Become a Poll Worker



Gotham Gazette
Gotham Gazette Web
Advertisement: Baruch College School of Public Affairs
Recent Posts
NYC Blogs
Click here for a list of NYC blogs
Newsfeeds
Search This Blog
Contribute
Spot a published piece that would fit this blog? Let us know about it, at blog@gothamgazette.com

email this article

most emailed articles



Big Donors for New Governor
July 22nd, 2008

New York Magazine has a selected list of new large donors who gave $10,000 or more to Governor David Paterson’s re-election campaign. The governor, who took office in mid-March, has brought in $3.2 million in donations since April 14.

By Mark Berkey-Gerard on July 22, 2008, 3:36 pm
In category: Albany, Eye on Albany, Voting
Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us | No Comments »

Following the Money In Albany
March 4th, 2008

With the Democrats just one seat away from winning control of the New York State Senate, fundraising has become a critical issue for both parties in Albany. Mayor Michael Bloomberg is defending his right to give a $500,000 donation to the Republican Party and Governor Eliot Spitzer, who set a $10,000 limit on donations from individual donors, is helping steer larger gifts to the Democratic Party’s account which he controls, according to an article in the New York Times.

So how does one follow the money in Albany? It’s more difficult than one might think, as are many things involving New York State government.

Common Cause has a list of links to various databases, including the Board of Elections, the State Commission on Public Integrity, and the State Commission on Open Government.

The New York Public Interest Research Group has a CD of the campaign finance database (you must mail $5 to get a copy).

And the Attorney General’s Office has created Project Sunlight, a database of “information related to campaign finance, legislation, lobbying activity, and recipients of state government contracts.”

All of these sources offer vital information, but citizens should set aside a good portion of their day if they want to dig into them.

By Mark Berkey-Gerard on March 4, 2008, 2:38 pm
In category: Albany, Electoral Politics, Eye on Albany
Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us | No Comments »

The Latest on Choppergate
August 14th, 2007

UPDATE: Since the original posting of this blog entry, the office of the Attorney General has refuted the Sun’s claims in a letter to that paper’s editor.

As Representative Carolyn Maloney, Democrat from Manhattan, comes out in support of Governor Eliot Spitzer, there is new news from the scandal involving the governor, the State Senate majority leader and the use of state aircraft.

Maloney, who agrees with Spitzer that any further investigation should be handled by the State Ethics Commission, said in a prepared statement, “The Senate leadership should stop trying to score political points at the expense of doing the people’s business and instead let the professionals do the investigating.”

Meanwhile, The Sun is back to the original investigation of Majority Leader Joe Bruno, though this time the attack is targeted at Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo, according to The Sun, cited a nonexistent document when absolving the Senate majority leader (who is under federal investigation for other wrongdoing prior to this latest skirmish).

Andrew Cuomo, who also has been called out for misuse of government funds, is a possible gubernatorial candidate for 2010.

As the “choppergate” scandal drones on, the magnitude of the political capital at stake for all parties involved is becoming apparent, and it seems victors could be absent from this very political battle.

By Brian Bonci on August 14, 2007, 11:44 am
In category: Albany, Electoral Politics, Eye on Albany, Gotham City
Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us | No Comments »

Choosing a New Comptroller
January 16th, 2007

New York ended 2006 under a cloud of scandal.  The state’s Comptroller resigned under pressure for misusing taxpayer dollars.  Coupled with previous investigations, indictments and prison sentences for other officials, the resignation by the Comptroller meant that in the year 2006, New York reached a new ethical low.

 
But now the state must choose a new Comptroller.  The Comptroller plays an important role in New York State government.  The Comptroller is the state’s chief fiscal watchdog.  The Comptroller invests the public employees’ pension funds, reviews and approves state spending, and monitors the spending of governmental agencies.  The Comptroller is charged with examining state agencies and in some cases reveals problems with the way in which these entities run their programs.

 
The Governor runs the state agencies and, inevitably, the watchdog activities of the Comptroller can lead to conflict.  That’s why the Comptroller is a separate, statewide elected official.  The drafters of the state constitution wanted the executive branch to be monitored by someone who was independent of the Governor.  In doing so, they hoped that the Comptroller would be willing to independently and accurately review agencies’ activities, even if it incurred the wrath of the Governor.  

 
If the Governor appointed the Comptroller, the drafters felt that he or she would not have the independence necessary to monitor the spending of taxpayers’ dollars.

 
And that’s why the constitution charges the Legislature with appointing the Comptroller’s replacement in the event of a resignation.  The framers wanted to make sure that the Legislature was in the dominant position to approve a replacement in order to maximize the new Comptroller’s independence.

 
Under the state constitution, the Legislature meets in joint session to collectively vote to approve a replacement Comptroller.  As a consequence, Democrats who have an overwhelming majority of the 212 state legislators will control the choice a new Comptroller – with the lion’s share of the Democrats in the Assembly majority.  That’s why you are hearing so much about how individuals interested in applying for Comptroller are jockeying for the support of the Speaker of the Assembly. 

