Governor Cuomo Could Care Less About the M.T.A. and the Port Authority

Just not much less than he already does.

At least that is the impression given by our former colleagues over at Capital and WNYC, who point out that in the governor’s recently released schedules, no mentions are made of meetings with either agency’s head, Jay Walder or Chris Ward. As The Observer has previously reported, the governor has had limited contact with either Mr. Walder or Mr. Ward, despite their being in charge of two of the state’s most important and powerful agencies.

Andrea Bernstein opens with this spry appraisal:

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo met repeatedly in the first eight months of the year on marriage equality, the property tax cap, and even farmer’s markets. But his schedule from January 1- August 31, made available online Thursday, shows no meetings or phone calls with Port Authority chief Chris Ward or Metropolitan Transportation Authority CEO Jay Walder.

Meanwhile Reid and Dana bring us these amusing details:

On Thursday, Feb. 3 at 4:15 p.m., he had a meeting in Albany on “Public Authorities.” No attendees are listed. But that same day, the board of the Port Authority voted in New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s pick for Authority Chairman, David Samson.

On Friday, March 4, at 1:30 pm, the governor had a meeting about the vaguely defined topic, “Transporation and Infrastructure” at his New York City offices.

In April, May, June and July, there was no mention in his public schedules of “Ward,” “Walder,” “Port Authority,” or “MTA.”

On August 10, he made a “New York Remembers” announcement that included Robert Morris, a vice president at the Port Authority Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association.

There was some attention paid to the M.T.A. in the lead up to the Hurricane Irene shutdown, but otherwise it appears the governor has taken almost no notice of these agencies. That said, perhaps this is a good thing, given the relative repute of their directors. Yet for a politician who is known to be incredibly hands-on, that would seem strange.

With the appointment of a new M.T.A. chief forthcoming—and the 9/11 anniversary behind us—it would seem these are positions Governor Cuomo might be paying more attention to in the near future.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

Comments

  1. Anonymous says:

    I am sure someone was keeping and “EYE” on these agencies and as I have said before Chris Ward should never had his “friends” publicly lobby to keep him, it is not the Andrew “Cesare” Cuomo way.

    So he too will go by the way of the Highway 

    Before there was the “Oracle at Delphi” there was Count Vampire J. Machiavelli

    VJ Machiavelli
    The Legislative Budget is Too Damn High

  2. Heathflax says:

    to the author:  “could care less” versus the (virtually only) version that stands to make sense”  “COULDN’T care less”?  and then you further your little mocking/disrespecting by adding “just not much less”? 
    Granted, that when it comes to this phrase/pair-of-phrases, many if not most do not or cannot understand how to the simplest meaning of “caring” or “not caring”.   Yet, your added modifying of it, achieves an improbable result:   making the phrase yet more incomprehensible…and at the very beginning of your article. 

    Somehow, I immediately found caring so exceedinly little about what you might have to say, that I almost “COULDN’T CARE LESS” about your further words, or feel much of any further urge to read them…which I basically didn’t, electing instead to aim to leave the website just as soon as I could post a brief message on the matter.  Ciao!

    1. Heathflax says:

      Mr. Chaban: To expand and elucidate a little (on my own post above): 

      Maybe I should add as a further or alternate explanation of what I see with  your maybe fairly conscious usage of the mangled version of this phrase:  a use of it so careless or flippant, that most all are apt to not comprehend your qualifier starting the article:  “Just not much less than he already does!”  I think most may well end up perceiving your words, as pretty much, “Governor hardly cares, or in fact, cares even a little  less than hardly caring, so , in truth it seems he REALLY REALLY doesn’t ( or couldN’T, not could) care much of any at all.”

      At the very least you could or should have put quotation marks around either “could care less” or maybe better yet, around just the word “could”, in the headline.  And maybe follow it up with some parallel quotation marks in the first line, around “just not very much”. 

      In truth, maybe the general capability of people to distinguish or bother to distinguish between “couldn’t care less” and “could care less”, is by now essentially lost.    Maybe  most ALL usage, except heavily explained and specifically justified usage– of the effectively senseless, latter version, is going to just exacerbate.   It seems your opening line play-on-words to expand on your intention, is way too little to qualify your intent.  So, in sum, quite an unfortunate little usage of this grating phrase, particularly in its blaring, headline spot.
      What might be nice might be your being much more careful in the future, or better yet or also,  some time including in your future writing, a few tries of a more serious nature, at pointing out and addressing the grating problem of this oh-so-common malaprop phrase (Thank you in advance, if you agree, and “can and will,”  Mr. Chaban).