For the first time in years, New York State’s Presidential primary is important in determining who will be the nominees from both the Republican and Democratic parties.  No one knew how this primary season would play out.  A year ago, the Democrats looked like they were lining up behind Hillary Clinton – now many voters are “feeling the Bern” as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders makes a spirited run.  On the Republican side, no one predicted the rise of Donald Trump as the leading candidate.

But both parties are having highly contested primaries and New York voters can play an important role.  Well, at least some of them can.

New York State has very restrictive political party enrollment rules.  For all elections, New Yorkers have to be enrolled at least 25 days before an election in order to vote.  That deadline is among the longest in the nation.  In order to vote in the upcoming November general election, voters will have to have been enrolled by early October.

The same rule applies to the Presidential primary.  If a New Yorker has never been registered to vote, they could have done so by March 25^th.  Any new voter who registered after that day cannot vote in the Presidential primary.

But for those who wished to vote in the April Presidential primary, and who were already registered to vote, they needed to have been registered in the political party of their choice before October 9, 2015.

That’s right, for New Yorkers who wished to change their party enrollment because they were inspired by the visions offered by the Republican (in addition to Trump, there are candidates Ted Cruz and John Kasich – Ben Carson remained on New York’s ballot as well) or Democratic candidates they would have had to make that decision nearly six months ago.

Of course, virtually no New Yorker knew of any of these rules and there are likely to be many angry New Yorkers at the polls during this week’s Presidential primary.  In fact, many may be confused since they have been watching the ongoing presidential battle, where people in some states simply show up for caucuses to vote.  In states with early voting, residents have weeks to vote, and in some states voters can cast ballots in any party’s primary.

But not in New York.  As a result, there have been media reports that some counties know that and are trying to short-circuit the problem.

On Long Island, for example, it has been reported that Suffolk County’s elections commissioners have sent warning letters to nearly 7,000 voters who switched parties after the deadline.  The board’s letter notes that “New York is one of 11 states with ‘closed’ primaries in which residents who are registered in a party can vote in that party’s primary.

According to the newspaper Newsday, the letter sent to these voters stated, “Since you submitted your change of enrollment . . . after the legal deadline, your change of party . . . will become effective seven days after the general election day 2016.” That means their first presidential primary vote will have to wait until 2020.

And to add to the confusion, in some areas of the state there will be special elections to fill vacated legislative seats.  For example, the legislative positions held by disgraced former Assembly Speaker Silver and Senate Majority Leader Skelos are up for consideration.  For those elections, all voters can vote – and had to have been registered by March 25, but still could not have switched parties after October 9^th.

If a New Yorker wants to know of their status, the state Board of Elections does have a website where he or she can check, go to voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/votersearch.aspx.  Or the voter can contact their county Board of Elections.

Keeping track of all of these deadlines can make a voter’s head spin.  But those are the rules in New York.

Those rules must change.

Leaders like Governor Cuomo have the opportunity and responsibility to do a better job pressing for reforms, like Same Day Registration and Automatic Registration, and ending disenfranchising statutes—like New York’s inane rules for changing party enrollment. That process can have some voters waiting 22 months after changing their party to vote in a Presidential primary election.

Despite the gloom over many upstate New York businesses, there has been one very bright light – its lobbying industry. For decades, New York’s lobbying industry has had an almost unbroken streak of growth – with almost each year setting a new spending record.

2015 was no exception.  Last week the state agency responsible for regulating lobbying released its annual report, which found that in calendar year 2015 a record $243.1 million in lobbying spending occurred, a $17.1 million increase as compared to 2014.

How was all of that money spent?  The agency, known as the Joint Commission on Public Ethics, analyzed the data and found that spending on lobbyists made up the bulk of that spending – $206.7 million of the $243 million, 85% of the total.

The remaining 15% of the spending – nearly $20 million – was spent on advertising, events and other grassroots activities.

Lobbying over education spending was at the top.  Entities representing pro-charter schools or tax credits for the costs of private schools battled the teachers unions.  Roughly 11%, or $26 million, of all lobbying spending was the result of the fight over school spending.  The teachers unions were dramatically outspent in that fight.

