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.
If there is anything that symbolizes the dysfunction in the New York State Legislature, it is the committee structure that exists in both houses. In the Assembly, there are 37 standing committees while the Senate has 32 standing committees. For any state legislature, those numbers are high. For New York's, it means there are a lot of committees that are useless and need to be merged with other committees or eliminated altogether.
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.
The release of today's Siena poll has a lot of information to cover. But one of the questions posed by the poll is worth highlighting.
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.
My friend Alan Bedenko wrote an interesting post on Sunday where he calls for the downsizing of the New York State Legislature from two houses to one house. The example he cites is Nebraska, whose state legislature is unicameral and, to go even further, elects its members in a non-partisan manner.
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?
The importance of the bill cannot be understated. Gregory Krawkower, who serves as the Director of the Senate Policy Group and Special Counsel to Senate Majority Leader Malcolm A. Smith, wrote a post on the NYSenate blog explaining what the bill does. According to Krawkower, the bill will do the following:
- There is one consolidation and dissolution law that is applicable to towns, villages and special districts. (The law applies to all special districts except school districts, which were left out of the proposal because the law governing school district consolidation is - uniquely - quite clear. Most importantly, while the number of school districts in New York have been greatly reduced, the opposite is true for other districts).
- Empowered governing bodies can initiate consolidation/dissolution process for towns, villages or special districts.
- Empowered citizens can initiate consolidation/dissolution process for all local government entities though a simplified and fair petition process.
- All land owning requirements to petition for or vote on proposed consolidation/dissolutions are abolished.
It is no secret that New Yorkers face a high property tax burden. Locally, I know that Western New Yorkers (and upstate New York) face a high tax burden that really hits hard because of our low property values. While some tout our region as a great place to live because housing is so affordable, when taxes are as high as they are, that is when they feel the pinch.
This is where consolidation and dissolution can be a key to reducing property taxes in New York. We have too many local governments in New York. You could argue that some of these governments are unnecessary. When you factor in the tax rates for these towns and/or villages and then you factor in the cost of running these municipalities, the costs outweigh the benefits.
One of the lessons I learned from taking economics in college was that, if the costs outweigh the benefits of something, whether that's running a municipality, building a coal-fired power plant or opening your own business, then you probably shouldn't go forward with that project. We all want to see more benefits than costs from our government, but right now all we see is high taxation.
This bill passed the Senate with bi-partisan support. Of the 62 senators in the chamber, 46 voted in favor of the bill.
"Cutting wasteful government spending through government consolidation and eliminating unnecessary and costly layers of bureaucracy will reduce the crushing tax burden on millions of middle-income New Yorkers," said Senate Majority Leader Malcolm A. Smith. "During times of financial distress, we must find a way to do more with less, and that includes government. This bill empowers individual communities to determine the size of their government through a lasting process of reform that could potentially save millions in local property taxes. I applaud the Attorney General, as well as Senators Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Betty Little for their work on this legislation and their innovative approach to reducing the tax burden on New York families."
One other person who deserves to be commended is Assemblyman Sam Hoyt, who chairs the Local Governments Committee in the Assembly and has supported these efforts for a long time. He co-sponsored this bill in the Assembly and has always been a backer of local consolidation efforts.
This is a huge victory for New Yorkers and should be considered one giant step toward property tax reform in New York.
(CLARIFICATION: This legislation that Assemblyman Hoyt and Senator Stachowski will introduce only targets the bonuses, but won't be limited to just NYPA. They are targeting all state authorities with this legislation.
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.
According to NYLA, those cuts represent 18 percent of all library funding statewide.
NYLA's Lobby Day featured a Legislative Breakfast Reception that was attended by state legislators and library leaders. At this reception, 87 legislators had their pictures taken for the popular "READ" posters that they can send back to the libraries in their respective districts to promote reading.
Michael Borges, NYLA's Executive Director, said that while these are hard times, libraries shouldn't be on the chopping block.
"During tough economic times, you should not cut funding for public services that are in the greatest demand or can do the most good, and libraries helping people find jobs, start new careers or access public assistance programs fit into that category," Borges said.
NYLA also held a rally later in the day that featured many state leaders, including Sen. Suzi Oppenheimer, chair of the Senate Education Committee. "I can tell you that the Senate Democratic Conference met last night and we are going to restore the $18 million cuts back into the budget," Sen. Oppenheimer told an enthusiastic crowd. "There is probably not a single line item in the budget more important to me than libraries."
