Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Open Government

Open Government

A One in Five Shot: Passing City Council Bills


Under the dim lights of the City Council's chamber, council members stand up twice a month to pitch legislative proposals. Some, however, do this more often than others -- and no one has done it more frequently in the last 21 months than Councilmember Peter Vallone, Jr.

From regulating voyeurism (thought to be a preposterous proposal by the New York Times) to protecting the patrons of the city's nightclubs, the Queens councilmember has introduced more bills than any of his colleagues since Council Speaker Christine Quinn took her position at the front of the chamber in January 2006.

Not far behind him are Vallone’s fellow members from Queens, council members David Weprin and James Gennaro. All three men are second-term council members who happen to chair some of the body's most influential committees. Other council members, like Albert Vann and Larry Seabrook, also in their second terms, have not been as successful legislatively.

Hundreds of bills are introduced every year on the council floor. Many of them do not get any further than that. According to an analysis by Gotham Gazette of City Council legislation, 622 bills have been introduced since Quinn took the council's top position. The vast majority of introductions –68.3 percent – have never been heard of again. Approximately 17 percent, or 104 bills, have passed. Nearly a hundred, or 15 percent, have had hearings, but have not – at least yet – gone to the chamber floor for a vote.

The fate of a piece of legislation, according to city officials and political observers, may not depend on its merit or even its popularity. Instead it can hinge on a sponsor's seniority or position in the leadership. As just one member of the 51-person council, Quinn introduced 27 percent of the bills that have become law.

What’s The Process?

Member
Total Bills
Number of Bills that Passed
Number of Bills that Received a Hearing
Number of Bills Sent to Committee
Peter F. Vallone, Jr.
54
14
4
36
David I. Weprin
48
20
4
24
James F. Gennaro
47
13
15
19
David Yassky
47
11
10
26
Michael E. McMahon
46
11
9
26
Alan Gerson
42
7
10
25
Gale A. Brewer
39
6
7
26
Tony Avella
39
4
9
26
Christine C. Quinn
37
28
5
4
Vincent Gentile
35
10
5
20

Click here to see the complete list.

 

To calculate the amount of introductions per council member from January 2006 through September 10, 2007, Gotham Gazette counted a bill's sponsors at the time of its introduction using the council's stated meeting agendas.

The analysis includes all bills introduced at the City Council and does not include resolutions or land use items.

When a bill is introduced during the council's biweekly stated meetings, it usually has only one sponsor. That bill is then sent to a committee, the committee holds a hearing and, if the measure is approved in committee, it returns to the council floor for a final vote. During this process, as the legislation is debated and discussed, a bill can often accumulate more sponsors.

(To learn how a bill becomes a law click here.)

Legislation that has a major impact, such as the recently approved campaign finance reform, often is introduced with dozens of sponsors – meaning a consensus has been established before the legislative and public hearing process begins. Those bills are usually destined to become law.

For consistency, Gotham Gazette included this legislation in its calculations, giving each member an introduction "point." For example, 29 council members introduced the latest street naming bill (Intro 556). All of them received an introduction point in our tally.

One caveat: Our calculations do not gauge the impact or importance of legislation; therefore they provide at best an incomplete way to judge a council member's record.

Seniority Rules

Members Who Have Introduced the Most

1.Peter Vallone

2. David Weprin

3.James Gennaro

4. David Yassky

5. Michael McMahon

More than two-thirds of all the legislation proposed on the council floor disappears in the committee process. Some council members attribute the lack of movement to politics, while others say it can reflect the proposal's value. "I think a lot of it has to do with the merit of the laws that are introduced," said Vallone.

By and large, though, members who have introduced the most legislation chair the council's influential committees: Vallone oversees the Public Safety Committee, Weprin chairs the Finance Committee and Gennaro handles the Environmental Protection Committee.

These members recognize that they have a legislative advantage – if they introduce something under their purview of their respective committees, it at least gets a hearing.

" Seniority helps, (as does) knowing the process, and obviously if you're a head of the committee with jurisdictional measure," said Weprin. Part of that advantage, especially for Weprin, includes requests from the Bloomberg administration to introduce legislation on its behalf. Within the last 21 months, the mayor requested Weprin introduce 11 out of his 48 introductions.

