We move back into the August 27, 2025 Governance Committee meeting at 680 Main Street where it felt less like a continuation than the quiet third act of a long play. In Part 1 (“A Pause Between Sips”), the conversation had drifted from ethics to ground leases, from principle to property, as if governance were something to be held but never quite grasped. In Part 2 (“The Unmentioned Section”), the committee wrestled with an omission—the missing citation to §73(8)(b)—and in doing so revealed how easily substance gives way to ceremony when no one reads too closely. The draft Code of Ethics and Conflict of Interest Policy lay open under fluorescent light, and by the time they reached Section 14, even the hum of the air conditioner sounded like hesitation. What began months ago as a review of integrity had become proofreading for obedience. The Chair alone would decide who could speak for RIOC; everyone else would learn the new moral of the story—Albany doesn’t want transparency; it wants volume control. The square for Fay stayed empty long enough to make a point. The Governance Committee meeting had the familiar rhythm of remote civility: Lydia Tang’s steady patience, Lada Stasko’s procedural compass, Conway Ekpo’s confident stillness. On screen, a single document glowed—Section 14, the rule about who may speak and when. It waited like an unclaimed microphone. Before anyone read it aloud, someone noted the irony hovering over the room: RIOC’s last Ethics Officer had sued the Corporation. The island’s conscience had filed a complaint against its own body. What does “ethical oversight” even mean when the referee turns plaintiff? If the referee’s suing the team, you might want to check who’s keeping score. The new draft, it seemed, was meant to prevent further embarrassment—an insurance policy written in politeness. But the result looked more like an etiquette manual than a code of integrity. Because when your watchdog bites, maybe the problem isn’t the leash—it’s the owner. When Ethics Becomes EtiquetteThe clause read, in its final, ratified form:
On paper, harmless. In practice, a silencer with good manners. Because once speech is regulated under ethics, silence becomes the moral default. The Chair has more control over speech than a 1950s nunnery. To speak without the Chair’s blessing is, by definition, unethical. The Chair—RuthAnne Visnauskas, Commissioner of New York State Homes and Community Renewal—represents Albany, not Roosevelt Island. Her job is to corral, to align, to keep the board tidy. Yet Section 14 hands her exclusive license to define who may voice the Corporation’s mind. The irony writes itself: a rule about integrity that consolidates power in the one seat least accountable to the community it governs. If my sister had chaired the meeting, she might’ve quipped, “Sweetheart, if you need Albany’s permission to say good morning, you’re not in ethics—you’re in witness protection.” The Stage Play of ControlThe debate unrolled like a dress rehearsal for restraint. Lada Stasko opened the scene by reminding everyone that the language began life in the bylaws before being transplanted into the ethics code. Conway Ekpo—who first drafted it back when rebellion still flickered on the board—sat back, half-smiling. Margie Smith, once the committee’s chair and now one of its two local advisers, lent the room her veteran warmth; she’s known for clashing with the state and befriending it again when useful. Beside her, Audrey Berman Tannen, District Director for Senator Kruger, watched with the even calm of someone long accustomed to translation between government dialects. Margie kept to a narrow creed: directors shouldn’t speak for the Corporation unless instructed. Lydia Tang, steady and precise, kept returning to first principles—bylaws that tell the public what to expect and the board what it owes. The debate collapsed into verbs: shall or may, require or recommend; with each softening, authority thinned. What looked like caution began to read as choreography—language engineered to keep power ambiguous and the board safely on mute.
