The proposal is long, 20 pages, and a lot of traps and inconsistencies are hidden in it.
I am starting a series of articles analyzing this proposal, and will forward all of them as my public comment to this proposal.
Even if I do not live in New York State anymore, I continue to pay property taxes in that state which feed the work of prosecutors and police, so I do have a say in the matter, as a taxpayer.
Moreover, New York does not restrict public comment only to residents of New York state.
The very first problem that jumps to mind is the lack of transparency in:
- how the body that proposed this rule - the permanent New York Justice Task Force - was formed, without any input from the public, taxpayers, voters and consumers of legal services;
- how it convened - without following the Public Meetings Law, without notice to the public or opportunity to be heard, behind closed doors;
- how it formed its committees and subcommittees;
- how and from whom the Task Force solicited "recommendations".
If this task force was truly to address the urgent, glaring issue of wrongful convictions, and would truly be interested in trying to address that issue and prevent innocent people from being charged and convicted of crimes they did not commit, it would have been, at the very least, transparent and honest with the public as to what it is that the "Task Force" is doing, how and why.
That the public was given:
- no say in the composition of the Task Force;
- no say in the work of the Task Force;
- no notice as to meetings of the Task Force;
- no opportunity to be present at those meetings or provide their own input to the work of the Task Force -
already speaks volumes about both legitimacy of the Task Force itself and legitimacy and potential conflicts of interests and motivations of the Task Force.
But that's only one problem of many in how and why this proposal has come about.
I will continue to analyze the proposal.
Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment