I Publius: Murray Chartock has his say
Murray the Westie pup looked up at me the other day and said, "Pop, you are getting ruder by the moment.

"It really would be great if you could just remember to introduce me to your friends. I want to know who is coming in and out of the house when you're not here. Otherwise, I have to bark at them."

"Like who?" I asked Murray.

"Like the guy with the tools who's outside building the patio," he replied.

"Shh," I said to the pup. "That's Peter Vernon, the best carpenter in the Berkshires, and I never want to hear you telling anyone about him. He's excellent, he's very reasonable. He can do anything. I beg you, don't mention his name to anybody. Our house would fall down without this guy. If the word gets out, he'll never have time to get back here.

"Look, Murray," I continued. "Don't you dare tell your Doberman friend down the street. He's got a big mouth and he'll tell someone."

Murray looked up at me, his cute little pink tongue hanging out of his mouth.

"You really are something, Pop. Why not spread the wealth? Why not share information with your neighbors? Why do you have to be so competitive all the time?"

"I don't know, Murray. Maybe it's because I grew up with a twin brother."

"Listen, Pops, I'm not your psychiatrist, I'm your dog. And that's another thing — did you really have to go and schedule eye surgery? I'm scared. I wouldn't want anyone messing with my eyes. What if something goes wrong? I'm not trained to be a guide dog. You have to get a higher education for that."

I was really touched. No one else seems to really care about the fact that I'm having a cataract removed. I mean, my kids and my wife are all sort of saying the right thing, but my beautiful little dog really cares. In fact, as he was speaking to me, I think I saw a little tear roll down his dog cheek. I told him not to worry and that everything would turn out OK.

Murray, his composure returning, soon got his old bellicose personality back.

"Pop," he said, "did you really have to go and have those business cards printed for me? How embarrassing. First of all, you put my picture on the card. And I really don't like that condescending title you gave me, 'Dog to the President (of WAMC).' And, to top it off, you give me a bogus e-mail address, Murray@wamc.org. My friend Chi-chi the Chihuahua says that she tried to e-mail me and her e-mail was bounced back."

"OK, OK," I implored him, "don't get a burr in your tail. Let me explain. First, I didn't have the card printed. My friends Dona and Selma did. They thought it was funny. They paid for it. Frankly, I thought it was very cute. The stuff about the e-mail was just part of the gag. And I loved the fact that they used your full name, Murray Chartock."

"Aw, Pops," said the cute little pup. "I'm sorry. You've got enough on your mind, what with your bad back, your extra 10 pounds, your cataract surgery, your worries about the election, your having to write this column every week. I love you, Pops, I would never hurt your feelings. You've done so much for me. You sent me to the Literacy Network to lean how to speak English, you brush me, you feed me, you pick up my poop in scented bags, and now I've gone and hurt your feelings. That isn't right."

"Of course," continued the pup, "you get yourself into a lot of trouble. I heard Mom bawling you out for your continued attempt to get the Great Barrington Mason Library open until 9 at night. I heard her say, 'Enough already, stop beating that dead horse.'

"You know," said Murray, "Mom is always right about things. Why did you have to get the library ladies mad at you? One of them is married to a sure-shot selectman candidate in the town. You know how much I want that crack in our road repaired."

I really love my little Murray.

Originally Published in the Berkshire Eagle, 5/3/08
- posted by Joe Woodruff @ 5/05/2008 08:58:00 AM

 
Paterson faces challenges as he looks to trim state spending
So let me ask you a question. What do you do when your expenses are greater than your income? The federal government, headed by self-described conservative politician G.W. Bush, just prints more money. This can lead to inflation and the devaluation of the dollar. At my house, we do what you probably do. We eat out less and stay closer to home (what with gas approaching four dollars a gallon.) It’s all quite simple -you start to make cuts in your style of living.

So what do you do if you are David Paterson, the governor of New York and one smart guy? The first thing you do to bring in the budget in a timely manner is get the three guys (speaker, majority leader and governor) into a room. Listen to them, give them what they want and hear the hurrahs and sighs of relief from all the assembled masses, including the school districts and not-for-profits that have to know what they’ll be getting. That part was very easy.

Meanwhile, back on the Street (Wall Street), there’s hell to pay. Thanks to the greedy geniuses who run the big banking houses, we are in the soup big time. The crybabies are ticked off that they can’t put more millions in bonuses into the bank and buy more second and third homes and pay for their three hundred dollar meals and their kids’ private schools. I’m not shedding any tears for those folks - I've worked for a living my whole life. The problem for the rest of us is that those Wall Street bonuses and huge profits are taxed. Unless you haven’t noticed, the Street is having a very, very, very bad year and as a result, there is less to tax. That means the budget is out of balance, big time.

So you’re David Paterson and you wake up one morning with what used to be called an Excedrin headache. Your advisers come to see you and tell you that your state revenues aren’t enough to pay the bills you just authorized running up in the newly passed state budget. So what would you tell your kids, husbands and wives to do if it happened in your house? You would tell them to stop spending so much. When a family member complained that you had authorized buying that new piece of jewelry or suit, you would respond that a new reality had set in. There just isn’t enough money for summer camp or private school or music lessons. If the situation was dire enough, you would simply have to tell them that there were no choices. In fact you might ask them, “Who do you think I am, George Bush? We can’t go on spending like drunken sailors.” You would tell them that the well had run dry and though they might want to hate you, you would just have to suffer their unhappiness.In state government, when a freeze of this sort goes on you simply say to everyone, “Tell me how you are going to save 10 percent.” A commissioner might look at all those people working for her, many with civil service protections, and say, “OK, we don’t hire anyone else.” The problem is compounded when three people in the same department retire, or quit, or are fired. Everything gets out of balance. In addition, your work force is demoralized.

Everyone has to pick up the pieces and do other people’s work, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It often leads to greater productivity. But people are scared. They think they will be fired and, as you know, when people get scared they get angry and hostile and mean. They lean on their unions to protect them and the unions lean on the politicians and the politicians start to fight with one another and pretty soon, you’ve got real trouble in state government.

Lobbyists give money and electoral support to the politicians. Subtle and not so subtle threats are made and everyone’s popularity begins to wane. So, that’s where David Paterson now finds himself. The process starts softly and the first cuts are not that hard. But as you stop cutting fat and begin cutting into muscle and bone, the body politic begins to hurt. That’s one reason why I wouldn’t like to be the governor right now, who is in the middle of a mess certainly not of his making. I can only wish him good luck and tell him that he’ll have his hand full for a while.

Originally Published in the Legislative Gazette, 5/2/08
- posted by Joe Woodruff @ 5/05/2008 08:50:00 AM

 
I Publius: Dr. Chartock talks politics and payrolls
Dear Doctor: I'm puzzled. Why is Ralph Nader running for president? I heard him on WAMC the other day, and he seems just as intent on spoiling this election as he has been in the past.

Could he be on the Republican payroll?

My boyfriend, Bruce, heard you in a debate with Nader, and he says that you don't like Nader, and Nader doesn't like you. Bruce doesn't like you, either.

Is Bruce right about this? He is wrong about so many things.

Sign me,
Hoosie in Housatonic.

Dear Hoosie:

Poor Nader. He seems to have been bitten by the fickle finger of fame. Some call him a narcissist. Some think he is unbalanced.

I know that you asked if he was on the Republican payroll. I'm sure you were just kidding about that, but he is the best friend the Republicans could ever hope to have. He keeps saying we should have a different electoral system, but he seems to forget that we live here under the present system, and that if a Republican like McCain is elected president, there will be even more justices like Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia.

That in itself would be tragic, but it gets worse. John McCain is in favor of continuing the war that was started under false pretenses, prefers a health care plan that continues to deal the greedy insurance companies in and has nothing new to say about our faltering economy. In short, despite his protests to the contrary, he is anything but an alternative to George Bush.

The American people seem evenly divided. If Nader stays in, it is more than possible that, with the right 1 percent of the vote in the right state, the balance once again could be tipped toward those who would just have us continue on the same path we have been on for so long.

Put another way, a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain.

