Q Poll: New Yorkers Give Legislature All-Time Low Approval Rating

by: robert.harding

Wed Dec 16, 2009 at 09:31:21 AM EST

Only these records aren't ones to be proud of.

In today's Q poll, the New York State Legislature has its worst approval and disapproval rating of all time. The legislature's approval rating of 17 percent is the worst it has ever been and the disapproval rating of 72 percent is also a record. When you consider the all-time best approval rating in the Q poll for the legislature is 34 percent, 17 percent doesn't seem that bad. But with 72 percent of respondents disapproving of the job the Assembly and Senate are doing, it is hardly a good thing.

This is how the approval/disapproval rating breaks down:

- Only 24 percent of Democrats and nine percent of Republicans and approve of the job legislators are doing in Albany. Disapproval among Democrats is at 64 percent while Republican disapproval stands at 81 percent. Independents are in the middle, with 16 percent approving of the legislature and 74 percent disapproving.

- Men have a more negative view of the legislature than women. Only 10 percent of men approve of the legislature's work and 81 percent disapprove. Women are up slightly with 23 percent approval and 64 percent disapproval. Among races, white respondents only gave the legislature a 12 percent job approval rating while giving an 80 percent disapproval rating. The legislature received a 37 percent approval rating from black respondents and a 48 percent disapproval rating among the group. Hispanics were also a little more positive, with 30 percent approving of the legislature's job and 49 percent disapproving.

- The regional numbers show that the legislature isn't too well liked in any area of the state. The numbers in New York City are the best - 22 percent approval/64 percent disapproval - and it only gets worse from there. In the suburbs, the legislature has ratings of 15 percent approval/77 percent disapproval. Upstate is the worst (as expected) with 14 percent of upstate approving of the legislature's job and 77 percent disapproving. The urban areas of upstate gave the worst numbers of all, with only nine percent approving and 81 percent disapproving.

- When respondents were asked how satisfied they are about the direction of things in New York State, those numbers are also all-time lows. Only two percent said they were "very satisfied" and 22 percent said they were "somewhat satisfied." Three-quarters of respondents said they were either somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied (37 percent said somewhat, 38 percent said very).

- There is more support for a wage freeze than layoffs. Two-thirds (68 percent) of respondents said they would support a wage freeze while only 44 percent said they would support layoffs for state employees in an effort to balance the state budget.

- Even with such high disapproval ratings, two percent of respondents said they would rate the state legislature as the best in the nation with 27 percent saying that the legislature is "among the best." With 43 percent saying that the legislature is among the worst and 15 percent saying that the legislature is THE worst, those numbers are somewhat better than the disapproval ratings given earlier in the survey.

- There is strong support for a constitutional convention. A majority of respondents - 63 percent - said they would support a constitutional convention. Only 21 percent would oppose such a convention.

- Respondents would rather have an independent nonpartisan commission to draw districts than allowing the legislature to do so. Nearly three-quarters of respondents - 73 percent - support an independent commission over allowing the legislature to draw the lines.  

Reforming The New York State Legislature: Decreasing The Number Of Standing Committees

by: robert.harding

Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 16:18:28 PM EDT

For both houses, there are committees that tend to overlap or committees that could be combined to create a broad committee that would still be able to focus on all the issues it would oversee. Reducing the number of committees would lessen the burden on legislators, who have to sit on numerous committees, and would help these legislators play a much larger role in the legislative process.

Reforming the committee system would make leadership a necessity for those seeking to serve as committee chairs. With 37 committees in the Assembly and 32 in the Senate, these committees are seen more for their "lu-lu's" - the stipend you receive for being a committee chair - than what the committee actually does. That should not be the purpose of these committees. These committees need to be more than an extra check for legislators. They need to be active, functional and have a purpose.

I have advocated for committee reform because I believe it is key for the future of the legislature. The Brennan Center has discussed reforming the legislature and, specifically, reforming committees. The New York State Senate will be looking at decreasing the number of standing committees and the Assembly should as well. And as an advocate for such reforms, I have some ideas for the direction that both the Assembly and Senate should go in.

Since the Senate is already looking at such reforms, we will start there. The committees right now are the following:

Aging * Agriculture * Banks * Children and Families * Cities * Civil Service and Pensions * Codes * Commerce, Economic Development and Small Business * Consumer Protection * Corporations, Authorities and Commissions * Crime Victims, Crime and Corrections * Cultural Affairs, Tourism, Parks and Recreation * Education * Elections * Energy and Telecommunications * Environmental Conservation * Ethics * Finance * Health * Higher Education * Housing, Construction and Community Development * Insurance * Investigations and Government Operations * Judiciary * Labor * Local Government * Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities * Racing, Gaming and Wagering * Rules * Social Services * Transportation * Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs

After reviewing the 32 committees, I found ways to take the 32 committees and create 14 committees that would be more efficient and, while they would cover more material, would be more effective in reviewing legislation and making better bills in the Senate.

These are the 14 committees I created (or kept) from the 32 current committees:

