Maybe there's something after all to the lawsuit that Chief Judge Judith Kaye recently filed in which she's trying to force the state to raise the base pay of New York's jurists.
Because it turns out that, as part of the suit, Kaye is seeking to pry loose the most tightly guarded secret in New York state history.
Namely: How much is Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver paid each year in his role serving "of counsel" at the megabucks tort-law firm of Weitz & Luxenberg?
Indeed, Kaye's lawyer, former White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, wants to put that question to Silver directly and force him to answer.
Under oath.
Hmm. Now this could be interesting.
Silver, of course, has long been reaping untold amounts from what may be the country's most prolific personal-injury law firm - untold, because neither he nor Weitz & Luxenberg has ever had the courage to disclose how much he's paid, or even precisely what he does for the firm.
Still, one thing's for sure: Silver over the years has single-handedly throttled any and all tort-law reforms introduced in Albany - laws that likely would cost Weitz & Luxenberg some big bucks.
Now Nussbaum, on behalf of Judge Kaye, argues that Silver and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno "must be made to explain in open court . . . their insistence that judicial pay increases (which all agree are warranted) be held hostage to the desire of legislators to increase their own salaries."
And, Nussbaum added, "We will prove at trial that legislators can and do earn outside income - in some cases, as we will show, substantial amounts."
In Shelly Silver's case, are New Yorkers about to find out just how substantial?
Not only are New York judges suing the state because they have not received a raise (they only make $136,700 per year), but some judges are going one step further and recusing themselves from cases that involve law firms affiliated with New York State legislators.
Judges across the state are engaged in a "rule-book slowdown" and refusing to hear cases involving firms that employ members of the Assembly and Senate, The Post has learned.
The protest follows years of lobbying for a pay raise, which has gotten the state's 1,300 judges nothing but broken promises and a wage that, when adjusted for cost of living, ranks 49th in the nation.
And the angriest jurists are trying to expand the effort by recruiting recalcitrant colleagues in closed-door meetings and e-mails sent across the state.
With titles like "How to Get Our Salary Adjustment," the e-mails have included a "blacklist" - obtained by The Post - naming 50 state legislators who are registered as attorneys and the firms where they are employed.
Banding together to tie up cases from lawmakers' firms was also discussed at an April 8 meeting of New York City judges at Enzo's Restaurant in The Bronx, one judge told The Post. There was no resolution on the plan that day, the source said.
I have repeated my position on this, but I must say, I do not think these judges that are engaging in this behavior are helping their cause. I also don't think that calling Shelly Silver a "slug" (see New York Post graphic) also helps your cause. It is one thing to sue, it is another to try and avoid cases and then call certain legislators names.
The judges are comparing their pay to other states' judges. That's fine, but few states have the economic and financial woes we do. When Governor David Paterson is asking state agencies to sacrifice, the judges seem to be ignoring that, thinking that they are above all other agencies and state employees.
The Survey of Judicial Salaries shows that while New York judges are not the highest paid judges in the country, they aren't doing too bad for themselves. Yes, they haven't received a raise for some time, but they still are in the middle of the road among judges throughout the country.
The next time you hear a legislator whine about their salary, please remember that according to the very campaign finance laws they wrote, they can have their campaigns pay for just about anything. And they do. Two great stories out this morning describe this in detail. First, from the AP's Michael Gormley:
Most lawmakers will continue to muddle through, in part by falling back on millions of dollars in campaign contributions which, under the rules they wrote, can pay for almost anything from Buffalo Bills tickets to a trip to Ireland.
Auto insurance payments, gasoline and other expenses are also paid by campaign contributions that offset household or daily work expenses most people must take from their salaries, according to the records of many lawmakers reviewed this week.
...
No need to tap into that taxpayer-paid per diem of $150-or-so a day for expenses for staying in Albany. Bring some staff and friends to Jack's Oyster House and pick up the check for $310, like Republican Sen. Kenneth Lavalle's campaign did.
Want tickets to the Buffalo Bills? Plunk down $2,764 for them, like Democratic Sen. Bill Stachowski's campaign did.