In fact, there are some coupon-clipping liberals who, in their own minds, really will not be affected by the outcome of this election. They have enough to eat and a good place to live. They'd rather be "pure" in their beliefs with no real thought about the poor and underserved. They say that they're against the war, but they are really voting to continue it. Make no mistake about it — by voting for Nader, they are voting for McCain.

By the way, ditch the boyfriend. A woman of your charm, sophistication and sensitivity can do a lot better than this know-nothing.


Dear Doctor:

I know an ex-selectman who doesn't like you at all. He doesn't think the people really know all that much, and the folks who run our towns do all the work and are underappreciated. He says that Ph.D-professor types don't know what it's like to get your hands dirty.

I told the guy that you were once a selectman in Alford and that you worked in Congress and the state Legislature.

My question is this: All too often I don't like the choices we are getting. I have friends in West Stockbridge, Stockbridge and Great Barrington, and as we were downing some brewskis the other night, we were talking about how the people who run are so substandard that we really don't want to go out and vote for the lesser of two evils.

How come so few good people run for office and too many jerks end up winning?

Please sign me,

Ashley in Ashley Falls.


Dear Ashley:

You are very bright and a delightful letter writer. I can tell you that being a selectman or any town official is not an easy job, and people do it for a number of reasons.
The point is that there are a lot of very good people out there who could make a tremendous difference in their towns and cities, but they sit back and complain. In the meantime, towns like Great Barrington and West Stockbridge have major problems that can't seem to get resolved. I haven't run for office for a long time, but if I did, it would certainly be for the Great Barrington Library Board. My campaign slogan would be, "We paid for the library, the time has come to keep it open. This isn't a private club."

Originally Published in the Berkshire Eagle, 4/26/08
- posted by Joe Woodruff @ 4/28/2008 01:51:00 PM

 
Dr. Chartock looks at the news behind the headlines
Paterson Doing Well in the Polls
I’ve told you before that David Paterson is one smart guy. He figured out early in the game, when he was unexpectedly promoted to the governorship, that the press would be barking at his heels, playing sexual “gotcha.” Instead of letting the so-called investigative reporters sniff out the details of his personal life, he let it all hang out.

He disclosed so many dates, times and places that our brilliant journalistic community threw up its collective hands and yelled, “Uncle.” One tabloid cartoonist even painted a picture of all kinds of different people with their hands over their ears yelling, “Enough.” There is no antiseptic so great as the truth. Naturally, some of the entrepreneurial journalists tried to figure out ways to carry it forward, investigating as to whether he had used state money to travel to or pay for hotel rooms for his assignations, but they’ve apparently failed at that. There were reports that The New York Times had eight reporters crammed into their little space in Albany to chase everything down.

In addition to owning up to several affairs, Paterson admitted marijuana and cocaine use. With presidential candidates talking about that, governors are apparently off the hook. Paterson must have had tears in his eyes as he read the Quinnipiac poll results reporting that by an 84-to-14 percent margin, voters wanted the press to cut it out and leave him alone. Incredibly (sarcastic if you don’t get it), voters gave Paterson high marks for his getting a state budget through. So who said that the voters are stupid?

Voters Unhappy About Millionaires Tax
Sheldon Silver had a great plan to soak the rich. I’m all for it. He wanted to impose a tax on people who made more than a million dollars a year. This was a tax not on all of their millions, but a little extra on everything over a million. Many of us who do not make a million a year thought this was a great idea. Naturally, the hardworking lobbyists who report to said rich people had heartburn and went running to Gentleman Joe Bruno, the Senate Majority Leader (head guy). They told them that as the officially designated representative of the rich people, he should put a stop to it. So what else is new? The rich people won that round with the help, we are told, with some of the Democratic minority who had no stomach for the plan. The idea never saw the light of day. Are you surprised? That same Quinnipiac Poll that you read about above found that 69 percent of the people were unhappy about not soaking the rich. It figures, of course.

A New Plan to Deal with New York Traffic Congestion Emerges
Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who is immensely popular with his voters, doesn’t give up. You don’t get to be a billionaire by giving up. The new plan involves charging those who want to drive into New York by putting big tolls on the so-called free bridges to Manhattan - the Brooklyn and the Manhattan and all those other bridges coming from the Bronx to Manhattan. Considering the fact that the voters didn’t like Bloomberg’s old plan and actually applauded Sheldon Silver for putting a stop to it, one can only scratch one’s head and ask whether the new plan of putting tolls on the bridges will be any better received. I happen to believe in both plans. Manhattan is far too congested and public transportation is the way to go. But first, you have to make sure that the public transportation is affordable and useable. Anyone who has tried to use New York subways of late surely knows that long waits, dirty cars, and frequent signs saying what trains will not be running on which tracks are more the norm than the exception. If you want people to use the trains and the subways, make them more attractive and then take measures to make sure that people don’t drive in to the big city.

Republicans Running Attractive Candidates for State Senate
It would appear that the new strategy to save their majority is to contest seats that had been considered safe. From a strategic point of view, that is exactly the right thing for them to do. It means that the Democrats will have to use the relatively little money they have to defend seats instead of attacking marginal Republican seats. One can only assume that the popular Westchester Democratic senator, Suzi Oppenheimer, will prevail in her race against a local mayor if she runs but even she knows that democracy is well served when you have an election. That’s what it is all about.

Originally Published in the Legislative Gazette, 4/25/08
- posted by Joe Woodruff @ 4/28/2008 01:45:00 PM

 
To be Assembly speaker, first you have to get elected
Now things are getting interesting. Just in case you've been off on a trip to Mars, here's what happened. The Democratic conference (caucus) in the state Assembly said, "Hell, no" to Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal that would have imposed an eight-dollar fee on cars traveling below 60th Street in Manhattan. We hear that Speaker Sheldon Silver was actually in favor of the plan but a majority of his members were not. We also hear that Mayor Bloomberg was furious that his plan went down, taking with it the millions of federal dollars it would have brought to the city. We know that an angry Mike Bloomberg can be a fearsome thing. In fact, he has an army of little green soldiers "billions of them" that might be able to help him exact revenge on his enemies. But is Shelly Silver really Mike Bloomberg's enemy? My feeling is that he is not and should not be regarded as such.

Mike Bloomberg is at heart a good guy who wants to help his city and, with a few glaring exceptions like the failed Bloomberg plan for a West Side stadium, Shelly has been there for Mike. Bloomberg knows good government when he sees it. He's that kind of guy. In fact, he may one day be governor of New York state and he'll certainly want a transparent political system. Mayor Mike has got to know there are things a speaker can do and things he can't do. Mike knows rule number one in politics is that first you have to get elected. For his part, Shelly Silver knows that his core constituency is his Democratic conference. Shelly may have hesitatingly been for the Bloomberg plan but the members of his conference were not. They perceived the congestion pricing plan to be political death. They saw it as economically unfair to the little people who couldn't afford it and to small business owners who saw an eight-dollar charge (and much more for trucks), as potentially ruinous for their businesses. In other words, they saw it as a regressive tax on the little people and they were not going to stand for it. Shelly had to see the situation as very dangerous for his political well-being. He must have remembered when a former adversary, Mike "The Brag Man" Bragman almost got away with a coup d'etat. He went along with his conference and the plan was killed. Shelly Silver is, above all, a survivor. He survived and even prospered because of the Spitzer mess but this congestion thing was a tough one.

Now Shelly has not one but two primary adversaries in his own district. In politics, having two enemies is better than one because it divides the vote. Nevertheless, this is dangerous stuff. Despite the fact that Shelly has produced massive amounts of money and "pork" for his district, one can never take the voters for granted. I've been watching this game for some time now and I remember the late Speaker Stanley Steingut very well. His Brooklyn district threw him out despite the fact that he, too, delivered big time. There is a rumor around Albany that Mayor Mike might use some of his billions of little green helpers to "unelect" Shelly from his district. If you're out you can't be speaker, so this is tough stuff.

