THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: AN ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

48 THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: AN EVALUATION AND BLUEPRINT FOR REFORM campaign committee shortly after the law was passed. The current system facilitated the law’s passage without any review, debate, or public discussion of either its merits or its shortcomings. 260 ■ Brownfields Legislation. Environmentalists and urban renewal advocates have long fought for legislation to cleanup “brownfields,” abandoned industrial properties that have been environmentally contaminated. Such properties cannot attract development because of concern over liability for cleanup and potential injuries, and often lead to urban blight and decay as a result. Legislation to provide incentives and standards to clean up over 800 abandoned industrial sites across the state was stalled for over a decade in the Legislature, and was referred to as “one of the most blatant examples of Albany dysfunction.” 261 Despite widespread support for legislation, the New York State Legislature could not reconcile persistent policy differences between the Senate and Assembly because there was no conference committee system in place to do so. 262 In June 2003, the Speaker, Majority Leader, and Governor negotiated a bill behind closed doors that was agreeable to all three. The Assembly finally passed the bill without debate and through the use of a message of necessity that deprived members of any opportunity to review its complex provisions. The Senate, however, actually passed the wrong version of the bill as a result of such haste, and the session ended without a law. Three months later, the Senate convened for a special one-day session and passed the correct bill by a vote of 51-9. In short, the current system not only deprived New Yorkers of a much-needed law to improve the flagging economy and clean up dangerous sites, but also facilitated passage of the wrong bill without any senators or staff noticing the error. One can only imagine the errors that such inadequate review is likely to produce in laws that have a lower public profile than the brownfields legislation. 263 ■ Rent Control. After rent control was extended and modified in a law passed and signed in 1997, tenants’ rights groups discovered an error in its language which caused the law to conflict with the stated agreement reached between the Governor and the two legislative leaders and to injure tenants significantly. Ironically, the provision had been drafted by Speaker Silver’s staff during closed-door negotiations with the Majority Leader and the Governor. But because the legislative process in Albany precluded any of the tenants’ advocates – or any rank-and-file legislators for that matter – from seeing the actual legislation before it was passed, the error was not caught until it was too late. 264 ■ Repeal of the New York City Commuter Tax. In May of 1999, the Speaker used a message of necessity to rush through the Assembly a bill to repeal New York City’s commuter tax on suburban residents who commute into the City. Published reports suggested that the Speaker did so, even though he represented Lower Manhattan, in an (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to help a Democratic State Senate candidate in Rockland County, who was locked in
THE IMPACT OF NEW YORK’S DYSFUNCTIONAL LEGISLATIVE PROCESS 49 a close race and nevertheless lost a month later. 265 According to some estimates, the repeal has cost the City approximately $210 million each year in revenues. 266 It is possible that the repeal would have occurred even if it had been subject to committee hearings, debate on the floor, public discussion, and review by legislators. But such a significant legislative change surely should have been subject to greater scrutiny and discussion of policy implications prior to its passage. While such high-profile examples garner media attention that exposes errors – albeit after the laws are already on the books – it is reasonable to assume that the scores of laws that do not garner such attention when they are signed into law have as many, if not more, errors. These examples demonstrate the need for reform to establish a process that allows and encourages scrutiny of legislation before it is passed. Specifically: ■ A committee system that includes hearings to gather facts and specifically debate legislative solutions, meetings with significant policy debates and amendments to legislative language, and reports to document and consider the committee’s work on a bill. ■ Debate and amendment rules that facilitate and require legislators to read, consider, debate, and amend bills prior to a floor vote. ■ Voting procedures that require legislators to be present to hear debate and to vote. ■ Limits on the use of messages of necessity to ensure that legislators and members of the public have an opportunity to read and review legislation before votes are counted. ■ Conference committees to reconcile the two chambers’ bills and to catch errors before a final bill is approved. If implemented together, these reforms will greatly increase the scrutiny legislation must pass before it becomes law – to the benefit of all New Yorkers. ■ INACCESSIBLE GOVERNMENT In New York State, members of the public have few opportunities to comment upon or review legislation prior to its passage. As we have seen, committees generally do not hold public hearings on legislation. Nor do they hold open (or closed) sessions to mark up bills. There is no meaningful debate of any kind on the floor of either the Senate or the Assembly on bills prior to their passage. Finally, because the Speaker and Majority Leader control the final shape of legislation as well as the legislative calendar, members of the public have
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 and 28: legislation. As a result, the final
Page 29 and 30: ■■ COMMITTEE REPORTS Legislatur
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 63 and 64: THE IMPACT OF NEW YORK’S DYSFUNCT
Page 65: 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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?