Wondering on Wednesday (v110)

Democrats won some races yesterday, which means Republicans lost some.

Is this a sign that the tide has turned, people are wondering, that the Dems finally won some elections during the Trump administration? You'll recall the Ds fared poorly during the special elections to replace folks plucked for administration roles, so this was set up as a huge test of the DNC, of The Message, and so on. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say no - but I'd hold out hope that perhaps we are coming to our collective senses.

If I were a Republican candidate, I wouldn't spend a lot of time wondering whether to invite Trump to hand with me on the campaign trail -- I'd stay as far away from that as I could.

Other interesting results? Diversity won big across the country, and an Independent will be the next mayor of Syracuse, NY.  It's been over a century since we've had a mayor who was not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm looking forward to what Ben Walsh the Independent will bring to our city, and I'm sort of looking forward to not having party squabbles emanating out of the 2nd floor of City Hall.

Meanwhile, the jobs and trade president, the man with the giant IQ, is wandering around overseas, appearing to ask the Japanese why they don't manufacture cars in the United States, instead of just shipping them over here for us to buy. What on earth, I wonder, did they think of our president at that moment? Were they any better able to wade through his full remarks to understand what he was really talking about? Can they help us do that?  And what did the president think of comments noting that more Japanese vehicles are made in the USA than Ivanka Trump products? 

CNN photo

Trump, sometimes shrouded in fog, was blocked by actual fog in his attempt to be not the first (Mike Pence), or the second (Jim Mattis), or even the third member of his administration (Rex Tillerson) to visit the DMZ.

I wonder, could he have done the stare and glare as well as Mike Pence? 

And speaking of the veep, how about Mila Kunis making those monthly donations to Planned Parenthood in Pence's name? That's a great way to support a cause you believe in, and to send a message to a person you disagree with at the same time. 

But there's a twist here. Kunis is a spokesperson for Jim Beam, the bourbon folks, and Pence fans are making their thoughts about that very well known. Many are threatening to only drink Jack Daniels -- the horror! I wonder how long the company will stick with her, or she with them, in the face of mounting pressure on social media for them to drop her?

Finally tonight, we can report (with little wonder, actually) that President Obama will not actually have to serve as a juror this year in Chicago. His panel was excused today, but I can't imagine trying to get anyone to focus on the case at hand if they were sitting next to Obama in the jury box.

The Election Eve Post - 2017 Edition

It's that time again - the night before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. That means it's Election Eve, and time for me to do my darnedest to encourage you to vote.

What's in store for us this year? Here in New York, we're able to decide whether we should have a Constitutional Convention to:

• clean up our rules, and to see if we can do something about ethics, which our elected officials seem incapable of doing. Or, 
• maybe we're having the ConCon to let the special interests come in and strip away hard-fought union benefits and public employee pensions. Or, 
• maybe the point of the convention is to allow some crazy folks to "Nuke the Whales" - an actual fake protest sign in the con-ConCon ad that's been playing every day lately.

If we have to rewrite the NY Constitution to accomplish the things we elected our state legislators to do, and if we have people putting more than $3M in the pot to fight the ConCon, it seems we have a bigger problem than how we decide this proposal. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out - it feels like whatever happens, it won't be close, but I could be wrong.  

My home, Syracuse NY, is looking towards the future as we elect a new mayor; our current one, Stephanie Miner, is term-limited and leaving politics - at least for a while.  We have an interesting choice: an Independent (who is actually running as one, with bipartisan support - imagine that!), a Democrat, a Republican, and our perennial Green Party candidate.The Independent and the Dem are locked in a virtual dead heat, with the Republican falling last behind the Green.  

I'm excited by the prospect of my candidate winning - and I really hope that happens. And the cool thing is, anyone can say that about their candidate, whether it's for a state office or the most local jurisdiction. All of these races matter - every one of them. And so do the proposals and propositions and referenda. 

I’ll be voting.  And I want you to vote, too. 

Not because I say it's important; you should vote because it IS important.  

As I do every year, I offer the following motivation, in case you need it, with one addition, which you see in the picture above.

