Home > Government Relations > Public Policy Agenda > Stop Albany Dysfunction

Stop Albany Dysfunction

The Issue:

Business and industry pay a great deal for the services provided by government. It is not uncommon, though, for legislation to be written, passed, and signed into law with little or no public comment. In addition, the legislative system in Albany creates dangerous inefficiencies leading to higher costs, limited dialogue, and a less democratic process.

Those that pay for government deserve to know where and why their money is being spent. MACNY therefore supports a reform agenda that includes a more open legislative process at the state level with safeguards for accountability. This reform agenda is modeled after several reports released by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. Reports in 2004 and 2006 have identified several methods of opening the legislative process and reducing the dysfunction in Albany. MACNY stands by these recommendations.

The Brennan Center’s recommendations were widely endorsed, and Albany legislators did take some actions in 2005 to reform the state’s governing rules. However, these actions produced lackluster results as it is still difficult to move a bill from committee to the floor for consideration.

In Albany:

New York needs a more open legislative process at the state level, safeguards for accountability, and a clear reform agenda. Working toward these, MACNY supports reforms that:

· Strengthen the standing committees so rank-and-file members can force a hearing or vote, even over the objections of the committee chair.

· End leadership’s stranglehold on getting bills to the floor.

· Institutionalize conference committees.

· End leadership control over resources and staff.

Talking Points:

· Between 1997 and 2001, only 1.1 percent of the major bills passed by the Assembly, and 0 percent of the major bills passed by the Senate, were the subject of committee reports. This pattern has not changed since the new rules were passed. In fact, in 2005, there was not a single substantive committee report issued in either chamber for a piece of major legislation.

· In the Senate, of the 305 committee votes on major legislation passed in 2005, only 21 (6.9 percent) were not unanimous. Moreover, on the rare occasions when there was not unanimity, the “no” votes were generally cast by a single committee member: out of a total of 5,650 votes cast on such legislation, there were only 25 (0.4 percent) “no” votes. Numbers in the Assembly were similar: out of the 292 committee votes on major legislation in 2005, only 28 (9.6 percent) were not unanimous. Out of a total of 5,677 votes cast on this legislation, only 100 (1.8 percent) were “no” votes.

· In New York’s Senate, the average committee assignment for a legislator was just under 7 in 2005, more than nearly every other legislative chamber in the country. However, 15 of the 31 committees there met five or fewer times in 2005, including the Ethics Committee, which did not meet at all in either 2005 or 2006.

· New York’s Legislature has the largest staff out of any state in the nation, yet party leaders direct the distribution of staff resources unevenly among Albany legislators.