Hey, I thought congestion pricing was a good thing but I also recognize that we can't go around calling for more democracy in Albany while saying Shelly should be a dictator to his conference. I would also suggest that Shelly has done some heavy lifting in the past and has always come out on top. If Mayor Mike should try to exact retribution of the kind described above on Speaker Shelly and if Shelly survives and if Mayor Mike becomes Governor Mike, the mayor might rue the day he took on the speaker.

Shelly is a smart guy who knows how to work the system. You will remember the line in The Godfather better than I do when the supplicant is told that one day he might be able to do the Godfather a "service." Shelly Silver has been giving out a lot to his district for a long time. He is owed a lot of "services" by grateful constituents. If I'm Mayor Mike, I've got to be weighing the danger here. Of course, things could get really dirty. Eliot Spitzer learned the hardest of ways that when the mud starts to fly, everyone, and I mean everyone, has to be Tide clean. This whole mess could turn out to be unproductive for everyone.

Originally Published in the Legislative Gazette, 4/18/08
- posted by Joe Woodruff @ 4/21/2008 08:57:00 AM

 
I Publius: Waiting for that big, fat envelope
This is the time of year when many high school seniors get the good — or bad — news from the colleges of their choice. A thin envelope traditionally means you didn't get in, but a big, fat envelope usually contains other materials, and spells success. Some kids who don't get accepted to Harvard, Yale or Princeton believe that life is over for them. These words, from a Hunter College graduate who knows better, are for them.

It has always been a matter of pride to me that I scored a 68 (I think) on the Spanish Regents Exam in New York. I studied hard, but I just had a lot of trouble with it. On the other hand, I aced the American History with World Backgrounds test. I did not get into Harvard, although I am here to tell you that I know a lot of Harvard, Yale and Princeton graduates who did not do so well in life. I also know some who have done very well. Life is long and funny.

My point is that there are many ways to measure people. Tests and class grades are not the only indicators of success. I have met people who are geniuses and never spent a day in college. The way I see it, exams are a lot like crossword puzzles.

I know people who can zip off the Sunday Times puzzle in ink in no time flat. Of course, not all of these people are smart. It turns out that they can just do crossword puzzles. They have a genetic predisposition to being good at solving crossword puzzles in much the same way as Joshua Bell and our own Yehuda Hanani have that special musical gene.

There are people on the WAMC underwriting staff who have what we can only call the "sales gene." I think I got lucky and got the rare and highly sought after "fund drive gene."

This week, at the urging of the teachers' union, the New York State legislature put a clause in the state budget stipulating that teacher tenure decisions in the Empire State could not be based on test results — a victory for our side. One of the biggest controversies in education involves what we call "teaching to the test."

President Bush, the man who gave us Iraq, also gave us "test teaching." I'm sure that he got into Yale based on his merits and not connections, but as for the rest of us, he wanted to "assess" how well we were doing in school by the grades we got on tests.

People like education professor "The Lovely" Roselle Chartock have been railing against teaching to the test for years. For the hell of it, I argue with her, saying that we have to hold teachers and students accountable, but she wins my heart and brain every time when she reminds me that despite my own troubles with standardized tests, I have done well in life. She says, "You are living proof that using testing to measure potential is just silly." She wants us to look at the whole person and the potential within each of us.

Many of us who took the various Regents exams that all New Yorkers had to take in order to pass bought those little yellow books with samples of past years' tests. I learned a lot from those study sessions. For example, did you know that Boabdil was the last king of the Moors? When he was expelled from Spain by the sadistic Ferdinand and Isabella, he is said to have had a tear in his eye and, as I remember it some 50 years later, cried, "The last tear of the Moor." Isn't that impressive? I think that was one of the cultural questions on every Spanish Regents ever offered. It certainly prepared me for my life as a professor and radio guy.

I have this theory that all testing is based on memory. If you have trouble remembering things, your chances of getting into Harvard are seriously diminished. Not to worry, all you Harvard and Yale rejects. By not going to Yale, maybe you won't turn out to one of the worst presidents this country will ever know.

I hope I have convinced any of you who got one of those thin envelopes that your life is not over, and that you should be proud of getting rejected by Harvard. It could be argued that had you — or I — been accepted, our lives may actually have been ruined.

That is my story and I'm sticking to it.

Originally Published in the Berkshire Eagle, 4/12/08
- posted by Joe Woodruff @ 4/14/2008 10:29:00 AM

 
Hasn't heard good alternative to congestion pricing
The Democrats in the Assembly made a mistake by voting down Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan.

It really doesn’t matter where you live; New York City is the beating heart of America. We all know that. When Osama bin Laden and his despicable terrorists wanted to terrorize America, they chose downtown Manhattan not once, but twice. Wherever you live, you are aware that Wall Street is the financial capital of the country, and maybe the world. When Wall Street does well, the state coffers are filled. Those million-dollar bonuses to some very young people are taxed and when that happens, taxpayers all over New York have a reason to rejoice.

Mike Bloomberg, the term-limited mayor of New York, is admired by a lot of people because he is, above all, a problem solver. Americans love rich guys who go into politics because, as the old saying goes, “They won’t steal.” Like Gov. Nelson Rockefeller before him, Mike Bloomberg looks at a problem and tries to solve it. Take the terrible traffic gridlock. The streets of midtown Manhattan are so tied up that God forbid, if a fire or a disaster were to happen, there would be hell to pay. So Mike Bloomberg decided to do something about it. First he proposed a fairly hefty fee of $8 for anyone who took a car below 86th Street in Manhattan, and then when pressured, he moved the “fee area” downtown.

There is no doubt that like almost everything else in America, the congestion pricing plan wasn’t fair even though a similar plan was successfully put in place in London, one of the other great cities of the world. Why? Because in America the golden rule has always been, “Them that has the gold rules.” It was, of course, the poor who argued against Bloomberg’s plan since the fat cats who pay thousands of dollars for their parking places in midtown Manhattan couldn’t care less about an $8 fee every time they cross the magical line of demarcation. Naturally, some of their friends in the Democratic-controlled New York state Assembly agreed with them. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver found himself in the hot seat since some of the city folks were adamant that he had to hold out. It wasn’t surprising that this very issue became a major stumbling block for the New York state budget, which would have been delivered on time if it weren’t for the traffic mess. When the plan got to the Legislature for the necessary ratification, Gentleman Joe Bruno, the guy from upstate New York, went along. After all, he is a friend of Mike Bloomberg, one of the few people who might be able to bring the governorship back to the Republicans if he can be persuaded to run for the top office in New York. The Senate naturally backed Bloomberg.

The more it costs to bring a car into New York, the more likely it is that people will come by public transportation such as the subway, the bus or the trains run by Amtrak and the Metropolitan Transit Authority. The idea is to make most of midtown Manhattan into a giant mall. Taxis would be allowed in, but would have to pay a buck each time they crossed the congestion line. Obviously, the fee will be passed on, as it always is, to the customer.

We all know that the plan would work and that it wouldn’t be fair to the folks who for whatever reason need to drive their cars in. On the other hand, look at it this way — it is a fact that living in midtown Manhattan is already out of reach for most people. An apartment that used to rent for a hundred dollars a month is now many thousands. New York City is a magnet for the world and Bloomberg is correct to try to make it livable. It would be nice if the subways were more accessible and if public transportation was more affordable. Unfortunately, there really isn’t a good alternative to the system proposed by Mayor Bloomberg.

I have a friend who is convinced that she won’t be able to get to the hospital if she can’t drive. We all know that taxis are available for that. I confess that I occasionally drive into the city, although my wife always takes the train. I’m sure that I’ll be driving less in future. The bridges that once cost a dime or 25 cents are now as expensive as a pastrami sandwich.

No matter how much politicians want to show off for their constituencies, sooner or later, it won’t matter. The problem must be solved. The Assembly blew it.

Originally Published in the Legislative Gazette, 4/11/08
- posted by Joe Woodruff @ 4/14/2008 10:21:00 AM

 
I Publius: Ripped from the headlines
Big Oil Pressed on Profits
Nothing could better demonstrate the way in which the Bush administration, with its phony-baloney "compassionate conservatism" operates, than the fat-cat oil companies announcing record profits while some Americans went cold this winter in order to have enough money to buy groceries and medicine.

