Where No Birds Sing

Governor Defers Budget Decisions,

Blames Volatility in World Markets

A widely used political metaphor is the canary in the mineshaft. The small yellow bird is said to be more sensitive to carbon monoxide and methane than human beings. Therefore, when poisonous gases accumulate in an enclosed underground area, the canary is reputedly the first creature to sense its toxic effects. This makes the bird a living smoke alarm, and signals miners and others to escape.

The canary warns of danger not by calls of alarm, but by their absence. Since canaries sing a great deal of the time, miners could read their silence as indicating that the birds were dead or dying, and that it was past time to flee. The concept of the canary in the mineshaft is used to describe a situation in which peril is perceived by a few, but is imminent for all.

The canary rule can be applied to financial situations, weather conditions, rising waters or other impending crises, physical or economic. The canary in the mineshaft provides an early warning of danger ahead. Theoretically, this avian warning information gives the authorities, or whoever has brought the canaries to the mine, the opportunity to take remedial action in an attempt to forestall the disaster that lies in wait if nothing is done.

Advance information is also a valuable asset in the business world. People have gone to jail for using it for their own benefit at the expense of others. The rules on this sometimes can be difficult to follow, although there are obvious cases where people (e.g. messengers or printers) have obtained information on the job about future transactions and used that knowledge for personal gain.

People who trade stocks and bonds make decisions based on their beliefs of what the market will do. Investment decisions should be made on the basis of the informed judgment of market professionals. It is logical that such judgments should be made, in part, on the basis of what other investors are doing. It is illegal, however, to be too well informed, and people can be prosecuted if they are caught at insider trading.

An opposite flaw in the dissemination of information is criticized in today's Post by E.J. McMahon. He observes that an important budget document is now more than ten days overdue. Every October 31 in New York State, the governor's Division of the Budget is supposed to issue a mid-year financial report, detailing the degree to which the state's real-world economic situation conforms to the projections laid out in the annual budget adopted by the legislature at the end of March.

In addition to tracking the state's actual tax revenues, which according to the comptroller's office are down by almost $400 million from the forecast numbers, the mid-year accounting is an important indicator of the "fiscal trends that will shape the next Executive Budget". It also provides a context to evaluate the budget requests made by each of the state agency heads, which were due this week.

Governor Cuomo explains his decision to delay the DOB's mid-year report, and, consequently, to postpone indefinitely the deadline for agency heads to submit their budget requests, as follows: "Between Greece and Europe and the stock market going up and down, there has been significant ... volatility. We want to make sure we have the best possible [projections], because we are going to start making real decisions based on this information."

The phrase "making real decisions" in government usually means firing people or shelving capital projects. Since the state has won major concessions from the unions in exchange for a no-layoff pledge, it will be more difficult to find areas in which expenditures can be substantially reduced.

Since it is unlikely that there will be a tide-turning economic recovery in the state in the next few months, the delay in submitting reports and budget requests will most likely mean that the reductions, when they come, will be sharper. This is a perennial situation; it recurs with monotonous and unsurprising regularity each budget cycle. The administration buys breathing room, but at a cost.

The next four and a half months will complete Fiscal Year 2011-2012. As the due date for the next budget approaches, the struggle to balance the budget, or to find a ruse to avoid a balanced budget, will intensify. Mandatory cost increases and a projected $2.4 billion budget gap will create an even more difficult situation for next year.

Some alleviation of the bad news may come from the fact that if the budget is so dire than reasonable people will not fault the governor for being unable to keep his commitments. However, Cuomo appears to be proud of his promises, and as a strong governor and potential national candidate, he is under closer scrutiny than some of his rivals.

We fear the silence of the canary. Muzzling or ignoring the bird may provide time to work on the problem, but it will not add any oxygen to the mineshaft.



StarQuest #784 11.10.2011 824 words

Water, water, everywhere

Irene Drenches City

Winds Just Bluster,

Nature Lends a Hand.

Mayor Back in Groove

Today we enjoy the calm after the storm. The sky is clear and we have a pleasant breeze. It is a perfect day to go outside and breathe air that is cleaner than usual. You can also leave your apartment windows open.

The contrast, of course, is with last week, when Hurricane Irene dropped millions of gallons of water over the Eastern Seaboard, starting with Puerto Rico, and heading north to Canada, finally dissipating over Quebec. Hurricanes have no regard for political boundaries. Landfalls slow them down but do not stop them.

Fortunately, Irene turned into a tropical storm as it approached New York City, and we were spared the worst of the winds, which would have inflicted enormous damage on property and probably would have killed many people, as tornadoes frequently do.

This column tends to view significant events, including natural disasters, in terms of their political effect, if any, and the competence of public agencies and officials in dealing with crisis.

In that regard the Bloomberg and the Cuomo administrations did very well. It is possible that the Mayor's good work was, in part, based on his determination to avoid another fiasco like the late December blizzard in 2010 which was not anticipated and not responded to promptly by city officials, some of whom were out of town. There is nothing wrong with the mayor's learning from that experience, and in fact it is a credit to him that he did.

There was one change in the lineup, Deputy Mayor Stephen Goldsmith, who lived in Washington, D.C., and became, somewhat unfairly, the official scapegoat for all that went wrong in the city's response to the blizzard, was replaced by Cas Holloway, who had been Mayor Bloomberg's Commissioner of Environmental Protection. Holloway lives in Brooklyn Heights, and had served years in the mayor's office, and before that, in the Department of Parks & Recreation, a well-known incubator of young talent (e.g. Adrian Benepe, Ed Skyler and Bradley Tusk).

The city had the advantage of five days' notice that Hurricane Irene was headed our way, and used the time wisely to make arrangements as to how to deal with the approaching storm. The mass evacuation of nursing home residents turned out not to have been necessary, but anyone who remembers senior citizens drowning in their beds in New Orleans during Katrina did not want to see a repeat of that tragic scenario.

HISTORICAL CATASTROPHES

The death toll from Katrina was 1,836, making it one of the deadliest natural disasters in the United States since the Johnstown, PA, flood in May 1889, where an estimated 2,200 people died, mostly by drowning. That tragedy was caused by the catastrophic failure of the South Fork Dam on Lake Conemaugh, which released twenty million tons of water which raced 14 miles downstream to reach Johnstown. The worst natural disaster in United States history was the Galveston flood of September 1900, which killed an estimated 8,000 people. The multiple attacks on 9-11-2001 killed nearly 3,000 people, but that was a man-made tragedy and not a natural disaster. Outside this country, the Haitian earthquake of January 2010 resulted in 316,000 deaths, more than a hundred times as many as died at the World Trade Center.

As of this afternoon, just one death in New York City has been attributed to the storm, which is the result of good luck, sound planning, and fine work by first responders. The men and women who worked to achieve this result deserve praise for their efforts. We hope they suffer no after-effects from their work.

This hurricane was extensively covered by the media, particularly television, which had great visuals of surging waves. Reporters and cameramen were placed in different neighborhoods and showed the extent of the flooding, which never seemed to be as deep as their descriptions. Winds are less visible on TV, but one could see reporters trying to stand up straight while they spoke, with gusts occasionally pushing them around.

