What a shame. We need more people like Senator McDonald in Albany, and in every facet of civic life. 

Mr. McDonald, you may recall, was one of only four Republicans in the Senate to support same-sex marriage last year. Without those votes, the bill would have failed, and marriage equality in New York would have been postponed.

All four Republicans bucked their party’s leadership and, in some cases, their spiritual leaders to do right by their fellow human beings who happen to be gay. Two of them, to the credit of their constituents, won renomination in last month’s primary. Another chose not to run for re-election.

Mr. McDonald faced an aggressive challenge for re-nomination for only one reason: his support for gay marriage. His opponent, Kathleen Marchione, made opposition to marriage equality the centerpiece of her campaign. She was declared the winner in late September, after two weeks of counting and recounting.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, whose support for marriage equality changed everything, reached out to Mr. McDonald and offered to support him if he chose to continue his campaign on the Independence Party line. “You stood up for your principles, for equality and for a population long victimized,” the governor told the senator. Mr. Cuomo’s public support for Mr. McDonald was just the sort of principled, nonpartisan politics the governor promised to bring to Albany.

Mr. McDonald has not said whether he will accept the governor’s endorsement and move ahead with a third-party campaign that very likely would be quixotic. At this stage of the game, however, with the election a month away, it would seem that the senator’s days in Albany are over.

What’s worth noting is that he was absolutely prepared to pay a price for his vote. When he announced in advance that he planned to support marriage equality—the announcement came at a critical time on the eve of the vote—he summed up his thought process in a few well-chosen phrases. “You get to the point where ... you try to do the right thing,” he said. “You might not like that. Well ... I don’t care what you think. I’m trying to do the right thing. I’m tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it.”

We’ve become accustomed to political leaders who will say anything, do anything, vote any way in order to retain their hold on their office. We’ve come to expect elected officials to tailor their so-called beliefs and principles in accordance with the latest polling data.

It’s worth remembering, however, that in New York in 2012, there is a state senator from Saratoga County who believes that principle is more important than merely hanging on to the power and privilege of office.

There is no chance that the senator’s example will be replicated a thousand times over in Albany. But perhaps one legislator, or two, or a dozen, will find the courage to go and do likewise. That would surely change the culture of Albany, one vote at a time.

It’s clear that the committee has struck a nerve—it was able to raise $17 million last year, and it spent $12 million. No doubt you’ve seen the committee’s television ads, and if they seem like campaign commercials for Gov. Andrew Cuomo, well, that’s not a coincidence. Many of the committee’s leaders, including co-chair Rob Speyer, have close ties to the governor. The governor’s agenda and the committee’s are one and the same.

Here’s the problem: If the committee truly is serious about changing the dysfunctional culture of state government, if it is, in fact, in favor of greater transparency in political decision-making, if it really wants to set an example, it simply cannot continue to play by the old rules.

But it is doing just that. State law does not require the committee, a private lobbying group, to divulge the names of its donors. That means we don’t know who is giving money—and why. That’s the kind of culture Governor Cuomo has criticized, at least by implication, when he talks about bringing real change to Albany.

Mr. Cuomo has declined to call on the committee to release a donor list voluntarily. The issue arose when news reports revealed that gambling interests donated $2 million to the committee. The governor insists that the donations have had nothing to do with his push to expand gaming in New York.

We take the governor at his word. But still, as he surely knows, part of the problem in New York is one of perception. New Yorkers have good reason to believe that money talks in matters political. Mr. Cuomo said he is working with all sectors of the state to create jobs—“that’s what it’s all about,” he said.

True enough. But it would do a world of good if the committee announced that moving forward it will disclose all of its donors. The committee’s current donors should be encouraged to overcome their shyness by self-disclosing their contributions, but the committee shouldn’t force the issue for those who have already given. Instead, it should focus on setting new rules for new donors: If you give to the Committee to Save New York, your name and the size of your donation will be available for public inspection.

That’s how transparent government ought to operate. Moving forward, the Committee to Save New York should practice what Governor Cuomo preaches.

What price paradise? (Wired New York)

Much work to be done. (WSJ)

Parks funding is something of an obsession around these parts, particularly those open spaces The Observer has deemed libertarian parks, spaces ranging from Brooklyn Bridge Park to the High Line, which are either built or maintained with outside funds. On the one hand, these parks might never have been created without private investment.

