SamPratt.com

Kirsten vs. The Internet

The Albany Times-Union reports that appointed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (formerly of Greenport) is siding with Hollywood and music industry lobby groups over, well, pretty much everyone else when it comes to internet censorship. The PIPA and SOPA bills in Congress have inspired numerous sites (from Wikipedia to Boing Boing to Reddit) to go "dark" for the day. More than a passive supporter, Gillibrand actually co-sponsored PIPA in the Senate.

As if to illustrate what such censorship might be like, a reader reports that comments about these bills were being erased from Gillibrand's Facebook page, though now it appears they are coming too fast and furious for monitors to keep up with.

Public outcry has already caused some initial supporters, such as hosting provider Go Daddy, to withdraw support from these measures (which would help rich entertainment businesses eke out a modest improvement in profit, at the expense of free speech). A former attorney for Big Tobacco, Gillibrand has a history of changing her noxious positions if there is enough pressure: she formerly opposed gay marriage, and held anti-immigrant positions such as making English the "official" U.S. language.

But such pressure has rarely come from Hudson Valley Democrats, who have tended to value their personal access to a "local" politician over their own political principles. Will Columbia County Dems hold Kirsten's feet to the fire on this huge issue?

At this link Google has an action page for speaking out to Congress.

Signifying nothing

’Tis the season when the leaves float down, and the campaign signs sprout up. It’s also the season when the partisans of various political candidates agonize waaaay too much over who has more lawn signs. In fact some campaigns think of little else but their signs—at the expense of the actual work of winning over voters.

The annual sign routine is predictable:

• Candidate Joe gets his signs up first, causing the supporters of Candidate Jane to freak out.


• Jane overcompensates by trying to put up twice as many signs as Joe, escalating the sign wars.


• Now it’s Joe’s supporters’ turn to freak out, so Joe orders another 100 signs to catch up, making Joe and Jane roughly even.


• Both teams suddenly realize that if they put TWO signs on each property, it looks like they have double the support! Then they realize that three is better than two. And four is better than three. (Five, however, makes the property owner look crazy.)


• Jane’s cousin gets caught with a trunkload of stolen Joe signs, creating a bunch of bad publicity for Jane.


• Meanwhile, the local zoning enforcement officer (a member of Jane’s campaign committee) decides to enforce a little-known local law, requiring Joe to take down his signs because they are 3.25 inches too tall.


• The ACLU steps in, with a letter (correctly) denouncing the local sign ordinance as un-Constitutional; the ZEO backs off; Joe gets most of his signs back up.


• After the first week of this annual ritual, voters stop even seeing the signs, as they become just another feature of the roadscape.


• All of this distracts from the mechanics of wooing voters, turning them out to the polls, and getting elected.

Finally, after months of sign wars, your local election occurs. The votes are tallied. Turns out that having more signs had nothing to do with who actually won. The outcome could be predicted as reliably with a coin flip. Because no one—well, almost no one—decides which candidate to support because of a sign.

People understandably love to count election signs, since they’re often the only visible portion of a local campaign. (Debates, if any, are usually poorly-attended, with mainly the inner circles of each candidate attending.)

But signs tell you virtually nothing about a campaign, except maybe which side assigned a more obsessive-compulsive operative to putting wax-coated cardboard placards all over town. I’ve seen plenty of elections around here—for example, in Claverack, Hudson and Taghkanic—where the candidate with more signs lost, sometimes by a lot.

A few people put up signs because they actually feel strongly about a candidate. But rarely does more than a tiny sliver of the voting public actually display signs for either side. Some are apathetic. A few don’t want to have an argument with their neighbor. Others simply want their allegiances to remain a private matter, especially in the event that the other team wins, and appoints a new tax assessor.

Still it is almost impossible for a candidate’s friends and core supporters to turn off the sign hysteria. In the minds eye, if you see three signs for Joe in a given neighborhood, it is natural to conclude that “everyone” in that neighborhood supports Joe, though only 3 out of 30 houses are sporting his colors. 

Signs also go up for a host of reasons that have little to do with popularity. They go up first on the lawns or houses of relatives of candidates, and their allied commiteemen. Then they go up because someone didn’t want to say “no” to an operative with a supervisory role over that person’s job. They go up on certain attorneys’ and insurance agents’ houses who depend on municipal or County work, even if they plan to vote for the other side. And so on.