Need a car? Pay $25,000 cash for a Chevy, like GOP Sen. Catharine Young's campaign did.
Sen. Dean Skelos spent $812 at the Hempstead Golf & Country Club last May, and his records merely explain the expense as "entertainment."
Assemb. Adam Clayton Powell IV's campaign paid his way to Ireland in October and listed the reason for the $2,510 trip as "Other."
On July 11, Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno's campaign spent $3,870 on something -- but we'll never know what because the only description his records give is the word "un-itemized."
...
"With the heightened scrutiny, the wave of scandal, it's time for the legislature to fix the problem," said Susan Lerner, executive director of the advocacy group Common Cause New York. "We'd all like to have lifestyle subsidies, but that's not what campaign money should be going for."
Among those whom Lerner classed as lifestyle subsidizers was Bruno (R-Brunswick). In 2007, his campaign paid sums to two subscription services -- $414 to XM Satellite Radio and $398 to Onstar, an automotive security system -- and simply listed the purpose as "office."
Between July and November, the senator's campaign paid $3,510.90 to an Albany limousine service and also listed this as an office expense.
Bruno spokesman Mark Hansen declined to comment on specifics but insisted: "All expenses are filed with the state Board of Elections in compliance with state rules and guidelines for campaign expenditures."
...
Take, for example, the $313.93 the campaign of Sen. Kemp Hannon (R-Garden City) spent at Tiffany & Co. last August. "Office" was the listed purpose.
"It was for a gift or commemoration to someone for some type of duty," Hannon said. "It certainly wasn't for me."
...
But Sen. Carl Marcellino (R-Syosset) insists the $441 per month his campaign pays for his leased Chevrolet Trailblazer is a necessity. "At the end of the year I'm well over 60,000 miles on that car," he said. "I go to parades, Little League games, various and sundry dinners -- pick 'em -- that are all related to the job."
Even though his "campaign" expenditures are hardly the most egregious, I mean it's not like his campaign bought him a car or anything (Actually, I think he should avoid automobiles altogether.), Assemblyman Adam Clayton Powell IV does offer some rather compelling justifications for his trip to Ireland.
"Absolutely campaign money should be used for anything that would enhance an official's capacity as state legislators and certainly learning about Ireland and its people and its struggles ... will help our Irish brothers and sisters in our district," Powell said.
What exactly was he learning about?
"We learned so much history," Powell said. "We even saw the Guinness beer factory. A lot of history there."
Um, write your own punchline there, kids.
Maybe these poor, beleaguered legislators aren't as poor and deprived as they claim...
New York State faces a myriad of challenges, a massive budget shortfall and crumbling upstate economy first and foremost in my mind. Apparently, many members of the Assembly feel they need to get theirs before they do anything about addressing these issues because, ya know, it's really all about them.
One lawmaker deemed it "disingenous" for the new governor to come around praising Democrats at a time when he needs their support very badly - not the least of which for Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan - and not mention that he plans to tank something that is of utmost importance to them.
"It puts another chill on enthusiasm for the new governor - beyond all the other letdowns and setbacks we've seen already," the lawmaker said.
This issue shouldn't go away and won't go away, especially if I have anything to say about it. This is how it all started:
For those of you in New York's 20th Senate District, that would be your state senator, Eric Adams, making a fool out of himself. I contacted Adams via e-mail immediately after viewing this video in December. I've yet to receive a response.
But an article in yesterday's New York Times gives us a more clearer picture of what these legislators are making now, and what they hope to make in the (near) future.
But an examination of state records shows that most make considerably more than their base salary. With extra pay for chairmanships and other posts, they earn just over $90,000, on average, for what is widely considered a part-time job; the Legislature is in regular session for 63 days a year.
And more than a third earn more from outside employment, often as lawyers in their hometowns, but they are not required to disclose how much or from what clients.
The lawmakers also have enviable health insurance and pension plans. They get $154 per diem when they travel to Albany. Some also spend from their campaign accounts on meals and other expenses.