Some among us, often people who mean well but who themselves don't have to choose between being warm and eating, are applauding the high price of oil because, as a nation, we will be forced to conserve more. Okay, fair enough. We absolutely must break our reliance on fossil fuels. But is it really acceptable for the American taxpayers — already paying trillions to fund a war that is killing our kids, ruining our economy and devaluing our dollar — to cough up even more millions of dollars in taxpayer stipends to the oil companies while people shiver?

Of course, these oil companies have the chutzpah to argue that they need tax breaks to explore for more oil. As if their profits and all those deductible business expenses don't give them enough money.

I loved the Congressional hearings in which one oil muckety-muck was asked why his company wasn't investing in alternative energy approaches. The guy couldn't come up with a decent answer, although we know that when the time comes, these people will end up finding a way to charge the American people for the sun and the wind. Those beneficiaries of their campaign contributions will allow it to happen. Not only that, but when everyone buys a hybrid car out of sheer desperation, they'll end up charging us ten bucks a gallon for gas.

Wissler Takes Lead at The Mount
The Mount's new head person, Susan Wissler, is a nice lady. She's up front with the press, but she's got her hands full. I got a kick out of Shakespeare & Company founder Tina Packer's appearance at the recent public meeting. Here's the way I remember it from back in the day. Shakespeare & Company was at the Mount. They wanted to fix it up. They realized that the federal money to do that couldn't go to a presenting organization, but had to go to a preservation group. So, with a wink and a nod, Tina dispatched some board members to sit on a dormant nonprofit board that she and her husband had formed at the Edith Wharton restoration. There was hell to pay when that very board threw Tina and her group out on their Shakespearian derrieres.

There is nothing worse than a Tina scorned.

I love her, but I have been on the other side of her wrath, and it isn't pretty. So I laughed my head off when Tina stood up at the Mount meeting the other night and suggested that maybe Shakespeare & Company would be welcomed back to the Mount. At the time, I wrote that the Mount was wrong, wrong, wrong to throw Shakespeare & Company out - you can look it up. I'm still not sure whether Tina was pulling their chains or if it was a real proposal. It appears to me that Tina knows that Shakespeare & Company is going full steam ahead on a very successful capital campaign for their own campus.

On the other hand, having Shakespeare & Company back at the Mount, even part-time, can only help things. For one thing, they would attract people from all over the world. The Mount would be a living entity, not just be an old house that a famous author once called home. After all, two dead authors are better than one. It would make a class operation even more classy.

CPR: It's OK to Skip Mouth to Mouth
I've been trained in CPR a few times, starting in the Boy Scouts and as part of my duties at the Alford Fire Department. I never liked the mouth to mouth thing. Hygienic it was not. If the unfortunate recipient had eaten garlic, it really turned my stomach.

So when a high falutin' study recently directed CPR practitioners to just work on the person by pressing down on the upper abdomen between the nipples, I was relieved. Apparently we have enough oxygen in us that some blowing into the patient's mouth isn't needed. In an age of easily transmissible virus and bacterial infections, this is a welcome development. One wonders, however, why it took us so long to figure this out.

Originally Published in the Berkshire Eagle, 4/5/08
- posted by Joe Woodruff @ 4/07/2008 09:38:00 AM

 
Pay teachers what they’re worth and sort out the rotten apples
The topic is tenure for our public school teachers.

There is currently an attempt under way to modify tenure as we know it. The idea would be to hold teachers more accountable for performance. If we measure the students’ results, it is theorized, we can either reward their teachers positively with pay increases or negatively by firing them. School boards seem to love the idea while predictably, teachers’ unions are less happy about it. Even if the plan is a good one, the devil is in the details. For example, a teacher in a school with economically advantaged kids is likely to have an easier time educating her charges than someone in a school beset with problems. One approach might be to offer better pay and perks in the tougher school environments but even so, how does a teacher get around the fact that for so many reasons, it’s just harder to get at-risk kids to perform at an acceptable educational level?

There is no question that some - but certainly not all - of our schools are in bad shape. It should come as no surprise that those students who come from a lower SES or socio-economic status are at greater risk than those from our wealthier families and communities. What part of that don’t we understand? The wealthier the kids’ families, the more books, the more extra-curricular activities, the more tutors when needed. That doesn’t mean all poorer families don’t do right by their kids, but it is harder, a lot harder. We all know that parents who are college graduates earn more money. Just do some research and you’ll see I’m right about this.

One problem with modifying or even doing away with tenure is that there will inevitably be people on school boards who want to secure jobs for people they know. Right now the principal can’t just fire someone when pressured. She can argue that her hands are tied. If you don’t believe that kind of thing goes on, you are living in la-la land. One of the reasons community school boards failed in New York City is that they got very “political,” in the worst sense of the word. Trust me - a bad system would have been even worse if it were possible to fire teachers without true cause.

Years ago when I taught at New Paltz, I was called by the then college president who told me that he had been visited by a high muckety-muck senator and political boss who demanded that I should be fired because of things I was saying and columns I was writing like this one. He told me all he had to say to these mutts was that I was tenured and that I couldn’t be fired. The case for tenure there is pretty strong. On the other hand, we all know that tenure can be abused by people who “retire and stay.” Most parents know who the bad teachers in a school are and so do the other teachers. Advocates for tenure argue that a teacher can be fired but that careful records must be kept and proper procedures followed. The people on the other side of the argument say, “Oh, come on, it’s easy to say that but in practice it just isn’t done.” We all know that teachers’ unions have been known to protect under-performing teachers.

Programs like the outstanding Teach for America have proven that if you hire the best and the brightest teachers, even with limited education degrees, they can do a good job. I have called for a starting salary of $75,000 to $100,000 dollars because if you want the best, you have to pay for them. Of course, when you are paying cops a paltry $25,000 to start, it would be tough pay teachers so much more. My proposal would be to pay our teachers the right kind of money but to bargain with the teachers’ unions about terms on tenure. Naturally, most school boards hate my ideas since if they were to pay appropriate salaries, real estate taxes would go up and they’d be out on their derrieres.

According to Albany’s Times Union newspaper, New York City Chancellor Joel Klein is leading the effort to add something called “value added testing,” which would enable school leaders to compare “test results of various classes under different teachers.” Right now, school systems are using different approaches but the power of the state teacher groups is so great (they give a lot of money and in kind donations to the Senate and Assembly majorities) that there is a clause in the state budget that would demand that every district follow the same tenure guidelines. Joe Bruno and his Republican majority are kept in office by the state civil service groups, including the teachers. So, if efforts to reform tenure are unsuccessful maybe they can try it my way. Pay teachers what they are worth and bargain to reform tenure. If enough people apply because of the money it won’t be all that hard to sort out the rotten apples. That’s how to get test scores up.

Originally Published in the Legislative Gazette, 4/4/08
- posted by Joe Woodruff @ 4/07/2008 09:27:00 AM

 
I Publius
By now a lot of words have been written about Spice and the Mount. Some of them have been penned by me. So, let’s take a moment to take stock. For anyone who has put down Spice, Joyce Bernstein or Larry Rosenthal, the incredibly good people who have been less than kind to these two wonderful folks, I say “phooey” on you. If there is one thing I know about these two people, it is that they are generous, wonderful, public spirited and decent. They are also anything but stupid. They had to know that their brilliant contribution to downtown Pittsfield would be a tough go. The restaurant business is not for everyone. If you run them fairly and on the up and up (my heroes did just that) it is going to cost a lot of money and it will take an immense amount of time to make them pay. Steve Picheny did that with his wonderful Pearl’s in Great Barrington and it has turned out to be a huge present for all of us.

Joyce and Larry saw a chance to be a major impetus to bring Pittsfield out of its doldrums and they did their best. It has seemed to me, for quite some time that Pittsfield is right on the precipice. It can make it, or if people give up, it can sink like a rock. It has a wonderful mayor, an enlightened publisher of this newspaper, a committed and sagacious banker in Berkshire Bank’s Michael Daly and a group of philanthropically minded people who support institutions like the revived Colonial Theater, The Barrington Stage, the Carousel project and many other things. It is a jewel of a city surrounded by lakes and mountains, a wonderful housing stock and every ingredient to make it go and grow. It is like one of those science experiments that we all had to do in high school and college that is just waiting for one or two ingredients to make it happen.