On the other, it shows a troubling lack of respect and appreciation for the public trust—where would the city be if the same we-just-can't-afford-'em attitude of today persisted in the past? Central Park, Prospect Park, Pelham Bay Park, even the controversial work of Robert Moses, would any of it have happened if  it had been undertaken by private interests?

Hudson River Park, first proposed in the 1980s, launched a decade later and by all accounts the first libertarian park, has been facing funding shortfalls for years now, hindering the ability of parks officials to finish construction of many of the piers and maintaining the ones it has already redeveloped.

A year ago, they floated the idea of selling off board seats and naming rights to generate funds. That effort has failed to generate the necessary moneys, many hundreds of millions of dollar, and so the park is now digging into its original charter, hoping to alter what can be built, how and seeking the ability to release bonds to raise funds. According to The Journal, Hudson River Parks' efforts are receiving a mixed reaction in Albany.

Trust officials said the 1998 Hudson River Park Act signed by Gov. George Pataki puts too many restrictions on lucrative commercial development that would give it a revenue stream to pay for maintaining the park. In addition to the power to issue government-back bonds, the trust wants greater freedom to do mixed-use development and to offer leases longer than the current maximum of 30 years.

"Nobody knew at that time what it would cost to maintain a park in the water because they were never built before," said Madelyn Wils, president and chief executive of the Hudson River Park Trust. "We are completely hamstrung."

A task force has been convened by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, in whose district parts of the park lies, to figure out what can be done for the park. "It's pretty clear that the park needs new financial resources," Assemblyman Richard Gottfried told The Journal. He is a member of the task force and one of the original champions of the park plan.

As anyone who has enjoyed the growing park in recent years can attest, it has been a boon for the west side of Manhattan. So here is a novel idea: why not fund it from the general fund? Then again, that would rob money from some other cash-strapped part of the state or the city. Where did all the money go? Not to parks, that's for sure.

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

Dr. Scott Noren (Photo: Noren For Senate/Thomas Hoebbel Photography)

For the past few weeks, longshot "Occupy" Senate candidate Scott Noren has been at war with the state politics blog and TV show Capital Tonight with angry ads on Albany politics sites and supposedly plans to fly a plane over the capitol. Today, Mr. Noren published a series of emails he claims inspired the feud. Mr. Noren became enraged with Capital Tonight host Liz Benjamin, one of the pre-eminent reporters on the Albany beat, after receiving what he described as a "less than professional" response from her following "several attempts to get media coverage on Capital Tonight."

"You have come across as the most arrogant local newscaster I have ever encountered," Mr. Noren wrote in the missive he released today.

Mr. Noren, who is running as an independent against Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, responded to the exchange by launching an "Occupy Liz Benjamin" website in mid-January that linked to his main campaign page. He also purchased ad space for the "Occupy Liz Benjamin" site on the Albany Times Union's Capital Confidential blog. Time Warner Media owns Capital Tonight and, last Friday, Mr. Noren announced his intention to escalate his campaign by purchasing a plane to fly over Albany for 35 minutes while towing a banner proclaiming "The Occupation of Time Warner Cable." We reached out to Ms. Benjamin to discuss the emails and she declined to comment.

The first email published by Mr. Noren was one he sent to Ms. Benjamin on the evening of Friday, December 2 after she interviewed Ms. Gillibrand's Republican challenger, George Maragos on her show. In the email, Mr. Noren, who is a religious Jew, promised to mount a campaign against Ms. Benjamin when the Sabbath ended the next day.

"You have now really irritated me by slapping me in the face politically. When Shabbos ends, I will fight back so obnoxiously it will surpass your snotty blow off of me as the only Democratic challenger to Gillibrand. This is in response to your Maragos interview," Mr. Noren wrote. "It's the public that suffers when media decides to manhandle who gets covered. ... I will now start the Occupy part of my campaign starting this coming week. Good Shabbos."

It is perhaps worth noting that, by sending a Friday night email, Mr. Noren seems to have violated Jewish Sabbath laws prohibiting the use of electronics during Shabbos.