- AGRICULTURE: Kept this committee in place because of its importance
- BUDGET: The Budget Committee would focus squarely on the budget and would transfer responsibilities from other committees, namely the Finance Committee, to the Budget Committee so that this committee can push for a stronger budget.
- COMMERCE AND ENERGY: This is one of the larger committees. The Commerce and Energy Committee would consist of the following current committees: Commerce, Economic Development and Small Business, Consumer Protection, Transportation, Energy and Telecommunications, Racing, Gaming and Wagering
- ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: This committee would be created by merging the  Economic Development and Small Business portion of the former Commerce, Economic Development and Small Business committee, Housing, Construction and Community Development and Cultural Affairs, Tourism and Parks and Recreation
- EDUCATION AND LABOR: Using Congress as an example, the combination of education and labor is a smart one. This committee would be formed by the two obvious committees - Education and Labor - while also merging the Higher Education Committee.
- ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION: Kept this committee in place because of its importance.
- FINANCIAL SERVICES: This committee would be created by merging the Banks and Finance committees to create a larger committee focused on New York's financial sector, which is an important part of the state's economy.
- HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: This committee would form by merging the following current committees: Aging, Children and Families, Health, Insurance, Mental Health and Development Disabilities and Social Services.
- HOMELAND SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT: Create a Homeland Security and Law Enforcement Committee using the following "old" committees: The Homeland Security portion of the Veterans, Homeland Security and Military Affairs committee and the Crime Victims, Crime and Corrections Committee.
- INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS: - Establish the Intergovernmental Affairs Committee using the "old" Cities Committee and the "old" Local Government Committee.
- JUDICIARY: This committee is necessary and needs to be kept.
- OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY: Create the Oversight and Government Accountability Committee which would oversee the following "old" committees:  Civil Service and Pensions, Codes, Corporations, Authorities and Commissions, Elections, Investigations and Government Operations
- RULES: This committee is also necessary and needs to be kept.
- VETERANS AND MILITARY AFFAIRS: Keep this committee, only subtract the Homeland Security portion of it.

Why is this better than the current system? For starters, going to 14 from 32 will make committees more relevant. Right now, the only thing the current system serves is to give a lu-lu to the senator who is the chair of that committee. It doesn't reward good leadership.

This way, not only do you reward leadership, but you make committees relevant by making them more generalized and allowing them a broader blanket. Creating a committee for a singular issue isn't necessary. That's why 32 committees aren't needed.

Click for more on the reforms and the proposal for the Assembly.

POLL: 89 Percent Of Voters Think Albany Needs At Least Minor Changes

by: robert.harding

Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 11:50:30 AM EDT

Today's Marist poll has a lot of statistics there that don't speak well for Albany.

For example, three months after the coup took place, 70 percent of respondents said they were angry with what happened in the New York State Senate. Only 26 percent said that they weren't upset with it.

70% of New York State registered voters say they are angry about the situation in the Senate while 26% report they are not.  These proportions are virtually unchanged from when Marist last asked this question in June.  As in that survey, outrage transcends party lines.  72% of Democrats, 71% of Republicans, and 67% of non-enrolled voters admit to feeling this way.  These attitudes remain little changed since Marist's previous poll.

And, this translates into a poor job approval rating for the Senate.  A majority - 54% - of registered voters across the state report that the Senate is performing poorly.  Just 14% think the legislative body is doing either an excellent or good job, and three in ten think they are performing only fairly well.

Perhaps the biggest stat of all is the one about reform in Albany. Most New Yorkers want reform in Albany, but the numbers speak volumes for what kind of action citizens want their elected leaders to take.

68% of registered voters statewide think the way things are done in state government in Albany needs major changes.  21% report daily political operations require minor changes, 10% think they are broken and beyond repair, and only 1% of voters say they do not need to be changed.  More than seven in ten Democrats and Republicans - 71% and 70%, respectively - think Albany needs a major, political overhaul.  60% of non-enrolled voters agree.

Let's think about this: 68 percent of respondents said that they want major changes. Another 21 percent said that they want minor changes. That means 89 percent of those surveyed believe that some changes need to be made. That is a huge number, considering only one percent of voters said that nothing needs to be altered. Talk of ethics reform legislation has occurred in recent days, but nothing is set in stone yet.

Another interesting focus of the poll was support for a constitutional convention. The Marist poll found 48 percent oppose a constitutional convention while 42 percent support it. To break it down even further, more Republicans (56 percent) than Democrats (44 percent) oppose it.

Reform is needed in Albany. Some want it sooner rather than later. Rushed reform merely to score political points is not reform. What we need are reforms that will be set in stone and help every single assemblymember and senator who goes to Albany be better for it.

Siena Poll: Voters Don't Think Much Of New York Elected Officials

by: robert.harding

Mon Aug 24, 2009 at 10:19:06 AM EDT

Respondents were asked about the integrity, work ethic, fairness and intelligence of today's elected officials in New York compared to those 40 or 50 years ago.

By a margin of 54-7 percent, voters say today's New York politicians have less integrity than their counterparts from 40 or 50 years ago. By a 54-11 percent margin, voters say today's politicians work less hard for their constituents. When it comes to fairness - lack of bias and self-interest - 44 percent of voters say today's politicians are less fair, with 11 percent saying more fair. On the issue of intelligence, 30 percent say today's politicians are less intelligent and 23 percent say they are more intelligent.

"Voters are fairly evenly divided on the issue of politicians' intelligence. However, they overwhelmingly say that today's politicians have less integrity, work less hard for their constituents and demonstrate less fairness than New York politicians of 40 or 50 years ago," said Siena New York pollster Steven Greenberg. "Although older voters, Republicans and upstaters feel even more strongly, pluralities of young voters, Democrats, and New York City voters also have far less regard for today's pols than those of two generations ago.

That says a lot about the state of New York government. We do have some good elected officials, but because of the system in which they operate, they are overshadowed by the corruption, dysfunction and ineptitude.

The only area where current elected officials came close to competing with the elected officials of 40 or 50 years ago was intelligence. Everything else - fairness, integrity and work ethic - did not give today's elected officials a positive review.

The poll also found strong support for a constitutional convention. Of those surveyed, 63 percent would like to see a constitutional convention.

Steve Greenberg summed it up best when discussing the results of the question about a constitutional convention:

"While the issue of a convention is not popular with many elected officials, it is with their constituents."

We have a lot to talk about going forward. The coup that held up the New York State Senate for a month highlighted the problems in Albany. While we have supported reform for a long time, more and more citizens want Albany changed, especially with the recent events there. This poll shows that reform is on the minds of many voters. It should be on the minds of our elected officials as well.

A Unicameral Legislature: Good Or Bad Idea?

by: robert.harding

Tue Jul 21, 2009 at 15:23:06 PM EDT

Alan isn't the first to bring this up. I know that a few members of this community have raised the prospects of downsizing the legislature from two houses to one. It is an interesting idea and one that is certainly worthy of discussion.

