In his State of the State message, Governor Paterson made one proposal which, if adopted, would change the very heart of New York state politics. For the first time, a governor called for term limits for elected officials: two four-year terms for the governor, comptroller and attorney general; and six two-year-terms for State Senators and Assemblymembers. That comes out to eight years for executives and 12 years for legislators.
Term limits have less chance in the Legislature than the proverbial snowball in hell. What politician with the chance to be re-elected for the rest of his life will vote to make himself ineligible to serve after 12 years? The governor knows that, but he is positioning himself squarely on the side of the angels in what is likely to be a recurring controversy. Term limits would require amendment of the State Constitution, which would have to be preceded by approval by two successive elected legislatures. Unlike the practice in some other states, there is no way for individuals in New York State to place constitutional amendments on the ballot.
But even if passing term limits is a legislative pipe dream, it is still a discussion that voters should engage in seriously, even if their representatives won’t. The new possibilities of grassroots organizing through social networking websites has given the public an unprecedented tool to insist that their legislators be more responsive to their wishes. A Facebook page titled Citizens For Term Limits In Albany has been created to stimulate public discussion.
There are a number of sound reasons to support term limits, dealing with the fairness of elections. Here, for example, are some advantages incumbents enjoy:
1) Gerrymandering. Sitting members of the legislature draw political districts to suit their own interests. The districts come in odd shapes and sizes, with peninsulas drawn to include an incumbent’s home, and sometimes to exclude a potential rival’s home.
2) Mailings. Members have the right to send periodic reports to their constituents at public expense. Over the years, these mailings build up name recognition for the incumbent, which give him or her an advantage in an electoral contest with a challenger.
3) Political clubs. The organized party machinery in any district generally supports the incumbent. S/he has made contributions to the party over the years, and is friendly with many of the active members.
4) Constituent service. Legislators have staffs and district offices, paid for by the state. The passage of time increases the number of people who will be served by these offices, and those people are more likely to vote for the incumbent who has helped them.
5) Lobbyists. It is the practice of many lobbyists to make regular contributions to politicians, primarily those of the majority party. They comprise the bulk of the donors at fund raisers held in Albany. Having taken money over the years from these special interests, some legislators believe it would be unethical to bite the hand that has been feeding them.
6) Media. Newspapers, television and radio stations report on the activities of incumbents. A challenger, unless he is already well-known, has a relatively brief time to attract public attention in a political campaign.
7) Leadership protection. One reason Speaker Sheldon Silver remained in power is that he protected his members, a function he performed well. For example, on the controversial issue of congestion pricing, he did not allow the bill to come to the floor, so his members did not have to cast individual votes on the proposal. This protected them from the wrath of the editorial boards who were for the plan, while many of their constituents were against it.
For all those reasons, incumbents have an enormous advantage and are generally re-elected, unless they have done something outrageous. Even then, they often win.
The problem resulting from the numerous advantages of incumbency is that people who seek a particular elected office for a lifetime, and will depend on its income, both direct and indirect, to support their families, will make decisions on the basis of what will preserve, protect and defend their careers, which are their and their families’ livelihood. They lose the ability to make judgments on the merits of legislation, even if they were able to discern the merits, an ability which often eludes them. Their support for a measure is the property of their leaders, and is bargained for and bought (or rented), usually not directly but as part of larger arrangements.
The result is that decisions are not made by citizen-legislators, who know they will return to their own profession, but by professional representatives, dedicated to promoting and extending their own careers, and willing to make decisions which will help them to pursue that goal.
Another problem is that, after many years, people go stale in office, offer fewer bills, and become more withdrawn from the public. Some lose their energy or faculties as they grow older; that happens naturally to the human animal.
StarQuest@NYCivic.com
|
....January 21, 4:40 PM |
| The Governor The Legislature & Reform
By MICHAEL SCHENKLER
Follow me on Twitter @QueensTribune
EXPELLING HIRAM?
Hiram Monserratte. Chaos. He has that effect on things. No, this is not in defense of the Jackson Heights politico who stood Albany on its ear over the summer when he defected to the GOP and then negotiated a deal to return to the Dems. It certainly is not in support of the man who manhandled his girlfriend – be it on the way to the hospital or in his apartment or anywhere. No, Hiram Monserratte is neither a role model for anyone nor one to be applauded or rewarded. He is a State Senator – elected by the people. And seriously, he is far from the first member of the legislature to be convicted of a misdemeanor and his moral standards may not be so out of whack with many of his colleagues. Hiram’s colleague Kevin Parker underwent anger management training after he punched a NYC traffic agent in the face and he faces felony assault charges for his alleged physical abuse of a photojournalist. John Sabini, who Hiram replaced, pleaded guilty to driving while ability impaired. Queens’ Ada Smith, before being removed by the people, abused many, most memorable was a female staffer with a hot cup of coffee to the face. But Senators Parker, Sabini, Smith nor any of the others were subjected to a special committee to consider removal from office. Then again, they didn’t break with their party when casting a leadership vote. So is the move against Hiram politics or morality? Are they getting ready to throw all the rotten apples out or just the ones that don’t follow party orders? It stinks; he stinks; they stink. Albany! The Guv & Reform I sat the other night with a member of the esteemed State Senate. I asked him how the Governor’s State of the State was received by his colleagues. “Didn’t he recommend term limits for State Legislators,” I goaded. “Yeah,” he responded, “he also recommended legalizing Ultimate Fighting.” The Governor proposed some far-reaching reforms in his State of the State address. As described in Henry Stern’s column below, term limits is a dream that will not happen. It is merely one of the Governor’s many proposals that are dead on arrival. Unlike the City, there is no Constitutional provision for initiative and referendum whereby the people can place an item on the ballot by petition. Any introduction of reform must be approved by the very legislature it is meant to reform. Furthermore, if it is a change in the Constitution like term limits, it requires the approval of two successive legislatures. Therefore, real reform is not going to happen. The Governor’s high sounding reforms consist of solid proposals which could bring about substantive change in Albany, and based on our discussions with him prior to his election as Lieutenant Governor, they consist of changes he believes in. However in this instance, sorry Mr. Governor, they sound to us like the rhetoric of a desperate candidate looking for an issue which may have traction with the voters. In this case, the proposals are empty campaign promises from a Governor who has failed to get the legislature to follow him on any significant proposals since taking office. The Governor continues to try, to no avail, to reingratiate himself with the voters. It is no secret, the Governor is toast. He remains a candidate at the behest of a small portion of leadership of his minority community grasping to the hope that lightening will strike. It doesn’t; it won’t. Andrew Cuomo has the lightning bottled this time and will, upon announcing his candidacy, leave candidate Paterson in the dust and will finally get to try to fill his daddy’s big shoes. Back To Reform On the other hand, the Legislature – both houses – proposed some not-so-far-reaching ethics reform. Good government groups are split on whether to support the lot-less-than perfect proposals. While the proposal would improve ethics oversight, the three panels it sets up are not independent of the legislature – as a matter of fact they appoint a majority of members. Additionally, the new disclosure procedures while shining new light on the legislature and lobbyists would continue to make lawyers who are legislators immune from the purification of sunshine. Both Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader John Sampson are highly paid lawyers at big-time firms, and are shielded in the new law. The legislature’s ethics proposal: An improvement? Yes! The legislature’s ethics proposal: A disappointment? Yes! No surprise! MSchenkler@QueensTribune.com Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form. |
| ||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form. |
|||||||||