 
So what should be done?  The Legislature should consider the following factors in choosing a new Comptroller:

 
Integrity.  Given the circumstances of the previous Comptroller’s departure, the new Comptroller must be widely viewed as a man or woman of integrity.

 
Independence.  Given the Comptroller’s watchdog role in state government, the replacement must clearly be independent of the Governor.  But he or she must be viewed as independent of the Legislature as well.  How can this be assessed?  The new Comptroller must have a track record that shows that she or he is willing to stand up to the legislative leaders as well as the Governor.

 
Reform-mindedness.  The former Comptroller was widely viewed as being innovative in monitoring programs run by state and local governments.  The new Comptroller must continue to follow that path of innovation.

 
Keen understanding of state government.  Through practice and under law, the Comptroller is deeply involved in the state budget process.  Over the past few years, the Governor and the legislative leaders have stated that in the event that they cannot agree on how much money that state has to spend, they will agree to the Comptroller’s estimate.  In addition, the Comptroller must agree that the final budget is balanced.  If he does not, legislators do not get paid. 

 
Knowledge of the financial services industries.  The Comptroller is the sole trustee of the $140 billion pension fund.  And while the Comptroller’s staff has extensive expertise in investing these monies, the Comptroller him- or herself must have a background in financial services since that is where much of the state pension monies are invested.

 
Of course politics will play a role, but New Yorkers must watch the process for choosing the new Comptroller to make sure that political considerations are not the major factors in the choice.

By Blair Horner on January 16, 2007, 8:58 am
In category: Eye on Albany
Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us | 1 Comment »

WHEN WILL THEY RESPOND?
October 25th, 2006

It’s happened again.  Another state legislator has been indicted on charges of political corruption.  Of course, the legislator is presumed innocent until proven guilty and so I’m not going to name him.  But the charges against him are stunning.  Here are some of the amazing ones:

 
that he not only illegally obtained $2.2 million from contractors, taxpayers and labor unions over the last decade with an almost rapacious glee, but also consistently treated his union brothers and sisters as serfs.
 
According to the indictment, he used their dues to pay for his country club membership and other personal expenses. It also charges that he had them pick up his garbage, collect his shoes at a shoe-shine shop, shovel his snow, hang his Christmas lights and catch rodents in his basement when there appeared to be a much larger one upstairs — one who used stolen money to buy his wife a Mercedes-Benz worth $80,000, which is the combined salaries for four entry-level clerks in Civil Service.
 
In short, he has been charged with using his campaign contributions to enrich himself personally, charged with steering government contracts to cronies, charged with padding his legislative expenses with no-show jobs and with lying about his attendance in Albany and billed the state for travel that never occurred.

 
These charges are, of course, represent disgraceful behavior, yet every one of these allegations has shown up in other instances of Albany corruption.  Despite previous convictions of lawmakers for political crimes and that led in some cases to prison sentences, New York’s ethics law has remained weak and unenforced.  The governor and the legislature have not acted in the past and so no reforms were passed.

 
The latest scandal should not only be an indictment of unethical behavior by one elected official, it should be an indictment of Albany’s political culture.  A culture that is far more interested in maintaining a clearly ethically challenged status quo than working for change.

 
Instead of overhauling the state’s ethics law after previous scandals, lawmakers chose to do nothing.  Instead of strictly limiting the use of campaign contributions, they did nothing.  Instead of boosting oversight of legislative expenses, they did nothing.  Instead of establishing an aggressive ethics watchdog, lawmakers kept the current, weak system in place.

 
Despite a series of scandals in both the legislative and executive branches, lawmakers chose to leave an honor system in place.  This latest scandal must force change.

 
The reforms must include:

 

  • Creation of an independent ethics commission, one with the authority to monitor, investigate and punish political crimes.  Amazingly, New York has a model for such an agency, the state Lobbying Commission.  It’s hard to believe that lawmakers would be so unconcerned with ethics violations if David Grandeau of the Lobbying Commission were enforcing that law.  Lobbyists quake in their boots when the Lobbying Commission comes calling, lawmakers should worry about their ethical transgressions in the same manner.

 

  • Strict limits on the use of campaign contributions.  No legislator should even think that it’s OK to use campaign contributions for home remodeling, country club memberships, or trips abroad.

 

  • Strict standards of ethical behavior.  For example, lawmakers should … Combined with a tough enforcement office, clear guidelines for what’s ethical ok and what’s not, lawmakers would know that they are in Albany to do the people’s business, not enrich themselves.

 
The days of insider political trading, shady ethics and personal corruption must end once and for all.  And the only way to ensure that the Albany has cleaned up its act is when clear and enforceable ethics standards are put in place.  It looks like it’ll be up to the new governor and the legislature to make it happen.