Joyce Bernstein and Larry Rosenthal are real life heroes. They are nothing short of that. It amazes, disappoints and disgusts me that so much schadenfreude (joy in seeing someone else suffer) that has been shown in their temporarily (I hope) closing of their gift to Pittsfield. I just can’t believe that Joyce and Larry. Who have given so much to so many people, so many receptions, so many happenings, so much money, have been treated to such bad manners by so many people who have had so much to gain by their succeeding, unless, of course, something else is going on.

There have been a series of stories circulating about a few people who have it out for these two great people for some perceived slight. Let me just say, that there are some people in the world who would rather shoot themselves in the foot than enjoy success. When they dump on a great jewel like Spice, they contribute to the killing of Pittsfield. I don’t know why they do it. . These people are just there. We all know their names. Some have been unhappy all their lives. Some have lived just to rain on everyone else’s parades. Everyone else’s goodness is met by their own unhappiness. In some cases it results from paranoia. In some cases they think that when someone says “no” just one time because they just can’t give any more, that they have been slighted and they generate stories about all people in their social or religious groups being slighted.

It is time for all of us to look long and hard within and to understand what the common good is. Let each of us think this through and reflect on what we are doing to our Pittsfield which is the center of Berkshire life. I am hear by awarding Joyce and Larry the “I Publius Award of Distinction for bring Pittsfield Back to Life.” I am begging those who have been unkind and unwise to think this through. I want them to think about the next time someone wants to do something good to bring the City back to life. I want them to think about some of the shoddy letters and comments on this situation. Will the next benefactor say, “I don’t think so,” because of what they have seen happen here. I am gratified by all the wonderful people who do understand; who have written to the Eagle to support Joyce and Larry and who are begging to have Spice reincarnated. We have a choice here, the old Pittsfield with the heads held low muttering about how life has treated the city or the new one, honoring all those people who are trying so hard? Get on board everyone.

Then there are all the words about the Mount that have been written. It is a good project. It adds to the Berkshires as a travel destination. It is a museum dedicated to our understanding of the life of Edith Wharton, It fits beautifully with all of the culture that makes the Berkshires a center for people who care about the arts, music and dance. It would appear that the folks who have run it have not been expansive enough in bringing all of us in. Apparently, those who get on the board have to come up with big bucks to do that . This is a terrible mistake. All kinds of people have different levels of energy and money to bring to a board. Money should never be the bottom line for all board members. My one piece advice to the people who are putting it all together is to make sure that the rationale for supporting the Mount is made clear and then to open what has been a closed effort to everyone. It would be awful to see the place close but, right now, I don’t see the momentum to make it happen. I have seen places like The Saratoga Performing Arts Center turn around from a disaster to a going concern. I would love to ee that happen here. If anyone, or anything stands in the way of that happening, it may be time to consider a change.

Originally Published in the Berkshire Eagle, 3/29/08
- posted by Joe Woodruff @ 3/31/2008 09:34:00 AM

 
Are the sexual habits of our state leaders really that important?
Why would anyone want to be governor of New York? Come on, we’re all human. You know the facts. More than half of our marriages end in divorce. Polls find more than half of married couples admit to at least one extra-marital affair. Apparently the condition of monogamy is not always an easy one. Why is it that you can be a state worker or a state legislator, an attorney general or a college professor or a lieutenant governor and not be held accountable for infidelity? But let a president or a governor get caught and the press and public will nail his tail to the wall. It is a simple matter of sexual titillation combined with a repressed American puritanical streak that won’t give up.

Of course, it wasn’t always that way. In the old days, people may have known about their leaders’ sexual activities but it didn’t seem to matter. We respected their privacy and it wasn’t the blood sport it is today. Let’s see, there was Kennedy, Roosevelt, and Ike, to name just a few. Then somewhere along the line, things changed. Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller, whose contributions to state government are at the top of the chart, will most often be defined by the sexual circumstances surrounding his death. Most people have no idea of how their tax dollars are being spent, yet let a top politician unzip his fly and the newspapers, smelling a good story, will run with it for days. We get it all ¯ from Eliot and the high priced call girl to Paterson and his dalliances, complete with names, dates and costs of the hotel rooms. It’s far more than we deserve to know. The most sanctimonious and probably the most miserable among us tell us that it is a matter of morality and trust. They scream, “If you can’t trust them in the bedroom, then how can you trust them to lead?”

I’ve been thinking about this for a long time and would refer you to “The Pyramid of Political and Sexual Responsibility.” I was explaining it to a class the other day. Under the PPSR, assemblymen and senators can fool around. Not all of them, of course, but them that wants to, can, because we don’t really care. The higher up the pyramid you are, the more danger you are in. If Eliot Spitzer had stayed attorney general, he could have fooled around all he wanted to. If David Paterson had stayed lieutenant governor, he could have had as many girlfriends as he wanted. Who cares what a lieutenant governor does? Most people don’t even know who the guy is. We once sent a bunch of reporters out to ask that very question in the state capital. No one, I mean no one, knew.

This is wild. Even before Paterson took the oath, the word “girlfriend” was on everyone’s lips. It was OK by me but not for the sharks. Apparently it’s OK for number two, but not number one. And if the sex police get Paterson, then who comes next? Gentleman Joe Bruno, that’s who. We all wait with great anticipation. Can he pass the sex test? He has already told us that his marriage to his late wife had some rough patches. It’s like Cinderella and the glass slipper. We’ll just keep lining them up and trying them on. We all know how the game gets played. Just look at Bill Clinton. The sex was consensual but it was the lying about the sex that done him in. Yeah, right. Now with Paterson it’s not the sex but whether he used campaign funds for any scheduled liaisons. That’s right, campaign funds. I know what we’ll do ¯ we’ll go to Paterson’s new chief of staff, a tough ex-Jesuit priest who made his reputation running down sexual predators in the Catholic clergy.

This whole thing could turn into a wildfire of sexual McCarthyism or a kind of Chinese sexual cultural revolution with people wearing dunce caps with the word “cheater” on them, and that’s just for starters. There is the distinct possibility that no politician could make the cut. After the hypocritical Republicans dumped Gingrich they voted in a perfectly nice man named Livingston but had to dump him, too, because he also had a girlfriend problem and they would have looked like hypocrites after what they did to Bill Clinton.

It’s absurd. We are sexual beings. Sure, if sickos pick on children or commit rape or hurt others they should be held accountable but when they do what Irving Berlin once referred to as “what comes naturally,” we just have to leave them alone. If we can have a good health care system and good schools, catch criminals and give people decent, affordable housing, that’s what politics should be about and what we should rate our politicians on. In other words, enough already! And to the journalists and others who carry this on I can only say, “Be careful where you throw that first stone.”

Originally Published in the Legislative Gazette, 3/28/08
- posted by Joe Woodruff @ 3/31/2008 09:08:00 AM

 
I Publius: Kid gangs thriving in Housatonic

If memory serves me correctly, there were gangs in Housatonic, part of Great Barrington, back in the '70s. People banded together, a crime watch was established and a serious situation was mitigated.

Now we are told that there is big trouble back in that increasingly gentrified little hamlet. I have heard from a mother of two that she is sick with worry over the fact that a group of rowdy youths have been threatening people and even assaulting them. She is terrified that her young child will meet up with these bullies. In one case, a store owner was reportedly assaulted after asking the kids to disperse.

This is not just a bunch of rumors run amok — there really does seem to be reason to worry.

There's talk around the town that the police claim there is nothing they can do because the kids are so young. This turns out not to be true. Chief William Walsh says that the police are all over it.

"These people are no strangers to us," he said.

Walsh makes it clear that they come from dysfunctional families and had little good parenting.

A few have already served jail time and others are on probation and parole. This gives the police something to work with, since anyone found violating parole can be thrown back into the hoosegow.