JCOPE also reported that in 2015, New York had over 6,000 individual lobbyists representing over 4,000 clients. Of that group, nearly one quarter were involved in lobbying state or municipal governments in an effort to obtain public contracts.

The numbers provided by JCOPE is only part of the story.  New York’s lobbying industry is a big donor to elected officials’ political campaigns.  Campaign contributions are not reported to JCOPE, thus it is hard to know how much money was spent by all of the groups that spend money on lobbying.  But we do know that elected officials are well aware of the importance of lobbyists’ campaign dollars.

In 2015, there were over 170 campaign fundraisers held during the legislative session.  In a typical session, lawmakers are in Albany 60 days and 40 nights, during that time they are able to cram in campaign fundraisers within walking distance of the Capitol – often within the government complex itself. Who do the state’s elected officials think will show up during weekday campaign fundraisers held in Albany?  You guessed it – lobbyists.  They same people who are plying the halls of the Capitol during the day are forking campaign contributions to electeds at night – one of the most brazen aspects of Albany’s “pay-to-play” culture.

Why do businesses and other interest groups spend so much money on lobbying and campaign contributions?  Because they think it works.  They believe they get what they want.  New York’s titans of American capitalism do not spend millions of dollars unless they think they get something in return.

And when it’s been happening for decades – and that spending keeps going up – they must be getting what they want.

The most recent scandals in New York – notably the convictions of the top legislative leaders – add another dimension to this pay-to-play culture.  Not only are these industries spending big on lobbying and campaign contributions, they are also sources of personal money to corrupt officials.  In the convictions of the former Assembly Speaker and former Senate Majority Leader, groups with business before the government provided millions of dollars in outside income to enrich the two men.

Sadly, Albany’s unsavory pay to play culture is not unique in America.  But other states have done something to limit the power of interest groups.  Dozens of states place limits on the campaign fundraising of lobbyists; the federal campaign financing system and many states and localities require that campaign donors disclose their employers – thus making it easier to track the contributions of powerful interest groups; and voluntary systems of public financing allow candidates to rely on clean public resources instead of contributions of those with business before government.  Ironically, one of the best public financing systems has existed for decades in the City of New York.

There is no shortage of examples for reform.  What is in extremely short supply in Albany is the interest in taking on Albany’s political culture.  Governor Cuomo has repeatedly said that he will make ethics his top priority for this session.  Let’s hope he means it, and that he plans to tame Albany’s fat cats.

The big news last week was the new budget agreement. As is increasingly the case, issues that had at best a tangential connection to the budget were part of the final agreement. The issue that headlined the agreement included a hike in the state’s minimum wage. The increase is phased in over a number of years and increases at different rates in different regions of the state. The budget also included a requirement that employers offer paid family leave and lowered tax rates for New Yorkers making less than $300,000.

Here is a sampling of other issues that Governor Cuomo and lawmakers tackled – “the good,” “the bad,” and “the ugly.”

“The good.”

The governor’s proposed extension of the “SUNY2020” annual tuition increase law was rejected. No tuition hike for the first time in five years. However, the $73 million additional funds that the SUNY Chancellor recently said was necessary to hold the line on tuition was not included, leaving the picture somewhat unclear.

The new budget adds a $100 increase per full-time enrolled student (FTE) in community college base aid over that proposed by the governor—an increase of $25 per FTE over the 2015-2016 final budget. The budget restored the governor’s proposed cuts to the state’s opportunity programs and added additional funding beyond last year’s amount.

The budget increased by $130 million funding for the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF), boosting it to $300 million overall. For the first time, the budget creates a separate Climate Change Account within the Environmental Protection Fund, which will include support for electric vehicle charging stations. The budget includes funding for a $2,000 rebate for zero-emission vehicles.

“The bad.”

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (“RGGI”)—a greenhouse gas cap and trade program that auctions pollution credits to generate monies for clean energy programs—was raided of $68 million, including $30 million for diversion to communities where old, uneconomic power plants are shutting down.

