THE "PORK" IN NEW YORK, Thoughts of an older American on Constitutional Government in the USA Options

[Livyjr]

"To top legislative staffers go the spoils"

Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Monday, March 19, 2007

It pays to be a top staffer in the Legislature, sometimes even more than being a lawmaker.

To wit: A shiny black 2006 Crown Victoria, registered to the Senate, is getting used daily by recently installed Finance Committee Secretary Jeffrey Lovell.

And a sharp black 2006 Chevrolet Impala, also registered to the Senate, is regularly getting used by Director of Communications John McArdle.

Besides those perks, Lovell and McArdle got raises in December to $180,000 a year.

Lovell, who made $175,100 when he worked for former Gov. George Pataki, got the increase when he joined the Senate late last year.

When Lovell became better-paid than McArdle and other central staffers, Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno saw to it that other top officials got big raises.

For instance, McArdle's pay jumped nearly 8 percent from $162,000 annually.

He also recently got the state car, bringing the package closer to $200,000 in value.

Senators are paid $79,500 a year, plus a committee or leadership stipend in some cases that can add another $15,000.

A few get the use of a state car.

Others who got raises in December included Ken Riddett, the chief counsel, whose pay also rose almost 8 percent to $180,000.

He retired about two weeks later and is now chief lobbyist for the New York State Trial Lawyers Association, a group Senate Republicans tend to treat with disdain.

Riddett replaced another former Senate GOP lawyer, David Dudley.

No filing on the change appears on the state lobbying commission's Web site, but a spokesman for the trial lawyers group said Riddett made the required filing on time.

Mark Hansen, a Bruno spokesman, said the Senate has 19 vehicles to dispatch to senators and "appropriate Senate staff for use on an as-needed basis."

He would not say who gets them.

Three Assembly staffers are assigned cars, said Bryan Franke, a spokesman for Speaker Sheldon Silver, noting that the benefit must be declared as income for taxes.

Two are from the minority: Rebecca D'Agati, the Assembly GOP's top finance officer, has a 2003 Chevrolet Impala, and Howard Becker, a longtime aide to Minority Leader James Tedisco, has a 2003 Chevrolet Tahoe.

Judy Rapfogel, Silver's chief of staff, has a 2002 Chevrolet Impala.

The Assembly has a total of nine other pool cars, Franke said.

Contributor: Capitol bureau reporter James M. Odato. Got a tip? Call 454-5424 or e-mail jjochnowitz@timesunion.com.

end quotes

Riddett replaced another former Senate GOP lawyer, David Dudley.

Interesting ...

About David Dudley, I mean ....

David Dudley was a politically-connected REPUBLICAN lawyer in Rensselaer County in 1988 whose alleged attempts to allegedly "shake-down" developers in East Greenbush, New York for some GEETUS and MOOLAH allegedly led to a federal HOBBS ACT investigation of WHITE-COLLAR CRIME in Rensselaer County, New York, that was "turned off like a light-bulb" in 1989 when the Federal Bureau of Investigation got too close to the "doings" of "IRON DUKE" Joe Bruno in connection with alleged illegal land sales in Rensselaer County involving the "IRON DUKE", along with MISFEASANCE, MALFEASANCE and GROSS NEGLIGENCE in both the Rensselaer County Department of Health and the New York State Department of Health uncovered by a licensed professional engineer in Rensselaer County who was subsequently BRANDED by the STATE OF NEW YORK as an alleged "DANGEROUS MENTAL PATIENT WITH POST-VIETNAM SYNDROME THAT COULD MAKE HIM IRRATIONAL" and was UNLAWFULLY CONFINED in the secure mental facility of the Stratton VA Hospital in Albany, New York on August 22, 2001 based upon a FRAUDULENT INVOLUNTARY PSYCHIATRIC COMMITMENT ORDER issued to the New York State Police and Rensselaer County officials by a medical doctor at NORTHEAST HEALTH, INC. in Troy, New York, which CORPORATION is a member of the New York State Business Council, to whom New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer is beholden .......

And so ...

[Livyjr]

"NY lobbying reaches $151 million - Influence spending is up, but growth slows"

By JAMES M. ODATO, Albany, New York Times Union

Last updated: 12:08 p.m., Monday, March 19, 2007

Spending on lobbying in Albany reached a record $151 million last year, but the growth of that spending to influence government slowed, the Temporary State Commission on Lobbying reported today.

See story, link to report on the Capitol Confidential blog.

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/

[Livyjr]

"Health care groups lead lobbying spending in Albany"

By MARK JOHNSON, Associated Press

Last updated: 5:02 p.m., Monday, March 19, 2007

ALBANY -- Businesses and special interest groups spent a record $151 million lobbying in Albany last year, the state Lobbying Commission said Monday.

Health care and mental health groups led the way in lobbying expenditures last year, doling out a total of $22.3 million.

They were led by the Healthcare Association of New York State, the biggest overall lobbying spender at $2.23 million.

The Medical Society of the State of New York spent $1.52 million while the Greater New York Hospital Association paid out $1.21 million, according to the Lobbying Commission's annual report.

David Grandeau, the commission's executive director, said that with the current budget battle over health care spending between Gov. Eliot Spitzer and health care groups, the amount spent by those groups is likely to rise even more.

The first installment of broadcast ads lobbying against Spitzer's health care cuts this year cost $4.5 million in just a few days, state lobbying records showed Friday.

After HANYS, Verizon Communications Inc. spent the second most on lobbying -- $2.2 million.

Forest City Ratner Cos., the company behind the Atlantic Yards project in Brooklyn, spent $2.1 million.

The $151 million spent on lobbying in 2006 is up from $149 million in 2005 and $80 million in 2001.

Good government groups said many of the top lobbying spenders are also among the biggest campaign contributors.

They argue that gives the groups even more sway over state government decisions.

The New York State United Teachers union spent $1.7 million on lobbying last year and contributed $1.4 million to politicians.

HANYS spent another $296,000 on campaigns while the Greater New York Hospital Association gave another $500,000, according to data compiled by the New York Public Interest Research Group and the New York chapters of Common Cause and the League of Women Voters.

Monday's report will be the last from the Lobbying Commission.

The agency is slated to become part of a larger Public Integrity Commission under a bill agreed to by Gov. Eliot Spitzer and legislative leaders.

The new commission will be formed six months after Spitzer signs the bill into law.

The bill has passed both houses of the Legislature.

Separately, Grandeau said Paul Shechtman, appointed by former Gov. George Pataki as chairman of the lobbying commission and the state Ethics Commission, should resign from both positions.

Grandeau said that would let Spitzer appoint a new chairman to the commissions who could head the new combined agency.

Shechtman did not immediately return a call for comment.

[Livyjr]

"Democrats criticized on budget - Association president says party lining up with Spitzer at expense of health workers"

By JAMES M. ODATO, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Friday, March 16, 2007

ALBANY -- Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno is on target with complaints that Democrats have turned their backs on the nursing home industry, Carl Young, president of the New York Association of Homes & Services for the Aging, said Thursday.

"Bruno is right on," said Young, who complained that Democrats supported health care cuts in Gov. Eliot Spitzer's budget this week that they had rejected in the past under Gov. George Pataki.

"My question is 'What's changed?' " Young said.

"Are Democratic cuts less hurtful than Republican cuts?"

Spitzer proposes to end cost of living adjustments for rates paid and doing away with an additional Medicaid bonus based on patient mix.

That will reduce public subsidies by $466 million, an average of $700,000 per nursing home, Young said.

A spokesman for Senate Democrats did not respond, although some senators from the minority said they want to deal with the entire budget, not just health care, as they vote on spending.

Young said nursing homes, largely ignored in the fight over Spitzer's health care plans, can only trim staff to deal with funding cuts because payroll is 80 percent of their budgets.

Several homes will close and 6,000 workers will be laid off if Spitzer's plan goes into effect, he said.

"It's not about the nursing homes; it's about the people in them."

"The only option ... is layoffs," he said.

His comments came as the hospital and health care worker lobbies -- staged a large demonstration in New York City against Spitzer's plan.

Bruno, who is pushing to restore $740 million of the $1.3 billion Spitzer wants to shave off the state's health care programs, planned to join the march but canceled due to delays on Amtrak.

Dennis Rivera, president of 1199/SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, said Spitzer is misrepresenting the motivation for his cuts by focusing on hospital administrators' pay.

He said the media campaign against Spitzer, costing almost $1.5 million weekly, will continue.

Starting Saturday, the ads will be paid for exclusively with the collective contributions of the 265,000 SEIU-organized nurses and other workers, he said.

