August 31st, 2009

By Joseph Spector • Journal Albany bureau • August 31, 2009

ALBANY – In Massachusetts, a person can only contribute up to $500 a year to a political candidate and $12,500 to all candidates.

In New York, the contribution limit is $55,900 to a gubernatorial candidate and $150,000 to all candidates each year.

How about restrictions on the use of campaign money? In Nebraska, the money can’t be used for personal expenses, such as car loans or accounting services.

In New York, a state Board of Elections spokesman once said memorably, “Unless you out-and-out stick it in your pocket and walk away, everything’s legal.”

When it comes to state legislatures, Ohio requires its House to hold hearings on bills before they become law and in 2002, enacted 52 percent of legislation that was introduced.

New York has no such provision. Decisions are made behind closed doors and this year the Assembly passed just 13 percent of legislation that was introduced, meaning thousands of bills can languish for years.

From campaign-finance restrictions, ethics regulations and legislative rules, New York lags behind most states in having tough laws that govern its elected officials, experts say. That, critics say, has fueled a process that shuts out the public and leaves New York vulnerable to the myriad scandals that have plagued state government in recent years.

“New York is a dinosaur in the age of mammals,” said Blair Horner, legislative director of the New York Public Interest Research Group. “Everyone else continually keeps changing their laws and improving their systems, and New York stays frozen.”

Recent polls show more than two-thirds of New Yorkers agree the state Capitol is broken, and they are so fed up they are ready to vote out their hometown lawmaker.

In an attempt to stave off criticism after a monthlong leadership coup that began in June, the state Senate passed reforms aiming to empower rank-and-file legislators and create a system more in line with most other states.
Effectiveness questioned

But how effective the rule changes will become is far from clear, watchdog groups said. Senate Democrats won control of the chamber in January, but were criticized for not carrying through on promised reforms.

For instance, Democrats – who control all state government for the first time since 1935 – met in secret throughout the April budget process.

When they emerged with a deal, rules calling for public conference committees to discuss the budget were abandoned. Legislative leaders said the state had a fiscal emergency, and the budget needed to be passed quickly.

“Our general criticism of the Legislature over the past few years has been there is too much leadership control basically over every aspect of the legislative process,” said Larry Norden, senior counsel for the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

The group in 2004 and in subsequent reports found the Legislature to be the most dysfunctional in the country.

Other states are certainly not without problems. Mayors, assemblymen and city councilmen in New Jersey last month were arrested in a corruption probe.

And New York, Connecticut and New Jersey have all had governors resign in recent years amid scandal. California’s fiscal situation is worse than New York’s; Connecticut has been without a budget for months.

But Norden and others say New York’s system lacks transparency and oversight. Power is centralized among legislative leaders and the governor the so-called “three men in a room.”
Panels’ power increased

Norden points to New York’s committee process. While the Senate recently took steps to empower committees, other states have a system in which bills are automatically brought to a public hearing and rank-and-file lawmakers can more easily – even if they in the minority party – get legislation passed.

In Connecticut, bills are debated in public by committees made up of members of the Senate and the House -a streamlined process aimed to make the passage of bills more efficient. In New York, the Senate and Assembly have separate committees – and lawmakers get up to $34,000 in stipends for leading them. Conference committees between the sides are rarely held.

Some New York lawmakers are pushing a constitutional convention as a way to change state laws. Voters are asked every 20 years whether they want to hold a convention, and the next time the question will be on the ballot isn’t until 2017.

But Assembly Minority Leader Brian Kolb, R-Canandaigua, along with some Democrats, including Westchester County Assembly members Richard Brodsky and Sandra Galef, want it sooner. A constitutional convention would let the public put measures on the ballot to change the state constitution.

Kolb said it could be used to put in state spending caps, lower property taxes and even put in a recall provision to vote out state lawmakers if the public thinks they are not doing a good job.

Eighteen states permit the recall of state officials, but the measure is rarely used or successful, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Kolb said something needs to happen to change New York’s system. He has started an online petition – www.reformny.org – to build support for the convention.

“The growing dysfunction, gridlock and partisanship in Albany have become so damaging to New York’s economy, hurtful to taxpayers and poisonous to public trust in state government that bold action must be taken,” Kolb wrote in a fundraising email on behalf of the state Republican Assembly Campaign Committee.