THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: AN ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

10 THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: AN EVALUATION AND BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM not uncommon. According to a 1988 article in the New York Times, for example, Senator Nancy Larraine Hoffmann received a letter from a Senate official asking how she wanted her vote on the Finance Committee to be formally recorded on a number of bills listed as having passed the committee at the end of last year’s session, in July. But according to Senator Hoffmann, there were never any Finance Committee meetings on those bills. Senate staff members, rushing to get bills to the floor at the end of the session, bypassed the committee. ... 52 The Assembly likewise has many committees that rarely, if ever meet: in the fiveyear period from 1997 through 2001, seven committees held only one meeting at which a vote was taken (Aging; Alcoholism & Drug Abuse; Energy; Housing; Libraries & Education Technology; Mental Health; and Veterans Affairs). 53 In response to our query, one member of the Assembly suggested as one improvement to the Assembly committee system that “more of the committees meet.” 54 Substantial evidence suggests, therefore, that many committees do not meet on a regular basis. Third, while official records of attendance at committee meetings purport to show that members attend as a matter of course, the evidence proves otherwise at least with respect to the Senate. For the meetings at which committees voted upon the major legislation passed from 1997 through 2001, the attendance records kept by the Senate for the 212 meetings for which data are available suggest that the average attendance rate over the five-year period was 96.7%. Attendance at 145 out of the 212 meetings was recorded to be 100%. 55 These records are extremely misleading, however, because they count as “Present” senators who voted by proxy. 56 Testimonial evidence from senators and first-hand observers of committee meetings suggests that attendance at most committee meetings is extremely sparse. According to one senator, for example, “lobbyists are more regular attendees of committee meetings than senators.” 57 The same senator adds that poor attendance makes it extremely difficult to have a meaningful discussion of legislation. 58 By contrast, in the Assembly, where proxy votes are not permitted and a quorum is required, committee meetings are better attended. 59 Fourth, as noted, Senate Rules permit committee members to cast their votes by proxy, 60 a privilege allowed in the rules of only five other state legislative chambers across the country. 61 Twenty chambers expressly prohibit proxy voting in committees. Only one other professional chamber, the Pennsylvania Senate, allows proxy voting in committees. 62 In Congress, proxies are allowed but with key exceptions: proxy votes cannot be counted toward a quorum, and numerous committees do not count proxies on votes concerning whether to report a bill. 63 In New York’s Senate, however, proxy voting facilitates the committee chair’s disposition of bills without any actual meeting of committee members, much less any debate or deliberations.
■■ COMMITTEE REPORTS Legislatures and courts in other states often rely upon committee reports to set forth the purposes of a bill, the proposed changes to existing law, section-by-section analysis, its procedural history, committee or subcommittee votes, and any individual members’ comments on the bill. 64 Committee reports similarly play an important role in the U.S. Congress, where in the case of nearly all bills they provide senators and representatives, as well as the courts and the public, with information on committee votes, amendments, the impact of the bill on existing law, cost and regulatory impact assessments, and the views of the executive, as well as in some cases minority views. 65 Beyond these valuable uses, the requirement of producing a committee report also encourages, if not guarantees, that the committee in question will in fact analyze, debate, and fully consider a bill. With few exceptions, New York State’s legislative committees do not produce committee reports on the bills they consider. For the 152 major pieces of Senate legislation passed from 1997 through 2001 for which complete data were available, the Senate committees that approved them did not produce a committee report on even a single bill. 66 In the Assembly, out of 181 bills for which complete data were available, 67 committees produced only two reports on specific legislation (i.e., 1.1%). 68 The absence of committee reports in New York both reflects and reinforces the marginal role played by committees in developing final legislation. It also leaves New York State’s courts without a key source from which to determine the legislative intent behind a statute. Nor do the sponsor’s “bill memo” or the Committee Bill Memo (“CBM”) satisfy any of the purposes served by committee reports in other legislatures. The sponsor’s bill memo summarizes the bill’s provisions and its purpose according to its sponsor, usually in just a few paragraphs. By definition, it includes no contributions from other committee members, no committee analysis of the bill or its impact, no evidence or testimony gathered via hearings or other means, and no committee debate or deliberations. The CBM, produced by the Central or Program & Council staff and attached to all bills that are placed on a committee’s agenda, usually mirrors the sponsor’s bill memo in its main text, and then may include brief arguments in favor of or in opposition to the bill. While more enlightening than the sponsor’s bill memo, CBMs thus include none of the analysis, testimony, debate, or other evidence of committee deliberations that fill committee reports in other legislatures. 69 ■■ COMMITTEE STAFFING In New York, the Speaker and Majority Leader exercise almost complete control over committee staffing, which helps to solidify their control over members’ and committees’ legislative activities. The significance of such authority increased with the rise of a professional legislature in the late 1960s, when legislators were increasingly provided with expert and administrative staff to complete their NEW YORK STATE’S LEGISLATIVE PROCESS 11
Page 1: THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PROC
Page 4 and 5: The Brennan Center for Justice at N
Page 7: CONTENTS Executive Summary. . . . .