According to Mr. Noren, Ms. Benjamin responded with an email noting she correctly referred to Mr. Maragos as "the only Republican challenger to Gillibrand. She allegedly went on to blast him for his "anti-woman piece of shit email" and vow to bar him from Capital Tonight until he apologized.

"If you think this is an appropriate way for a would-be senator to speak to anyone, I suggest you re-examine your beliefs," she wrote. "This is, hands down, the most disrespectful, anti-woman piece of shit email I've ever received, doctor, and if you think I will ever have you as a guest or take you seriously until you apologize, you are sorely mistaken. Good shabbos indeed, you don't even begin to comprehend the meaning of this day of rest."

About 45 minutes later, Mr. Noren said Ms. Benjamin sent him a second email promising to forward his "threats to the appropriate authorities."

The next day, Mr. Noren sent another email to Ms. Benjamin

"My threats as you call them can be picketing, writing letters to the editor. ... You have come across as the most arrogant local newscaster I have ever encountered," he wrote. "I have just as much right to campaign and be heard as your rich crony politicians that make it on your show. It just shows how closed the process is when you shut out grassroots politics. Pretty disappointing."

Mr. Noren's campaign has little chance of success. Ms. Gillibrand is currently well ahead of all her potential Republican rivals in the polls. In a recent projection, New York Times pollster Nate Silver put her chances of re-election at 95 percent.

Updated (8:15 pm): The original version of this post said Mr. Noren purchased his ads on Capital Tonight rather than Capital Confidential.

The showdown still was underway at press time, but regardless of whether or not the governor and the union reach an agreement, a larger point remains: Once again, the teachers union, emboldened by its allies in the Democratic-controlled State Assembly, has resisted efforts to bring accountability into the classroom.

Unlike his fellow Democrats in the Assembly, Mr. Cuomo has shown that he understands the reactionary role the teachers union continues to play against the effort to bring much-needed reform to poor-performing school districts. Mr. Cuomo is acting on behalf of poorly served students and their parents. The union, of course, is simply trying to protect incompetent teachers.

The public knows who has New York’s greater interests at heart. A recent Sienna College poll showed that 71 percent support the governor’s school reform proposals. The union is thought to be a political powerhouse, but it should be no match for a mobilized and well-informed electorate sick of the status quo and those intent on preserving it.

The proposed evaluation system, which would incorporate standardized test scores as part of the process, has been delayed for nearly two years. The state agreed to implement an evaluation system in 2010 when it was awarded $700 million in federal funds as part of President Barack Obama’s “Race to the Top” program.

Mr. Cuomo would tie increases in state education spending to the implementation of genuine evaluation plans in individual districts. He has the full support of Mayor Bloomberg, who has made it clear that he wants a process that would allow the city’s Department of Education to move quickly in getting rid of bad teachers. Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott has emphasized that any such process has to be fair to teachers and ought to provide them with the resources they need to become better teachers. But at the end of the day, rigorous evaluations will provide administrators with a database for identifying teacher competency.

That’s an important step, and a necessary one. And once the state’s plan is in place, perhaps Mr. Cuomo can lead a discussion about merit pay in the classroom.

Perhaps the most sweeping reform on Mr. Cuomo’s 2012 agenda is nothing less than a systematic reconfiguration of the state’s sprawling bureaucracy. The governor has invoked the spirit of one of his most celebrated predecessors, Alfred E. Smith, who modernized state government in the 1920s with a series of administrative reforms that made Albany more accountable, efficient—and humane. (Yes, it’s possible to be all three.) Many historians believe that Smith’s administrative reorganization of Albany was his greatest achievement.

Nearly a century later, Albany is in desperate need of another retooling. That seems to be just what Mr. Cuomo had in mind last year when he formed a Spending and Government Efficiency Commission, which has been dubbed SAGE. Let’s hope the commissioners live up to the acronym.

The commissioners are expected to recommend consolidations and other changes to make state agencies more efficient. Does every state agency need its own public information office? Is there a way to centralize some agency operations to avoid duplication? Implementing these kinds of systemic changes will require an extraordinary degree of flexibility in operational funds.

