With their majority finally solidified, the State Senate Democrats last week passed rules changes, which they say, are designed to create more legislative transparency and to balance the power rift between the majority and the minority. Even though the Democrats had moved on reform issues after years of pleading for the same courtesy from the Republican leadership, their actions were greeted with derision by some and a tempered optimism by others.
The changes reverse rules instituted by the Republicans in 2001. Good government groups like the Brennan Center for Justice hope that such amendments will lead to more transparency in the Senate, give the public more input into the legislative process and allow members of both the majority and minority to freely propose and debate legislation.
One of the new changes will allow any senator to co-sponsor a bill without permission from the author. Previously, majority senators could prohibit members of the minority from being co-sponsors of their legislation.
Another change will allow senators to file "motions of discharge" to force bills out of committee after 20 days. Previously senators would have to wait 60 days. The longer waiting period allowed the majority to easily block a bill sponsored by the minority by keeping it in committee. The minority could ask for a floor vote, but votes against allowing the legislation to move forward were not a matter of public record.
The rules changes also promote the use of technologies such as the Internet to give the public greater access to the legislative process.
These changes will all expire at the end of the year and will likely be replaced by changes recommend by the newly established Senate bipartisan temporary Committee on Rules and Administration Reform. The committee will have 90 days to hold hearings and make recommendations on rules changes.
Good government groups have said that, while they would have liked more aggressive action, they are happy that reforms were made and are optimistically awaiting the recommendations of the temporary Committee on Rules and Administration Reform.
Sen. Daniel Squadron, who campaigned on reform issues, said, "I am pleased we have made real changes. It might not be everything but it is a real start."
Republicans called the Democrats' proposals weak and demanded more drastic changes to balance power. "This proposal does not go far enough. Right off we're starting on the wrong foot." Sen. George H. Winner Jr. told the New York Times
Some Democrats could not help but giggle. One Democratic senator described the Republican's change of heart as "a convenient conversion," and the "height of political theater and cynicism." "At least we have put the ball on the field," the senator said. Republicans had moved on rules changes in the past. An amendment in 2005 left Democrats displeased.
Republicans have made a fuss over amount of money they will receive to run and staff their offices. They have been pushing legislation that would require equal resources for every legislator. Majority Leader Malcolm Smith responded to the complaints on Monday by guaranteeing that every senator would have a budget of at least $350,000. During the years of Republican control, some Democratic senators were allocated less than $300,000. One staffer said his office never got more than $350,000, and he knew of senators who didn't get $200,000. "In New York City," said the staffer, "that meant two staffers."
The treatment they received from the Republican majority remains fresh in the minds of Democratic senators and their staffers. They don't need to think back far to remember inconveniences like having simple supply orders -- for items from toilet paper to Styrofoam cups to furniture and paper -- take weeks to arrive, or making do on a budget one quarter the size of their Republican counterparts. They can remind themselves of bigger issues such as being effectively powerless to challenge the majority party on legislation or having their mailings to constituents censored.
Some Democratic staffers take a bit of satisfaction in seeing the new minority in their old shoes. One called the Democrats' treatment at the hands of the Republican majority "insulting and repressive." And yet he said he fully expected the new majority to aggressively pursue rules changes -- to increase the ability for the minority to introduce and challenge legislation and to create more transparency in the legislative process.
Another Democratic staffer said the new majority has no reason not to "do what is right." A number of staffers pointed out that, while the rules became more "repressive" as Republicans began to lose their majority over the past decade, the Democrats feel they are in a solid position with control of the Senate, Assembly and governor's mansion. As one put it, "We don't have to play those games."
While good government groups are pleased with the changes, in some cases they hope to see more decisive action. One activist said, "The fact that the Democrats didn't have a leader until last Wednesday had a major impact. They were scrambling. They didn't have an agreement in place to do anything more aggressive."
They are now looking to the temporary committee on rules. The Brennan Center, Common Cause, the Empire Center for New York State Policy, the League of Women Voters, and New York Public Interest Research Group released a joint memo asking for language that would authorize the temporary committee to reflect five specific issues:
--strengthening standing committees by granting them greater independence;
--allowing individual members to introduce legislation on the floor
--creating opportunity for adequate review of proposed bills;
--providing members with sufficient resources to fund their office and research legislation; and
-- making legislative records immediately available to the public on the Internet.
Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause, said she feels confident the Democratic majority will address these issues, and noted that a number of members of the majority have "spontaneously expressed their deep interest in reform."
