NY-Sen: Five Targets For 2010

by: robert.harding

Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 09:59:32 AM EST

The dysfunctional body has its share of problems. And by problems, I mean senators who are in Albany for all the wrong reasons. Instead of serving the people of their district and the citizens of New York, they are in Albany to serve their own interests. We need to get rid of those senators and replace them with not more and better Democrats, but the best Democrat for the job.

Early on, here are five targets to focus on moving forward.

PEDRO ESPADA JR.
This one probably goes without saying, but we can't take our eyes off the ball. In 2008, we replaced one corrupt Democrat - Efrain Gonzalez - with Espada. This time around, we need to replace Espada with someone who will serve SD-33 well and not put his desire for power over the interests and issues of the district. It would also be in the best interests of Democrats in the district to find a replacement, since Espada embarrassed them by temporarily caucusing with the Republicans.

HIRAM MONSERRATE
If we can't fire Monserrate before the 2010 elections, let's have the voters of SD-13 send him home. Assemblyman Jose Peralta has stepped up to challenge Monserrate should he stick around for 2010. Monserrate's beating of his girlfriend and his role in the coup shouldn't be what the Democratic Party stands for. We need someone else and we need the best Democrat to step forward.

KEVIN PARKER
Parker has his own legal woes (an assault case, actually) to worry about. His defending of Monserrate was interesting, given his own problems and the fate he could face. He was in a primary in 2008 and another primary in 2010 seems likely. This time, we need to replace him. He is known for his bad temper and that temper leads to bad things, including the assault charge he is facing. We can't have that in Albany. We need someone else.

FRANK PADAVAN
This is a seat Jim Gennaro nearly won in 2008. It is reminiscent of when SD-15 was narrowly won by incumbent Serf Maltese in 2006 only to be lost in 2008 to Joseph Addabbo. Padavan has very little wiggle room and if Gennaro aimed for a rematch with the resources of the DSCC invested in the race, he can win. Picking up SD-11 would be huge, since the district has a Democratic enrollment advantage and should be in our hands to begin with. Gennaro would make a good candidate for 2010, if he wants it.

GEORGE MAZIARZ
Two things: I live in the district (SD-62) and I know that it might come as a surprise that I pick Maziarz over others. But I see this as a real opportunity. The only thing that makes SD-62 a leaning Republican district is the county I live in, Orleans. Take it away and this is a Democratic district. Maziarz's connections to Steve Pigeon and his role in the coup are worth noting. Maybe we don't win in 2010, but a strong candidate will give him trouble.

It would also be key to look at Long Island for another pickup. Kemp Hannon in SD-6 is a possibility. But we also need to make gains in upstate. We have areas that are Democratic or "purple" districts where we could win, but currently, these districts are represented by Republicans. That needs to change.

We have a lot of work to do for 2010. In 2008, we took back the New York State Senate. In 2010, we need to do some renovations.  

5 to go... Who will be the lucky 1000th to

by: Andrew C. White

Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 22:02:34 PM EDT

This is a man that needs firing. He has no place in government. If you haven't signed yet... will you now? Will you be the 1000th to FireMonserrate!

Parker Comes To Monserrate's Defense

by: robert.harding

Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 18:16:08 PM EDT

From Liz:

If it comes down to a vote to oust Monserrate, Parker said he will be a "no". He insisted that has nothing to do with his own situation, but rather is borne of a belief that "it is not my place" to decide whether a duly-elected lawmaker has the right to retain his seat.

"The Legislature makes the laws and the court looks at guilt and innocence," Parker said. "The courts are still legally in this process. I think any conversation about anybody doing anything to Hiram now is putting the cart before the horse when you haven't heard what the sentence is going to be."
Parker also noted Monserrate and his attorney, Joseph Tacopina, have said they intend to appeal the senator's conviction. So, in the end, he might be completely exonerated and, in Parker's eyes, the Senate will have engaged in "double jeopardy by punishing (Monserrate) a second time."