Oppenheimer also announced a library subcommittee that would feature both upstate and downstate members of the Democratic conference.
Republicans like Sen. Hugh Farley also made it known that they support restoring funding for the libraries. In fact, Sen. Farley made it clear that he wasn't the only Republican who supports restorations in funding for libraries statewide.
"There are thirty votes in my conference to restore the $18 million. Libraries are non-partisan, it doesn't matter if you are a Democrat or Republican but you have to support libraries," Farley said.
Cuts are nothing new for library advocates. But these proposed cuts are something they haven't seen in over 15 years. According to NYLA, the $18 million (an 18 percent cut in funding) in cuts this year would slash funding to levels not seen since 1993. Also, the libraries have faced cuts in recent years, including last year's $3.5 million cut.
As reported on Sunday, a bill in the New York State Assembly could be passed as early as today. The bill, A06085, will bring much needed reforms to the Rockefeller drug laws that have been considered "draconian" by many.
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.
The Rockefeller drug laws that New York has had for over three decades are arguably the toughest in the country. But that could be coming to an end as the New York State Legislature might pass legislation as early as this week that would overhaul the current laws, The New York Times reports.
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.
During home care Advocacy Day, legislative leaders echo HCA's call to apply FMAP funding to offset Medicaid health care cuts, as home care services face a $475 million hit under proposed 2009-10 State Budget
Recognizing the impact of nearly a half-billion dollars in proposed State Budget cuts on patient services, state legislators addressed New York's home care community during HCA's 2009 Advocacy Day on February 25, stressing the importance of New York's home care safety net for the frail elderly, persons with disabilities, the chronically ill, and patients in need of post-acute care.
Assembly Majority Leader Ron Canestrari (D-Cohoes), Senate Health Committee Chairman Tom Duane (D-Manhattan), Assembly Health Committee Chairman Richard Gottfried (D-Manhattan), and Senator Craig Johnson (D-Port Washington) all echoed HCA's contention that the $11 billion in Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) money coming to New York under the economic stimulus package recently passed by Congress should be used squarely for the Medicaid program and to offset the home care and other health care cuts contained in Governor Paterson's 2009-10 Executive State Budget proposal.
"We must keep Medicaid dollars for Medicaid programs," Assemblyman Canestrari told home care advocates during HCA's Advocacy Day program.
Assemblyman Canestrari is right: The money coming in for Medicaid should stay with Medicaid. And I hope, along with the many advocates and legislators who have spoken out on this issue, that the money will all go towards Medicaid funding.
Under the Democratic majority, the New York State Senate along with their partners in the Assembly have stressed the importance of "One New York." At times, certain outside (and inside) influences can divide this state into multiple parts. But that is not how the leaders in this state want the state to function.
Today, it was announced that Sen. Darrel Aubertine will serve as the chairman for the New York State Legislative Commission on Rural Resources. This commission is in place to develop economic development policies that will spur growth in rural upstate New York.
Under the leadership of Aubertine and Vice-Chair, Assemblyman David Koon (D-Perinton), the Commission will be dedicated to creating policies that will boost economic revitalization in rural communities throughout Upstate. The commission works directly with a network of more than 10,000 rural residents, advocates, researchers and community and business leaders across Upstate.
"Because of his personal and legislative experiences, Senator Aubertine is a natural choice to lead this commission and help us in our efforts to promote policies that will benefit Upstate New York," said Senate Majority Leader Malcolm A. Smith. "For the long-term economic growth and revitalization of rural New York, we need a strong commitment to job creation and sound economic development. This commission, driven by substantive public policies initiatives will help cultivate a new economy for Upstate New York," said Smith.
This is the second leadership post for Senator Aubertine, who in January, was chosen to lead the Senate's standing Committee on Agriculture.
"Certainly, I'm honored to have been chosen by the leader to head this commission," Sen. Aubertine said. "As chair of the Agriculture Committee and now as chair of this Commission on Rural Resources, I will continue to promote our state's agriculture industry and advocate for the day to day needs of our rural communities. But in addition, this Commission can play a tremendous role in creating policy and legislation to get our green economy, the industries of the future, up and running."
With Assemblyman David Koon serving as the vice-chair of the commission, Aubertine will be charged with pushing ideas that will lead to economic growth and job creation in rural New York.