The list of members named to the rules and administration reform committee gives some reform proponents hope, as it includes a number of senators known for their commitment to rules changes. The committee is co-chaired by Democratic Sen. David Valesky and Republican Sen. John Bonacic. As of press time the others are Squadron, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Jeff Klein, Jose Serrano and Liz Krueger. All but Stewart-Cousins, who is from Westchester, represent New York City districts. Minority Leader Dean Skelos will sit on the committee along with fellow Republican Senators Joe Griffo and George Winner.
However, other issues could interfere with the temporary committee. As Squadron pointed out, "Ninety days during the biggest budget season is not a lot of time."
Meanwhile, Krueger may not remain on the committee. According to several sources, she thinks her work as vice chair of the Finance Committee might interfere with her ability to play an active role on the reform committee and so she has asked to be replaced. An official announcement will likely be made in the near future.
Krueger's absence would concerns activists, as she has consistently been one of the most outspoken members of the Senate on the issue of rules reform. Krueger filed a lawsuit against the majority over alleged censorship in 2006. According to Krueger and co-plaintiff Republican Assemblyman Thomas Kirwan, then Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver censored outgoing constituent mailings-making it impossible for members of the minority party to criticize the majority.
Lerner said that while a number of members of the temporary committee are strong advocates for reform, "I think her [Krueger's] colleagues would agree she has spent the most time delving into the issue."
Of greater concern to many advocates, though, are issues beyond the purview of the committee including campaign finance reform, redistricting and the way elections are held. Some insiders said say they expect the Senate to tackle those issues after the budget issue is addressed.
Lerner said she has one challenge for the committee on reform as well as for the Senate as a whole. She would like to see the Senate adopt the committee's rules proposals this year rather than waiting for the rules that were adopted this year to expire. She does not want the issue to get lost during what is sure to be a hectic legislative session.
That request is something committee member Squadron does not think is unreasonable, "We can't wait more than a year. We are not some task force that will make recommendations that will wind up sitting at the bottom of a drawer. The Senate will take action on our recommendations."
Gov. David Paterson started his first State of the State speech late. Another speech took precedence for a few minutes as new Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith delivered his victory remarks in the Senate chambers. When Smith finished, senators and their staffs made their way to the Assembly, and Paterson took his place on the podium and delivered his address.
Good government activists and heads of progressive groups across the state, particularly in New York City, had waited for this moment for years. They had fought alongside Democratic politicians to ensure this Senate majority would come and that their issues would finally be addressed. As of Wednesday, Albany's three men in a room were all Democrats, allegedly progressive, and all residents of New York City.
And yet, after Paterson delivered his speech, it was clear that many of those groups had not heard what they hoped to. "The state of our state is perilous," Paterson warned before launching into poetry and rallying cries. He did not issue the expected doom and gloom diatribe about the realities of the economy in an attempt to convince legislators and the public to accept the deep cuts he has proposed in next year's budget. The budget, though, was clearly the backdrop to the address and to the beginning of this session in the state capital.
Advocates around New York State are well aware of New York's fiscal crisis and multibillion-dollar deficit, but they take issue with the governor's priorities. They feel he has done little to make sure all New Yorkers share the burden and instead is balancing the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable.
They now hope Senate Democrats will deliver what the governor did not. At this early stage, though, it is unclear whether the new Senate majority will be united enough to take a stand against the governor.
On issues that are based more on policy than funding, such as changing the Rockefeller Drug Laws and a tightening control on campaign contributions, advocates do not know what the shift in the Senate will have. Will the new Senate leaders make real change -- or just become part of the legendary gridlock in Albany?
Only two seats in the Senate shifted from one party to another on Election Day. But that small movement created the groundwork for a more massive change. Committee chairs once filled by Republicans from upstate New York now are controlled by Democratic senators from the five boroughs (see chart below). And yet in at least one case, advocates are not any happier than they were before Democrats took control.
The Senate Housing Committee chair, Republican Sen. John Bonacic from the 42nd district, which includes Delaware, Ulster and Sullivan Counties has been replaced by Bronx Sen. Pedro Espada.
Some housing advocates had hoped ranking Democratic committee member Sen. Liz Krueger would get the post. Instead thanks to his hard-line negotiations as a member of the "gang of three," the renegade Democrats who threatened not to back Smith, Espada won the position.