 
Let’s hope that this latest scandal marks the end of the bad old days in Albany.

By Blair Horner on October 25, 2006, 9:05 am
In category: Eye on Albany
Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us | No Comments »

THE ONE HUNDRED DAY TEST
October 11th, 2006

The major party candidates for governor will go at it again this week.  New Yorkers should expect to hear the same themes they’ve heard in the last debate - one’s pledge to cut taxes, the other’s commitment to “values” and economic development.

And both candidates will cast themselves as reformers.

With so much at stake, I hope we’ll hear more.  The state is at a crossroads, after years of dysfunctional government, controversies and scandals, New Yorkers want change. 

Whoever gets elected, the first 100 days of the new administration will be critical.  It is during that time the new governor will begin to set the tone for his administration.  And it is during this time that he will have to create momentum for change.

Experts have observed that New York’s executive branch is one of the most - some say the most - powerful in the nation.  At the debate this week, New Yorkers should expect to hear from the gubernatorial candidates the specific steps they will take to create real momentum for change in Albany. 

Here are some examples:

· The new governor could improve Albany’s ethical climate.  He could use his existing powers to issue an executive order stating that any entity that wants a government contract must adhere to a new ethics code.  This code could prohibit the use of campaign contributions that have helped fuel Albany’s “pay to play” culture.  If a business wants access to government contracts, New Yorkers should demand in return more ethical behavior.

· The new governor could require greater oversight of state spending.  There has been much criticism of legislative additions to the budget - the spending of “member items” for example.  The governor could require his agencies to strictly monitor such spending and order his budget office to issue regular reports evaluating this spending to ensure that these legislative add-ons to the budget yield real public benefits.

· The new governor could add much needed “sunshine” to state government by issuing an executive order strengthening the state’s Freedom of Information Law.  The new governor could order state agencies to adopt an “open door” policy when it comes to requests for information.  He could tell the agencies to use the Internet in order to make it easier for New Yorkers to obtain information.  He could use his power to establish a New York State “C-SPAN” as well.

The Pataki administration has long been criticized as too secretive.  Its closed approach contributed to many of the controversies and scandals that have plagued the administration in recent years.  An open government is a more honest government. A more open government is more accountable.  The new governor can make this happen.

These are just a few examples of what a new governor could do to create real momentum for change.  New Yorkers need to let the candidates know that, once elected, they will face a test - one that will be based on what occurs in the first 100 days.  The test question will be this, “What have you accomplished in the first 100 days to change Albany.”

New Yorkers should hope to hear the answer to that question at the debate this week.

By Blair Horner on October 11, 2006, 9:15 am
In category: Eye on Albany
Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us | No Comments »

ACTIONS FOR CHANGE
September 18th, 2006

Candidates for governor are campaigning across the state promising to reform New York government.  Whoever gets elected will have the power to deliver on those promises.  New York’s governor has constitutional powers that greatly exceed those enjoyed by the executives in other states.  If the new governor chooses to tackle needed changes and to fight for reforms, New Yorkers soon could see real action on important issues.
 
However, in order for the new governor to have a real chance to change Albany, he will need to create momentum – momentum based on the enactment of real reforms.

Immediate changes are unlikely in the normal legislative process.  Either house could offer resistance – sometimes the resistance will occur due to ideological differences, other times resistance will come from tactics designed to extract concessions.  Therefore, it’s important that the new governor use his vast executive powers to make immediate changes – changes that will jolt Albany out of its lethargy.

New York’s Executive Branch is extremely powerful – arguably the most powerful in the nation.  If the new governor uses that power to immediately implement important reforms, he will whet the public’s appetite for more changes and make it extremely difficult for the legislative branch to stop other initiatives.

My colleagues at the New York Public Interest Research Group have offered a package of reforms that – if embraced by the new governor – could create that momentum.  Those proposals – most of which can be unilaterally accomplished by the new governor – are included in a report entitled, Actions for Change.  The report is available on the Internet at www.nypirg.org.

The first Actions for Change deal with governmental openness.  The cornerstone of a representative democracy is the ability of the public to choose its representatives.  In order for a democracy to work best, it is important that voters are educated on the options facing government policymakers.  Without easy access to governmental information, the public cannot be adequately educated on those issues and therefore cannot knowledgeably vote for candidates or grant informed consent to policy decisions of its representatives.
 
The report recommends measures such as a gubernatorial executive order to require state agencies to follow the “spirit” – not just the letter – of New York’s Freedom of Information Law and urges the creation of a “C-SPAN” to allow the televised access to coverage of governmental events.
 
Openness is important in ensuring real change in New York, but it is not enough.  Mechanisms must be put in place to ensure that state government can be held to account for its actions. 
 