So long as both sides have a reasonable presence on the street, the exact tally of who’s ahead in the Sign Wars tells you nothing. The only time to freak out about signs is if the only sign up for your candidate is on his own house. Then you might worry, as that absence probably reflects a much larger problem of organization that goes far beyond getting signs printed and distributed. On the other hand, your candidate may be lullling the other side into complacency, as s/he diligently and quietly knocks on the door of every single local household, building a giant electoral advantage which only becomes visible on Election Day.

Sure, once in a while someone comes up with a truly clever or winning sign design which truly captures voters’ imaginations and gives them some slight advantage. That happens maybe once in a lifetime, and usually is a symptom of the candidate’s prowess, not its cause. As one consultant put it:

Lawn signs are another case where more is less as candidates try to outdo each other to see who can plaster a neighborhood with the most signs. It’s a stalemate of mutually assured destruction: Competing campaigns drain their budgets as they litter the landscape with a blurry sea of colorful cardboard largely ignored by commuters and other passersby.  

And what about our neighbors who actually choose to post political lawn signs in their front yard?  I say this: Free speech is awesome, but we already know who you vote for, and you’re not changing anyone’s mind.  Let it go.

So wherever you may live, please don’t get too worked up about who appears to have more signs. If you care about a candidate, badgering them about the other guy’s signs does not help. Instead, organize an event at your home, or make calls on their behalf to voters, or write a personal letter to your five best friends, urging them to join you in voting for your candidate.

In a local election, the only reliable sign that your team may win is that John or Jane isn’t investing too much of their limited money, time and thoughts on campaign signs.

The Art of the Impossible (or, Legislation by Lawyer)

This Fall, voters will flock once again to the polls to elect their County Supervisors, Legislators, Aldermen, Town and Village Board members, and other local officials. In schools, town halls, and firehouses, we’ll humbly pull the levers (or, more often lately, feed ballots into an electronic machine). We’ll leave the polling place feeling satisfied that for all its faults, our democratic system still functions as originally intended.

Then, around the first of the year, our freshly-elected officials will take the oath of office. The slogans and promises of their campaigns will still be ringing in our ears... But then the hard work of legislating begins.

After each election cycle, our bright-eyed-and-bushy-tailed new legislators face a dizzying array of budgetary constraints, committee assignments, grant applications, lawsuits, FOIL requests, statuatory requirements, upset citizens, motions, seconds, resolutions, and amendments. Just mastering a public body’s Rules of Order can seem like a herculean task.

Into this morass of regs and reqs strolls the Town (or City) attorney. Feeling besieged and even helpless, elected officials turn to their lawyer, for guidance and instruction. On the face of it, that’s necessary and proper. But over time, that need can become a dependence.

If you attend a local government meeting, one usually finds the lawyer—not the elected officials—doing much of the talking. In many towns, even trivial decisions seem to require a legal consultation, including the dreaded retreat into a closed-door “executive session” to discuss legal options out of the public eye.

The effect is to create a system of legislation by lawyer. Roll-call votes are still cast by elected officials. But for anything even remotely controversial, the “call” effectively gets made by their attorney.

Unlike politicians, who typically are built for combat, lawyers are built for compromise. Lawyers (with exceptions) tend to be conservative by nature, in the more traditional meaning of conservative. Deflecting controversy, assuaging governmental clients’ fear of lawsuits, not rocking the boat, protecting political patrons, and keeping their jobs are paramount. This tendency results in the blunting of candidates’ optimistic campaign promises of change, progress and reform. “It’s time for a change” soon becomes "You might get sued if you change that.” Debates center around how to play things legally safe, rather than finding bold, creative solutions.

Moreover, while politicians come and go, attorneys (or at least their firms) tend to stick around. The faces on your local Board or Council may change, but the cast of lawyers rarely does. As insurance against major electoral changes, many firms that rely on the sinecure of municipal work deliberately keep both Democratic and Republican lawyers on their rolls. When the donkeys throw the elephants out, or vice versa, the firm still retains the town’s business. They just swap out the partner from the losing party, and bring in another from the winning side.

Worse, conflicts of interest arise when the same handful of attorneys wear multiple governmental hats. In each county of the Hudson Valley, usually just two or three firms represent most of its constituent towns.

Consider a couple of local examples:

In a jarring 2009 voting rights fight in Columbia County one attorney initially represented both the Town of Taghkanic and the County Board of Elections, whose positions were at odds. At first the lawyer in question argued that his dual role was proper. It took a major public outcry and an ethics complaint to finally force him to pick, grudgingly, one client or the other.

