Skip to main content

The Media, Malloy And The Consolidation Of State Agencies


The very title of the story in CTMirror was ominous: “Howls as Malloy tries to shorten leash on watchdogs.”

And in the lede paragraph, a dark joweled Richard Nixon is resurrected from his bed of infamy: “Governor Dannel Malloy is attempting the most dramatic makeover of the state's watchdog agencies since their creation as post-Watergate reforms in the 1970s.”

Watergate redivivus!

The media knows how to raise the roof when its much vaunted independence is threatened. And somewhere in the background a corrupt ex-felon is rolling around in the muck: “But critics wonder why Malloy, a Democrat, is inviting a political backlash with his second move on the watchdogs, whose independence the General Assembly defended when a Republican governor, John G. Rowland, tried to weaken them a decade ago.”

Rowland too? This is serious.

The three putatively “independent” agencies Mr. Malloy is attempting to consolidate under a brand new agency, the Office of Government Accountability or OGA, are the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC), the Office of State Ethics (OSE), and the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC)

In his new budget, Mr. Malloy has called for the elimination of a Corrupticut era provision that shielded the three watchdog agencies from budget cuts by compelling the governor to transmit his unrevised budget requests to the watchdog solicitous General Assembly.

Once the provision is eliminated, critics suppose the governor’s office will be able to control the three agencies' purse strings, thus bringing them to heel whenever the FOIC orders an administrative agency to release to the media public data that might bring a blush to the cheek of some Malloy factotum, or the SEEC uncovers political thuggery in one or another of the state’s urban one-party corruption pots, or the OSE finds that this or that agency is in violation of some inscrutable ethical rule as ambiguous as the Oracle at Delphi.

The OSE recently destroyed a quarter-century's worth of public records detailing the finances of present and former public officials because, said executive director Carol Carson, the agency prior to her arrival had “suffered through well-publicized internal problems” and its records were in disarray. In fact, the operations of the agency were also in disarray. On at least one occasion, the OSE disposed of a case when it lacked a proper quorum to adjudicate, an oversight compliant courts are almost certain to wink at.

Under the old dispensation, the investigative and legal staffs of the oversight agencies are superintended by agency heads answerable to independent citizen commissions that adjudicate elections, ethics and Freedom of Information complaints. Under the Malloy regime, the executive director of the new Office of Government Accountability, appointed by the governor, would be vested with the authority to assign and/or discipline lawyers whose duties might include the investigation of the governor. That reorganization would pretty much turn supposed independent agencies into the governor’s liege lords, subject always to executive whimsy.

Soon after Victims Advocate Michelle Cruz pointed to failings in an Earned Risk Reduction Credits program fashioned by undersecretary for criminal justice policy Michael Lawlor – one of the violent criminals given credits under Mr. Lawlor’s program celebrated his early release by murdering a store clerk in Meriden – her job was posted and she was quickly replaced by a Cook County, Illinois political operative.

This is not a governor who lies down quietly under the lash of media criticism. And critics of his “independent” agency consolidations abound. President of the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information James Smith quickly jumped into the flames.

"These proposals, said Mr. Smith, “can only be explained as an effort to gain control over the guarantors of transparency and integrity in government. We ask why the Malloy administration is determined to emasculate the independent watchdogs?"

Vice President of Common Cause Karen Flynn was flummoxed. “It's perplexing," said she. "His recommendations save no money, but they take away the independence of the watchdogs," a chord strummed also by House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero: “There's (sic) only two reasons in my opinion. One is you are trying to save money. That's clearly not the case. The other is control and power. It has to be the latter."

Since Mr. Cafero has recently expressed interest in running for governor, it will be easy for Malloyalist operatives to dismiss his ruminations as political posturing, even when they are reasonable.

As the independence of the three watchdog agencies are drawn within the orbit of powerful politicians, the real losers will be the crowd of petitioners, not always news agencies, gathered near the foot of the throne begging a more powerful and compromised government for simple justice.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Actually this is the I don't want anybody watching checking into what I'm doing act.
peter brush said…
This issue is very difficult to follow, and tends to re-enforce my very strong impression that our government is both too big and too complex. In this case the complexity may be the by-product of Malloy's desire for control/power compounded by the fact that he was able to get only half of what he wanted in 2011. It's similar to how we ended up with Obamacare.

As I understand it, Mr. Guay, the head of the Office of Government Accountability overseeing the "independent" agencies serves at the pleasure of the Governor. The heads of the agencies cannot be fired by the Governor. They serve terms.
Mr. Guay both oversees the nine "independent" agencies under the OGA's umbrella and reports to them; that is, they, in theory, can fire him.
The agencies generate their own budget proposals, but Mr. Guay says he has the right to modify them.