Central to ensuring accountability is the establishment of new independent entities that will act as impartial watchdogs.  These entities would be responsible to the public, not the political parties or political leadership of the state.  In the same way Governor Theodore Roosevelt championed the civil service system, as a way to reduce cronyism in government, so should the new governor champion measures to reduce political interference and bolster oversight.  Actions for Change offers recommendations such as urging the new governor to ensure that the head of the state’s budget office be free of political interference and calling for the creation of a new fiscal watchdog to monitor the quality and cost of health care.

 
Ultimately, it is the job of government to offer solutions to serious problems facing society.  Of course, no government can solve every problem, but the public rightly expects government to tackle the most important ones – if not to solve them, at least to try to minimize the size of the problem.
 
Those proposals contained in Actions for Change focus on the areas of governmental reform, environmental preservation, consumer protection and higher education. 

 
To review the 50 recommendations, access them on the Internet at www.nypirg.org. And if you get the chance to discuss issues with candidates for state office, ask them what are their strategies for reforming New York.

By Blair Horner on September 18, 2006, 8:34 am
In category: Eye on Albany
Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us | No Comments »

Who’s Giving $170 Million To What? Can’t Tell You!
September 14th, 2006

Every year, $170 million gets doled out to New York State’s legislators to spend as they see fit. The appropriations, called member items, are generally awarded to community groups and non-profits, but have come under heavy criticism for their lack of transparency.

Yesterday, the Assembly released its list of what projects will receive the funds, but it does not include the names of the legislators that sponsor each project. The Times Union has sued to release the names, but the Legislature, represented by Attorney General Elliot Spitzer, has argued that the Freedom of Information Law, which allows the public to demand certain documents from the government, does not provide for such a request. The minority parties in both houses have voluntarily released the information.

The Times Union editorial board has said this obliqueness of the distribution of millions of dollars can lead to seedy activity. They point out that the West Bronx Neighborhood Association - the non-profit that State Senator Efrain Gonzalez of the Bronx has just been indicted over for directing $37,000 from it for personal expenses, such as Yankees tickets and vactions - has indirectly had money funneled to it from other non-profits that Gonzales issued money to through member items.

The non-profit is located in the same building as the Senator, has shared staff with Gonzales’ office, and is “identified by two sheets of white paper with its name that have been taped to the front door,” as described by the Times.

While the lawsuit plays out, some relevant legislation has been introduced in the Senate.

State Senator Liz Krueger, of Manhattan, introduced a bill that would provide for the full disclosure of the dispersal of discretionary funds. And Senate Minority Leader David Patterson has introduced a bill that would allow courts to “award attorney’s fees and other litigation costs when a government agency improperly denies or delays a [Freedom of Information] request.”

The city has been criticized over the transparency of its member items as well. Click here to find out for more.

By Mike Muller on September 14, 2006, 5:41 am
In category: Eye on Albany
Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us | 1 Comment »

A Bizarre Incumbent in Queens Actually Gets The Boot
September 13th, 2006

As we’ve written before on this blog, incumbents with troubling backgrounds nevertheless tend to be re-elected. But in the case of Ada Smith, her little-known challenger, Shirley Huntley, has narrowly prevailed in Queens’ 10th Senate District.

Even with the controversy surrounding her, including throwing a cup of hot coffee into a staffer’s face and the ongoing investigation into accusations that she has hired no-show staff, Smith received the endorsement of the Queens Democratic Party - along with all of its accompanying benefits - as well as some major unions.

While the party chose to back her, the Queens Chronicle reported that no “leading politician” was willing to second it. And some District Leaders publicy bucked the party’s favorite and sided with Huntley, who also received the support of every paper that made an endorsement in the race.

Huntley didn’t harp on Smith’s background, and told the Times-Ledger, “Her track records speaks for itself. I don’t talk about her.”

Huntley is reportedly known in her community as an activist, and served as a community school district president. Her priorities are improving the education system and expanding affordable housing for working families and she is wary of tax cuts, but acknowledges the prevalence of government waste.

By Mike Muller on September 13, 2006, 2:59 pm
In category: Eye on Albany
Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us | No Comments »

Today’s Debut Of The New Voting Machines
September 12th, 2006

New York enters the beginning of a new era in voting today with voting machines at specific sites accross the city designed to be accessible for the disabled. The machines, Avante Vote-Trakkers, have large, shaped buttons and headphones for the blind, and a “puff sip” mechanism for those with motor function impairments. They are electronic, but do not tally votes. The actual ballot is printed on paper, put into a sealed envelope, and counted by hand. Voters did not need to identify themselves as disabled to use them.

(Click here for pictures.)

Some good government groups were worried because several counties around the state were telling voters that they needed to make an appointment to use the special machines. The state subsequently sent out notice to the counties that voters may vote by walk-in.

But the notice was too close to the primaries and not well publicized, said Neal Rosenstein of NYPIRG, which may have resulted in some voters staying home.

The Help America Vote Act, federal legislation passed after the 2000 Florida election debacle, mandated that all of the states’ voting machines be accessible to the disabled, among other things.