After some thought, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.” (1) Actually “The idea of an election is much more interesting to me than the election itself…the act of voting is in itself the defining moment.” (2) And why is it that “When the political columnists say ‘every thinking man’ they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to ‘every intelligent voter’ they mean everyone who is going to vote for them”? (3) 

We know it’s true that “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who didn’t vote” (4), and that “A citizen of American will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won’t cross the street to vote in a national election.” (5) Do we still not realize, after all these years, that “lower voter participation is a silent threat to our democracy… it under-represents young people, the poor, the disabled, those with little education, minorities and you and me”? (6) 

After all, “the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men” (7) and “to make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not just observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” (8) And complain we do, after every election, when the wrong guy wins. If only people who actually voted complained, it’d likely be a lot less noisy. 

Some folks may not vote because they don’t know how to pick the right person. There are a couple different schools of thought on that. On the one hand, some might think that “politics is the art of the possible” (9) while others may subscribe to the thinking that “politics is not the art of the possible, it consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. And it is true that, the great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter the chance to do something stupid.” (10) 

Said another way, a “Vote (is) the instrument and symbol of a freeman’s power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.” (11) But that’s OK – “personally, I believe that our American system works as long as you participate in it. You must vote and make your voice heard; otherwise you will be left out.” (12) 

It’s generally true that if you “ask a man which way he’s going to vote and he’ll  probably tell you. Ask him, however, why – and vagueness is all.” (13) But voting’s really easy; and “all voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong.” (14) And just about everyone likes to play a game every now and then, right? 

The bottom line is, “voting is simply a way of determining which side is the stronger without putting it to the test of fighting;” (15) “voting is a civic sacrament;” (16) and “the future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.” (17) If all of that seems like too much pressure, you have an out: “Vote for the man who promises least. He’ll be the least disappointing.” (18) 

Please, vote. It really does matter, this year and every year. If you need information on where to vote, or other assistance, visit Vote411.org or contact your local Board of Elections. 

(Thanks to these folks for their words of wisdom: 1 - Charles DeGaulle; 2 – Jeff Melvoin; 3 – Franklin P Adams; 4 and 13 – Andrew Lack; 5 - Bill Vaughan; 6 - Nancy Neuman; 7 - Lyndon B Johnson; 8 - Louis L’Amour; 9 – Otto Von Bismarck; 10 – Art Spander; 11 – Ambrose Bierce; 12 - Mari-Luci Jaramillo; 14 – Henry David Thoreau; 15 – H.L. Mencken; 16—Theodore Hesburgh; 17 – Dwight D. Eisenhower; 18 – Bernard Baruch)

Turn It Over on Tuesday - 2017 Edition

Hey New Yorkers -- don't forget to #TurnItOver on Tuesday!

Again this year, we'll have some ballot initiatives to consider when we go to the polls on Tuesday. (You did remember that it's time to vote again, right? Right?!)

Here's what's on the back of the ballot for all New Yorkers:

• Proposal 1, Constitutional Convention Question. "Shall there be a convention to revise the Constitution and amend the same?"

The New York State Constitution requires that every 20 years the people decide if a Constitutional Convention should be held to consider amendments to the State Constitution. The purpose of this Ballot Question is to allow the voters of New York State to determine whether a Constitutional Convention will be held in 2019.  

If a majority voting on this Question votes NO, there will be no Constitutional Convention 

If a majority votes YES, three delegates from each state senatorial district and 15 at-large statewide delegates will be elected in November 2018. The delegates will convene at the Capitol in April 2019. Amendments adopted by a majority of the delegates will be submitted to the voters for approval or rejection in a statewide referendum to be held at least six weeks after the Convention adjourns. The delegates will determine whether to submit proposed amendments as separate questions. Any amendments that the voters approve will go into effect on the January 1 following their approval. 

If a majority votes in favor of a Constitutional Convention, then the delegates will receive for their services the same compensation as that payable to Members of the Assembly. The delegates also will be reimbursed for actual traveling expenses while the Convention is in session, to the extent that Members of the Assembly would be entitled reimbursement during a session of the Legislature. 