Full implementation of the 2006 Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (“DERA”)—intended to reduce emissions of the microscopic particles spewed by diesel trucks and machinery that cause asthma attacks, lung damage and premature death—has been delayed again.

Governor Cuomo put into budget a package of ethics reforms in reaction to the staggering number of scandals that led to the resignations or prison terms for dozens of state lawmakers – including both the former Assembly Speaker and the former Senate Majority Leader. Almost immediately, the governor dropped the issue and spent virtually no time marshalling public support behind his plan. He says ethics will be a top priority for the second half of the legislative session. We’ll see.

“The ugly.”
Undoubtedly the budget negotiating process was one of, if not the, ugliest ever. Despite the fact that the $156 plus billion being appropriated is New Yorkers’ money, Governor Cuomo and the leaders of the legislative majorities did not even pretend to allow public involvement in the process.

Not only was the process being decided in secret among the governor and the legislative leaders, the meetings were often held at the governor’s mansion with no public notice. The leaders were almost contemptuous in their disregard of their responsibilities to the public they are sworn to serve.

Bills were jammed through with no real opportunity for legislators to even read the bills, much less analyze them. One end-of-session bill even moved to the floor without being written!

It was a godawful process. I’ve been through many budgets. In terms of process, one in which the public could feel confident that their money was being spent appropriately, it was terrible.

Governor Cuomo ran for office in 2010 promising to clean up Albany and to develop the most transparent government in state history. Those are two promises he has not delivered on. New Yorkers deserve better.

Recent events in Flint, Michigan and here in New York, the troubles in Hoosick Falls, Binghamton, Syracuse, Western New York, and Long Island, have focused public attention on the problems of keeping drinking water clean.

But those problems are not isolated incidents: drinking water problems exist across the nation.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency projects it will cost $384 billion over 20 years just to maintain the nation’s existing drinking water infrastructure. Replacing pipes, treatment plants and other infrastructure, as well as expanding drinking water systems to handle population growth, could cost as much as $1 trillion.

Water infrastructure problems are not the only problem.  As the planet heats up, water shortages will also strain the nation.  According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, 40 out of 50 states expect some level of water shortage in the coming decade.  Droughts, floods, emerging climate change, water quality degradation, and aging infrastructure pose serious challenges to America’s water and wastewater systems.

It was against that backdrop that last week the White House marked “World Water Day” to “raise awareness of water issues” in the United States, and to help “build a sustainable water future through innovative science and technology.”

The United States will need innovative new technologies and management strategies to solve its growing water challenges, including continued population growth, climate change, and aging infrastructure, in the decades ahead.

From Los Angeles to New York, many regions are not only contending with aging, overburdened water facilities—including areas with lead pipes similar to Flint—but are also confronting an enormous backlog of costs, severe financial constraints, and difficulty in coordinating action across thousands of individual community water systems.

In the near term, the biggest issue may simply be identifying where the problems exist. Often, water piping systems are more than a century old.  As a result the most important maintenance needs can be difficult to identify, as the risk for widespread leaks and other public health concerns mount over time.

With some of the oldest infrastructure in the nation, the pipes under New York’s cities and towns are failing at an alarming rate: New York City saw 513 water main breaks last year; estimates are that as much as 20 percent of the treated water that enters the New York City’s pipes leak out before it even makes it to the faucet.  In western New York, there were 1,453 water main breaks last year.  The revelations of dangerous lead levels in the drinking water of Flint and in Binghamton underscore the dangers caused by apparent lax oversight and crumbling, century-old infrastructures.   The toxic chemicals found in Hoosick Falls and on Long Island underscore the hazards resulting from weaknesses in health regulation.

The problems will only get worse and the cost of fixing them is already huge. Estimates for fixing New York State’s water system range from $22 billion to $39 billion in costs over the next 20 years.

In response, the state has offered zero- and low-interest loans and grants. The state’s Environmental Facilities Corp. has approved more than $400 million for drinking water projects in the past year.  Lawmakers approved $200 million in additional water funding earlier this year.