"I don't see how it helps this conference or the state of New York to rush to judgment when the legal system hasn't rendered a final verdict," Parker said.

"Frankly, I think most of these people on both sides of the aisle are more upset about Hiram's involvement in the coup attempt than they are about the incident involving his girlfriend, honestly."

Parker's argument is weak. There are those in Albany who were prepared for a felony guilty verdict to be handed down, which would have led to Monserrate's ouster. That was a very real possibility. It didn't pan out that way, but that doesn't make what Monserrate any better.

Is this revenge for the coup attempt? Maybe for a few people. I don't see it being the reason for a lot of those coming out and saying he should resign. I think it has more to do with the crime. I have watched the surveillance video of Monserrate escorting his girlfriend out of the apartment building. It is nothing short of chilling.

I don't think is Parker looking out for himself either. He genuinely believes this. It's a weak view, but it's one that he would hold no matter what was going on in his own life.  

Capitol Follies

by: Michael Bouldin

Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 14:56:54 PM EDT

If you haven't been paying attention, this is what happened: a Democratic state Senator, one Hiram Monserrate, was found guilty of slashing his girlfriend in the face last year before Christmas. However, there are degrees of guilt, apparently, leaving a hole large enough for none other than bigoted shitbag Ruben Diaz to jump through.

The New York Times:

Calls for Mr. Monserrate to resign drew angry responses from his allies, including Senator Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx. "Senator Monserrate was found guilty of trying to do good by forcing his girlfriend to go to the hospital for treatment," Mr. Diaz said in a statement on Thursday afternoon.

Actually, that wasn't the point of the whole matter. It's not as if Mr. Monserrate's companion had been in need of treatment before he, well, slashed her face with a broken glass.

NARAL Pro-Choice New York To The Senate: If You Don't Remove Him, We Will

by: robert.harding

Sat Oct 17, 2009 at 10:06:42 AM EDT

NARAL Pro-Choice New York issued a strongly worded statement about Monserrate yesterday:

"In the wake of his assault conviction, NARAL Pro-Choice New York strongly condemns Senator Hiram Monserrate and unequivocally calls for his immediate ouster.  The New York State Democratic party has a proud history of supporting and defending women and women's issues; this stain on the party cannot stand or the Democrats will no longer be seen as the party that protects women's health and rights.  

Our message to the Senate is urgent and clear: if you do not remove this individual from office, we will."

You can't blame NARAL for their disgust. The silence from the state party is disappointing. I know that they are supposed to support Democrats, but given the nature of this crime, they should come out to condemn Monserrate.

What NARAL does here is good. Not only do they target Monserrate for his conduct, but they put the Democrats on notice. Good for them.

Fire Monserrate? Yes. Absolutely. But Replace Him With Someone Better

by: robert.harding

Sat Oct 17, 2009 at 09:53:49 AM EDT

But if there is anything that past history tells us, it's that we just can't "fire" him. We need to can him AND replace him with someone better.

Case in point: Efrain Gonzalez.

Gonzalez had some serious charges against him. He admitted to funneling state money (your tax dollars) to two nonprofits so that he could use that money for a shopping spree. A Gonzalez staffer was sentenced to prison for being the recipient of a "no show" job. (Gonzalez will be sentenced next month, so stay tuned.)

We wanted Gonzalez out. His scandal was bad news, not only for Democrats and the New York State Senate, but for the 33rd Senate District Gonzalez represents. No one wants to be represented by a crook. And that's exactly what Gonzalez is.

So who did we find to replace the scandal-ridden Efrain Gonzalez?

Senator Pedro Espada.

That's all I need to say, especially on this blog. We replaced one scandal-plagued senator with another only because the challenger (Espada), at the time, was the lesser of two evils.

If we are going to replace Monserrate, we need someone better to serve the residents of the 13th Senate District. We can't just replace him with someone that has a questionable past who will burn us in the end (like Espada). Monserrate needs to exit. He was found guilty of a crime that still has a lot of unanswered questions. While the misdemeanor means that Monserrate technically can stay in office, it still doesn't say a lot of Monserrate. Being found guilty of physically abusing your girlfriend isn't a good characteristic to have as an elected official.