But New York was slow to act, and was the one of only two states sued by the Justice Department for non-compliance.

As a stop-gap measure, New York City today has five of the new machines at one polling place in Manhattan and at one polling place in Brooklyn, four such machines in the Bronx, and three in Staten Island. The machines will only be used this year.

The counties across the state will choose new machines, from a list of certified(pdf format) vendors compiled by the state, for 2007.

.

By Mike Muller on September 12, 2006, 2:41 pm
In category: Eye on Albany
Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us | No Comments »

A Chance To Vote On Atlantic Yards
September 11th, 2006

The proposed Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn has its supporters and its opponents, and even some people who support some aspects of the 22-acre project and oppose other aspects.

Voters in one political primary get to choose candidates who reflect each of these positions.

In the race most directly affected by the plan - the tough competition for the open seat in the 57th Assembly District, which resides in the footprint of the proposal - the three candidates have all taken different stances.

Bill Batson has been adamantly opposed to the project, and testified that he “must condemn virtually every aspect of the [developer’s] proposal.”

In July, Hakim Jefferies told the Times, after being pressed, that he is “more inclined to support it than not,” in its current state. Given that statement, he has been criticized for his recent fliers that oppose the use of eminent domain for private interests, which is part of the plan.

And Freddie Hamilton is an ardent supporter who signed on to the Community Benefits Agreement between the developer and local constituents.

Newspaper endorsements, though, don’t necessarily align with the candidates’ positions on this one (albeit major) issue. Yes, the anti-Atlantic Yards local, the Brooklyn Papers, endorsed the anti-Yards Batson. But Courier-Life, a local chain of newspapers that does not support the Atlantic Yards, did not endorse the anti-Yards candidate Batson, calling him and Hamilton “polarizing.”  Instead it  ”wholeheartedly” endorsed Jeffries because of his nuanced view.

The New York Times and the Daily News, which both support the project, did not endorse the adamantly pro-Yards Hamilton. Indeed, the Times praised Batson for elevating the Atlantic Yards debate. But both the Times and the News endorsed Jeffries.
 

By Mike Muller on September 11, 2006, 4:11 pm
In category: Eye on Albany
Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us | No Comments »

Attorney General Debate
September 8th, 2006

Andrew Cuomo, Mark Green, and Sean Maloney engaged in a final debate this week (sponsored by the New York City Bar Association and the New York Law Journal ) before Democratic voters in New York State go to the polls on Tuesday to choose one of them as the Democratic nominee for attorney general of the state.

All three candidates said their top priority was the rooting out of political corruption. Maloney listed his top three priorities for reform as investigating the state’s Public Authorities, following the pay to play trail, then reducing the cost of Medicaid by 25 percent by attacking fraud. Cuomo even said he would pursue government reform with the same zeal as Spitzer did with securities.

They all also agreed to continue Elliot Spitzer’s pursuit of the securities industry.

Both Green and Cuomo said that ensuring General Electric dredges the Hudson River will be their top environmental priority, and Maloney showed support for eminent domain, calling it a powerful tool that can be used to further environmental interests, but that in the hands of a “corrupt and sclerotic” government, it doesn’t get used correctly.

In order to protect children from predators on MySpace, Maloney said he wanted to force the social networking site to require the use of a credit card and proof of age. Republican Jeanine Pirro has made MySpace a big issue in her campaign.

While Green spent much of his time talking about his own record, at the end of the debate, the Village Voice reported he challenged Cuomo to answer three questions: Why did the Times call Cuomo’s 203(k) HUD mortgage program “a fiasco“; what about the Voice claims that Cuomo was cozy with a “slumlord”; and how about the suit by Spitzer and other attorneys general claiming that HUD wasn’t following a federal law to reduce pesticide use?

After the debate, Connecticut Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, who had just endorsed Cuomo, and was part of the pesticide case, said the suit was aimed at the Bush Administration.

Earlier in the debate, Green attacked Cuomo for leaving the Manhattan District Attorney’s office before his required three years of service. Cuomo countered that his past years of public service were factored into that requirement. But the Daily Politics points out that part of that “public service” was his work on his father’s gubernatorial campaign.

By Mike Muller on September 8, 2006, 5:32 pm
In category: Eye on Albany
Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us | No Comments »

Inaccurate Flyers in the 25th Senate District
September 8th, 2006

The Brooklyn Papers, who have posted a primary election guide for the legislative seats around the Downtown area, has an an article, not yet published on their website, by Dana Rubenstein, who points out that comments on State Senator Martin Connor’s voting record and campaign contributions in mailings sent out by his challenger, Ken Diamondstone, are inaccurate.

One mailing says Connor received money from health insurance and drug companies and then voted for a bill that would have raised the amount of money an employee would have to pay before their insurance kicked in. But the article points out that Connor voted against the bill (and the amount of money he got from the companies was less than a third of what Diamondstone’s mailing had said.)

