Government Ethics in the City of Albany, NY: Gifts and a Draft Ethics Code
There's a lot of talk about the lack of government ethics in Albany,
New York State's capital, but not much about the state of government
ethics in the city of Albany itself. In July, the Albany <span>Times-Union</span> ran <a href="http://www.timesunion.com/ASPStories/Story.asp?storyID=816849" target="”_blank”">a
long article </a>on the mayor and the police chief's relationship with
the city's largest developer. It also noted that the city council is
considering an ethics code for the city (attached; see below), which
currently has little more than a <a href="http://www.ecode360.com/?custId=AL0934" target="”_blank”">financial disclosure law</a>
(click and go to Chapter 54).<br>
<br>
The gifts mentioned in the article do not need to be reported under the city's
financial disclosure law. The police department does have gift rule
and, twice this year, the developer's owner flew the police chief to
Dayton for college basketball games.<br>
<br>
The police
department rule prohibits the acceptance of any gifts, but only,
according to the article, "when it can be 'inferred' that the gift was
intended to 'influence action of an official nature.'" Proving such
intent is equivalent to proving bribery, which is already a crime. So this rule
is of no value. In fact, by giving the illusion that there is a gift
rule, and leaving officers such an out ("I didn't feel it was intended
to influence anything"), the rule may be worse than no rule at all. This is
especially true when the police chief sets an example by accepting such large gifts from someone
his department can help through approving traffic safety studies for
developments where traffic issues have been a center of contention.<br>
<br>
Only the <a href="http://www.nylobby.state.ny.us/lobbying.html" target="”_blank”">state's
lobbying law</a> is relevant, since the developer is the client of a
lobbyist. The article says that there is an exception in the state law
for gifts between friends, but I couldn't find such an exception. In
any event, it does not appear that any action has been taken pursuant
to state law.<br>
<br>
The attitude of the mayor and the city's planning and development
commissioner are most troubling. The commissioner told the <span>Times-Union,</span> "As far as why I
attend specific events I really think it's nobody's
business. Why I go or what I do when I'm off the clock, I don't
understand why that would be newsworthy.'' He was talking about
attending fundraising events sponsored by the developer.<br>
<br>
The mayor is quoted as saying about the police chief being flown to
Dayton twice in one week, "It's not a big deal. The chief can go to a
game."<br>
<br>
What makes these relationships so upsetting is that other area
developers appear to feel that the city's big developer is so favored
that it's not worth bidding on projects there. This is the worst result
for the people of Albany. This could cost them many millions of dollars
a year.<br>
<br>
On May 18, the draft ethics code was sent to the council's law,
buildings and code enforcement committee. I couldn't find anything
about it on the Albany site or anywhere else.<br>
<br>
I think it's worth a look at the
draft code's gift provision, §54-6. First of all, it preserves the police department's
"intended to influence" language, but then prohibits any gift given
"under circumstances that would create an appearance of impropriety."<br>
<br>
The draft rule also prohibits any gift from a person who has in the
past twelve months received a financial benefit from the official's
action, which anyone would consider would create an appearance of
impropriety. In fact, a gift from someone seeking a financial benefit
or rewarding an official for a financial benefit that will, by contract, be received
in the future also creates an appearance of impropriety. However, since such gifts
were left out of the provision, an official can easily say the council
felt such gifts were okay.<br>
<br>
In addition, the draft code's odd definition of "gift" opens up a very big hole.
Here's the definition:<br>
<br>
<div>“gift” shall mean a financial benefit
that is given to a person without receipt or promise of any significant
consideration or financial benefit in return.<br>
</div>
<br>
As long as the official has promised some significant gift in the
future, such as a tickets to a future game (it doesn't have to be the
exact equivalent, say, a flight to Dayton), a gift is okay, even if it
creates an appearance of impropriety, or even when it is intended to
influence the official. In fact, as a non-gift, it need not be disclosed, no matter how large.<br>
<br>
Gift provisions often exclude loans at market rates, although getting a
loan from someone doing business with the city is itself questionable.
But this gift definition would allow a loan that could be paid with any
significant consideration, say 50% of the principal and twenty years in the future. Any gift can be
portrayed as a loan. This is not a serious gift provision. It will
create more appearances of impropriety than it will prevent.<br>
<br>
But there's a lot of good in this code. For example, it creates an ethics
board (it's been at least fifteen years since Albany had one) and the board
has teeth. However, its members would be appointed by a committee consisting
of the mayor, the council president, and the city's senior judge and, therefore, not appear independent of politicians.<br>
<br>
There would be ethics training and applicant disclosure. Gifts must be
disclosed, but only those over $200 (and that figure is not an
aggregate, so that daily gifts of $199 need not be disclosed).<br>
<br>
The code would be a big step forward for Albany's city government, but
it could be greatly improved.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>