More recently in the City of Hudson, most major decisions about the controversial future of the City’s waterfront have been made privately by the City Attorney and an outside planning firm. A hefty chunk of their work was underwritten by an industrial company with a big stake in the outcome. Meanwhile, consultation with the Hudson Aldermen has been token at best, with months or even years passing without the ostensible "lead agency" being updated on its own plan’s progress. By the time of each sporadic update, so much water (and technical mumbo-jumbo) has gone under the bridge that elected officials have little choice but to take their lawyer’s word for it that her decisions are correct.

Clearly, there are times when legal advice is useful, and even indispensable. But when a municipal lawyer becomes the de facto chief policy-maker, democracy is undermined. So what’s to be done about it?

• First, we need a change of mindset among elected officials, in which legal counsel is sought only when truly necessary, not as a matter of course;

* Second, we need a corresponding change of mindset among attorneys, that they exist to help officials actively achieve their campaign goals, rather than covering their rumps;

* And third, we need term limits for municipal lawyers and firms, so that counsellors don’t become political institutions unto themselves.

Thomas Jefferson once remarked that if we only take action when no lawyer objects, we’ll never take action at all. When left up to lawyers, politics becomes not the art of the possible, but of the impossible.

She’s not a resident, either

The underdog victory of Democrat Kathy Hochul in New York’s 26th Congressional District is making headlines all over the country, as many interpret it as a referendum on the Republican assault on Medicare.

Only occasionally mentioned in the coverage: Hochul does not live in the 26th CD. Nor (as noted here previously in another context) did she have to to run for U.S. rep there, so long as she moves in before taking office. And Tuesday night’s tallies proved that the voters didn’t care.

Hochul said on election day, in response to GOP attempts to make this a campaign issue:

“I’ve just been ignoring that all along... Not one person in this district has ever mentioned that. They know I’m going to plan to move into this district, hopefully very soon.”

One wonders if Democratic Alderman Geeta Cheddie, who has attempted to make residency an issue in this year’s 1st Ward race, would have voted for Hochul... Residency may become a moot issue (as again noted here last week), as her feared opponent may not actually run after all. But it would be nice to see a little consistency in the political posturing that goes on.

N O T E : Personally, I think parties would be smarter to nominate existing residents for everything from Common Councils to Congress, as there’s little sense handing the other side an easy issue. But in Hochul’s case, it didn’t matter—and as a matter of law, she (like Tim Rodgers) was entitled to run.

Unaccountable

The Kingston Daily Freeman’s editor made a telling point on WAMC this morning. Appearing on the Roundtable, he noted that despite Albany devolving over the past two years from mere dysfunction to utter farce, and despite the public supposedly being in a mood to “throw the bums out,” pretty much every incumbent State legislator in our region was re-elected. 

The paper wrote:

With the exception of one race that was too close to call, all incumbent state senators and assemblymen who represent the Mid-Hudson, whether Democrat or Republican, were elected to return to Albany, long cast a place where dysfunction rules.

One re-elected legislator, Republican John Bonacic, dismissed this dispiriting degree of political stasis by reflexively pointing a finger toward the Big Apple, as if every mess in Albany can be pinned on New York City (said with a Texas twang, as in that old salsa commercial).

There are at least two more plausible explanations:

(1) that the Albany pork system is very difficult for challengers to overcome, since incumbents do little but dole out their member items (witness Saland’s relationship with fire houses) and arrange press availabilities;

(2) that the quality, funding and organization of challengers is pretty limp. Sending out a few emails, having lunch at a couple of diners, mass-mailing some clunky flyers, and giving away a few signs to hapless committee members does not a campaign make. 

In Federal races, incumbents will sometimes lose, though not often enough. This is in part because the general public doesn’t keep much track of who’s really responsible for good and bad legislation in Washington, instead reacting viscerally to mass-media caricatures of national figures.

On the local level, voters tend to know little about their State Senators and Assemblymen, unless maybe they saw a picture in the paper of one giving a check to a local library, firehouse, or VFW. (Photo ops with farmers is another area staple.) These local “leaders’ aren’t really connected to the mess in Albany, even though they are the mess in Albany.

For real change and progess to occur, voters have to be communicated clear, strong reasons why they should change devils, rather than sticking with the devil they already know. They need to be engaged with something more personal than a robo-call or mass-mailer. They need to be drawn into the drama of a fun campaign by friends and colleagues they trust. They need to be motivated and inspired, not just hammered with attack ads from all sides, which can be dismissed as partisan he said/she said persiflage. And in the waning days of the campaign, all effort needs to focus on getting already-identified supporters to vote—the oft-discussed but seldom-executed “GOTV strategy.” (When crunch time rolls around, few campaigns have truly ID’d their voters, and even fewer have drummed up the volunteers necessary to get them to the polls.)