According to the press release, the commission will be charged with creating legislation that focuses on these areas:
1) Farm to Fork: This Commission will promote programs which build bridges between our state's farmers and organizations, such as schools, colleges, nursing homes and correctional facilities. This opens up new markets for our state's agriculture industry and provides healthy, local food for these organizations.
2) Green Energy: Agriculture and rural New York can play a key role in the development of alternative energy technologies, manufacturing and production of wind, nuclear, hydropower, solar, biodiesel, cellulosic fuels including ethanol, and other clean energies. With global warming and international conflict forcing our nation to look beyond foreign oil and other fossil fuels, Upstate New York can capitalize on this market trend to create jobs.
3) Green Jobs/Green Partnerships: In addition to green energy, Upstate has a growing industry for environmentally sustainable products which we need to cultivate. By developing incentives for these industries to locate here in New York, working with local small businesses, and through partnerships with SUNY and private universities to advance these innovations, this Commission will work to bring manufacturing jobs back to Upstate.
4) Re-thinking Upstate Infrastructure: If Upstate New York's economy is going to grow, we need to make sure we can by laying the necessary groundwork for economic viability. This includes maintaining and improving infrastructure for water, sewer, roads, and mass transit, as well as broadband Internet.
5) Rural Healthcare: A key component for improving the quality of life for rural New Yorkers and enticing business investment is improving access to healthcare through programs to recruit more doctors to rural areas, telemedicine and increased awareness of programs available to maintain demand for specialized services.
The debate over ultimate fighting, or mixed martial arts, may be bubbling up this year in the legislature. While currently banned, there's a push, aided by the desire for more tax revenue, and aided by some big-time lobbyists such as Brown McMahon & Weintraub, to make it legal.
109th District Assemblyman Bob Reilly, whose district covers suburban Albany, has emerged as a leading opponent of the fights and he recently commissioned a poll of his district which found people oppose allowing such matches by a 67 percent to 18 percent margin with 15 percent undecided.
"I'm hoping it will be defeated in committee," said Reilly, a Democrat.
Assemblyman Bob Reilly has been a very vocal opponent of MMA coming to New York. He was very much against MMA coming to the state last year when the issue was being floated in Albany.
So why does MMA want to come to New York? And why would we let MMA come to our state?
The first question has to do with business. New York is a big market, including the largest city in the country. Having MMA events in New York City, plus other locales in the state will be a great way for MMA companies, including UFC, to expand their reach and bring in more money.
And while we do have plenty of venues in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and other cities throughout the state, nothing would bring in more money for MMA than having a big event at Madison Square Garden. That would bring in big revenue for any company that holds an event there, especially UFC.
But why would the state do this? The prime reason given is additional revenue for the state via tax dollars. I'm not sure if that's a great rationale, considering the state's leaders have been reluctant to along with Fair Share Tax Reform. That would create $6 billion in tax revenue, yet they have not signed on. So if tax dollars are the reason for bringing MMA to New York, I would hope they approve Fair Share Tax Reform on the same grounds.
This issue is in its introductory stages right now. As the Times-Union indicated, the debate could occur this year. Of course, the debate was supposed to happen last year, but it got removed from the agenda while still in committee.
The plan also includes an additional $800 million in cuts from next year's projected deficit, taking next year's deficit from $13.8 billion to $13 billion.
"While I applaud the Legislature for working with me to take the prudent and responsible actions necessary to close this year's deficit, I know that we all recognize an even greater task awaits us in the weeks ahead," Governor Paterson added. "Addressing next year's $13 billion deficit will require us to make more tough choices. But today's agreement demonstrates that we are united in our commitment to meet the challenges ahead."
Since taking office, Governor Paterson has worked with the Legislature to enact over $3 billion in current-year savings to address a dramatic decline in revenues related to a national economic crisis. These include nearly a $1 billion (10 percent) reduction in agency spending, over $400 million in savings at an August Special Session, and today's $1.6 billion Deficit Reduction Plan.
"We made a commitment to the people of New York that we would address the budget gap for this fiscal year by adopting a $1.6 billion deficit reduction plan," Senate Majority Leader Malcolm A. Smith said. "By passing this critical legislation New York State has demonstrated fiscal responsibility and economic discipline, better positioning the State's bond rating and opportunity to receive federal stimulus funding."
"As I have said many times I am committed to finding cuts in spending to ensure that New York is able to live within its means. I believe this plan is a prudent and thoughtful response to these difficult times," Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said. "However revenue numbers are not improving so our next step is to continue our work on the 2009-10 State budget recognizing that no budget deficit in excess of $12 billion is going to be closed without federal aid, without cuts and without new revenue measures."
