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.
It's day two of Governor Paterson's extraordinary session call (or is this day 1 of the second extraordinary session?). After yesterday's debacle of conflicting sessions, cross-motions, and sham votes, we the people can only wonder how our elected Senators can muck up this situation even further. There's no talk of any deal at the table, the Republicans are going to Court against the Secretary of the Senate, and renegade Democrats might turn against the caucus today as a result of gay marriage on the agenda.
We now know how Democrats plan to combat the Republicans today; by squatting in the Senate Chamber to ensure they "control" the floor.
Of course this display is a great guide in how NOT to govern.
I have already covered what the Brennan Center's Larry Norden thinks about the rules reforms passed by the Senate Republicans - the same ones Tom Golisano has been boasting about for the last few days.
But NYPIRG has looked into the rules reforms and came up with their own review and the "reforms" aren't exactly what they are made out to be.
What They Promised: Funding for members staff salaries, district offices, and other resources will be distributed equally. Committee chairs, rankers and leaders would get bonus amounts, with the difference between maj. and min. members being proportional to the ration of total members in each party.
What They Actually Did: Pretty much as promised, except with a loophole that "staff necessary to the functions of the Senate are not to be included in the proportional distribution." It is unclear who this covers.
REFORM: Member Items
What They Promised: Member items will be divided evenly."
What They Actually Did: Nothing in the rules.
REFORM: Committee Transparency
What They Promised: Committee votes will be available on the Senate website, committee meetings will be webcast.
What They Actually Did: Exactly as promised, for all committees that meet after July 15th. (Note: That is when these rules go into effect - July 15, 2009.)
REFORM: C-SPAN
What They Promised: "A plan will be put forward by January 1, 2010 to create NY-SPAN statewide broadcast of legislative proceedings similar to C-SPAN for Congress."
What They Actually Did: As promised- a "plan" would be put forth, but there appears to be no requirement that the plan be implemented.
REFORM: Elimination of Proxy voting in committees
What They Promised: "Proxy voting in committee is eliminated."
What They Actually Did: Members can vote by proxy if they have the permission of both the committee chair and ranker.
REFORM: Motions for Consideration
What They Promised: Motions for Consideration would be possible to bring a bill up for a vote.
What They Actually Did: A majority of members can bring these bills up and put them on the next day's active list.
REFORM: Term Limits
What They Promised: 6 years for President and Maj. Leader, 8 years for committee chairs.
A lot has been made of the chaos that took place in the Senate chamber yesterday. But before the Senate got locked down, the Senate Republicans passed rules reform legislation that has been touted by Tom Golisano and by Republicans in a show that they actually passed reforms when the Democrats did not. (This is true, although the Democrats had a much more open process that involved a committee being formed and a report being issued with suggestions for legislation.)
I turned to Larry Norden for his view on the rules reforms that the Republicans passed yesterday. Norden writes the Reform NY blog that is used to promote the Brennan Center's New York reform efforts and he also co-authored the most recent Brennan Center report on the New York State Legislature, as well as the second Brennan Center report that was published in 2006.
When I asked him what he thinks of the rules reform legislation passed by the Senate Republicans, Norden had this to say:
There are some good things in here and there are some not-so good things. I wouldn't say that they are bad things but I think they didn't tackle some of the key issues that I would have liked them to tackle. Then there are some interesting things that I wouldn't say are bad or good, but are certainly curious.
Norden pointed to three things that are good things: The equalization of resources for staff, eliminating messages of necessity (unless it's an emergency) and providing for members a way to have a petition or motion to get a bill to the floor for a vote even if leadership does not want the bill to get to the floor. Norden cited the marriage equality bill as an example of legislation that would benefit from that.
While Norden did praise the Senate GOP for those three areas (and he did say that they went further than the Democrats did), he did point out that these reforms will not go into effect until July 15. Obviously, that date is significant because it is nearly a month after the session ends.
Norden also noted that, in the past, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate has held legitimate powers, but over the years, those powers have been given to the majority leader. He pointed out that Sen. Pedro Espada, who sought this post, really doesn't have as much power as one would think. But he's got the post nonetheless.