In addition, the police say they will increase patrols, including stationing an officer on the street once the department gets up to full capacity. This is serious business, especially when these errant individuals menace store owners and others. We're not living in the wild west or an inner city with all its crime problems. We are talking about a lovely little village. It's very, very dangerous.

Look at it this way: If your kid was being beaten up, you would be worried sick over it.

Obviously, the age of the perp has little to do with the degree of harm he could cause. District Attorney David Capeless is aware of the situation and is keeping on top of it. He can make inquiries and urge action on the part of the police, but can only do something if charges are actually brought in juvenile court. Once that happens, he said, his office will deal with the matter appropriately.

He isn't alone in his frustration. The police also say that they can't do anything unless specific charges are brought. Put yourself in the place of someone who has already been assaulted by these characters. It's a trap. If you bring charges, you risk retribution, and if you don't, there is nothing that can be done. Things get worse for everyone.

Of course, as in the case of the great parking lot controversy of yesteryear, there will be some who believe these miscreants should be coddled. I am not one of them. When the kids in the parking lot were treated with tough love, things got better. You can now walk there without being verbally abused.

Capeless oversees and organizes juvenile justice round tables with the intent of focusing on kids heading for trouble and trying to keep them out of the criminal justice system before things go bad. Capeless says, "If there are trouble-makers, that will be a topic of discussion at the next meeting."

Capeless continues, "We can't let these kids think that they have the upper hand." He is well-known for not letting thugs get away with criminal behavior.

Understandably, people are scared. But like in every Western you've ever seen, there finally comes a time when people band together and insist that something must be done. In numbers, there is strength.

One resident ("Don't use my name," she pled) told me that she was locking her doors early and detailed some of the vandalism that has been going on in the town. Flowers have been destroyed and money that has been sunk into playgrounds is for naught when the very kids that were supposed to benefit go on a destructive rampage.

If the town gets scared and no one brings charges, I guarantee you that the trouble will get worse. Gangs are a growing menace in this country. When the drug task force and the district attorney came into Great Barrington, things changed for the better. It may be time to saddle up the horses once again.

Originally Published in the Berkshire Eagle, 3/22/08

- posted by Joe Woodruff @ 3/24/2008 09:09:00 AM

 
Who wins and who loses in recent scandal?
It’s funny how things work. There is something one can only call the “news cyclone.” It comes. It strikes. It’s gone. L’affaire Spitzer is over but while it lasted, it was really something. I couldn’t put down the phone, so frequent were the requests for quotes, commentary, “phoners,” and TV interviews. There were calls from the New York Times, USA Today, CBS “Early Show,” and more. And then, just as fast as it blew through, it was done. Here are a few of the questions that came up along with my answers:

First and foremost, “Why did Eliot do it?” Every armchair psychologist has weighed in, from the despicable right wing radio host who seems have blamed Silda Wall Spitzer for her husband’s failings to those who said it was proof of his arrogance and others who offered more formal psychiatric diagnoses like “borderline personality disorder,” bipolar disorder,” “sexual addiction,” “poor little rich boy syndrome” and “narcissism.” Who knows? Here was Spitzer spending big money on prostitutes when it was he who had upped the penalty on johns, prosecuted prostitution rings and insisted on laws compelling bankers to highlight “irregular transactions.” There does seem to be something slightly — meshugene — (a technical term) here. Is this a man asking to be punished for all his achievements or a guilt ridden man asking to be caught? I don’t know. I know and like Spitzer and have to confess to feeling disappointed and a bit angry. He set us back. You should see all the mail I’m getting from the right wing nut jobs who think that visiting a prostitute negates all the good things and the good policy the man stood for.

Here’s another question I keep hearing: “What’s the difference between Eliot Spitzer and his successor, David Paterson?” Answer: About three football fields. When all is said and done, there are huge differences and some prominent similarities between the men. Peel away the layers and Spitzer is a center right Democrat. He took no prisoners, expected that the government would be run in an efficient and prudent manner and was afraid of no one, including some people that he should have been afraid of. He had no guiding constituency. His father provided the role model of a very tough businessman.Contrast that with Paterson, son of the legendary Basil Paterson, former Secretary of State, a leading Harlem political force and a man who knows all the inside players and has worked with them for years. David Paterson, legally blind, knows what it is to face challenges. If there is a single thing that shines through in my conversations with Paterson, it is his humility and innate decency. He is self-effacing and bright as can be. For years, he has been fighting on behalf of the citizens of his Harlem senatorial district and has taken on some very controversial subjects including aberrant police behavior. A realist, he knows what can be accomplished but he always believes in a conciliatory approach. So many people have asked me whether the budget process will be hopelessly deadlocked with Spitzer gone and I respond, “On the contrary.” Paterson has a long history of being a good, pragmatic negotiator who knows when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em. Even as he was trying to beat Republican Senate leader Joe Bruno’s brains in by taking the Senate, the two men were always cordial. No one moved outside the established political rules. Contrast that with Spitzer, who played as if there were no rules and who must have frightened Bruno half to death. When that kind of thing happens, paranoia sets in. Bruno must have thought Spitzer had something to do with the FBI investigation into his activities. Bruno’s relief at seeing Paterson accede to the governor’s chair must be palpable. My bet is that Bruno and Paterson will reach some fast compromise with Shelly Silver. They all know that an on-time budget is symbolic of an end to Albany dysfunction.

So who were the winners and losers in all of this? Winner number one, Paterson and loser number one, Spitzer. Bruno wins just by having Spitzer gone and Shelly Silver wins by staying where he is. There are some who will tell you that when Paterson was trying to take the Senate, Silver was viewed with some suspicion because the Senate Democrats suspected that he wanted to be the head Democrat and didn’t want to share power. Trust me, the two men from Manhattan will get along very, very well. Andrew Cuomo, the always ambitious attorney general who would like to be governor, is in a tough place. He made a lot of powerful enemies in the black community when he ran against Carl McCall in a Democratic primary. He had to leave the gubernatorial race and rebuild all his fences. Now McCall is a prime adviser to Paterson and if Cuomo runs against the first African-American governor, he will have hell to pay. Wow, what a week.

Originally Published in the Legislative Gazette, 3/21/08
- posted by Joe Woodruff @ 3/24/2008 09:03:00 AM

 
I Publius: The downfall of Governor Eliot Spitzer
I've known Eliot Spitzer for years and have interviewed him countless times on WAMC.

So effective was he as a fighting New York Attorney General that he won overwhelming election to the governor's job. With his commitment to changing the dysfunctional nature of New York state government, he brought a breath of fresh air to the governor's office.

I believed in him, as did an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers. Our own James Taylor sang at his inauguration, alongside the incomparable Natalie Merchant. He has money, a beautiful wife, and three gorgeous children.

But now it seems he was leading a double life, apparently consorting with prostitutes. The thousands of people who believed in him, all of those who depended on him in the work place, are left hanging out to dry.

The right wing press is having a field day, and those who wanted state government to keep on being a closed and safe place to do business couldn't be happier. The inside lobbyists are rejoicing.

I have a friend who is one of those lobbyists. I met him one night and he told me that Spitzer would be turned into mincemeat. Sure enough, Eliot is out and things revert to normalcy. They may have been out to get him and they got what they wanted, but they never would have if he hadn't cooperated. So let's look at Eliot.

As attorney general, he increased the penalties on johns, a nod to his feminist constituency. Henceforth, the clients would be held just as or more responsible than the prostitutes they paid. He knew all about the 1910 Mann Act, yet brought prostitutes across state lines.

How could someone as knowledgeable about the law allow himself to participate in an illegal enterprise so likely to result in blackmail? It's something the shrinks will have to figure out.

In one poll, more than 60 percent of Americans admitted they had strayed beyond marital boundaries. They had affairs. Spitzer is a handsome, powerful man, and he could have had all kinds of girlfriends. Trust me, he would not be the first politician to do so. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., they all reportedly went there, but this was something else. This was illegal.

