I don't know George Pataki. I have never been a particular fan of George Pataki. I am less so now.
Let me tell you why.
George Pataki was testifying in his own defense a few weeks ago, at a trial in federal court in New York City, when he uttered the statement, "I didn't directly direct anything!"
What? He was our governor for 12 years and he didn't directly direct anything? How could that be? What did he direct and who did he direct and how did he govern without governing? Should he go down in history as the man who would be in charge, but really wasn't?
It seems that in the final throes of his years as governor, someone, we're not sure who, directed that a directive be issued to prison wardens. They were ordered not to allow certain sex offenders who have served their sentences to get out of jail until they were determined not to be at risk of recidivism for sex crimes. The problem, it seems, was that neither Pataki nor anyone else had the legal authority to do that.
Legislation that would have mandated a psychological review process was stalled in the state Assembly. So Pataki, or someone pretending to be Pataki at the time, took it upon himself to detain several dozen inmates for psychological evaluation. These inmates brought what is called a habeas corpus proceeding against the governor in federal court, claiming that he had violated their constitutional rights. And the inmates won.
A federal judge ruled that what Pataki did was illegal and unconstitutional, and that Pataki, and the state he allegedly directed undirectionally for 12 years, could be held liable for monetary damages.
The remaining questions for the jury were, did he actually do it, and if so, how much should he have to pay. His denial, however, worked. The jury found that Pataki should pay nothing. The jury got it right. But Pataki got it wrong.
These were bad actors he detained, but he did do so illegally. Instead of saying "I didn't directly direct anything," Pataki might have said this: "Yes, I did it. I ordered it because I didn't want them going out and committing more heinous sex crimes, so I said, "upon the advice of counsel, 'Not on my watch!'"
Instead, Pataki denied responsibility. He may have skated on the damages issue, but his legacy is now tarnished by his sheepish rejection of responsibility.
He could have just owned up to it, and said, "Yes, I did, and if I stopped one sexual assault as a result, it was worth it!"
The jury might still have said, "OK, Governor, and for that we direct you to pay these prisoners one dollar in damages."
What jury in their right minds would have wanted to reward them monetarily?
Instead, facing the prospect of a possible hefty money judgment against him, Pataki suffered a serious bout of amnesia.
He didn't remember ever directly ordering what nonetheless was ordered.
I was an assistant state attorney general at the time. I remember going into state court to defend the governor's actions. I was reluctant to do so, because I thought he was exceeding his constitutional authority.
Nevertheless, we had an obligation to provide for his defense.
I was actually relieved when the court ruled that he had no right to do what he did, and that a new hearing had to be held for all those who were improperly detained.
Meanwhile, a new law was enacted to give governors the power to do what Pataki did. The affected prisoners were re-incarcerated legally under the sexual offender law.
But as for our non-governing governor, and his responsibility for what was done or not done under his name and his authority, a price should be paid for it.
And it would not surprise me if that price winds up being a seriously tarnished reputation for prevarication for the guy who didn't directly direct anything.