Mayor Bloomberg had periodic press conferences to report on developments, which is what Mayor Giuliani did after the 9-11 terror attack. Governor Cuomo called out 2000 National Guard troops, deployed them in flooded areas, visited upstate counties, praised local officials and showed himself to be deeply involved, with State Operations Director Howard Glaser coordinating the state's response, where flash floods upstate endangered lives, with people trapped in motels by rising waters.

After 9/11, candidate Andrew Cuomo got into trouble for saying that all Governor Pataki did was hold Mayor Giuliani's coat. This year Governor Cuomo spoke wisely and to the point, telling what the state was doing, and saying nothing negative about anyone. By highlighting the hurricane's effect in Long Island and upstate counties in the Hudson valley, he avoided Mayor Bloomberg's turf and showed that he was ready for prime time. Good.

Even President Obama got into the act, speaking live for a few minutes at 5 p.m. Friday about federal assistance in the disaster area, and how all levels of government were working together. He also mentioned ways people could prepare for impending hurricanes. It was somewhat reassuring to know that he cared about us New Yorkers.

In another first for natural disasters, we received e-mails all day from miscellaneous elected officials, district leaders, city councilmembers and even one aspirant to a Queens Assembly seat, advising their constituents how to deal with the winds and the flood. These messages were harmless, and might even be helpful if one had no other source of information as to what to do in the event of a hurricane, or were watching TV for the first time.

These e-mailings were evidence of the maxim, "It's an ill wind that blows no good", because the raging hurricane provided an opportunity for the politicians to send mailings to their constituents at the expense of the State or City of New York. Watch for the next rainstorm, and see whether we are advised to carry umbrellas.

We defend the city from accusations of over-reacting, which were implicit in some questions from skeptics in the press. For the next hurricane, we can do fewer evacuations, but it is important periodically to test emergency management situations, and Irene was an excellent occasion to find out what works and what doesn't.

I think of the two men on the beach in Florida talking about what had brought them there. One man said he had a candy store which burned to the ground after a serious fire. The other fellow said that he had a clothing store, which had been blown away by a tornado. The first man expressed surprise, and asked his companion, "Tell me, how do you make a tornado?"

Since we cannot make tornadoes or hurricanes, we should use the ones that God sends us to learn all we can as to how to deal with them, and minimize the loss of life and property. It is not wrong for a disaster to be a test of public officials, they are elected in part to protect us, and a crisis gives them the chance to show what they can, or cannot do.

President Bush looking out the window of Air Force One flying over New Orleans after Katrina six years ago was not a helpful image, and his words on the ground to his FEMA chief, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job," reverberated to his discomfort. It is remarkable what the elected class has learned since then.

We wish that hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes and forest fires do not threaten our State. If they do come, we depend on our public officials to lead our response. There is also a great deal that individuals can do, and they should be more prepared for disasters than they are today.

We have lived for over a half century under the threat of weapons of mass destruction. With nuclear proliferation under way, with unstable regimes in some countries, and others led by psychotics, the world is a dangerous place, whether or not it is warming (and it probably is). The more people can do to provide practical protection for themselves and their families, the better their outcome may turn out to be, as my mother used to say, "if anything happens."

Beware the Gerrymander

Common Cause Drawing Lines

For Legislative Redistricting,

LATFOR Holding Hearings

Writing a blog has many satisfactions. One can share information and opinions with thousands of people who have elected to receive them. One can affect the public's view of issues. On some occasions, one can publish material previously unknown or unconnected to the larger universe of public policy issues.

A blog also has its frustrations. The blogger can draw conclusions and make proposals, in a loud or soft voice, but there is no assurance that anyone will do what he recommends. In most cases, there is a reason that officials will not do what you suggest. The most common reason is their own self-interest.

It is an ancient truism that the first law of nature is self-preservation. The thought was expressed elegantly by Andrew Marvell in 1675 in England in a metaphysical poem, "Hodge's Vision from the Monument".

"Self-preservation, nature's first great law,
All the creatures, except man, doth awe."

BTW, the gifted Marvell (1621-1678) is the author of another iconic couplet, well known for centuries:

"The grave's a fine and private place,
But none I think do there embrace."

The importance of self-preservation was doubtless in the minds of our ancestors, the cavepeople, whether they expressed that view in their speech or not. When one watches nature programs on public television, and sees the way animals treat, and eat, each other, the priority of survival for any living creature is evident.

The relevance of these observations to today's politics arises when we consider the decennial issue of redistricting. The Constitution of the United States (Art. I, Sec. 2) requires the enumeration of the population by means of a census to be taken every ten years (the first was in 1790), and the assignment of seats in the House of Representatives based on roughly equal districts. It is left to the state legislatures to draw the lines, either as a body, through a committee, or by taking recommendations from a group they appoint for that purpose, be it judicial, academic, nonpartisan or bipartisan.

New York State is historically noted for egregious gerrymandering. For roughly the last half century, the Assembly has been districted to elect Democrats, whereas the Senate lines favor Republicans. The steady growth in allegiance to the Democrats and the relative depopulation of upstate has made it increasingly difficult to draw Senate lines to keep the Republican Senate majority.

In 2008, the Democrats actually gained a Senate majority because of the high vote for President Obama. They managed their majority so shamefully and corruptly that the Republicans narrowly regained control in 2010. During the campaign, all the Republicans promised in writing to support an independent redistricting commission in order to win the approval of Mayor Koch and an organization he and others formed called New York Uprising.

After the Republican victory, owing in part to the use of the Koch pledge in their literature, they concluded that the independent commission they promised to support could not come into effect until the state Constitution was amended, an event that would not take place before 2013, at the earliest, and would not apply until the 2022 election. What happened, of course, was that once they had a majority, the Republicans repudiated their pledge, as it was no longer in their self-interest to honor it.

Governor Cuomo has repeatedly pledged to veto any districting plan that is not prepared by an independent commission. He does, however, leave himself some wiggle room by requiring that the plan be fair, reasonable and nonpartisan, without re-emphasizing the necessity for an independent commission.

To his credit, the Governor has stated that he does not believe that the committee of state legislators charged with statutory authority to draw the lines, the New York State Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment (LATFOR), can see past their own personal and political interests and create district boundaries that are equitable. LATFOR has so far had two hearings upstate, with another scheduled tomorrow in Albany. Five hearings will be held in New York City in September, one in each borough (Queens - Sept. 7; Bronx - Sept. 8; Brooklyn - Sept. 20; Manhattan - Sept. 21; and Staten Island - Sept. 22). Their locations have not yet been announced.

If the Governor vetoes a districting plan, it will be up to the legislature to sustain or override the veto. To override requires a two-thirds vote in each house, which means that both the Democratic and Republican leadership would have to agree on a plan. Enough legislators have signed the Koch pledge to sustain a Cuomo veto, but will they keep their word?

Another possible scenario is that, anticipating Governor Cuomo's veto, the Legislature will avoid the political consequences of overriding the Governor's honest and populist stance and instead stall as long as it can, perhaps until February 2012, before issuing its suggested lines.

The aim of this strategy would be for the legislature to make the case to the state or federal courts, which would be charged with drawing the lines in the event the state does not adopt any, that there would not be enough time before the April 24, 2012 primary date to come up with new lines, and thus there would be no alternative but to adopt the LATFOR lines.

To thwart this potential manipulation, Governor Cuomo should take Bill Samuels' suggestion and appoint a nonpartisan, independent commission now that would draw up equitable lines which the Governor would be comfortable adopting. This commission's recommendations would not be binding, nor would they carry official weight, but they would be valuable if the redistricting battle winds up in the courts, and the judiciary needs a viable alternative to the LATFOR lines to consider in a short period of time.