Spitzer brought down some very corrupt practices on Wall Street and, when his trouble was announced, there was said to be cheering and a sense of vindication on the part of those who had done some bad things. It's almost as if Spitzer's consorting with prostitutes made the bad guys' actions OK.

A guy I had met at the farmers market who had come down on Eliot asked me today if I now understood what he was talking about. Answer: No way. We really have to differentiate between Eliot Spitzer, the flawed human being, and the Eliot Spitzer who did some very good things and who contributed greatly to the way we think about government.

I can't tell you how many friends I have in state government who gave up better paying jobs to hitch their wagons to this rising star. Some of his staff were seen openly crying at their desks. Their futures and the futures of their families are now up in the air.

And don't forget the 70 percent or so of the people who voted for Spitzer in the last election. Many of them are dazed and grieving.

The psychiatrists and psychologists (not to mention the tabloids) are going to have a field day trying to figure out what makes Eliot tick. Maybe he went to a prostitute because he thought doing that would be better for his wife and family than taking a mistress.

We are all capable of extraordinary self-deception. The word "arrogance" is being used over and over again. Maybe so; maybe borderline personality disorder would describe the man. Maybe he was just wound too tight and couldn't stand the pressure. His wife, Silda, never made any pretense about her dislike for him going into politics, but once he did, she fully supported him.

Lots of people think Spitzer was being targeted. Not a bad theory, but they couldn't have gotten him if he didn't cooperate. The sheer daring of what he allegedly did is beyond comprehension. I lie awake at night trying to figure it out.

Think of all the disappointed, unhappy people who pinned their hopes on him. I'm one of them. It's a very, very bad dream.

Originally Published in the Berkshire Eagle, 3/15/08
- posted by Joe Woodruff @ 3/17/2008 08:43:00 AM

 
True heroes are hard to come by
Wow! So there I was, sitting in a radio studio talking to a doctor for a “Medical Monday” program, when our senior correspondent, Brian Shields, rushed into the studio with a one sentence bulletin. The Associated Press succinctly stated that The New York Times had learned Eliot Spitzer had admitted doing business with a prostitution ring. I was sure someone was pulling our collective leg. I know Eliot Spitzer fairly well, having interviewed him many times. I have always admired him, and I considered him to be a model of probity and rectitude, a man who would hold everyone responsible for illegal or immoral acts. He brought order to Wall Street, he indicted and prosecuted prostitution rings. He has been a leader in environmental and education reform and he was determined to do for New York state government what he did for — or to — Wall Street.

He is wealthy. He has a wonderful, loving family, and now this. His enemies rejoiced. Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco immediately called for the governor’s resignation. There was cheering on Wall Street when the news came over the ticker. This was “get even” if ever there was such a thing. There was joy in Mudville, and the mighty Eliot struck out. This was not a policy matter like Troopergate or giving driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. Nope, this was a stunner. As the great songwriter Christine Lavin once wrote, “What Was I Thinking?” Before you do something wrong, you should just assume that you will get caught and have to pay for it.

All too often, people don’t consider the consequences of their actions. They just do whatever it is they do and expect they won’t have to pay. My bet is that every single person reading this column has done some unwise thing at sometime in his or her life. Alan Dershowitz, discussing the Spitzer scandal, seems to think that it shouldn’t be a big deal since in his words, “...it’s been going on since King David.” Nevertheless, this society loves nothing more than a good sex scandal and frankly, that doesn’t speak well of us. For a smart man, Spitzer seems to have overlooked the fact that he lives his life in a goldfish bowl and if anybody has to be squeaky clean, it is he.

The other day my wife and I were sitting in Manhattan’s Beacon Theater at a Levon Helm concert when a guy tapped me on my shoulder and handed me a lit marijuana cigarette. I almost fell over and yelled “No!” in the guy’s face. I’m 66 years old and have never touched the stuff, figuring that as soon as I did, someone would slap the cuffs on me and my life would be ruined. I know that may seem a bit paranoid, but it does get to the question of how a sitting governor with a face that everyone knows might put himself in the clutches of a potential blackmailer. These prostitutes are not exactly social workers. As soon as that prostitute found herself in a jam, she’d give up Spitzer faster than an express train in order to get a walk for herself. Spitzer has to know all of that. His actions defy logic.

Eliot Spitzer is an attractive man. He could have had any number of girlfriends and trust me on this, he would not have been the first powerful politician to do so. Instead, he gets himself into a mess with the federal prosecutors who, one can only assume, couldn’t be happier to bring down a major Democratic scalp. Anyone who reads about how politicized the Justice Department has become could have no doubt about any of that. We have heard a lot lately about “suicide by cop,” this would appear to be suicide by federal prosecutor.

When David Paterson, who I admire and respect, succeeds to the governorship, New York will be in the hands of a different kind of politician. Should the Democrats win one more Senate seat, the composition of the Senate would then be 50-50. At present, the lieutenant governor is the tie-breaker. At the point he becomes governor, there will be no tie-breaker. What a mess! The next in line will be Republican Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, Spitzer’s arch-nemesis. Now there will be no Spitzer to help the Senate Democrats to win. One can only imagine what is going on in the minds of the ambitious attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, who has always wanted to be governor. It’s taken him years to repair the damage done when he took on Carl McCall in a primary, alienating an awful lot of African-American voters. Can you imagine the dilemma that now faces him? How about Michael Bloomberg who has said he would not run against Spitzer? Would he run against David Paterson?Talk about a falling star. This is a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions. It reminds us that human beings are fallible and corruptible and that heroes are hard to come by. I don’t know about you, but it suggests to me that the human condition is lamentable.

Originally Published in the Legislative Gazette, 3/13/08
- posted by Joe Woodruff @ 3/17/2008 08:36:00 AM

 
I Publius: Mistakes were made at Mount
I recently received a letter from a man for whom I have immense respect. He is a major part of our business community and he is very bright. Whenever he writes or calls me, I listen carefully.

He is really upset about the threatened foreclosure of The Mount, the historic home of Edith Wharton. He reminded me that I run a major company (WAMC) with an $8 million budget and insisted, "If you filled in a structural deficit with borrowing instead of fundraising, you'd be fired in a heart beat."

He noted that the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office's Division of Public Charities publishes a handbook for nonprofit leaders. Their first duty, he says, is to make sure that their organizations are on sound fiscal footing.

Pointing a finger at the current administration and the small board that runs The Mount, he says what everyone else seems to be saying: "The Mount is obviously worth saving ... but not without serious structural changes."

It really does make one wonder. We at WAMC go through a major audit each year. The auditor reports to the Board of Trustees who ask very pointed questions. One wonders whether the board of The Mount was doing the same thing.

This isn't the only mail I've received about The Mount. Said one writer, "What The Mount needs is not a last-ditch effort to send good money after bad, what it desperately needs is new leadership."

The thrust of this letter is that the board of The Mount is too small and too distant. Others have called me and suggested that more Berkshire County folks should be included on the board so that those closest to home would be involved.

There are other problems. For example, there is the way in which we are told that a major donor is out there ready to match received funds, which may mean several million dollars. I'm sure it is true, but for some, the story strains perceptual credulity. If the wolf is at the door, you would think the mystery donor would put up the relatively small amount of money that the bank demands on a regular basis.

There are boards on which the founder or top leader does not like to risk dissonance. The consequence is that the board is kept small.

Finding people who are willing to serve is not always that easy.

Then, too, The Mount has another problem and that is the matter of an understandable mission. If your local fire department asks you for money, you may well give it. You know that we need a local fire department. Ditto your hospital. If our little Fairview in Great Barrington closes up, we are in big trouble. If the college to whom you owe your career asks you to kick in, you do it. Same thing with your religious institution.

It is true that The Mount brings in tens of thousands of people each summer. Far-sighted business people will recognize that it is in their interest to bring more tourists to the area.

A group of history buffs and town folks from the Great Barrington Historical Society have come together to make the newly acquired Wheeler House into a town museum. But after an initial burst of success, that project has run into some road blocks. Unlike the Edith Wharton board, the Great Barrington Historical Society has taken a great interest in the project, brought in a professional fundraiser and tried to include all the town stake holders in it. That's smart.

