Introduction

Thank you for inviting me to speak at this great University - a place of great arguments and ideas and history. In keeping with that tradition of open discourse, I hope to say some things of interest and maybe stir a little debate of our own.

First a word about the button I’m wearing here.  It affirms my support for the teaching assistants and research assistants who are trying to organize to protect their rights and collectively bargain with the university.

Of course, I can't come here and speak without mentioning the controversy that has been in the news recently: the attacks on Israel by some at Columbia, and the troubling reports of intimidation of students who have dissented from the views of their pro-Palestinian professors.

Let me be clear. Universities must be safe harbors for new ideas. There are arguments made by faculty here that I, and others, disagree with strongly. Arguments that I think are dangerous, wrong and need to be confronted.  The idea that America and our universities should divest themselves from Israel is morally wrong, practically counterproductive, and personally repulsive. But if someone makes that argument, as professors have here at Columbia, it is the responsibility of those of us in a free society to confront it.  That is what free speech is about.

Especially at an institution of scholarship, we must not allow history to be turned on its head.  The facts are that Israel has supported every significant peace plan offered including the 1947 partition plan that would have relegated her to a sliver of land half the size of her present nation.  It is Israel – whose mere existence is so threatening to her Arab neighbors – that again and again has been forced to defend herself from the hostilities of those on her border and armies of suicide bombers paid with blood money from her neighbors.

I will come here or anywhere to defend Israel and its right to exist because morality and intellectual fairness demand it.

But it becomes the responsibility of this great university to deal with academic intimidation that stifles free speech.  It is up to Columbia’s administration to act swiftly and show it will have a zero tolerance for teachers who undermine freedom of thought on campus. When a professor is accused, as is the case here, with ordering one of his students to leave his classroom if she continued to deny Israel's alleged atrocities against Palestinians - that crosses the line.  I believe threats to Columbia’s academic environment need to be treated more seriously.   

The issue is not whether people disagree.  It is whether there is a fair, open and un-intimidating environment in which to seek truth.

Seeking A Culture of Accountability

Columbia isn't the only place where sunlight would do some good. And that's what I'm here to talk about today: preserving freedom and openness not just here at Columbia - but downtown at City Hall and in Washington DC.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has conducted an administration that has sought to replace the procedures of open democratic government with a top down, closed loop decision-making process that substitutes public input with a business model he surely found useful at his private company.  From his plans for the West Side stadium to the revamping of education, one thing has been missing – public input.

The Mayor protests when I point out that he has raised millions for Republicans and endorsed President Bush.  Some have argued that he is really a Democrat at heart and that there is little difference between his views on many issues and those of a Democrat.  This is wrong.

Mike Bloomberg shows a contempt for the processes of open government if they threaten to derail his pet projects.  In that way he is as much a Republican as Tom Delay and George Bush.

Maybe that - at the root of it all, -  is what makes Mike Bloomberg a Republican and what makes me a Democrat.  Growing up in Brooklyn and Queens I understood that what made New York special was that it was a place where everybody had their say – a shot at making their case and influencing the future.  It was often contentious but the cacophony of voices led to better ideas and smarter government.  Democrats like me believe that in our bones.  The sound you are hearing now is the rolling of eyes by my Republican friends.

Free societies need free speech and require the free flow of information. The great progressive movement almost 100 years ago recognized that – it tried to make government more efficient, but also to make it more open.

Here in New York, as a response to Tammany Hall corruption, Judge Samuel Seabury led a wide ranging investigation, and Mayor La Guardia was swept into office with a reform agenda.

In the 70s, revelations about the Nixon administration led to a new era of federal reforms, and in New York there was a backlash against the abuses of clubhouses.

Recently we have even seen a public focus on accountability and transparency sweep the corporate boardrooms of the largest companies in America.  With the leadership of our Attorney General, we have taken a stand against shaky financial information, out of touch boards of directors, and insider dealing.

But looking around Washington and City Hall here in New York, it is clear that we need a new era of reform and perhaps another house cleaning.

I want to focus mostly on my city, but make no mistake - the Washington, DC of George W. Bush and Tom Delay would make Tammany blush:

Billions of sole-source contracts to a company that the vice president used to run and that he still profits from.

A Medicare prescription drug plan that was literally written by insurance company executives.

The House Republican leader using the F.A.A. to track the planes of Texas legislators so they can be arrested for skipping votes in Austin.

Our tax dollars being used to fund payments to journalists to plug the administration’s policies.

The culture of this White House is one of arrogance.  These guys have such little shame they even planted a fake news reporter in the White House briefing room to lob softballs at the president.  The only reason he isn't still there is that a blogger discovered that this fellow ran a sexually-oriented web site in his spare time.