Common Cause New York deserves praise for the substantial labor that it is currently performing to create their own set of lines, drawn up according to the principles commonly held by good government groups. Basic fairness requires that legislative districts be compact, contiguous, equal in population, reflect communities of interest, and not be stacked, packed, hacked or cracked, which are terms used to describing either stuffing members of one group into a district in order to control it, or breaking up natural concentrations of people to diminish their power to elect a member of their group.

It will be interesting to see how different Common Cause's lines will be, when they are completed in the coming months, from the ones LATFOR ultimately draws. Close examination of the differences are likely to reveal the partisan self-serving motives of the legislators.

There is still a possibility that the Legislature will honor the pledge it made to Mayor Koch, the former mayors and governors who are part of New York Uprising, and Citizens Union, a leader in the struggle and the organizing force behind the ReShape New York coalition, of which New York Civic is a member, and hold a special session to appoint an independent commission in place of LATFOR. That is, however, highly unlikely as it would almost certainly frustrate the Senate Republicans's desire to maintain their majority, which they may lose unless President Obama's defeat in 2012 is as massive as his victory was in 2008.

There are many injustices in politics, such as the denial of ballot access to independent candidates, the use of technicalities in the election law to exclude legitimate candidates, the use of public resources by incumbents to promote their re-election, soliciting and securing campaign contributions from people and organizations candidates have assisted financially, usually with public funds, vacancies artfully created by timely resignations of incumbents, so the positions will be filled by special or midsummer elections with minimal voter turnout, and the prevention and suppression of primary elections through political or economic intimidation, not to mention old-fashioned voter fraud, such as multiple voting, and a variety of other 'dirty tricks'.

The struggle for clean elections and clean district lines are part of the effort to insure fair, open and honest elections so that the voters' choices will be respected. Unfortunately, insiders in the political system will often use every sort of chicanery to prevent a free election. In these contests, the insiders have a great deal at stake. It is their boodle, pelf and spoils that they are trying to preserve.

The voters have a right to choose their elected officials. The officials do not have a right to choose their voters, although in fact they try to do just that. Sometimes they even succeed. In New York State they usually do.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" was said by Wendell Phillips in 1852, in a speech to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society. That statement is still true today, and applies particularly to those who would tamper with the electoral process in order to gain private, personal or partisan preference.

The least one can expect in a competitive election is a map with clean district boundaries. Sadly, for far too many office holders, that is the last thing they want to see happen. We will watch closely for the next few months, looking out for attempts to manipulate the process. If the past is any indicator, machinations are likely to be attempted by those who hold legislative power. This is an early warning that there will be trickery afoot.

Jaybird Flies

Jay Walder Is Not Casey Jones,

Jumps From NYC to Hong Kong

Because MTA Nears Fiscal Crash

Jay Walder is no Casey Jones.

Unlike the iconic railroad engineer, who kept his hand on the throttle while his train plunged down curving tracks to disaster, and by doing so saved the lives of many people, the MTA chief Jay Walder did not even complete two years at the helm of the transit authority before he jumped ship for a more secure and lucrative berth in a private, profitable transit system.

Walder was not shanghaied in the dead of night; he is going voluntarily to MTR (Mass Transit Railway), a railroad colossus headquartered in Hong Kong. Any idea where they might bank?

Actually, Walder had a number of good reasons for his secretive flight from New York and the MTA. The first is the impoverishment of the system he is leaving. The MTA has consistently been undersupported, not given enough money to operate, let alone to build and maintain the system in good repair. Before he came, they overspent wildly, in part because of bureaucracy, over-engineering, and weakness before unions, as well as traditional corruption, particularly in construction and real property. Walder did not want his reputation endangered by too many years presiding over a system subject to those perils.

Second is the apparent indifference of Governor Cuomo to the plight of the MTA, and the absence of any effort to develop a relationship with Walder. It was not nearly as bad as Governor Paterson, who refused to speak with Lee Sander, Walder's predecessor, or even to return his calls, because Sander had been appointed by his predecessor, Governor Spitzer. Sander did not have the luxury of another job offer as Walder did, so he hung around until he was dismissed by Paterson on May 7, 1999 on practically one day's notice, even though it took more than two months after that to find a successor (Walder).

Sander was not the only Paterson commissioner to be fired practically instantly. On October 21, 2010, just twelve days before the election of Governor Cuomo, the Environmental Protection Commissioner, Pete Grannis, who had served since the start of the Spitzer administration and before that, spent 32 years in the Assembly, was told to clear out immediately by Larry Schwartz, at the time a key aide to Governor Paterson. The trumped-up charge against Grannis was that he had sought to avoid budget cuts for his agency, which every commissioner worth anything does every year. Grannis was told that Paterson would not speak to him about the matter and that his dismissal was final. He got the news as he was preparing to deliver a speech and receive an award from an environmental group at what became his last supper in office.

The question arose as to why Grannis was fired just then. Why not leave it to the incoming governor (Cuomo) to choose his cabinet? Why should Grannis' 36 years of state service end in peremptory dismissal? One plausible explanation is based on where Larry Schwartz is now. Governor Cuomo has appointed him Secretary to the Governor, which is the equivalent to chief of staff on the national level and the same post Schwartz held in the Paterson administration.

It is likely that, in firing Grannis on the spot, Schwartz was serving his new master, Cuomo, and sparing the governor-elect the embarrassment of firing an environmental icon. Cuomo has the right to choose his own commissioners, and Joe Martens is a good choice for the position, with a fine environmental record. Nonetheless, we recount the story now to tell you how it was done, which is in accord with the important Rule 26, "No prints."

Walder chose to accept what could be the best transit job in the world, at a multiple of the salary which was begrudged to him in New York. He thus avoided the fate of his predecessor Sander and his colleague Grannis.

Last night, I watched The Call on New York 1. People called and emailed the station to express their views on Walder. Almost all were very negative, with the exception of Richard Ravitch, the former lieutenant governor, as well as MTA chair. Ravitch was highly complimentary, as was Mayor Bloomberg. The hostile attitude of the public came because of the service and personnel reductions that Walder was obliged to make because of the lack of public funds and steadily rising expenses, most but not all of which were uncontrollable. How many years should one devote to serving people who think you are doing a lousy job, when in fact you are doing a very competent job at an obviously thankless task?

One could tell that many of the disgruntled callers were transit employees or union activists. Even so, there were precious few callers who admired the service they received from the MTA or its departing chairman. If there were an attempt to jam the switchboard, it succeeded. If there were not, the negative sentiment was more authentic. Of course, no one likes waiting for a train on a hot platform, being squeezed or crushed inside a car, or being delayed for an indefinite period, whether by "the dispatcher" or by "train traffic ahead".

The underlying fact is that the transit system is in a financial bind comparable to that which faces the United States, except that it cannot run up fourteen trillion dollars in deficits and then ask for more. Sooner or later, probably sooner, fares will rise and interest on the MTA's indebtedness will increase. The State and City, traditional sources of additional funding, are, as we know, undergoing severe fiscal problems and highly unlikely to substantially increase transit subsidies, if indeed they are willing to retain them. One cannot mention state aid without recalling with sorrow the disgraceful decision of the New York State Assembly to eliminate the commuter tax on May 17, 1999, a date which will live in infamy in mass transit history. How long should Walder remain at the helm of a ship which takes on more water each year?