Some of the highlights of the deficit reduction plan include:
- Increasing SUNY resident undergraduate tuition $310 in the spring and the full $620 in the fall. The money from this increase will go to the state. SUNY will only retain 10 percent of the tuition increase this year and 20 percent of the increase next year. As a result, the state will increase TAP spending.
- The state will delay New York City's STAR program payment and will cut back on local government efficiency grant programs.
- Environmental Protection Fund appropriations will be cut by $50 million.
- Some economic development programs will also see cuts in funding totaling $12 million this year and next year.
- There are many transfers from programs into the General Fund. These transfers include:
- A transfer of $306 million from the New York Power Authority to the General Fund.
- $25 million from the State Wireless Network to the General Fund.
- A total of $116.5 million in other transfers to the General Fund.
History was made in Albany today when a joint committee hearing on the budget was held using Internet testimony.
The internet took center-stage for the first time in state history today, as the State Legislature marked a new era of transparency and public participation at a joint committee meeting that was conducted using internet-based technology. The meeting is a key first-step for Senate Democrats, who are embracing the use of 21 st Century technology for the Chamber as part of their goal to allow for real-time public participation in the legislative process.
The first-of-its-kind event, focused on funding for the arts, was Chaired by Senator Jose M. Serrano and Assemblyman Steven Englebright.
"This is the first time that we have conducted any kind of meeting in this way," said Senator Smith. "This is a major component of what we are doing to open up the process and bring the public into the goings-on in Albany. I applaud Senator Serrano and Assemblyman Englebright for their vision and for helping to usher in a new era at the Capitol. This is the first of many exciting technological changes that are in the works that will create a better functioning legislature."
"New technologies are increasing our ability to communicate with the public nearly every day," said Senator Serrano. "Knowing that in this day and age the vast majority of people get at least some of their information through the internet, this was an exciting opportunity to re-think the way the legislature conducts meetings, and increase public awareness of what we're doing in Albany."
Here is video of today's landmark hearing, which shows that Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith meant what he said when he told people that the New York State Senate was going to move into the 21st century in more ways than one.
Many articles have been written about the dysfunctional nature of Albany. A book has even been written about the "three men in a room" ways of Albany.
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.
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.
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.
Five months ago, Governor David Paterson and the four leaders from the New York State Legislature held a press conference I described at the time as a "dysfunctional press conference for a dysfunctional legislature." It was entertaining to watch because of the bickering, but the feeling of nothing getting done was there and it wasn't a good feeling. This state has a lot of issues, especially when it comes to the budget and addressing property taxes. This is a time when bipartisanship should be on display in Albany.
The same can be said for today, as Robinia documented earlier. The constant all fight and no action behavior in Albany is getting us nowhere.
The budget crisis we have in New York is a serious problem. We also have a serious issue with property taxes that has led to more divisiveness and less action. So what do we need to do? What do we do to address these issues? Here are some ideas based on "To Cut, To Cap or To Tax?"
WHAT TO CUT: TAXES. Cutting spending like Governor Paterson wants to cut spending won't solve any problems. In fact, it will just create more problems for us that we would have to address sooner rather than later. But cutting taxes would help, especially if those tax cuts target the middle-class like they should. That will help boost New York's economy. A tax cap is not an answer. A tax cap looks like a great solution, but it really won't do anything except tell municipalities how far they can raise taxes. That's all the tax cap will do. So cutting property taxes is a must. Implementing a circuit breaker in New York will help, but we also need to look at a complete makeover of how we tax our citizens here in New York.
WHAT TO CAP: SPENDING. Cutting spending will only create more problems. So why not meet at the middle? Instead of annual hikes in spending or drastic cuts, how about a spending cap? This is where capping can make a difference. With the renovated tax system we hope to create, we need to implement a much better system for spending New York's taxpayer dollars. Instead of looking to us - the taxpayer - for money, the government should treat their finances like any family. They need to think long and hard about how much they are bringing in and, in turn, how much they should be spending.
WHO TO TAX: MILLIONAIRES. The facts about a millionaires tax are known. A millionaires tax can work and will produce precious revenues here in New York. In this economic climate, millionaires are the ones that can afford it. A millionaires tax has been tried in other states with great success. In other states, more jobs have been created and the number of wealthy people has actually increased. Not only that, but more revenues have been created. New York needs more revenue, but not at the expense of middle-class taxpayers who need a reprieve from high taxation.
