The Update Desk: MBIA (v46)

And... it's a done deal. 

I'm not really surprised that our legislators are going to be the highest-paid in the country, making $142,000 per year, for a 60-day session plus whatever other time they put into their jobs that we don't know about, until we get their newsletters. 

You'll recall I told you about this a little over a week ago in Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v46)

Many New Yorkers are struggling right now, trying to come up with money to pay their rent, their utilities, to buy groceries, and to scrape together money to put even a fair-to-middling holiday celebration together for their families. 

Rural families, suburban families, urban families - it's not just one subset of New Yorkers; all of us are feeling a pinch in one way or another. Which is why it's so insulting to learn that our legislators just gave themselves a $32,000 raise. 

I think this was the fastest I've ever reached out to my elected representatives.

I've emailed Sen. Rachel May and Assemblymember Pamela Hunter, my representatives, for their thoughts and comments on their votes. It's clear from my comments that I don't support this move, so I'll be interested if I get a "thanks, Constituent" letter or if they'll try and convince me this is a good idea.

At the time, I didn't know how they voted, but I had a suspicion. I since confirmed that the count was mostly along party lines, which is no shock. In the Senate, it was 33 - 23, with 7 Dems voting no; in the Assembly, it was 81-52, with 8 Dems joining their Republican colleagues in voting no.

My two? They were both 'yes' votes. And I have yet to get a response from either of them.

I've also reached out to Gov. Kathy Hochul, urging her to veto the legislation and force the two chambers to override her veto, which they can do if they want, and I encourage you to do the same if you don't like being taken advantage of by our legislators. 

I got what appears like a canned response to anyone who writes to her; "thanks, and we've got a lot of work to do together" kind of thing, with no mention of my issue. 

And then we heard, late on New Year's Eve, that she had signed the bill, even though the raise was more than she had expressed support for, and so was the outside income limit. There have been suggestions that she didn't veto it because she needs the legislature to get things done with the budget and all the legislation they pack into it. There've also been suggestions that she should have gotten a guarantee for having her pick to be the chief judge on the Court of Appeals approved, which may or may not happen.

I'm not sure about either of those, but I wish if she was going to approve it anyway, she had made them wait and stew in it for as long as possible. 

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v46)

Many New Yorkers are struggling right now, trying to come up with money to pay their rent, their utilities, to buy groceries, and to scrape together money to put even a fair-to-middling holiday celebration together for their families. 

Rural families, suburban families, urban families - it's not just one subset of New Yorkers; all of us are feeling a pinch in one way or another. Which is why it's so insulting to learn that our legislators just gave themselves a $32,000 raise. 

Let me say that again: 

Rural families, suburban families, urban families - it's not just one subset of New Yorkers; all of us are feeling a pinch in one way or another. Which is why it's so insulting to learn that our legislators just gave themselves a $32,000 raise. 

I can assure you, if I could get to my rooftop, I'd be shouting about this from up there, even in this weather. Fortunately for me, my neighbors, and for you, I'm not able to get up there now, so you're safe.

Why did they decide to give themselves a $32,000, 29% pay raise, after getting a 38% pay raise in 2019, you ask?  I'll let them explain it to you.

From The National Herald:

Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, a Democrat, said legislators work hard, year-round, and deserved a raise to cover the increased cost of living.  "It’s a full-time job,” she said. “Sooner or later in order to be able to afford to do the job, we have to raise pay.”  

What she means is, she wanted a raise. In the same article, 

Assemblywoman Patricia Fahy, a Democrat, said the raise would help the Legislature retain quality members who could make more in the private sector. “We have had an unhealthy churning and turnover particularly from downstate members,” she said. 

What she means is, she wanted a raise. And, she doesn't want anyone other than an incumbent Democrat to win election, particularly downstate where the Ds have all the power.

From Politico:

Democrats defended the 29 percent pay increase that will serve as a nice holiday present, saying their salaries were stuck at $79,500 for 20 years before jumping to $110,000 in 2019 after a recommendation from a special compensation committee. The deal also includes limiting lawmakers’ outside income to no more than $35,000 a year. 

“It’s a full-time job. People are working throughout the year, and to wait until 20 or 30 years (for a raise) isn’t reasonable either for lawmakers,” Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins told reporters. 

What she means is, she wanted a raise. And her argument of having to wait 20 0r 30 years is ridiculous, since we all know they just got that raise back in 2019. The article graciously reminds us, or informs us, of the challenging legislative calendar our legislators set for themselves.

The Legislature has a roughly 60-day session in Albany that runs three to four days a week from January through June, and then occasionally reconvenes if a pressing issue arises — like in July when lawmakers came back for a day to vote to toughen gun laws after the Supreme Court tossed the state’s century-old concealed carry law. 