Tenant advocates, citing Espada's record when he served on the Housing committee during a previous stint in the Senate, are less than thrilled. In a statement, Michael McKee, treasurer of the Tenants Political Action Committee described Espada being named to the position as an "unhappy development for tenants."
Western New York felt slighted when Democratic Sen. William Stachowski, who represents Lackawanna and part of Buffalo, was denied his bid to become head of the Finance Committee. Instead the position went to another "gang of three member," Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn. Stachowski instead got the leadership on the committee on Commerce, Economic Development and Small Business.
Smith has made steps to appease upstate New York by giving some upstate senators positions of power. He named Sen. David Valesky of Syracuse vice president Pro Tempore and Sen. Neil Breslin of Albany head of the Insurance Committee. The fact still remains, though, that the real power in the New York Senate lies in the hands of a racially diverse group of politicians who represent urban districts. On paper at least, that would seem to be good news for New York City.
Senate Democrats announced most of their leaders and committee chairs his week, putting a large number of New York City representatives in key posts. Some positions still need to be decided, but here is the current list:
THE NEW LEADERS
|
By releasing his budget weeks before his State of the State, Paterson changed the traditional dynamic by which governors use the State of the State to introduce their budget initiatives. On Wednesday, Paterson did not seek to break new ground but to defend his position, which was widely criticized since the budget was introduced last year. He does not seem to have succeeded.
Advocates with big hopes for a Democratic majority were left reeling after the governor's speech. "If the State of the State had a theme, it was the repeated phrase "shared sacrifice." But critics like Billy Easton, executive director of the Alliance for Quality Education, found that disingenuous.
"The governor reiterated the call for shared sacrifice," said Easton, "but he is not listening to New Yorkers who overwhelmingly want those earning over $250,000 to share in the sacrifice by paying a little more in taxes."
"Instead of soak the rich, it's soak the middle class," wrote Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party, in a statement.
Representatives of Citizen Action New York, Campaign for Fiscal Equity and Hunger Action echoed such sentiments. They all feel that Paterson is not asking all New Yorkers to contribute equally. They suggest a Fair Share Tax that would increase the state personal income tax for those making over $250,000 a year by about 1 percent.
Paterson has described enacting that kind of the tax as a "last resort." Critics of the tax suggest that the wealthy might flee the state to avoid it. Supporters insist that is unlikely.
The Senate's position remains unclear. "They have kept it pretty close to the chest," said Geri Palast, executive director of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity. "Senate Democrats have voiced support for a millionaires tax before, but they were in the minority. Things sometimes change when it's no longer about sending a message but about governing."
Palast notes that the Assembly previously has been open to the millionaires' tax. On the other hand, Assembly Majority Leader Sheldon Silver abandoned a proposal for a millionaires tax in October last year, citing the Wall Street collapse.
In particular many advocates see the governor's budget ax falling disproportionately on the education sector. Paterson has abandoned a program of increasing aid to needy districts and instead has proposed cutting $2.5 billion from the state's legal commitment to fund schools that are most in need. Palast, whose Campaign for Fiscal Equity sued the state to secure more state funding for New York City schools, said that Paterson's cuts to education will further delay improvement in school districts that are in desperate need of funding.
Palast said state budget could be boosted by "progressive revenue options," such as the Fair Share Tax reform. Easton said he fully expects the Senate Democrats to come through and "stand up to the governor and make restoration of the cuts to education. They supported us in the minority and we expect they are the same people they were before they took the majority."
Some advocates, though, were energized by Paterson's speech. They pointed to his criticism of the state's harsh Rockefeller drug laws. During his address, Paterson said: "Few initiatives have failed as badly and for as long as the Rockefeller drug laws."
Caitlin Dunklee, coordinator for Drop The Rock, which is working to repeal the laws, said her group "has never had so much reason to be optimistic," thanks to the governor's speech and the new Democratic majority. She said the governor has basically committed to supporting Rockefeller drug law reform legislation this year.
Paterson's promise to consider recommendations from theCommission on Sentencing Reform, which will release a report later this month, worries Dunklee. Earlier reports by the commission made no mention of Rockefeller drug law reform, she added.
The general consensus is that Paterson's speech demonstrated that he is focused on two things: managing the budget deficit and setting himself up to run for office in 2010. Inconvenient issues like the tax burden on the state's poor and middle class and reforming the very foundation of New York's dysfunctional government have been left for the legislature to confront.
Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause New York, feels the way a lot of activists in New York do: unsure of what she can expect from the new Democratic majority and slighted by Paterson's speech --not by what was said, but by what was not.
