A paperless proposal from Assemblyman Jim Tedisco, R-Glenville, has gotten the big thumbs up from Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
Schneiderman said the amendment from Tedisco would not impact any other parts of the constitution, which means it is acceptable.
His official opinion has been sent to the Assembly Judiciary committee, in addition to an opinion on a similar bill from Democratic Assemblywoman Sandy Galef.
Not clear whether this means Tedisco's proposal will fly through the Assembly, but it can't hurt.
Here is the opinion:
AG Opinion
Showing posts with label Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reform. Show all posts
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Accountable Economic Development
A proposal in both chambers of the NYS Legislature has been introduced that aims to provide accountability for public investments aimed at sparking job growth.
The bill (SB 4428 and AB 6312) would prevent public authorities, not-for-profit corporations and (controversial) industrial development agencies from facilitating the sale of bonds or borrow funds over $50 million unless they meet a more rigorous criteria than currently imposed.
(Editor's Note: It is not clear whether the public authorities or not-for-profit corporations would refer to the state's Economic Development Corporation, which is responsible for most of the state's economic investments.)
According to the bill's memo, this proposal is based on the idea that a clear public benefit should be demonstrated before authorizing public funds. In terms of economic development, this is likely to mean that a company can demonstrate that they're going to create good paying jobs with public funds. The memo promises, "This bill will protect public funds and ensure that a true public benefit will be achieved when large economic development projects are subsidized by New Yorkers."
Republicans in the Assembly have come out against this proposal in the past, but it was able to reach the floor in that chamber. Apparently it wasn't a major priority for the Democrats, though, because it never received a floor vote. The bill is new to the Senate, but it could have a chance because it is sponsored by a Republican.
The bill (SB 4428 and AB 6312) would prevent public authorities, not-for-profit corporations and (controversial) industrial development agencies from facilitating the sale of bonds or borrow funds over $50 million unless they meet a more rigorous criteria than currently imposed.
(Editor's Note: It is not clear whether the public authorities or not-for-profit corporations would refer to the state's Economic Development Corporation, which is responsible for most of the state's economic investments.)
According to the bill's memo, this proposal is based on the idea that a clear public benefit should be demonstrated before authorizing public funds. In terms of economic development, this is likely to mean that a company can demonstrate that they're going to create good paying jobs with public funds. The memo promises, "This bill will protect public funds and ensure that a true public benefit will be achieved when large economic development projects are subsidized by New Yorkers."
Republicans in the Assembly have come out against this proposal in the past, but it was able to reach the floor in that chamber. Apparently it wasn't a major priority for the Democrats, though, because it never received a floor vote. The bill is new to the Senate, but it could have a chance because it is sponsored by a Republican.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Push for Anti-"Citizens United" Bill
A proposal (SB 101) from Democratic Senator Dan Squadron that would weaken the broad authority of the Citizen United Supreme Court case is being pushed for committee consideration.
Squadron's bill would require that a company's shareholders be involved in any decision's about political activity, which theoretically would make it harder for a company to become politically active.
The senator has previously brought this bill forth, and argued that it would provide greater transparency in the political process. In that incarnation the bill died in the Senate Finance Committee. Now, with a Republican controlled chamber, the proposal has even less of a chance, which explains why he had to formally request committee consideration.
Here is the Main Language from the bill's memo:
Squadron's bill would require that a company's shareholders be involved in any decision's about political activity, which theoretically would make it harder for a company to become politically active.
The senator has previously brought this bill forth, and argued that it would provide greater transparency in the political process. In that incarnation the bill died in the Senate Finance Committee. Now, with a Republican controlled chamber, the proposal has even less of a chance, which explains why he had to formally request committee consideration.
Here is the Main Language from the bill's memo:
sections 2 through 11 requires that corporations formed under the business corporation law, the cooperative corporation law, the not-for-profit law, the railroad law, the transportation corporations law, the banking law, and the limited liability company law, professional service corporations as well as foreign corporations, and foreign professional service corporations authorized to do business in New York, (1) at least annually obtain prior authorization of a majority of shares voting before making any corporate political donations in New York, up to a total annual aggregate amount approved by the shareholders, and (2) disclose to its shareholders and file with the secretary of state an accounting of all such corporate donations, including the identity of the candidates, committees and initiatives funded and the business rational for such contributions. Sections 2 through 11 also provide the attorney general with the authority to enforce the provisions of each section.