We believe that Jay Walder is, by and large, a decent, honorable, hard-working and competent bureaucrat, who will be missed after he is gone. He is not an inspirational figure, nor did he attempt to be one. Nicole Gelinas, giving Walder a mixed review, asks today in The Post: "Can the next MTA chief be a fighter?" One answer to that question is that the MTA chief is an appointed, rather than an elected official. Major funding decisions are made by the elected, and it is the job of the appointed to do the best they can with the resources that they have been given.

Of course, they can and should demand more; that is what Commissioner Pete Grannis (who was from 1974 to 2005 an elected official, given to expressing his own opinions) did in October 2010, for which he was summarily politically beheaded in what appears to be a pre-election housecleaning. Fortunately, Grannis has found a new job in what appears to be a more congenial setting, so his public service can continue and his pension clock keep running.

"Speak truth to power" is a noble slogan, but truth is better spoken by those with no power than by those with some. People with intermediate degrees of power are likely to lose what little they have if they engage in unappreciated candor. Those outside the Beltway (or its local equivalent) are less subject to the whims of the authorities.

We wish Walder the best in his new adventure, which we hope will be excellent, for the sake of the millions of Chinese and others who will benefit from his services. The search for a successor should begin at once. It will be a real challenge to the Governor and the MTA to find someone as knowledgeable and professionally skilled as Walder. But once such a person is hired, s/he must be given the appropriation that is needed for the MTA to do the job right.

P.S. It is ironic that people now go from New York to Hong Kong in order to triple their wages.

Win Some, Lose Some

Cuomo Reaffirms Commitment

To Independent Redistricting,

But Promulgates Calendar

That Will Bar Primaries

Politics has its ups and downs, as this week's events show.

There was a bright spot. Governor Cuomo reaffirmed his decision, first announced in February, that he would veto any redistricting bill passed by the Legislature that did not provide for an independent districting commission to draw the boundaries of Congressional, state senate and assembly districts.

Under the Constitution of the United States, (Art. I, Sec. 2), a census is to be taken every ten years, and seats in the House of Representatives are to be allocated to the states in proportion to their population. Since 1790, the enumeration has been conducted in years ending in zero. It is called the decennial census.

Under the first census, the population of the United States was counted at 3,922,214, and New York State had 340,120 residents, which was 8.656 per cent of the U.S. total. The most recent census, taken in 2010 and reported in 2011, showed the population of the United States at 308,745,538, of whom 19,378,102 lived in New York State.

In the ten years since the previous census, New York State gained only 2.1 per cent in population while the nation's population rose 9.7 per cent. New York State's share of the nation's population is 6.276 per cent. Since there are now 50 states while in 1790 there were 13, New York has held up fairly well over the 220 years of counting heads. The last half-century, however, has not been kind to the Empire State, which peaked at 45 Congressional districts in 1930 and 1940, but has steadily declined in political strength since World War II.

New York's slow increase in the most recent decade, compared with the much faster gains of states in the South and Southwest, has resulted in the state's loss of two House seats, which in the 2012 election will bring our total number of districts down from 31 to 29. Texas gained the largest number of seats in the last decade, going from 32 to 36. Nevada had the highest percentage increase, 35.1 per cent. The Silver State still has fewer people than the norm for one district, now about 710,000. The red states generally outgrew the blue states in the early 21st century, and as the Constitution makes this a zero-sum game, the gains came at the expense of the blue states.

With the loss of two New York seats, the question arises: which two districts out of the 31 will be made to disappear by whichever legislative body, independent commission or Federal court ends up drawing the final lines? Normally when the flock is culled, the weaker sheep are slaughtered, but New York has a plethora of rookies, as a result of libidinous mishaps.

The last seventeen months have seen three sudden departures of New York State Congressmen, all based on a variety of sexual acts and images, although none involved actual intercourse. The first to go was Democrat Eric Massa, from the southern tier of upstate counties, who was credibly accused of groping his young male staffers and resigned in March 2010. Next was Chris Lee, a Republican whose district lies between the suburbs of Buffalo and Rochester, who resigned in February 9, 2011, the day a photograph of the shirtless legislator appeared on Craigslist. He was outed by Gawker, but exposure is almost inevitable when one trolls for companionship on the Internet.

The most important legislator to fall, also entangled by the Web, was Democrat Anthony Weiner, who accidentally posted a sexually suggestive photo of himself on Twitter on May 27. After a prolonged period of denial, followed by apology and refusal to resign, Weiner gave in on June 16 and left his Democratic seat in Brooklyn and Queens vacant. Queens Democratic leader Joseph Crowley selected Assemblyman David Weprin to run in a special election September 13 to fill the position through the end of next year, when it is likely to be abolished. If that does occur, David Weprin will be in the unique position of being a former member of the State Assembly, the City Council and the United States Congress, as well as being the son of the late Assembly Speaker, Saul Weprin, and the brother of City Councilman Mark Weprin, who is regarded as upwardly mobile.

The reform movement in New York State public affairs, which consists of traditional, well-regarded government organizations, joined by Mayor Ed Koch's New York Uprising, has made independent redistricting a priority for 2011. So far the legislature has ignored their wishes, instead convening its own instrument for redistricting, called LATFOR, an acronym for Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment. The Albany Times-Union, in a well-written account by Casey Seiler and Jimmy Vielkind, brings us up to date on the latest skirmish. The article is worth your attention.

LATFOR met Wednesday for the first time. Its co-chairs are Republican Senator Michael Nozzolio from Seneca Falls and Democratic Assemblyman Jack McEneny of Albany. The meeting was brief and uneventful, but after it ended Mr. McEneny called Governor Cuomo's potential rejection "a very petty approach" based on "a dumb reason". Those remarks were gratuitous and injudicious, even from the assemblyman's point of view. One does not attack a popular governor without some preparation, definition of the issue, and sophisticated choice of language.

Reformers had worried about Governor Cuomo's adherence to his pledge to veto lines not drawn by an independent commission, fearing that as the price for the enormously successful legislative session, he may have promised to let the legislative leaders have their way on redistricting, which is of the utmost concern to them because it may determine who controls the Senate next year. The Assembly is 2-1 Democratic so the Senate will be the battle ground. The last time the Democrats organized the Senate, 2009-10, was considered a disaster. Previously the Republicans had held power for 44 years, in good part due to gerrymandering under an unspoken understanding in which each party controlled one house. Divided government was helpful to whomever was governor. At the same time, it made it more difficult to fix responsibility for anything, and in the long term was not helpful to the State or its fisc.

The McEneny sally Wednesday and the press inquiry that followed it provided an opportunity for Cuomo to express his views. The governor said that his attitude "is crystal clear, has been for a long time: I understand the assemblyman's point of view, he wants to draw his own lines... I want to have lines drawn that represent the people of the state of New York, not a particular assemblyman."

In a move announced late last Friday (considered the optimal time to put out stories of divorces and other possibly ill-received news), Governor Cuomo did make a concession to the state's party bosses, in particular Democratic Leaders Joseph Crowley of Queens and Vito Lopez of Brooklyn. In a move slammed by the editorial pages of The Daily News and The Times, Cuomo set dates for special elections to fill six vacant Assembly seats and one Congressional seat (Anthony Weiner's). The election date is September 13, which coincides with Primary Day, if there are any primaries.