The delegates will have the power to appoint the officers, employees and assistants that they deem necessary and to fix the compensation of those officers, employees and assistants. The delegates also will have the power to provide for the expenses of the Convention, including printing of its documents, journal and proceedings. The delegates will determine the rules of their proceedings, choose their officers, and be the judge of the election, returns and qualifications of their members. A vacancy in an office of district delegate will be filled by a vote of the remaining delegates representing the district in which the vacancy occurs; a vacancy in the office of a delegate-at-large will be filled by a vote of the remaining delegates-at-large.

• Proposal 2, Pension Forfeiture for Convicted Officials Amendment (2017). "The proposed amendment to section 7 of  Article 2 of the State Constitution would allow a court to reduce or revoke the public pension of a public officer who is convicted of a felony that has a direct and actual relationship to the performance of the public officer's existing duties.  Shall the proposed amendment be approved?"

New York's Constitution now provides that the benefits of a public pension or retirement system cannot be reduced or impaired. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow a court to reduce or revoke the public pension of a public officer who is convicted of a felony that has a direct and actual relationship to the performance of the public officer's existing duties. 

A court could determine, after notice to the public officer and a hearing, if a public officer convicted of such a felony would lose part or all of the pension. In reaching this determination, the court must consider factors including the seriousness of the public officer's crime, the proportionality of a reduction or revocation to the crime, whether forfeiture would result in undue hardship or other inequity to dependent children, spouse, or other dependents, and any other factors provided by the Legislature. The Legislature must enact law that puts this provision into effect, taking into account principles of fairness.  

The proposed amendment would define "public officer" to mean the following: an official filling an elected office within New York; a person holding an office that is filled by appointment by the New York Governor, whether or not that appointment has to be confirmed by the Senate: a county, city, town, or village administrator, manager or equivalent position; the head of any state or local government department, division, board, commission, bureau, public benefit corporation, or public authority in New York who is vested with authority, direction, and control over that entity; the chief fiscal officer or treasurer of a municipal corporation or political subdivision in New York; a judge or justice of the Unified Court System; and a legislative, executive or judicial employee who directly assists in the formulation of legislation, rules, regulations, policy, or judicial decision-making and who is designated by law as a policy-maker.

If approved, the amendment will apply only to crimes committed on or after January 1, 2018. 

• Proposal 3, Forest Preserve Land Bank Amendment (2017).  "The proposed amendment will create a land account with up to 250 acres of forest preserve land eligible for use by towns,villages and counties that have no viable alternative to using forest preserve land to address specific public health and safety concerns; as a substitute for the land removed from the forest preserve, another 250 acres of land, will be added to the forest preserve, subject to legislative approval. The proposed amendment also will allow bicycle trails and certain public utility lines to be located within the width specified highways that cross the forest preserve while minimizing removal of trees and vegetation. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?"

New York State's Constitution protects the State's forest preserve as wild forest land and generally prohibits the lease, sale, exchange or taking of any forest preserve land. The proposed amendment will create two new exceptions to this broad protection of the forest preserve to make it easier for municipalities to undertake certain health and safety projects. 

 First, the proposed amendment will create a land account of up to 250 acres of forest preserve land. A town, village or county can apply to the land account if it has no viable alternative to using forest preserve land for specified health and safety purposes. These purposes are (1) to address bridge hazards or safety on specified highways; (2) to eliminate the hazards of dangerous curves and grades on specified highways; (3) to relocate, reconstruct, and maintain highways; and (4) for water wells and necessary related accessories located within 530 feed of a specified highway, where needed to meet drinking water quality standards. The State will acquire 250 acres to add to the forest preserve to replace the land placed in the health and safety land account, subject to approval by the Legislature. 

Second, the proposed amendment will allow bicycle paths and types of public utility lines to be located within the widths of specified highways that cross forest preserve land. The work on the bicycle paths and utility lines must minimize the removal of trees and vegetation. The proposed amendment will allow a stabilization device (such as a guy wire) for an existing utility pole to be located near the width of a highway when necessary to ensure public health and safety and when no other viable option exists. The proposed amendment prohibits the construction of a new intrastate gas or oil pipeline that did not receive necessary state and local permits and approvals by June 1, 2016. 

The Ballotopedia links I've included for each of the three statewide initiatives provide e a ton of helpful information, including who has lined up in favor and opposed; how well organized the two sides are; how much money has been raised; and what the possible benefits and ramifications are if the proposals pass. I encourage you to review the information, particularly on Proposal 1, which is the most contentious of the three.

