Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v34)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

Regular readers know I'm not a fan of the term 'full-time legislator' being applied to New York's state senators and members of the assembly.  They're in session about 60 days a year, after all, unless a special session is called.

But they used the full-time designation as justification for their pay raise request, something I've written about many times, including the first six or seven posts in this Meanwhile, Back in Albany series.

When they were granted a $50K+ raise over three years last year, the one good thing I saw come from that was a limit on outside income starting in January 2020. Here's what I said about the deal back in December, knowing that folks were happy with the raise, probably wishy-washy on the lulus, and unhappy with the outside income limits.

Legislators can convene a special session to overturn the recommendations, but that seems unlikely. What seems more likely is that there'll be court challenges to the plan, on the income cap almost certainly, and perhaps on the 'pay for performance' aspect of future raises.

We've not heard the last of this, for sure. 

No, we've not. But we have heard about the court challenges. For example, we learned recently that a second state judge has ruled that the limits on outside income don't pass muster. State Supreme Court Justice Richard Platkin determined only the raises - not the outside income limits - carry the force of law, noting

"All of the committee's other recommendations are just that - recommendations advanced for the consideration of policy makers, but not the law of New York State." 

Under this decision, it appears the three-year raise deal will stand.


In the earlier case, State Supreme Court Justice Christina Ryba ruled that the pay raise committee had overstepped its authority by tying the raises to the outside income limits. And, her ruling allowed at least this year's installment of of the raise to stand, perhaps because this is the only year of the three where there is no limit on the outside income.

In one part of her decision, Ryba "severs" the 2019 pay increase from scheduled hikes for future years - suggesting the pay raises for 2020 and 2021 won't take effect, and the pay committee or Legislature would have to revisit the issue.

And if you think for a second that only Republicans in the Legislature are excited by these court decisions, you've got another think coming. Three Assembly Dems, along with an Albany County legislator (also a Dem), filed suit in federal court at the end of May.

They contend that the outside income restriction limits their freedom of speech, illegally reduces their income mid-term, and makes certain types of outside income more acceptable than other types, by carving out various exceptions and through the definitions used.

In their court filing, the Dems

• fired shots at the Sonofa Gov for corruption in (or just outside the door of) his office, and for receiving a boatload of outside income "for a memoir that sold only 3200 copies;"
• pointed out that the 2019 legislative session running from January to June was only 58 days long; and
• told us that "when the Legislature is not in session for the remaining six months of the year, the opportunity to earn outside income certainly exists." 

I don't know about you, but none of that makes me feel any more convinced that they're working full time for you and me. And comparing their most recent session to the US House of Representatives' 15-year average of 130 days doesn't convince me that their raise, which will eventually pay them nearly 75% of what we pay Congress, is at all justified, with or without an outside income ban.

And the best part? There's this note in their filing (and yes, I added the emphasis below -- I honestly couldn't help myself):

The collective bargaining agreement between the State and the Public Employees Federation contains salaries for civil servants that far exceed the salaries of legislators.

I'm sorry they're jealous of the union contracts, or embarrassed that they're making so much less than the full-time civil service salaries we also pay.

So, what next?  It would be nice if they asked the governor to call them back for a special session and erase the raises for 2020 and 2021, come up with better language around outside income, and show us that they're more concerned about our tax dollars than they are about how many dollars they get.

Or, of course, they can declare that they're not going to run again. That would work, too.