The lessons we have learned about Espada should be fresh in our minds. The DSCC supported him. We saw him as a better option than Gonzalez, which is debatable. While Gonzalez had his own scandal with nonprofits, Espada also has nonprofit problems. Espada has toyed with switching to the Republican Party in the past and that culminated with his role in the June coup.

Thus, to replace Monserrate, we need to have a good Democrat ready to take over. We can't have another Pedro Espada.  

Monserrate Found Guilty... Of Misdemeanor

by: robert.harding

Thu Oct 15, 2009 at 17:50:43 PM EDT

Monserrate was found guilty of a misdemeanor charge instead of the felony assault charge that would have led to his removal from the New York State Senate.

An outspoken and brash state senator from Queens was found guilty this afternoon on a misdemeanor charge in the face-slashing attack on his girlfriend.

But Sen. Hiram Monserrate escaped the more serious felony assault conviction that would have led to his immediate expulsion from the Senate. That would have created a new round of intrigue in the always-combative Senate because Democrats would have been, for possibly several months, one vote short to adopt bills without the help of reluctant Republicans.

Monserrate was accused by prosecutors of slashing his girlfriend's face with a broken glass last December following a loud argument. The freshman senator, a former New York City police officer, denied any wrongdoing, insisting it was an accident.

This ruling might have been expected, but it wasn't the verdict everyone would have expected months ago. With Monserrate's involvement in the "Gang of Four", many people hoped that he would be found guilty of a felony and booted from office.

It is unfortunate, however, that we do not punish to the fullest extent of the law, men who beat women but we will send a football player to prison for shooting himself.

There is a lot wrong with that picture. A lot.

Senator Johnson Introduces Legislation To Roll Back Per Diem Increases

by: robert.harding

Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 20:51:09 PM EDT

Senator Craig Johnson has introduced legislation to set the per diem levels back to the last legislature, thus eliminating the increase, as well as freezing the per diems for two years to prevent them from going up again, at least for now.

For Albany travel, these payments --  which are pegged to federal standards and were not raised by legislative action -- rose $11-a day, or 6.8 percent, this month. Per diems cover lodging and related expenses for Assembly and Senate members who travel to Albany and other locations on legislative business.

"We should be setting an example," Senator Johnson said. "While this is a drop in the bucket compared to the current budget deficit that we face, this increase is simply inappropriate during this economic crisis. This legislation will help set the appropriate tone for the challenges that lie ahead."

Senators David J. Valesky, (D-Oneida), William Stachowski, (D-Lake View), and Darrel Aubertine, (D-Cape Vincent), have committed to co-sponsoring this legislation.

"In this difficult economic climate, the Legislature must adopt practices that save taxpayers money, not increase costs," Senator Valesky said. "Though freezing per diem costs will not solve the fiscal crisis, this legislation represents a new way of thinking in Albany, based on principles of prudence and responsibility."

"When it comes to combating New York State's growing deficit, every bit of savings counts," Senator Stachowski said. "We need to lead by example and this legislation embodies the kind of common sense and fiscal discipline that is needed."

"While this alone certainly isn't going to close our budget gap, I hope it sends the message that no cuts are off the table right now in getting this state's finances under control and we are working to put the taxpayers of the State of New York first," Senator Aubertine said. " I look forward to working with Senator Johnson, the Governor, and all of my colleagues in the Legislature to put together a responsible, balanced budget."

If this legislation passes, and this harsh economic climate still exists in two years, Senator Johnson will introduce additional legislation to extend the freeze. Discussions with potential Assembly sponsors are ongoing.

When you look in the large scheme of things, per diems amount to small potatoes. But those "small potatoes" add up. Along with per diems, legislators get mileage reimbursement for travel to and from Albany. They also get benefits which cost taxpayers millions. So all of this adds up and just as they are calling for budget cuts, legislators in Albany should be cutting their own expenditures.