Cuomo was not mandated to call special elections, and could have let the voters in the affected districts select their own party nominees in a September primary leading to a November general election. Instead, the party leader in each county will choose their party's nominees for the vacant public offices. Since Democrats prevail in most districts, that means the Democratic county leaders will decide who the incoming elected officials will be. In the normal course of events, this would make the elected officials particularly responsive to the wishes and preferences of the county leaders who have selected them to hold office. The public is effectively removed from the selection process until two years have passed, during which the selected nominee will have all the privileges of incumbency.

On one hand, how much heavy lifting is it fair to ask Governor Cuomo to do? On the other, what kind of democracy allows one man to choose so many public officials without the consent of the governed?

P.S. It doesn't bother me much that the Queens leader, Joe Crowley, lives in Virginia with his wife and kids. Why pick on one elected official who really seems to want a relatively normal family life, which at a minimum requires the presence of one's family, particularly young children? I object to a few of Crowley's political decisions, but choosing to live with his wife and kids is not one of them. In fact, for a public official, it is wholesome.

Adam and Steve

Gay Marriage Squeezes By, 33-29,

Tax Limit, Rent Bills Approved,

Sweet Corn Is State Vegetable.

Our last column, sent out late Friday afternoon, reported that the Legislature had not reached a decision on the major issues before it: rent control, property tax cap and gay marriage. The Senate also voted to name sweet corn the state vegetable. It defeated the onion by 56-6, with six downstate Democrats dissenting, including Liz Krueger.

Shortly thereafter, the dam burst and the bills involving money: extension of rent stabilization and a 2 per cent cap on property tax increases were approved overwhelmingly. Gay marriage was considered in the late evening. In the rush to make the 11 p.m. news programs and get the bill signed by Governor Cuomo before midnight, many legislators were not allowed to make statements explaining their votes, which would have been their moment in the sun.

The Gotham Gazette reported the gory details of the silencing and confinement of Senators, including Kevin Parker of Brooklyn, who is known for his fierce temper and physical confrontations with others. The story, a unique narrative of what actually happened on and off the floor, is worth reading here. Although Parker is reported to have cursed out the governor, he did not beat up anybody, although he was justifiably angry at being denied the right to explain his vote to his community, which is divided on the issue of gay marriage.

Some Legislative History

When I was first elected to the City Council in 1973, I signed on as a co-sponsor of what was called the "gay rights bill", which had been introduced in 1971 but had not even received the courtesy of a hearing by a Council committee. The bill would have prohibited discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodation because of sexual orientation. Its opponents at the time said that passing this bill would lead to gay marriage. We responded that this was simply a civil rights bill and had nothing to do with gay marriage, which at the time was inconceivable.

Mayor Koch led the way to equality by issuing executive orders in January 1978, the first month he was in office, which prohibited the City and its agencies from discriminating in any way against gays and lesbians. But for the prohibition to apply to the much larger private sector, legislation was necessary that required City Council approval.

Despite pleas from the mayor, Council Majority Leader Thomas J. Cuite refused to allow the gay rights bill to come to the Council floor. He made his opposition, based on his intense religious belief, very clear. He is said to have gone as far as reaching the father of Councilman Thomas J. Manton of Queens (1932-2006) to implore his son not to support the bill. Manton, a former police officer and a future Congressman from Queens and Democratic county leader, yielded to his father's request. Manton was just one Councilmember, but an influential one throughout his long career.

The Roman Catholic Church was more politically powerful a generation ago than it is today in New York. Under the leadership of Francis Cardinal Spellman (1889-1967), the church wielded enormous influence in political circles. Spellman had publicly quarreled in 1956 with Eleanor Roosevelt over a movie, "Baby Doll", starring Carroll Baker, which he called 'sinful'. The fact that some clerics engaged in homosexual acts only seemed to intensify the church's opposition to any legislation in this area.

In 1985, Cuite retired. He was succeeded by Councilman Peter F. Vallone of Queens. As part of the negotiations over the leadership, in which Mayor Koch took part, Vallone promised to allow the gay rights bill to come to the Council floor for a vote, although he was personally opposed to it. He kept his word and on March 21, 1986, fifteen years after it was introduced, the bill was approved by the City Council, 21 to 14, and subsequently signed by Mayor Koch.

A Federal non-discrimination bill was first introduced in the House of Representatives in 1974 by Congresswoman Bella Abzug and Edward Koch, who served nine years in Congress before he was elected mayor in 1977, defeating Mario Cuomo in a runoff, after Mayor Abe Beame, Ms. Abzug, Percy Sutton and Herman Badillo were eliminated in the first round of voting. Thirty-four years ago, we seem to have had more distinguished candidates for mayor than the current field of aspirants. The Daily Kos reports that the anti-discrimination bill was once again introduced by Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts in March 2011. Its prospects remain dim in the national legislature.

Importance of the Event

The enormous satisfaction the gay community has demonstrated in the last two days is based on the end of what they regarded as the final legal impediment imposed by New York State to full citizenship. They called the cause "Marriage Equality". The bill was supported by many in the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community who have no intentions or immediate prospects of marriage, but want the same rights that straight people take for granted.

There are ten nations which allow same-sex marriage, according to CBC (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). They are Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. Denmark and other countries, including France, are not included because they allow same-sex partnerships but not marriages. It was a surprise to see the full list; it contains countries on every continent except Asia and Australia.

The passage of this bill will not end discrimination and violence against gays. In some places homosexuality is still a crime, punishable by death by stoning. Nor would gay marriage necessarily win popular referenda today in most states. It is ironic that in a California vote gay marriage won in white communities but was defeated by black and Latino voters. Not all minorities are supportive of other minorities, but ethnicity and victimization should not be a basis for people to make decisions on what many, on each side, consider an issue of faith, morals and civil rights.

I support marriage equality, in part because I know people who love each other and should be allowed to commit themselves, and assume the protections and the burdens of marriage. In principle, capacity to reproduce should not be a requirement for couples - many people choose not to have children or are unable to do so. With 300 million Americans and millions more seeking to enter this country, there is no risk of running out of people if gays are allowed to marry.

Also, sexual preference is known to be ingrained; it is rarely a matter of voluntary choice. There was a time, until 1967 and the Loving v. Virginia case, that states could prohibit marriage between people of different races. Today, a child of such a marriage is President of the United States. Who can say that some time in the future, a President will have been born to and reared by a gay or lesbian couple?

Finally, it is somewhat gratifying to see New York State resume its historic role as a place of legislative initiative on social issues. Credit goes to Governor Cuomo and the State legislative leadership in both parties. We hope that the success in securing marriage equality will lead to further accomplishments in Albany. As you know, we have frequently been disappointed, but this year we do appear to have a functioning, intelligent and mature governor.

It can make an enormous difference, if our leaders work together and stay on track. They have shown the capacity to do so, now we look to them for performance.

Greed Rules

Legislature Stalls on Ethics Reform

Despite Cuomo's Emphasis on Issue.

The Reason for Delay is Self-Evident:

Rules Would Impact Their Incomes.