Legislative sources said positive negotiations were under way on health care spending, and that differences in that area may be easier to overcome than on education.

The Senate GOP wants $358 million in extra school funds for Long Island.

Tough negotiations are also expected over tax rebates Senate Republicans desire instead of the tax relief program for middle-income people Spitzer proposes.

James M. Odato can be reached at 454-5083 or by e-mail at jodato@timesunion.com.

[Livyjr]

"Centers get bigger slice of pie - Spitzer's budget plan pleases administrators of community health care programs"

By CATHLEEN F. CROWLEY, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Lost in the furor over Gov. Eliot Spitzer's proposed hospital and nursing home cuts are the "poor little sisters" of the health care system: community health care centers.

"We are certainly enthusiastic about this budget," said Elizabeth Swain, CEO of Community Health Care Association of New York State.

Spitzer has proposed a modest increase for the centers, and they are thrilled.

His spending plan would boost the centers' reimbursement for treating uninsured patients from 16 cents for every dollar spent to 30 cents.

The governor also wants to expand health care coverage to 400,000 uninsured children and 900,000 adults who are eligible for Medicaid.

"It's going to help us an awful lot," said John Silva, CEO of Hometown Health in Schenectady.

"It's going to cover the cost we've been carrying everyday."

Silva estimated 5 percent of his uninsured clients will migrate to Medicaid under Spitzer's plan.

Hometown Health has 24,000 patients and 77,000 patient visits a year.

About 20 percent of the clients are uninsured, 50 percent are on Medicaid and the rest have private insurance.

Uninsured patients are treated for free or pay on a sliding scale.

"We provide almost $2 million a year in either uncompensated or reduced-cost treatment," Silva said.

The federal government pays $1 million toward Hometown Health's deficit.

The rest is scraped together from grants, donations and other sources.

"We are magicians at trying to leverage money, but it's one of the reasons I'm fat, bald and gray," Silva said.

Home health providers also are pleased with Spitzer's proposed budget because he doesn't cut their funding.

The governor's budget maintains home health agencies' cost-of-living adjustment for Medicaid payments and does not cut funding for employee recruitment and retention.

Spitzer also proposed launching several pilot programs aimed at better managing the care of the chronically ill.

"This year, we are pleased with where we are," said Christy Johnston, executive vice president of the New York State Association of Health Care Providers, which represents 500 home health agencies.

The state has 56 federally qualified community health centers that serve patients at 450 locations.

The centers have seen a 54 percent increase in uninsured clients in the past 10 years and struggle to keep their doors open, Swain said.

Community health centers, like hospitals, don't turn away people who are uninsured or on Medicaid, she said.

Private practice doctors, on the other hand, have the choice of serving them or not.

A common problem the centers face is adults who fall on and off Medicaid, a phenomenon called "churning."

Enrolling in Medicaid can take three months and enrollees have to recertify their eligibility every six months, which many forget to do.

Spitzer's plan would reduce churning by extending Medicaid coverage for 12 months, Swain said.

Last week, Spitzer announced his budget dedicated $200 million toward preventive and primary care programs.

The initiatives include nutrition, tobacco and diabetes programs that some community health centers partner with the state to provide.

After several requests from the Times Union, the governor's office released a breakdown of the $200 million that revealed only $29 million of the money is for new initiatives.

The rest is continued funding for existing programs.

Swain and Silva said they are encouraged by Spitzer's ideas, but both said more must be done.

"The primary care system is not the priority in terms of health care funding in this state," Silva said.

"So much money is spent to prop up institutional care in this state."

"We are like poor little sisters."

Silva chalked it up to the powerful influence of hospitals and nursing homes and wondered if Spitzer would be able to sidestep their clout.

The reimbursement system must be revised if Spitzer really wants to shift health care from institutions for prevention and primary care, Swain said.

Primary care is on the low end of reimbursements, and certain prevention programs like diabetes education are not reimbursed by some government health insurance programs.

"Right now, we pay for sick care," Swain said.

"We don't pay for things that make people well."

F. Crowley can be reached at 518-454-5348 or by e-mail at ccrowley@timesunion.com.

Where the money would go

Gov. Eliot Spitzer's proposed state budget dedicated $200 million toward preventive and primary care initiatives, part of his goal of making the state's health care more prevention-oriented than institutionally based.

A detailed list of the programs released by the governor's office shows $29 million of the total amount is for new initiatives, while the rest is continued funding for existing programs.

New initiatives include:

$5 million: Expanded access to cervical cancer vaccines

$5 million: Public education for mammography, colorectal screening, infection control, prenatal care and green cleaning products

$3 million: Childhood lead poisoning prevention

$2.1 million: Prenatal and postpartum home visits

$2 million: Obesity prevention

$1.1 million: Breast and ovarian cancer screening

$250,000: Diabetes Centers for Excellence

$5 million: Nutritional programs

$2.6 million: Emergency contraception education, training and outreach

$2.5 million: System improvements to track contagious diseases like measles and tuberculosis

Funding for existing programs include:

$95 million: Anti-smoking programs

$36 million: Nutritional programs

$20.4 million: School-based health clinics

$18.8 million: Family planning services

$1.5 million: Asthma services

$1.8 million: Diabetes prevention and control

[Livyjr]

"Big 3 standoff could make budget late - Bruno defends GOP Senate plan"

By JAMES M. ODATO, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Spitzer calls for "real numbers."

"We're at a juncture here," Spitzer said.

"Time is really wasting away ..."

"Now is the time to put real numbers on the table."

The Senate GOP and Spitzer remained billions of dollars apart, Spitzer said at a news conference.

He was joined by Diana Fortuna, president of the Citizens Budget Commission, in sharply criticizing the Senate Republicans' budget plan.

They said it would add $3.2 billion to Spitzer's $120.6 billion plan, wipe out reserves and create a three-year budget deficit of $33 billion.

Spitzer called on Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno to attend a public meeting with other legislative leaders this morning and said Bruno must change his plan substantially.

"We are hoping Sen. Bruno ... and all the other members of the Senate come back to us tomorrow with real numbers, that put us in a range of meaningful discourse," Spitzer said.

The logjam could lead to a late budget, Spitzer said, emphasizing that he cannot bend to Bruno's wishes just to get a deal before the fiscal year starts in 12 days.

Bruno scoffed at the governor's position, suggesting it was posturing, and ridiculed Fortuna's organization as a front for Democrats.

The Citizen Budget Commission, Fortuna said, is a nonpartisan think tank with corporate titans on its board.

"Our differences have narrowed," Bruno said, portraying the situation in a different light than the governor, who said negotiations have gone nowhere.

Bruno said he won't back down from his push to kill more than half the $1.3 billion in health care cuts Spitzer desires and turn back the governor's proposed redistribution of education aid.

He also stands by the Senate Republicans' $2.6 billion plan for rebate checks for all property taxpayers, rather than Spitzer's middle-class tax relief program.

Bruno said he favors an on-time budget, but wouldn't rule waiting out the governor for weeks.

"If it's not done right ... it's not going to be done on time," Bruno said.

"It's up to this governor whether or not he wants to steamroll or if he wants to negotiate."

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver refused to deal with Senate Republicans in conference committees until they offer an affordable budget plan and stop asserting the state has $5 billion more in available funds.

Spitzer said the Assembly Democrats' budget plan is "within the boundaries of wise budgeting" even though he said it would add more than $900 million to his package.

M. Odato can be reached at 454-5083 or by e-mail at jodato@timesunion.com.

[Livyjr]

The Citizen Budget Commission, Fortuna said, is a nonpartisan think tank with corporate titans on its board.

About the Citizens Budget Commission

The Citizens Budget Commission is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civic organization devoted to influencing constructive change in the finances and services of New York City and New York State government.

CBC was founded in 1932, a time of great fiscal crisis, when a group of distinguished civic leaders decided to start a research organization that would analyze the City's finances, evaluate the management of City government, report on these matters to its members, and recommend improvements to municipal officials.

In 1984 CBC expanded this analysis to the fiscal affairs of State government.

CBC's pursuit of its mission is embodied in four interrelated roles:

CBC is a watchdog.

The Commission's scrutiny of the efficiency and fiscal standing of government provides a continuous and reliable presence.

"The CBC...is an utterly respectable budget watchdog funded by utterly respectable business people."

"The commission does its best, in its respectable way, to goad and cajole public officials into doing the right thing, fiscally speaking."

The New York Observer

CBC is a research organization.

The most pressing issues facing the City and State are subjected to in-depth study, the results of which are assembled into published reports that include recommendations for improved performance.

"CBC...has credibility as an independent analyst of city and state finances."