But, Weprin added, "I don’t think we look at bills differently if it's sponsored by a freshman or somebody new."

For the most part, rookie members who joined the City Council in 2006, like Darlene Mealy, Melissa Mark Viverito and Daniel Garodnick, fall in the bottom half of our introduction chart.

Being a new member of council, Mealy said, involves becoming accustomed to City Hall's legislative ropes, even as she continues immersing herself in her community. "Being the new kid on the block," Mealy said, "I just learned how to (submit) the new legislation properly."

The Speaker's Influence

The bulk of the legislative control rests with the council's speaker. If the speaker does not support legislation, political observers said, it will never see the chamber floor. On the other hand, 76 percent of the legislation introduced by Quinn since she became speaker have passed.

To some council members, this is where politics comes into play.

Councilmember Tony Avella, a councilmember since 2002, introduced 39 bills since January 2006. But only four have become law, and all of those were introduced with council colleagues, not solely by Avella.

When asked why, the Queens councilmember has one answer: He is not in the favor of the council speaker.

" There are members of the City Council that fall in line no matter what," said Avella, who has established himself as a maverick of the council and is a declared mayoral candidate for 2009. Quinn, though not official yet, is expected to be one of his many opponents. "If you're independent and you speak your mind you get punished," Avella added.

Avella has accused Quinn of intentionally blocking his legislation, such as a 2006 bill that would have required the replacement of damaged stop signs within 48 hours. The council last week adopted similar legislation, which requires the replacement of all missing and damaged street signs within three days. The sponsor of that bill was Joseph Addabbo.

Avella is not alone. Many City Council members seem to have trouble getting their legislation passed, or even getting it a hearing. Civil rights advocates contend Quinn has stalled a bill mandating that co-op boards reveal reasons for an applicant's rejection, despite widespread support throughout the council.

Although Avella had the lowest record for percentage of bills passed – hovering at 10 percent – some of his veteran colleagues were not far behind. Councilmember Michael Nelson, who took office in 1999, has introduced 21 bills during Quinn's tenure, and only 14 percent have become law.

Unlike Avella, some members find it difficult to even introduce legislation. Mealy said she has attempted to submit several bills to the council's legislative office, which reviews and drafts all introductions. Some were rejected, including one that, Mealy said, would have made gun shop owners liable for crimes committed with weapons from their establishment. The response Mealy received: The Bloomberg administration was pursuing that issue.

" The City Council staff will let you know whether it's good legislation or bad legislation," said Mealy. "All I'm going to say is it's not what you know, it's who you know."

According to a City Council spokesman, Anthony Hogrebe, the council's legislative office – whose staff is hired by the speaker - drafts legislation and reviews requests for legal and jurisdictional issues. Some proposals lend themselves to legislation, like sanitation or public safety issues, while others, like education, can be a state matter.

Members Who Introduced the Least

1. Darlene Mealy

2. Dennis Gallagher

3. Larry B. Seabrook

4. Maria del Carmen Arroyo

5. Albert Vann

Reforming the Process

When Quinn took over as speaker, she promised to open up the legislative process. With that pledge, she implemented several regulations to ensure members had an opportunity to introduce legislation. One rule mandated a 60-day time limit for the council's legislative office to draft legislation after receiving a proposal from a member. Another reduced the number of members, from nine to seven, needed to bring a bill to the floor without the speaker's consent.

The rules were meant to do away with a longstanding perception that the speaker had complete control over what legislation went to the floor, strong arming members into supporting certain measures. This practice often resulted in unanimous votes, little debate and stalled legislation. Critics blamed Quinn's immediate predecessor, Gifford Miller, for holding up a lead paint initiative supported by the majority of the council because he hoped to avoid dealing with such a controversial issue while running for mayor.

Political observers and some members of council said that Quinn’s reforms have not made much difference.

" The bill doesn’t come to the floor without the speaker’s consent," said Douglas Muzzio, a professor of public affairs at Baruch College. "Whatever you're finding under Quinn, you're likely to find, if not the very same thing, something close under Gifford or Vallone’s tenure," he added, referring to former Speaker Peter Vallone Sr.

