Friday, January 16, 2009
The bottom line: The Governor, the Attorney General, and the Comptroller have all taken steps toward greater openness, but we can't have complete transparency without the legislature. It's up to them to post legislative records online and to pass legislation requiring proactive disclosure of public records.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The complete committee membership:
- Co-Chair: Sen. David J. Valesky (D-Oneida)
- Co-Chair: Sen. John Bonacic (R-Mt. Hope)
- Sen. Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan)
- Sen.Jeff Klein (D-Bronx)
- Sen. Jose M. Serrano (D-Bronx/Manhattan)
- Sen. Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D-Yonkers)
- Sen. Daniel Squadron (D-Brooklyn/Manhattan)
- Sen. George Winner (R-Elmira)
- Sen. Joseph Griffo (R-Rome)
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
The resolution, which expires at the end of 2009 and requires new rules for next year, also created a nine-member Temporary Committee on Rules and Administration that will make recommendations for further reform by April 13. The bi-partisan co-chairs of the Committee (one each from the majority and minority) are a first good sign: Senators David Valesky and John Bonacic. Senator Valeksy ran as a reformer in 2004 after the Brennan Center's original Rules Report and Senator Bonacic is known to have an independent streak.
There remain seven other appointments to the Committee, five majority and two minority. We hope the new majority assigns some of the avowed reformers including Senators Liz Krueger and Daniel Squadron. That would be a second good sign before the business of Committee begins.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Do they remove the stranglehold of leadership so that committees will be the locus of legislative activity? Make it easier for the rank and file to force a hearing on legislation or for oversight? Relax the rules around discharge motions? Increase transparency by putting votes, minutes, fiscal notes, expenditures on the web? Make the allocation of resources among the majority and between the majority and minority more equitable?
None of the above. They simply passed what was in effect during last session.
The body of Assembly Resolution 6 reads:
ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION providing for the adoption ofMeanwhile the Senate votes on their rules this afternoon.
the Rules of theAssembly for 2009-2010
RESOLVED, That the Rules of the Assembly for 2007 and 2008,
as last amended, be adopted as the Rules of the Assembly
for 2009 and 2010.
Friday, January 09, 2009
These alleged acts, prosecuted as a federal crime, are horribly despicable. Voter intimidation and deception is rarely violent, but by no means rare. Nearly every election turns up fliers with misleading information including false endorsements or the incorrect day of the election. The case of challenges inside a Yonkers gym in the election of State Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins in 2006 is a good example.
New York should also be able to prosecute voter deception and intimidation in state or municipal elections. There is already a model for legislation. In 2007, President-elect Obama introduced the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act in the Senate. In addition to making such acts criminal offenses, the bill empowered the U.S. Attorney general to correct false information and submit a report summarizing any related activity to Congress.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
In response to yesterday’s release of the
In analyzing the work of the legislature, the
report completely omits the state budget, as well as countless bills that pass either house every year. Brennan Center
This is incorrect. The analysis that forms the basis of the report included all of the budget bills listed on the New York Legislative Session Information page for 2006 and 2007 except the Legislature and Judiciary Budget Bill and the State Debt Budget Bill in each year. The statistics regarding substantive floor debate, meaningful dissent, and committee deliberation regarding these bills generally conform to the poor performance of both houses in considering the rest of the major legislation analyzed in this report.
The fact of the matter is that while the budget process in
The budget bills included in our analysis are S6456C, S6457C, S6458C, and S6459C in 2006, and S2106C, S2107C, S2108C, S2109C, and S2110C in 2007. To download a PDF with summaries of these bills, click here.
Among the other important reforms the Assembly has adopted over the years to create greater transparency include the passage of rules that:
- End empty seat voting to ensure that Assembly members fully participate in the legislative process and are publicly accountable for their votes.
- Create an open and transparent budget process through joint Assembly – Senate conference committees that analyze and hear public testimony on every aspect of the state’s fiscal plan.
In the 2008 report, the
On the subject on conference committees generally, no mechanism exists for bill sponsors or committee chairs to call these hearings to reconcile differences in important legislation. The
- Mandate that all Assembly bills are approved by a standing committee other than the Committee on Rules, guaranteeing the participation of committees in the legislative process.
The Committee on Rules is not the only one to keep legislation from consideration by other committees with jurisdiction over the issue at hand. The Assembly rules allow the chair of the Ways and Means Committee to request bills outside its jurisdiction with the approval of the Speaker. While the rules do not grant the Codes Committee the same authority, anecdotal evidence suggests that irrelevant bills are also frequently referred to the Codes Committee – so frequently, in fact, that the joke inside the Assembly is that “Codes is where bills go to die.” These committees can hold up bills with no fiscal implications or a lack of sanction or penalty for months, preventing consideration by committees with legitimate jurisdiction.
- Extend the time period for unlimited bill introduction from early March to the first Tuesday in May, allowing Assembly members more time to draft and submit legislation important to their constituents.
Insufficient time to draft legislation may not be the problem – in 2008, the legislature introduced more than 18,000 bills, most of which never made it to a committee vote. Given that 45% of major legislation passed the Assembly in the final 3 days of the 2007 session, up from 25.5% in 2001, it is not clear that this reform is an improvement with respect to allowing members ample opportunity to consider each piece of major legislation.
- Ease the Motion to Discharge process by extending the period during which this process may be utilized.
Given that not a single motion to discharge successfully passed in 2006, 2007, or 2008, it is clear that this reform, while a step in the right direction, is insufficient. Motions to discharge should be allowed within 20 days of the date of referral, or within two committee meetings.
The Brennan Center’s report is wrong to dismiss and not include in its analysis bills that have been vetoed as well as the Assembly’s passage of major legislation that is not subsequently taken up by the Senate - bills that often set the stage for eventual enactment of critical legislation to protect New Yorkers.
While we have no reason to believe that an analysis of bills that pass in a single house and fail to become law would differ from our current analysis of major bills enacted into law, questions about the process for passing bills in one chamber are beside the point. As our ally Susan Lerner of Common Cause/NY said yesterday, "We elect our legislators to come up with laws, not bills."
In June 2007, the Assembly passed legislation to ensure marriage equality in
state - a vote that received support on both sides of the aisle. At the end of the last legislative session, the Assembly also passed legislation on the very issue for which the New York is a registered lobbyist - Campaign Finance Reform. Until now, the Senate has not acted on this legislation, but it is our hope and belief that these bills will find support in the new Senate and eventually be enacted into law. That is the legislative process and it is mystifying that the Brennan Center would diminish it. Brennan Center
The fact that bills addressing important issues pass one chamber or the other does not necessarily speak to the process behind the development of this legislation. The same-sex marriage bill is an example of substantive and robust floor debate. However, this is a rare exception – hardly the rule. While many believe that congestion pricing and brownfields cleanup development incentives are important, the bills addressing both of these issues reflected a failed legislative process that continues to impact environmental conservation efforts in
The report got the attention of reporters from Newsday, The Daily News, The Albany Times Union, and Public Radio, among others. A New York Times editorial published today echoes the Brennan Center's call for change.
While the report finds that not much has improved in the past two years, we have reason to hope that this year, things will be different. In the words of report co-author Andrew Stengel:
While there isn't much to cheer about looking back in either chamber, there is the promise of substantial reform from the likely new incoming Senate majority. We hope at least one chamber will reform the rules needed to remake the legislature.
Now, the question that remains is whether the incoming Senate leadership will keep their promises.