News from STATE SENATOR

Liz Krueger

New York State Senate, 26^th District

COMMUNITY BULLETIN – January 2005

Message from Liz . . .

The fight for reform of the Senate rules has been engaged – and I am pleased to report that a combination of public pressure, hard work by advocacy groups and a united front by Democratic Senators has already forced Majority Leader Joe Bruno to back down. On Monday, January 10, the majority had intended to pass the Senate rules with only the most superficial changes. But in the face of extreme pressure from Democrats in the Senate and from advocates outside, they reconsidered the wisdom of such a plan, and instead agreed to spend the next two weeks negotiating with the Senate Democrats; with the goal of developing a real rules reform package. While it remains to be seen what the results of those negotiations will be, this is nonetheless an unprecedented and historic development.

Why did the Senate majority back down? I believe the primary factor was the recognition that reform has become such a potent political issue. When faced with significant resistance from the Democrats and from advocates, many members of the Republican conference were not comfortable being seen as reactionary on the issue of rules reform. If things had gone according to plan, they would have passed their package over the strenuous objections of the Democrats, and then taken huge political hits in the press. Given the recent electoral success of the Senate Democrats in winning back seats, Republican Senators are clearly unusually sensitive to the consequences of being on the wrong side of the reform fight. Instead, they decided it was better to back down and be seen as trying to be cooperative in the reform effort.

On Monday, the Senate Democrats were prepared to offer a comprehensive package of rules reform proposals, and to offer amendments to the Republican package in an effort to highlight the many differences between the two proposals. These differences are discussed later in this report in the “Policy Spotlight” section. The Senate Democrats will use their proposal as a framework for our negotiations with the majority conference over what the rules reform package should look like when we again address the subject on January 24^th.

Of course, while making the Republicans agree to negotiate on rules is a huge step forward, it is only the first step. The real question is what kind of agreement we can reach on the 24^th, and I am not so foolish as to try to predict that result. I know that I will not accept anything less than substantive progress on central reform issues, including empty seat voting, the creation of a more open committee process, and the development of more responsible procedures for handling the budget. Reaching an agreement on these important matters will be difficult, but it is the greatest opportunity the legislature has had to address reform in a very long time. For this effort to succeed, both the Republicans and the Democrats need to continue to feel the heat of the public and the advocacy community on the issue of reform.

The Assembly has made some small progress on some reform issues this year, including the elimination of empty seat voting, but much work remains to be done in both houses. I continue to believe that the best mechanism for achieving such reform is through action by the legislature itself, but if we fail to take appropriate action in the Senate on the 24^th, there are other options. As I have indicated in a previous report, I am prepared to sue the legislature and the Governor to advance a reform agenda if necessary. Action through the courts would be much less efficient, than action by the legislature and Governor, but I am keeping that option open, and am prepared to sue should the Senate not pass meaningful reform on the 24^th.

Community Spotlight

Public Forum on Reforming State Government:

On Thursday, January 27^th, the Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club is hosting a Public Forum entitled “Reforming State Government: Making Change in Albany.”  I will be speaking at the forum, along with Assemblymember Steve Sanders.  Since the Assembly has passed a reform package, and the Senate is expected to vote on rules reform earlier in the week of the forum, I’m sure there will be much to talk about.  The Forum will take place on Thursday, January 27^th at 7:30 PM at the NYU Medical Center, 530 First Avenue, in Classroom C.  For further information, call 212-687-6874.

New York City Volunteer Expo:

The Manhattan Chamber of Commerce Community Benefit Fund has organized a Volunteer Expo to be held from February 10-12^th in Vanderbilt Hall at Grand Central Terminal.  The purpose of the Expo is to provide exposure for many of New York’s Manhattan-based, smaller and medium sized non-profit organizations representing a wide range of social services and the arts and to give New Yorkers an opportunity to learn about volunteer programs that are available.

Affordable Housing Available on the Upper East Side:

UES Towers is now accepting applications for 39 affordable rental apartments under construction on the Upper East Side.  Rents for these units will range from $401-$655 per month depending on unit size and applicant income.  To be eligible, applicants must have household incomes between $15,038 and 31,400, depending on family size and will be selected by lottery.  Applicants residing in Community Board 8 will receive priority for 50% of the units.  In addition, visual/hearing impaired applicants will receive priority for 2% of the units, and applicants with mobility impairment will receive priority for 5% of the units.  To request an application, send a postcard to UES TOWERS, 101 West 23^rd Street, PMB 2222, New York NY 10011-2222.  Applications must be postmarked no later than February 8, 2005.

Free Wellness Programs Offered by Crown Community Care of Yorkville:

Crown Community Care offers a series of wellness programs at St Stephen of Hungary’s Rectory, 414 East 82^nd Street, between 1^st and York Avenues, in the Francis Room.  On Wednesday, January 19^that 10:30AM the offer a “Ask the Nutritionist” Program, and on Wednesday January 26^th at 10:00AM the offer an exercise class.   Continental breakfast will be served at each session.  For further information and registration, call (212) 861-8500.

Clothing Tax Free Week January 31^st to February 6th:

From January 31^st to February 6^th, purchases of clothing, footwear and related items costing less than $110 are exempt from New York 8.625% sales tax.

Heat Season Rules:

The City Housing Maintenance Code and Multiple Dwelling Law requires building owners to provide heat and hot water to all tenants. Building owners are required to provide hot water 365 days per year at a constant minimum temperature of 120 degrees Fahrenheit. Between October 1st and May 31st, a period designated as "Heat Season," building owners are also required to provide tenants with heat under the following conditions:

·   Between the hours of 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM, if the outside temperature falls below 55 degrees, the inside temperature is required to be at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit;

·   Between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM, if the temperature outside falls below 40 degrees, the inside temperature is required to be at least 55 degrees Fahrenheit.

