Legislative Receptions and the Ethics Laws (Updated)

The Times Union of Albany reports that Albany-area caterers and restaurants are not happy with the 2007 change in the state’s ethics laws that reduced the value of what lobbyists could provide to public officials (including legislators and staff) from $75 to “nominal value” (which the Commission has concluded is “no more than the cost of an ordinary cup of coffee.”)

The question here is whether the 2007 amendments to the state’s ethics laws (Chapter 14 of 2007, known as the “Public Employee Ethics Reform Act, or PEERA) were intended to end what was at that time the long-standing practice of groups holding “legislative receptions.”  In a typical legislative reception, a group would come to Albany, reserve a room in or around the Capitol/LOB area or in an area hotel , and provide free finger foods and drinks to legislators and staff.  In the wake of the enactment of PEERA, the CPI began bringing civil actions against groups for knowing violations of the gift ban by holding legislative receptions. (Groups willing to admit a violation were fined $250.  United University Professions refused to do so and the CPI is attempting to impose a $5,000 fine.)

PEERA includes an exception for “widely attended events,” but in 2009 (long after the law was in place) the CPI began enforcement actions against a number of entities that held receptions after the law was enacted.  The CPI and the Legislative Ethics Commission have issued dueling interpretations of the new law (read the CPI’s guidance and the LEC’s guidance) with respect to legislative receptions.

The CPI’s hard-line prohibiting these events where food and drink are served — even as the LEC took the position that elected officials may attend them when the event is “related to the attendee’s duties or responsibilities as a public official” — has left many advocacy groups scratching their heads about whether or not meet-and-greet legislative receptions are permissible.

Assuming that ethics reform is addressed this session, this issue may be addressed.  The 2010 ethics reform proposal advanced by the Legislature that Governor Paterson vetoed (A.9544 of 2010, Veto #1) would have defined “nominal food and beverage” to mean less than $10.

The Times Union’s editorial board does not like the idea of revising the “cup of coffee” rule.