The major area that wasn't reformed under the Senate GOP's reform legislation, according to Norden, was committees. If you know anything about the Brennan Center's reports, you know that committee reform is a major component of their recommendations for changing the way the state Legislature conducts business. Norden said that while they did eliminate proxy voting (you can see a summary of the rules reforms here), they still failed to complete major reforms.
Here is more from Norden:
Having functioning committees is where the New York State Legislature is perhaps at its worst in comparison to other states and they really didn't address that at all. There is nothing about requiring amendments, review or defeat of bills before their voted out of committee. They say they got rid of proxy voting (according to Irene Jay Liu's summary, they did) but I don't see it in these changes. There is nothing requiring reports for bills that are voted out of committee, which is a key function of committees everywhere else.
Did they really do this because they wanted reform or wanted power? I think most people can make a judgment on that without knowing too much about the details of this. Are there some good things in these rule changes? Yes. Does it go to the heart of changing how the Legislature operates? Probably not.
Norden argued that the Republicans went further than the Democrats did just by targeting the three areas.
"I have to give the Republicans credit," he said. "They went further in many areas than the Democrats. The Democrats didn't pass any rules changes. They had a committee that made recommendations, many of them didn't go as far as this, and they still hadn't passed anything. It maybe, in the end, if they held onto power they would have passed bigger changes. Certainly, that was something they kept telling us they might be doing. We did see members like Sen. Daniel Squadron really push the envelope and doing things in his committee that we wanted to see every committee do. So it's possible they would have gone further, but the fact of the matter is, in the end, the Republicans actually passed rules changes and the Democrats didn't pass anything."
The rules reform that the Republicans did is a great start. But more (as always) needs to be done. It seems that Albany is always willing to take baby steps even when it's time to be an adult and take responsibility for past indiscretions and change your ways completely. We don't need baby steps anymore. We need revolutionary changes that will change the three men in a room ways of Albany. While these reforms are a great starting point (although, I think we have had many starting points over the years), we still have a lot of work to do before we achieve full rules reform.
One detail of today's Republican coup that's now coming out relates to a rules reform package that's supposedly been passed by the Senate. It's hard to keep up with all of the happenings today, but I understand that Senator Bonacic's Committee on Rules and Administration's proposal was passed in the wake of the coup.
The political ramifications here are potentially massive. If these rules reforms are of any substance, then Republicans may have stolen the mantra of "changing Albany". That would be a travesty after only one year of Democratic control of the Senate.
The State Senate Temporary Committee on Rules and Administration Reform, co-Chaired by Senators Vallesky and Bonacic, is making its final two stops on the road NYC and on Long Island. From an emailed release:
The bi-partisan State Senate Temporary Committee on Rules and Administration Reform, co-Chaired by Senators David Valesky (D-Oneida) and John Bonacic (R-Mt. Hope), will hold its final two public hearings this week in New York City and Long Island. The hearings will be broadcast live via the Web (www.senate.state.ny.us) and among those scheduled to testify in New York City include former state senators, as well as representatives of organizations such as the Brennan Center for Justice, New York City Bar Association and the Sunlight Foundation. Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi will be among those who testify on Long Island.
Following the final hearings and prior to April 13 th, the committee will introduce a comprehensive rules reform package that will fundamentally change the way the Senate operates, increasing openness, fairness and accountability, and leading to a more participatory and transparent legislative process.
The committee hearings, two of which have already taken place in Syracuse and Albany, have each drawn dozens of witnesses. They have marked a significant break with practices of the past by allowing experts and the general public alike to testify on important pieces of legislation and actions of the Senate. Prior to these hearings, common practice in the State Senate meant most agreements and major legislation were taken up behind closed doors, shutting the public out from the process.
In keeping with one of the goals of this process, the complete video of past hearings, witness testimony and transcripts are posted on the Temporary Committee's website: www.senate.state.ny.us/sws/reform/index.html.