Friday, April 1, 2011
GooGoo Opposes New Senate Rules (UPDATED)
The new Senate Rules passed on Monday have drawn the ire of the Brennan Center for Justice, which published a blog post lambasting the Senate Majority's actions.
They note that the rules were passed "without notice, discussion, or explanation," in what was likely an effort to ensure greater control of the chamber as they prepare to pass their budget.
According to the Brennan Center, the resolution will do three thing:
UPDATED:
Barbara Bartoletti has voiced serious concerns about the rules adopted by the Senate and the manner in which they were passed.
She said it was "very troubling" that they were passed without 48 hours notices. The changes, she argues, are not reflective of the slim majority the Republicans have and contended that it gives them too much control of the chamber. "Proportionality is not in effect," Bartoletti said.
They note that the rules were passed "without notice, discussion, or explanation," in what was likely an effort to ensure greater control of the chamber as they prepare to pass their budget.
According to the Brennan Center, the resolution will do three thing:
1) Increase the membership of the Finance Committee and the Rules Committee with members from the majority party;
2) In the event of an excused absence from a meeting, allow for a member to fill in for a Senator on the Finance Committee and Rules Committee; and
3) Allow budget bills from the Finance Committee to bypass the Rules Committee and go straight to the third calendar reading.
UPDATED:
Barbara Bartoletti has voiced serious concerns about the rules adopted by the Senate and the manner in which they were passed.
She said it was "very troubling" that they were passed without 48 hours notices. The changes, she argues, are not reflective of the slim majority the Republicans have and contended that it gives them too much control of the chamber. "Proportionality is not in effect," Bartoletti said.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Closed Legislature
There are currently firsthand accounts that the Assembly has locked its chamber doors because of protests in the Capitol. Additionally, the Senate Committee on Banks held an unannounced meeting this morning.
Looking into the legality and reality of both accounts...
(UPDATE)Press person for Senator Joe Griffo, Chair of Banks, confirmed that the meeting was moved up to 9:30 a.m. to accommodate the 10 a.m. session. Said he would look into when it was announced.
On the Assembly side, they have locked the doors and said they're setting up television(s) on the third floor for people to watch the session on.
(UPDATE 2) Below is a screen shot that shows that the Senate Banking change was never announced. Additionally, the press person for Griffo said that staff was alerted about the change last night and did not make any mention of telling the public.
Looking into the legality and reality of both accounts...
(UPDATE)Press person for Senator Joe Griffo, Chair of Banks, confirmed that the meeting was moved up to 9:30 a.m. to accommodate the 10 a.m. session. Said he would look into when it was announced.
On the Assembly side, they have locked the doors and said they're setting up television(s) on the third floor for people to watch the session on.
(UPDATE 2) Below is a screen shot that shows that the Senate Banking change was never announced. Additionally, the press person for Griffo said that staff was alerted about the change last night and did not make any mention of telling the public.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Krueger Offers Amendments to Senate's Budget Office Bill
Depending on the commotion of the budget process, the Senate is likely to address the creation of a Legislative Budget Office on Monday, which has Democratic Sen. Liz Krueger raising some serious concerns in a letter to Majority Leader Dean Skelos.
In a letter from Tuesday, Krueger expanded on some of the concerns she had espoused earlier that day during a Senate Finance Committee.
During the committee she highlighted the fact that the proposed LBO (SB 4006) was a variation of a proposal she had advanced for years. Additionally, she noted that there could be some constitutional concerns with the bill, because it provides 20 percent of its funding with money from the Division of the Budget.This constitutional concern was echoed by an internal memorandum from the governor's office and by Blair Horner of NYPIRG.
Krueger also stressed language in the bill that was missing, which would allow the Legislature to unilaterally "declare" the budget balanced, instead of relying on generally accepted accounting principles.
In her letter to Skelos, Krueger expanded on her concerns that the LBO wouldn't actually comply with GAAP at all, which is why she endorsed the idea of an independent review board model to ensure certain standards. This proposal (SB 414) was suggested earlier in the year by Krueger, in addition to a bill (SB 445) that would ensure the budget office protected the rights of the minority party.
Strangely enough, though, Krueger voted for the proposal in the Finance Committee, with only Democratic Sen. Bill Perkins not voting aye, as he chose to vote without recommendation.
(Additional reporting by StateWatch reporter Tim Atkins)
In a letter from Tuesday, Krueger expanded on some of the concerns she had espoused earlier that day during a Senate Finance Committee.