Count Me In: The State Senate's Initiative To Boost Local Census Efforts

by: robert.harding

Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 15:10:54 PM EDT

That is why the New York State Senate has started their Count Me In initiative. The reason? If you aren't counted, New York could lose millions.

From the press release:

"Each one of us will make a difference in the census.  The New York State Senate is working with local, state and federal leaders to make sure everyone is counted so our communities receive their fair share. When the census form arrives in the mail next March, fill it out and return it.  It's safe, it's quick, and you will be helping yourself and the entire community, " said Senator John Sampson, Majority Conference Leader.

"It's important for people to understand that our schools, hospitals, and transportation depend on funding determined by the information gathered in the census.  That's why we must make sure our state's population is accurately counted.  Our future depends on it," said Senator Malcolm Smith, Senate President Pro Tem. "The Census Bureau will be mailing census questionnaires to every household in March. It's up to us to fill out the forms and mail them back."

Here are more details on what the State Senate is doing:

The 2000 Census failed to count hundreds of thousands of people living in New York.  Undercounts mean the loss of millions of dollars in federal, state and local funding and services from programs driven by population counts. For every New Yorker counted in the 2000 census, the federal government spends nearly $2,000 a year, providing the state with over $38.2 billion in federal program funding based on population numbers from census data.

Senators are working directly with community leaders setting up "Complete Count Committees" to ensure all neighborhood residents are counted in the upcoming 2010 census.  Senate research has mapped neighborhoods and even specific blocks where large numbers of people were passed over in previous census counts.

The law prevents the census from sharing personal information with law enforcement, immigration, welfare or any government agency. Completing a census form does not increase your chances of being picked for jury duty. It is completely confidential.

Census questionnaires will be mailed or delivered to every household in March 2010.  Census workers will only visit households that do not mail back the form.

It is very good of the Senate to do this. The Census is very important. It only comes around every decade and when it does, it is important to get it right. Leaving out people not only brings on an inaccurate count, it also costs us much needed funds for key local and state projects.

Getting the right count is needed. Everyone must be and should be counted.  

New York State Senate To Hold Hearings On Non-Collection Of Indian Cigarette Taxes

by: robert.harding

Thu Oct 01, 2009 at 13:41:56 PM EDT

The Senate Standing Committee on Investigations & Government Operations will be holding a hearing on the state's inability to collect taxes from cigarettes sold to Non-Native Americans that originate from Indian Reservations Oct. 27 at Manhattan Community College, the committee's chairman, Senator Craig M. Johnson announced.

The hearing will begin 10:30 a.m. at the college's Richard Harris Terrace Building, 199 Chambers St., New York, NY.

"The failure to secure this badly needed revenue continues as other states - most recently Florida - have been able to reach tax collection agreements with their local Native American nations," Senator Johnson, (D-Nassau), said. "This committee wants to be helpful in crafting a solution to this problem, but first we - and the public - need to be apprised of where the state and the nations stand."

According to the state Office of the Budget, the failure to collect this revenue is costing New York $65 million this year.

Years after the courts affirmed a state's right to collect taxes generated by the sale of cigarettes by Native Americans to non-Native Americans at licensed "smokeshops" and over the Internet, the state Department of Taxation and Finance has been stymied in its tax collection efforts. This non-collection issue persists despite a law passed last year that required these taxes to be collected.

There has also been concern that the current situation has made it easier for criminal activities, such as bootlegging and the sale of counterfeit cigarettes, to flourish. Recently, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York has pursued suspected cigarette smugglers associated with the Poospatuck Tribe. This network's alleged ringleader, Rodney Morrison, is currently facing serious criminal charges in federal court.

I have a few problems with this hearing.

For starters, it is taking place in New York City. I am not an expert on Indian reservations in New York, but I would be curious to see (or hear) how many reservations are located in Manhattan AND how many people in Manhattan get their cigarettes from those reservations.

