Printer-friendly versionSend to friend

Our state representative, Assemblyman Steve Hawley, was one of several interviewed recently by Rochester's Democrat & Chronicle about the push for complete financial disclosure by state lawmakers. From the article:

State law requires lawmakers, who are part-time even though their government salaries are $79,500 a year (plus stipends for every senator and about two-thirds of Assembly members) to report any sources of outside income of more than $1,000 to the Legislative Ethics Commission, which is made up of a majority of lawmakers and has never publicly criticized a lawmaker.

They also report to the commission ranges of their income, in six categories ranging from less than $5,000 to more than $250,000.

The public can see the sources of the income, but not the categories of the amounts.

When asked if he would support more comprehensive measures of disclosure, Hawley responded: "That would serve no useful purpose now." However, despite his feeling that the law would be useless, Hawley nevertheless said he was for more disclosure.

Assemblyman Dan Burling out of Alexander had this to say: "I don't think changing a law will change a person's integrity. It comes down to a person being honest."

What? Then why do we have laws? Isn't our penal system based upon reform, which implies that integrity is not a fixed virtue? Doesn't the very notion of parole or institutions such as drug court imply that people can "be reformed" despite past incriminations?

Sen. Vincent Leibell, out of Putnam County, told the Democrat & Chronicle that he is against more discolsure. He claims that such reform would lead to an "erosion of privacy" and "discourage people" from serving on the legislature. Is there really a lack of people unwilling to take $80,000 for a part-time job?

Leibell's fellow Putnam County legislator, Assemblyman Greg Ball, sees things quite differently.

"While a lot of people focus on campaign-finance laws, as long as you allow outside business interests, there will be corruption," (he) said... Ball introduced a bill this year to prohibit lawmakers from earning money beyond their state salaries, but it went nowhere in the Assembly and was not introduced in the Senate.

Do constituents have the right to know if their representatives are making money on the side? Do they deserve to know from whom and how much and how often?

Keeping such information secret "confirms the worst suspicions of cynics who say that the elected representatives don't work for the people — they have outside interests that have primacy," said Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause New York. "Lawmakers have to understand how outrageous that is to the average citizen."

Lerner makes a fine point. But this whole debate brings up a much greater issue: How much transparency should be demanded by the people of their representatives? If the people of New York already feel that many, if not most, of their lawmakers are not getting the job done for them, doesn't it only make it worse to find out that the person you're paying $80,000 makes $150,000 from some other source? What if those two sources come into conflict? Lerner hints at this very situation, or at least the perception of such a situation. What do you think? What are the rules in other states?

Please be sure to check out the full article by Jay Gallagher and Heather Senison out of Gannett's Albany Bureau.