But the money is merely a down payment on the billions needed to address the problem.

Obviously, the plans to offer support fall far short of the need and the situation at the local government level is murky at best.  The state needs to step up with a plan that includes aggressive monitoring coupled with big bucks.

Some lawmakers are advancing legislation to require regular, public reporting of water tests.  For example, Senator O’Mara and Assemblywoman Lupardo are advancing legislation to require testing for lead in the drinking water supplies of schools.  Both have had schools in their districts report high lead levels.

While laudable, such reporting is only the first step in a long journey.  The state will need aggressive, public reporting programs and will have to put together a significant financial package – one that may entail a “drinking water bond act.”  A bond act allows the state to borrow money if it is approved by voters.

But the state’s leaders simply cannot ignore this festering problem.  It is time to act.

When it comes to cleaning up Albany, last week’s events indicate that the broom has been put away for now.  Governor Cuomo announced that the ethics issue had fallen off the table of the budget deliberations.  He added that he would make sure it was a top priority in the post-budget session.

We’ll see.

It was the governor, after all, who put the ethics issue in the budget in the first place.  Yet, the governor has done virtually nothing to galvanize public support for his reform package in the two months it was released– despite nearly 90 percent of New Yorkers wanting changes.

At the same time, a commission appointed by the governor, the legislative leaders, and the courts, is examining whether New York’s public officials deserve a pay raise. That commission will hold a hearing this week to allow for public comment on pay raises.

New York pays its state lawmakers comparatively well: the governor gets the third highest salary in the country (Tennessee pays the most) and our legislature gets the third highest salary (behind California and Pennsylvania).  So what’s the argument for pay increases?

The argument stems from the fact that state elected officials haven’t had a pay increase since 1999, which is a long time.  And when that decision was made, then-Governor Pataki linked his approval of pay increases to non-related policy changes—that is, horse trading for lawmaker pay.  The pay raise before that one was also linked to policies.

This time around, the governor and the legislature agreed to create a commission to review salaries.  They gave it the power to hike pay without additional legislative approval.  However, the governor and the legislature will still be able to roll back the pay raise if they choose.

The commission idea makes sense – lawmakers shouldn’t have to face linkages between appropriate pay and policies advanced by the governor.

It only makes sense, however, if the commission is independent and relies on objective analyses conducted in a public manner.  Whether this commission meets those standards remains to be seen.  The majority of the pay raise commissioners are picked by the governor and the legislative leaders.

New Yorkers have seen far too many commissions that serve at the beck and call of the political establishment.  Time will tell if this commission is free to follow its objective analysis.

Also, given Albany’s seemingly unending series of political scandals, how will a pay raise sit with the public who has to pay for it?  As mentioned earlier, the governor and the legislature have decided to drop (at least for now) the issue of ethics reform.  And the reason that ethics reform is on the table is the direct result of the arrests and convictions of the state’s top legislative leaders.  And these convictions followed dozens of other instances in which lawmakers behaved badly; conduct that doesn’t seem to be abating.

How will the public feel about a pay raise for Albany when the governor and the legislature are not tackling the biggest scandals in New York modern political history?

My guess is that New Yorkers will not be happy.

Of course, that does not argue that public officials don’t deserve a pay raise, that’s up to the commission to independently and publicly discuss.  However, if the governor and the legislature can’t agree on cleaning out Albany’s political stables, then the public has every right to be angry.

The pay commission does not have authority to make changes on key ethics reforms – like limiting the outside employment income of elected officials – but it can create some pressure to keep the governor and the legislature focused on doing their jobs and fixing Albany.

The commissioners can promise to release their recommendations well in advance of this November’s elections, but after the legislative session ends in June.  In that way, the public can hold candidates for office accountable.  If they have truly improved Albany’s ethical climate, defending a pay raise would be relatively easy.

Failing to substantially reform ethics, on the other hand, would make a pay raise indefensible.

The commission must remember who picks up the tab for governmental salaries and who has had to endure years of broken promises to reform Albany.  They deserve a say.