This hearing should be in western New York, which has long been the battleground for the debate over whether or not to tax cigarettes sold on native land. I can drive 10 minutes to the reservation where there are multiple stores to purchase cigarettes. Others in this area of upstate New York can say the same. So hopefully this isn't the only hearing that will be held. There are a lot more people up here who are interested in this than there are in New York City. I am certain of it.

Also, I don't have a problem with the principle of this. I have mixed feelings on taxing cigarettes sold on native land. But I do have a problem with this if it being used as a revenue tool during a budget crisis only to cover other budget woes that should be addressed first.

I would like to see a hearing here in WNY on this issue. It would be important and considering the large Indian population here, it would be helpful (and thoughtful) to have such a hearing here so we can hear all sides.

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.

Monserrate Receives Bench Trial After Waiving Trial By Jury

by: robert.harding

Mon Sep 14, 2009 at 13:53:54 PM EDT

Senator Hiram Monserrate made a surprise move today by waiving his right to a jury trial. Instead of facing 12 jurors, he will face judgment from the justice presiding over the case.

As is his right, Mr. Monserrate, 42, accused of slashing the face of his companion, Karla Giraldo, 30, with a broken glass in an argument at home last December, chose to be judged by Justice William M. Erlbaum of State Supreme Court in Queens, instead of a 12-member jury.

...

Earlier, in discussions in the judge's chambers with an assistant district attorney, Scott Kessler, Mr. Tacopina apologized to the court and said that a jury consultant and polls had convinced the defense that Mr. Monserrate could not get a fair trial before a jury anywhere in the state.

Protesters with signs demonstrated against Mr. Monserrate outside court Monday morning, comparing him to a rat, and Mr. Tacopina cited their presence as proof he could not get a fair jury trial.

"We want this case judged fairly and impartially," Mr. Tacopina said outside court. "Having all these potential jurors coming in seeing signs just ramps up the intensity. We want to take intensity out of the mix."

If convicted of a felony, Monserrate would have to give up his Senate seat, which throw the Senate into disarray until a replacement is named. (It actually might not be bad, given the time of year this is taking place.)

The decision to face the judge is peculiar. This is a judge who hasn't exactly been Monserrate's best friend and has ruled against him every step of the way. Also, 12 people gives you a better shot than does one. But maybe there is something else we don't know about this case.

Green Jobs Initiative Passes Senate

by: robert.harding

Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 08:12:22 AM EDT

"This program will create jobs, save consumers on their energy bills and help get our economy back on track," Senator Darrel Aubertine, the sponsor of the bill, said. "By passing the Green Jobs/Green New York Act today with bipartisan support we have taken an important step toward improving our economy and helping our environment. This bill encourages conservation, helps consumers with the cost of capital improvements to their homes and businesses, and creates jobs in the new economy. It's a win-win for New York State, especially Upstate New York where a well-trained workforce will be in demand to keep the heat in and energy bills down every winter."

The passing of this bill brings a lot of good things for New York. Here is a breakdown:

·         The program will be funded with revenue raised by the auction of carbon emission credits through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. This funding will be used to leverage private and federal investments. The bill allocates $112 million from these auctions to NYSERDA. Auctions of carbon emission credits over the last two years raised $126 million, with an estimated $75 million more expected in the next two auctions this year alone.

·         NYSERDA will establish a revolving loan program to provide up to $13,000 per residential customer to retrofit a home, and up to $26,000 to retrofit each qualifying business, and also conduct energy audits, program administration and a credit enhancement for critical private sector capital investments.

·         In partnership with the Department of Labor, NYSERDA will also create workforce training programs throughout the state to ensure that the state's workforce is highly trained and in place to handle mass-scale retrofitting.

·         The program will front the cost of the work, enabling property owners to afford energy efficient retrofits. Although property owners will repay the full cost over time, their total energy usage will be reduced by 30-40%, and the loan payment on their energy bill will be less than what they saved, yielding a net saves to the property owner.

