Political Insurance

[NoCtUrNaL]

In allot of professions insurance is needed in the event the person performing the service or providing the product fails to do what ought to be done, performs a lawful action in an illegal or improper manner, and/or simply performs their duties wrongfully or manifests misconduct.


My idea is that anyone elected to public office must carry "Feasance" insurance and can be sued for any of the above reasons.

The amount of insurance needed is determined by the total budget of the office for which that person is running for or has been elected to.

Thoughts?

[lars]

I agree there must be accountability for not doing their job. If they want insurance to protect their asses, then they can lobby for it but you know they'd pass the expense along to the consumer, US, just like the medical industry has done along with other professions.

Lars

[NoCtUrNaL]

I'm talking about insurance that they're responsible for paying.


They can use the money they legally receive for campaign contributions for this purpose and/or their party can pay and/or contribute to this.

So, to reiterate...this insurance can be paid:

1. Using personal wealth

2. With political contributions made specifically for that candidates election.

3. By the candidate’s party.

Or any combination of the three above.

[NoCtUrNaL]

Originally posted by lars
"...you know they'd pass the expense along to the consumer, US, just like the medical industry has done along with other professions".

I don't see how...this is a different situation.

[lars]

Originally posted by NoCtUrNaL
I don't see how...this is a different situation.

How about a "salary" adjustment upward which is returned to us through a tax increase or fee adjustment to bring in more revenue to cover the higher salary? I can't imagine how it could become reality but you bet your lawsuit the taxpayer would pony up indirectly to cover their expense.

I want to see an immediate cut in legislator pay if the control board is enacted. That is more immediate and drives savings to the payroll expense line.

Lars

[NoCtUrNaL]

Who said anything about a salary increase?

They either use their personal wealth. (e.g. Bloomberg, Galisano) or they pay for the insurance using political contributions to their particular campaign or their party pays for it.

[buffy]

I want to see an immediate cut in legislator pay if the control board is enacted. That is more immediate and drives savings to the payroll expense line.

I want to see Giambra's salary reduced; the man doesn't deserve to be paid executive wages for the job he's doing, especially when we get a control board.

[speaker]

Originally posted by lars
I agree there must be accountability for not doing their job. If they want insurance to protect their asses, then they can lobby for it but you know they'd pass the expense along to the consumer, US, just like the medical industry has done along with other professions.

Lars

Lars, a lot of people in the parimedical profession have to pay for their own liability insurance.
It's all in the contract, as I've said before relating to developers, corporations and anything else.

[lars]

Originally posted by Buff Lifer
I want to see Giambra's salary reduced; the man doesn't deserve to be paid executive wages for the job he's doing, especially when we get a control board.

You're right! How forgettful of me. Giambra should contribute to the cause as well if a control board is put in place.

I know professionals pay for their own insurances in the event of "malpractice", etc... but I find it nearly impossible to believe that elected officials wouldn't figure out some way to get their cost for that insurance passed on to the public.

Lars

[Effigy]

There was a law passed several years ago (80's? 90's?) here in NYS that COMPLETELY ABSOLVES any elected official from financial responsibility, no matter what nightmare they inflict on the public.

[lars]

Originally posted by Effigy
There was a law passed several years ago (80's? 90's?) here in NYS that COMPLETELY ABSOLVES any elected official from financial responsibility, no matter what nightmare they inflict on the public.

Did this come about because there was litigation involving politicians elsewhere that could have established a precedent?

Can you find out more about this and post the source so those interested can review while we work on some other issues on the front burner?

I wonder what the former Mayor of Sloan and those being implicated in that village's cluster must be thinking right about now concerning any vulnerability they have.

Lars

[Effigy]

Lars asked:
Can you find out more about this and post the source so those interested can review while we work on some other issues on the front burner?

Thanks for the interest - I'll do what I can - I do remember that when this occurred, I was pretty outraged. At the time I figured it was due to the regulation from the early 20th century that required asbestos fireproofing in all public buildings. Today it could also be applied to the mandated use of MTBE in gasoline.

[Effigy]

New York State Public Officers Law, Defense and indemnification of state officers and employees.

ARTICLE 2, §17

3. (a) The state shall indemnify and save harmless its employees in the amount of any judgment obtained against such employees in any state or federal court, or in the amount of any settlement of a claim, or shall pay such judgment or settlement; provided, that the act or omission from which such judgment or settlement arose occurred while the employee was acting within the scope of his public employment or duties; the duty to indemnify and save harmless or pay prescribed by this subdivision shall not arise where the injury or damage resulted from intentional wrongdoing on the part of the employee.

There also was this on the League of Women Voters website, but I can't find any relevant links:

(A) loophole that prohibits prosecutors from investigating ethical misconduct.

[lars]

Originally posted by Effigy
New York State Public Officers Law, Defense and indemnification of state officers and employees.

ARTICLE 2, §17

...the duty to indemnify and save harmless or pay prescribed by this subdivision shall not arise where the injury or damage resulted from intentional wrongdoing on the part of the employee.

With Hoyt alluding to a criminal investigation surrounding the budget process, indemnification is forfeited when there is "intentional wrongdoing on the part of the employee". Didn't Hevesi already point out that numbers were fudged in the budget process? Naples has certainly implicated ethical violations which, after further investigation, may reveal intentional wrongdoing.

Lars