About

The Albany Project seeks to return New York State Government to its rightful owners - the people.

New York Blogwire

This belongs to you. Take it back...

Who needs hearings when legislators can just talk?

by: simonstl

Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 12:53:43 PM EDT

(Good stuff. - promoted by lipris)

Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton celebrates a victory for local school funding in today's Ithaca Journal. It's a stirring tale of "Effective State Government", complete with citizen lobbyists, cooperative legislators (starting from the leadership on down), and everyone working together. Or is it?

simonstl :: Who needs hearings when legislators can just talk?

When I spoke to Speaker Sheldon Silver, explaining the negative, unintended consequence for some of the schools in my district (Cortland indicated they had the same problem with the Contract), as well as perhaps 100 schools statewide, he immediately directed Assembly central staff to work with me to figure out what was wrong and how we might fix it. I invited Hurley to Albany to meet with Assemblywoman Cathy Nolan, chair of the Assembly Education Committee, her staff and the Speaker's staff. Hurley demonstrated the impact of the new formula on Newfield and presented his proposal for restricting only “schools in need of improvement.” It sounded simple and sensible enough. But would the Governor, his staff and state groups such as the Alliance for Quality Education (AQE), and the Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) group, which had apparently pushed for the “best practices” restrictions, see the wisdom of allowing some schools more flexibility? Sometimes, as we all know, once people get fixed on an idea and put something in place, it's hard to get them to change it. The situation called for both diplomacy and firmness. I contacted the Governor's office about the issue. I continued to have discussions with Assemblywoman Nolan, the Assembly staff working on this piece of the budget and the AQE lobbyist. I made it clear that I couldn't support a budget that didn't fix this problem. It just wasn't fair or right to unreasonably restrict poor schools from using this new money.

Hurley also kept up the pressure, talking to AQE folks, writing to the governor and speaking with other superintendents, who in turn contacted their representatives. As the weeks went along, more of my colleagues joined me in pushing for more flexible language. In the end we were successful. The schools lobbied, individual legislators listened, the Assembly leadership listened, the Governor's office listened and made the reasonable change — basically working off the language Hurley had suggested. In the end, only those "schools in need of improvement" and three other categories of schools with problems come under the Contract. This was an important victory for the property taxpayer who gets major relief in these cases, for the children in these many schools and for common sense.

It's a victory for common sense, if common sense means having all of these conversations in private, with a press release at the end to let us know how well it all worked.

I don't have a strong opinion about the change itself - maybe someone else can talk about that. I do think, however that Lifton is completely right about this:

Sometimes, as we all know, once people get fixed on an idea and put something in place, it's hard to get them to change it.

I suspect that applies to the "nothing wrong here" idea that our legislators endorse and the general despair voters have about New York State's legislative system.

Tags: Budget, CFE, Silver, Nolan, Assembly, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Who needs hearings when legislators can just talk? | 6 comments

Circular firing squad, or are you running? (0.00 / 0)

Simon is very critical of Democrat Barbara Lifton again (yawn). The article in its whole is ABOUT citizens (and their school in a lower-income rural area) who are negatively impacted by the proposed Executive Budget.... and how they accessed a means of changing that, under the system as it exists. While all of us here want to change the rules of operation of the legislature, it hardly follows that the right thing to do, as a sitting legislator, is to ignore how the Executive Budget has a negative impact on your constituents, and not try to arrange meetings for them to speak to the people who, TODAY, under current rules, have the power to influence the outcome.

Simon, if you are running (as you get upset with me when I suggest that it is Mike who is possibly a primary challenge), why not explain how YOU would do it better if you were the Member, today, with the rules in place today. And don't tell me you would have big public hearings... because, you know, there are not that many times you can get a crowd to go to Albany. I can't even find anybody to carpool with for the trip to Albany for the big Government Reform lobby day on Monday.

I called on of Spitzer's Deputy Secretary of the Environment to lobby about a bill today. Citizen lobbying is good. Encouraging people to do it is good. It is actually OK if people meet with leadership staff, too-- that is in fact how good state government works, in other states, too. Law is complex-- meetings between staff policy experts in a given field and citizen lobbyists who understand local impacts well is exactly the right way to get good laws eventually.

Constantly carping about the performance of an elected official, without putting forth a cogent challenging platform, is destructive. It sounds remarkably like the rant in the "storychat" reply section in the newspaper article-- although we generally use a different term when Dems do that to other Dems: the circular firing squad. Not an effective strategy for actually getting citizen voices heard by the government now in place and making laws (as opposed to imagining the fantasy government that does not exist yet and telling those who are negatively impacted by the Gov's proposed budget for THIS YEAR to just wait until a government you think is worthy is in place...). Make access to change for the people, as we can today, in an even better way tomorrow.

by: robinia @ Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 20:43:28 PM UTC

Let's see, robinia... (4.00 / 1)

I "carp" about Assemblywoman Lifton because she happens to represent my district, so it's easy to pay attention to what she does and doesn't do. Frankly, I think 'reform' would get a lot further and faster if every Assembly member and State Senator had residents of their districts keeping a close eye on them. (And they'd probably get the same flak from their neighbors that I get from robinia.)
What Lifton did may well be good and important - as I said, I don't know the details. If it's good and important, though, why run it through this kind of process? Why not run it through a regular budget process, bringing the problem to public attention? Oh, I forgot - there is no public budget process.
Yeah, maybe I should run for Assembly. I could always credit you with the idea. My platform would likely render me un-electable though: I wouldn't vote for Silver for Speaker, and I wouldn't play the Albany game. In the unlikely event that I won, that'd get me a closet for an office and leave the district wide open to whatever retaliation or neglect the Speaker felt like inflicting. I could likely still be effective as a point person for reform, reporting what I saw, but folks like you might just call whatever I said "carping". Maybe it's not a great idea, but maybe at some point it's necessary. We'll see.
Citizen lobbying is a great thing. It would be great for the Legislature to create more opportunities for citizens to be involved. It would be even better if they included them in things like public hearings, rather than private conversations.
On the "circular firing squad" accusation, I'm afraid that I feel real strides toward reform requires addressing the ugliest facet of this problem: both major parties are deeply complicit in the status quo. If you'd like to pretend that this is the fault of the Republicans and your legislator has clean hands, you're welcome to do so.