Diamondstone told the Papers that it would spend “an estimated $30,000″ mailing out corrections.

But Connor has also sent out mailings that fly in the face of recent court rulings, the article shows. He attempted to kick Diamondstone off the ballot by arguing that he didn’t live in the district long enough to qualify for a run for office, but the courts ruled in Diamondstone’s favor - yet Connor’s recent mailings repeat the charge.

(The Papers made no endorsement in this race.)

By Mike Muller on September 8, 2006, 1:39 pm
In category: Eye on Albany
Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us | No Comments »

Gubernatorial Medicaid Proposals
September 6th, 2006

Reform of the Medicaid system, which accounts for nearly half of the state’s $115 billion dollar budget and is reportedly weighed down by serious fraud and abuse, seems to be at the top of every New York politician’s reform list. All the candidates for governor have floated proposals to improve Medicaid in the state.

Republican candidate John Faso revealed a detailed Medicaid reform proposal(pdf format) this week.

The plan will improve care of New Yorkers while saving the state $13 billion over four years by attacking fraud and creating a leaner medicaid program, he says. As part of the plan, he also would nearly double community health centers state-wide, in order to promote preventative care and ward off expensive emergency room visits and hospital stays. Faso’s running mate and Rockland County Exectutive, Scott Vanderhoef, created a pilot program that found $13 million dollars in questionable claims in Rockland, and now he wants to expand his methods statewide.

Faso told the Associated Press that the plan comes from a report by the Citizens Budget Commission and media accounts.

Elliot Spitzer told the AP that Faso’s plan sounds similar to his plan, but is inferior to his own, which calls for a False Claims Act (which would provide financial incentives to whistle blowers) and would expand the Martin Act (which grants the AG wide lattitude to pusue fraud in the financial sector without prior approval from a judge) to cover health care.

Tom Suozzi claims his plan, which includes the whistle blower protection, would save $6.7 billion by cutting waste, fraud and abuse. He would also allow municipalities, who pay a portion of Medicaid costs along with the state, to design their own Medicaid programs, which he says will lead to lower property taxes.

As Nassau Count Executive, Suozzi “forced the state’s biggest Medicaid reforms two years ago during his Fix Albany campaign to cut waste and fraud in a system that was driving up local property taxes,” according to the Associated Press.

About a year ago, the New York Times published an investigative report that found New York’s program to be the the most inefficient in the nation. Using publicly available software, it identified rampant abuse of the system by Medicaid providers. It calculated that losses due to questionable claims have amounted to as much as $18 billion.

The state legislature passed legislation this session to ward off fraud and created an Inspector General to monitor the Medicaid Program. But the Senate opposed the whistleblower protection, and the Assembly stopped pushing for it in order to get the Senate to drop its proposal for a five year term for the Inspector General, who started with an appointment by the out-going governor, and would have outlasted the next governor’s entire first term

By Mike Muller on September 6, 2006, 2:36 pm
In category: Eye on Albany
Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us | No Comments »

Local GOP Primaries
September 5th, 2006

While a Republican primary for a legislative seat is a rarity, there is a small spattering of them, with two located in Staten Island and one in Queens.

(Closely watched national pollster John Zogby told the Sun he guessed the boroughs - half of Queens, anyway - account for the city’s obscure ranking among the nation’s most liberal cities.)

  • Of the primaries, the most closely watched is the competiton for the 24th Senate District seat, in Staten Island, that is being vacated by Senator John Marchi, who is resigning with the title of longest serving state legislator in the country.
  • Gotham Gazette published an article on the race, and the Staten Island Advance has been covering it extensively.

  • In Queens, party backed Dolores Maddis is vying for the nomination against Walter Schmidt in the 48th Assembly District. Democrat Andrew Hevesi is the incumbent.
  • The Times-Ledger has a good piece on Maddis, would like to see the minimum wage increased, and wants to focus on community affairs, not state-wide issues.

    Schmidt doesn’t have much of a presence, but he tells the Queens Chronicle that he canvasses the community on foot “every single day.”

  • And the last primary is for the open seat in the 60th Assembly District, in Staten Island and Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. Incumbent Matthew Mirones is not seeking re-election, so the seat is open.
  • Anthony Xanthakis, defense insurance attorney and party favorite, will face off against Joe Cammara, former police officer and realtor. Mirones has thrown his support, as well as his war-chest, behind Xanthakis, who was his legal counsel.

    Click here for our coverage of the race.

  • There would have been a fourth in the Queens’ 15th Senatorial District, but Bartholomew Bruno, challenger to incumbent Senator Serphin Maltese, was knocked of the ballot.
  • By Mike Muller on September 5, 2006, 2:46 pm
    In category: Eye on Albany
    Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us | No Comments »

    Obscure Primary Races
    September 4th, 2006

    On September 12, voters have numerous choices to make in the primaries - that is, if the race for your party’s nomination is actually competitive.