I am one who opposes the idea of a unicameral legislature. My reasons for this can be broken up into a few parts:

(1) The dysfunctional nature of the New York State Legislature. The dysfunction exists not because of our bicameral system, but because of the way business is conducted in both houses. Leadership is allowed to dominate and reform goes nowhere, especially if the leaders (i.e. Shelly Silver) don't like the reform that is being offered. A unicameral legislature wouldn't change that unless we change the ways of the legislature. So whether it's one house or two houses, we have work to do.

(2) A bicameral legislature has been proven to work at the highest level in our land. The House and Senate complement each other and both serve a purpose. In New York, the same could happen if we allow rank-and-file legislators to be just as important as the leadership. You don't see Harry Reid running for president. You see Barack Obama, formerly the junior senator from Illinois, or Hillary Clinton, formerly the junior senator from New York, running for president. Having legislators in New York be candidates for higher office would be a great gauge of how well or legislative system is working.

(3) While checks and balances exist no matter how many houses you have, there is a greater check when a bicameral legislature is in place. With two houses, you have a smaller check that each house places on the other. One house can disapprove of legislation while another house approves it. For example, the House and Senate have conference sessions that help form better bills so that it will pass in both houses. Having two houses that are operating efficiently helps and makes government better.

But the arguments for an unicameral legislature are strong. One point Alan brought up on Sunday is affordability. Paying legislators their base $79,500 salaries (plus all the added perks like paid travel expenses, daily living expenses and stipends for chairing committees or holding leadership positions) is expensive, even for a state like New York where we have 19 million people and a huge budget. Factor in the staffing for those senators and members of the Assembly and you are talking about a lot of taxpayer dollars going just for legislative payroll.

You could also make the case that reform would be easier with one house instead of two. Trying to institute reforms in both houses of our legislature has been a trying experience. For all the talk of reform in the New York State Senate, there has been very little said about reforms in the Assembly. If we are going to have an efficient and improved legislature, we will need both houses to be on board with reforms. So far, only the Senate has been the focus of reform.

Where do you stand? Do you support a unicameral legislature? Or would you rather have two houses that we improve upon and strive to fix the current system?

Blame Should Lie With The Process, Not Assemblyman Gantt

by: robert.harding

Wed May 20, 2009 at 12:12:23 PM EDT

Gantt, who serves as chairman of the Transportation Committee, also refused to meet with the mother of a teenager who died in a car accident because he was texting while driving.

From The Buffalo News:

In a rare scene for Albany, Gantt's fellow Democrats outed him Tuesday as the obstacle to what they call a common-sense measure after he refused to meet with Kelly Cline, a West Seneca mother whose son died while texting and driving near his home two years ago. Cline was at the Capitol to lobby for the bill's passage.

"It's amazing . . . to hear about a chairman who doesn't meet with people, since I am a chairman and I meet with everybody," said Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, a Bronx Democrat and sponsor of the bill, which has been stalled in Gantt's committee for several years.

A fuming Assemblyman Mark Schroeder, a Buffalo Democrat who also represents West Seneca, lashed out at Gantt for having his staff meet with Cline.

"If the chairman of the Transportation Committee in the Assembly would meet people who have been affected . . . then maybe that would change [the fact that] in five weeks, my sense is, nothing is going to happen in the Assembly on the texting bill," he said at an event to push the bill.

Gantt, after a meeting of the committee Tuesday afternoon, declined to comment.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Manhattan Democrat, has long given Gantt veto power over key transportation matters. But Ortiz said Silver is "sensitive" to the text-messaging ban and is trying to get a bill passed before the 2009 session ends next month.

Obviously, Gantt is wrong here. There are a lot of flaws with a law that would ban texting while driving, but most agree that it is the right thing to do.

And yet, Gantt stands in the way of the legislation mainly because he is able to do so, thanks to power given to him by Silver.

This paragraph from Tom Precious' piece is also eye-opening:

Ortiz said the bill is backed by 92 percent of the members on Gantt's committee, and he said that, if necessary, an effort could be launched to force the bill onto the committee's agenda for a vote, "because we're getting tired of the same song and the same music" from the committee chairman."

Isn't it amazing that "an effort" would be required to "force" a bill onto a committee's agenda for a vote? Isn't this the kind of thing we were talking about needed to be reformed?

I don't condone what Gantt has done here, but I certainly don't condone the process that enables him to do this. Not meeting with Kelly Cline was a huge mistake on Gantt's part because it makes him look insensitive. But that's another issue.

When looking at this from a legislative perspective, you can only blame the process that enables Gantt to do this (a process that is endorsed and utilized by Silver) and allows him to block a bill that has the support of 92 percent of his committee members and arguably a similar percentage in the full Assembly.

Gantt shouldn't be blocking the bill. It has its flaws, but it is necessary legislation. But the process that allows Gantt to do this shouldn't be in place either.  

Hoyt, Stachowski To Introduce Legislation Targeting NYPA

by: robert.harding

Mon Mar 23, 2009 at 23:08:24 PM EDT

This will not cover the rate increases, however. That should be made clear. The rate increases are a separate issue that must be dealt with on its own. I suspect that it will be in short order.)

The outrage over the New York Power Authority's bonuses and proposed rate increase has grown. Today, the New York State Senate's Energy Committee held a press conference on the issue (more videos to come) and now, there will be legislation introduced to block the bonuses.

The legislation will be introduced by Assemblyman Sam Hoyt and Sen. Bill Stachowski. Both men aren't happy about the recent developments with NYPA and decided to do something about it.

Expressing outrage about the "gold-plated culture" of state authorities, Assemblymember Sam Hoyt (D-WF, Buffalo) and Senator William T. Stachowski (D-C, Lakeview) today announced that they will introduce legislation that would prohibit state authorities like the Power Authority, from giving bonuses to their staffs.  Hoyt said "These bonuses expose another gold-plated benefit at NYPA paid for by the people of New York State.  Coupling these bonuses with rate hikes is a double-hit on taxpayers at absolutely the worst time."  Hoyt said he will be communicating with NYPA leadership that he wants the rate increase axed and the bonus plan rescinded.