"While its 138 trustees...are drawn from the business community, CBC is less a defender of specific business interests than an advocate for lower taxes, balanced budgets and long-term investment in the city's capital needs."

Crain's New York Business

CBC is a monitor of implementation.

Recommending solutions to problems is not sufficient by itself.

The Commission follows up on its suggestions by tracking public officials' progress - or lack thereof - toward implementing change.

"Of all the folks in New York who have taken it upon themselves to second-guess city government, the members of the Citizens Budget Commission do it best."

"The CBC is dedicated to helping City Hall live within its means - a thankless task of late - and its commentary on fiscal matters is generally right on the money."

New York Post

CBC is a disseminator of information.

Shedding light on the problems of City and State government requires getting the word out.

CBC functions as a resource for nonpartisan information on the City and State budgets and the delivery of services to New Yorkers.

The Commission is a ready reference for the news media, other civic groups, the concerned public, and public officials.

"The Commission's biggest priority is restoring people's confidence in the integrity and competence of New York City government."

"Its claim to fame is maintaining a historical record as a civic organization that calls the shots as it sees them."

New York Newsday

http://www.cbcny.org/

[Livyjr]

Newsday

State/Region

"Former aide denies role in Bruno probe"

BY DAN JANISON

dan.janison@newsday.com

March 20, 2007

ALBANY - Earlier in his career, the state's top lobbying regulator, David Grandeau, served as Sen. Joseph Bruno's trusted counsel, both on a legislative commission and in his private telecommunications business.

Today, the Senate majority leader's friends grumble that, despite their past close ties, Grandeau is responsible for a federal probe that has collected information on Bruno's business interests - including, as it happens, a now-defunct real-estate venture called First Grafton that Grandeau helped incorporate in the 1980s.

"I understand that the senator feels I'm responsible for the investigation," Grandeau told Newsday.

"That is not the case."

"No one can make the FBI do anything."

No charges have been made so far.

The tension has been public for weeks in a city where a governmental clash - even one involving an ethics official and New York's most powerful senator - can have the feel of a family feud.

What is not known is what comes next for Grandeau, 47, a lawyer who has directed the Temporary Commission on Lobbying for 12 of its nearly 30 years.

The commission is finally proving temporary.

Under an ethics law recently enacted by Gov. Eliot Spitzer and the legislature, the commission will merge with the state Ethics Commission.

Joining Spitzer?

Grandeau, who investigated lobbyists in past unrelated cases involving Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Bruno, had said he'd be willing to run the newly combined Commission on Public Integrity.

Reported friction between Grandeau and Spitzer has been smoothed over, officials say privately.

It is unclear when the panel's members, and in turn their staff personnel, will be appointed, or who they will be.

Grandeau, though, said he's interested only under certain conditions.

"It comes down to culture," he said.

"The state ethics commission and the lobbying commission are two very distinct cultures."

"If it will be the culture of the [less aggressive] ethics commission, then I'm not interested at all. "

Last month, Grandeau took a public hit of his own.

An Albany TV station, News10, reported that a local woman lost her $48,000-a-year job at the lobbying commission after being wrongly blamed for leaking word that Grandeau and seven employees were at the Schenectady Curling Club in the middle of the workday.

All were curling on their time off, Grandeau told News10.

He said he cannot discuss personnel matters, but denied the employee, Patti Wade, was fired over the curling matter, as she'd asserted.

A broken bond

In that context, Bruno, 77, was asked following a public appearance whether Grandeau was his man.

"'Was' is the operative word," Bruno told reporters, "in that I guess I gave him his first real job - back in the private sector - and helped him when he was city manager of Troy, and I guess recommended him for this [lobbying] position. "

Pressed for comment on the Wade firing, Bruno said Grandeau "has to make his own judgments on how he leads his life."

"And I'm afraid that some people, when they get into a powerful position, that power does things to their capacity and capability to make decisions that are just straightforward and not biased. "

For his part, Grandeau says: "I was someone who worked for Joe Bruno, had a lot of respect for Joe Bruno, considered Joe Bruno a close friend."

"What I am today is someone who has no relationship with Joe Bruno ..."

"I'm going to doggedly pursue violations no matter where they lead - even if it's to a former close friend."

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny...enews-headlines

[Livyjr]

"Public budget talks stall; private talks tackle education, health"

By MICHAEL GORMLEY, Associated Press

Last updated: 4:02 p.m., Tuesday, March 20, 2007

ALBANY -- Teddy Roosevelt's massive desk in the Capitol was covered by green felt and Gov. Eliot Spitzer and legislative leaders who were supposed to negotiate a budget around it Tuesday couldn't help but note that it looked like a poker table.

But nobody tipped his hand.

Although it appeared the year's first public budget negotiation session left them only more entrenched, behind the scenes their staffs were trying to work out a way to settle it all.

And the key, as it is almost every year, is school aid: Senate Republican leader Joseph Bruno wants more aid for some wealthier -- but heavily taxed -- school districts on Long Island and elsewhere while Spitzer -- seeking to drive most increases to high-needs schools -- may be ready to deal, according to officials from all sides briefed on the private talks.

The Senate wants to return to a traditional "shares" system in which large suburban schools receive substantial aid increases based on their enrollment.

The shares help districts in the Senate GOP's Long Island base.

Spitzer is considering providing more aid to some of those schools, but doesn't want to drop his needs-based formula.

Spitzer and Senate majority officials familiar with the private negotiations said that's a key to compromise.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the talks.

Also in the works is a shift in Bruno's position on health care spending.

Bruno had proposed restoring most of Spitzer's nearly $1.4 billion in cuts in his health care reform package but is now considering something closer to the position of the Democrat-led Assembly, which would restore $483 million of Spitzer's cuts.

The Assembly plan keeps most of his reforms intended to direct funding away from hospitals and to at-home and community-based care which Spitzer said is cheaper and better.

Officials from all sides say the Assembly's position appears to be the target for a health spending agreement.

Those two areas could yield partial wins for Bruno and Spitzer, who are at the center of renewed concern that the state budget might not be settled by the April 1 start of the fiscal year.

Bruno wants to add $3 billion to Spitzer's $120.6 billion budget proposal, mostly in rebate checks worth hundreds of dollars to property taxpayers.

The Assembly would add $1 billion to Spitzer's budget, adopting most of his reforms in health care and other policies.

The mood around Roosevelt's desk wasn't conciliatory.

"Fiscal discipline is what we need, hard decisions is what we need to face up to," Spitzer told Bruno.

"And, Joe, with all due respect, I don't think your budget, by increasing spending by $3 billion, did that."

"If we are going to get a budget done, we are not going to pit one school district against another," Bruno said later.

To varying degrees, Spitzer had the support of his lieutenant governor, David Paterson; Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver; Democratic Senate leader Malcolm Smith and Republican Assembly leader James Tedisco.

"I think it's even," Bruno said of the odds,

"Five of them and one of me."

While the speeches were made -- there was no true negotiation -- Bruno sometimes glanced at the ceiling, once winked to someone in the crowd of reporters and staff, adjusted his tie and rubbed his brow.

During Bruno's response to the governor and his allies, Spitzer grinned as he took notes.

Late in the discussion, Bruno tried to explain his estimate of available funds to spend.

Bruno's number is $4.9 billion, which no other leader agreed with.

Silver smiled and interrupted:

"Sen., we have your number."

[Livyjr]

"N.Y. Lobbying Commission director accused of personal vendetta"

Associated Press

Last updated: 5:34 p.m., Tuesday, March 20, 2007

ALBANY -- The executive director of the state Lobbying Commission was accused in court papers of offering to settle an investigation into former state Attorney General Dennis Vacco's lobbying firm if the business would find another job for a commission staffer.

Attorney James Crane claims Lobbying Commission Executive Director David Grandeau repeatedly investigated Crane & Vacco LLC in "bad faith" because of "personal animosity" toward him.

Crane made the charges in a response to a lawsuit seeking to force him to testify in an investigation of the firm.

Crane's wife, Constance Crane, is a partner with former Attorney General Dennis Vacco in the business.

James Crane does legal work for the firm and represented Grandeau during his tenure as Troy city manager in 1994 and 1995.

The allegations were reported Tuesday by The Record of Troy.

Grandeau did not immediately return a call for comment.

Crane claims Grandeau offered to settle a 2005 investigation if Crane & Vacco "would hire, or would arrange to have an employment opportunity for Kris Thompson," a former spokesman for the Lobbying Commission.

Thompson, now a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, said he had no knowledge of such an offer.

He said his relationship with Grandeau was "difficult and extremely contentious from time to time."

