No, Assemblyman, you're missing the point

Missing one point, making another (4.00 / 2)

There is surely some PR component to this, and I am not in any way trying to defend a strong-leader system, or suggest that the people or the individual legislators have appropriate power in this system currently.

There is, however, another important point in this that is sometimes missed by dedcicated fans of Steamrolling.  Throughout the Pataki years, there was a major legal battle between the legislature and the executive.  That battle did not go well in the courts for the legislature.  The problem w/governance in NY is, in fact, systemic-- and will not be solved by a White Knight governor accumulating all the power to govern the state.  Even if Spitzer is your idea of a saint (and he's way far to the right for my taste in sainthood...), the next governor might not be. An over-strong executive with a one-party legislature is a strong-leader system on steroids. Checks and balances are really crucial, always.

The centralization of money and power is a pernicious effect of our economic system-- we feel the effects so strongly here in NYS because we happen to include the current financial center of the world.  How we design and construct political systems that can stand up to the pressure and assure democracy is a major task, and a trendsetting and important one, too. We will not get there by glorifying or mocking persons, or by "throwing the bums out" and replacing them with new bums.  Although, that can be cathartic, so, have at it. But, somebody has some work ahead of them, right Bri?

---

by: robinia @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 15:13:08 PM UTC

Eliot... (0.00 / 0)

...is the exception with an eye to his mandate, but yes, I'm generally leery of too-powerful executives myself. That said, he was elected with 69% of the vote, and that has to mean something.

All the more reason, then, to make sure the legislature actually **is** a legislature. I generally like Brodsky, or did before the DiNapoli fiasco, and I'd like to see him be able to effectively represent his district. However, under the eisting rules, he can't do so, nor can anyone, and that must change.

My favorite example to illustrate the costs of the strong-leader system is the Atlantic Yards development here in the City. It's hugely controversial, the biggest development in Brooklyn history, but the Assembly (and Senate) have had exactly zero hearings on it, no real debates, nada. I imagine it's the same everywhere. These are the systemic problems that need to be fixed, because we all have an interest in our legislature being respected, and able to, you know, represent us and actually legislate.

---

by: Michael Bouldin @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 15:35:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed (4.00 / 2)

All the more reason, then, to make sure the legislature actually **is** a legislature

I think, in our exasperation with the legislature's stubborn refusal to reform itself, we tend to use rhetoric that suggests contempt for the leg. itself.

It's important to make the point that we don't hate the legislature - on the contrary, we want it to be stronger. We want it to be more representative. We want it to be a successful body with empowered legislators, not two majority leaders and a bunch of window dressing. We want to make individual legislators more powerful.

The legislature's arguments vis-a-vis balance of power would be much more convincing if ordinary New Yorkers felt represented in the Assembly and Senate. As it is, we elect representatives who have no power to actually accomplish anything without the permission of Shelly Silver or Joe Bruno. If the leg. is not democratic, it's hard to get people enthusiastic about the idea that it plays an essential role in the state's democracy.

What are they smoking? Find out at alien & sedition.

---

by: BrooklynRaider @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 15:43:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Precisely; couldn't agree more (0.00 / 0)

It is a tough nut to crack, though.  Empowering the people and the rank-and-file legislators witout having them corrupted by the lobbyists-- tall order. 
I am grateful to Brodsky for keeping Pataki from such things as giving away the Erie Canal for 35K to a crony, but all that effort on his part with the Authorities oversight is just a rear-guard defense-- hard to build public enthusiasm on that, alright.

---

by: robinia @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 16:25:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bingo. (0.00 / 0)

What you said.

---

by: Michael Bouldin @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 17:03:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

At my Assembly member's Town Hall (0.00 / 0)

She mentioned that this would be coming from Brodsky and that she was looking forward to it.  I didn't realize it had already come out.

Too much of it is about problems above the legislative level (legislature vs. other parts of government), and when it does talk about the legislature, it ignores the ugly bits.  Nothing about leadership control, nothing about lifetime incumbency. Well, there's a nod to "we haven't reformed our electoral processes," but....