So, you can catch the hearings streaming live and they'll be archived as well. The Committee has also announced the launch of their own YouTube channel.
Here's Andrew Stengel, government-reformer-turned-Senate-insider, introducing the Democratic majority's latest technological advancement: A rules reform YouTube channel.
The point is twofold - to demonstrate that the Democrats are indeed making good on Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith's pledge to bring the chamber into the 21st Century and also to solicit input from members of the public unable to attend hearings being held by the Temporary Committee on Rules Reform (which also has its very own Website).
To be honest, there isn't much there, an observation similar to the one I made about their the Committee's "website" a few weeks back. But, as I said back then, it's a start. Baby steps are better than no steps. The stated aim is to enable "feedback." Now, YouTube is a fantastic tool, but it's not exactly great at fostering "feedback." It's certainly not useless for what they say they are trying to do, but I have to say it wouldn't have been my first choice to get that job done. At a minimum, there are other tools that would do the trick much better. Once again, it looks as if they really want to embrace these tools and this new medium without a robust understanding of what they are or how they work.
Once again, baby steps. I do give them credit for trying and will acknowledge that this is far more engagement than anything we had or anything we would have with the old majority still running the show.
If you can make it in person, here's the schedule:
Tonight: New York City / 250 Broadway / NYS Senate Hearing Room 19th Floor, 6 - 9 PM
Tomorrow: Hauppauge / William Rogers Legislative Building / 725 Veterans Memorial Highway, 10 AM - 1 PM
If you can't make it, hopefully you can keep up online.
In the first video to appear on the YouTube channel, Rules Reform Committee advisor Andrew Stengel (formerly of the Brennan Center) delivers a welcome message to viewers:
The Rules Reform Committee will be holding their two final hearings this week. The next hearing will be held from 6 to 9 p.m. tomorrow at the New York State Senate hearing room in New York City, 250 Broadway (Between Park Place & Murray Street, across from City Hall). The final hearing will occur from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Friday at the William Rogers Legislative Building inside the The Rose Caracappa Auditorium in Hauppauge, 725 Veterans Memorial Highway.
The committee's final recommendations will be presented to the New York State Senate on April 13.
Party like it's 1995! The State Senate's Temporary Committee on Rules Reform sent a release along earlier today announcing the launch of a "website." It's not actually a website as much as it is a page on the Senate's site and there is some stuff on it, kinda.
OK, so the design is not much to look at, though it may stir some nostalgia for a by gone era. The "testimony" is basically a really annoying pdf tree. The news is your standard press release repository. There are indeed three photos under the "photos" tab, but they don't seem to serve much purpose. And there is some sort of video of the Syracuse hearing, though I have to take their word for it. It never loaded.
Baby steps, I keep saying to myself. This is certainly better than nothing, and nothing is exactly what we had for a long, long time. That said, it's not exactly a great leap better than nothing.
The New York State Senate Temporary Committee On Rules Reform held its first hearing in Syracuse yesterday. This closed out a week in which the New York State Senate hired the Brennan Center's Andrew Stengel as an advisor to this committee.
The first hearing saw nearly 20 witnesses testify before the committee. Here is a glimpse into what happened (from a press release):
The State Senate's Temporary Committee on Rules and Administration Reform held its first public hearing of four planned across the state, and heard from several good government groups, regional reform advocates and a former state senator. The hearing was hosted at Syracuse City Hall by Reform Committee Co-Chairs State Sen. David Valesky and State Sen. John Bonacic.
"Our bipartisan goal is to create a State Senate that is more open, responsive and responsible. To do that we are starting with input from the very public we are meant to serve, from the advocates who have challenged the status quo, and from the individuals who have witnessed the legislature's dysfunction first hand," said State Sen. David Valesky, Co-Chair. "What we begin today is a public process that will help us establish a more deliberative body."
State Senator John Bonacic said, "All New Yorkers are equal and their representatives deserve equal resources, equal ability to advance ideas and meet the needs of the communities they represent. Hearings are helpful, but the work of the Reform committee will be measured in results, not rhetoric."