The commission was investigating the signing of a contract that guaranteed the firm $5.5 million if it won the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma approval to open a casino in New York.

By law, lobbyists cannot agree to deals in which payments are based on the success of a project or legislation.

Crane & Vacco agreed to pay $50,000 to settle the investigation but refused to sign the agreement after Grandeau publicly said he believed a crime was committed.

Crane & Vacco admitted no wrongdoing in the agreement.

Subsequently, Albany County District Attorney David Soares investigated the case, but did not file any charges against the firm.

[Livyjr]

NY TIMES - The Empire Zone

Generous Judicial Screeners

Glittering legal résumés abound among the 23 people Governor Spitzer appointed earlier this month to five screening committees that will review candidates for the state bench.

Among Mr. Spitzer’s appointments are senior partners at some of New York City’s leading law firms, eminent law-school professors and several retired state judges.

But many of the appointees have another qualification, too.

Ten of them contributed to Mr. Spitzer’s gubernatorial campaign, including the leaders of all five committees, who are selected by the governor.

In total, the appointees contributed about $85,000 — small beer in the current world of gubernatorial fund-raising.

Most of that was given by two of the appointees: Robert A. Bourque, chairman of the First Judicial Department Committee, and Henry B. Gutman, who sits on the second department’s committee.

Both are partners at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; together they gave $68,500 to Mr. Spitzer during the 2006 election cycle.

Christine Anderson, a spokeswoman for Mr. Spitzer, noted that Mr. Spitzer’s campaign supporters were motivated by his message of reform, and that those selected for the screening panels were among them.

“It’s not surprising that some of the same people who got involved, spoke out or contributed to Eliot’s reform efforts would be interested in getting involved in his administration,” she said.

FROM THE WEB-EDITION OF THE ALBANY, NEW YORK TIMES UNION ....

Comment by John Galt — March 20, 2007 @ 8:38 am

ITEM: The Post renewed its call for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, D-Manhattan, to reveal his client list and salary at the law firm where he is of counsel.

This “thing” of LAWYER’S OMERTA, the famed “Lawyer’s Code of Silence” with respect to who their “clients” really are, when those lawyers also hold public positions here in New York State that can directly benefit their undisclosed “clients”, be it as town attorneys, or town judges, as in the case of East Greenbush Town Judge Kevin Engel, or as state officials, is very troubling, especially when we are confronted with what appears to be a “back-room” deal between “STEAMROLLER” Spitzer and the New York State Bar Association to turn our state Constitution on its head by turning over the selection of our state Supreme Court justices to the bar association and Eliot Spitzer, himself a rich lawyer with ties to one of the richest “WHITE COLLAR CRIME DEFENSE” law firms here in the USA, a “back-room” deal which was outlined in the TU story “State’s lawyers suggest constitutional amendment - Merit selection of judges expected by 2009″ by MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON, last updated 12:26 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2007:

“ALBANY - The 72,000-member New York State Bar Association revealed a legislative package today intended to amend the state Constitution to allow for the merit selection of state judges.”

“The bar wants an interim judicial selection plan to take effect over the next three years while a merit-selection constitutional amendment is being approved.”

In essence, the New York State Bar Association, which does not in the least represent our interests as state citizens, wants one of its fellow members, “STEAMROLLER” Spitzer to set aside our Constitution with some kind of governor’s writ or decree that will have us getting our state supreme court justices exclusively from whomever this lawyer’s guild chooses to give us, without us knowing anything about whose interests are really being fronted or represented by these judges, who hold considerable power over our very lives, and livelihoods here in New York State ….

In a TU story “U.S. Supreme Court To Review NY Court Case” dated February 20, 2007 at 11:31 am by Jay Jochnowitz, State Editor, Albany, New York Times Union, it is stated:

“Some — including Gov. Eliot Spitzer and the state bar association — have suggested the convention system and judicial election should be scrapped in favor of a merit-based selection process.”

Which takes us to a story about JUDICIAL SCREENING PANELS in the Gotham Gazette entitled “Surrogate’s Court And Why It Should Go” by Gary Tilzer, dated 04 Jul 2005 wherein is stated:

“Though Koch set up panels to screen candidates for judgeships, presumably based on merit, as time went on, the erstwhile reformers became more and more dependent on contributions and support from the machine politicians and the law firms that benefit from Surrogate patronage.”

“Since then, Koch himself – along with other prominent politicians, including former Governor Mario Cuomo — has been the beneficiary of the Surrogate’s Court.”

“Koch, for example, received $77,000 for a guardianship in 2001 and 2002, according to the New York Observer.”

“‘I’m on the list of people who are qualified,’ Koch told the Observer.”

“‘They’re very careful to prevent [the court] from being used as a trough.’”

“Today, every candidate who runs for Surrogate pledges to make ‘reforms’ and end the court’s patronage.”

“Once elected, they do nothing.”

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article//20050704/202/1472

And that takes us to a story from the NY Times “Empire Zone” BLOG entitled “Spitzer Donor Sees Albany as Presidential Test - Skadden Arps lawyer Doug Dunham says that if reforms succeed, Eliot could be the next Grover Cleveland.” by Azi Paybarah, wherein is stated:

“According to one of Eliot Spitzer’s major contributors, the success of the Governor’s reform agenda in Albany could end up being a test run for something much bigger down the road.”

“’I can certainly see him being a really viable contender for President if he’s able to get all these reforms through,’ said Doug Dunham, a major Democratic fund-raiser who is counsel at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.”

“By Mr. Dunham’s thinking, Mr. Spitzer needs to succeed in his plan to flip control of the Republican-led State Senate to the Democrats.”

“He would then be able to push through his agenda of reform, and could in turn parlay that into a successful bid for the White House.”

http://www.nyobserver.com/20070226/2007022…_newsstory2.asp

As to who Skadden Arps is, besides a rich “WHITE COLLAR CRIME DEFENSE” law firm, all one need to do is go to this link, and that information will be available, except we, the citizens of the State of New York, will still be ignorant as to whose interests people like lawyer Eliot Spitzer are really representing when they are deciding the various “state policies” that have such a direct impact on our lives here in New York State, especially when those lawyers like “STEAMROLLER” Spitzer have connections to such a rich “WHITE COLLAR CRIME DEFENSE” law firm like Skadden Arps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skadden%2C_Ar...eagher_%26_Flom

From this citizen’s point of view, it is past time to end LAWYER’S OMERTA, here in New York State, when lawyers hold public office, especially as local judges, or state supreme court justices, or members of the state legislature, or the position of governor, itself ….

If you want to be a lawyer out there in the world, and keep secret whose money you are taking as a “rented pencil” so be that, have at it …

If you want to come into the public domain, however, FULL DISCLOSURE, first, or stay the hell out ….

We don’t need you, we don’t want you, and that is that ….

http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=4117#comments

[Livyjr]

Capital News 9

"Spitzer says good budget more important than on-time budget"

Updated: 3/20/2007 7:15 AM

By: Ryan Peterson

Governor Spitzer said, "Anybody who thinks that somehow the prospect that my first year as governor I would be fearful of having a late budget misunderstands, fundamentally, what my guiding principles as governor are all about."

With the April 1 budget deadline looming right around the corner, Governor Spitzer is standing his ground while both he and the Senate Majority are placing blame on each other for stalled negotiations.

Spitzer said, "There was an opportunity for the Assembly to demonstrate leadership and they did."

"They made hard decisions."

"They moved us in a direction that brought us within fair boundaries of wise budgeting."

"The Senate bill, as I've made clear over the past couple of days, did not do so."

Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno said, "Let's find out if we have legitimate differences or are people just posturing trying to create a crisis in this state."

While the Governor and Majority Leader may not agree on the particulars of the process, they're together on the thought that a good budget is more important than timely one.

Spitzer said, "I in no way will regret having a late budget if it is the only way we can tame the rabid spending that has too often been the storyline here in Albany."

Bruno said, "The most important thing is what the Governor said today."

"What'd he say?"

"He said a good budget, a right budget is more important than an on-time budget."

"I agree with the Governor."

In an effort to move the budget process forward, Spitzer called for a five-way, public meeting with the legislative leaders Tuesday morning.

The Governor hopes all parties involved will come forward with substantially different proposals.

Bruno says, not so fast.

"It'll really be up to this Governor whether he wants to steamroll or whether he wants to negotiate."

"The constitution says the Governor will submit a budget to the Legislature."

"The Legislature will respond to the Governor."

"It's our turn to respond."

"That's what we're trying to do," said Bruno.