It shouldn't be a huge secret that they get benefits galore. The $154 per diem when they have to report to Albany is very generous, considering they already make a base salary of $79,500 plus the bonuses.
So we live in tough times. The deficit is just a small part of it. The overall economy, the tax situation in this state at the local and state level as well as the troubles of upstate are at the top of the list.
But instead of our legislators sacrificing, they are asking us to break them off some more.
The State Legislature's top Democrat last week gave a spirited defense of efforts to raise the salaries of 212 state lawmakers and added that Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer is "not adverse" to backing a pay hike this year.
"I'm proud to say I support it," said Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver of Manhattan. Last month, lawmakers said Silver told colleagues that Spitzer would send a pay increase bill to the Legislature.
Asked if he thought voters would be excited about legislators backing a pay raise during an election year, Silver said, "I'm not shy about putting the issue out front." He said voters would be more angry if lawmakers pushed through a pay raise after the elections.
On a personal note: I posted a letter I wrote to Gov. Spitzer about these pay raises. I oppose them, especially when we're dealing with our share of economic problems upstate and the legislators we pay are part-time.
The possibility of pay raises have received bi-partisan opposition. I find it troubling, however, that the Republicans opposed to this raise have been quiet in their opposition - unlike when they were very noisy in regards to Gov. Spitzer's DMV policy change.
Now, local governments criticizing Spitzer's budget proposal:
Silver's remarks came after he and other state leaders appeared before a skeptical audience of county leaders from around the state, who say the governor's new budget plan hurts local finances. A year ago, Spitzer stood before the same group and told them the days of governors shifting costs onto counties to help Albany balance its books were over.
But on Tuesday, Spitzer acknowledged to the county leaders that this year he is "pushing back some costs to you." Angry local officials say Spitzer is trying to force about $80 million onto them; Spitzer insists the counties have a "net" win in his budget of more than $500 million. But $390 million of that is from a Medicaid cap already in state law.
County officials say the Spitzer budget will force higher property taxes if it stands.
High property taxes? Really? I know Orleans County's contingent was in attendance and they have no place to talk. Check out Orleans County's property tax rates which were set well before Spitzer's budget proposal. These counties are looking for a scapegoat with their own property tax problems. The state is the last place to go to point the finger.
In what looks suspiciously like an attempt to pacify a rambunctious Legislature, Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer is reportedly ready to agree to pay raises for its members, even though they are already among the country's most highly paid state lawmakers and they have done virtually nothing to merit an increase.
It's a bad move for Spitzer. He may win a little love from the Legislature, but he risks further distancing himself from the source of his power: New York voters, who are already suspicious of the governor's priorities and who overwhelmingly oppose giving lawmakers a raise.
Lawmakers can make two claims for increased pay, neither of them persuasive. First is that they haven't had a raise since 1999, but that's the argument that takes no account of performance. They already earn a base pay of $79,500 a year, third highest in the country, trailing only Michigan and California. What is more, many lawmakers earn about $100,000 or more when stipends for leadership positions or committee posts are added. This is for a part-time job.
The key words: part-time job. Plus, they are the third highest paid state legislators in the country. $79,500 is quite a sum of money to pay for part-time legislators and the raise they could receive might be huge - possibly putting their salary near $100,000.
Here's more from the editorial:
As to the internal changes, both legislative leaders still control what gets voted on and, therefore, what will pass. Both limit the power of committees and rank-andfile members to introduce new ideas into the Legislature. Both remain committed to gerrymandering political districts to diminish the prospects of serious electoral opposition.
Spitzer has only just begun to recoup the public standing he squandered last year. Support of a raise for lawmakers could quickly undermine that recovery. The Siena New York Poll for December showed that voters oppose a pay raise for legislators by a margin of 67 percent to 28 percent. That's because voters, the victims of the Legislature's dysfunctions, know where the bodies are buried. The governor should try not to be one of them.
With odds like that, the governor should not be on board with this. Keep in mind that this is not a formality, but it won't be easy for Spitzer to say yes or no to pay raises. If he says yes, he has the voters (and taxpayers) of New York to answer to, and the polls suggest that most of them would oppose such a pay raise. If he says no, all he has to do is put up with a bunch of overpaid, part-time state legislators.