Sure this makes us laugh when Jon Stewart lampoons it every night, but in fact it is all evidence of a level of arrogance and abuse that has in a large way taken our government away from us.

Under the Bush administration, patriotic civil servants who step forward to report abuses have frequently been hung out to dry.  Last year, only 1% of whistleblower cases were referred to agency heads for investigation by the Office of Special Counsel.  Despite 2,300 complaints, the OSC failed to represent a single whistleblower seeking remedy for retaliation.  To stop this we need to reinvigorate whistleblower protections, by stating their rights clearly, and adding real teeth like compensatory damages.

Now a dose of that arrogance has moved into City Hall.  The overwhelming condescending sentiment oozing from our mayor is that he knows best and that the processes of open government and accountability are rules that don't apply to him and his big developer friends.  Perhaps in the boardrooms where the mayor once ruled there was no space for debate.  Perhaps there you can attack everyone who disagrees with you on the grounds that they are unpatriotic.  But in New York City, the people's voice should always be heard.  I believe we need a mayor who fosters the City as a place of ideas, not one who berates those who disagree with him. And we need a mayor who doesn't throw up roadblocks when the public tries to learn what he is doing.

That may sound harsh - but let's consider three of the most important specific issues in the City. First, our Republican mayor's big new planned development on the West Side - his stadium.  Second, the plan to bring the Olympics to New York.  And last the supposed jewel of progress, our public school system.

In each case, New York has become a town governed with less clarity and more secrecy.  With more autocracy and less democracy.  Because of this administration, we have less transparency in government and less accountability.

The Stadium

Some people may be for the Mayor's West Side stadium plan, some against.  As you may know, I am against it.  When I say I want to bring the Jets home, I mean it - to Queens.  But the amazing thing about the plan is not just whether we need a huge stadium on the West Side.  And not even whether we should spend billions to make it happen - money that will go either directly or indirectly to already wealthy developers.

The amazing thing to me is the process by which the decision is being made, and the way the mayor proposes to fund the stadium.

It has been a series of closed door deals and secret negotiations.  Every step of the stadium process has been designed to minimize public input.

Take a look at this chart describing how the stadium is to be financed.

It is designed explicitely to deny public input and cover up how the costs are being divided up.  The stadium plan itself calls for no vote by the City Council, the state legislature or any other democratically elected body.  Stadium negotiations with the Jets have been conducted without any real transparency.

Let me put it to you this way, if a public company tried to finance an acquisition this way, the Investor Fraud Unit of the Attorney General's office would be called.

And now that another bidder has stepped up and made and offer that would reduce the taxpayer’s burden, what has been the mayor's response?  He calls them "un-American."

In general, I have not been amused by how often Republicans have said that about others, but the point is that even the idea of a more open process is downright offensive to Mayor Bloomberg.

I believe we should go in a different direction.  I was the first to call for the property over the rail yards to be put up to an open bid.  I am glad that we all forced the MTA to do that.

The next step is for the City Council to end its "go along and get along" attitude to the project.  Our elected representatives should not have rezoned the far West Side without first getting us all a voice on this project.  One way I would have done it is to rezone the rail yards as part of the plan.  Rezoning it for housing, commercial and open space would have given us the vote we have all been yearning for.

We need to shine some light on the process and trust that the citizens of New York are creative and smart enough to make these decisions, not just one Republican mayor in consultation with one developer.

The Olympics

This week is a good week to discuss the administration's plan to bring the Olympics to New York. The dozen or so leaders of the International Olympic Committee are here to give us a last looking over before they decide who will host the 2012 Olympics.  There has been more than $13 million worth of advertising spent just to influence them.   Spending more than one million to persuade each person seems high but that is not my point. Whether we should want the Olympics is something people of good faith can disagree on.

I support the idea of bringing the Olympics to New York City. But honestly sometimes I wonder if the mayor thinks about anything else all day.  I also wonder how much we could have accomplished had elimination of child hunger been an Olympic sport.  There are 500,000 hungry children in New York City. There are 13 Olympic officials visiting.  The truth is, our City will deserve a gold medal not when we get the Olympics, but when no child goes to bed hungry.

But whether you like the Olympic idea or not, I don't think we have to sacrifice our democratic principles -- our values -- to bring the games here.  And if that is the cost, it is too high.

The mayor, like many of us, has called for an end to "pay to play," the system where campaign contributions buy access to city contracts.  Those are cases where people, for instance in the City Council, may ask those doing business to give them contributions as part of the deal for getting a fair hearing from legislators.

When it comes to the Olympics, and the conduct of NYC2012, the umbrella organization raising funds to promote our Olympic bid, the mayor has created at least the perception of a "pay to play" operation.