    This year, seats for Senate, Governor, Attorney General, Comptroller, and all Congressional, State Senate, and Assembly seats are up for election.

    And depending on what borough you live in, and which party you are registered in, there are also a number of judgeships and party positions up for election, adding further to that expansive list.

    While Judge Judy may not face a primary to her seat on the Civil Court bench this year, there are some on the bench that will.

    Unfortunately, while coverage of most district’s legislative seats is few and far between, it is usually non-existent for these electoral seats.

    But lack of coverage isn’t the worst of it.

    About half of the parties’ County Committee seats - who elect county bosses, among other things - are vacant, with most of the rest filled through uncontested elections.

    And between 1993 and 2001, 87 percent of Judicial Delegates in the city were elected without their names even appearing on the ballot, according to the US Distrct Court ruling that found the Judicial Convention system that uses those delegates unconstitutional.

    The system, where delegates are elected during primaries and then vote on which candidates for Supreme Court to send to the General Election, will still be used until the 2007 elections.

    Below - organized by county and party - are a listing of these more obscure seats that many voters will encounter on Primary Day.

    If there is a party seat election in your borough, call the Board of Elections to find out if your Assembly District and Election District have races.

    Click Here to find out which districts you live in.

    Bronx -
    Democratic Party -
    Civil Court Judge, Boro-Wide
    Female State Committee
    Male State Committee
    Female District Leader
    Male District Leader
    County Committee

    Independence Party -
    County Committee

    Brooklyn -
    Democratic Party -
    Female State Committee
    Male State Committee
    Delegate to Judicial Convention
    Alternate Delegate to the Judicial Convention
    Female County Committee

    Independence Party -
    County Committee

    Manhattan -
    Democratic Party -
    Civil Court Judge, District 2
    Civil Court Judge, District 7
    Female State Committee
    Male State Committee
    Delegate to Judicial Convention
    Alternate Delegate to the Judicial Convention

    Independence Party -
    County Committee

    Staten Island -

    Independence Party -
    Civil Court Judge, Boro-Wide
    Female State Committee
    Male State Committee
    County Committee

    Queens -
    Democratic Party -
    Female State Committee
    Male State Committee
    Female District Leader
    Male District Leader
    Delegate to Judicial Convention
    Alternate Delegate to the Judicial Convention
    Female County Committee
    Male County Committee

    Independence Party -
    Female State Committee
    Male State Committee
    County Committee

    Click here to see how the major parties are organized in the different boroughs.

    By Mike Muller on September 4, 2006, 8:48 am
    In category: Eye on Albany
    Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us | No Comments »

    Cuomo And King “Debate” Race
    September 1st, 2006

    While Andrew Cuomo has refused to participate in scheduled debates with the other three candidates for the office of state attorney general, he did attend a “forum” with one of them last night, Charlie King, who still criticized Cuomo for not participating in more debates. “I think Andrew does a disservice to democracy by ducking these debates.” he said.

    King, who served under Cuomo in the Housing Department and ran as Lieutenant Governor on Cuomo’s ticket in 2002, invited Cuomo during the only debate among all four candidates, on NY1 on August 15th.

    Much of the substance last night was a general discussion about problems surronding race, such as the lopsided rates of incarceration, ambiguities in discrimination laws that prevent enforcement, and inequalities in education, wealth, and jobs.

    Cuomo pledged to enforce anti-discrimination laws, calling attention to discrimination a “question of will and desire” that the state has yet to step up to.

    “Enforcement is a good concept,” King replied, but elaborated with the need to “feel these issues.”

    “I understand it innately, because I happen to be a person of color,” he said.

    Both promised to increase the number of minorities in the Attorney General’s office, with King saying the “complexion of the office will change dramatically” under his leadership and Cuomo pointing to his record at the Housing Department, where he says the number of minority staff doubled.

    King pledged to “shine the spotlight - just like Spitzer did on Wall Street - on the criminal justice system.” And he views his plan to improve the education system, which he often heralds as one of his priorities, as essential to reducing the prison rate, which is overwhelmingly minority.

    When pressed by a heckler in the audience to elaborate on his education platform, Cuomo echoed King’s proposals to use the office’s Organized Crime Task Force to go after gangs in the schools, and to use the Tweed Law, an anti-corruption measure creatively invoked for the first time in a century by Elliot Spitzer, to go after corrupt school officials. He addded his intent to fight illegal guns in the schools.

    The press, campaign staffers, and public officials rivaled the general public for numbers in the audience.

    By Mike Muller on September 1, 2006, 10:26 am
    In category: Eye on Albany
    Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us | No Comments »

    Sabini: Party Man or Maverick?
    August 31st, 2006

    In the 13th State Senate district, challenger Hiram Monserrate lobbed a series of attacks on incumbent John Sabini’s insider status in Queens politics during a debate earlier this month.