In addition, for those of us here in Onondaga County, there's one more.

• Shall there be approved in Onondaga County, Local Law No___-2017, entitled, "A Local Law Amending the Onondaga County Charter and Administrative Code Regarding the Onondaga County Department . of Correction," playing the Onondaga County Department of Corrections under the control of the Sheriff?

Why are we talking about this one?  

• Onondaga County is the only county in  New York that still has divided responsibility over pretrial and post-conviction incarceration oversight. Here, the sheriff's office has responsibility for the Justice Center Jail (where prisoners awaiting trial are held) but not the county's penitentiary, which is where convicted criminals are housed. 
• In addition to being the only one who does it goofy, we could save some money here, we're told; if the sheriff controlled all of the cells, we'd have better control over making sure we don't have empty cells in one facility but overcrowding in the other, which has caused us to pay to house them in facilities outside the county.
• And, of course, because we're looking at consolidation in government (as opposed to a takeover of the city by the county) and this one seems like a no-brainer for the county. 

Remember -- Be sure to #TurnItOver tomorrow when (not if, when) you vote!

The Update Desk: Grains of Salt (v24)

The other day I told you that Onondaga County's District Attorney-for-Life William Fitzpatrick did not have sex with that woman.

Oh - sorry - my bad. I told you he "did not endorse" Derek Shepard, the incumbent County Legislator for the towns of Elbridge, VanBuren and Baldwinsville, in the primary against challenger Ken Bush Jr. (Bush won.)

What Fitz did, rather, was to "criticize those policies that undermine public safety and support those policies that advance it, by freely and vigorously speaking out and writing on criminal justice issues and the individual involved in those issues" which he's entitled to do under a code that he helped write.

Here's the transcript of the message, which you can listen to here:

Hi. This is District Attorney Bill Fitzpatrick. I'm sending you this message on September 11th, when many of us are remembering the horrible events of sixteen years ago. And I of course think about the death of my cousin who was a firefighter in New York City and died on the 40th floor of the North Tower. Jeff Olsen was a man who loved public service much as I do. I've been lucky enough to be your DA for 25 years, and I care passionately about public safety.

One of my great allies in that concern has been Derek Shepard, your county legislator. Derek is a great American who has allied with me on many, many issues involving your safety and the betterment of this county. He understands that fiscal responsibility has to be balanced with a goal of keeping us safe, and no one has done that better, in my opinion, than Derek.

Thank you, Derek. I look forward to working with you for many, many years in the future. And thanks to all of you for your support over the years in keeping me your district attorney. And remember, on Tuesday, when you pull that lever, how lucky we are to live in the greatest country on the planet Earth.  (Paid for by RLCC.) 

Now, I've listened to Fitz's message a few times, and I've gotta tell you, it's far from vigorous. Does that recording even remotely resemble any of these 'vigorous' synonyms and related words?

Come on -- Fitz is a guy who will scream in court until he's hoarse - and we're supposed to believe this is him criticizing anything? Or speaking out about any kind of policies?

Heck no. This is him endorsing Derek Shepard, plain and simple.

The fact that he was oh-so-careful to actually say 'public safety' in the message was him doing exactly enough to pass 'official' muster, but it just as clearly shows how close he will get to crossing the line and doing something he, as a DA with 25 years of experience, knows he's absolutely not allowed to do.

Anyone in the ethics business understands that perception is reality - and the damage from the perception can be even worse than damage from the actual bad act.

If you get caught doing something wrong, you can apologize, try and convince people you didn't know better, throw yourself on the mercy of the court and public opinion, and generally people will forgive you. You can even do your time and come out on the other side as a better person.

It's much harder to change a perception - especially when you don't even recognize the possibility that it might be correct.

Grains of Salt (v24): Fitz and Starts

I find it hard to believe it's been almost nine full months since I last talked about William Fitzpatrick, our District Attorney for Life in Onondaga County.

Fitz has been a frequent topic of conversation around here, most of the time in posts about ethics, campaign finance reform, and, I have to admit, possible over-exertion in the line of duty.

The latest activities bringing him back to these pages fall into the first and last of those linked buckets.