We turn today to one of New York State's oldest oxymorons: Albany ethics. The legislature, having exhausted itself by adopting a budget on time, appears to be coasting toward a proposed June 20 adjournment. That would leave about three weeks for actions of substance. In the hopper are bills to limit increases in the property tax, to legalize gay marriage, to redraw the boundaries of Congressional and legislative lines districts, and to require the disclosure of legislators' clients and earnings in addition to their state salaries. Several hundred matters of local importance also await action by the two houses.

One important proposal is in limbo. Governor Cuomo has sent an ethics package to the Senate and the Assembly, and is speaking up for it on a statewide tour. We quote from his statement:

"New York State government used to be a symbol of integrity and performance, but we have lost that standard. To clean up the government and restore trust with New Yorkers, we need to pass a new ethics law that mandates transparency and full disclosure as well as a law that calls for a real independent monitor.

"Among many reforms, the Governor's ethics reform agenda would:

* Require disclosure of clients doing business with the state that are represented by legislators before the state and disclosure of how much they get paid.

* Require the creation of an independent body to provide oversight and enforcement of ethics rules because, as we have seen in the past, self-policing does not work.

* Require lobbyists to disclose any business relationship with legislators in excess of $1,000.

* Strip pensions from those public officials convicted of a felony related to the abuse of their official duties."

The legislators have reacted to these proposals as an intrusion of roaches would to a can of Raid, or, if you prefer to avoid product placement, as Dracula would to a crucifix.

The current pretext for Speaker Silver's opposition to ethics reform is that creating an independent body to enforce ethics rules would interfere with the Assembly's exclusive authority to discipline its members, and therefore violate the principle of separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. This excuse is comparable to the Senate's belated discovery, after all the Republicans signed pledges to support an independent redistricting commission, that such a panel could only be created by an amendment to the State Constitution which takes two years to adopt, and therefore could not take effect until after the 2020 census.

These "reasons" are so spurious as to be amusing, were it not for the fact that those who offer them dominate their legislative bodies, and, in any event, are acting in the interest of their members who also desire to avoid detection of and prosecution for conflicts of interest that may be engendered by their extra-curricular activities. They do not want to go without the undisclosed loose change that they may pick up either for their acts or their failure to act, depending on the needs of the client. Some of our solons are versatile; one could even say subtle. Many of them are hungry.

There are also principled and honest elected officials in the Legislature, most of whom have little or no power. If they speak too loudly, they risk decapitation by their masters. But to be fair, it is only when a politician attains authority on his own that his ethical standards may truly be tested. Most never reach that stage, and their principal vice turns out to be remaining silent in the face of outrage. They feel that, by keeping quiet, they will advance to positions where they will be able to use their influence in the public interest. "As luck would have it" (Rule 17-A), the few salmon who swim that far upstream forget the high principles they espoused as alevin, fry, parr and smolts.

Around the state, the media are getting sick and tired of the legislature's evasion, procrastination and rationalization.


Today, Bill Hammond of the Daily News expresses his disgust at the situation in a column on p27 entitled "YOUR OUTCRIES, THEIR DEAF EARS: The Public's Priorities Couldn't Be Clearer; Albany's Arrogance Couldn't Be More Profound." Hammond asks, rhetorically: "How much louder do the people of New York have to scream before the Legislature starts listening?


"The people overwhelmingly elected Gov. Cuomo with a mandate to fundamentally change how their infamously dysfunctional state government does business.


"The people overwhelmingly back Cuomo's top two priorities - cleaning up Albany sleaze and stemming relentless property tax hikes - as repeatedly documented by opinion polls.


"Yet the elected officials who supposedly represent those people stymie and stall, balk and bluster - and accomplish nothing. They're hunkered down in the Capitol bubble, deaf to their constituents' unmistakable outcry for reform." You can click here for the rest of Hammond's powerful column, which makes enormous sense to us.


This month, The Utica Observer-Dispatch editorial page articulated similar frustrations, as did The Albany Times Union.

A 2011 report, written for the Brennan Center for Justice by Lawrence Norden, Kelly Williams and John Travis and entitled MEANINGFUL ETHICS REFORM FOR THE 'NEW' ALBANY, encapsulates the long-ignored complaints of New York State's good government groups. It includes a list of the 14 members of the Legislature who have been indicted, convicted or pleaded guilty to crimes in the last decade.

Those of you looking for fresh scandal may be disappointed by this article. The leaders of the Senate and Assembly, reflecting the fears and feelings of many of the members, support unlimited outside income for themselves, even though the handsome but undisclosed legal fees they demand and receive for their representation of clients doing business with the state are in fact often rewards for their political influence and access.

Those who represent plaintiffs are particularly shameless in shaping legislation for their personal benefit and fighting any proposal which could have a negative effect on their incomes. In matters of the purse, they fight with the tenacity of the National Rifle Association, keeping their cold, dead hands on their moneybelts.

Mayor Koch has attempted to breach this old boys' network with New York Uprising. Other groups have fought for reform for generations. Saints Matthew and Mark remind us that the poor will always be with us. The same applies to the predators, people who use public office for personal enrichment, while possessing the political power to make certain that the tainted transactions by which they do this are totally legal, under the laws they adopt.

We believe that, eventually, justice will prevail, and elected officials will no longer be able to receive secret income, particularly from those who have matters pending before the State of New York. The City Charter inhibits such transactions; the State Legislature should do no less.

In the interest of your health, however, we advise you not to stand on one leg until the legislators succumb to the pangs of conscience, if any. Your interest in these matters is idealistic and intellectual. Theirs is personal. You vote once or twice a year, depending on primaries. They vote hundreds of times on bills, and there is a reason for each vote they cast: it can be the merits of an issue, submission to a leader, ignorance, naivete or self-interest. Motives vary with each vote and each legislator. The aggregate is an unwholesome brew.

90 Days to First Base

A Turn for the Better

In State Government

For nine years, we have been writing about city and state government, from the point of view of someone who has been very fortunate to have enjoyed (more often than not) fifty-three eventful years in New York City public affairs, in the executive, legislative and judicial branches, as a civic group's watchdog and as a blogger.

The substance of the 748 articles, all of which are available on our blog, www.nycivic.org, tend to be related to fiscal responsibility, public and private corruption, and the performance of elected officials. There is widespread discontent with the state legislature and the performance of its swollen and self-serving solons. We have also seen arrests and indictments of city and state officials for dishonesty (with an occasional rap for assaulting a girlfriend, a newspaper photographer, a staff member or a police officer).

Public attention focuses on notorious cases, based on the importance of the accused and the dimension of the misconduct. The case of former Governor Eliot Spitzer is a textbook example. The governor is the most important public official in the state, although the United States Senators may have more national influence. The governor's behavior was not that grievous a criminal offense because it was sex between adults who were more than consenting.

The Mann Act is a prosecutorial weapon to obtain guilty pleas from people who do not want to go to trial on a charge punishable by a longer sentence. The law was originally The White Slave Traffic Act of 1910. It prohibits the interstate transportation of females for 'immoral purposes'. The first person prosecuted under the act was the first African-American heavyweight boxing champion of the world, Jack Johnson, who had an affair with a white prostitute, whom he later married. Johnson was later rearrested for an earlier crossing of a state line with another woman, who testified against him. He was found guilty and sentenced to a year and a day in prison, the maximum under the law.