    But Sabini’s relationship with the county organization over the years has been idiosyncratic.

    The Times lauded him for his short lived tenure as Queens boss in 1986 - which he achieved after a scandal forced out his predecessor - as a “welcome loose cannon.” Among the actions they applauded was his move to set up a screening panel for selecting judges to protect the system from cronyism. (Manton, his succesor, later reversed the reform.) He also backed a candidate for borough president against a party insider.

    In 2001, he unsuccessfully challenged incumbent State Senator George Onorato - who was nominated by the Queens Democratic Party in a special election in 1983. The Queens Tribune dubbed Sabin’s bid part of a party “insurgency”. That year, he also suppported a challenger to Congressman Joe Crowley, who was handpicked by late party boss Thomas Manton after his resignation from the seat, which was timed to avoid a primary. Crowley is now considered likely to succeed Manton as boss.

    But Sabini currently has the support of the party, and he isn’t afraid to use it.

    According to documents from the NYC Board of Elections, he has received the free assistance of the party’s lawyer in an attempt to knock Monserrate off the ballot for State Senate. And the party is backing a challenger to Monserrate’s position as district leader in what party insiders are calling retribution for Monserrate’s opposition to the party’s choice, the Daily News reports.

    Sabini has also enlisted the consulting services of the Parkside Group, a lobbying/political consulting firm born of Queen politics (one of its partners is Manton’s former chief of staff in congress). All eight campaigns citywide the group works on this year are for party-backed candidates.

    By Mike Muller on August 31, 2006, 8:13 am
    In category: Eye on Albany
    Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us | No Comments »

    Become an Insider!
    August 31st, 2006

    The “party machine” is often portrayed as a force in competition with the people’s will. But, when functioning properly, political parties can allow widespread participation on a grassroots level. Members of the county committees are elected directly by their neighbors and usually represent just a few blocks.

    The trouble is, nobody has been running for these seats. As Grassroots Initiative pointed out in their report(pdf format) last year, 50 percent of the 15,000 county committee seats in the two major parties in New York are vacant.

    Furthermore, 98 percent of those occupied seats are filled by candidates who ran unopposed - they needed merely to fill out the paperwork to be elected.

    To reinforce the importance of party committees, Grassroots notes the political prominence of the religious right, whom a Congressional Quarterly report found to control a vast number of Republican committee seats nationwide.

    This year, Grassroots attempted to help any willing candidate in the city run for seats in the two major parties. Their Web site acts as a campaign clearing house, and they trained candidates in the elections process.

    And now, with petitioning season officially over, they are assisting candidates with write-in campaigns.

    -

    For more info on committee seats, try contacting Grassroots Initiative or your party:

    Parties With Secured Ballot Status:

    Bronx Independence
    Brooklyn GOP

    Brooklyn Independence
    Manhattan GOP

    Manhattan Indepedence
    NYS Conservatives
    NYS Democrats
    NYS GOP

    NYS Independence

    NYS Working Families Party
    Staten Island GOP
    Staten Island Independenc

    Other Parties:

    Bronx Greens
    Brooklyn Greens
    Manhattan Libertarians

    NYS Greens
    NYS Liberal Party
    NYS Libertarians
    Socialist Workers Party
    Queens Libertarians
    By Mike Muller on August 31, 2006, 8:08 am
    In category: Eye on Albany
    Recommend this entry via: stumble upon | digg | del.icio.us | 1 Comment »

    Unequal Opportunity in the Courts
    August 30th, 2006

    Apparently, the backing of the Queens Democratic Organization can offer valuable advantages in court.

    Meet Frank Bolz III, Law Chair for the county party, and partner at Manton Sweeney Gallo Reich & Bolz LLP, (the Manton in the firm’s namesake is that of the late Thomas Manton, boss of the Queens Democratic Party).

    Bolz has represented candidates trying to knock their opponents off the ballot in 24 races throughout Queens - 7 of which were legislative races - according to the Court Challenges Ledger from the NYC Board of Elections.

    And he does it for free.

    He hasn’t taken any money for his campaign activities since 2004. In 2005, City Councilman Tony Avella’s campaign was even fined by the Campaign Finance Board because of Bolz’s volunteer work.

    But the courtroom perks of a party backing don’t stop there, according to the Daily News, which says of Bolz’s law firm that, “collectively they have the last word on who becomes a judge in Queens.” And its 2003 “Judging the Judges” editorial series argues that party control over judges in Queens and Brooklyn is so strong that the Chief Justice should appoint judges from other counties to hear ballot challenges.

    The Fund for Modern Courts concurs: “Imagine appearing in court to seek justice when your adversary or his or her lawyer has contributed heavily to the judge’s campaign.”

    By Mike Muller on August 30, 2006, 11:59 am
    In category: Eye on Albany
    Recommend this entry via: stumble upon |