According to this report, Fitzpatrick apparently went door to door with Derek Shepard, candidate for Onondaga County Legislator, who lost in Tuesday's primary to Ken Bush Jr. Fitz also also made a robocall on Shepard's behalf.

Both of these actions would at least appear to be conflicts, or appear to be ethical violations, or at the very least, appear to be examples of poor judgment. After all, The Right Thing: Ethical Guidelines for Prosecutors states, in part:

District Attorneys and their assistants may not endorse political candidates, except that in some counties assistants may be permitted to engage in political activity in support of the re-election of the District Attorney by whom they are employed. 

And, Rule 3.8, Special Responsibilities of Prosecutors and Other Government Lawyers (Amendment Effective July 1, 2012) notes, again in part:

...Thus, it is reasonable and proper for District Attorneys and members of their staffs to engage in activities that do not compromise their office’s efficiency or integrity or interfere with the professional responsibilities and duties of their offices.

District Attorneys may engage in the following conduct (emphasis added): 

1. Register to vote themselves, and vote. 
2. Have membership in a political party
3. Contribute money to political parties, organizations and committees.
4. Attend political/social events. 
5. Participate in community and civic organizations that have no partisan purposes.
6. Sign political petitions as an individual. 
7. In order to demonstrate public support for the nonpartisan nature of the District Attorney’s office, a District Attorney should consider accepting the endorsement of more than one political party when running for office. 
8. District Attorneys are entitled to criticize those policies that undermine public safety and support those policies that advance it, by freely and vigorously speaking out and writing on criminal justice issues and the individuals involved in those issues.

Fitz believes his actions on behalf of Shepard, a County Legislator representing the towns of Elbridge, VanBuren and Baldwinsville since 2011, meet the requirements of number 8 in the code, in that promoting the candidacy of one person over another is "criticizing policies that undermine public safety and supporting those policies that advance it" or else it's "vigorously speaking out and writing on criminal justice issues and the individuals involved in those issues."

Specifically, (again, emphasis added) 

Fitzpatrick said he considered Bush a threat to public safety because as a legislator Bush would likely fight against funding for the DA's office. "I consider that a danger to the office in terms of our budgetary needs."

And I laughed, and laughed, and laughed.   But wait - there's more!

Note that Fitzpatrick's son was involved with Shepard's campaign, and also note that the DA threatened to sue Bush because of a Facebook page that, according to the DA, could have confused someone that they were looking at the official Town of Elbridge page, when in fact they were looking at a page Bush has maintained for years. About Bush's Facebook page (which he had been maintaining for years), Fitz said

While the page did not claim to have an official affiliation with the Town of Elbridge, it had that appearance, and it did not disclaim affiliation.

Rolling on the floor laughing now!  Hold on... Hang on... OK OK - sorry. Had to catch my breath...

Let's review:

• A candidate running against the guy the DA's son is consulting has a social media page that is truly not something it that it does not claim to be, but in the DA's eyes it could possibly be confused with some other page (with literally thousands of fewer friends, by the way), so the DA threatens to sue the candidate.
• The DA goes door to door with the candidate his son consults for, greeting voters and all, and also does a recorded message for that candidate, which was paid for by the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee, and which launches the day before the primary, but that's not an endorsement of the candidate.

Seriously - I laughed and laughed.

At the zeal with which the DA protected voters from the outside guy running against the candidate supported by the Republican party leadership (and Fitz's son).

At the nonsensical nature of Fitz's concern for my personal safety as a resident of Onondaga County.

At his apparent lack of appreciation of the irony in threatening someone over the appearance of a conflict, while participating in not one but two very 'conflicting' acts himself.

At the insanity of designating someone who might cut the DA's budget as a threat to public safety, a term previously reserved for gang members, predatory sex offenders, and drug kingpins. How things have changed.

At the absurdity of him thinking we'd actually believe that he wasn't endorsing a candidate.

At how little he understands (or cares) how the crap he does undermines public trust in elected officials.

At how glibly he's able to justify his behavior at each and every turn, from a legal perspective, while being completely tone deaf to the optics, and the ethics.

At how stupid he must think we are.

(Oh, crap --  I hope he doesn't consider me a threat to public safety for disagreeing with him... )