Governor Malloy managed to get a new bureau, but with a very unclear mandate that conflicts with the agencies that it oversees. What's Guay's job? Now Malloy wants to clarify the situation, give Guay authority over the agencies' staffs, make him a standard agency head, and taking to himself the agency budgets. And, for what purpose? Especially with regard to the Ethics and the FOIC guys, we should be concerned about political influence over the independent agencies.
http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/who_is_the_boss/

There is some irony here, as you note. The oxen being gored belong to the good-government left, the haters of Nixon and Rowland. The Hartford Courant joined the howlers today. And, his budget has also elicited howls from the State's mayors who suggest that not only does it hurt municipalities, but it is dishonest and deceitful in doing so. I think it fair at this point in our experience of Malloy governance to make a general observation about Malloy's style; it's the style of a litigator.
-------------------------------
A BUDGET BALANCED IN WONDERLAND

By John DeStefano Jr.

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” — Lewis Carroll, “Alice in Wonderland.”

So here are the six impossible things to believe about Connecticut’s proposed state budget.

First, believe that this isn’t the state balancing its budget by raising city and town property taxes.

Second, believe that eliminating the funding for the payments in lieu of taxes on state property is good for our cities, where most of the state’s jobs and buildings are located.

Third, believe the shell game of funding in the budget will really support desperately needed school reform in our state.

Fourth, believe that the car tax is going to just — “poof” — disappear.

Fifth, believe that someone in state government even thought to talk with your mayor or first selectman about any of this.

And finally, believe that there is a plan here to grow jobs in our dismal Connecticut economic landscape.

As is written in “Alice in Wonderland,” “You would have to be half mad to dream me up.” Dream on, Nutmeggers.
Don Pesci said…
Excellent commentary Peter. Perhaps some prominent Democrat should be encouraged to run against Mr. Malloy, since he has nothing to fear from Republicans, who are out numbered 2 to 1 in the land of steady (and sleepy) habits. Lawyers and politicians – is there a difference? – love complexity. Republicans should adopt as their watchword Henry David Thoreau’s battle cry – simplify, simplify! But they won’t.
peter brush said…
Come on,Don; I'm the pessimist around here. We won't get a sensible legislature, certainly not a Republican one, any time soon. But, Foley was close, and for whatever reason the folks liked Rell/Rowland. Malloy's charm, such as it is, has worn thin even with his supporters.
In general, the complexity created by our pols is a hazard for their putative masters, we dopes that put them in office. Obamacare is a horrible concoction that is sure to be damaging to the medical/insurance/job markets, and those human beings involved in them, but it might just be that it collapses of its own bureaucratic brain-dead weight even as it tries to get off the ground. The question will be, as with Malloy and his fiscal operations, can Obama successfully pass the blame on to someone else, Republicans or Big Insurance. I'm betting not in both cases because the mess is just going to be so colossal.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021513-644723-obamacare-delay-looks-increasingly-likely.htm
Don Pesci said…
About Obama, watch for this moment: At some point, when he gathers with Democrats to further plot the destruction of the Republican Party, everyone in the room will realize that there is only one lame duck in the room. At that point, his perpetual campaign will finished.
peter brush said…
On the other hand, I have no problem with Malloy's consolidation of the "citizen advocacy" outfits. In fact, I'd have no difficulty in getting rid of these commissions and their 26 employees altogether.
----------------------------------
saying that the nonpartisan commissions regarding women, children, aging, Asian Americans, African Americans, and Latinos and Puerto Ricans should remain independent agencies.
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-malloy-commissions-0220-20130219,0,7114677.story

Popular posts from this blog

Obamagod!

My guess is that Barack Obama is a bit too modest to consider himself a Christ figure , but artist will be artists. And over at “ To Wit ,” a blog run by professional blogger, journalist, radio commentator and ex-Hartford Courant religious writer Colin McEnroe, chocolateers will be chocolateers. Nice to have all this attention paid to Christ so near to Easter.

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Did Chris Murphy Engage in Private Diplomacy?

Murphy after Zarif blowup -- Getty Images Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, up for reelection this year, had “a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference” in February 2020, according to a posting written by Mollie Hemingway , the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. Was Murphy commissioned by proper authorities to participate in the meeting, or was he freelancing? If the former, there is no problem. If the latter, Murphy was courting political disaster. “Such a meeting,” Hemingway wrote at the time, “would mean Murphy had done the type of secret coordination with foreign leaders to potentially undermine the U.S. government that he accused Trump officials of doing as they prepared for Trump’s administration. In February 2017, Murphy demanded investigations of National Security Advisor Mike Flynn because he had a phone call with his counterpart-to-be in Russia. “’Any effort to undermine our nation’s foreign policy – e