What was really shocking in the Spitzer case was the absurdity of it all. Why should a governor with an attractive, intelligent and devoted wife jeopardize his reputation, his family's good name and his successful career for momentary carnal gratification? And why pay thousands of dollars for a service available at far lower cost? What this shows is a person so possessed and self-deluded that he really was not fit to be governor. One could not rely on his judgment on important issues because of the enormous lack of self-control he repeatedly demonstrated.

Even so, the legislature would not have impeached him for his dalliances if they didn't hate him already, for his bullying and threats, and the general contempt he showed for all of them. The contrast with Andrew Cuomo is striking. He may or may not have any higher opinion of his colleagues in government than Spitzer had, but he knows what to say and what not to say to keep people happy and to get them to do what he wants them to do.

When the accused governor asked Speaker Sheldon Silver about his prospects if the Assembly were to consider his impeachment, he was told that he would receive no more than a handful of votes against impeachment. (I wasn't there at the conversation, of course, but it has been widely reported and not contradicted. The statement has the ring of truth.) The sexual indulgence simply provided an excuse for the dysfunctional legislature to rid itself of a pesky governor, who would put the rest of them in jail if he could.

Unfortunately, the forced resignation took state government out of the frying pan into the fire. It would be too painful to recount the errors, misjudgments, false and misleading statements, intrusions into criminal cases, appointments and dismissals of personnel, not to mention other embarrassments that marred Governor Spitzer's successor's term.

The strong start by Governor Cuomo has raised some hopes that the state may, after all, be governable. The sight of Republican leader Skelos and Speaker Silver, along with their minority counterparts in each house, shows that it is possible for people to work together, in their own interest of course, regardless of party.

One must not forget, however, that the state's basic problems remain unsolved despite the remarkable agreement by its leaders. The financial problem looms every year, and pension and interest costs may continue their upward spiral. The cuts in education and social services will have some cost, but failure to stem the constant increases in these big-budget items would be inexcusable.

Looking back to 1995, Governor Pataki's first year, he too reduced the budget. Then the state reverted to its constant upward climb in expenditures. We hope that the new Governor Cuomo will not be a one-year wonder, but will continue to exhibit fiscal responsibility despite the demands of state employees. What is not said is that there are other ways to cut the budget, locating and excising unnecessary or excessive expenditures, without closing down programs which are essential to physical or mental health and competently administered. It takes more work to cut with a scalpel than with a meat-axe, but if the result is superior service at lower cost, the effort will be worthwhile.

Day 90 - Some things have changed.

Herding Cats

Glory Be. Big Three Agree.

Foresee Albany Tranquility

The Post's front-page headline this morning, PIGS FLY, reflected the skepticism and cynicism that some New Yorkers feel at the report that the governor and legislative leaders had agreed on a state budget five days in advance of the April 1 deadline. The Times' headline was predictably more sedate: ALBANY STRIKES BUDGET ACCORD TO CUT SPENDING. The News' block head was HAMMER TIME, a catch phrase used by '80s rapper M.C. Hammer.

There was some wonderment at the timely bipartisan agreement, considering that the Senate is Republican and the Assembly Democratic. In fact, however, it would have been more difficult to reach agreement if both houses of the legislature had been controlled by the Democrats. In that eventuality, the party leaders would have no one to blame but themselves for their failure to submit entirely to the demands of the interest groups who contribute so handsomely to their campaigns. This way, they can blame the opposition party. Rule 18-X-6 applies here: "The Devil made me do it."

The state budget proceedings are generally fraught with misrepresentation by the participants. How can a ten billion dollar projected deficit disappear overnight without new taxes or new borrowing? The mayor and the governor are in direct conflict, as their predecessors have been for over fifty years or more. The worst battles were between two Republicans, Nelson Rockefeller and John Lindsay.

When one consults experts as to who is telling the truth with regard to financial claims, one is told that the two sets of numbers are both accurate, but are derived from different baselines, and therefore impossible to compare.

The possibility remains that the deal will fall apart over the next few days, as each party tries to derive maximum advantage under the frame of reference agreed upon. In that event, the high popularity of the governor in the polls, combined with the low regard shown for the legislature, should give Andrew Cuomo the upper hand over the refractory solons, a number of whom are ethically challenged.

Conventional wisdom has it that the outcome is ordained by the fact that the State Constitution gives the governor great power over the budget. Speaker Sheldon Silver and former Senate President Joseph Bruno tried to amend the State Constsitution in 2007 to give the legislature power over the governor on the state budget, but their plan was defeated at the polls.

Former Governor Paterson had the same authority that Governor Cuomo has now, but did not make the fullest use of it. There are critical theories as to why this was the case:

l. He was unaware that he had power over the budget.


2. He knew he had the power, but was indifferent to making the effort to use it.


3. He knew he had the power, and he wanted to use it, but did not know just how to do so.

4. He didn't want to upset any of the special interests in the Democratic Party, or be responsible for any budget reductions that would impact negatively any of his perceived communities and supporters.


5. He wanted to use it, but was so grateful to the legislature for not seeking to pursue him for various ethical misjudgments that he did not want to ruffle their feathers by a major disagreement over his authority.


6. Not being a friend and mentor of the Chief Judge, he feared the outcome of litigation over the issue.


7. No longer having available the services of Fr. Charles J. O'Byrne, his competent and trusted confidant, he feared that his case would not be adequately or professionally pursued.


8. He thought it might injure the Democratic Party to have a public quarrel of this nature with the Speaker.


9. Any combination of the first eight reasons.

In fact, Governor Paterson did affirmatively make use of his Constitutional authority in 2010. He acted after the April 1 budget deadline expired, by sending continuing resolutions to the legislature which included various budget reductions, some of which affected issues of public policy.

If the legislature failed to approve his resolutions, the government would have to shut down for lack of funds, causing some disruption to the public and in effect locking out state employees. Governor Paterson had success with this tactic, which Governor Cuomo is widely believed to be ready to use again to achieve the reductions and policy changes which he, and a majority of the public, generally believe to be desirable.

At this point, the close of his third month in office, Cuomo is off to a healthy start. "Day One: Everything Changes", the slogan of the Spitzer administration, is in the dustbin of history. By his third month, Spitzer was at war with the Senate and the Assembly. It was a war he was not destined to win.

With regard to Cuomo, so far the public likes what they have seen of him. He has handled himself well, speaking with both force and restraint. He was particularly good with regard to the strange intrusion by the Roman factotem into his private life, a 21st century reprise of a 16th century dispute between a pope and a king.

We don't have enormous confidence in the budget data that any politician offers, although by the laws of probability, some set of figures must be more accurate than others. It is said that the only true news in some papers is the obituaries, and the only true budget reductions come when people are separated from the payroll, or when prisons actually physically close. That has not yet come to pass, and we do not wish unemployment on anyone, especially in these difficult times. It is difficult, however, for ordinary people to figure out how it is that multi-billion dollar budget goals are proclaimed to have been achieved while personnel costs remain largely untouched and pension costs continue to rise.

Meanwhile, it is better to see both parties on good behavior than to watch them snipe. Governor Cuomo deserves credit for, at least temporarily, restoring good manners to the Capitol. We hope he stays calm. Remember, the governor proposes, the legislature appropriates, but the governor has the last crack at what the agencies spend. He cannot add to appropriations, but he can subtract, particularly in the event of financial emergency, which we have been told is the present exigency.

FYI, the California state budget deficit this year is estimated at $25.4 billion. We are not alone.