Here’s the rub: The state will (with any luck) pass a new budget by April 1. Ordinarily, the budget would lock in the spending plans for each agency for the remainder of the fiscal year. But Mr. Cuomo has proposed language in this year’s budget that would give him the power to shift operational money from agency to agency on his own, without the Legislature’s approval.

That has some legislators and Albany observers worried. Several have argued that the Legislature should not simply give Mr. Cuomo the power to unilaterally change a document—the budget—which was agreed upon after negotiations between the governor and legislative leaders.

The concern is understandable, but unnecessary. Mr. Cuomo’s office points out that the language in the budget applies only to operational money. In other words, the governor could not simply cut state-funded programs. He simply wants the authority to shift operational money so that consolidation and other efficiencies can be implemented this year, rather than having to wait until the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2013.

Mr. Cuomo has earned the right to be trusted with this extraordinary authority. These are, after all, extraordinary times, but the governor has managed to take on a host of difficult issues without the nasty confrontations that have marred state capitals from Trenton to Madison, Wis. He has earned the trust of taxpayers and his colleagues in the Legislature.

When the SAGE recommendations are released, Mr. Cuomo should have the ability to implement the changes without having to negotiate each change with the Legislature. Remember, these will be operational, not programmatic, reforms. They apply to the administration of programs, not to the programs themselves.

State government desperately needs a housecleaning. Mr. Cuomo made administrative reform one of his top campaign promises in 2010. This is not a particularly sexy issue—few hearts beat faster when they hear the words “administrative reform”—but it is absolutely vital for the state’s fiscal health.

There is no cause for alarm. There is no executive overreach in Albany.

Even as Albany continues to bask in the glow of a newly passed tax reform package, even as the city sets a course to leadership in the 21^st-century economy, the folks on Capitol Hill simply cannot put aside their partisan bickering for the good of the country. Doing so risks further damage to a less-than-robust economy, and thus making life worse, not better, for those individuals and families still suffering from unemployment and underemployment.

For a moment over the weekend, it seemed as though Washington was about to take a page from Albany. A bill to extend a payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits for two months passed the Democratic-controlled Senate with the support of 39 Republicans. Yes, you read that correctly—39 Republican Senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky—joined their Democratic colleagues in support of the two-month extension. The final vote on the measure was 89-10 in favor. (The tax cut and long-term jobless benefits are due to expire on New Year’s Day.)

If you thought that the denizens of Capitol Hill were about to join hands, just as the State Assembly and Senate did last week in Albany in support of Governor Cuomo’s tax reforms, well, you were wrong. The Tea Party class in the House was poised, as of this writing, to kill the extension in what promised to be an epic floor vote. If they succeeded, 160 million Americans will see a tax hike in 2012, and millions of unemployed workers will no longer receive unemployment benefits. Happy New Year!

This is a miserable state of affairs. Republican Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who is, admittedly, staring at a difficult re-election battle, described his Republican colleagues in the House as “irresponsible and wrong” because they refused to “help middle-class families” at a difficult time. Senator Brown’s immediate predecessor, the late Edward Kennedy, could not have said it any better.

It’s time for House Speaker John Boehner to decide if he is a leader or if he simply sees the speakership as a great way to get good tee times on exclusive golf courses. The Tea Party caucus is hardly the only symbol of partisanship and obstruction on Capitol Hill. At the moment, however, it is the most destructive.

If you want leadership lessons, Mr. Speaker, book a flight to New York over the holiday break.

Driving that train, running on fumes. (Office of the Governor)

Charles Komanoff, the hound of Manhattan traffic, penned an interesting column yesterday for Streetsblog arguing that the Occupy movement had the potential to bring congestion pricing back to life.

After all, the protesters, with their message of pervasive inequality, arguably helped put enough pressure on the Cuomo administration to embrace some form of higher taxes on the wealthiest New Yorkers. Why couldn't some form of populist support do the same for tolls on East River bridges and the subsequent boost to clean air and mass transit that would come with it?

At this point, it’s fair to ask how the changes in the zeitgeist wrought by the Occupy movement might affect transit and transportation in New York City. Will revenue infusions from Albany mean better service and stable fares for that most egalitarian mode of travel, mass transit? Will the most inefficient and socially destructive mode — driving private cars into Manhattan — finally pay for usurping so much street and road space? In particular, might congestion pricing, the sole policy measure that could finance transit and disincentivize driving in gridlock, get a boost from OWS’s paradigm of equity and equality?