"The state's taxpayers have every right to be angry," said Senator William T. Stachowski, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Economic Development and Small Business, said, "At a time when jobs are being lost, particularly in western New York, and families are struggling to survive financially in this declining economy, the last thing our state authorities should be considering is giving out bonuses.  Assemblyman Hoyt and I are pursuing every available means we have at the state level to block these bonuses and reign in state spending.  We will continue to fight against this and any proposed rate hikes as well."

Hoyt claimed that bonuses are an outrage because the NYPA's compensation plan is already too generous.  According to 2007 records, the authority's 32 top executives earned, on average, $183,000 dollars, while the authority's president and CEO's salary is $227,501.  The authority's Western New York region director earning $164,748.  Raises to top executives in 2007 averaged $6,300 per year. Many low skill NYPA employees still beat median wages for upstate New York with secretaries, laborers and janitors, security guards and clerks paid in excess of $50,000.

The power authority's liberal spending practices are well known and extensive.  These perks include some 245 cell phones, 274 Blackberries, 303 laptops and 720 credit cards - given mostly the white-collar staff.  The authority owns and operates its own plane which was used extensively during the Pataki administration to take the Governor all over the State.

Hoyt concluded by saying "Western New York gives the most and gets so little in return.  We deserve the profits derived from our natural resources.  It is unfortunate that the NYPA lifestyle is being funded out of our pockets.  I hope the leadership at NYPA will stop these terrible actions and come to their senses."

This is an important issue. During these tough times, we can't afford to see high costs of electricity and we can't afford to pay for an increase in our rates. We also can't afford to pay out $3 million in bonuses for NYPA employees. There needs to be a reasonable course of action here. We can't afford this and it is great to see such a bi-partisan effort to fight this.  

NYCLU On Rockefeller Reforms: Good First Step, But More Is Needed

by: robert.harding

Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 10:20:01 AM EST

But do these reforms go far enough? While the New York Civil Liberties Union praises the Assembly bill as a "good first step", the NYCLU says that more needs to be done to realize true reforms.

In anticipation of the passage of a bill later today, the New York Civil Liberties Union applauded the State Assembly for taking the first significant step in dismantling the draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws.

"New York State is closer to justice today than we were yesterday," said NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman. "By passing this bill, our state's Assembly is letting go of 36 years of failure and moving toward meaningful reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws."

Enacted in 1973, the Rockefeller Drug Laws mandate extremely harsh prison terms for the possession or sale of relatively small amounts of drugs. Though intended to target drug kingpins, most of the people incarcerated are convicted of low-level, nonviolent offenses. Many of the thousands of New Yorkers in prison under these laws suffer from substance abuse problems; many others struggle with issues related to homelessness, mental illness or unemployment.

For decades, the NYCLU, criminal justice advocates and medical experts have fought to untie the hands of judges and allow addiction to be treated as a public health matter. As noted in the New York State Sentencing Commission's recent report, sentencing non-violent drug offenders to prison is ineffective and counterproductive, and has resulted in unconscionable racial disparities: Blacks and Hispanics comprise more than 90 percent of those currently incarcerated for drug felonies, though most people using illegal drugs are white.

"The Rockefeller drug laws have failed by every measure - cost, drug use, public safety,"said Robert Perry, NYCLU legislative director. "With the passage of Jeff Aubry's bill, the Assembly has acted on Governor Paterson's directive to fundamentally reform the state's failed drug policy.   The bill shifts the paradigm, away from mass incarceration and toward a public health model."

The NYCLU found that the bill does "restore the authority of a judge to divert some people into substance abuse treatment or other community-based programs that best address the person's needs" and "provides for retroactive relief for those sentenced under the old Rockefeller sentencing scheme." The bill also provides re-entry assistance to those already in prison and establishes a "crime reduction fund" to help fund prevention and treatment services.

However, the NYCLU also found that the bill still leaves in place a sentencing system that allows for harsh and lengthy sentences for low-level, non-violent offenders. The bill also disqualifies people from treatment who might need it the most and "creates an unnecessarily burdensome procedure for sealing a criminal record after someone has completed a substance abuse program."

While there is a lot more that can still be done, this is a good starting point. Reforming the Rockefeller drug laws requires a few different approaches, so having a piece of legislation to lay the foundation for more is a good thing. That's what this bill has the potential to do. Hopefully, more can be done in the future.  

Legislation That Would Reform Rockefeller Drug Laws Nearing Passage

by: robert.harding

Sun Mar 01, 2009 at 18:15:23 PM EST

The Assembly is expected to pass legislation on Tuesday that would once again give judges the discretion to send those found guilty of having smaller amounts of illegal drugs to substance-abuse treatment instead of prison and allow thousands of inmates convicted of nonviolent drug offenses to apply to have their sentences reduced or commuted.

Meanwhile, the governor's office is preparing legislation that it plans to present to Senate leaders on Monday that would also give judges discretion in sentencing, according to a senior administration official involved in drafting the bills. But for now, the governor is not taking a position on whether sentences should be reduced for some prisoners.

For its part, the Senate is expected to take up legislation in the coming weeks that would also be aimed at strengthening judges' roles in sentencing.

...

The State Legislature has already eliminated the stiffest provisions of the laws, doing away in 2004 with life sentences for drug crimes and reducing other penalties for the most serious offenses.

But now Democratic leaders see an opportunity to take aim at the judicial underpinnings of the laws by untying the hands of judges, who are often bound to mandatory minimum sentences even for less serious drug crimes.

The mere thought of someone serving a long prison sentence for a nonviolent offense related to drugs boggles the mind. These reforms, if enacted, would be long overdue.  

Albany: Where Dysfunction Is The Name Of The Game

by: robert.harding

Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 11:29:39 AM EST

Aside from the reports that the Brennan Center has conducted, I don't think you could find a better summary of Albany than this Buffalo News article in today's edition.