Spitzer side-stepped the government shutdown question by saying he's ready to withstand whatever the pain may be in order to get the right budget.

http://www.capitalnews9.com/content/top_st...asp?ArID=207576

[Livyjr]

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

"Budget better later than fatter, El warns Senate Republicans"

BY JOE MAHONEY

DAILY NEWS ALBANY BUREAU CHIEF

Tuesday, March 20th 2007, 4:00 AM

ALBANY - Gov. Spitzer warned Senate Republicans yesterday to come back to "the realm of the reasonable" with their spending proposals - or New Yorkers will be doomed to a late budget.

"The prospect of a late budget will not deter me from saying 'no' to those proposals that are simply flawed," Spitzer told reporters as he tried to jump-start stalled budget talks.

"'On time' is important, but getting it right is more important," he said.

With less than two weeks to go before the April 1 deadline, public negotiations are slated to go full tilt this morning at the Capitol after the governor insisted on a sitdown with the four legislative leaders.

Spitzer has been at odds chiefly with Senate GOP leader Joe Bruno (R-Rensselaer), who has defied tradition by offering up the most expensive proposal.

In January, Spitzer proposed a $120.6 billion budget, which would increase spending by more than twice the rate of inflation but was half of recent state budget increases.

The Democrat-led Assembly proposed to keep most of Spitzer's health care spending cuts and education aid increases in its budget, which would boost overall spending by about $1 billion.

The Senate Republican proposal, however, would increase spending an additional $3 billion - but most of it would be in property tax cuts and tax rebate checks that would triple last year's rebates.

Spitzer was backed by Diana Fortuna, president of the independent Citizens Budget Commission, who said the gov's plan was far preferable to a Senate budget that would leave the state facing big deficits.

"The Senate bill takes four giant steps backward," Fortuna said.

Bruno retorted that Fortuna's group was being used as a tool by Democrats.

"We can close a budget within two hours," Bruno said, insisting that a difference of several hundred million dollars is small in the context of a proposed budget of $120.6 billion.

Meanwhile, health care workers union Local 1199 unleashed a new TV attack ad skewering Spitzer's attempt to curb rising Medicaid spending.

The ad features a 94-year-old woman and 97-year-old woman said to be living in New York City nursing homes.

"I voted for Spitzer because I had faith that he would do the right thing," said 94-year-old Anna Rose in the spot.

jmahoney@nydailynews.com

With News Wire Services

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/03/20...r_el_warns.html

[Livyjr]

WXXI

"Spitzer Won't be Deterred by a Late Budget"

Karen DeWitt

ALBANY, NEW YORK (2007-03-19) Governor Spitzer said for the first time Monday that he's willing to put up with a late state budget in order to get the right budget.

There's less than two weeks to go until the deadline for the state budget, and Governor Spitzer says he's getting very little cooperation from the State Senate.

Spitzer and Senate Republicans have been mired in a fight over health care spending.

The governor wants to cut money to hospitals and nursing homes, saying he wants Medicaid money to go to patients, not institutions.

Senate Republicans have proposed restoring the entire $1.3 billion dollars in cuts.

Spitzer says if what he considers to be intransigence continues, he won't let the pressure to achieve an on-time budget force him to make compromises.

"On time is important, getting it right is much more important," he said.

"Anybody who thinks that somehow the prospect that my first year as governor I would be fearful of having a late budget, misunderstands fundamentally what my guiding principles as governor are all about."

Spitzer says he's willing to tolerate weeks without a state budget, if necessary.

He did not say whether he'd consider shutting down the government, or whether he'd offer extender bills to keep government running, if the budget were late.

Spitzer, saying budget talks have not been "fruitful" up to this point, will hold an open meting with legislative leaders Tuesday morning.

He says he wants Senate Republicans to present to him a new spending plan.

Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno says the Senate is sticking to it's budget plan, and the governor needs to be more willing to compromise if he wants to reach a deal on time.

"That's going to be really up to this governor on whether or not he wants to steamroll or whether he wants to negotiate," said Bruno.

Assembly Democrats have proposed a budget that restores part of the funding that Spitzer wants to cut.

In a statement, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said stalled legislative budget conference committees can not be revived because the Senate "has been unwilling to discuss realistic spending targets".

New York's 20 years of late budgets helped earn the state the designation as the most dysfunctional government in the nation.

Government reform groups harshly criticized previous governors and the legislature for the late budgets.

Now, Spitzer has one of the most vocal critics, the Citizens Budget Commission, on his side.

Diana Fortuna, who is President of the budget watchdog group founded by business interests, says while she isn't happy about the idea of a late budget, she prefers it to a bad budget.

"We had bad budgets happening in the month of August," she said, referring to record late budgets in the 1990's.

"If a few weeks makes for a good budget, and April 1st makes for a bad budget, I would take the wait."

Senator Bruno shot back that the Citizens Budget Commission is biased.

He called them "democrat operatives".

"I know they're joined in places with this Governor to just bash us, which is kind of silly and irresponsible," he said

"In terms of being objective, give me a break."

Senator Bruno had his own supporters at his news event.

A representative from the State School Boards Association said his group supports the Senate education aid distribution plan.

A representative from a nursing home lobby group says his organization backs the Senate plan to restore nearly half a billion dollars in cuts to nursing homes.

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wxxi/new...1055735§ionID=1

[Livyjr]

NY POST

"THE SPEAKER'S DAY JOB"

March 20, 2007 -- Look who's back in the news: Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his conflicts of interest.

The Post's Carl Campanile reports that three upstate counties - which rely on Silver for state funding - have hired the speaker's law firm to help them recover allegedly overbilled Medicaid funds from drug companies.

The three county governments awarded Weitz & Luxenberg - which boasts that it's obtained $1.3 billion for its clients over the past two decades - a no-bid contract that will pay the law firm 20 percent of whatever it collects.

That could be millions.

Silver has been "of counsel" to the firm for years.

He refuses to disclose what he does for the firm, or his salary.

And this isn't the first time questions have been raised about whether Silver is serving two masters at once.

Last year, Weitz & Luxenberg was forced to pull some online ambulance-chasing ads, offering New Yorkers a "how to" guide on suing the state parks system -for which Silver, as speaker, provides both funding and oversight.

Over the years, Silver has been a one-man roadblock to tort reform.

Just last year, he killed a disability-reform bill affecting city employees that would have saved City Hall millions - at the expense of his fellow trial lawyers.

He enraged Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau by endorsing the prosecutor's call to lift the five-year statute of limitations on rape charges - without mentioning that his bill also removed the statute of limitations on filing civil lawsuits, another gift to the trial lawyers.

Weitz & Luxenberg insists Silver's ties to the firm are pretty negligible; indeed, partner Arthur Luxenberg told The Post's Campanile that the speaker gets only a "modest advance" on the cases he refers, which amounts to "not a lot" of business.

If true, that raises an obvious question: Why all the secrecy?

If Silver's ties to Weitz & Luxenberg are as innocent as he and the firm maintain, why won't he disclose the details?

The state Public Officers Law directs that no legislator "should have any interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect" that substantially conflicts with his public duties.

It even bars lawmakers from giving "the impression that any person . . . unduly enjoys [his or her] favor."

It's Sheldon Silver's obligation to prove that his relationship with Weitz & Luxenberg does not run afoul of the Public Officers Law.

Until he does, New Yorkers have every reason to assume the worst.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03202007/posto...editorials_.htm

end quotes

It's Sheldon Silver's obligation to prove that his relationship with Weitz & Luxenberg does not run afoul of the Public Officers Law ....

EXCEPT ...

In actuality, as the law is applied in New York State, it is not Sheldon Silver's obligation to prove a thing ....

The State of New York has put that burden square onto the complainant, and since the burden can never be met, in the case of a lawyer like Silver, with the LAWYER'S CODE OF OMERTA in place that makes it impossible to know who these lawyers are really in bed with, and whose interests these lawyers are really fronting ....

Well ....

Hey ...

The New York Post editors had to print something, anyway, even if it was dead wrong ...

And so ...

[Livyjr]

City Hall News

"The Young Turks - How the reformers are changing Albany - and how Albany is changing the reformers"

By Edward-Isaac Dovere

The new, fresh-faced legislators burrow into their coats in the early morning cold and hurry to the train north to Albany.

Lobbyists, well-wishers and other attention-seekers stop by their seats—some resting their hands on the well-worn red Amtrak upholstery, some dipping in for a few minutes to the open spots.

Everyone in the train car, nearly, has business in Albany.

Every one of them knows about Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) and the reformer ideology he has been trumpeting around the state, and about the public pressure to change the way business is done in the state capital.

