| So, the thing about Albany's challenged ethics is this: every time you think that you have seen somebody go as low as low can go.... they surprise you again. I hate that.
Hiram Monserrate didn't have the decency to resign his Senate seat after being convicted of spousal abuse. His fellow Senators didn't have the decency to kick him out quickly (we ARE gonna make 'em do it eventually, though). Now, word comes that "supporters" are contributing to his legal defense, but the public is not allowed to know who those contributors are, or how much they have given.
Sound fishy? Well, it does to me, and probably to you, too. But, hey, the Legislative Ethics Commission says its all good. Special rules they have approved say, as long as everything about this legal defense fund is unknown to Hiram (and the public), it's hunky-dory. Even the name of the person managing the Get Hiram Out of Jail Free fund is secret. I'm sputtering. The Times Union has an excellent article about it-- go read the whole thing.
Reform, perhaps. But reform Albany-style, which is to say that the new and, naturally, legal way of doing business is enough to make the public nostalgic for something as brazen and unsettling as indicted legislators dipping into their re-election money not only to stay in power but out of jail as well. A stunt that might have deserved the slogan "Give -- to the defendant of your choice" was actually subject to more regulation.
UPDATE: Well, the Legislative Ethics Commission is now claiming it did NOT tell anybody anything was ok, according to Cap Con:
The Legislative Ethics Commission took the unusual step today of declaring publicly that it has not been asked to provide guidance to anyone during the past two years on the setting up of a legal defense fund.
This means it did not advise Sen. Hiram Monserrate, D-Queens, on the legal way for the freshman lawmaker to set up an account to pay his considerable legal expenses from his assault trial. His attorney, Joseph Tacopina, confirmed to the Times Union the existence of the fund and said his client is being very careful.
The commission says that since it was created in 2007, having evolved from the Legislative Ethics Committee, it has not been asked to provide an opinion, nor has it provided one. It also says no current members of the commission who may have also served on the committee have weighed in on the issue.
So, OK-- the supposed watchdog is innocent of actually licking the crook.... how 'bout an itsy-bitsy bark, eh?
Meanwhile, the NY Times is barking big. |