It seems I'm not your kind of Democrat. That's too bad. The loyalty and unity you're pushing for can be great things - when they're real, and when they help us achieve democratic processes, not just Democratic processes.

by: simonstl @ Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 22:08:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Didn't answer the question (0.00 / 1)

In addition to misrepresenting me, which I will just ignore, you didn't answer my question. How would your "model legislator" (or, even Barbara if she did what you said) accomplish getting Newfield's school aid situation corrected under current conditions? They really do need the money, they really have been trying hard to keep a school district alive and functional there, and are on the edge with it.

Reform matters (that is why both Barbara and I will be in Albany demonstrating for that on Monday). But, the business of governing can't just stop until you are convinced that the government is worthy. There really are kids (and others) that need it to function this week.

I am not suggesting that we need extend Silver's brand of discipline forever, or any longer than necessary. But, the legislature does have current rules. We need to do the best we can to have the public's voice heard under those current rules. If you can't say a way to do that better, then, don't publish Republican-aiding snipes. My kind of circular firing squad rules: don't fire anything but better ideas at our Dem elected officials. Every time I give Barbara a better idea, I find she takes it.

Will mention your broadside while we are having lunch together at Common Cause Spitzer talk and People's Hearing on Reform on Monday. She will doubtless get a kick out of the idea of you saying that you running against her was my idea. She listens to me well enough to know an idea that sounds like it came from me from an idea that doesn't.

by: robinia @ Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 11:02:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lots of possibilities (0.00 / 0)

First you asked:

why not explain how YOU would do it better if you were the Member, today, with the rules in place today

I think I explained pretty clearly that if I was the Member, I'd be in a rather different situation. I didn't claim I'd do it better. However, your new question is also worth answering:

How would your "model legislator" (or, even Barbara if she did what you said) accomplish getting Newfield's school aid situation corrected under current conditions?

There are lots of options besides hoping that all the nice things the "model legislator" has said about and done for Sheldon Silver can be rewarded through extra-nice access.

Possibilities include:

Use the Media: If the Newfield Superintendent and the Cortland Superintendent and lots of other folks are unhappy about the budget, they should say so, loudly. This is a somewhat complicated issue, but not one that would be hard to get across in a well-written article of op-ed. If the "model legislator" could get on TV talking about it, that'd be good too.
Write to Legislators: Sending mailbags full of letters to those involved in the current process - the leadership and the Governor - might remind them that indeed someone is watching them. Telling Newfield residents that they face a tax increase is likely to produce letters.
Talk to the Governor's office directly: There seems to be a long-standing rule in Albany that all interactions with the Governor's office have to start by going through the leadership. Spitzer's indicated an interest in changing that - maybe there's hope that direction.
Publish a play-by-play: Report on the status of the problem on a regular basis, every time something new happens. Letting people see what's happening is immensely empowering, especially if they see their own efforts mentioned directly.

This changes the legislator's role, of course - they're no longer the local representative from Albany helping constituents make the right phone calls to the right people properly primed for a bit of lobbying. Instead, they're having to build a strong local voice, possibly connecting it to other voices around the state, and aiming that voice at Albany.

Yes, this is very different from the current state of affairs, hard to reach, and certainly not considered polite by the current regime. At the end of the process, though, the op-ed describing "Effective State Government" might actually encourage people to participate instead of leaving it up to a few high-ranking folks working behind closed doors.

by: simonstl @ Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 13:12:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dreamin', dude (0.00 / 0)

The level of public participation you envision does not happen, even with a real major organizing effort, for mega-issues (like, for instance, the recent Reform Day in Albany). People are not going to give sufficient attention to the more mundane (but STILL IMPORTANT) small-bore workings of government to responsibly make decisions themselves. Nor should they need to do that. Not every minor governmental action needs to be ushered in via a parade of active citizens. We can actually have representative government, complete with knowledge-based staff input on crafting solutions to minor policy tweaks. People (including my son, for instance) go to places like the Maxwell School at Syracuse and Rockefelller School of Public Policy at SUNY Albany and, yes, the Brennan Center, even, at NYU, to learn how. We, the people, might even be supportive when the legislature does that well, and comes up with workable solutions.

Direct democracy, where every small governance issue is referred back to the people, is way impractical in a society like ours. It is, sad to say, hard enough to get people to even participate in the process enough to be informed voters or active party committee members, let alone write letters and bone up on every government issue that impacts local institutions or individuals. Remember, lots of folks actually don't even ever read about state government or watch local news.

by: robinia @ Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 20:26:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Always good to know where you stand (0.00 / 0)

I quite like the idea of Assembly Members leading district residents to participate directly, and will keep thinking about it. It seems to me like what I described, despite the difficulties, is a potentially massive improvement over the system Lifton described in her article.

It seems to me that at least part of the reason people are disengaged is the currently understandable expectation that their being engaged is mostly useless. 'Props in a play,' as you put it, at best. Unfortunately it's a hard thing to test.

by: simonstl @ Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 20:57:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]