BTW: Former City and State Comptroller Alan Hevesi's sentencing on a felony conviction was postponed today after Judge Lewis Bart Stone sent the case back for assignment to another judge because of a potential conflict of interest between the judge and Hevesi's lawyer. Hevesi pleaded guilty on October 7, 2010. He had resigned as State Comptroller on December 22, 2006, after a prior conviction for an unrelated felony.

Lastly, for information about herding cats, click here.

New Teachers on the Block

Layoff of 4666 Teachers Proposed

After State and Federal Aid Cut;

Union Alleges Mayoral Gambit

The city budget proposed yesterday is $65.6 Billion dollars. That is a $300 Million reduction from the current year, almost one half of one per cent of the total budget, and represents a serious effort to control costs.

The most striking part of this year's budget, covering FY 2012 (which begins July 1, 2011) is the projected reduction in the Department of Education staff by 6166 teachers, that is six Thousand one-hundred sixty six. Attrition will account for 1500 vacancies, leaving 4666 layoffs are on the table.

This is the opening gambit in what will be a four-month struggle. The city budget is adopted each year by the City Council and the Mayor in June, and a series of public hearings will be held this spring. It is highly unlikely that the final result of the process will be the dismissal of 4666 teachers laid off, but we believe it is certain that the teaching force in September 2011 will be somewhat smaller than it is today.

The scope of the proposed layoffs suggest that the mayor reduced the city's education budget. In fact, he did not do that. He said that the city will spend $2.2 billion more on education next year than it has this year. He attributed the shortfall to a cut of $800 million in Federal funds and the loss of $l.1 billion dollars in state aid. Governor Cuomo disputes the size of the cut, saying that part of the state reduction came a year ago, during the Paterson administration. But whenever the reduction came, the money is not in the school budget for FY 2012.

Bloomberg spoke knowledgeably for over an hour in the Blue Room, since the former site of budget presentations, the old Board of Estimate chamber in the northwest sector of the second floor of City Hall, was transformed nine years ago into the bullpen, a management technique used by the mayor at his eponymous corporation. The mayor used a body mike, an innovation of the Giuliani administration, which enables the speaker to walk from the rostrum to the PowerPoint presentation.

Years ago, when budget charts were first introduced, OMB staff scampered to the dais to display and then remove them. Technology has advanced, so the press of a button now introduces a new green and white chart. The mayor's speech was carried live on NY1, and streamed on the mayor's website. The streamed version, however, is much smaller than the TV monitor.

Bloomberg's speech displayed his mastery of financial issues facing the city, and his awareness of its difficult financial situation, caused by the combination of the recession, increasing demand for services, loss of control over Medicaid costs, and higher mandatory costs such as pensions and debt service. He said that was the reason that he sought a third term.

Newspaper accounts of the budget presentation varied sharply. The Daily News had a huge headline on page one, PAIN IN THE AX. Bloomy Sees Red, Whacks Billions From City Budget. Charts on pages 4 and 5 specified the reductions.

The Times took quite a different view on the budget. Its page one headline was BUSINESS TAXES BUOY OUTLOOK IN CITY BUDGET. Javier Hernandez' lede:

"Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, in unveiling his budget proposal on Thursday, summed up New York City's financial health with a phrase scarcely heard in the halls of government these days: 'It's good news.'"

The New Yorker magazine used to run items like this one under the caption: "Which paper do you read?"

The report that tax revenues were two billion dollars higher than previously estimated alleviated the sense of immediate crisis to some extent. It also cast doubt on the accuracy of all economic forecasts, even though the revenue estimates proved to be conservative.

There is speculation that the issue of teacher layoffs is linked to the mayor's attempt to change the LIFO (last in, first out) law in New York State. Under that law, seniority dictates that the newest, usually younger teachers, are the first to be laid off. The parties involved all deny any linkage, but that is the way negotiations, if any, are conducted. Besides, it is probably true that there is no linkage now, but who knows what will happen down the road.

The law that teachers must be laid off in reverse order of seniority is widely regarded as an impediment to quality education. President Obama and Secretary Duncan know this, as does anyone who is concerned with student outcomes rather than lifetime jobs for people, some of whom long ago lost their ability or willingness to communicate. On the other hand, LIFO protects teachers from arbitrary actions by political, corrupt or simply stupid supervisors.

OBSERVATIONS OF A SMALL BOY IN NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 1940-1950

I know from first-hand experience (as a kid) in New York City public schools that some teachers were wonderful - I still remember their names today - a handful were terrible, and most were all right. One of the best, Dr. Julius H. Hlavaty, first chairman of the math department at Bronx Science, was fired for not answering questions about his membership in the Communist Party. He was ordered reinstated with back pay by the courts.

Mrs. Mildred Waltzer, who at the time taught at P.S. 152-M, on Nagle Avenue, was a wonderful woman who cared deeply about her students. She taught an ungraded class called O.A. (open air), which would now be considered special ed. She later became a principal in East Harlem. She wanted to adopt me, but fortunately my parents resisted her kind offer.

One of the worst, A.A., taught in Junior High School 52-M, appropriately on Academy Street. She was perpetually annoyed, although we had no idea why. One day, another teacher in the school, a Mrs. Good, died. The next morning, A.A. told her class, 8B-R, which included me: "Do you know why Mrs. Good died? It was because she was too good. I won't make that mistake." I can't say she frightened me (I was 11), but the fact that I remember what she said so many years later indicates that she did make a strong impression. She also rubbed her nose a lot, whether the kids saw or not. There was an art teacher, G., who was so fat she couldn't fit down the aisles between the children's desks. When she tried, the bad kids tried to poke her with their rulers. I felt sorry for her.

In a way teacher quality didn't matter that much because the smart kids knew the material anyway, but there were others who did rely on the teachers for information and instruction. Other teachers at 52, in math and history, were very good. One science teacher spent most of the class time fooling around with developed 13-year-old girls, who he brought to the front of the room to sit by him.

At Bronx Science the teachers were generally better. Some of the science teachers had Ph.D. degrees, but they were unable to get jobs in science because of the Great Depression and because they were Jews. Things were really different many years ago, which young people often have no idea of, although they do know a lot about computers, video games, cell phones and other devices. Each generation masters different skills.

The purpose of this reminiscence is to make the point that teachers vary widely in ability, dedication and mental health. If thousands must be laid off, the city should be able to get rid of the worst ones, regardless of seniority. It is really bad for kids to be stuck with an incompetent or hostile teacher, especially if they rely on him or her to teach them English, or how to read. After a number of years, some teachers get sick and tired of other people's children, while others don't know how to control a classroom.

One important factor is that if the teacher tosses the child out of class for disruptive behavior, the principal should usually back up the teacher and not return the child right away. That is seen as a reward for misbehavior, and weakens whatever authority the teacher had over the child.

School can be a wonderful place for instruction and socialization. It can also utterly fail to achieve those goals. Empowering principals and teachers is important, and school officials should not be intimidated by hostile and belligerent parents. On the other hand, sometimes the parents are right, and principals should have the judgment to make decisions on the merits, not simply on the basis of politics or threats.

I have serious doubts that public school children are being taught and supervised in the best possible way. The problem is that either we don't know the best way, or the people who do know aren't being listened to. Can the new Chancellor provide instruction or guidance in the most serious and compelling issue of public policy?