Albany is New York's capital of dysfunction

In his 18 years with the FBI, John Pikus has investigated terrorists, drug dealers, bank robbers, gangs, white-collar criminals and murderers.

Then he ran into the New York State Legislature.

Despite overseeing an office with 80 agents armed with subpoenas and a battery of sophisticated investigatory tools, Pikus sounds almost humbled by the experience he had trying to crack the secrecy that defines the state Capitol.

"The legislative process was almost Byzantine in how it operates," said Pikus, whose investigators spent three years working on the case that led to last week's indictments against former Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno. "We have very expert investigators working on this. Some have come in from other districts and were quite surprised at how difficult it was to discern what was going on in the legislative process."

...

In Albany, rule No. 1 is to control the flow of information. Lawmakers and the governor spend millions each year on publicity efforts - whether it's a personal photographer for Paterson or state-of-the-art TV broadcast facilities where legislative staff members ask puffy questions of lawmakers to beam back to local stations.

But want to get things unfiltered, say transcripts of legislative floor debates? You can look at the Senate Web site but only if you work for the Senate. On its public Web site, no such transcripts exist.

There is a lot more to the article than just the excerpts above. The piece covers a lot of ground (the flow of information, the leadership dominating the legislative process, ethics, etc.) and does a great job at summarizing the failure that is our state capital.

I do disagree with one aspect of the article though. If you read the piece, you will find a part of the article early on where the reporter ties Albany's dysfunction with things like high taxes, out of control state spending, rising state debt, business and job loss and the declining population in parts of upstate.

I don't think those are the right things to point out if you are going to make a case for Albany being dysfunctional. Sure, Albany's issues certainly don't help any of those problems mentioned above, but they hardly are the major cause for those problems. The bigger problem with the ways of Albany is that we are shut out of the process. Even the most concerned of citizens would have a hard time finding a piece of legislation on either the Assembly or Senate websites. Transparency is a foreign concept in Albany. There have been a few improvements, but a lot more can be done to make Albany truly transparent.

What it comes down to is leadership. When President Barack Obama officially took office, he announced that his administration would be more open and transparent than any in history. It was President Obama, as a leader, who stood up and said that it was time for more openness and transparency. That is what we need in Albany from the "three men in a room."

Whether we get to that point or not is up to the leaders. Hopefully the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office can get their attention. We need to be a democracy in New York. We can't have anymore of this closed system of government that shuts out everyone except those who rule each branch of government.

Upstate Majority Caucus Forms To Address Upstate Issues

by: robert.harding

Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 22:06:24 PM EST

Here is the list:

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Rep. Michael Arcuri, Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, Rep. Brian Higgins, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, Rep. Dan Maffei, Rep. Eric Massa, Rep. Louise Slaughter and Rep. Paul Tonko

NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY: Ron Canestrari, Joan Christensen, Francine DelMonte, RoAnn Destito, Dennis Gabryszak, David Gantt, Tim Gordon, Sam Hoyt, Susan John, David Koon, Barbara Lifton, Donna Lupardo, Bill Magee, William Magnarelli, John McEneny, Joe Morelle, Bill Parment, Crystal Peoples, Bob Reilly, Addie Russell, Robin Schimminger, Mark Schroeder and Al Stirpe    

NEW YORK STATE SENATE: Darrel Aubertine, Neil Breslin, Bill Stachowski, Antoine Thompson and David Valesky.

Here is a statement regarding the group's first meeting:

Upstate Majority Legislators Meet to Discuss Economic Revitalization

Upstate Democratic legislators representing a "Conference of Majorities" convened this weekend in Rochester to discuss a unified effort to jumpstart the struggling economy of Upstate New York. The unprecedented meeting, hosted by Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D-Fairport) and Assemblyman David Gantt (D-Rochester), brought together representatives from Democratic majorities in the United States House of Representatives, the New York State Assembly and the New York State Senate.

When President-Elect Barack Obama is sworn in on Inauguration Day, Democrats will control the executive office and both houses of the legislature at the Federal and State level. The last time Democrats held similar control of so many levels of government was amidst the Great Depression. In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt entered the White House with a Democratic Congress in power and concurrently, in New York, Democrats had just won the majority in the State Senate.

With a federal economic stimulus package expected in the coming weeks and the federal transportation reauthorization bill slated for later this year, the legislators discussed several ways to revitalize the Upstate economy, including high-speed rail and alternative energy sources.

In these trying times, elected leaders must unite in the spirit of hope and cooperation. The Upstate Majorities Conference will not stand by and allow the Upstate economy to continue to decline.

The group plans to meet again soon and will reach out to business and community leaders throughout our region to push a concise and concrete agenda for Upstate New York.

This is going to be a great group for upstate New York. All of these leaders represent upstate districts that need economic development and job growth. Together, they can have a real impact in Albany and in Washington D.C.

If The Committees Don't Meet, Why Are Lu-Lus Handed Out?

by: robert.harding

Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 11:50:35 AM EST

In a blog post about his story, Heaney brings up a great point:

(1) The latest update from the Brennan Center concludes the Legislature remains dysfunctional. As in, the Senate Ethics Committee hasn't met in more than a decade, but the chairman keeps collecting his $12,500-a-year stipend.

One of the major topics throughout the Brennan Center report discussed how many of the committees in the Assembly and Senate did not meet. Heaney points out the Senate Ethics Committee, which hasn't met in a decade. But apparently a committee doesn't have to met for the chairman to collect that extra $12,500 per year.

This raises a serious question: How many chairpersons actually earned their stipend?

I calculated the total amount of the lu-lus that the new chairpersons in the New York State Senate will receive. The amount of lu-lus will be $468,500. That doesn't count Sen. Liz Krueger's post, which the lu-lu has yet to be determined for.

That is a huge amount every year handed out for committee chairs. It might even be considered a ridiculous amount if you think back to all of the committees in the past that probably didn't meet at all. That money was wasted away and handed out to committee chairs who never held one committee meeting. Even if they held one or two committee meetings, that still isn't enough to justify a full, five-figure lu-lu.

