This program is a production of WAMC News.
From Albany, this is the Legislative Gazette,
a weekly half-hour review of New York State government and politics.
Your host is political scientist and syndicated columnist Dr. Alan Shartuck, of the State University.
In this edition of the Legislative Gazette, we'll explore reaction to Governor Cuomo's decision to veto legislation
that would have made corporate takeovers more difficult.
Also, a report from poster Lee Marringer on the upcoming run for U.F. Senate.
Earlier this year, the legislature passed and Governor Cuomo signed a bill continuing the practice of barring the press and public from party conferences.
Those meetings during which the fate of most legislation is actually decided.
Despite that, the issue hasn't died away and common cause this week launched a drive to overturn that law.
Here's more from Marianne Snell.
The speeches of the New York State Common Cause and the League of Women Voters announced a kickoff of a combined statewide campaign to urge the repeal of the recent May 31st legislation in Albany,
which amends the open meetings law and limits public participation in governmental meetings.
Beginning today, 27,000 members of New York State Common Cause working with their partners for good government and the League of Women Voters will begin a statewide campaign urging local county legislatures, town boards, village councils, city governments throughout the state to do two things.
First, to adopt a resolution declaring that they will not avail themselves of this newly created loophole in the open meetings law.
Second, memorializing the state legislature to repeal this loophole or black hole, if you will, in the open meetings law.
Now, perhaps it goes too far to say that Friday, May 31st was a day that will live in infamy, but quite frankly, all of us in common cause in the League of Women Voters and the cause of good government in general were shocked by the actions taken here in Albany on May 31st.
There can be room for debate about the merits of the open meeting law and the specific interpretation of the political caucus exemption, but there can be no excuse whatsoever for the irresponsible behavior of the legislature and the governor in dealing with this question.
The law itself is one that's quite shocking to all of us in good government, but equally disturbing to the League of Women Voters in common cause is the manner in which this was adopted.
As you here in Albany know, legislation adopted in committee was mysteriously amended, passed by both houses, transferred to the governor's office and signed into law before any of the governor's office.
Before any of us had a chance to study the legislation and provide meaningful critique.
Timothy Levalo is the chairman of the New York State Common Cause, which together with the League of Women Voters has instigated a statewide campaign to urge the state legislature to reestablish an open meetings policy which would restore public access to all governmental meetings and deliberation.
This is Marianne Snow.
During the time in the near future, the legislature may be asked to exert some muscle or provide more money or both in an effort to improve the system for tracking what hazardous chemicals are discharged into the waterways of New York State.
A recent study by the environmental group in form turned up some problems in the data keeping system. The man who performed the study, Dr. Steven Roman, talked with Bill Rawlty.
The information was, in some cases, difficult to obtain from the regulatory agencies. It's not all in one place. We had to travel to not only Albany, to the DEC, the Department of Environmental Conservation Central Office, but to each of the five regional offices more than one time or to obtain all of the forms and information documents that we were trying to gather.
Since we got these documents, if they were indeed available, there was a great deal of difficulty in some cases trying to interpret what types of discharges were occurring from these specific plants.
The information isn't put together in a consistent and readily definable fashion. It makes it easy to determine how much is being released over time.
There are a great many of errors in the data that it's compiled. There's inconsistencies in how the state is compiled, and there are just plain emissions in some of the forms. So it becomes very difficult to make these determinations.
Would this be an area that could be improved without too much trouble, do you think?
One of the suggestions that we are trying to put forth is that if regulatory agencies do indeed want to do what they say they want to do, which is a decrease in the amount of these toxic chemicals going into the Hudson and to get a better picture of how much is actually being released to the river.
They need to re-evaluate the types of information that they are gathering, how they deal with this data once they have it in-house, and then how they evaluate it in order to determine how much is being released to the environment.
I imagine with the situation the way it is, it would be somewhat difficult to do an accurate and fairly up-to-date monitoring on the part of, say, the DEC or another state agency.
I couldn't respond to that simply because we don't know exactly what the protocol is that the DEC would put forth in order to do this.
We know that for the sampling that's done from the dischargers, it's not done always in the consistent fashion.
Is this the kind of thing that it might take a little legislative pressure to force them into?
There have been a question that is a political question because there have been comments made by Commissioner Henry Williams of the DEC saying that they don't need more money.
They can do more with less.
What we're suggesting may mean that there needs to be a re-evaluation of how this money is allocated and may mean that they need to have more money allocated to do the job better.
There's obviously these problems with the database, with these errors and consistencies and emissions.
It may point to the fact that the questions need to be answered as far as how this money is being used.
Is it being used effectively? Are they getting more information for the money that's being spent?
It does come down in some cases to a political question and that's something that inform them.
Obviously, it can't answer, but we hope that this report will make it possible for legislators, citizens, regulators, and just anyone who's concerned about the Hudson River and toxic pollution problems in the Hudson to look closely at how this money is being spent and maybe have more money allocated or have better systems developed to gather this information and make sense out of it.