When the hangers-on are not talking to the new legislators, they are talking to their more experienced colleagues, or dealing connections and cracking jokes with each other.

“I’m going to straighten out Albany,” one says to another with a laugh on a recent Tuesday, before the first train pulls out of Penn Station.

The other snickers.

“I’ll follow you,” he says, pivoting and heading to his seat a few rows back.

Reform.

A lot of people read a lot of things into the Legislature’s election of Thomas DiNapoli as the new state comptroller.

One thing few noticed: when DiNapoli’s seat is filled—along with the others scheduled for special elections March 27—76 of the Assembly’s 150 members will have first arrived in Albany only since the year 2000.

More people will have first come to the Assembly after the dawn of the 21st Century than before it.

An arbitrary statistic, perhaps.

For a Legislature routinely attacked as needing term limits to flush out the entrenched interests and encrusted legislators, though, the 50 percent turnover has come as a slow and rarely-remarked upon surprise.

On the other side of the Capitol, nearly a third of state senators—20 of 62—are new with the millennium.

Most of the new legislators campaigned their way into the Legislature precisely on promises to change Albany’s status quo, which has for years been targeted by good government groups across the state and across the nation.

To some extent, they have been successful in making changes.

Both the Assembly and State Senate adopted rules reforms in January 2005.

Assembly committee hearings are now more frequent, with committee membership decreased in both bodies to stop attention from being spread too thin and increase attendance.

Conference committees open to members outside the leadership are still rare, but when bills reach the floor, members need to be in their seats to vote on them.

Before, members were automatically recorded as voting yes on everything, unless they entered the chamber specifically to vote no.

Few did then, or at other times.

Reform, said Assembly Member Charles Lavine (D-Nassau), is “much like pornography and beauty: it’s in the eye of the beholder.”

“There’s no question that there’s been a change because there’s new blood, particularly in the Assembly,” said Lawrence Norden, counsel at New York University law school’s Brennan Center.

Norden co-authored last year’s “Unfinished Business: New York State Legislative Reform 2006 Update.”

The report examined the extent to which the 2004 proposals of the public policy institute have been implemented, and to what effect.

These days, from what he reads and from the conversations he has with legislators, Norden speaks of both a new energy and new atmosphere within the two chambers of state lawmakers, echoing a common sentiment about Albany in 2007.

With that, and Spitzer as the new, reform-minded governor after 12 years under his predecessor, the state is at the brink of what Brennan Center executive director Michael Waldman has called a “once-a-generation opportunity to renew government and politics in New York.”

Norden and Waldman are among those watching expectantly for those who charged to the capital as reformers to tear the status quo apart.

Whether after a few months or years on the job, these reform-minded politicians will be doing so with quite the same ferocity they promised and springs in their steps still remains unclear.

To Richard Gottfried (D), Manhattan’s Upper West Side Assembly member whose 36 years in office make him the longest-serving Albany lawmaker (first elected before several of his current colleagues were born), that has a lot to do with false expectations.

Gottfried contended that the openness of the political process in Albany and the ability to influence debates at every level is surprising for newcomers and would be “eye-opening for their constituents,” whom he knows are pessimistic about state government.

When Democrats “dramatically rewrote the rules” after first taking the Assembly majority in 1975, Gottfried said, they oversaw a necessary transformation of the chamber.

Those changes forced bills to be sent to committees, eliminated proxy voting within committees, and enabled bill sponsors to force votes on legislation within committees.

Gottfried is fast to point out that the State Senate did not adopt those changes then, or since.

Gottfried still is not satisfied—he speaks ardently about the need to create a public campaign finance system as a way of making competitive elections more frequent, and thereby, forcing incumbents to be more accountable to their constituents.

But he feels the need for more rules reform in the chamber is not as dire as outsiders think.

The man who sits at Gottfried’s right on the Assembly floor, Charles Lavine (D-Nassau), is one of those people who says he has experienced a perspective shift.

Lavine defeated six-term incumbent David Sidikman in the 2004 Democratic primary as the first candidate backed by Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi’s (d) Fix Albany campaign.

That movement was based on the argument that Albany dysfunction was corroding municipalities through reckless spending and “unfunded mandates” for programs like Medicaid.

After two years of experience, Lavine said, he now realizes that what he “used to read in the papers is not quite the way things really happen,” adding, “the reality is of course what I knew it would be, which is infinitely more complex.”

The Fix Albany campaign has itself gone mostly dormant, with even its website recently going off-line.

Lavine is still after structural tweaks, like enabling bills passed but not signed into law by the end of a calendar year within one session to be debated without being reintroduced (“we probably spend close to a month, give or take, sitting and passing the same darn bills that we had passed a year before,” he said).

He also wants to make the Legislature meet year round.

He admits that his ideas may not match exactly with those of all the others who have helped make “reform” the most popular word for stump speeches and campaign mailers in contemporary New York politics.

Reform, he said, is “much like pornography and beauty: it’s in the eye of the beholder.”

But whatever changes do come, Lavine said, he now realizes they will come slowly.

Even with a “critical mass” of new, reform-minded legislators growing in the Assembly, he said, they first must put in their time, “establishing credibility and then being able to stand up for change.”

“I don’t think there’s any question: the longer that you’re there, the more the way it works makes sense,” said Lawrence Norden, counsel at the Brennan Center.

With its gold-etched committee room walls reaching up to high, carved ceilings hung with ornate lamps, the Capitol can be an imposing place.

First-time visitors regularly get lost, confusing one red stone internal staircase for another.

Even those with a few more trips to Albany under their belts can occasionally be seen doing laps around the corridors, searching for room numbers not always so apparent from the posted signs.

Within that imposing, imperial design is another reality, perhaps best represented by the dorm room-issue wooden tables crowded into the historically restored rooms for committee hearings.

Hearings easily give way to newer legislators eager to make their statements for the record or question those testifying before them.

For those who seek to, quickly establishing a presence among 150 members of the Assembly or 62 state senators is not difficult.

Becoming involved in floor proceedings is not much harder.

Unlike in the United States Senate, there is no tradition of waiting for several months, or even years, before speaking on the floor.

Forcing legislators to be in their seats to listen to these speeches has led to some more colorful and substantive debate.

But Albany insiders are divided as to the efficacy of these reforms.

“There’s perception and there’s reality in Albany,” said State Sen. Kevin Parker (D-Brooklyn), the minority whip, who first arrived in 2003.

“There are some things that seem intuitively right, but they really at the end have a different kind of result.”

Eliminating empty seat voting, many felt, was an absolutely necessary change that would improve the functioning of state government.

Parker said that this failed to fully consider the competing priorities of busy legislators.

“You have committee meetings going on, you have session going on, you’re meeting with constituents,” he said.

“Eliminating empty seat voting has now put us in the position where we’re now stuck on the floor, paying attention sometimes to debates that have no real impact on your district.”

Parker also criticized the intensity of the push to further restrict lobbyist donations to $75 meals, especially in contrast to the recently increased legal limit of $15,000 cumulative between primary and general elections for individual contributions to legislators.

Moreover, he argued that no elected official could really have their opinions swayed by having a lobbyist buy them dinner, and that restricting these meals impedes the political process, which is built on these relationships.

These, Parker said, are some of the dangers to the rhetoric of reform which people soon come to realize after a little time in office.

This is the kind of talk which gets reform advocates anxious.

The Assembly already opted against several rules resolutions sponsored by Minority Leader James Tedisco (R-Saratoga) earlier this month.

These would have eased the process for members outside the leadership to force hearings and bring bills more rapidly to the floor, institutionalized conference committees and given Republicans in the chamber more money for resources and staff.

Though the State Senate has remained quiet on this topic, the Assembly’s majority leader, Ron Canestrari (D-Rensselaer), indicated that there may be more institutional reforms on the docket for the Assembly this year.

The Brennan Center’s Norden is skeptical these will come, or that they will be significant if they do.

“It will be small steps,” Norden said.

“That’s what they did in 2005."

"My guess is that they’ll take a couple more.”

And those, Norden insisted, will not nearly be the “dramatic change” he feels the Legislature requires.

Norden is among those who say that if more reforms are not adopted early in the session, they may not be adopted in the session at all.

As time passes and the chamber’s leather seats become ever more comfortable, he fears that the reformers willing to take up the cause will lose their nerve.

“I don’t think there’s any question: the longer that you’re there, the more the way it works makes sense,” he said.

Reform Meets Reality: A Case Study

Legislation which established civil confinement for sex offenders—which had been kicking around Albany in some version or another since 1993—was recently fast-tracked to passage after a deal between the governor and legislative leaders.