The rest of the year is spent dealing with constituent work in their districts, lawmakers said. 

Would it surprise you to learn that Ms. Stewart-Cousins hasn't recorded any items in her website's newsroom since August 26th? No communications to her district, or to the rest of us New Yorkers? No press releases? No nothing, since celebrating Women of Distinction? (By comparison, I've done over 40 posts since then, and I'm kicking myself that it's only that many...)

Would it surprise you that her website calendar shows only eight events in all of 2022? Or that it shows zero events since May?  I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound very much like a full-time anything to me...

From the same article, 

“This is the right thing to do,” said Senate Finance Chair Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan). She said people shouldn’t be discouraged from running for office “because I won’t be able to meet my bills.” 

What she means is, she wanted a raise. I'd suggest, though, that "people shouldn't be discouraged from living in New York because they won't be able to meet their bills" is perhaps a better description of what life is like for many. And that's one contributor to why more people have left NY than any other state, according to this report; I don't know if "legislators aren't paid enough here" is on the list of reasons people leave, but I highly doubt it.

And, this, too, from the same article. 

“Legislators work hard, and we’re about to come into session in January to continue trying to do the best we can for families in the state of New York,” Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D-Bronx) told reporters. “This is more of a timing issue.” 

What he means is, he wanted a raise. Honestly, you've gotta love a guy who stands in front of a microphone and suggests that, now that they've given themselves a raise, they're going to try and do their best for the rest of us. I swear, you can't make this stuff up. 

And from Spectrum News:

Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins to reporters on Thursday morning acknowledged the public perception of the pay raise increases, noting lawmakers will address "affordability" issues facing New Yorkers next year when the new legislative session begins.   

"This is a full-time job, I think people understand," she said. "We work hard and it was finally time to resolve the issue of pay." 

What she means is, she wanted a raise. It wasn't "finally time to resolve the issue of pay" - for her and the rest of them, it was finally time to create the issue of pay.

From the same article,

Pay raises have long been a thorny issue in the state Legislature. And if the pay bill is approved, state lawmakers will still be paid less than what New York City Council members earn at $148,000.  

"Legislators work very hard -- even some of the Republicans," Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie said. "There's no compensation you can give to be away from your families." 

What he means is, he wanted a raise. Cracking a joke on an issue of this magnitude? Yeah, that's leadership, Carl. And one more thing: if there is no amount of compensation that makes up for you being away from your family, why the hell did you run for office to begin with, and for re-election so many times?  

I'll close with this piece from mychamplainvalley.com, quoting Stewart-Cousins on the issue of outside income:

There is currently no cap on outside income for lawmakers, but this bill would cap it at $35,000. Could we see some turnover with lawmakers who do have outside jobs?

“Well possibly, and that’s why we made that part of it effective two years from now, because people could have run with the old understanding that they would be able to make unlimited outside income and now with this legislation you will not be able to do it,” said the Leader.

What she means is, she wanted a raise. And she didn't want to wait two years to get it, even though "people could have run with the old understanding that they would" make a mere $110,000 annually for serving in the Legislature. 

I've emailed Sen. Rachel May and Assemblymember Pamela Hunter, my representatives, for their thoughts and comments on their votes. It's clear from my comments that I don't support this move, so I'll be interested if I get a "thanks, Constituent" letter or if they'll try and convince me this is a good idea.

I've also reached out to Gov. Kathy Hochul, urging her to veto the legislation and force the two chambers to override her veto, which they can do if they want, and I encourage you to do the same if you don't like being taken advantage of by our legislators. 

More to come on this issue, I promise.

Meanwhile, Back in Albany (v43): It's Politics, Not Me, Too

The Sonofa Gov announced his resignation today, effective in 14 days. You should read his full remarks; selected excerpts (and commentary) are below.

I’d like to address several issues today. First, I’ve always started by telling New Yorkers the facts before my opinion. So, let’s start New York tough with the truth.

The attorney general did a report on complaints made against me by certain women for my conduct. The report said I sexually harassed 11 women. That was the headline people heard and saw and reacted to. The reaction was outrage. It should have been. However, it was also false...

The most serious allegations made against me had no credible factual basis in the report. And there is a difference between alleged improper conduct and concluding sexual harassment. Now, don’t get me wrong, this is not to say that there are not 11 women who I truly offended. There are. And for that I deeply, deeply apologize...

He gave a list of things that he did that were misunderstood. He was only being nice, being friendly, using endearing terms, he thought, or joking. He said "I take full responsibility for my actions."

I have been too familiar with people. My sense of humor can be insensitive and off-putting. I do hug and kiss people casually, women and men. I have done it all my life. It’s who I’ve been since I can remember. In my mind, I’ve never crossed the line with anyone, but I didn’t realize the extent to which the line has been redrawn. There are generational and cultural shifts that I just didn’t fully appreciate, and I should have. No excuses.