During the committee she highlighted the fact that the proposed LBO (SB 4006) was a variation of a proposal she had advanced for years. Additionally, she noted that there could be some constitutional concerns with the bill, because it provides 20 percent of its funding with money from the Division of the Budget.This constitutional concern was echoed by an internal memorandum from the governor's office and by Blair Horner of NYPIRG.
Krueger also stressed language in the bill that was missing, which would allow the Legislature to unilaterally "declare" the budget balanced, instead of relying on generally accepted accounting principles.
In her letter to Skelos, Krueger expanded on her concerns that the LBO wouldn't actually comply with GAAP at all, which is why she endorsed the idea of an independent review board model to ensure certain standards. This proposal (SB 414) was suggested earlier in the year by Krueger, in addition to a bill (SB 445) that would ensure the budget office protected the rights of the minority party.
Strangely enough, though, Krueger voted for the proposal in the Finance Committee, with only Democratic Sen. Bill Perkins not voting aye, as he chose to vote without recommendation.
(Additional reporting by StateWatch reporter Tim Atkins)
Friday, February 25, 2011
Delay Special Elections
New Yorkers have been anxiously waiting for weeks to hear when Gov. Andrew Cuomo would schedule a special election to replace former Rep. Chris Lee in the NY-26, and on Wednesday he acted, but to announce a proposal that would delay the timetable for special elections. Now this idea has been introduced in the Assembly (AB 5698)and the Senate (SB 3500), with meetings scheduled for early in the week, which seems to indicate that this measure is being fast tracked through both houses.
The proposal would expand the period between the announcement of a special election and the date of the election by 40 days. As a result, the special election would be held between seventy and eighty days from its announcement, rather than between thirty and forty days.
According to Cuomo, the extension would allow county boards of elections the necessary amount of time to ensure that military ballots could be mailed and counted, in compliance with federal law.
"For years, New Yorkers serving in the military abroad have been inadvertently left out of the electoral process," said Cuomo in a press release. "This measure will rectify the discrepancy between New York state and federal laws regarding special elections, allow members of the military to have their voices heard, and ensure fair and accurate representation of the citizens of New York."
Additionally, the governor's proposal would change the date by which the State Board of Elections must certify candidate information to the applicable county boards of elections from 13 days to 53 days before a special election.
The senate bill, from Sen. Tom O'Mara, has a committee meeting on Monday in the Committee on Elections, which he is the chairman of. It's Assembly counterpart, from member Joan L. Millman, will be addressed in the Assembly Committee on Elections, which she is the chair of, on Wednesday.
The proposal would expand the period between the announcement of a special election and the date of the election by 40 days. As a result, the special election would be held between seventy and eighty days from its announcement, rather than between thirty and forty days.
According to Cuomo, the extension would allow county boards of elections the necessary amount of time to ensure that military ballots could be mailed and counted, in compliance with federal law.
"For years, New Yorkers serving in the military abroad have been inadvertently left out of the electoral process," said Cuomo in a press release. "This measure will rectify the discrepancy between New York state and federal laws regarding special elections, allow members of the military to have their voices heard, and ensure fair and accurate representation of the citizens of New York."
Additionally, the governor's proposal would change the date by which the State Board of Elections must certify candidate information to the applicable county boards of elections from 13 days to 53 days before a special election.
The senate bill, from Sen. Tom O'Mara, has a committee meeting on Monday in the Committee on Elections, which he is the chairman of. It's Assembly counterpart, from member Joan L. Millman, will be addressed in the Assembly Committee on Elections, which she is the chair of, on Wednesday.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
The Redistricting Reformer?
Gov. Andrew Cuomo's redistricting proposal was unveiled this past week to great fanfare, with good government groups fawning over the measure. The reception from politicians was mixed, with the Senate's Democratic Conference and Democratic Conference-lite expressing their self-righteous support, while Senate Republicans expressed concerns.
"A number of proposals have been advanced and we have to take a close look at what makes the most sense," said Republican Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos.
Diving into the bill, though, it's interesting to see what actually counts as reform. In this case its a multi-step process that begins and ends in the legislature's hands.
Good government groups, like the Brennan Center, argue that the change is that the process will be in the open and therefore won't be susceptible to backroom shenanigans. They argued that the secrecy in the past has ruined the process, which will be fixed by public involvement and oversight this time around.
"Governor Cuomo's proposal will open up the process and allow public engagement," said Erika Wood, of the Brennan Center.
