|
|
|||||||||||
Home / News / Press Releases
/ Testimony
/ Legislation
/ On the Issues
/ Newsletter
/ Resources /
|
|||||||||||
|
|
For Immediate Release: Friday, January 7th, 2005 Contact: Contact: Jordan Isenstadt (c) 516.991.3842 (w) 212.490.9535 (f) 212.490.2151 ***PRESS
RELEASE*** State Senator
Liz Krueger Blasts Phony “Reform” Package Offered by Senate Republicans: Urges Senate Majority to
Follow Assembly Model and Develop a Bipartisan Reform Package New
York, NY - State
Senator Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan), a consistent advocate for reform since her election
to the State Senate in 2002, today offered her analysis of rules reform
proposals offered by the Senate Majority and the Assembly. “Unfortunately, the Senate Republicans are
taking the ‘business as usual’ approach to reform, refusing to work in a
bipartisan fashion, and offering a ‘reform’ proposal that in most of its
particulars does nothing to create a more open and participatory process, and
in some cases would actually increase the secrecy of the legislative
process,” said Senator Krueger. “On the other hand, while the Assembly proposal only addresses
some of the many reforms needed in our State Legislature, it would be a step
forward on key issues such as the elimination of empty seat voting. But what is most significant about the
Assembly proposal is the process by which it was developed – on a bipartisan
basis with cooperation between the Assembly Majority and Minority.”
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,” said Senator
Krueger. 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,” said Senator Krueger. “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.”
“The Senate Majority
approach to empty seat voting on the floor of the Senate is similarly
disingenuous,” said Senator Krueger. “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. 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.” said Senator Krueger.
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,” said Senator
Krueger. “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.”
“These are just the most egregious examples of the
weakness of the Senate Republican proposal.
The rest of their ideas range from cosmetic to slight improvements
over current practice,” said Senator
Krueger.
“But more importantly, they avoid many of the key issues
for reform that the Senate Democrats are prepared to enact on Monday when the
Senate considers rules,” said Senator
Krueger.
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,” said Senator
Krueger. “We would be happy to
work with them to craft a meaningful reform package. However, given what they have offered, and
will not doubt force through on Monday, it is clear that the fight for real
reform in the Senate will unfortunately have to be a fight against the obstructionism
of the Senate Republicans.
-30- |
|||||||||