I posted my letter to Governor Eliot Spitzer regarding possible pay raises for the New York State Legislature. After I had posted that, I found out how the Western New York delegation would vote for (or against) a pay raise.
Here's a breakdown of the local delegation: Among State Senators, Democrat William Stachowski said he would vote no. Antoine Thompson said he didn't want to comment until he saw legislation. Republicans Dale Volker, Mary Lou Rath and George Maziarz all said they would vote against a pay hike.
Among members of the State Assembly: Democrats Francine DelMonte, Robin Schimminger, Dennis Gabryszak, and Mark Schroeder said they would not support a pay raise. Republicans Mike Cole, Jack Quinn and Jim Hayes also say they're opposed to a pay hike. We did not hear back from Democrats Crystal Peoples or Sam Hoyt.
The worst explanation for his or her no vote came from Republican Assemblyman Mike Cole:
"It's something the downstate delegation has been clamoring for," said Republican Assemblyman Mike Cole. "I don't even know how you can even consider it when the state is facing the budget mess we're in." Cole said if someone got into this kind of work for the money, they picked the wrong profession. "You knew what the salary was when you ran for the position. You do it because you love the community, to make a difference, not to get rich."
But I do agree with Cole's other words. They should be doing this for the community. The people of New York aren't shareholders in our politicians. We don't increase our investment in you just because you think you're doing a good job. We are voters, taxpayers and concerned citizens. And I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that a tax increase would be ludicrous, especially after all the talk of improving our economy over the last couple of weeks.
State Senator Eric Adams (D-Brooklyn) has been in office a little less than a year, a fact he readily concedes. This did not prevent him from complaining about his base pay of $79,500 and doing so in a thoroughly offensive manner. He went so far as to claim that his base pay, the third highest rate of pay for any state legislature in the nation and for which he is performing a part time job, "qualifies (him) for public assistance." It was quite a spectacle.
There are plenty of folks in the Senator's district that work two and three jobs to make half of his base pay. Some of them qualify for public assistance. There are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers, many in his own district, who work two or three jobs and are scared to death that they will lose their homes as the subprime lending mess continues to snowball. There are millions of New Yorkers who are struggling just to pay their skyrocketing property taxes while working more than one job while Senator Adams says to his colleagues "I don't know how some of you are making it" on $80K a year BASE pay.
He then has the gall to tell the Senate, the taxpayers of New York and his own constituents to "Show me the mon-ey! Show me the mon-ey! That's what it's all about."
It was an offensive display and Senator Adams should be ashamed of himself. The man has been in the Senate for less than a year and has done little of note as far as I can tell. Yet, he feels he deserves a significant raise in pay. It's not like you didn't know what we pay legislators when campaigned for the job, Senator.
For the record, I have no problem with raising the pay of lawmakers. It has been quite some time since they had a raise. I get that. But that raise needs to be earned. Want a raise, Senator Adams? EARN IT. Deliver.
When you are able to deliver on some basic and badly needed reforms, get back to us. I'd gladly support a raise. Until then, may I suggest you do what everyone else in such a situation has to do. Get a second job. You're a smart guy, a former cop. I'm sure you won't have trouble landing another part time gig.
Apparently there are some legislators in Albany who are trying to run out the clock on this session on campaign finance reform while also using that ticking clock to pressure the Governor to relent on the issue of legislative pay raises. I, for one, am calling BS on that tactic. As I have said time and time again, I am not completely opposed to the notion of raising lawmaker's pay on principle, but I am firm believer that those lawmakers need to earn such a hike in pay. The New York Sun reports from Albany:
Pressure is building on Governor Spitzer to back down from his demands and grant lawmakers their first pay raise in more than eight years.
Earlier this year, Mr. Spitzer indicated he would not give his consent to a pay raise unless the Legislature approved his plan to significantly lower campaign contribution limits and impose other restrictions on political giving.