Also, the New York State Senate has a lot of committees. There are a total of 30 standing committees in the New York State Senate. By comparison, the U.S. Senate has 16 standing committees. Obviously, there are a few issues at the state level that only states handle. But 30 committees is still a lot.

Later today, Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith will hold a press conference to announce new rules changes that will impact how open the New York State Senate is, as well as how it operates. This includes the operation of committees, which require serious and immediate reform.

Committees could be a key part of the legislative process. But right now, that is not the case. Committees are merely a money-maker for the individuals who chair the committees. They don't have any value and they don't contribute anything of relevance to the process. That needs to change. Hopefully the news today will deliver the change we need.

The New York State Legislature: Still Broken And Still In Need Of Repair

by: robert.harding

Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:08:30 AM EST

As we begin a new session in Albany with an Assembly still dominated by Democrats and a Senate that hopefully will be controlled by Democrats, the Brennan Center has unveiled an update to its report on the New York State Legislature. Its findings show that since the initial report in 2004, a lot has gone unchanged.

From the Brennan Center on the past history of its reports:

The legislative leadership largely dismissed the findings of the 2004 report. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver told the New York Times, "Nothing happens here in Albany, in the Assembly, without the input of the rank-and-file legislators." Joe Bruno, who recently left the Senate after serving for 14 years as its Majority Leader, called the report "pure nonsense" and equated a more democratic process with that of a Third World country.

Yet when the Legislature came back into session in early 2005, the Leaders announced rules changes-the first time in a generation-accompanied by self-congratulatory fanfare. In press releases that described the reforms' aspirational effect on the Legislature, the Assembly Speaker and Senate Majority Leader claimed that the new rules would usher in an era of openness, effectiveness, and accountability. The Senate even went so far as to claim that it addressed most of the recommendations made by the Brennan Center.

Unfinished Business: New York State Legislative Reform 2006 Update concluded that the changes on the whole, while a good start, were by no means transformative. The Legislature failed to adopt a comprehensive set of new rules that incorporated the Brennan Center's recommendations for making the legislative process more robust and democratic. Of the changes that the legislature did adopt, some, quite cynically, codified the status quo in new ways. The continued presence of these rules stifles rigorous deliberation and debate and hobbles the sincere efforts of a number of rank-and-file legislators to represent the best interests of their constituents and the state as a whole.

Where do we find ourselves today? Things have unchanged. One of the subjects of the previous reports are the committees and the lack of work these committees put in. In fact, one of the summary findings of the latest Brennan Center report says that most standing committees in both houses failed to meet at any point during the legislative session.

The report also stressed what we already know: The leadership in both houses have a "stranglehold" on the actions that take place in their respective houses.

The Brennan Center keeps it easy for the Legislature. They call on both houses to achieve the following five objectives:

- Strengthen standing committees by giving members authority to convene meetings and by requiring committee members to be present to vote.

- End the leadership stranglehold on bills coming to the floor by allowing rank-and-file members to discharge bills from committee and place them on the floor calendar by majority vote.

- Allow adequate opportunity for consideration of legislation by requiring adequate fiscal analysis and allowing ample time for full consideration of each bill on the floor before the close of session.

- Provide sufficient opportunity and resources for full consideration of legislation by making use of robust conference committees and distributing member funds equally.

- Make all records and products of the legislative process fully transparent and easily accessible to the public through the Internet.

There is a lot to look at in this report. Among other things, the Brennan Center also discussed the "inequity" that exists in the current member item system which rewards majority members over minority members and the call for more openness in the Legislature is loud and clear.

While I appreciate the fact that the Brennan Center has unveiled another report, it should not be necessary. The Brennan Center did this state a great service in 2004 when it first reported on the dysfunctional state of our state's legislature. Unfortunately, the report fell on deaf ears in Albany. The recommendations that these reports have made over the years can mean real change for the New York State Legislature. But with the wrong people in charge, these recommendations have gone nowhere.

I believe the Senate Democrats would implement these reforms and I do believe that there are members of the New York State Assembly who want to see these recommendations become reality. But until we see real leadership in Albany, these recommendations won't be implemented.

An Interview With Assemblyman Sam Hoyt

by: robert.harding

Mon Dec 29, 2008 at 11:49:11 AM EST

I have interviewed Assemblyman Hoyt before and he was a great interview. He provided me with a lot of his positions on issues like Empire Zone and IDA reform, as well as his position on smart growth and his support of charter schools.

One issue we didn't talk about is high speed rail, which is an issue that Assemblyman Hoyt has long been a supporter of. On Christmas Day, he wrote an op-ed in The Buffalo News discussing how federal stimulus money promised by the incoming Barack Obama administration should fund the construction of high speed rail here in New York.

During my interview with Hoyt, he discussed high speed rail and what it could mean for upstate New York.

"High speed rail would connect the three greatest cities: New York City, Buffalo and Toronto as well as all the cities in between," Hoyt said. "It would lead to explosive growth in industry and population. The economic stimulus package will be in the several billion dollar range and one of the central infrastructure needs is high speed rail."

I asked Hoyt whether he saw real support for high speed rail and he said he did. He made the case for high speed rail.

"I think you will see real growth and environmental benefits," Hoyt said of high speed rail. "Our highways are reaching their capacity. Airports are bursting at the seams. There are stories about delays at major airports and you can't just build a new terminal."

Hoyt added: "The current administration has said that the Empire State Corridor qualifies as one of 11 high speed rail corridors that is being looked at for development of a high speed rail system."

I discussed other issues with Hoyt, including the recent Executive Budget proposal put forth by Governor David Paterson, property taxes and what his legislative goals for the next session will be.

You can read the rest of the interview below the fold.

The Legislature's Expensive PR Machine

by: robert.harding

Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 15:12:13 PM EDT

Many state Senators, and some Assembly members, have a press spokesman on their office staff. In addition, the Senate spent $1 million last budget year to employ 15 in its central press offices, and another 20 people and $1.3 million in something called the "Senate Communications/Director's Office." The boss, John McArdle, made $180,000 last year. Plus a state car.