Page 10 and 11: viii THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE
Page 12 and 13: x THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PR
Page 14 and 15: xii THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE
Page 16 and 17: xiv THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE
Page 19 and 20: INTRODUCTION It has become somethin
Page 21 and 22: ■ Accessibility. An accessible le
Page 23 and 24: NEW YORK STATE’S LEGISLATIVE PROC
Page 25 and 26: ■■ REFERRAL OF LEGISLATION TO C
Page 27: legislation. As a result, the final
Page 31 and 32: usually adopted by the full committ
Page 33 and 34: Neither of New York State’s two c
Page 35 and 36: FIGURE 5 RESTRICTIONS ON MOTIONS TO
Page 37 and 38: that is overturned; this allows the
Page 39 and 40: of these committees. 142 In 1971, a
Page 41 and 42: into, a bill because the committee
Page 43 and 44: Additional research is necessary to
Page 45 and 46: Finally, analysis of the outcomes o
Page 47 and 48: maybe 20 staff people saw it before
Page 49 and 50: Few other states rely so heavily up
Page 51 and 52: Both the fast roll call (also known
Page 53 and 54: that the leaders exert over which b
Page 55 and 56: Nor is this pattern a recent phenom
Page 57 and 58: A COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF NEW YORK
Page 59 and 60: State A COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF LEGI
Page 61 and 62: THE IMPACT OF NEW YORK’S DYSFUNCT
Page 69 and 70: the people of New York State by acq
Page 71 and 72: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFORM The refo
Page 73 and 74: ■ Motions to discharge a bill may
Page 75 and 76: ENDNOTES 1 See, e.g., Albany’s Ad
Page 77 and 78: the New York State Legislature was
Page 79 and 80:
41 MAJOR LEGISLATION COMMITTEE ANAL
Page 81 and 82:
Fin. Network, Inc., 830 A.2d 711, 7
Page 83 and 84:
ers, the committee chair and majori
Page 85 and 86:
90-day session and the 105th day of
Page 87 and 88:
at 244, 547-48. 148 Aubrey Jewett,
Page 89 and 90:
175 MAJOR LEGISLATION ANALYSIS 1997
Page 91 and 92:
210 S4422B passed the Senate on Jun
Page 93 and 94:
voted from 1997 through 2001 were a
Page 95 and 96:
METHODOLOGY The research for this r
Page 97 and 98:
■ Vote Outcomes for All Bills 199
Page 99 and 100:
A9291-A, S6292-A S7833, A1103 A7162
Page 101 and 102:
TELEPHONE SURVEY RESPONDENTS Alabam
Page 103 and 104:
Montana Legislative Services Divisi
Page 105 and 106:
BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE BOARD OF
Page 108:
BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NYU S
show all

THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: AN ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?