According to the proposal's justification, the public involvement would mostly consist of the following:
What has been downplayed is the actual decision making process, which begins with a nominations committee that is picked by legislative leaders and the governor. They then choose 40 people, 15 Dems, 15 GOP and 10 Blanks, to make up a nominations pool, where the final Independent Commission members will be chosen from. (Enough layers? Well baby it's cold out, so pack them on.)
Those 8 members are chosen from the nominations pool by (who? You guessed it!) the legislative leaders. Then three other members are chosen from the pool by the 8 commission members, with two of the new people serving as co-chairs.
Then we get some data and shake it all around (with public involvement!) and come up with a redistricting recommendation.
Done? Not quite. The legislature must approve the plan. If they don't, the Commission must change the plan and resubmit it. Rejected again? Then the commission submits a third plan, which THE LEGISLATURE COULD AMEND BEFORE VOTING ON! No word on another failure to pass the Commission's plan...
Apparently this is what passes for reform in New York. An open process that involves the same players who, based on the short-term memories of the voters, have no reason to respect any sort of positive changes.
"A number of proposals have been advanced and we have to take a close look at what makes the most sense," said Republican Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos.
Diving into the bill, though, it's interesting to see what actually counts as reform. In this case its a multi-step process that begins and ends in the legislature's hands.
Good government groups, like the Brennan Center, argue that the change is that the process will be in the open and therefore won't be susceptible to backroom shenanigans. They argued that the secrecy in the past has ruined the process, which will be fixed by public involvement and oversight this time around.
"Governor Cuomo's proposal will open up the process and allow public engagement," said Erika Wood, of the Brennan Center.
According to the proposal's justification, the public involvement would mostly consist of the following:
The Commission would be required to hold numerous public hearings throughout the State and, prior to its first hearing, would post on its website extensive information concerning the plans under development and the data involved in order to facilitate public review, assessment, and critique of those plans, and the development of alternative plans. In particular, the Commission would be required to post its own assessment of its draft plan's compliance with and service of the requirements and principles set forth below, including the plan's protection of minority voting rights.
What has been downplayed is the actual decision making process, which begins with a nominations committee that is picked by legislative leaders and the governor. They then choose 40 people, 15 Dems, 15 GOP and 10 Blanks, to make up a nominations pool, where the final Independent Commission members will be chosen from. (Enough layers? Well baby it's cold out, so pack them on.)
Those 8 members are chosen from the nominations pool by (who? You guessed it!) the legislative leaders. Then three other members are chosen from the pool by the 8 commission members, with two of the new people serving as co-chairs.
Then we get some data and shake it all around (with public involvement!) and come up with a redistricting recommendation.
Done? Not quite. The legislature must approve the plan. If they don't, the Commission must change the plan and resubmit it. Rejected again? Then the commission submits a third plan, which THE LEGISLATURE COULD AMEND BEFORE VOTING ON! No word on another failure to pass the Commission's plan...
Apparently this is what passes for reform in New York. An open process that involves the same players who, based on the short-term memories of the voters, have no reason to respect any sort of positive changes.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Real Rules? Too Soon for Senate
Over strenuous objection from the Senate Minority, the chamber adopted its operating rules for the next two years. The mildly newsworthy change had the effect of silencing a meaningful proposal from Sen. Liz Krueger, D-Righteousville, that was squashed by Republicans on the Rules Committee.
Senate Resolution 357 from Krueger would have strengthened the changes made in 2009 after the failed Senate Coup. Those procedures, while meaningful, were still only a semi-success for the cause of good government. Now, though, the rules from Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos represent two steps back.
In the committee meeting, Chair Tom Libous essentially said it wasn't time for these radical changes and also found a way to tie his argument back to the fact the Democrats overspent by millions on their staff when they were in the majority.
Libous added that the chamber might be exploring more rules in the future, which would be advanced through discussions that were agreed upon by Skelos and Minority Conference Leader John Sampson.
Here are some of the highlights from Krueger's rules:
1. Term limit of 8 years for the Temporary President
2. The number of committees would be reduced (I think it was like 32 to 23)
3. 8 year term limits for Committee Chairs.
4. The RUles Committee can only report a bill if it has been on a published agenda for at least 24 hours, unless there is a message of necessity from the governor.
5. There basically needs to be a heads up on all Committee activities.
6. All committee members must be present in order to vote on any bill or matter
before the committee.
7. You can only vote YES or NO in a committee. None of this "without recommendation" waffling.
8. All Senators shall have equitable access to the resources of the Senate
9. No member initiative funds shall be distributed to organizations for whom the Senator or family member serves as a board member or officer.