These rudimentary tasks are rarely handled at all, and even more rarely handled well. So the same old schnooks get sent back to Albany again and again. The result is a democracy in name only, where responsiveness to the public and the accountability of leaders is more often an appearance than a reality.

Complaint trains fire on Saland

PHOTO SOURCE: New York State Senate website

Celeste Katz of the New York Daily News has picked up a press release from Hudson and Dutchess County Democrats, which alleges that State Senator Stephen Saland (R-Poughkeepsie) has pressured Hudson Valley fire companies to post supportive messages in front of their stations. The release alleges that Saland has explicitly or implicitly tied the display of such messages to whether the stations will continue to get State grants he’s been authorizing for them.

The allegations appear to be backed up by more than the usual political posturing, as the Democrats have obtained and posted a letter from Columbia County Fire Coordinator James Van Duesen that seems to dovetail with the charges. While careful to state that it’s up to individual companies whether to express support of Saland, the Van Deusen letter has no address for a recipient and is generically headed “Dear Chief”—suggesting this was a form letter sent to more than one chief—and offers this reminder:

Senator Saland has asked for your help by putting a message of Support on your outside signs.

The Senator has over the years supported your Fire Co. with grants and monies.

The Daily News picks up a photo provided by the Democrats of a sign in Hillside, said to be an example of pressure from Saland. (In past election cycles, I’ve noticed slightly more neutral and less flagrantly political payback of this kind, such a “Thank you Senator Saland” sign on a Livingston station.) Volunteer fireman Lloyd Hamilton has joined the complaint filed with the State’s Legislative Ethics Commission (co-authored with City of Hudson Democratic chair Victor Mendolia), stating that:

On October 26, 2010, I took the attached pictures of the Hillside Fire Department sign in Dutchess County. As you will see, the signs say ‘Firefighters for Saland’. I immediately went to the company president and chief and asked why this sign was posted. I objected to the use of the sign and said that, as a taxpayer in the district, I felt it was improper use of taxpayer-owned property to support any politician. I was told that it was done because our department received grants from Sen. Saland and that this was payback for those grants.

I also understood that it was likely that future grants would be influenced by our overtly supporting him, meaning that if we didn’t do this, our ability to receive grants in the future would be in jeopardy.

The core issue here is that upstate firehouses are funded primarily by taxes and government grants, leading to a public expectation that they should remain non-partisan. Beyond any legal or financial jeopardy the complaint might pose to Saland or the stations, residents have a basic ethical expectation that putting out fires is a non-political job, and that having signs out for a different candidate—say for Didi Barrett, who is running against Saland and was just endorsed by the Times—won’t have any effect on the responsiveness of a fire company.

In general, part of the power of incumbency is the ability to dole out small grants, “member items” and other patronage. A quick web search turns up numerous examples of Saland arranging funding (and receiving praise back) for various public safety agencies and organizations, such as the Mellenville Volunteer Fire District, Columbia County Emergency Services, Greenport Police Department; the Rhinebeck Fire Department; the Beacon Police Department; the Roosevelt Fire Department in Hyde Park; the Village of Valatie Fire Department; the Kinderhook Fire Company; the Fishkill Fire Department; and the East Chatham Fire Co. Most applaud such support—but not if it comes with a tacit or explicit demand that the assistance produce  political dividends.

Politicians of all parties are eager to help local firehouses and law enforcement, and there is widespread support for doing so. But tying that support to political endorsements is a major no-no, and Saland owes the taxpayers and residents of his district an explanation. As of the time of this report, he hadn’t so far responded to inquiries from The Daily News.

But it’s probably just a matter of time before Saland takes a page out of the GOP playbook, and tries to deflect from his own alleged transgressions. So look for the sitting State Senator to counter with a demand that the Dems "apologize" to every firefighter in his district—even though the complaint is about Saland's politicking, not about the countless honest volunteers who risk their lives to keep our homes safe.

Stone polled

This blog has received two credible reports from entirely separate sources that residents of Bethlehem, Coxsackie, and Hudson have been polled over the phone recently regarding the Lafarge cement plant and mercury pollution—and that the poll included a question about now-embattled State wildlife pathologist Ward Stone.

Stone has been doing independent research into mercury contamination downwind of the coal-fired Lafarge plant, and was the subject of a lengthy exposé in Sunday’s Times-Union. Now he’s also become the subject of a State investigation into alleged misconduct, including apparent charges by former coworkers of misuse of public resources, abuse of staff, abuse of wildlife, and more. It appears the polling calls began 10-14 days before this article was published.