·         Local contractors, certified to perform the retrofits will be able to expand their crews, creating new and permanent jobs in green construction and additional jobs in local businesses and manufacturing that serve those new workers.

·         Loans will be eligible to home and business owners in rural and urban communities throughout the state, from Watertown to Montauk and Buffalo to Albany.

This is important legislation, especially for upstate New York. One of the things we have been pushing in upstate New York for awhile is a green economy. I know that Alice Kryzan, who ran for Congress last year and is running for Amherst Town Supervisor this year, made this a big theme in her campaign. Bringing the green economy to upstate New York can help revitalize our whole economy.

But aside from upstate New York, this benefits all New Yorkers, whether they live in Manhattan or Mendon. This will help us, as citizens, become more green in our daily living and also help our economy by creating much needed jobs.

The vote tally for this bill was 52 to 8. The eight to vote against it were all Republicans and a few of them were not only Republicans, but members of the Republican leadership.

Here are the eight no votes:

Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos
Deputy Minority Leader Tom Libous
John DeFrancisco
Owen Johnson
Betty Little
Michael Nozzolio
George Winner
Catharine Young

The other thing to notice about this list is that most of the list consists of upstate senators. They come from districts where jobs are needed and initiatives like the green economy will go a long way. They chose not to support this bill, but when it creates jobs in their district, I am certain they will be on board then (for re-election's sake).

Aside from the politics of this bill though, this is going to do great things for New York. We needed this bill to pass and it passed overwhelmingly. This is great for all New Yorkers.  

Green Jobs Initiative Up For Vote In New York State Senate Today

by: robert.harding

Thu Sep 10, 2009 at 09:51:38 AM EDT

The bill is described as a job creation measure and helps push the idea of a green economy in New York.

Here are some details on the bill.

1. The bill, (S.5888) is a Job Creation program that pays for itself through energy savings and revitalization of economically distressed communities.

2. The landmark program will create 14,000 permanent jobs while significantly reducing energy costs for an estimated 1 million homes and business, curtailing the dangerous effect of greenhouse emissions on the environment.

3. Green Jobs creates a program where middle-income home and business owners can make their property more energy efficient to save money on their heating and cooling bills.

4. The program will provide $112 million in capital funding for job creation and workforce training, energy audits, program administration and a credit enhancement for critical private sector capital investment. GJ/GNY will front the cost of the work, enabling property owners to afford energy efficient retrofits that will cut energy usage by 30-40% yielding immediate savings on their monthly energy bills. Owners will repay the cost over time through on-bill financing on their utility bills, but their overall bill total would still be lower than what they pay right now.

5. Local contractors, certified to perform the retrofits will be able to expand their crews, creating new and permanent jobs in green construction and additional jobs in local businesses and manufacturing that serve those new workers.

6. By targeting the bill to middle income homeowners, the program has a statewide impact. Green Jobs/Green NY serves homeowners who make too much to qualify for Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) money but don't make enough to afford energy saving retrofits. Upstate, where the median income is lower, the cut-off for WAP is so low that most people can't qualify, but they can for Green Jobs/Green NY.

7. Green Jobs/Green NY costs taxpayers NOTHING. The program doesn't take any money out of the state budget; it save homeowners money on their utility bills and creates thousands of jobs that bring money into the local economy. Funding for the program comes from carbon auction funds which are required to fund energy efficiency. This program uses that available money to save millions of New Yorkers money on their utility bills while putting thousands back to work for good.

8. The greatest barrier to energy efficiency and green job creation is the ability of residential and business property owners to afford the work. The Green Jobs/ Green NY programs breaks down that barrier through the infusion of up-front capital with NO on-budget cost to the state.

There is some Republican support for this bill, but there are still plenty of GOP members who are in opposition.

Keep in mind that this bill is being voted on in light of what happened with Van Jones. What people may not realize is that the reason why Jones was targeted was because he supported green jobs and the new green economy and the people who targeted him from Fox News and Americans for Prosperity are active in trying to put a stop to green jobs initiatives throughout the country.