Generally, I think the legislature has a problem. They used to be able to blame the Governor for dysfunction.  Both houses could do legislature vs. Governor, and the Assembly had an extra bonus about a Republican Governor.  Now the Assembly has to deal with a popular governor who's of their own party, so it's going to be a lot harder for them to manage their PR.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 16:22:48 PM UTC

Assemblyman Brodsky Misses the Point (4.00 / 1)

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky misconstrues Governor Spitzer's behavior in shining a bright light on the ways and means of the state legislature in Albany. Mr. Brodsky portrays the Governor's attacks on the legislature as an attack on the constitutional balance of power between the executive and legislative branch. But that is not at all what the Governor is attempting to deal with.

The following example is but a microcosm of what's wrong with the state legislature: last Fall, legislation, promoted by the New York State United Teachers Federation,and adopted UNANIMOUSLY BY THE STATE ASSEMBLY AND STATE SENATE would have made deleterious, one-sided changes to the Taylor Law that would have put school districts (i.e., the taxpayers) under pressure to concede important issues to the teachers unions in the collective bargaining process. The legislation would have imposed the burden of proof on districts if the unions accused districts of not bargaining in good faith (whatever that means). If districts failed to concede issues to the unions-the union proposals in negotiations would automatically prevail-and districts (i.e., the taxpayer) would have been penalized. There was nothing mutual about the wording of this legislation. This legislation was seriously anti- school district and anti- taxpayer. Fortunately, Governor Pataki vetoed the legislation.

Every state assemblymember and senator, regardless of party, voted for this misbegotten bill.

This goes on all the time. And this is what Governor Spitzer has been elected to stop.

This has nothing to do with the proper role and responsibility of the legislature-it's all about what prompts and motivates the legislature to act.

Mr. Brodsky just doesn't get it.

---

by: David @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 17:08:41 PM UTC

dear legislators (4.00 / 1)

If any of you aren't too wed to your cushy part time job with great benefits, and you have some self respect, and you want to become the people's hero, I recommend you write an op-ed that is the polar opposite of our man Brodsky's.  I, like some above, once liked Brodsky.  Now I see he was merely playing us for fools.

So, if you aren't scared of old Shelly and you are part of the permanent democratic majority in the assembly and you don't just want to suck the tax payers dry while you do nothing for the rest of your life AND you'd like to become a hero, write it.  And start speaking up.  So what if they take away your lulu's.  So what if a chosen few in your district don't get their pork (they don't really need it).  Speak up.  Spitzer stood up and spoke up.  He's now the Governor.  Albany DA David Soares is doing the same.  We all know who he is now, don't we?  Who are you?  We've never heard of you.  That could change.  Do it for your kids.  Do it for fame.  Do it because it will feel so damn good to do the right thing.

The time is now.  Be the first.  Because once someone does it, others will follow.  But the first to do it will be the real hero.  And we could use you right about now. 

---

by: DIA @ Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 19:36:47 PM UTC

This is so good (0.00 / 0)

I agree with most everything that has been said thus far and will try not to be redundant.  My favorite line of your article, Bouldin, that actually made me laugh out loud, was "What he fails to mention is that the prime role of a legislature is to be an effing legislature..."  Very well written article.

I wrote my Assemblyman about the comptroller issue while that whole deal was going on asking him to do the right thing by demonstrating to his district (which happens to include 7 institutions of higher learning) that he respects their mission by valuing the education/qualification of the candidate he supports for comptroller.  I didn't get a response back until after the vote (3 weeks later), and it was a form letter with the same rhetoric that Assemblymen everywhere were spewing at the time about it being "the Assembly's constitutional right."  First of all, I have a problem with the word "right" in that sentence, because the "right" is really a "duty," and the "duty" is to the voters, not to ignore them.  In regard to this particular issue, I loved this line from his op-ed:
"And we must never retreat from exercising our constitutional responsibilities as an independent branch of government, even in unpopular circumstances."

Not to sound like I'm not in support of the legislature "exercising (their) constitutional responsibilities," but if he's citing popularity as something to ignore, here's my beef: you're supposed to represent the people as a member of a REPRESENTATIVE government!  If it's unpopular with the people, then you'd better sure as hell alter your actions to be consistent with those of the people.  Or maybe he meant "unpopular" with Sheldon Silver.. in which case he's not contradicting himself.

---

by: reinmoose @ Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 16:34:51 PM UTC