10. Bills shall be considered for final passage that do not appear on the active list except with unanimous consent of the Senate unless a petition for chamber consideration shall have been received pursuant to section 3 of Rule XI of the Senate rules.
Senate Resolution 357 from Krueger would have strengthened the changes made in 2009 after the failed Senate Coup. Those procedures, while meaningful, were still only a semi-success for the cause of good government. Now, though, the rules from Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos represent two steps back.
In the committee meeting, Chair Tom Libous essentially said it wasn't time for these radical changes and also found a way to tie his argument back to the fact the Democrats overspent by millions on their staff when they were in the majority.
Libous added that the chamber might be exploring more rules in the future, which would be advanced through discussions that were agreed upon by Skelos and Minority Conference Leader John Sampson.
Here are some of the highlights from Krueger's rules:
1. Term limit of 8 years for the Temporary President
2. The number of committees would be reduced (I think it was like 32 to 23)
3. 8 year term limits for Committee Chairs.
4. The RUles Committee can only report a bill if it has been on a published agenda for at least 24 hours, unless there is a message of necessity from the governor.
5. There basically needs to be a heads up on all Committee activities.
6. All committee members must be present in order to vote on any bill or matter
before the committee.
7. You can only vote YES or NO in a committee. None of this "without recommendation" waffling.
8. All Senators shall have equitable access to the resources of the Senate
9. No member initiative funds shall be distributed to organizations for whom the Senator or family member serves as a board member or officer.
10. Bills shall be considered for final passage that do not appear on the active list except with unanimous consent of the Senate unless a petition for chamber consideration shall have been received pursuant to section 3 of Rule XI of the Senate rules.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Sampson's Whimper
In a response to Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos', R-Rockville Centre, victory lap on Thursday, Senate Minority Leader John Sampson has reiterated his cry baby posture.
Characterizing the potential rules changes as a brazen power grab, Sampson scoffed at the idea that Skelos was promoting an era of bipartisanship. Skelos had argued that because he had elevated three minority members to committee chair posts, which is more than ever in the past, he was essentially extending a meaningful olive branch.
"True bipartisanship is not about responding to the pleas of politicians for committee chairs," said Sampson.
His more weighty allegation was that the Republicans were introducing a constitutional crises by removing power from the Lt. Governor's position, just because it is currently held by a Democrat.
He said, "It is political pandering at its worst, and something Republicans never would have attempted were the Lt. Governor a member of their party. Threatening the integrity of our State Constitution, which has protected New Yorkers for over 200 years, is politics at its lowest form. There must be a better way."
The rules reform are likely to pass the Rules Committee on Monday, when all the Republicans members will be present. They will then probably pass the Senate with all of the Republicans voting in favor and possibly some of the Independent Dems who were awarded committee chairs.
Characterizing the potential rules changes as a brazen power grab, Sampson scoffed at the idea that Skelos was promoting an era of bipartisanship. Skelos had argued that because he had elevated three minority members to committee chair posts, which is more than ever in the past, he was essentially extending a meaningful olive branch.
"True bipartisanship is not about responding to the pleas of politicians for committee chairs," said Sampson.
His more weighty allegation was that the Republicans were introducing a constitutional crises by removing power from the Lt. Governor's position, just because it is currently held by a Democrat.
He said, "It is political pandering at its worst, and something Republicans never would have attempted were the Lt. Governor a member of their party. Threatening the integrity of our State Constitution, which has protected New Yorkers for over 200 years, is politics at its lowest form. There must be a better way."
The rules reform are likely to pass the Rules Committee on Monday, when all the Republicans members will be present. They will then probably pass the Senate with all of the Republicans voting in favor and possibly some of the Independent Dems who were awarded committee chairs.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Majority RULES in the NYS Senate
Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, R-Rockville Centre, released a letter today for Minority Leader John Sampson, which basically tells his Democratic colleague, "Tough."
The disagreement stems from an attempt on Tuesday by the Senate Republicans to pass a series of rules changes, which would have the impact of lessening the authority of the lieutenant governor and would ease some term limit restrictions. The changes stalled (temporarily) in the rules committee on Tuesday, when one Republican on the committee was missing from the 85 minute meeting. Because Republicans couldn't muster 13 votes, the proposal ended up being pulled by the chair.
Now, though, Skelos has said that the rules changes will happen in the upcoming week, as they advance out of committee and to the floor. "I expect that these rules will also pass the Senate with bipartisan support," he said.