Leading off the day's testimony was long-time reform advocate and former State Sen. Nancy Larraine Hoffmann: "I'm proud to lend my support to Senator Valesky and the Rules Reform Committee as they begin the important job of determining how to redesign the legislature so that it will serve the people of the state, not political interests. This is a special time. With new leadership in the Senate after 40 years there is an opportunity to clean the slate."
Hoffmann continued, "Senators who have served in the minority understand all-too-well that when Albany party bosses treat certain members as second-class legislators, it is ultimately the taxpayers and the state which suffer. Not only are towns, villages, and cities of the state shortchanged in programs and projects, but thoughtful and experienced Senators ready to meet the challenges of the state are not even allowed a seat at the table. Clearly, that style of government has to stop."
The Committee heard from representatives of several good government groups and academics. The League of Women Voters representative, Syracuse Metro League Co-President Joan Johnson testified, "We applaud the Senate Democratic majority for convening for convening this bi-partisan temporary committee to examine the Senate rules and provide some areas for consensus among your conferences and real reform for the New York citizen. The League believes that in a representative democracy the rules under which the Legislature makes its decisions significantly affect policy choices by lawmakers."
The Committee also heard testimony concerning the better use of technology from Deb Warner, representing the Greater Syracuse Chamber of Commerce.
"We would welcome more public hearings on important pieces of legislation, both in the districts and in Albany," Ms. Warner testified. "Online, virtual public hearings as video web casts or pod casts would be a good way to expand voter interaction and input. This will offer you additional contact with your districts as they have increased interaction with you as their representative." Ms. Warner concluded, "The Chamber and our members support the goals of the Committee and look forward to your final recommendations."
There will be three other public hearings, including one Tuesday in Albany. If you are interested in testifying at these hearings, you are asked to contact Ariana Caplan (acaplan@senate.state.ny.us) or Langdon Chapman (speckhar@senate.state.ny.us).
If you cannot attend any of the hearings, you can still submit written testimony to reform@senate.state.ny.us.
It looks like this committee is getting a lot of feedback and is already off to a great start. Hopefully it leads to those real reforms we have been looking for.
New York Democrats have been trumpeting the need for reform in state government for decades. Only one thing stood in their way, they argued: they needed control of lawmaking in Albany.
Now they have that control - a Democratic governor plus Democratic majorities in both branches of the State Legislature. And, guess what? Instead of reform, Democrats are promising something called the "path to reform." In other words, once again, the real thing is somewhere down the road and still out of reach.
Democrats in the State Senate get some elbow room here. They are still a little disorganized since taking over a few days ago after more than 40 years in the minority. And they do get a little credit for new rules that move slightly in the right direction. These rules will allow any senator to attach his or her name to a bill - previously, members of the majority party (the Republicans) could bump any member of the minority (the Democrats) as a sponsor.
...
But much of the real reform in the Senate has been put off for a whole year. Instead of sweeping out secretive and unfair practices once and for all, the new Democratic majority has formed a committee to decide on new rules by 2010.
Good government groups in Albany rightly argue that it should not take this committee one whole year to write better rules. Why not a couple of months or by the end of the fiscal year on March 31?
Maybe Senate Democrats are taking their cue from Gov. David Paterson, who was one of the most ardent voices for reform in Albany until he took over the state's top job. At the recent State of the State speech, he did not even mention reform as one of the goals of his administration. As Blair Horner, legislative expert for the New York Public Interest Research Group, put it: "The Senate is at least talking about a path to reform. The governor is headed into a cul de sac."
When Republicans lost the majority in the State Senate last week for the first time in 43 years, Sen. Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) sounded this hopeful note for his team: The last time the Democrats were in the majority they held it for just a year.
If Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith (D-St. Albans) wants to break that record, he's going to have to get down to business. Smith often displays his eagerness for a chance to be great. But with the state in crisis, he needs to put some accomplishments on the board.