The bill was put before the Assembly immediately after a bill to change state workers’ compensation laws, negotiated in a similar deal.

The perceived closed-door genesis of the deals over those bills has drawn the ire of some rank-and-file members like Assembly Member Adriano Espaillat (D-Manhattan), who felt the deliberations should have been more inclusive.

Espaillat is himself a sponsor of the bill, but complained that he was not included in the final negotiations over it.

Undercutting any claims of reform, he argued that Spitzer, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R-Rensselaer) were still behaving like “three men in a room,” the common shorthand slur for Albany dysfunction.

“I have never seen anything worse,” he said, addressing a lunch meeting of the Continuing Care Leadership Coalition shortly after the deals were announced, insisting that he felt a complete lack of transparency and involvement.

Espaillat voted for civil confinement.

Fellow Manhattan Democrat Daniel O’Donnell, who spoke at length on his reservations about the bill, did not.

“We rush to judgment and do what we’re told,” he said, explaining his vote to his colleagues.

“Well, folks, I’m not going to do what I’m told.”

O’Donnell was one of 19.

While no match for the 127 backers, this group did include several senior, more institutionalized members who seemed surprised to be among the nays.

Among the 19 was Brooklyn’s Vito Lopez (D), who said that he felt compelled to vote against the legislation due to the lack of a sunset provision.

He insisted this might have been added had the bill gone into committee sometime between coming out of the leaders’ negotiation room and appearing on the Assembly floor.

Fears of how the new laws might disproportionately affect his poorer constituents struck him.

“For the first time in 23 years—and maybe that’s the benefit of being here—I’m going to change my vote and vote no,” he said.

Eyeing the button on his desk, he hesitated until all but a few others had voted, then rose to speak again about why he could not support that version of civil confinement.

The chair translated the speech into a vote against the bill.

Fellow Democrat David Gantt (Monroe), first elected in 1983, followed Lopez’s lead in voting against the bill after listening to the floor debate.

Though the decades-long streak since a bill was voted down on the floor continues, if not for the 2005 changes, which required them to be in their seats to vote, Lopez and Gantt might well have simply been counted as voting yes.

Most reform advocates would likely see this as a victory, though the legislation still passed overwhelmingly.

Certainly, this moment can be read as a demonstration of the power of having people in their seats for debates, though most of the legislators spent the hour of discussion chatting with each other, eating bananas or fiddling with Blackberries and giggling at emails, more than looking up at and listening to the debate.

—Edward-Isaac Dovere

To many outside observers, that is at the root of legislators’ decision to flex their collective muscle in appointing a new comptroller, beating back Spitzer’s attempts to strong-arm them.

Most Assembly members insist that this should not be read as a contradiction of their reform efforts, and moreover, that it should not be read as a demonstration of a stranglehold by Silver over his conference, whom they say was forced unwillingly into the conflict with Spitzer by his conference.

“You can’t look at that as a litmus test for reform,” contended Assembly Member Karim Camara (D-Brooklyn).

Camara first came to office in a 2005 special election to fill the seat then-Brooklyn Democratic Leader Clarence Norman was forced from on his way to prison.

He strongly identifies himself as a reformer.

He was one of five relatively new city-based members who recently agreed to self-imposed restrictions on campaign fundraising modeled after those adopted by Spitzer and Lt. Gov. David Paterson (D) at the beginning of the year.

While identifying himself strongly as a reformer, he said, “I’m not interested in reform just for the sake of reform."

"I’m interested in reform that can help the people that I represent.”

He calls his vote for DiNapoli a pragmatic decision.

“I liked Martha Stark a lot,” Camara said, referring to the New York City finance commissioner who got just 56 votes, compared to DiNapoli’s 150.

“She just didn’t have the support or the votes."

"So if I’m thinking about what’s best for my district—do I support a candidate who has no chance to win, or do I support another candidate who I believe is qualified and have access for another three and a quarter years?”

Trading votes for support, not picking fights when the battles have clearly ended—these are staples of ambitious, effective politicians in any legislative body.

And for those who seek it, the possibility of personal gain, whether through more member items headed to a district or leadership stipend lulus tacked onto the salaries, is there as well.

(“It’s not something that’s said,” confided one Assembly member. “But if someone wants to sell his or her vote, I’d be shocked if there’s no way to do it."
"It’s been going on in democracy since the day we had democracy.”)

Brian Kavanagh (Manhattan), who beat incumbent Sylvia Friedman last year just months after she won a special election for the seat, also voted for DiNapoli.

Central to Kavanagh’s campaign was a charge that Friedman had cozied up with Silver and the encrusted establishment between taking office March 1 after winning a special election and their Sept. 12 Democratic primary.

He also campaigned on a message that Albany needed to institute reforms which had proven successful in the city, like the campaign finance system and redistricting reform.

Kavanagh said that after 20 years of late budgets, having them done on time the past two years (time will tell if this year’s will follow suit, and how much larger it will be than last year’s) show the power of reformers to change the structure, as does the more open process of finalizing the budget and the recently-passed ethics bill.

Still, he feels the Legislature must be made more transparent as a route to crafting more effective policy, and to rooting out corruption.

Success, however, meant a careful, deliberative effort to bring all his colleagues around to that same realization, and keeping a good relationship with leaders.

He called his current relationship with Silver “cordial.”

“Being a reformer, which I do consider myself, is not about making yourself in the wilderness,” he said.

“It’s not about standing entirely outside the system.”

Looking to change the system is not mutually exclusive with looking to reap the benefits from working well within the system until those changes come, Kavanagh said.

“I want to do both.”

http://cityhallnews.com/cover1_031207.html

[Livyjr]

"Deal floated on health spending - Spitzer aboard plan for cost-of-living boost and an end to tax for hospitals, but downstate groups object"

By JAMES M. ODATO, Capitol bureau, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Wednesday, March 21, 2007

ALBANY -- Gov. Eliot Spitzer and the Healthcare Association of New York Tuesday floated a potential settlement to the health care funding wars that would add about $300 million to Spitzer's budget.

Although the deal was unacceptable to a downstate hospital group and its union allies, some parties in the negotiations saw the proposal as a positive step.

A handshake on health care spending could advance other areas of the budget, although Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno was holding firm to his conference's demands for greater education funding to ensure Long Island's traditional share of school aid.

Bruno also was touting the need for an across-the-board tax rebate program not tied to income levels, as Spitzer's STAR expansion program is designed.

As for the health care deal, some parties were optimistic.

"We've continued discussions with the Assembly, Senate and governor and we are close to a conceptual agreement," said William VanSlyke, a spokesman for HANYS.

"But the devil's in details."

People apprised of the deal said the plan calls for providing hospitals 75 percent of the 2.5 percent cost-of-living increase they have been counting on.

Spitzer has proposed no increase and a freeze on rates paid hospitals and nursing homes.

The deal would be worth $136.5 million, half from the state and half from federal aid for hospitals.

Also, Spitzer would agree to let the gross receipts tax on hospitals expire, as scheduled, at the end of this month, saving hospitals $136.9 million.

Spitzer had proposed extending the tax and freezing rates as part of his $1.3 billion in cuts to the industry.

A deal with hospitals on providing an inflationary rate hike likely would lead to one for nursing homes, too.

Spitzer still could declare victory because he would hold to his policy of redirecting Medicaid funds to hospitals based on the actual number of Medicaid patients they care for.

Kenneth Raske, president of the Greater New York Hospital Association, said he is aware of HANYS' meeting with Spitzer's aides.

The plan, he said, would benefit upstate hospitals more than downstate ones.

The Assembly Democrats' budget plan, which restored all of the cost-of-living adjustment and killed the gross receipts tax, would benefit downstate hospitals by tens of millions of dollars more.

Jennifer Cunningham, a lobbyist for Local 1199 of the Service Employees International Union, said downstate hospitals would lose $110 million if HANYS' plan replaces the Assembly Democrats' proposal.

"HANYS does not speak for 265,000 health care workers of 1199," she said.

The HANYS deal takes $24 million that would normally be used for graduate medical education, largely in New York City hospitals, and redirects it upstate.

The HANYS plan would be about $74 million less expensive than the Assembly plan and much less costly than the Senate's proposal to restore more than half the cuts Spitzer seeks, a source familiar with the deal said.

News of the talks came amid little other progress on the budget.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith, Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco and Bruno met publicly with Spitzer on Tuesday morning.

Spitzer and Silver said Bruno's budget plan adds $3.2 billion to the governor's $120.6 billion budget proposal and wrongly assumes the state will have nearly $5 billion more in available funds for budgeting.

"Five billion dollars is not real," Silver said.

