, much of the money does go to local organizations that need it, but once again transparency is the answer.

 

Doug Boettner: I only agree with the part-time concept to a degree. The part-time job of a legislator is very attractive from a financial aspect especially when you add on the stipends and lu-lus for the special committee assignments. Right now, only well-off people can afford to run for a legislative office. Middle class and lower class people who may be well educated don't have the connections or wherewithal to raise the amounts of monies necessary to run a viable, competitive campaign. The playing field needs to be leveled. Campaign finance reform needs to be passed in a meaningful way. The not so wealthy man or woman needs to have a fair chance to compete to represent the people in their district.

That being said, lowering the salaries for legislators may not make the job that less attractive. Most already have jobs as lawyers or business owners where they make a good living and their legislative salary and stipend is gravy to them. The attractiveness of being elected as a senator or assemblyman is the power of the position and the ability to control people, and to "take care of" people who have helped them get into office by passing laws that are favorable to those same people. Again, limit the amount of money special interest can give to candidates and you're half way to solving the problem.

 

Paul Bray: Having started to work at the State Legislature (Bill Drafting Commission) in 1970, I saw the end of the era when the legislature was done and gone by early April each year. We aren't going back to that. The public sector in a state like New York is much more complex and complicated than it was back then.

Weaken the Legislature and you only strengthen the Governor who can be good but is not necessarily good for the public. Even though there is down time for legislators, the job can consume time year round.

Also, I would not mix corruption and ethics with member items (or as some call them "pork"). They are very different issues. Obviously, there is nothing good about corruption and failings in ethics, but I can make an argument that justifies member items as a means for local initiatives to get valuable support that would otherwise not be forthcoming. A Governor and executive agencies have their own form of member item supporting local projects (good and not so good). I am familiar with many public benefits that have come from member items that would not otherwise have been funded. But, again, that is a whole other issue that perhaps we should discuss at a later time.

 

Peter Pollak:  It seems we disagree about whether being a legislator should be a full-time or part-time job, but agree that reforms are needed to prevent elected officials from distributing taxpayer dollars to friends and family.  Yet, at this very moment there's a former legislator running for re-election to the New York City Council who is accused of having created phony not-for-profit organizations to funnel monies to family members.  Elected officials seem to get away with committing more crimes that members of the Crips and the Bloods!  The Legislature is about to create three new commissions to monitor behavior of lobbyists, state officials and legislators.  Time will tell if this latest attempt to police the system will be more effective than those we had in place in the past.  

It's time for you the reader to speak your piece.  We'll be back in a few weeks with another roundtable on another challenging topic.