He spoke about Trooper #1, but first, he patted himself on the back for bringing diversity to his State Police detail. 

Please let me provide some context. The governor’s trooper detail had about 65 troopers on it, but of the 65 only six women and nine Black troopers. I’m very proud of the diversity of my administration. It’s more diverse than any administration in history. And I’m very proud of the fact that I have more women in senior positions than any governor before me.

The lack of diversity on the state police detail was an ongoing disappointment for me. In many ways, the governor’s detail is the face of state government that people see. When I attend an event, people see the detail that’s with me. I was continuously trying to recruit more to diversify... 

And he addressed her allegations: 

This female trooper was getting married, and I made some jokes about the negative consequences of married life. I meant it to be humorous. She was offended, and she was right.

The trooper also said that in an elevator I touched her back and when I was walking past her in a doorway, I touched her stomach. Now I don’t recall doing it, but if she said I did it, I believe her... It was totally thoughtless in the literal sense of the word, but it was also insensitive. It was embarrassing to her, and it was disrespectful.

There was finger-pointing: 

Now, obviously, in a highly political matter like this, there are many agendas and there are many motivations at play. If anyone thought otherwise, they would be naïve, and New Yorkers are not naïve... 

Part of being New York tough is being New York smart. New York smart tells us that this situation and moment are not about the facts...  This is about politics... There is an intelligent discussion to be had on gender-based actions on generational and cultural behavioral differences on setting higher standards and finding reasonable resolutions. But the political environment is too hot and it is too reactionary for that now, and it is unfortunate.

And the 'this is bigger than me' part: 

... when I took my oath as governor... I became a fighter, but I became a fighter for you, and it is your best interests that I must serve. This situation by its current trajectory will generate months of political and legal controversy. That is what is going to happen. That is how the political wind is blowing. It will consume government. It will cost taxpayers millions of dollars. It will brutalize people... This is one of the most challenging times for government in a generation. Government really needs to function today. Government needs to perform. It is a matter of life and death — government operations, and wasting energy on distractions is the last thing that state government should be doing. And I cannot be the cause of that.

 And there was New York Tough:

New York Tough means New York loving, and I love New York, and I love you. And everything I have ever done has been motivated by that love. And I would never want to be unhelpful in any way. And I think that given the circumstances, the best way I can help now is if I step aside and let government get back to governing. And, therefore, that’s what I’ll do because I work for you, and doing the right thing is doing the right thing for you. Because as we say, “It’s not about me. It’s about we.”

 And compliments to his staff:

To my team... I want to say this: Thank you. Thank you. And be proud. We made New York state the progressive capital of the nation. No other state government accomplished more to help people. And that is what it’s all about...

Today so much of the politics is just noise, just static, and that’s why people tune it out. What matters is actually improving people’s lives, and that’s what you did. You made this state a better state for the generations that follow, and that is undeniable, inarguable, and true, even in these ugly, crazy times.

He mentioned his daughters: 

I want them to know from the bottom of my heart that I never did and I never would intentionally disrespect a woman or treat any woman differently than I would want them treated. And that is the God’s honest truth. Your dad made mistakes, and he apologized, and he learned from it. And that’s what life is all about.

And finally, there was the "honor of my lifetime" part to wrap things up. 

... Out of many one. Unity, community, love. That is our founding premise, and our enduring promise. And that is the salvation of this nation that it so desperately needs to hear. Thank you for the honor of serving you. It has been the honor of my lifetime. God bless you.

Apologetic? Nope - not really. More defiant than anything, blaming everyone else for what's happening to him. He's done that throughout his career, on ethics, campaign finance reform, and more. My Moreland Commission and Meanwhile Back in Albany posts are enlightening in that regard. 

Satisfactory? Nope. He's still in denial about his actions, suggesting that the goalposts had moved. But they haven't. His understanding of where those goalposts were was - and is - sorely lacking, but that's on him, not on his accusers. He was the boss, he was the one in power, and he knows it. The goalposts are exactly where they always were - and he knows it. 

Sincere? As much as he can be, I guess. But I found his comments about how much money would be spent during an impeachment to be disingenuous. "The Executive Chamber" has a $2.5M contract with a law firm, after all - and that's coming from our pockets, not his. And, of course, there's the countless hours of hand-wringing, testifying, strategizing, retaliating and who knows what else that he and his staff have been doing, instead of doing the people's work. 

And he touches only on the sexual harassment allegations - never mentions the book deal, and having his staff, ahem, "volunteer' to help on that - that's illegal, and it's impossible, since he has said his office - The Executive Chamber - is a high-pressure, long hours, late into the night shop, dealing with life-and-death stuff. Who has time to work on their boss's book under those circumstances?  