Here is a report from one reader of this blog (who wishes to remain anonymous, but whose identity and bona fides I have verified) who received a call from the unidentified pollster... First, the reader’s comment on my initial blog post:

I’ve listened to Ward Stone and In Our Backyard since moving to this area and I have been impressed, touched even, by his message to appreciate the world in which we live, to get out and enjoy it. Through him I've learned to notice signs in nature I'd not been aware of... it's been an awakening. Truth be told, I've only been mildly aware of his real environmental crusades; I've just not been paying that much attention.

That's why I was surprised his name came up in a phone call I took last weekend. It was a "poll" thing and honed in on the Lafarge mercury emissions events of late. The pollster asked what opinion I had of Ward Stone; solely based on my knowledge of him and the radio program, I said, "Very favorable." I still have a favorable opinion of him, still based solely on his radio program, and though the allegations against him are serious, I'll wait to pass judgment until they are sorted out. I absolutely question the timing of the allegations, as well as the timing of the poll-call, and I'm dying to know who/what was behind it.

Curious, I posted a request for the commenter to provide more details, which s/he did via email.

I’m the person who took the Lafarge "poll call" on [May 1st], then posted about it on your blog. I'll share with you what I remember:

It came around noon Saturday, a man calling said he was not from a political party etc. but would like to ask questions about environmental issues in the area. He may have stated an organization he was representing, but I don't remember (wish I did!). I was happy to respond because I always wonder where poll results come from... I'm rarely asked, nor is anyone I know.

At any rate, at first he asked about my basic awareness of local issues, and one question asked me to choose, in order of importance, two or three issues I felt were most pressing. Slightly aware of the Lafarge situation, as well as the fight in Hudson a few years back to keep out a cement plant (THANK YOU), I included "mercury emissions" in my answer. The man quickly took that answer and honed in on Lafarge. I do think the call was aiming at Lafarge, and my answer about mercury contamination as a local environmental concern was the pollster's go ahead to continue with his script of questions. He did not mention or ask about any other issues once Lafarge was on the table.

He then asked a series of questions about my opinion whether the plant should be shut down, forced to modernize, allowed to continue as is. He asked what importance I place on the jobs at the plant. He asked my opinion of several different people, Ward Stone and Governor Patterson included, others whose names I didn't recognize. I’m quite certain that there was only one question about Ward Stone—just my opinion of him, which as I said is favorable.

At the end of the questions, the man asked my age, income range, level of education, and first name. I hesitated, then gave it, though I wish now that I hadn't.

I paid attention during the call-- and thought a lot afterward-- to try and identify a bias, a clue to which "side" the call might have come from; nothing stood out. Then again, I'm not very well informed about Lafarge, which led me to realize: I want to learn more about the circumstances at there so I will have (if only for myself) a more clearly defined opinion of what needs to happen. 

Let me know if you have further questions, and if I think of anything else of significance, I'll let you know.

I enjoy your blog. Very informative, sophisticated, and fun.

As for my own opinion of this situation, I take a slightly different view of this evolving matter than some of my environmentalist peers (and am waiting to see what further evidence evolves before making a definitive judgement).

This situation strikes me much like The New York Times’ exposure of Eliot Spitzer’s frequenting prostitutes did. Without question, people like Spitzer and Stone had (and still have) enemies eager to find any reason to tear them down. Such people know they are being monitored closely for any mis-step, which will be pounced on. The mystery is why such controversial figures would hand their critics the gasoline with which to immolate them—rather than taking precautionary steps to foil those eager to torch their reputations.

Spitzer knew that Wall Street and the American right-wing were itching to take him down. Furthermore, as someone who had prosecuted both financial fraud and prostitution rings, he knew that if you go into a bank and ask to have a large amount of money wired anonymously, that bank is required to report the transaction to authorities as suspicious. He likewise knew that arranging to transport a prostitute across state lines incurred yet another level of legal jeopardy. And yet he recklessly pursued his (apparent) sex addiction without using his inside knowledge of the legal and financial system to make it harder to catch him.

Indeed, Spitzer made it easy for his enemies. The surprising part is that it took so long to catch him, not that he was caught.

With the Stone situation–in which all the facts have yet to come out—one similarly wonders why a controversial survivor of past bureaucratic and media wars did not take steps to protect his work and legacy.