...

Both chambers operate a variety of "communication" services. They employ web site designers, graphic artists, photographers, television producers, event coordinators and the like.

The Senate employs no fewer than seven photographers, including four full-timers, who make up to $42,600. I can't imagine there's enough work to keep them busy during the session, much less the other seven or eight months of the year.

The Assembly, not to be undone, has a "Radio/TV and Photography" department. Two of them, actually, one for the Democrats, another for the Republicans. They employ only one photographer, but 26 other people, at a cost of $1.5 million last budget year. Among the job titles: Reporter.

I think not.

Add up all the assorted PR functions and you have 87.5 jobs and $5.3 million in spending on the Senate side and 106.5 jobs and $5.5 million in the Assembly.

(Note: I must say that Heaney did link to us - see McArdle link above - and that is partially why I'm writing about this. The other part is that it's disgusting how much is being spent on PR.)

That doesn't factor in the mail and printing costs Heaney mentions in his piece, which also add up.

Let's think about this for a second. As a blogger, I work for free. I can record video pretty well (especially when I have a tripod in tow) and I have taken literally thousands of pictures of candidates over the last year. That doesn't even take into account my writing. I have contributed hundreds of posts to TAP and have read hundreds, if not thousands, of press releases and have seen the material that is put out. I work for free, except if you count the great readers we have here who always extend their praise, which is worth far more than any dollar amount.

That said, if these jobs pay THAT much money, where do I sign up? That's all I want to know. Where do I sign up? And if the New York State Legislature wants some REAL PR, how about hiring a set of bloggers to help out with online communications, which this state desperately needs.  

Hoyt Avoids Serious Punishment; Banned From Having Interns

by: robert.harding

Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 14:24:16 PM EDT

The ban, announced Friday by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, followed a finding by the Assembly Ethics and Guidance Committee that the Buffalo Democrat had engaged in an "inappropriate personal relationship" with the woman, who was an intern when the affair began.

But stronger penalties - a formal censure or loss of his committee chairmanship - was not taken because she no longer was an intern in 2004 when the Assembly banned fraternization between lawmakers and interns.

Applying the rule retroactively would have opened up thorny legal issues, people involved in the matter said.

Still, Silver had harsh words for Hoyt's conduct, the subject of an ethics committee inquiry that began last month.

"The Assembly Ethics and Guidance Committee found that Sam Hoyt had an improper relationship with an intern. I am deeply disturbed and disappointed by the actions of Assemblyman Hoyt and will take action against him as recommended by the unanimous decision of the bipartisan committee," Silver said in a statement.

Hoyt tip-toed a fine line here because of the timing of these affairs. While he avoided the more severe penalties, being banned from using interns was obviously a blow to Hoyt.

"I regret that my behavior resulted in a decision by the ethics committee that will prevent those kids from having the opportunity to participate in what was a very widely well-respected program," Hoyt said.

"I consider the punishment, in terms of the substance, a serious one," he added. Hoyt in a statement apologized to his family and constituents.

According to the article, it was being considering to apply the new ethics rule to Hoyt retroactively but then they would have to do the same to other legislators who have been accused of indiscretions in the past. In the end, they decided against that and instead chose to ban Hoyt from having interns in his office.  

A Summary Of The Cuts (Or Savings) Made By Governor Paterson, Legislature

by: robert.harding

Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 17:29:05 PM EDT

The cuts this year will be over $400 million and over $600 million for 2009-10. According to the Governor's office, it will reduce the deficit by $1 billion over the next two years. Governor Paterson had this to say about the savings efforts:

"Too often in the past, our State's failure to respond quickly to fiscal crises has only made our budget problems worse and the solutions we've had to implement more painful," said Governor Paterson. "Today, we are taking a different approach. Rather than simply hoping that our struggling economy improves, all sides worked together in the spirit of cooperation and took action to reduce spending. I want to thank my partners in the Legislature for working productively with me during this special session."

Here is an outline of the cuts:

- Reducing Local Assistance Spending (Savings: $97 million in 2008-09, $160 million in 2009-10):

A six percent reduction will be taken against all unspent local assistance funding except for school aid, welfare, Medicaid, child welfare, youth detention, the Aid and Incentives to Municipalities (AIM) program, aid to community colleges, aid to local governments for mandated programs, appropriations of under $500,000, and special education.

- Reducing New and Enhanced 2008-09 Executive Programs by 50 Percent, and New and Enhanced Legislative Programs by Six Percent  (Savings: $34 million in 2008-09, $21 million in 2009-10):

This reduction will apply to new and enhanced programs or initiatives in the 2008-09 Enacted Budget proposed by either the Executive Branch (50 percent) or the Legislature (six percent). The six percent reduction in legislative initiatives is equal to those included as a part of the local assistance savings actions. Executive programs exempted from the 50 percent reduction include Medicaid coverage for foster children, housing and family support services, AIM, veterans tuition assistance, and 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CLCs).

- General Fund Transfers (Savings: $50 million in 2008-09, $20 million in 2009-10):

The agreement contains additional General Fund transfers of over $50 million, including $40 million from the Statewide Wireless Network project related to slower than anticipated spending on that initiative. This action does not reflect any decision regarding the future of the Statewide Wireless Network project, which will be made at a later date.

- Reducing Executive and Legislative Member Item Funding by $50 million (Savings: $50 million in 2008-09):

Today's agreement reduces member item funding by $50 million.

- Reducing Support to the City University of New York (CUNY) to Achieve Parity with SUNY Reduction (Savings: $51 million in 2008-09, $51 million in 2009-10):

Under Governor Paterson's July 30 administrative savings proposal, the State University of New York (SUNY) must implement a seven percent General Fund spending reduction. Because CUNY is funded through local assistance rather than state operations, it was not impacted by the Governor's proposal. Today's agreement will reduce state support to CUNY by $26 million. Additionally, CUNY will transfer $25 million in reserves to the state. Together, the impact of these actions totals $51 million, which is equal to seven percent of state support for CUNY, therefore achieving parity with SUNY. Neither institution will face a reduction from its tuition or other non-General Fund revenues.