In addition to accusing Democrats of delaying the senate from acting on critical issues, like the looming budget deficit, Skelos argued that he was actually being more conciliatory than his immediate predecessor. Specifically, he cited the assignment of committee chairs as evidence of his bipartisan approach.
"I have selected three Democrats to serve as committee chairs, which is more members of the minority party than any Majority Leader has ever chosen to head up Senate Standing committees," said Skelos.
The rules meeting has not been scheduled yet, which is in keeping with the impromptu nature of these meetings.
The disagreement stems from an attempt on Tuesday by the Senate Republicans to pass a series of rules changes, which would have the impact of lessening the authority of the lieutenant governor and would ease some term limit restrictions. The changes stalled (temporarily) in the rules committee on Tuesday, when one Republican on the committee was missing from the 85 minute meeting. Because Republicans couldn't muster 13 votes, the proposal ended up being pulled by the chair.
Now, though, Skelos has said that the rules changes will happen in the upcoming week, as they advance out of committee and to the floor. "I expect that these rules will also pass the Senate with bipartisan support," he said.
In addition to accusing Democrats of delaying the senate from acting on critical issues, like the looming budget deficit, Skelos argued that he was actually being more conciliatory than his immediate predecessor. Specifically, he cited the assignment of committee chairs as evidence of his bipartisan approach.
"I have selected three Democrats to serve as committee chairs, which is more members of the minority party than any Majority Leader has ever chosen to head up Senate Standing committees," said Skelos.
The rules meeting has not been scheduled yet, which is in keeping with the impromptu nature of these meetings.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Equal Staffing Bill Introduced (Again) in Assembly
Assemblyman Jim Tedisco, R-Glenville, has reintroduced a bill in the assembly that has been floated over ten times since 1992.
The bill (AB 1487) requires the equal distribution of legislative staff and resources for every member of the legislature, and it has never even come up for a vote in any past session. Every year the bill is referred to the committee on Governmental Operations, where it is usually not addressed or is held for consideration, which is code for, "THIS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED."
The bill is aimed at ending an unbalanced dynamic that rewards the majority party members with an uneven amount of staffing compared to their peers in the minority, even though they have a comparable number of constituents (as is argued in the bill's memorandum).
In the assembly this reality is reflective of an overwhelming ineffective minority, which is a pointless objector to the whims of Speaker Sheldon Silver and his huge majority.
Tedisco's bill would call for an even split of the current resources, with members in leadership posts or committee chairs receiving extra staff, with the caveat that they can't be used for constituent services.
This is the type of bill that exposes a reality that makes people shake their head in disgust, but doesn't actually motivate them to care at all. It is that sad truth that allows Assemblywoman RoAnn M. Destito, the chair of the governmental operations committee, the freedom to refrain from even considering the bill in her committee.
This bill has no companion in the Senate, where equal distribution of resources was never even considered until the aftermath of the Senate Coup in 2009, when a more equitable distribution of resources was realized.
Anyway, if you've made it this far in the blog post, then I apologize for wasting your time, because my rant should be held for consideration while I wake up to the corrupt system I'm living in.
Time to watch Jersey Shore now. Night.
The bill (AB 1487) requires the equal distribution of legislative staff and resources for every member of the legislature, and it has never even come up for a vote in any past session. Every year the bill is referred to the committee on Governmental Operations, where it is usually not addressed or is held for consideration, which is code for, "THIS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED."
The bill is aimed at ending an unbalanced dynamic that rewards the majority party members with an uneven amount of staffing compared to their peers in the minority, even though they have a comparable number of constituents (as is argued in the bill's memorandum).
In the assembly this reality is reflective of an overwhelming ineffective minority, which is a pointless objector to the whims of Speaker Sheldon Silver and his huge majority.
Tedisco's bill would call for an even split of the current resources, with members in leadership posts or committee chairs receiving extra staff, with the caveat that they can't be used for constituent services.
This is the type of bill that exposes a reality that makes people shake their head in disgust, but doesn't actually motivate them to care at all. It is that sad truth that allows Assemblywoman RoAnn M. Destito, the chair of the governmental operations committee, the freedom to refrain from even considering the bill in her committee.
This bill has no companion in the Senate, where equal distribution of resources was never even considered until the aftermath of the Senate Coup in 2009, when a more equitable distribution of resources was realized.
Anyway, if you've made it this far in the blog post, then I apologize for wasting your time, because my rant should be held for consideration while I wake up to the corrupt system I'm living in.
Time to watch Jersey Shore now. Night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)