Last year, the city's Conflicts of Interest Board issued a formal opinion allowing Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff and Mayor Bloomberg to raise money directly for NYC2012, something city officials usually cannot do.

The consequences were predictable.  According to recent exposes in the New York Observer, WNYC Radio  and the Village Voice, NYC2012’s contributions nearly tripled between 2002 and 2003 in part because the City’s big real estate, finance, and development companies contributed – including all but one of the seven firms who have received multimillion dollar subsidies since the mayor took office.  As the Village Voice points out, it’s hard not to notice the coincidence.

And, because NYC2012 is a private organization, without any mandated disclosure or oversight requirements, that may just be the tip of the iceberg.  One lobbyist was even quoted as saying, "If a client came to me and said, 'Look, I want to get in with this administration,' I'd say, 'Hey, give to the Olympics."  

The Mayor has proposed limiting what anyone with a city contract can contribute to an elected official.  While the billionaire mayor seems like an odd messenger for campaign finance reform, I support this plan.

But we need to go one step further.  If we want to eliminate "pay for play" we have to extend the public disclosure requirements to all public-private partnerships like NYC2012, so our City's spending is beyond question.  There should be no scent of doubt.  Nobody should be able to say there are any secret backdoors to City Hall influence.  And, in light of the troubling news reports, the Conflicts of Interest Board should revisit its ruling that permitted the mayor and his staff to fundraise for NYC2012 while in office.

Education

The final example of how we have permitted our city government to become less and less accountable to us is the largest and most important part of our budget - our school system.

I support the concept of mayoral control of our public school system - but it must be done in a way that is consistent with our values - with openness, transparency and accountability.

Since the imposition of mayoral control, every major decision by the Bloomberg administration has been unilateral.

An untested and controversial reading curriculum was imposed and then withdrawn without ever asking teachers what they thought.

There were literally protests in my community because teachers were so micromanaged.  In one case, teachers were handed stop watches to control their movements in class.

You know what the teachers chanted at the protest? "Let teachers teach."

Not a radical, revolutionary notion.  But the administration's senior official for instruction thought so.  She responded that letting teachers teach was the problem.

That is bad enough. But the autocratic style has also jeopardized the Department of Education's scarce funding.

According to a report by State Comptroller, last year the Department of Education overspent its budget by $236 million due to poor accounting.   No one knows where this money has gone.

Just last week the City Comptroller wrote to Mayor Bloomberg that "from all appearances the DOE," and I quote, "is playing a budgetary 'shell game,' making it impossible to determine the magnitude of its failure to achieve savings which the public has been led to believe were transferred to directly benefit our children in their classrooms."

Chancellor Klein had been claiming that cost cutting had saved $250 million, yet the comptroller found only $140 million in savings, and found "there is no evidence to show that any DOE cost savings resulted in more dollars spent in classrooms... Fiscal transparency and agency accountability must be regarded as synonymous.  The continued inadequacy of the DOE's financial reporting places the agency well short of this threshold for accountability."

Again I ask, if a public company kept a secret set of books that obscured more than a quarter of its budget, wouldn't it be a scandal?  Would you invest in that company?

Solving these problems is not so hard.  Institute real reform.  Listen to teachers. Provide an outside accounting of the money.  Instead of stonewalling and fighting, work with critics so there can be a public discussion of what works and what needs to be fixed.

One intriguing idea we should pursue is to use technology to transform government, to make government transparent. Our education budgets and regulations, all the information about our schools management, could be put on line so parents and citizens and experts could analyze it and make suggestions. That would serve democracy, and it would produce more accountability and reform as well.

The mayor works in an open office with many of his top aides.  He says this encourages a free flow of information.  There might not be a seat for all of us in his so-called "bull pen".  But that doesn't mean that we should not strive to ensure that there is is a better public accounting of where our money is going.

The Road Ahead

I could go on with other examples.  I haven't even touched on the alphabet soup of unaccountable boards and authorities which seem to govern us rather than us governing them, but I want to take some questions.

I think you see the problem.  In case after case, the mayor has chosen the apparent efficiency of top down decision making over the often sloppy but essential openness of democratic government.    

The loss of democracy is bad. But the results for New Yorkers are even worse.

We will end up with expensive stadiums built in the wrong neighborhoods, corporate donors to non profits with special access to government, and schools that don't teach our children.

The private sector learned this lesson, again, only a few years ago.  Accountability and transparency aren't just nice trappings. They are essentials to success. They are how we test our ideas.

That is true at Enron.  And it should be just as true in Washington, DC, and in New York City.

Thank you for your listening.  I look forward to our conversation.