Who's a reformer?

Not so much "a much higher proportion" (4.00 / 1)

There may not have been all that many more reform-minded folks in Albany yesterday than on an average day. I went, I saw.... I DO NOT think that the 130 people or so who came to call for reform represented much of a threat to the leadership, or, in fact, were much of a sales-pitch for holding "public hearings" in Albany on every minor tweak in school aid or AIDS funding.  People do not, in fact, have the liberty and time to go to Albany to "participate" all that much-- the 130 were mostly fairly well-off retirees who skipped a day of golf or community service to go lobby for good government.  They represented mainline orgs like the League of Women Voters and Common Cause, even faith-based orgs.

Some significant and important reforms were passed by the Assembly yesterday-- I got to watch from a balcony, after hearing Shelly describe what was coming.  Spitzer made a public statement about his reform positions, and I got to watch that, too.  Every legislative leader but Bruno addressed us. I'll be there to back up the reform agenda as the leaders fight to move it forward.

This was a day of communication between administrative and legislative branch leaders and local leaders of goo-goos.  Not every good idea or policy move forward need come from a maverick "going to war."  That approach makes for dramatic movies, but poor public policy.  General distrust of all leadership is, I think, a basically Reagan-type worldview.  If the Assembly leadership were to pass important rules reforms independently, would we notice, or have we prejudged everything they do based on a generalized distrust?  More later on the reforms passed.

---

by: robinia @ Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 13:17:09 PM UTC

Not leadership generally, this leadership specifically (4.00 / 1)

Robinia writes:

General distrust of all leadership is, I think, a basically Reagan-type worldview.

I'm not an anarchist or a Republican, nor do I distrust government or leadership inherently.

The problem in the New York State Legislature is a deeply entrenched leadership that runs the houses in a fashion not especially resembling representative democracy. Strong leadership in an open system is great - strong leadership operating in a closed system where leadership has substantial control over its members is not.

If the Assembly leadership were to pass important rules reforms independently, would we notice, or have we prejudged everything they do based on a generalized distrust?

They've more than earned a general distrust over the past thirty years - I don't think it makes sense to forget the history.

We'll have to see what these reforms really mean in practice - let them earn their own history - before we can say with any certainty how much they'll accomplish.

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 13:27:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

A check on abusive power for 12 years (0.00 / 1)

Shelly Silver, whatever else he may have done, was a leader who kept a needed check on a very aggressively power-abusive governor for a dozen years.  I have no doubt whatever that the record could have been worse-- a lot worse.

Brodsky said something very interesting yesterday about our system of leadership in NY's legislature-- that it was similar to a parliamentary-style body... with the Speaker and Pres. Pro Tem acting as Prime Ministers do, somewhat. 

A parliamentary body's majority may want a different leader when it also holds the Executive than when it is "playing defense."  We shall see.  In any event, it is the body itself that decides on those leaders.  We elect representatives, they elect leaders.

---

by: robinia @ Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 18:37:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Um, okay, I give up (0.00 / 0)

I don't think we have enough shared vision of what "reform" might mean to have a conversation, much less work together.

I see Democratic Centralism where you see Democracy and something Brodskyish about parliamentary systems, which our legislature isn't even supposed to be.

And if only elections for representatives were meaningful...

Too many contradictions.

See you - if you're there - at the County Committee meeting!

---

by: simonstl @ Tue Apr 24, 2007 at 21:40:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Plenty of agreement (0.00 / 0)

Sure we have enough common ground to work together, Simon.  I liked (and agreed with) your redistricting speech at the County Committee meeting.  Presumably, you did not find anything objectionable about my offer to pass along info on reform bills that I got attending Reform Day. I appreciate your work on the web site, and hopefully you appreciate my work on the issues committee.

I think that most of our disagreement is about how a NYS government can effectively function, maximizing democratic choices for the people, while minimizing inefficient or unfair governmental services. How public input to decisionmaking is organized, and how leadership and internal member-committee-staff relationships for doing the work are organized, are essential issues that need our consideration, from a number of vantage points.  Including Brodsky's-- his speech Monday was very interesting.

---

by: robinia @ Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 12:22:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

On some things, yes, we can agree - (0.00 / 1)

but on the fundamentals of what reform needs to accomplish and how, I'm afraid we do disagree too severely to be much help to each other.

You seem to regard protecting the Democrats in the Assembly as a high priority, while I see the behavior of the majority parties in both houses as the heart of the problem. Okay, fine - Bruno seems to be crazier than Silver - but it seems pretty clear that Silver is happy to have someone else he can point to as the intransigent one.

I see my responsibility as a Democrat to require getting my party to fly straight, not to support the levers of power that its entrenched leadership has gotten used to. I find it appalling that so many New York Democrats shout perpetually about the need for reform on the national level while completely ignoring - or worse, supporting - the situation at home.

I think there's a huge opportunity for Democrats to restore confidence in government through emphasis on reform. Unfortunately for a lot of our politicians, making this work requires consistency. Shouting "reform" while protecting the interests of those on your side only muddies the water, building yet more cynicism about what reformers have to offer.

It's a hard sell in New York State, I know, but Democrats have to be about Democracy - first and foremost. Voters currently know that the New York State Legislature runs on other principles - they don't care much whether they're Tammany Hall principles, parliamentary principles, or Politburo principles. They know it's broken, and they don't see much they can do about it.

We need to give those voters reasons to pay attention to something other than the recurring story that "the fix is in". Sure, not everyone has time and interest to be an Albany activist, but broadening that group requires giving a much wider range of citizens a sense that their participation matters.

The number of people actively involved in state politics is tiny right now. Even doubling that would have a tremendous effect, and I think we could do a lot better than that. Making that work requires serious change, though, and on both sides of the aisle.

This is too long already - I'll talk more about the "how" later.

---

by: simonstl @ Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 13:38:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Welcome, Senator Bonacic and Assemblywoman Galef (0.00 / 0)

Via NYCO, I see that a Senate Republican has stepped up, with an Assembly Democrat in support:

And now for John Bonacic’s latest act of defiance.

The Catskills-area senator who recently won statewide notoriety as the only Republican to call for Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno’s ouster says he’ll soon introduce a bill that would ensure equal staff budgets for lawmakers of both parties....

The bill, which also is being introduced in the Assembly by reform-minded Westchester Democrat Sandy Galef, represents a direct assault on the partisan hierarchy that has existed in Albany for as along as anyone can remember.

It would essentially end the practice of doling out money for staff based on party status, seniority and good-standing with political bosses by insuring that every lawmaker gets the same amount.

There's a supporting editorial as well, though Don Quixote's appearance in the first sentence suggests how much faith the editorial writer has in Albany, and what kind of support:

He will be joined in this crusade by a legion of Republican Sancho Panzas in the Assembly and a similar Democratic legion of Panzas in the state Senate. Those who have nothing to lose are always the best recruits in a delusional march against the unbeatable foe, with the usual expectation of unbearable sorrow.

Cheerful...

---

by: simonstl @ Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 14:57:13 PM UTC