Bruno said Senate Republicans historically have been better at estimating revenues.

He complained that conference committees now under way have been a joke because Bruno, Silver, Smith and Tedisco haven't met to set guidelines on spending.

"They've been playing ring-around-the-rosy," Bruno said in an attempt to get the leaders to meet with him.

James M. Odato can be reached at 454-5083 or by e-mail at jodato@timesunion.com.

[Livyjr]

"Environmental post left in limbo - Grannis backers say GOP dragging feet on nomination"

By BRIAN NEARING, Staff writer, Albany, New York Times Union

First published: Wednesday, March 21, 2007

ALBANY -- The political slow dance over Alexander "Pete" Grannis, Gov. Eliot Spitzer's nominee for Environmental Conservation commissioner, will continue a few more steps.

On Tuesday, the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee took the unusual step of questioning Grannis, a longtime Democratic assemblyman, and then adjourning without a vote.

Grannis' supporters in the environmental community cried foul, claiming Senate Republicans were deliberately foot-dragging as part of a battle with the Democratic governor.

Committee Chairman Carl Marcellino, who hinted his committee might not be able to meet again with Grannis until next week, denied any such motivation at the end of the 90-minute hearing.

Five senators on the 14-member committee questioned Grannis, and "we didn't have time to finish," said Marcellino, who said he was forced to cut short the hearing because of a budget committee that afternoon.

"This is no reflection on the vote."

"We will reschedule."

Spitzer's office declined comment.

But some at the packed hearing, which drew several hundred people, were vocal in their displeasure.

It is uncommon for a Senate committee to take more than a single day for a confirmation hearing.

He already had been put on today's Senate Finance Committee agenda.

"This is ridiculous."

"They are playing politics with a very important position," said Robert Moore, executive director of Environmental Advocates.

"They have had weeks to schedule this meeting."

"A lot of people traveled to be here."

Since Grannis was nominated by the governor in January, the Manhattan lawmaker has come under fire from sportsmen who consider him anti-hunting, which he denies.

During the hearing, Grannis took questions on topics including global warming, New York City's control around land in its upstate reservoir system, and all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles in the Adirondack Park.

He sparred briefly with Sen. Elizabeth Little, R-Queensbury, who asked whether the state needs to create more ATV trails in the 6-million-acre park.

Grannis said he was concerned with the "destructive nature of misuse" of ATVs.

"People who buy these are often highly abusive of the environment."

Grannis also disagreed with Little that the state, which owns about half of the park, has acquired too much property and was stifling economic growth.

He said local communities should focus on creating development plans that would "concentrate" future development around existing towns and hamlets.

Grannis said the top issues facing the department are rebuilding staff lost under former Gov. George Pataki, when the DEC workforce shrank by one fourth, and spearheading the state's response to global warming, which he called a "threat that hangs over the entire state, nation and world."

He favors the proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which involves nine northeastern states and would limit emissions of carbon dioxide.

A lawmaker since 1974, Grannis has been a member of the Assembly's Environmental Conservation Committee and pushed such issues as the State Environmental Quality Review Act, the original bottle bill, and brownfield cleanup and revitalization.

He authored the state's 1989 Clean Indoor Air Act and its 2003 amendments, which banned smoking in most public and work places.

Brian Nearing can be reached at 454-5094 or by e-mail at bnearing@timesunion.com.

[Livyjr]

AP

"New YorkLobbying Commission director denies vendetta in Vacco case"

March 21, 2007, 10:39 AM EDT

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) _ The executive director of the state Lobbying Commission on Wednesday denied allegations that he offered to settle an investigation into former state Attorney General Dennis Vacco's lobbying firm if the business would find another job for a commission staffer.

Attorney James Crane claims Lobbying Commission Executive Director David Grandeau repeatedly investigated Crane & Vacco LLC because of "personal animosity" toward him.

Crane made the charges in a response to a lawsuit seeking to force him to testify in an investigation of the firm.

"The guys in the black hats always think the guys in the white hats have a vendetta against them," Grandeau said.

"The only vendetta I have is to enforce the Lobbying Act."

Crane's wife, Constance Crane, is a partner with former Attorney General Dennis Vacco in the business.

James Crane does legal work for the firm.

Crane claims Grandeau offered to settle a 2005 investigation if Crane & Vacco "would hire, or would arrange to have an employment opportunity for Kris Thompson," a former spokesman for the Lobbying Commission.

Thompson said he had a "difficult" relationship with Grandeau.

Grandeau said he does not recall making such an offer, but if he did, it was "done in a jocular way."

The commission was investigating the signing of a contract that guaranteed the firm $5.5 million if it won the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma approval to open a casino in New York.

By law, lobbyists cannot agree to deals in which payments are based on the success of a project or legislation.

Crane & Vacco agreed to pay $50,000 to settle the investigation but refused to sign the agreement after Grandeau publicly said he believed a crime was committed.

Crane & Vacco admitted no wrongdoing in the agreement.

Grandeau is now seeking to force James Crane to testify about campaign contributions related to the lobbying firm.

[Livyjr]

And getting to the heart of what this particular thread is really all about ....

"Scandal a blow to faith in the system"

By JAY BOOKMAN

First published: Tuesday, March 20, 2007

"I would never, ever make a change in a United States attorney for political reasons," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee two months ago.

If you want to understand how a pretty minor story -- the removal of eight U.S. attorneys by the Bush administration -- has somehow metastasized into a major controversy, that statement by Gonzales is your Rosetta Stone.

It opens the door to the three levels of scandal in this story, ranging from relatively minor to potentially grave and earthshaking.

Let's start with the relatively minor.

In his statement to Congress, Gonzales acknowledges it would be wrong to remove prosecutors for political reasons.

It is so wrong, he tells Congress, that he would never, ever do such a terrible thing.

And yet he did.

Since that statement, the evidence has become overwhelming that some, if not most, of the attorneys were ousted for political reasons, with considerable input from the White House.

One of the eight, for example, was removed as U.S. attorney in Arkansas despite glowing performance reviews.

Why?

So an aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove could get the job.

Now, that's not a huge scandal.

Such decisions, even if made on a political basis, are clearly within a president's prerogative.

They do bring into question the judgment of those who would treat one of the most important jobs in federal law enforcement like a mere political plum, but they do not explain why this scandal threatens the careers and reputations of some of the most powerful people in Washington.

To understand that, you have to step to the next level:

By denying any political motive or involvement by the White House, Gonzales and other Bush officials lied to the U.S. Senate.

That has angered politicians of both parties, leading at least two Republican senators to demand Gonzales' resignation.

It's almost funny -- Congress, which has allowed itself to be lied to, stonewalled, ignored and ridiculed by the administration for six years over issues fundamental to government, finally gets upset at how it's treated and it's over something like this.

The third level of this scandal is by far the most troubling and explosive, and also the least understood.

It goes to how and why those eight prosecutors were selected for replacement despite the fact most were Bush appointees who had conducted themselves well as U.S. attorneys.

John McKay, a well-respected Republican lawyer ousted as U.S. attorney in Seattle, says he may have been tagged for removal because he fended off unethical demands from Republican leaders to pursue charges of vote fraud against Washington Democrats, even though those charges were groundless.

"There was no evidence, and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury," says McKay, who suggests a special prosecutor may be needed to determine the full extent of this scandal.

David Iglesias, the equally well-respected Republican ousted as U.S. attorney in New Mexico, believes that he, too, was removed because he ignored pressure from fellow Republicans to indict Democrats just before the 2006 elections.

Iglesias has told Congress he felt pressured by phone calls from a U.S. senator and congresswoman; barely a week after the election, his name was added to an internal list of attorneys to be removed.

The most troubling case may be that of Carol Lam, a U.S. attorney from San Diego who put Duke Cunningham, a Republican congressman from California, in federal prison on corruption charges.

On the day the Los Angeles Times reported that Lam was also investigating U.S. Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the powerful head of the House Appropriations Committee, a top Justice Department official sent an internal e-mail to the White House, complaining about "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam," suggesting a replacement be found quickly.

Any implication that a U.S. attorney's employment depends on his or her willingness to protect a president's political allies and persecute his enemies strikes at the heart of public confidence in the system.

In Georgia, for example, defenders of former state Sen. Charles Walker, a top Democrat now serving a federal prison term, have long argued he was the victim of politically motivated prosecution.

That's not the case; Walker was guilty and got what he deserved.

But in some quarters, this scandal will be seen as lending credence to Walker's claim, and that's unfortunate.

Jay Bookman writes for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. His e-mail address is jbookman@ajc.com.