He never mentioned the nursing home stuff - that's where the $2.5M noted above is going. He's apparently using campaign funds for the sexual harassment legal team - that's legal here, sadly - even though he said he wasn't.

In the end, he's just a man, like many before him and like many - hopefully fewer, as time progresses - who will come after him. Political men, compelling when in power, much less so as their power slips away. Sitting alone, trying to pin the tail of blame on unnamed political enemies, elephants and donkeys alike, not caring who they bring down with them. 

That's really who he is, today. 

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v42)

Sonofa Gov Poster

The NYS Assembly, the chamber that's going to investigate (for one reason or another) the varied crises faced by the Sonofa Gov, has engaged a law firm to handle the heavy lifting for them.

I say 'for one reason or another,' because we know there was some confusion, or disagreement, among the Dems on a private call of conference members, which was made public - because of course it was.

The contentious conversation between Heastie and his Democratic colleagues, which has not previously been reported in detail, revealed how New York Democrats are consumed by Cuomo’s conduct and are deeply divided on how to move forward.

And, the article continued, it showed how they're now afraid of leaks, and of the potential that more women might bring allegations against Cuomo. 

At one point, (Speaker Carl Heastie) said the Assembly’s Democratic conference was divided between those who want to leave it to state Attorney General Tish James to investigate Cuomo’s conduct, those who hope the governor will step down, and those who want to see him impeached.

The Assembly Judiciary Committee's investigation "will focus on three different things: the seven women who have accused the governor of assault, the nursing home deaths and the mounting questions about" the Mario Cuomo Bridge project. As one Assembly member said, “He’s got three major buckets of shit going on here,” referring to Cuomo. 

So, we know the what; let's look at the who. 

New York State Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie and Judiciary Committee Chair Charles Lavine announced that the Assembly has retained the law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP to lead the impeachment investigation into the mounting allegations against Governor Andrew Cuomo.

“Since Thursday, Chairman Lavine led a vigorous search for a top-flight firm to assist with the investigation. I have the utmost faith that Assemblymember Lavine and our Judiciary Committee will conduct a full and fair investigation,” Speaker Heastie said. “Hiring Davis Polk will give the Committee the experience, independence, and resources needed to handle this important investigation in a thorough and expeditious manner.” 

The three attorneys assigned to the investigation have experience defending white collar criminals of all stripes, in federal and state courts, and with multiple regulators, and are highly praised by clients and their peers. One worked on the Mueller investigation.

Lavine said that the addition of firm will allow him and his committee "to fully and fairly investigate the allegations. These are serious allegations, and they will be treated with fairness, due process, and discretion." 

The addition of the firm also caused a stir - rightfully, I think. With all the law firms in NYC, and in Albany, and, honestly, anywhere else in the country, they managed to find one that, as the attorney for one of the alleged victims said, "has some associations that could call its objectivity into question."  

Dennis Glazer, the husband of the state’s chief judge of the Court of Appeals, Janet DiFiore, was a partner at Davis Polk for 30 years. Cuomo appointed DiFiore to her judgeship. She also served as the chair of the state’s public ethics commission, an entity controlled by the governor. Glazer was appointed by Cuomo to serve on the Board of SUNY Purchase and the state’s casino siting board. If the Assembly does vote to impeach, DiFiore would preside over a Senate impeachment trial.

It's been reported that Glazer is still getting a nice pension from his former firm. Not only that, but guess who the Sonofa Gov wanted to be involved in the investigation into the allegations? That's right - Chief Judge Janet DiFiore. And, should the investigation result in articles of impeachment? DiFiore will be a juror. 

What a mess. 

I don't know about you, but I am not at all surprised that at least one of Cuomo's accusers is saying she won't participate in the Judiciary Committee's "sham investigation." 

Would you do anything different if you were in her shoes?

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.

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v25)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times photo

New York is about to get a taste of the Democratic trifecta when the Legislature gets to work on Monday.

First up? Voting and campaign reforms, according to news reports. For example, here's how the NY Times set the stage:

For years, the ways in which voters in New York have been stymied by the state's antiquated voting laws have stood in start contrast to the state's liberal reputation...But with Democrats now in control of both chambers of the State Capitol and the governor's office, things are about to change.

And here's how the Tribune News Service  presented it:

The Legislature will look to hit the ground running beginning Monday with passage of a number of long-anticipated voting and campaign reforms, including the closure of a controversial loophole that allows companies to give virtually unlimited amounts of campaign cash.

The voting reform package will be the first major undertaking by the Assembly and Senate, which are now controlled for the first time in a decade by the Democrats. The package and a host of other issues set to be taken up in the next few weeks have all been routinely blocked in previous years by Republicans, who long controlled the Senate.  

Let's take a look at the plans.