Smith has been saying all the right things. He promised a "very bipartisan house" and yesterday reformed rules that had been used by the Republicans to quash minority members' ideas. Will Smith will go even further and give minimum office budgets to all members, regardless of party? That's probably asking too much of a party that's spent four decades in coach class.
But the new majority must also enact ethics reform that sets a tougher standard than allowing an indicted member, Sen. Hiram Monserrate (D-East Elmhurst), to take an influential committee post with assault charges pending.
Smith is right: There is more to be done. Some of that work must be done in the Legislature's other chamber. While Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's people note they have reformed more than the Senate, both chambers still skew resources to favor majority lawmakers. Both confer too much power on their leaders rather than the committees where the people's business should be done openly. And both need to repair a flawed system for redrawing legislative districts after the next census.
Valesky called this week's Senate reforms "a really positive first step and start to the process." It is certainly a start. But there is much, much farther to go before there will be any real cause for celebration.
But then you have the bit of political theater that was displayed in the first day of real business in the new Senate.
Senate Democrats introduced modest rules changes and in response, Sen. John Flanagan, who is now in the minority, introduced a resolution that mirrors Sen. Malcolm Smith's rules reform proposal from 2007.
Of course, the 23 Democratic members who voted then for the bill have now had a change of heart. And the Senate Republicans who didn't vote on the bill in 2007 are now voting for it.
Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith wants "time" to consider the reforms, and said he didn't want to reform the rules in haste. He reminded reporters numerous times that it is only the first day. Fair enough.
On the flip side, you had the Senate GOP calling for sweeping reform that they weren't able to manage in the 70-odd years they were in control of the Senate. Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos called on the Senate to embrace the Brennan Center recommendations, not quite suppressing a smile that appeared to indicate that he couldn't quite believe he was saying, either.
All in all, the Senate did take a step, albeit a tiny one, in the direction of reform. We'll see if it is the only step.
Some of the rules changes that the Democratic Senate proposed include (from Liz):
- Ending the use of "canvass of agreement" where individual votes of members are not recorded for motions to discharge bills from committee and amendments to bills.
- Allowing debate for motions to discharge and allowing them to be brought 20 days, not 60 days, after a request for their release from committee has been made.
- Allowing open sponsorship of bills, which means any senator - minority or majority - can co-sponsor legislation without the prime sponsor's permission.
- Requiring any bill that imposes criminal or civil penalties to pass through the Codes Committee.
This can be seen as a positive first step, but there needs to be more. Earlier today, five good government groups came together and sent a memo to the New York State Senate Democratic Majority asking them to go further with their reforms.
Brennan Center for Justice
Common Cause/New York
Empire Center for New York State Policy
League of Women Voters of New York State
New York Public Interest Research Group
STRENGTHEN THE SENATE'S PROPOSED RULES
Our organizations, strong supporters of rules reform, urge that the Rules of the Senate for 2009 be further strengthened. We understand that complete revision of the Rules and Procedures properly requires a bi-partisan deliberative process and that the Senate must immediately adopt rules to be able to address the fiscal challenges outlined by the Governor. Nevertheless, the rules that are under consideration today can, and should, reflect the commitment to reform and a more open Senate procedure contained in recent comments by both the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders.
We appreciate that the changes in the Rules as currently proposed-easing discharge motions, eliminating canvass of agreement, and allowing minority co-sponsorship-are a step forward, but, we believe, need further strengthening in order to reflect the promise of wholesale procedural reform that many members and the leadership of both conferences have made, as recently as this past week, to the public. A strong commitment to broader reform requires, at the very least, immediate changes to the rules in the area of transparency and procedures governing committee function. We urge you to adopt the following changes to the proposed rules.
You can read the proposal below the fold.
This committee will be holding public hearings statewide. If you have a chance to attend a public hearing (I know I will as soon as the information is available), urge them to look over the Brennan Center report and implement the recommendations that the Brennan Center made. If they want real change to the process in the New York State Senate, they should take a serious look at implementing the Brennan Center's recommendations.
This is a good first step by the new Senate majority, but there needs to be more. Hopefully there will be more as a result of this committee.