At the start of his WAMC interview this morning, Stone claimed that he “knew” this was coming because his phone was “tapped,” his computer “entered,” and he had been “watched and followed for some time.” (Unfortunately, his interviewers moved on very quickly from the topic and did not explore such eyebrow-raising and hard-to-credit claims—which frankly seem more suited to a Bourne Identity flick than a DEC feud.)

Either way, Stone not only had more credible reasons to know he was a target, he also had been specifically admonished repeatedly to address the complaints which came, year after year, from supervisors at his agency. Any objective read of the documents posted by the T-U to back up its reporting are a dose of cold reality to those, like me, who would normally be disposed to side with Stone.

This brings us back to the question of the Lafarge poll, which experience would suggest most likely was commissioned by the cement company, in anticipation of an upcoming DEC hearing on its Ravena plant. Did Lafarge ask about Stone’s credibility? And did the results suggest to the company that his strong reputation as a scientist needed tarnishing? I would not be the least bit surprised. But while the answer to that question might well reflect poorly on Lafarge, it also would not excuse Stone if the charges he faces turn out to be true. We can both deplore corporate skulduggery, admire talented and courageous environment work, and distance ourselves from behaviors and practices among “our” people that we would never tolerate from the “other” side.

It is often said that “Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.” A corollary might be: “Just because they’re out to get you, doesn’t mean you are beyond reproach.” The Times-Union’s editorial this morning makes that point well (though it fails to disclose or acknowledge the source of its leaks, or at least address the questionable timing of its exposé.) In the long run, if we want to fight for environmental and other forms of justice, we can’t hold ourselves to a lower standard of evidence and ethics than the one we tend to apply to those on the other side.

Reactions to the Ward Stone exposé

« UPDATE » WAMC has announced that it’s suspending Stone’s program pending the results of a State investigation into allegations of misconduct:

WAMC believes in the concept that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. We are grateful to Ward Stone for his generous volunteer contribution to WAMC’s “In Our Backyard” program and for his tireless work for the state as Wildlife Pathologist. We hope these allegations prove to be false, nevertheless, we believe it is prudent to suspend production of the program until these charges are resolved. WAMC news will continue to cover this story.

Suspending Stone allows WAMC to more credibly follow the story, and Dave Lucas has indeed now filed a report on the investigation. Joe Donahue and Alan Chartock likewise had a frank discussion of the Times Union’s article on air this morning, a recording of which can be heard here.

« ORIGINAL POST » The Albany Times-Union has published a lengthy article by Capitol correspondent James Odato about alleged personnel issues with State wildlife pathologist Ward Stone, including stark allegations of personal use of State resources, financial woes, abusive behavior to co-workers, and even cruelty to deer.

Naturally, the piece is generating a lot of heat from both longtime supporters and detractors, and Stone—a Hudson native, now 71, and no stranger to controversy—has begun to respond in the broadcast media here and here.

Somewhat defensively, the T-U has also now posted PDF files of various internal personnel documents from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), along with information about Stone’s academic credentials.

Below are two perceptive and balanced reactions to the story from solid sources who have worked and interacted with Stone, but have no direct allegiance to (or stake in the outcome of the complaints against) him. These are shared below without attribution, at the authors’ requests:

An Albany insider writes...

---

WAMC was airing this issue for callers on The Roundtable this morning (a good pre-emptive move on their part, given their recent close association with Stone via the radio show). A lot of support for him was being expressed–matching some of the Republican rhetoric on the Bruno sentencing, to a degree.

Ward is an environmental hero and catalyst, and notably, the article does not attack his accomplishments in that context, or his pathology work.

However, he is one self-centered son of a gun, and I’ve never been too impressed during my direct interactions with or around him. Little of the criticism directed at him in the article is surprising–these issues have been swirling around the Albany environmental community for many years.

I think the article ultimately reveals that he is someone with a very strong sense of himself, someone who likely sees himself as essential to “real” environmental work in New York State, and therefore someone who feels they can bend the rules, or is entitled to something more as a result. My read has long been that Stone acts too important for himself and has perhaps become too institutionalized as the renegade, if that is possible. Factor in his age and some tough personal issues, and you’ve got the makings of a difficult character.

I don’t see the T-U at fault in this–they had real issues to work with, and someone like Ward, given his controversial roles in addition to/because of his state employment, should have left far less ammunition around for someone to use against him.

Given that few of the allegations in the article surprised me, the more interesting question is: Why make the move on him now? Who felt this was the time to force him out? I suspect a distinct lack of support from the departing Second Floor may be a key factor in that.

A media expert writes...

