Politicians tend to use the term “emergency” too loosely, but we can’t argue with Governor Kathy Hochul’s decision to declare a state of emergency in response to the influx of migrants in upstate communities. The migrants, including those seeking asylum, require immediate government action due to the strain they put on social services and schools. The issue of finding suitable housing has caused confusion and tension between upstate officials and New York City Mayor Eric Adams, as migrants are being transported northward and housed in upstate hotels.
The urgent need for housing justifies Ms. Hochul’s use of the emergency declaration to bypass the usual procurement rules and award an $800 million contract for temporary migrant shelters. However, there are some doubts that arise from the details of this decision. Firstly, the state has not announced any plans to actually construct these shelters. While this could change rapidly if the migrant surge worsens, the lack of a concrete plan suggests that awarding the contract to two Texas-based companies (and another unnamed vendor) may not have been as urgent as it initially appeared.
The five-year length of the contract raises further questions. Such a long-term agreement contradicts the notion of an emergency, which typically requires immediate action. This suggests that the majority of the contract did not necessitate the suspension of procurement laws. It’s worth noting that the two companies, Garner Environmental and Cotton Commercial, secured the contract without participating in the state’s standard “request for proposal” process.
Of course, there are valid reasons for the existence of these processes. They aim to protect taxpayers from wasteful spending and prevent the corruption and suspicion that have plagued New York state government in the past. The rules should only be suspended in extreme circumstances that require immediate state intervention. Based on what we know, it doesn’t seem like the contract awarded to the Texas companies fits this criteria.
To make matters worse, it has been revealed that one of the companies involved in the contract made a campaign contribution to Ms. Hochul just before the contract was approved. While the donation from Garner Environmental, based in Houston, was a relatively small amount at $5,000, it serves as a reminder that this is not the first time New York’s Democratic governor has faced fundraising controversies.
An example of this is the decision in 2021 to award a $637 million contract to Digital Gadgets, a New Jersey distributor, while the company’s CEO, Charles Tebele, was actively raising funds for Ms. Hochul. Ultimately, Mr. Tebele, his family members, and entities associated with Digital Gadgets contributed over $700,000 to Ms. Hochul’s campaign. This contract was also awarded under suspended procurement rules.
The governor maintains that campaign contributions do not influence her administration’s decisions, and we sincerely hope that is true. However, Ms. Hochul could demonstrate her commitment to integrity by refusing donations from companies seeking to do business with the state and by advocating for legislation, such as the one sponsored by Cohoes Assemblyman John McDonald, that prohibits this practice.
Passing such legislation would not only enhance Ms. Hochul’s reputation but, more importantly, it would rebuild public trust in state government.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