Somewhere in the redlines, they seemed to forget they were drafting ethics for RIOC, not a handbook of boardroom decorum. What emerged was less a standard of conduct than a self-gag rule: don’t speak, and if you must, speak only with disclaimers. The rule should come with a disclaimer: This silence may be recorded for quality assurance. By conflating ethics with silence, they weren’t just dimming transparency; they were sketching a future in which oversight is chilled, whistle-bright warnings stay unsounded, and even may find less to defend when accountability finally knocks. When they said “open government,” they meant the mute button was stuck open. Then came what passed for comic relief. Conway chuckled that if we dropped the list of mediums—email, text, fax—some clever soul would wriggle through a loophole. Polite, uneasy laughter drifted around the table. I smiled, too, but wrote a note to myself: charm is so often the sugar of control. And I kept wondering—was he speaking as a lawyer who prefers the safety of silence, or as an instrument of the state, whose edits seemed perfectly aligned with Albany’s appetite for managed speech? The Ethics of IndemnityHere lies the clause’s true mischief. When a director must preface each sentence with “I speak only for myself,” what happens to indemnity? The law protects officials when acting in their official capacity; Section 14 teaches them to disclaim that capacity before every word. If the board’s only safe speech is personal, then its members stand personally exposed. Governance by gag order—ethically approved. And I can’t forget that RIOC’s former Ethics Officer is now suing the corporation and its board. In any lawsuit, counsel’s first instruction is the same: say nothing. The office built to guarantee openness has become a precedent for silence. “Be quiet”—once prudent legal advice—now masquerades as a moral directive. Which raises the old island riddle: if everyone is forbidden to speak for RIOC, who speaks for RIOC? The Chair? The CEO? The Communications Director? The contract janitor who says good morning? The rule is silent on staff, yet obsessively specific about directors—the only people not on salary, the only ones meant to guard the public trust. Evidently, trust is safest when muzzled. Section 14 doesn’t prevent scandals; it just teaches them to whisper. And what of Howard Polivy? Long the board’s most seasoned hand, he’s been known, according to several sources, to speak off the record with the local press—never, so far as anyone recalls, announcing he was doing so “personally.” Will he now begin each whisper with a disclaimer? Should he? Or will ethics, like gossip, continue to travel without identification? Dream by the Boathouse*I must have fallen asleep before the meeting ended, because I woke in a dream—or at least I think I did. David was there. I don’t recall which David, only that he was sitting beside me in the old RIOC Boathouse, the one near the Sanctuary, where we used to store our ambitions in wooden shells. It felt like the 1990s, or the echo of it. My boat was being inspected before its next journey, though no one said by whom. Maybe by Albany. Maybe by time itself. David leaned close, speaking as if the oars were microphones. “Someone—Eliav, maybe—went to Howard for help,” he said. “They thought the CEO was acting unethically.” Howard, ever the tactician, decided it wasn’t his purview. He redirected the complaint upward, to the state. Safer that way. The same pattern, David sighed, repeating years later with Ellis—months of pleas for help before Howard’s hand was forced by sunlight and scandal. In the dream—or memory—David’s voice blurred with the river’s current. “You know how it goes,” he said. “When problems reach the press, help suddenly finds its courage.” I don’t know if I dreamed that or remembered it, but I’m certain of this much: I’m not under any gag order. Fay’s Cameo and the Sound of SilenceFay arrived, scolded the room, and left—a cameo so brief it qualified as plausible deniability. Fay Christian, chair of the Operations Committee but not of Governance, joined mid-debate. She came, it seemed, less to listen than to object—to Lydia Tang in particular. “We shouldn’t micro-manage the CEO,” she said, echoing the oldest line in Albany’s playbook. It was the same admonition state liaisons whisper whenever a director asks a question: “Don’t get involved in operations” that translates roughly to “Don’t get involved in anything.” The irony, of course, was exquisite. The Chair of Operations telling the board not to operate. It promised restraint, not reflection—and when a teacher starts grading silence higher than participation, maybe the problem isn’t the students. Fay spoke for a few brisk minutes, buoyed by Conway’s approving “hum-hum,” then left the meeting as suddenly as she’d entered. Her absence filled the room again, as if the point of her appearance had been to prove Section 14’s necessity: speak little, leave early, let authority tidy up. Lydia thanked everyone with that mixture of grace and quiet disappointment that has become her signature. The rule was left intact. A polite safeguard, they called it. Outside, evening settled on the island. The river carried the city’s low machinery, the wind pushed through the trees behind the church plaza where Howard once held court with reporters, and the lamps blinked on along Main Street. The meeting had ended, but the question it raised still drifted in the air: If ethics now measures obedience, who measures ethics? Outside, the island kept talking—because the only thing not under the gag order is the wind. Nothing says transparency like a rule that forbids speaking in public. *This is a work of narrative storytelling inspired by real events. Some characters, dialogue, and scenes are imagined to convey broader truths and do not depict actual conversations or individuals. Subscribe for free to receive updates on new posts and support our work.
|
Friday, 17 October 2025
The Gag Order
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Biggest Workbook Ever For Autistic Families, Parents, And Carers
Pre-orders live now! ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
-
Online & In-Person ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
-
Dear Reader, To read this week's post, click here: https://teachingtenets.wordpress.com/2025/07/02/aphorism-24-take-care-of-your-teach...
No comments:
Post a Comment