Ethics bill seeks to prevent 'witch hunts'

The state's new ethics legislation has a novel political edge.

Its language deals explicitly with the party affiliations of those who might be ordering up investigations -- and of those who'd be investigated.

The bill approved this week by the Senate and Assembly -- now awaiting Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo's signature -- creates a 14-member Joint Commission on Public Ethics that for the first time would oversee legislative and executive offices.

Proponents say the unique language assures against partisan "witch hunts." Detractors claim it could effectively stymie actions against violators. It looks as if we're going to find out, one way or other, in the next few years.

The framework:

The governor would appoint six members of the new panel with recommendations from the attorney general and comptroller. Three of these must be "enrolled members of the major political party in which the governor is not enrolled," the bill states. So in Cuomo's case, that means three of his six picks must be in the GOP.

The Assembly speaker, currently a Democrat, gets to pick another three members. The Assembly minority leader, Republican, picks one. In turn the Senate majority leader, currently a Republican, gets to pick three members, the Democratic minority leader, one.

So you get what would seem to be an even split of seven Democratic or Democratic-friendly picks, and seven Republican or Republican-friendly picks.

Here's where it starts getting unusual.

For one thing, this partisan split gets locked in past the current election. If, for example, Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) becomes minority leader again in 2013, he or the next GOP Senate leader would still get to choose a successor should one of his commission appointees leave.

In other words, those three picks would belong permanently to the Senate Republicans, no matter the size of that caucus. Same would go, of course, for Speaker Sheldon Silver's Democrats, in the lower house.

Sources said Skelos pushed behind the scenes for this language as part of a final compromise -- to avoid the prospect of a Democratic majority coming to power and using the commission as an electoral tool against its GOP rivals.

The new arrangement's checks and balances get more complicated when it comes time for the panel to vote on whether to pursue a case.

Take, for example, this sentence in the bill:

"Where the subject of . . . investigation is a member of the Legislature, or a legislative employee, or a candidate for Legislature, at least two of 8 or more members who vote to authorize such an investigation must have been appointed by a legislative leader or leaders from the major political party in which the subject of investigation is enrolled, if such person is enrolled in a major political party."

In effect, that means if a suspect lawmaker belongs to Silver's conference (as have a number of convicted ex-assemblymen from New York City), two appointees of a Democratic elected official would have to approve the probe.

Said a veteran insider versed in the current system: "If someone had designed a reform bill to fail, it might look a lot like this one."

But Cuomo spokesman Josh Vlasto says: "Checks and balances, both between the branches and between the parties to avoid partisan witch hunts, are essential."