---

It smacks of a hit to me.

This is a man on a mission, and if he’s taken up residence in his office, that’s why. I don't believe for a second that he’s not working hard. If he’s working on “outside” projects, I’ll bet that it’s stuff he considers important that DEC won’t fund. They’ve tried to push him out for decades, and this is just the latest push.

Far from being “protected from on high,” Ward’s had his staff limited by design, had resources siphoned from his department, and, according to him, has been stuck in the same pay grade since the 1970s. To say his personal finances are in a shambles, then cite income well in excess of his debts, is really cheap, and shows that they’re desperate to discredit him in any way they can, even though they don’t have much—which casts everything they say into suspicion.

Ward has often expressed disgust with the clock punchers in the DEC, and that they lacked real commitment. Maybe his kind of passion offends other state employees. If this stuff were true, and he was just living there, freeloading, it would be contrary to every impression I’ve had of him.

That being said, he does strike me as a Norman Mailer type, so any sort of chauvinism/out of control ego issue would be par for the course.

The key question both commenters ask above—Why now?—is particularly intriguing.

It may simply be that the internal complaints at DEC had reached a point in the bureaucratic food chain where failing to let the news out would play into allegations from Stone’s more conservative critics; so maybe the State decided to leak this info to the press to cover their rumps. But given that most of the complaints are strung out over a period of many years, there doesn't seem to be an obvious catalyst for the story.

The only public controversy of any note over Stone’s recent work was DEC’s refusal to fund his proposed study of downwind mercury impacts from the Lafarge cement plant along the Hudson River—which has an air permit and planned expansion currently under review.

As the comments on the T-U’s articles indicate, the plant’s Ravena neighbors believe that this story was timed to help Lafarge. Barring any hard evidence, that seems something of a stretch, though not out of the realm of possibility. Not every situation like this is a case of follow-the-money or an Insideresque takedown. The paper’s reporters strenuously reject the insinuation that they are being used, but crazier things have been said to happen before, including some involving Odato.

Name in the news

Claverack resident Meyer (Sandy) Frucher has been in the Statewide news a lot lately. Frucher, the former head of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange and a key political mentor of Andrew Cuomo, is now the head of New York State’s Off Track Betting. OTB has come into in the media's crosshairs due to the possibility of widespread layoffs or even a shutdown—as well as complaints from breeders who seem to think Frucher has it in for them. Given his close ties to Cuomo, their call for the Attorney General (and all-but-certain next Governor) to investigate Frucher seem kind of improbable; but I don’t profess to be an expert in the politics of State-sponsored gambling....

Sweeney in Stripes

PHOTO: Union College Concordiensis (2006)

The Albany Times-Union and just about everyone else reports that former GOP Congressman John Sweeney, who has run into problems with alcohol before will go to jail due to his latest DUI arrest:

He will serve 30 days in the Saratoga County jail as part of the plea agreement following his sentencing scheduled for April 23. After Sweeney is released from jail, he will be fitted with an alcohol detection ankle bracelet, a device that reveals the presence of alcohol in the wearer's body. The system will allow Sweeney's probation officer to monitor him from a computer. It costs $4,000 a year [...]

However, by pleading guilty Sweeney evidently will manage to hold onto his law license and avoid a felony conviction. His lawyer insists he’s a “model citizen” and is being “unfairly persecuted” for driving while being a former Congressman.

Kirsten’s Catskill casino caper

In a speech not much covered by the protective mid-Valley media, New York’s junior Senator Kirsten Gillibrand touted casinos as an economic solution for Sullivan County. Here’s an excerpt from the Kingston Daily Freeman’s report:

Gillibrand told local business and community leaders on Friday that she supports the creation of Indian-run casinos in Sullivan County and said she has asked Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to reverse a decision handed down by the Bush administration that such casinos be forbidden on off-reservation land. "They serve as an economic generator for a region," said Gillibrand, D-N.Y.

Really, Kirsten?* Casinos tend to suck the life out of a community—by concentrating economic activity under their own roof, taking business away from locally-owned establishments on nearby main streets, destroying families by fostering addiction, and attracting only other bottom-feeders to the community.

Casinos don't want you spreading your money around town. They want you to stay at their own hotel, eat at their own restaurants, shop at their own gift shop, and leave the remainder of one’s disposable income (the part that should be spent on or saved for one’s kids) in their coffers. 