"Reform did not receive the barest of mentions. It was an unfortunate reflection," said Lerner. Common Cause has been pushing for rules changes in the legislature for years.
Lerner still hopes to see individual members move bills out of committee and onto the floor for discussion and vote. She also hopes conference committees would work on consolidating similar bills written separately in the Senate and Assembly.
Former Gov. Eliot Spitzer's first State of the State address was all about reform, Lerner noted. His second, she said, "at least had a throw-away line about it." She thinks that the lack of mention in Paterson's speech "was a true reflection of the governor's personal priorities. He feels he can hack it in the current system because it is a system he is accustomed to."
Lerner said she feels hopeful that rules reform might eventually be achieved this year anyway.
Senate Democrats may be more receptive to rules reform than Paterson. They recently put a greeting on the Senate Web site that says: "One of our first orders of business is to reform the rules of the Senate to give members more meaningful deliberation of legislation and foster bipartisan consensus on matters of public interest. Through revamped Senate committees members will debate and amend bills, assuring that majority and minority members share an equal footing on the Senate floor."
Senate Republicans, who are now in the minority, have been pushing for the sort of reforms that Common Cause supports. So there may be room for agreement on some of these issues.
Republicans have hinted that they think the Democratic Senate is far from united. Newly minted Republican Minority Leader Dean Skelos was recently quoted in the New York Times as saying of the Democratic majority, ""I reflected upon the fact that the last time it happened, it lasted for one year." And Skelos told the Albany Times Union, "I can guarantee you there are more factions within the Democratic conference than within the Republican conference."
Some advocates, including Palast, said they think the next four months will give New Yorkers a clearer picture of how bad the fiscal crisis is. During that time, she said, we will find out how much funding the Obama administration plans to provide the state, and we will see what sort of alternate funding proposals come about from the Senate and Assembly. And perhaps, too, a clearer picture will emerge of where the newly powerful Democrats stand and what they hope to accomplish.
That though remains weeks, if not months, away. When Blair Horner the legislative director of the the New York Public Research Group was asked to comment on the state of the capital following the governor's speech and the Democratic takeover of the Senate, he replied with one word: "Chaos."
If police officers pull their triggers the City Council will now be put on notice under legislation passed unanimously by the council on Wednesday.
The New York City Police Department will be required to submit annual reports to the council detailing incidents of gunfire by police officers. The department will have to include the race, gender and age of those involved in the incident.
The bill, (Intro 516-A) sponsored by Councilmember Peter Vallone Jr., has the support of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, according to a mayoral spokesman.
Lauded as an effort to keep the police department accountable, the proposal is not an indication of any problems there, city officials cautioned. But, instead, it hopes to identify trends and give the council greater oversight of data, which has been difficult to receive at times. Before this proposal, the department was not required to provide gunfire statistics to the council, and only did so sporadically and voluntarily.
"We haven't determined there is any problem in this area," said Vallone. "But we don't know this information unless we get it, and there is no requirement we receive this information now."
In the past, the department did not include the race, gender or age of individuals involved in shooting incidents with police officers. On the other hand, said Council Speaker Christine Quinn, the department did provide the breed and the sex of a dog if a police officer had shot it. The speaker called the difference "absurd."
Though the administration has expressed support for the bill, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association opposes the proposal. Association President Patrick J. Lynch said in a written statement, "The NYPD is the country's most restrained police departments in the use of deadly physical force. Requiring a report for every firearms discharge is unjustified and will not benefit anyone but the paper suppliers. It's a solution in search of a problem."
Other police officials have complained complying with the legislation would be costly and labor intensive. Council officials disputed that argument, saying it would only require officials collect more specific demographic information than they already do.
Primarily, the bill will give city officials a snapshot of the types of incidents that lead to pulling triggers by police officers. In recent years, said Vallone, police shootings have decreased significantly. In 1997, a weapon was discharged 253 times. In 2007, a gun was fired by police officers 111 times, and approximately 30 to 40 of those incidents involved animals, he added.
The new data will be provided borough by borough and precinct by precinct. Quinn said the council has not determined whether the annual reports will be made available on its Web site.
Members of the council's Black, Latino and Asian Caucus applauded the proposal, saying it would help determine whether certain races are targeted.
"In communities of color it is extremely important we have that information," said Councilmember Robert Jackson, the co-chair of the caucus. "It seems as though these people that are shot are people of color."