Tenants who are cold in their apartments should first attempt to notify the building owner, managing agent or superintendent. If heat is not restored, the tenant should call the City's Citizen Service Center at 311 (311 can be accessed outside of New York City by dialing (212) NEW YORK). For the hearing impaired, the TTY number is (212) 504-4115. The Center is open 24-hours a day, seven-days a week.

Spotlight on Policy

Senate Rules Reform

The Senate is now entering a historic period in which Republicans and Democrats will be negotiating a rules reform package. Both parties have presented packages of rules changes, but there are incredible differences between the two proposals. For real reform to occur, it is essential that rules changes draw on the work done by the Brennan Center and other advocacy groups who have done such valuable work on this issue. The Senate Democrats proposal does this, but unfortunately, the Republicans proposal does not. I offer here a comparison of some of the key features of each package.

Perhaps the most outrageous aspect of the Senate Majority Rules proposal is its effort to preclude future debate on rules changes. The Majority proposes that future rules changes be considered by the rules committee, which would not have regularly scheduled meetings, does not keep transcripts, and which, unlike full Senate sessions, is not broadcast in any form. It is clear that the Senate majority has offered this proposal in an effort to stifle advocates for reform because they do not want real change.

In addition to this anti-reform measure, other so-called reforms offered by the Republicans range from the misleading to the cosmetic. In the former category, the Senate proposal on proxy voting is particularly dishonest. According to the Senate Majority proposal so-called “proxy” voting is not permitted. This is blatantly false as the 2003-2004 Senate rules state in Rule VII, Section 5 that “…A member's vote on any matter before the committee may be by proxy. Such a proxy vote shall be made by the member specifying the member's vote on a signed committee agenda delivered to the Committee Chair.” The alleged reform of this rule simply removed the word proxy while continuing with the same procedure of allowing absent members to vote on a signed committee agenda delivered to the Committee Chair. If this was called a proxy in 2004, there is no reason to see it as anything other than a proxy in 2005. In contrast, the Senate Democrats have a real proposal to eliminate proxy voting that makes it clear that no form of proxy voting is acceptable in committees. In addition, Senate Democrats offer a number of additional reforms to the committee process discussed below.

The Senate Majority approach to empty seat voting on the floor of the Senate is similarly disingenuous. The proposed rule simply formalizes current practice of only requiring Senators voting no to actually be present. This would continue to ensure that legislation always passes, because members not present will continue to be automatically recorded as voting yes – statistically, no votes are almost always from Democrats who must currently be on the floor to vote no. It is also disingenuous to suggest that it is not feasible from a technological standpoint to require all members to be present to vote, since there are procedures for counting votes that do not involve a slow roll call – such as requiring all members to raise their hand to indicate their vote, as is currently done only for members wishing to vote no. The Senate Democrats propose real reform of empty seat voting by requiring ALL members to be present in their seats to vote yes or no.

Other examples of the inadequacies of the Senate Majority plan have to do with their various proposals allegedly designed to strengthen committees. The proposal to encourage committees to hold more public hearings offers no mechanism for accomplishing this goal, and continues the practice of excluding minority members from the ability to hold full committee hearings. The Senate Democrats offer real reform of the committee hearing process by allowing minority ranking members or three committee members to call a hearing, unless a majority of the committee votes otherwise.

The Republicans also claim to be increasing the role of the standing committees in considering legislation by limiting the practice of pushing legislation through the Rules committee, but this supposed change once again boils down to smoke and mirrors. The only specific proposal they offer extends the jurisdiction of standing committees for one more week in May. Since anyone who follows the legislature knows that the real abuse of the rules committee happens in the end of session, when the majority of legislation is rushed through with out serious consideration, this change is close to meaningless. The Senate Democrats offer real reform on this issue, by eliminating the Rules Committee entirely and requiring that all substantive legislation be considered by the appropriate Standing Committee.

The Senate Democrat proposal addresses many issues not even touched on by the Republican proposal, issues that have been a central part of the reform agenda advanced by the Brennan Center and other advocate groups. Among the additional issues Senate Democrats are prepared to address, that the Senate Majority continues to ignore are:

· Requiring a 2/3 vote of the full house in order to accept a message of necessity from the Governor.

· Providing for equal staff and resource allocations for all Senators, regardless of party affiliation.

· Requiring the Senate to remain in session each day during a new fiscal year where the budget has not been finally acted on.

· Providing for open bill sponsorship (regardless of party).

· Allowing ranking minority members (or any three committee members) to place a bill on a committee agenda.

· Limiting the holding of committee meetings “off the floor” while the Senate is in session.

· Strengthening rules regarding accurate and updated bill memoranda.

· Allowing full debate and require recorded votes on motions to discharge.

· Requiring greater public disclosure of legislative information, by making expenditure reports, committee transcripts and votes, and other information available to the public via the internet.

· Requiring any legislative pay raise proposal to be considered prior to a general election.

· Including anti-discrimination protections in the Senate Rules.

We could make real progress on reform in the Senate if the Majority would participate in meaningful dialogue with the Democratic conference over these substantive proposals to create a more democratic and deliberative legislature. In this critical period of negotiations, I will attempt to work with the Republicans to craft a meaningful reform package. But such a package cannot sacrifice the heart of a reform agenda in order to achieve bipartisan unity.