Councilmember Gale Brewer, who has been in office since 2002 and signed onto 39 bill introductions since Quinn took over as speaker, said she could not tell the difference between Quinn and Miller, who was speaker from 2002 to 2006, when it comes to allowing certain bills to come to the floor. A member has to "push hard" and brainstorm innovative ideas for legislation to move, Brewer said.

Although Brewer was within the top tier of council introductions, she has only seen six of her bills become law.

Getting legislation to the floor, according to Councilmember Vallone, is ultimately a combination of good ideas, not veering away from controversy and playing along with other members and the speaker. Out of the 54 bills Vallone has introduced, he has seen 26 percent become law.

" I think Christine (Quinn) and her staff take a more hands on approach to the crafting of legislation than Gifford's did," said Vallone, alluding to the speaker’s control of the legislative process.

 

Getting Credit

A number of the bills may serve their purpose as soon as they are proposed. "Some of them are introduced never with the purpose of having a hearing,” said Vallone. “They are introduced to have a message."

Although introducing bills with no intent of seeing them passed may seem pointless, some observers said the practice helps council members establish legislative records. Gene Russianoff of the New York Public Interest Research Group said some members propose legislation to put pressure on the city administration or the state, hoping the idea will eventually be incorporated into a departmental policy change.

For example, Councilmember James Vacca said he introduced legislation, which has been in committee since March, calling for stronger safety standards to protect children with disabilities riding school buses. Vacca said he is participating in discussions on this very issue with legislators in Albany.

Other introductions, City Hall observers said, are proposed with their constituents or the media in mind. In the era of term limits, where it may seem like an election for higher office is always on the horizon, members can show their constituents they at least tried to get something done downtown.

" The council members want their names on bills so they can then go back to their constituents and their institutions and other types of supporters and say they got this bill in," said Muzzio.

Council critics have often targeted members for introducing legislation for politics sake. Interestingly, many New Yorkers criticized the council's proposal to guarantee a student's right to carry a cell phone to and from school, calling it unenforceable and pointless. That same legislation, passed over a mayoral veto, may now spark a courtroom duel between the council and Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Council members like Vacca say that it isn’t about getting credit, but that the problem – from the replacement of street signs to the regulation of city waste – gets resolved. After all, the City Council may be the city’s legislative body, but it’s also helping people in their districts.

“ Council members have two distinct functions,” said Muzzio. “One is the legislative function, is the passage of laws and the passage of resolutions as well.... The other is constituent service.” But, he added, “Those that get the bills passed, clearly, it’s kudos for them.” 

Brooklyn Judge's Battle Reaches Washington


A bruising political battle is moving from downtown Brooklyn to the nation’s capital. To the surprise of many observers, the Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear the case of Margarita Lopez Torres et al against New York State Board of Elections et al. Its decision will determine whether the present system of electing New York State Supreme Court justices is unconstitutional.

The case began in 2004, when Lopez Torres, then a Brooklyn Civil Court judge, claimed she had been blocked from becoming a state Supreme Court justice because of her independence and refusal to be influenced by local politicians. After several tries at moving up the judicial ladder, Lopez Torres concluded that she had been intentionally shut out and that, under the system for electing Supreme Court justices in New York state, she would never be able to get her name on the ballot before the general voting public.

In a challenge to the nomination process, her lawyers have successfully argued in two federal courtsthat the present method of selecting candidates is unconstitutional. They maintain that it violates the U.S. Constitution by having delegates to a convention – and not voters in a primary – determine who gets on the general election ballot. Although Lopez Torres has since been elected a judge of the Kings County (Brooklyn) Surrogate Court, and although the convention system is unique to New York, the battle has continued, reaching the highest court in the nation where arguments will be heard next week.

Becoming a State Supreme Court Justice

New York State Supreme Court justices, who preside over trials and have general jurisdiction, are nominated by judicial delegates. These are registered members of a particular party who are elected to attend a judicial convention by fellow party members in each Assembly district. At the convention, names of candidates seeking to fill available seats on the court are placed in nomination. Any New York judge or lawyer who has been a member of the bar for at least 10 years can be nominated. But Lopez Torres argues that no hopeful who lacks the support of local politicians and political clubs can organize sufficient delegates to become the designated candidate. She makes this argument even though she was nominated at one convention and received a large number of votes, but not enough to secure a place on the November ballot.