Now, with time running out in the legislative session and Senate Republicans showing no signs of yielding on their opposition to the governor's campaign finance proposal, Mr. Spitzer faces a tough choice: Either he adjusts his demands or risks alienating lawmakers, particularly Assembly Democrats, who have made no secret of their desire for a bigger paycheck.
...
...The governor, however, needs the cooperation of the speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, who is under pressure from his own members to deliver a pay raise.
...
By refusing to compromise on pay raise, Mr. Spitzer also risks angering state judges, who have not received a salary increase since 1999. Chief Judge Judith Kaye has been so enflamed over the issue that she has threatened to sue the state. Mr. Spitzer supports giving judges more money, but lawmakers have refused to approve a judiciary pay raise bill that does not increase their own pay as well.
Lawmakers are predicting that Mr. Spitzer will break the logjam and downgrade his demands on a campaign finance bill. In April, the governor said talks between his administration and Senate Republicans collapsed because lawmakers would not agree to ban political contributions from limited liability companies, which can give the same amount as individuals and have been used by wealthy donors as a tool for unlimited giving, as donors can set up as many as the entities as they choose.
"I think you have to lower the bar," the minority leader of the state Senate, Malcolm Smith of Queens, said. "There has to be something everybody can live with." Mr. Smith said he thought the Legislature and the governor would come to an agreement before session ends on June 21.
I disagree, Mr. Smith. We've been lowering the bar for decades and look where that has gotten us.
Want a raise? Deliver meaningful campaign finance reform.
My dear friend, State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, has been talking a lot lately about how the Governor has his priorities wrong. He's been saying that the Governor is ignoring the issues that concern New Yorkers most, like reinstating the death penalty for cop killers apparently, in favor of extending full marriage equality to everyone in the state. Personally, I think Bruno is full of it and I can show you so in black and white.
Pay hikes for judges and lawmakers that just a week ago seemed like a sure thing all but evaporated Monday as Senate Democrats sided with Gov. Eliot Spitzer in demanding raises be linked to campaign finance reform.
The abrupt change of events culminated with a speech by Bruno on the Senate floor, chiding Minority Leader Malcolm Smith, D-Queens, for supporting Spitzer.
"Senate Democrats have proven once again that they cannot stand on their own feet or act independent of the governor," said Bruno, R-Brunswick. "Yes, you have a right to change your mind, yes, you do senator, but I don't believe you have a right to walk away from people who send you here and cave in to this governor every time he intimidates you."
A question for Mr. Bruno: Do you really believe that the people sent you folks to Albany to raise your pay for a part time job or, ya know, maybe to do what you can to reform the mess people like you have spent decades creating?
I think Malcolm gets much closer to the actual will of the people here:
"We will oppose this bill absent an agreement by the majority to embrace meaningful campaign finance reform," Smith said. "The public has spoken, message received, message delivered."
Meanwhile, the State Assembly tackles an actual problem of great concern to "the people" on the flip...
Capitol Confidential is reporting that State Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith and his caucus are pulling out of deal to raise their pay along with that of state judges.
Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith intends to announce today that Democratic senators are pulling out of the legislative and judical pay raise bill they signed onto last week with all the Republicans.
The bill was introduced mid-week last week even though it was clear by then that Smith's Democratic allies, Gov. Eliot Spitzer and Lt. Gov. David Paterson, were fighting with the GOP senators over campaign finance reform.
Smith's troops' withdrawal is a result of the lack of progress in a campaign finance reform agreement, Smith's aides say.
Though I think that the judges have a legitimate case and they really should be getting a raise, the Legislature has got some work to do first. As we have said since we NYBri and I launched this site, we aren't opposed to the idea of a raise for lawmakers, but they should have to EARN it.
Smith said he no longer will support the Senate Republicans' measure because the slim GOP majority hasn't agreed to campaign finance reform.
"As a result, the members of the minority conference will remove their names as sponsors of Sen. Bruno's pay raise bill," Smith said in a prepared statement. "Moreover, we will oppose this bill absent an agreement by the majority to embrace meaningful campaign finance reform."
