QUESTION
What are the issues with the current post-employment restrictions for public officials in New York City?
1:27:32
·
3 min
The council member argues that the current post-employment restrictions for public officials are insufficient and allow for 'legal corruption.'
- A former mayor's chief of staff was able to start a $24 million lobbying practice within 24 hours of leaving city government.
- The council member claims there are numerous examples of officials exploiting loopholes in the restrictions.
- The Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) defends the overall effectiveness of the restrictions for most of the 300,000 public servants.
- However, COIB acknowledges there may be room for future evaluation and adjustments, particularly regarding post-employment communication bans.
- The council member strongly criticizes COIB's stance as contradicting its mission to preserve public trust and integrity in government.
Lincoln Restler
1:27:32
But haven't you testified today that that isn't the case?
1:27:34
I mean, we've acknowledged 10 times on the record day that the most powerful person in the city of New York shy of the mayor himself.
1:27:41
In city government could lobby 99% of city officials hours after leaving public service.
1:27:47
How is the current law working well?
1:27:49
How are do we have the appropriate restrictions in place?
1:27:52
I'm flabbergasted by Coip's approach to this.
Ethan Carrier
1:27:55
Well, I I I mean, we didn't write the law that exists today.
1:27:59
Right.
1:27:59
But you're
Lincoln Restler
1:28:00
saying that you don't wanna see changes to it at this time, and that is shocking to me considering that we can all see that the current law is broken.
1:28:07
We have far more great we have far greater restrictions in Albany, New York, in the biggest swamp of in this, like, entire United States than we do here at city hall.
1:28:17
How is that acceptable?
Ethan Carrier
1:28:19
Council member, I I think that you've identified 1 per in who may need one position in city government that may need greater restrictions.
1:28:29
It's not to say that
Lincoln Restler
1:28:30
No.
1:28:31
I'm just giving an example.
1:28:32
I want to be clear.
1:28:33
I could keep going if you'd like me to.
1:28:34
It's just a very ripe one.
Ethan Carrier
1:28:37
What I'm what I'm trying to say is I we've had opposed new newly enhanced post employment restriction, right, in effect for just a couple of years.
1:28:48
It's, you know, there is no such thing as a law that fits perfectly for every person.
1:28:54
Right?
1:28:54
There is always gonna be some people for whom the law is applying perhaps too strictly or perhaps not strictly enough.
1:29:01
And I and I'm not disagreeing with you about its application in the example that you've provided.
1:29:07
I'm not disagreeing with you that there may be other people for whom it's not applying very well.
1:29:11
At the moment either.
1:29:12
But I'm saying, overall, for 300,000 public servants, overall, it's working pretty well, we think.
1:29:20
We would like to see with the changes that happened just a couple of years ago, how they work out, particularly once we've made it past perhaps the another, you know, changeover and administration.
1:29:33
And to see if see if they're really doing the job.
1:29:35
I am to say as I said in my testimony, it's not to say, but there may come a time when we need to look at the post employment communication band to see whether or not there should be some changes.
1:29:47
We're just saying that perhaps this particular moment is not quite
Lincoln Restler
1:29:51
Mister Carrier.
1:29:52
As you testified in, you know, the mission of COI is to preserve the trust placed in the public servants of the city, to promote public confidence in government, to protect the integrity of government decision making, and the current laws do not allow for that.
1:30:06
They allow for legal corruption.
1:30:08
And so I'm just shocked.
1:30:10
That Croy wouldn't come before us today to say, yes, there are clearly improvements we need to make.
1:30:15
Yes, when the mayor's chief of staff is leaving city government and has a $24,000,000 a year lobbying practice.
1:30:22
24 hours after leaving city government, he is building a lobbying book while working in this building.
1:30:27
That is egregious.
1:30:29
It is egregious, and you're telling me that you don't think it needs to be changed.
1:30:32
I could give you a 100 examples just like this.
1:30:35
But I'm shocked that considering the mission your agency, you wouldn't be here testifying, saying, you're right.
1:30:41
We do need to close these loopholes.
1:30:42
We do need to work and do more together to ensure the integrity in our local government because that not what I heard today.
1:30:48
I heard you testify in opposition to these issues and to claim that it's gonna undermine recruitment and retention and city service.
1:30:55
But Mayor Adams was able to recruit deputy mayors, finance commissioners, investigation commissioners, and all of these other positions subject to these new restrictions that we are advocating for in this legislation to expand to get more positions.
← Previous Chapter
Why should post-employment restrictions not apply to the mayor's chief of staff, chief counsel, or the commissioner of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD)?
Next Chapter →
What evidence exists that modifying post-employment restrictions would impact recruitment and retention?