Inversion

Non-partisan redistricting is going to be harder than you think (0.00 / 0)

As you state, the leadership in both houses have the power, not individual members.  The leadership is not just going to acquiesce to Spitzer's position and let non-partisan redistricting pass.  That would mean they might finally let voters pick their representatives and not the other way around.  Controlling the redistricting process is too important to members of the Legislature to just give up to a non-partisan commission.

I also take issue with this:

Replace them with a reform Democrat, and they'll immediately face pressure to be a good member of the caucus, with rewards (and punishments) galore to bend them into their proper place.

Spitzer was elected with a mandate, he shifts the playing field.  The punishments and gifts you mention will hold less sway with assemblymen and assemblywomen.  Spitzer gives them an incentive to revolt.  He also has his a bully pulpit to use against members.  Ultimately I think the key to reform will be getting reform minded people elected to the legislature because, as the comptroller battle demonstrated, Spitzer alone cannot reform Albany.

---

by: sabachi @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 03:12:38 AM UTC

Spitzer shifts things (0.00 / 0)

in that he's given voters hope for change, and legislators have to work extra hard to convince voters they're going along with change... as little change as possible, but enough for window-dressing.

He does make it a lot harder for Assembly members to praise Sheldon Silver as the bulwark of liberalism against the dangers of Republicans, too.  That may make it harder for the leadership to challenge reform Democrats outright... but I don't think things will change.

And no, I don't think clean redistricting will come without a massive fight.  (Worse, I don't think it solves all the problems, just some of the more grotesque ones.)

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 00:44:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It requires voter awareness (0.00 / 0)

If we as voters pay attention, and understand how important what goes on in state govt is, then that will change the equation. We must insist that we are also in that room, not just the 3 men. They have been able to do this since there is no real check by the voters on the system, by apathy and by ignorance. We need to demand that the press do more to cover what goes on in Albany, from a real policy perspective, not just, the well Bruno and Spitzer seem to be getting along this week crap. With consistant and quality reporting, I think the public will start to pay attention, just by virture of the fact there is something to be paying attention too.

The idea that we have to be experts and have the answers in order to participate -- the intimidation by our electeds that surpress participation all has to be exposed and ended -- see  One big boring scripted sham MrMacMan's coverage of the Hudson Valley Economic Forum presented by the Repub Assemblymen -- where they had the nerve to look at him as if they didn't know what he was talking about when he asked questions about the AMD project.

There are good people in Albany that are trying to make changes and do the right thing. I know of one Assemblyperson who does not participate in memberitems pay offs even. But, without support and knowledge, how CAN they get anywhere?

Maybe we should have a monthy profile of a hero in Albany where we can celebrate and highlight the contributions of the folks there who are really trying to help and reform. At some point we will have to stop not expect the gov. to do all our work for us...

---

by: am @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 13:25:46 PM UTC

MONEY is a bigger part of the equation.... (4.00 / 1)

Any reform agenda needs to address the corupting influence of the really-big bucks that are sloshing through the current Albany system.  In some ways, the strong-party-leader approach is an inheritance from Tammany Hall days.... but, in some ways, it enforces discipline to PREVENT local reps from being picked off one-by-one by well-financed lobbyists.  That's why I am such a fan of the Brennan Center approach-- rules changes, lobbying law changes, redistricting changes, campaign finance changes... to be effective, the pieces need to be re-formed (reformed!) together.  Tough job.  Spitzer's election is for sure a first step...

I'd like to see that FBI case on Bruno break.  I think we could get some real momentum on the "skeezy special interests" front on that.... Bush hasn't outsourced FBI work to whoever was running Walter Reed Hospital, has he?

---

by: robinia @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 15:29:43 PM UTC

My 2 Cents (4.00 / 2)

As someone who served in the Assembly I agree with most of what's been said, specifically that the inversion thesis has resonance.  I'm also a supporter of the Brennan concept but would like to add a couple of minor reforms to the discussion.

1.  Member items should either be equal or eliminated.

2.  Staff salary allotment should be equal for all members.

These work hand-in hand with the redistricting reform.  Why should a community be punished by losing both member item $ and constituent services when they turn out a veteran member?
Both MI's and staff salary are doled out according to seniority, subject entirely to the Speaker's pleasure.  The Speaker should only have absolute control over Chairmanships, Committee Assignments, office space and the agenda. That would still give them the ability to control members without unfairly limiting a community's choices at election time.

---

by: fukushimajin @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 15:59:05 PM UTC

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

Yes-- those pieces are also essential.  Member items need to have a process that is both fair and equitable ("equal" and "equitable" might be somewhat different-- some districts might have legitimate special needs from time to time...).  They also need to be transparent.  You often read about member item transparency as requiring clear reporting of who gets how much.... of course, that is essential, but, IMHO, not enough.  I think it is also important to know who was turned down, and what they were asking for funds for, and for how much.  While supporting the local SPCA shelter looks reasonable on the surface, it might look different if you knew that it was supported for $9,000, while a $5,000 roof repair on the local homeless shelter was not funded....

---

by: robinia @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 00:02:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

excellent point (0.00 / 0)

The whole process needs to be transparent. It's good that we're finally seeing some transparency about conclusions, but that's really only one piece.

Also of related interest today, a New York Times article about different approaches to such funds in different states:

In New Jersey and New Mexico they are called "Christmas tree" items. New York calls them "pet projects." Other states call the items "WAMs," for walking around money. And in Alabama, in a rare fit of candor, it is called "pass-through pork."

What they all have in common is that they are items in state budgets that were placed there — often at the last possible moment to discourage scrutiny — by a legislator for a particular benefit to his or her district. In some cases there is concern that the money improperly benefits friends or relatives.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 00:38:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

In other words... (0.00 / 0)

...we've got ourselves an Empire?  :-)

---

by: NYCO @ Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 23:28:43 PM UTC

still act like an empire (0.00 / 0)

but the outer provinces do what they like, no longer tightly bonded to New York.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 00:40:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tools For The Grassroots (0.00 / 0)

I like the inversion idea.  I think its opens up this a bit. A nice summary of how the system inverts democracy.  In addition to all the good ideas for structural change, I would add another.  Giving electoral tools to the grassroots and community organizations so they can break through the hold that political consultants and elected officials have on communicating with voters. Access to voter profile lists.  Data on where voters live; election results at the election district level. The grassroots needs kind of information that is used to win elections and influence elected officials. 

---

by: milesblack @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 03:46:55 AM UTC

Ballot Access is a big problem too (0.00 / 0)

If the major parties didn't have such a lock on ballot access, and if the other parties couldn't give their lines to the major candidates, there would be many more competitive elections in NY.

Glad that you noted the Bethlehem example Simon.  As of 2007, we finally have majority conference representation in the State Assembly (108th AD went to I/D candidate Tim Gordon), but it's way too early to tell what effect that will have.  Given the fact that DACC poured > $300K into Gordon's campaign, it seems doubtful that he'll be taking positions contrary to Shelley anytime soon.

I also appreciate Robinia's citing of the Tammany precursor to our current leader dominated Legislature.  I found the following political cartoon, titled "The Same Old Deal," that ran on the front page of the February 4th, 1913 Cortland Standard.  Note that the collar on the tiger is labeled Tammany, and that it was attributed to the New York Journal.  Sadly, this still seems fitting today as a graphic depiction of your inversion notion...

Perhaps the RICO statutes might also be of some use in dealing with some of the doings of the competing Silver and Bruno families now dominating the Empire State.

---

by: teaparty2 @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 04:21:01 AM UTC