This is important. This legislation will bring real economic development opportunities to New York through green initiatives. Not only will it help the economy, but it will help the environment as well.

Sampson Comes To The Defense Of Espada

by: robert.harding

Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 22:05:21 PM EDT

Apparently, one of Espada's colleagues disagrees.

Senator John Sampson came to Espada's defense today, saying that Sampson "overstepped his bounds."

State Senator John Sampson, the Democratic conference leader, said a Buffalo-area assemblyman "overstepped his bounds" when he called State Senator Pedro Espada Jr. a "thug" and said he should resign.

"I think Mark Schroeder overstepped his bounds. Irrespective of what you think, Senator Espada is a colleague and I do not support anybody calling any one of my members a thug," Sampson told me in Brooklyn. "Because we are not thugs."

(Espada was given the title of majority leader after defecting to Republicans, and then re-defecting to the Democrats. Early on during the month-long stalemate this prompted, a Democratic spokesman referred to Espada as a "thief" and another defector, Senator Hiram Monserrate, as a "thug.")

When I asked Sampson if there was any merit to calls for Espada's resignation, given Espada's wont to run afoul of ethical guidelines on a regular basis, he said he was "responsible to his constituents. He's not responsible to Mark Schroeder."

I am really curious at to what the Senate Democrats are thinking. I wouldn't touch anything having to do with Pedro Espada. You already dropped the ball by caving to the power hunger and bringing Espada back into the fold. Now you are going to defend him when someone criticizes his behavior and calls for his resignation?

Sorry, but Espada doesn't deserve any support. He is a crook. There are investigations into his business dealings. He isn't someone we, as Democrats, should be aligning with.

But all that matters to Sampson is that he has a leadership position. (I guess that's all that matters in Albany.)

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.

Five Ideas To Fix The New York State Senate (And The Legislature)

by: robert.harding

Sat Aug 08, 2009 at 10:29:00 AM EDT

I have had a lot of time to think about possible changes to the New York State Senate. I am opposed to the idea of a unicameral legislature, but I'm not opposed to the guiding principle behind that suggestion: Permanent reform.

It is easy to make suggestions that are band-aids or short-term fixes. But it is much harder to make recommendations for changes that will have lasting effects.

(1) Decrease number of standing committees in the Senate: There are 32 standing committees in the New York State Senate - a very large number considering the United States Senate has 16 standing committees. Each committee allows the chair to get a "lu-lu" for their role as head of said committee. Some of these committees, in the past, have hardly met enough to justify such a stipend. Reducing the number of committees will mean that not everyone in the caucus gets a committee chair (and the extra money) but that only the best and brightest leaders will get to head these committees.

(2) Reduce the number of leadership posts: A majority of the 62 senators - 34 - have a leadership position in the New York State Senate. Like the committee chair positions, these leadership posts also come with a stipend. The fact that there are so many leadership posts devalues the idea of leadership. Much like the high number of committees devalues the opportunity to head a committee, it is necessary to decrease the number of leadership posts so that leadership isn't something that everyone can make money off, but rather serves as a reward for those who are real leaders and have proven that they can lead in their respective caucus.

(3) Equal distribution of member item money: The idea of member items is a good thing. Allowing a senator to secure funds for their respective district is a common practice, but in the case of the New York State Senate, it is also used as a political tool. What better way to ensure your re-election than by giving to your local Little League organization or by giving hoards of cash to a number of different groups. For 2009-10, Senate Democrats will get 9.3 times the number of members items than their Republican counterparts. There is a problem with that. Reforms that were put forth would allow the minority one-third of all member items, but that's hardly reform. It's better than the current system, but giving senators an equal number of member items would allow all 62 senate districts to benefit instead of just the ones where the majority party is representing them.

(4) Expanding from a six-month session to a year-round session: Obviously, with a "year-round" session there would be recesses and breaks, but it would also enable the New York State Senate (and the Legislature, since this reform would apply to both houses) to take up the important issues of the state on a regular basis and not just for the first six months out of the year. This would allow for committees to become more relevant considering they have more time to meet and to take up key legislation.