This is what the New York State Legislature and Governor Paterson should be addressing. Taxes in New York are out of control and lead to young people and hardworking New Yorkers leaving the state in favor of a better economic environment. Drastic spending cuts will create more problems but if we continue to raise spending levels every year, it will also create problems for us. That is where a spending cap can be beneficial. And making millionaires pay their fair share only makes sense.
Maybe January will be a different story. These "leaders meetings" are relatively useless, but it also showed why New Yorkers voted for a Democratic state senate earlier this month. It was and is time for change. Let's hope they mean it come January.
James Heaney, a reporter for The Buffalo News, does great investigative reporting for the News and also authors his own blog for the newspaper. Today he took a look at the New York State Legislature and its rather expensive public relations costs:
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.
In light of the recent findings by NYPIRG regarding the New York State Legislature and the bills that were passed and introduced by New York State legislators, Rick Dollinger came out today to express his strong support for implementing the Brennan Center report's recommendations, which is something he has talked about throughout the campaign.
"From the Brennan Center report to the most recent study done by NYPIRG, the New York State legislature is universally recognized as the most dysfunctional in the nation," said Dollinger. "But this isn't new information. These reports were common knowledge eight years ago, and Republicans in the State Senate haven't even taken the baby steps needed to make things better, like requiring legislators to read the bills they pass, to be in the chamber when they vote, or to allow bills to get to the floor that aren't rubber stamped by the majority leader."
"It's ludicrous to think that Joe Robach will fix a problem that he has supported for his entire career in Albany. For the past 40 years, New York State has been marred by the failed policies of the State Senate Republicans, who have stalled at every turn, and have been the number one road block to passing a critical economic reform package," continued Dollinger. "Republican Joe Robach isn't a reformer. He's a rubber stamp for the 'three men in a room' model."
In the State Senate Rick Dollinger will fight to enact the recommendations of the 2004 Brennan Center for Justice's report on New York's legislative process. Once elected, Rick will address five areas that require immediate reforms - legislative committees, barriers to new legislation, legislative rules, the lack of transparency within the legislative process, and legislative inefficiencies and high costs.
Dollinger spoke on reforming Albany earlier this month at a town hall meeting without Joe Robach. As a refresher, here are the videos of Dollinger talking about reforming Albany and his emphasis on the Brennan Center report.
Yesterday, the Working Families Party sent out an e-mail entitled, "End of an Era." In that e-mail, the WFP talked about the possibilities that await New York in November. In New York, we could go from six Republican congressmen down to two. Also, we could see a Democratic majority in the New York State Senate.
So how does this relate to the WFP? In their e-mail, the WFP talked about how, when they were first founded in 1998, there was a Republican governor, ten of New York's congressional representatives were Republicans and Republicans had a 10 seat majority in the State Senate.
Calling the State Senate "an obstacle to reforms," the WFP said that the Republican Senate "stood against" them on issues that are important to the Working Families Party: Fair taxes, paid family leave, public financing of elections, etc.
Towards the end of the e-mail, the WFP asks for a contribution while also adding this sentence: That's why the Working Families Party exists. We've helped whittle the ranks of Republican State Senators and Congressmen to get to exactly this point - where we can pull, push, prod, and yank Democrats to make sure they keep the promises they've made to working people.
I had the opportunity to ask WFP Executive Director Dan Cantor a few questions and he had about their goals and endorsements this year. He had Dan Levitan, the communications guru at WFP, answer the questions for him. Here is that (short) question-and-answer session.
QUESTION: The WFP endorsed candidates for Assembly and Senate seats. How does the WFP see these candidates furthering the WFP agenda in Albany and creating a state government that does stand for the middle and working class citizens of New York?
ANSWER: Some of the candidates the WFP has endorsed are truly great on the issues that matter to working people - they're leaders, they push issues, they wouldn't back down when push comes to shove. Others of course are simply the best candidate for working people in that particular race. But both the thousands of voters who choose to "vote their values" on the WFP ballot line and the field and organizing work the WFP does in priority elections has given us a modest, but real amount of power to advocate for progressive legislation in Albany. Over the years, that's meant a two-dollar an hour raise in the minimum wage (affecting over one million New Yorkers), the defeat of budget cuts in healthcare and education on multiple occasions, and collective bargaining rights for 50,000 home-based childcare workers, to name a few.
