September 8th, 2009

Joseph Spector
Gannett Albany bureau

ALBANY — In March, good-government groups and academics met in Rochester to talk about their frustrations with state government.

But their priorities were scattered. Consensus on what to do was elusive.

So they settled on this: push the state to hold a constitutional convention at which voters could decide whether to change the state constitution.

“We decided that the most important thing is to have a convention, ASAP,” said Stuart Berger, who heads Citizens for a Better New York.

Since then, a growing list of watchdog groups and former and current political leaders — including former Democratic Gov. Mario Cuomo and Rudolph Giuliani, a potential GOP gubernatorial candidate and former New York City mayor — have made a convention a key element in trying to fix what is widely considered a broken state government.

Pick a topic — a property-tax cap, term limits, reform of public authorities, an independent panel to draw legislative districts — and advocates say it could be proposed at a convention of elected delegates, then brought to the public for a vote.

A convention could also address the line of succession for governor. Gov. David Paterson is fighting in the state’s highest court for the right to appoint a lieutenant governor because the seat is vacant. He claims the constitution allows for it; experts largely disagree and, so far, so have the courts.

Supporters say it was constitutional conventions in the late 1800s and early 1900s that produced some of New York’s most progressive laws, from welfare provisions, to labor rights, to protecting land in the Catskills and Adirondacks.

“The state has hit the bottom,” said Peter Galie, a Canisius College professor who supports a convention. “We’re dealing with the future of New York.”

But critics, including labor unions, have stymied constitutional conventions in the past and vow to rally against one again. They have a record of accomplishment: The state hasn’t changed the constitution at a convention since 1938.

In 1997, in a highly charged battle between supporters and opponents, 62 percent of voters rejected a constitutional convention.

Through a media blitz then, detractors said a convention would cost $50 million or more and would be controlled by political leaders. Some opponents say the scenario hasn’t changed, and the price tag would be higher now.

“You’d have the same situation with the same individuals in charge now, so the question that begs to be asked is what actually would change?” said Mario Cilento, a spokesman for the New York State AFL-CIO.

Every 20 years, by state law, residents vote in the November elections whether to hold a convention. If they say yes, a three-year process starts. The following November, voters would elect delegates — three from each senate district and 15 statewide for a total of 201 delegates.

Then the following November, the public would vote on the constitutional changes proposed by the delegates. If they vote yes, the changes would take effect the following year.

The next convention vote is set for 2017. Advocates want one sooner, with a vote on whether to hold a convention as early as 2010.

Assembly Minority Leader Brian Kolb, R-Canandaigua, started an online petition — www.reformny.org — to build support for it amid recent polls that show a majority of New Yorkers would back a convention.

“I think people know that nothing is going to change with the current status quo in Albany,” he said. “Everybody loves their legislator, but nobody likes the institution, and this is a way to take on the institution.”

It is up to the Legislature to pass a law to convene a convention before 2017. Legislative leaders haven’t backed the idea.

“It comes up regularly in the very near future. The last time it was up, the people voted it down,” said Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan. “So I think it should run its course.”

Kolb’s bill would ban officials from collecting pay as an elected official and getting paid as a delegate. So they’d have to choose one job or the other, an attempt to remove elected officials from the process.

Advocates say they are studying how to better present a convention to the public. For example, they are looking at limiting what could be introduced as a way to quell concerns that hallowed parts of the constitution could be in jeopardy.

In 1967, the last time a convention was successfully convened, the measures were all lumped into one vote, leaving no opportunity to have any of the individual proposals, such as provisions on redistricting, adopted.

Convention supporters say they want to avoid repeating old mistakes.

“Not everybody agrees on every remedy and not everybody agrees with me what the biggest problems are,” said Gerald Benjamin, a political science professor at the State University College at New Paltz and a major backer of a convention. “But a large number of thoughtful people understand that we need to reconsider the way we are governed and the structures of the way we are governed.”