And casinos also encourage a socially-destructive habit, much like the lottery does. As a commenter named “Markmyword” at the Freeman’s site succinctly put it:

Senator Gillibrand is obviously ill-informed when it comes to the effects of casinos on the community. What she also doesn’t seem to know is that the Turning Stone Casino in Verona has been operating illegally for many years. What she also disregards is the fact that casinos have a very negative impact on local business, family life and the environment. Casinos rely heavily on gambling addiction which results in a rise of crime. Lastle, the tribe that owns Foxwood Casino is on the brink of default and is trying to restructure $2.3 billion in debt. The debt is $1 billion more than the tribe can sustain, and it is at risk of defaulting on a $700 million line of credit with lenders. Does the Senator really want these kinds of problems for Sullivan County. If she likes casinos so much why not put them in Columbia County?

There are many other telling comments at the Freeman’s site. For example, “sallygee1220" writes:

Visit Oneida to see a dead village. The only thing that lives is the Turning Stone. Businesses have gone under! Daily bus loads of seniors who are seduced by free buffets, free tokens and something to do with their time arrive from Syracuse. The Catskills do not need this scene.

Meanwhile, Gillibrand managed to work against the speech’s goal of demonstrating her keen awareness of local issues by getting the location wrong of the Turning Stone casino. (It’s in Verona, not Rome, New York.) instead of in Verona. The Utica Observer-Dispatch notes that

[...] some local officials said the possible gaffe shows Gillibrand, appointed as senator by Gov. David Paterson a year ago and facing re-election this year, needs to spend more time in the Mohawk Valley. Some even said Gillibrand’s praise of the casino and its impact is misguided.

State Assemblyman David Townsend, R-Sylvan Beach, said Gillibrand should drive from Utica into Madison County and look at all the mom and pop stores and gas stations that have closed because they couldn’t compete with tax-exempt Nation enterprises.

According to Hank Gross’s Mid-Hudson News service, she also used this speech to suggest that the controversial proposals to drill the Marcellus shale for natural gas would be fine, if there are “environmental safeguards.” Uh-huh. Which safeguards would those be, exactly?

(Maybe Kirsten would be happier representing the people of Wasilla; I’ve been there, and it’s not unlike Greenport, actually.)

---

* NOTE: I call her Kirsten instead of Senator because I that’s how I knew her before she ran for office. She’s a perfectly nice person, at least when she’s not bashing immigrants. But not my favorite New York Democrat, not by a longshot. Just because she’s a member of one’s party, knows one’s first name and lives nearby isn’t reason enough to be blindly loyal, when she’s wrong on the issues. And yet that’s the attitude of many Hudson Valley Dems: She's ours, so she's beyond criticism.

Taghkanic, pressed

Two pieces of Taghkanic news:

(1) The Town Clerk's office has moved to 483 County Route 15 -- click the image at right for more details;

(2) The irrepressible Rick Graham has a long “My View” piece in this weekend’s The Register-Star. Graham floats a theory about how Supervisor Betty Young might elevate Wilzig majordomo Erik Tyree to her position upon retirement:

“The Republicans asked Taghkanic Supervisor Betty Young to pony up for all the covering up they have done for her over the years and run one more term or at least until the Republicans take back the Governor’s seat, which they are almost certain to do.

“When the new Republican Governor is elected, Betty Young will then announce her retirement. Now here comes the interesting part; She will probably nominate Tyree from Independence party spewing a bunch of hogwash about how she feels that both parties are too divided to benefit the people. However, the Taghkanic Town Board is evenly divided and her pick will not be approved, she can recommend but she can’t vote on her recommendation however she can appoint a deputy and it was Tyree, the billionaire’s go-for boy and John Faso new found pet.

Then the newly elected Governor will be forced into appointing a new Supervisor and he (the Governor) will probably agree with the Republican Committee Chairman Fingar, Betty Young and wanna-be John Faso that maybe an Independence Party member is the way to go for now.”

The one big flaw with this line of reasoning is that the next Governor of New York State will almost certainly be Andrew Cuomo (whose poll numbers are in the stratosphere), not a Republican as Graham posits. Cuomo is no Coakley.

Moreover, rumors are that The New York Times is preparing a devastating exposé on the private life of current Governor David Paterson (whose poll numbers are already in the toilet), which may force him from the race:

“For about two weeks now, Albany has been buzzing that the New York Times was preparing a blockbuster scandal exposé about Governor Paterson, one that could seriously affect his chances for reelection.”

Despite recent events in neighboring Massachusetts, Cuomo would be expected to crush almost any challenger, such as possible GOP nominee Rick Lazio. And, with millions already in the bank, he is likely to run in a primary and win against Paterson if he doesn’t drop out.