(5) Make legislators full-time: If we elect legislators to go to Albany to serve us, they should focus all of their attention on representing our concerns. Giving them the opportunity to continue full-time employment while being part-time legislators (and yet, make full-time salaries as legislators) doesn't allow them to do their jobs to the best of their ability. This obviously ties in with number four and would see legislators working year-round instead of half the year.

Some of these ideas aren't new, but they deserve to be emphasized as ways to address the problems in the state capital. Committee reform is something a lot of people talk about, but we need more reforms than that. The number of committees we have are unnecessary. We could merge some of these committees and cut back on the number of committees to make them more efficient. It would also be important to decrease the number of leadership positions (including committee chair posts) to increase the importance of leadership in the Senate chamber.

Arguably the most important reform I propose here is balancing the current member item system. The member item system that both sides have used to help their re-election efforts if flawed. The "reforms" proposed that would allow the minority one-third of member item money is laughable. That's not reform. That's allowing the current system to continue. Member item money is taxpayer money. It shouldn't be used as a way for a member of the Assembly or senator to campaign.

Reforming Albany is on the minds of many. But we don't need to take baby steps any longer. We need to take giant leaps. Albany is known for being dysfunctional and that label will not be eased unless we do something about it. Full-scale reforms are needed and it will take reformers to reach those objectives.

There is a lot we can focus on moving forward. We need a grassroots movement to make reforms. We won't need billionaires to do it. We won't need political parties to do it. What we need is a large group of progressives to come together and push for reforms.  

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?

Patronage And Power Part II

by: robert.harding

Thu Jul 09, 2009 at 22:12:53 PM EDT

With the news today that Sen. Espada will rejoin the Senate Democratic caucus and as a result, will serve as Senate Majority Leader, it is hard to argue that what the Republicans (along with Espada) did on June 8 and what the Democrats have done (again, with Espada) on July 9 are any different. What the Republicans did was an obvious power grab. What the Democrats have done, along with the Republicans, is hold the state senate hostage until one of them got the result they wanted.

The losers today are the people of New York, who have been put on the back burner in favor of posturing and a disgusting lust for power that has distracted the legislature away from the people's business for a long time. The people of New York have lost out over the last month with key legislation not being addressed and a group of state senators putting their interests first and the interests of the state last. We deserve better. In fact, we deserve 62 better senators.

But the winners are clear. The winners don't include either the Senate Republicans or the Senate Democrats. Both are guilty of having a lust for power, but their lust isn't as great as Pedro Espada's. Espada might be with the Democrats, but he will receive special perks. He will get to name one of the two co-secretaries of the Senate, with the Senate Democrats picking the other. Espada ally and coup coordinator Steve Pigeon is also getting a job, according to the Times-Union. And if Pigeon is getting a job, that means inside access to the New York State Senate for Florida billionaire Tom Golisano.

So how does this help things? At least now, the Senate will be able to get to work and address key issues. But at what price? The Senate Democrats (the leadership anyway, maybe not each individual senator in the conference) have sold their souls to Espada. In doing so, they should face the same scrutiny that Espada shall face going forward. And that also means that in 2010, we should look at serious primary challenges to those individuals who think that the people's business is something that can be toyed with.

Many of us, including myself, worked very hard in our efforts to elect a Senate Democratic majority in 2008. I did not work hard to elect a Pedro Espada majority. Pedro Espada represents everything that is wrong with our legislative process and everything that is wrong with politics and governance in New York. Why the same Democratic leadership that I assisted in getting elected the majority is siding with this walking disaster is troubling and makes me feel as if all that hard work in pushing out Republicans who did nothing for 40-plus years (even though they tried to take the high road a month ago) was for nothing.

I advocated for a Democratic majority, not Pedro Espada. The Senate Democrats need to ask themselves who they work for. Because right now, it seems like Pedro Espada has them in the palm of his hand. And that is a bad thing for New York and bad for the Democratic Party.