There's a great piece up over at Daily Gotham about the critical issue of rules reform. Not only is it crucial that these reforms be made, it could be just what the Dr ordered for the Governor as well as the reform movement as a whole.
Indeed, both Albany insiders and anxious reform minded activists have been critical of the results of the first 7 months of the Spitzer administration. Insiders have sniped that the Governor was/is unprepared for the dynamic of “three men in a room” and reformers have bridled at the pace and extent of change to the system and culture of Albany.
Notwithstanding some victories and progress here and there - the first seven months have produced a bowl with more lemons than cherries, which is where the cool glass of lemonade comes in (i.e., when life gives you lemons…make lemonade).
In this case the elixir is quite dry – Rules Reform. That’s right. The most boring topic of all reform issues – that dry dusty subject of procedure and “inside legislative baseball.” Nevertheless, don’t let the label fool you – this dry cocktail packs as much punch as a martini at the Merc Bar or Peter Luger’s.
...
Many people are under the impression that legislative rules reform can only be considered once every two years, at the beginning of the first year of the legislative session. That is not true, the issue of rules reform can be taken up by the legislature when it reconvenes next January.
...
Clearly the system of three men in a room is not producing the kind of results that the electorate was looking for when they voted last November. Moreover, Governor Spitzer ran on the platform of changing Albany – and what could be a better example or legacy of change then transforming the New York legislature into a fully functioning deliberative body.
Many are already familiar with the Brennan Center’s work on the subject of Rules Reform and the condition of the New York legislature – specifically, their initial report in 2004 and their follow-up in 2006. Since then the State Affairs Committee of the City Bar – the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (one of the oldest and most respected bar associations in the country) - recently adopted a position and wrote a report on the issue of rules reform http://www.nycbar.or... . The report sets forth a package of reform proposals similar to and inclusive of those proposed by the Senate minority this past January.
Now, how does this translate into a glass of lemonade for Gov. Spitzer? Simply. By enacting the reform package outlined by the bar association the Senate (and hopefully the Assembly, because we all know that one chamber frequently follows the lead of the other) will create a truly vigorous legislature with active and empowered committee chairmen and fully engaged and accountable members.
By creating this type of system the current paradigm of three men in a room becomes obsolete and the Legislature and Governor will begin to transact business in a manner more akin to the U.S. Congress –hopefully with better results – rather than the Byzantine system currently employed in Albany.
This means less emphasis and distraction on the personal relations between Governor Spitzer and Senator Bruno and Speaker Silver and more focus on the results that committee chairmen, individual members and the leaders and Governor can accomplish. By infusing more voices into the system personal acrimony will be minimized and the collective will of the people will take its place.
Republicans turn aside many ideas promoted by Democratic minority.
In the first 2007 test of legislative reform, the state Senate made only minor changes to its house rules Tuesday.
Majority Republicans rejected the calls of Democrats and reform advocates for everything from equal staff allocations for all senators to the recording of every senator's vote on procedural motions.
Instead, the GOP pushed through a set of rules for 2007 and 2008 with changes Minority Leader Malcolm Smith, D-Queens, called "laughable."
"Every good government group and every major newspaper that has editorialized on the matter agree that the rules of the State Senate make it one of the most undemocratic, dysfunctional and ineffective governmental bodies in the entire nation," Smith added.
...
"You clearly saw who was for reform today," Valesky said afterward. "You clearly saw the conference that stands for openness and accountability in government."
Democratic senators say effort shows their party is seeking change
Senate Democrats sought to capitalize on the shrinking margin between themselves and the Senate Republicans Tuesday with an effort to force the majority to vote on rules reforms designed to increase the power of minority lawmakers.
After a more-than-two-hour battle that saw senators fighting over fine points of parliamentary rules, the Democrats settled for a show of hands on their proposals that did not formally record the Republicans in the negative.
Sen. Thomas Duane, D-Manhattan, nonetheless declared that Democrats "got what we wanted."
"We had a recorded vote on the rules," he said. "We showed that we're the party of real reform."
