You are here
What to Do, and Not to Do, When a Conflict Situation Becomes Public
Tuesday, June 5th, 2012
Robert Wechsler
What is the worst thing a government official can do when a conflict
situation becomes public? Is it worse to misrepresent the law, to
make accusations against those making the conflict situation public,
or to ignore the situation and hope nobody notices?
New York governor Andrew Cuomo has done all of the above with respect to the exposure of a secret gift of $2 million by an association of gambling companies to a 501(c)(4) organization closely associated with the governor. According to an article in today's New York Times, the gift was given, in two parts separated by four days, at just the time the governor wrote an op-ed article supporting the expansion of casino gambling in New York state, and the 501(c)(4) organization added legalized gambling to its list of priorities.
The gift was not made out of the blue. According to the article, the gambling association had considered an advertising campaign, but was encouraged by the Cuomo administration to contribute to the 501(c)(4) instead, "effectively putting the gambling industry’s cash behind the committee’s promotion of Mr. Cuomo’s agenda."
According to the state's ethics code (Public Officers Law §73.5):
And yet the governor "strongly disputed any suggestion that he was influenced by money from the gambling industry. He noted that he had expressed support for an expansion of casino gambling months before the contributions were made, and that he had diverged from the gaming association on several key issues."
His argument that he was not influenced is, effectively, an argument that, if anything, he was rewarded for his support, which is equally a violation of §73.5. But what he apparently meant to do was to imply that the law requires there be actual influence. This is not the case. Proof of actual influence is required only for the crime of bribery.
But worse, I think, is the attack on those who made the gift public. The governor's spokesman wrote, “To try to suggest an improper relationship between the governor and gaming interests is to distort the facts in a malicious or reckless manner.”
The facts don't have to be distorted, maliciously or otherwise. There is a clear relationship based upon a huge gift to an organization close to the governor. What needs to be done is not to make accusations of malice and recklessness against those pointing out this relationship. What needs to be done is to deal with this situation responsibly.
Instead, the governor is acting as if there is no issue that requires action. No press release on the topic has come out, nor has the governor tweeted on the topic. I hope this silence changes to a recognition that there is a problem and that it should be dealt with as quickly and responsibly as possible.
What could be done? The 501(c)4) could return the money and take no position on gambling. It could also insist that all contributions to it are quickly disclosed online.
The governor could make a sincere apology, recognizing that it is reasonable to believe that he was rewarded and/or influenced by the gift. And he could promise that he will no longer solicit gifts to the 501(c)(4), directly or indirectly.
And finally, the governor could sit down with the state ethics commission and agree to a reasonable penalty for what occurred.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
New York governor Andrew Cuomo has done all of the above with respect to the exposure of a secret gift of $2 million by an association of gambling companies to a 501(c)(4) organization closely associated with the governor. According to an article in today's New York Times, the gift was given, in two parts separated by four days, at just the time the governor wrote an op-ed article supporting the expansion of casino gambling in New York state, and the 501(c)(4) organization added legalized gambling to its list of priorities.
The gift was not made out of the blue. According to the article, the gambling association had considered an advertising campaign, but was encouraged by the Cuomo administration to contribute to the 501(c)(4) instead, "effectively putting the gambling industry’s cash behind the committee’s promotion of Mr. Cuomo’s agenda."
According to the state's ethics code (Public Officers Law §73.5):
-
No statewide elected official ... shall, directly or indirectly: (a)
solicit, accept or receive any gift having more than a nominal value
... under circumstances in which it could reasonably be inferred
that the gift was intended to influence him, or could reasonably be
expected to influence him, in the performance of his official duties
or was intended as a reward for any official action on his part.
And yet the governor "strongly disputed any suggestion that he was influenced by money from the gambling industry. He noted that he had expressed support for an expansion of casino gambling months before the contributions were made, and that he had diverged from the gaming association on several key issues."
His argument that he was not influenced is, effectively, an argument that, if anything, he was rewarded for his support, which is equally a violation of §73.5. But what he apparently meant to do was to imply that the law requires there be actual influence. This is not the case. Proof of actual influence is required only for the crime of bribery.
But worse, I think, is the attack on those who made the gift public. The governor's spokesman wrote, “To try to suggest an improper relationship between the governor and gaming interests is to distort the facts in a malicious or reckless manner.”
The facts don't have to be distorted, maliciously or otherwise. There is a clear relationship based upon a huge gift to an organization close to the governor. What needs to be done is not to make accusations of malice and recklessness against those pointing out this relationship. What needs to be done is to deal with this situation responsibly.
Instead, the governor is acting as if there is no issue that requires action. No press release on the topic has come out, nor has the governor tweeted on the topic. I hope this silence changes to a recognition that there is a problem and that it should be dealt with as quickly and responsibly as possible.
What could be done? The 501(c)4) could return the money and take no position on gambling. It could also insist that all contributions to it are quickly disclosed online.
The governor could make a sincere apology, recognizing that it is reasonable to believe that he was rewarded and/or influenced by the gift. And he could promise that he will no longer solicit gifts to the 501(c)(4), directly or indirectly.
And finally, the governor could sit down with the state ethics commission and agree to a reasonable penalty for what occurred.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Donald Sheldon (not verified) says:
Sat, 2012-06-09 10:51
Permalink
If seems appropriate to call for a grand jury to investigate this rather obvious and serious violation of law. Please do so immediately. You have uncovered an improper event. Follow through on it please.
Donald Sheldon
Robert Wechsler says:
Sun, 2012-06-10 13:18
Permalink
Mr. Sheldon, you are mistaken about my authority. I don't even live in New York state.