Political oversight and finding a balance

Oversight is a double-edged word, especially in government.

It can mean an unintentional failure to notice or do something. Or, it can mean the opposite -- the act of scrutinizing.

Committees meant to oversee (not overlook) various topics are built into local, state and federal operations. But even as voters across Nassau and Suffolk fill 37 county legislative seats a week from Tuesday, the contests will focus only sporadically on what candidates will do to check and balance other parts of the government.

Most often, the vow of oversight (second meaning) emerges when the candidate hails from the major party opposing the executive. That's when talk flows freely about holding somebody's "feet to the fire." How competently or forcefully they follow up varies, of course.

Erratic, party-line legislative oversight seems typical. Richard Brodsky, the former state assemblyman from Westchester, is one of the few state elected officials best-known for inquiries he conducted -- in his case, on the topic of public authorities, which over a years-long period led to systemic legal reforms.

"It's absolutely essential," said Brodsky, a senior fellow these days at the nonpartisan public policy organization Demos. "A legislature without a subpoena in the right hand and a hearing notice in the left would not be able to function."

But even when aggressively deployed, oversight will have its funky distinctions.

Consider the State Senate higher education committee's hearing this week in Farmingdale into the SAT cheating ring busted in Nassau County. It drew national headlines as the College Board came forward with vows of new security measures.

Given his role, committee Chairman Kenneth LaValle (R-Port Jefferson) has tracked and addressed this kind of issue before. Five years ago, for example, he held high-profile hearings and promoted legislation in reaction to the discovery of errors in how tests were graded.

Whatever its eventual impact on state legislation, LaValle's nonideological, one-day gathering contrasts sharply in content and style with, say, hearings conducted by Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford).

After his party won back the majority last year, King resumed his chairmanship of its Homeland Security Committee.

The public proceeding's very subject and purpose made a statement and prompted emotional debate before, during and after. All fans and critics needed to know was the stated topic for it to become a lightning rod: "The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community's Response."

In Washington, individual committee chairs may, depending on the subject, have more range and choice than they do in Albany or Hauppauge or Mineola, which are smaller venues with tighter leadership.

On a federal level alone, the aggressive use of subpoenas and committee spotlights can produce famously different results. The first big-impact, nationally televised congressional hearings focused on organized crime and were led more than 60 years ago by Sen. Estes Kefauver of Tennessee. A few years later came Sen. Joseph McCarthy's famous scattershot approach to those he deemed Communists. Kefauver ended up a vice-presidential candidate; McCarthy, censured and shunned.

How the gavel is wielded, and when, makes all the difference in the American system, either nationally or locally -- a point worth considering on Election Day.