I recently spoke to one successful not-for-profit executive who wanted to know why people would give to something from which they were not getting a direct benefit. Said my not-for-profit friend, "Why would anyone give to a house?"

Well, not so fast. These are not just any houses. They are museums. They show how people lived at another time. They give us yet another reason to be proud of our Berkshire homes. New York City has the Statue of Liberty, we have these gems.

The problem, at least in the case of the Edith Wharton restoration, is that mistakes have been made.

The advice I would give is to play it straight, point to the place's successes, don't do silly things like putting family on the payroll and build a Board of Directors that can afford to help in a big way. It is essential that mistakes are corrected lest we lose a tremendous part of the Berkshire cultural scene.

Originally Published in the Berkshire Eagle, 3/8/08
- posted by Joe Woodruff @ 3/10/2008 08:33:00 AM

 
All eyes will soon be on the Democrats
Okay, here we go. For some time now I have been predicting the imminent takeover of the New York state Senate by the Democrats. This means the end of Joe Bruno as a major political force in New York state; the ascendancy of Eliot Spitzer over politics in the Empire State; the end of lobbying firms with connections to the Bruno machine; a major loss for the Rupert Murdoch operatives who have been helping Bruno and trying to destroy Spitzer; an end to the various nonsensical Bruno schemes like Troopergate and the rise to power of a group of fairly ill-prepared Senate Democrats who are an upwardly mobile district attorney’s middle of the night happy dream.

The recent loss of an almost purely Republican Senate seat up on the Canadian border has led a group of Republican operatives to wonder how, having lost this election, they could win any election. The handwriting is on the wall. The upcoming presidential election will bring out New York Democrats in droves and keep dispirited Republicans at home. When they are through voting for the Democrat at the top of the ticket, they will keep voting Democratic right down the line. Even if it doesn’t replicate the Republican disaster upstate, the influx of voters of color and young voters in New York City could prove disastrous for the Republicans. Many people are still naive enough to believe that all the Senate Republicans are upstate or in the suburbs. That is not even close to being true. In the New York City area alone, six Republicans are not only growing older but are on very soft political ground. In fact, some of these folks would be in real danger if previously politically marginalized, poor, African American or Hispanic voters came out to vote in large enough numbers. With the potential candidacy of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, the end could be near for Bruno and company.

The FOB (Forces of Bruno) are in some disarray after their terrible loss in the north country. As a result, they have, in the words of one observer, been rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They have fired some of their best campaign operatives and are hiring new ones. If the new hires are like the ill-fated Roger Stone who Bruno had to dispense with, allegedly because the dirty tricks got out of hand, the die will be cast for what we can expect during the run up to the November elections. No prisoners will be taken in this coming war. There will be dirty tricks galore. The number one argument we will hear is “….if the Democrats take the Senate, New York City will run everything.” It will be up to the Democrats to counter that statement. They will point to the lengths to which Shelly Silver and the Assembly Democrats have gone to make sure that things were evenly divided. They’ll need to emphasize how Governor Spitzer has been hell bent on improving the upstate economy that has been languishing under Pataki-Bruno rule. Recently Mayor Michael Bloomberg has let it be known that despite his assertions of independence, he favors maintaining Bruno, the alleged upstate spokesman, in power. Now why in the world would the mayor of the Big Apple be for the upstate guy who represents the voters of everything north of Yonkers and not the voters in the city? It doesn’t make a lot of sense unless Bloomberg is planning to run against Spitzer, something he keeps saying he isn’t going to do.

The Senate Democrats had better get their act together. As I have written before, there are some very suspect members of that conference who may be tempted to misbehave once they attain the majority. Since it will be at least two years before the state has to redistrict in a fair way (absolutely ensuring that the Democrats will hold power forever in the Senate), they have the power of their own self-destruction in their hands.

There are those who believe that Speaker Shelly Silver and the Assembly Democratic majority don’t want the Democrats in control in the other house. Right now, it is suggested, they can keep on passing one-house bills of ethics reforms and redistricting. But if all the power resides with the Democrats, they may actually have to produce some results that the people have been after for years. Silver has told me again and again that he wants the Democrats to take the Senate. It is no secret that he has had real problems over the years with Joe Bruno.

So there it is. The Democrats will take the Senate. Bruno and his gang will be out and we will wait with bated breath to see if the Donkeys will screw it up.

Originally Published in the Legislative Gazette, 3/7/08
- posted by Joe Woodruff @ 3/10/2008 08:25:00 AM

 
Weak laws absolutely allow power to corrupt
If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it a thousand times: “They’re all a bunch of crooks.” Every year, some student reports that her parents, upon hearing that she is going to do an internship in the Legislature, tell her that the people she will be working with are ethically challenged. That, of course, is nonsense. They have far too much to lose. They could go to prison. They could lose their offices. They could be forced to pay fines. They would forever be known as crooks. Their kids would be ashamed. Their kids’ kids would be ashamed.

It is just plain stupid to break the law, especially when you don’t have to. But there’s breaking the law and not-quite breaking the law. It’s all about how you play the margins. When a legislator starts to skirt the law and gets away with it, he’s only encouraged to keep doing it. One day, there comes the inevitable knock on the door. There are those who forget the rules or bend the rules. Remember, as legendary ward heeler George Washington Plunkitt is reported to have said, “There is graft, and there is honest graft.” In other words, why would you break a law when you don’t have to?

Several published newspaper accounts have the FBI investigating State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno. What for? Well, it seems that he had this consulting company and that company may have been involved in unethical and possibly illegal behavior. Of course this is not the first time we have heard such accounts. So far, no one has been willing or able to lay a hand on Bruno, who just announced that he has broken off a long-term relationship with a firm that apparently figures prominently in the FBI’s interest in him.

Back in the day, Gov. Mario Cuomo was hot to trot on ethics reform. Knowing that they had a good thing going, the Legislature was not so anxious to give the governor what he wanted, strict controls on the way legislators could behave and make money on the outside. They asked Cuomo for a lot in order to go along, and he gave them much of what they wanted. In the end, Cuomo didn’t get much for his legislative largess. After the smoke cleared, it turned out that there would be two state ethics commissions. One would really ride herd on the members of the executive branch. But the legislators, many of whom had law practices and consulting businesses, were the problem, and they got to appoint their own “do-nothing” commission. If a legislator wished to do something that was dubious or marginal, that commission stood ready to write an “advisory opinion” that permitted the behavior. In a new round of reforms announced by Gov. Eliot Spitzer, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and the same Joe Bruno who is being investigated by his own Republican Justice Department, a new ethics commission has been formed. It does away with the old “Lobbying Commission” which was a pretty good watchdog.

In the end, it comes down to this: legislators do favors all the time for people who then, at the appropriate time, often do favors for the legislators. As long as there is not a specific quid pro quo, as in “If you pass this bill or get a state agency to do something for me, I’ll give you a campaign contribution,” everything will be OK. A second rule is “Never speak into a bugged listening device.” Nevertheless, there are foolish people who think that if they have power, they have the God-given right to exercise it and to personally profit from that power.

There’s a bit of a buzz around the Legislature that with even money on the Democrats finally taking the state Senate this year, some members of the Democratic Party will not be able to handle the heady power and will do things that will get them into a great deal of trouble. Specific names are even being bandied about. Obviously, as power shifts to the Democrats, committee chairmanships will be given out to Democratic senators, some of whom have been dreaming about this for a long time. Someone who becomes head of a committee as powerful as the Banking Committee who doesn’t know where the ethical lines are drawn could lose perspective and get into bad trouble.

The legislature has it pretty good. Many of these people do varying amounts of work in their districts. The weak legislative ethics law makes it clear that New York legislators who are lawyers get to keep practicing law as long as they don’t share in any deal having to do with state government. Who’s fooling whom? If you want to get something done and can go to a law firm employing a state senator or assemblyman who has a lot to do with who gets to be a judge, who would you choose?

Originally Published in the Legislative Gazette, 2/22/08
- posted by Joe Woodruff @ 2/27/2008 09:03:00 AM