Health care savings and reaction from leaders below the fold.  

Assembly Passes Circuit Breaker With Bi-Partisan Support

by: robert.harding

Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 19:51:12 PM EDT

The vote was 118-24. The 24 votes weren't all Republicans though.

From Liz:

The no votes were:

Amedore, Bacalles, Barclay, Boyle, Burling, Cole, Conte, Crouch, Errigo, Finch, Fitzpatrick, Giglio, Hawley, Hayes, Kolb, Lopez, Morelle, Oaks, O'Mara, Quinn, Reilich, Schimminger, Tedisco, Tobacco.

Excused: Abbate, Gantt, Hikind, Wright.

Absent: Lafayette.

There are a couple prominent upstate Democrats in that list. Assemblyman Joe Morelle and Assemblyman Robin Schimminger both voted against the measure. Nearly half of the Republican side voted for the measure, which says a lot for this legislation.

The Working Families Party weighed in on the passage of this measure:

"Speaker Silver and members of the Assembly have offered a roadmap to solving the very real problem of property taxes that bear no relation to what working and middle class families can afford.  They should be congratulated today for the triumph of common sense.  The Assembly bill would provide real cuts in property taxes for working and retired families - paid for in a fiscally responsible way - while preserving our state's commitment to quality public education.

"It's time to let democracy work.  It's time the State Senate notices that more than 15,000 New Yorkers reached out to their legislators and the Governor to say that the so-called property tax cap is nothing more than an arbitrary restriction on local investment in public education that does nothing to address the property tax mess."

The Alliance for Quality Education also responded to the measure being passed in the Assembly:

"The State Assembly has taken seriously the charge of providing New Yorkers with real property tax relief by adopting a circuit breaker tax cap and reduction plan.  While the State Senate Majority is chasing the sound bites and gimmickry of a so called tax cap that reduces nobody's taxes and threatens the quality of our schools, the Assembly Majority has adopted the only plan in Albany that actually caps and reduces the property taxes of individual homeowners.  The Assembly has clearly drawn a line at the doorstep of our schools and said that we must provide real property tax relief to homeowners, but that we cannot sacrifice the education of our children.  The State Assembly's circuit breaker tax cap and reduction plan is tied to the actual funding needed to reduce property taxes by enacting a small increase in the income taxes paid by millionaires and multi-millionaires and it protects the quality of education.

For years, middle and lower income homeowners have been subsidizing tax cuts given to the wealthiest New Yorkers by way of the spiraling property taxes that resulted from the State of New York paying too small a share of the costs of educating our school kids.  Now the Assembly is insisting that the needs of homeowners and the education of school kids take precedence over putting more money in the pockets of millionaires.  AQE is thankful for the leadership of Speaker Silver in saying no to the tax cap gimmick and yes to bona fide property tax relief and quality education."

Now where does this go from here? That is uncertain. I don't see, unless something changes, the Senate passing a circuit breaker.

Hopefully, if we can't get a circuit breaker through, we could find a way to pass a "best of both worlds" piece of legislation that would appeal to all sides.  

A Deal In The Works To Cut State Spending

by: robert.harding

Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 13:09:55 PM EDT

One Senate source said talks are focusing on 6 percent across-the-board cuts, which would put them in the neighborhood of $400 million to $500 million (this figure is still fluid, and would include $40 million Gov. David Paterson can cut himself).

   "We think it's a safe number," one senator said. "If things get worse, we can always come back and cut more."

It's unclear where exactly the money would be coming from. There's still concern about higher ed cuts, specifically there's a worry among upstate lawmakers that SUNY is taking a bigger hit than CUNY.

Liz also has more from Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos who ruled one thing out:

The only thing that is out for sure, according to Skelos: Tax increases.

   "We're not going to do any taxes," the majority leader said. "This is about controlling government spending, not increasing taxes in New York State and making it less competitive, quite honestly than it is right now."

Skelos expressed confidence that a final deal would be reached by the end of the day that would result in enough savings to shave $1 billion off next year's budget deficit. (In other words, $1 billion worth of spending cuts over two years).

Whether or not this would mean that a millionaires tax is out of the question remains to be scene. The problem is that you can make spending cuts across the board, but you also have to find more revenue sources so that the state can make money. A millionaires tax would be one of those things. You need to show restraint while also looking for new ways to make money (and save money).  

More Filings From Assembly, Senate Candidates/Elected Officials

by: robert.harding

Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 16:19:51 PM EDT

We will start on the Assembly with one notable: Assemblyman Sam Hoyt. Hoyt raised $$137,322.00 and has $124,369.52 cash on hand. This comes a day after it was announced that Tom Golisano had given to Hoyt's primary opponent, Barbra Kavanaugh.

On the Senate side, we have more than a few to mention.

- Sen. Charles Fuschillo has $505,385.42 cash on hand and received $58,050.00 in contributions over the last six months.

- Jim Gennaro raised $233,479.02 and has $406,965.01 cash on hand. No numbers yet on his SD-11 opponent, Sen. Frank Padavan.

- Simcha Felder is loaded. He has $1,273,429.62 cash on hand after raising $148,975.00 in the first half of this year. Felder is running in SD-21.

- Phillip has the details on the numbers in SD-25. One of the questions about Connor was how much he had in the bank since that was not included in his press release. Connor has $82,962.92 cash on hand. While the individual fundraising numbers are great to look at, how much you have the bank matters. When Dan Squadron has $291,000 in the bank, that tells you something.

- SD-48 is interesting. Republican David Renzi has $55,875.33 cash on hand while Sen. Darrel Aubertine has $45,329.44 cash on hand. Even though Aubertine had $205,975.55 in total receipts, he had over $194,000 in expenses to take care of.

- Rick Dollinger's filing is in. More on his money later.

We should have more as they come in late this afternoon.