Winning the nomination is usually tantamount to winning the election. Opposing parties rarely present challenges. The candidate who appears on the Election Day ballot in New York City is usually the Democrat, who may or may not be endorsed by other parties but who almost always wins either way. Other parties may field their own candidates, but with little expectation of winning.

Opening the Primaries

Essentially, the Lopez Torres argument is that she or anyone not favored by the party in power cannot gain access to the November general election ballot. To remedy this, her lawsuit contends that New York State Supreme Court justices should be elected through a primary process. This is the way voters choose New York City Civil Court judges and other elected officials.

New York used a primary system to elect state judges at the beginning of the 20th century, but critics considered it cumbersome, expensive and a possible threat to judicial independence. The legislature replaced it with the present system.

Like other elected officials, lower court judges run for office by getting enough registered party voters in their district to sign their nominating petitions. Those who qualify appear on the ballot to face a possible primary and then, of course, the general election. Again, any New York City resident who is a registered voter and who has been admitted to the bar for at least 10 years may circulate petitions and launch a primary campaign. While difficult, this route is sometimes successful, whether for an open seat or to replace an incumbent judge.

The system Lopez Torres would like to see for Supreme Court justices was on view in three contests for lower court judges in Brooklyn last week. The races, for a seat on the Surrogate Court and two on Civil Court, were hotly contested, and in the Surrogate Court race, the candidate with the backing of the party leadership lost.

On to Washington

Those opposing the Lopez Torres position argue that it is up to the legislative branch to determine a method of electing statewide judges and that the present system is the one enacted by our legislature. Also, some of the legal briefs raise the issue that a delegate convention is not only constitutional but shares many characteristics with the American system of electing presidents. Depending up on the state, electors may be nominated at conventions and then cast votes through the Electoral College, which actually elects the president.

Dozens of lawyers from around the country, various bar associations and good government groups are weighing in with legal briefs on both sides of the Lopez Torres litigation. As the state’s top lawyer, the New York State attorney general is defending the present system.

The stakes are enormous. What the justices decide in Washington could have a staggering impact on New York electoral and judicial politics. If, after hearing oral arguments, a majority agree with the Federal District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals that the system is constitutionally flawed, then it would have to be dismantled and the state legislature would have to enact a new method. The justices are unlikely to dictate what the alternative should be, although the mid-level federal court called for the primary model. On the other hand, the justices may find that the existing system should be upheld and that New York can continue with the judicial conventions it has held for the last 86 years.

They could do neither. Instead, the Supreme Court may decide that the case warrants further proceedings, evidence and a trial and return the issue to the federal court in Brooklyn. That could start the litigation process all over and keep the existing system in place – at least temporarily.

Lopez Torres is represented by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and Arnold & Porter. When the court hears the case, Frederic A.O. Schwarz Jr. will argue for them.

On the other side, Andrew Rossman of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld will appear for the New York County Democratic Committee, and counsel for the New York Republican State Committee is Carter G. Phillips of Sidley Austin LLP. Both party committees also have counsel from firms in New York, Washington and Los Angeles. Lead counsel for the Associations of New York State Supreme Court Justices is Joseph Forstadt of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. To present its case, the State of New York has retained Ted Olson, who argued the Bush side of Bush v Gore and was recently thought to be a leading contender for U.S. attorney general.

Watch for next week's report -- direct from Washington.

Emily Jane Goodman is a New York State Supreme Court Justice 

 

Next Round in the Cell Phone Fight


 

The long-running battle between the Department of Education and the City Council shows no sign of letting up. In fact, if rhetoric exchanged at an Education Committee hearing last week offer any indication, the fight could move to a new and even more acrimonious level and even wind up in court.

Earlier this month, the City Council overrode Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s veto of a bill -- Intro 351-A – that requires the city to allow public school students to have cell phones with them on their way to and from school every day. The next day, Department of Education safety agents set up their scanners at Forest Hills High School in Queens, which is “not a school that has a reputation for having students who carry weapons,” as the InsideSchools.org Blog put it. But agents predictably found lots of cell phones and confiscated them.

"The thing that is quite clear is that the City Council has decided to override the mayor's veto, so it's law now," City Councilmember Melinda Katz, whose district includes the school, told the Times Ledger. "Why they would [confiscate phones] is beyond me."