As we now know, Albany actually dinged the M.T.A. amidst this populist-led revolt on the rich by reducing the commuter tax by $250 million a year. While there are promises to restore that from the general fund some time in the future, transit advocates are already wary, given past raids on the transit agency and what many see as the governor's ambivalence toward mass transit.

“We look forward to also working with the governor and the legislature to ensure that the financial health of the M.T.A. is sustained,” the Regional Plan Association's Bob Yaro said in a statement. “We don’t know how much revenue would be lost with the reductions in the payroll mobility tax announced today, so we want to make sure that any loss is made up on a dollar-for-dollar basis.”

As one Albany insider put it to The Observer today, Governor Cuomo does not view the M.T.A. as a mode of transportation: "He views it as a budget line."

If anything, it will not be some communitarian zeitgeist, as Mr. Komanoff praises, that will bring congestion pricing back around—it would have to be the vagaries of a desperate M.T.A. budget. After all, it was only when a gaping hole had been opened in the state budget that the governor began considering altering his promise not to raise taxes. He has professed opposition to congestion pricing before. Might a yawning transit budget convince him otherwise?

mchaban [at] observer.com | @MC_NYC

At first, P.E.F. basically told the governor to do his worst. Perhaps members thought Mr. Cuomo was bluffing, which, if nothing else, shows that the union is not necessarily blessed with keen political insight. Mr. Cuomo was not bluffing. When that became clear, the P.E.F. basically ordered up a do-over. Members have now voted overwhelmingly in favor of the deal they rejected just over a month ago.

That’s good news for many people, but most of all for the 3,500 P.E.F. members whose jobs have been saved by the second thoughts of their brothers and sisters. Apparently there is something to be said about “solidarity forever,” after all.

P.E.F. members, like those of the state’s largest public employees union, the Civil Service Employees Association, will receive no raises for three years and will have to pay more of their health insurance costs. C.S.E.A. members ratified a similar deal over the summer in exchange for no layoffs. Now the P.E.F. has followed suit, although the process has not been quite as smooth as it was with the C.S.E.A.

In any case, once again the contrast between Albany and Trenton (and other state capitals, like Madison, Wis.) is striking. New Jersey politics remains scarred by the bitter confrontation between public employees unions and Governor Christie over pension and benefit reforms enacted earlier this year. While nobody was expecting any dramatic changes in the state’s legislative elections on Nov. 8, the fall campaign was marked by bitter union attacks not only on Mr. Christie but on key Democrats who helped the Republican governor enact the changes.

Mr. Cuomo has treated his state’s work force with far more delicacy than Mr. Christie has. There has been no demonization of public employees, no slurs against their competency and work ethic. As a result, Mr. Cuomo has gotten what the state as a whole needs without the drama and bitterness that has characterized belt-tightening in other states.

That speaks well of the governor, for sure. But it also speaks well of New York’s public employees as well.

Mr. Cuomo hosted his first on-line chat on Sept. 24 (with the help of his fast-typing press aide, Josh Vlasto), answering questions from citizens on a range of political and personal topics, from the future of the Indian Point nuclear plant to his affection for the Executive Mansion on Eagle Street. The session may not have produced any startling exchanges, but it did show that Mr. Cuomo is serious about embracing 21st-century technology to keep in touch with his constituents.

The governor also has posted his schedule on the new site, http://governor.ny.gov/citizenconnects/. The posting already has offered an insight into Mr. Cuomo’s governing style, showing, for example, that in early March he hosted a lunch for several Roman Catholic bishops and, the following day, met with supporters of same-sex marriage—an indication of his willingness to reach out to all sides on controversial issues.

Anything that helps to rip apart the veil of secrecy in Albany is good. Mr. Cuomo’s embrace of technology as a tool for greater transparency is a giant leap in the right direction. But full accountability and transparency require more than a website, useful though it is. Transparency requires an end to back-room deals and secretive decision-making at all levels of government.

Bringing about that kind of change will require more than an on-line chat.