 

Setting the Boundaries

 

The administration, however, has made it clear it does not feel bound by the council’s action. When asked by the bill’s sponsor, Councilmember Lewis Fidler of Brooklyn, whether the council and administration could sit down and attempt to reach a compromise on this issue, Deputy Mayor Dennis Walcott was largely dismissive. While he “respects the override of the veto” and remains “open to dialogue,” Walcott told council members a meeting was unlikely to produce any results. Cell phones in schools represent an issue where the administration and the council “will always be at odds,” he said.

 

Since Mayor Michael Bloomberg won mayoral control of the schools, the administration has adamantly maintained that it – and it alone, not the City Council – has responsibility for what goes on inside school buildings. In addition, Walcott indicated the bill does not do anything since it does not address what goes on in school.

 

“They’ve read the first sentence and ignored the second,” Fidler said. While the bill does say students should be allowed to have phones going to and from school – ignoring what goes on in class – it also states, "No person shall interfere with the provision of such telephone to, or the use of such telephone by, such student.”

 

“They can collect every cell phone as kids come into school,” said Fidler, but school officials would then have to return the phone at the end of the day. "It will not permit them to confiscate a phone that is not being misused.”

The bill was worded this way precisely to address the issues of mayoral control. “We’ve gone to the very limits of our power,” Fidler said. “We’re not telling them what to do on school grounds.”

 

What’s Next?

 

Despite Walcott’s comments, a City Council spokesperson and Fidler expressed hope that the two sides could reach a compromise in the next 90 days.

 

"We at this point still remain very hopeful that the Department of Education and the administration will respect the cell phone legislation we passed into law," said the council spokesperson, Anthony Hogrebe.

But if that does not happen, the case could end up in court. The legislation specifically states that a person whose rights under the law are interfered with can go to court. This means, Fidler said, that a student whose cell phone was confiscated – or the parents of that child – could bring a legal challenge against the Department of Education. While saying he could not speak for his wife or son – a public school student who, on his parents’ instructions, carries a cell phone – “we would be wiling to be that plaintiff.”

The council might also challenge the Bloomberg administration – and it would not be the first time. In 2004, the council approved legislation, sponsored by Quinn, barring any city agency from entering into a contract for more than $100,000 with an entity that did not offer domestic partners the same benefits as spouses. In that case, the administration won in the State Court of Appeals, which stated Bloomberg did not have to enforce laws he deemed invalid.

During the Giuliani administration, legal battles, including lawsuits that accused the council of impeding on the mayor's executive power, were more common.

 

A Ringing Controversy

 

While cell phones had long been officially banned in city schools, the prohibition only affected students in so-called scanner schools, buildings where all students went through metal detectors every day. These tended to be schools that the education department considered unsafe. Some parents and students in those schools had balked at the city ban, claiming it unfairly discriminated against the predominantly low-income, black and Latino students who went to those schools.

 

But the issue gained prominence in spring 2006 when the administration announced it would begin random scanning with portable metal detectors throughout the city. The devices could be at any school at any time – without warning. Safety agents would confiscate any and all cell phones and generally not return them until a parent or guardian showed up to claim it.

 

The decision sparked an uproar. Parents contend cell phones are a necessity in a city where students, some as young as 11 or 12, travel long distances. The administration’s ban, many have said, shows how out of touch the department is with the challenges of raising children in New York and how it dismisses the concerns of parents.

 

For its part, department officials argue that students use cell phones to cheat on tests, take unauthorized pictures of their fellow students and disrupt classes. Students have even, officials say, used the phones to organize attacks on fellow students.

Last week’s City Council hearing showed that18 months have done nothing to dim the intensity of these arguments. The hearing was focused on the department’s efforts to engage and involve parents. But when Councilmember Peter Vallone, chair of the council Public Safety Committee, had an opportunity to question Walcott and Martine Guerrier, who is in charge of parent involvement for the department, he quickly brought up cell phones and criticized Guerrier for not challenging the department’s policy. “If parents are overwhelmingly against this ban, would it be part of Ms. Guerrier’s job to convey that?” he said.

Apparently not. Guerrier’s office is not responsible for cell phone policy

 

 

 



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years