And I'm Steve Enroman of Inform with Bill Grawdy.
Joining us now is Dr. Lee Marringoff, director of the highly respected Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.
There will be another statewide election in 1986, however, that should prove to be much more competitive.
It is the rate that should occupy the attention of pollsters, politicians, media, and the public as well, namely the expected re-election campaign of New York's junior senator, Al Dommado.
Now, in Lee Victoria's 1980 Elizabeth Holtsman, Dommado has enjoyed a growing visibility in New York state politics, particularly in the New York City television market.
Dommado was active in fostering the fortunes of Ronald Reagan in 1984 and has worked hard to establish his reputation as a fighter for New York state in Washington.
Some political analysts pointed Dommado's extensive media exposure, his conservative voting record in the state which Ronald Reagan carried, in his image, as factors making Dommado's re-election did a strong possibility.
Other analysts pointed Dommado's breaking with President Reagan on some key domestic policy legislation, like Social Security and the deductibility component of Reagan's tax reform proposal, as being evidence of the sense on Dommado's part that the re-election campaign will ultimately be hotly contested.
During the past several years, data collected by the Maris College Institute for Public Opinion on-center Dommado reveal an interesting pattern.
Overall, 48% of the state's voters gave Dommado positive scores on the job performance.
35% gave Dommado negative marks and a full 17% were either unsure or do not have an opinion on him.
This represents a mixed picture. Clearly, Dommado is nowhere near as popular, either President Reagan or Governor Cuomo in New York state. His scores are behind although close to those received by Senator Moynihan.
It is his don't-nose and his no-pinions that are very high.
Two Dommado's credit, his positive rating has improved by about five points in the past year.
In looking more closely at the figures, Dommado's showing in the suburbs 57% his home area and one which Republicans have scored well intellectually is somewhat low.
His numbers in New York City 55% and area usually for Democratic strongholds is surprisingly high at this point.
Upstate, a Republican stronghold, Dommado's ratings are very unusual. His 38% approval rating is very low and this is because many fail to express an opinion on his performance.
Whether this reflects political vulnerability or merely a lack of familiarity outside of the New York City medium market remains to be seen.
Assuming Dommado's pollsters are examining similar data, one should expect an effort this foreign winter on Dommado's part to tighten up his image upstate prior to launching his reelection campaign.
On the Democratic side, we expect several candidates to express interest in trying to win the C to 1986, including Elizabeth Holpman, Jolene Farara.
Also a run by state attorney general Robert Abrams should not be discounted.
More on this as the political season heats up next year. In the meantime for the legislative gazette, this is Lee Marangoff at the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion in Piquet Sey.
The bill is in effective. This bill would produce a lot of fees for a lot of lawyers, a lot of litigation.
With those words, Governor Cuomo this week vetoed legislation which would have severely restricted the chances of a New York-based company becoming the victim of an unfriendly corporate takeover.
The legislation came to be known as the CBS or Ted Turner bill because it came to light during the time Ted Turner was actively trying to gain control of CBS.
In detailing the bill Governor Cuomo commented that despite the lopsided nature of its legislative victory, it had few friends but many enemies.
One friend though was the New York State Business Council. Its president is Raymond Schueller.
Ratio you were on the other side on this one. The governor has now vetoed the corporate takeover bill. First tell us a little about what that bill would have done.
Well Alan in our view, there would have been an important piece of legislation for our state, first of all for our communities.
One of the things that has been devastating to New York is the impact of takeovers and the loss of jobs that have occurred, the loss of tax base.
To get some understanding of that you need a disclosure law before a company can move in and takeover that should be made to publicly disclose.
We had a law on our books that required that in another state as similar a law was found unconstitutional.
This legislation would have corrected that and Bob Abrams, the attorney general of New York State, drafted that legislation to ensure it would make the test of constitutionality.
So that very quickly said that law would have done a lot for the communities of our state, for the workforce in our state.
And it would have said to the business leaders in New York State that this is a good place to put your corporation, put your headquarters in a good place to do business.
Well Delaware has become a haven as you know for corporate headquarters and I don't like to quote other people but the speaker think very early on recognized the importance of this legislation when he said what's wrong with New York becoming a haven for corporations.
So let's go on you mentioned Bobby Abrams the governor in his press conference announcing his veto said that Bobby Abrams thought that this very piece of legislation was unconstitutional.
What do you think?
Well I it's unfortunate the governor didn't read Bob Abrams 14 page legal brief on this legislation because in conclusion in the summary he said that yes there will be constitutional questions.
You settle those in a court and we were very careful in this legislation to have a thing known as a severability clause so that if some part were to be found bad you wouldn't lose the whole legislation and what we're trying to impress upon the governor right now New York State has been left bear.
We're an open target for every car like on T-Boom Pickens in the country that wants to come in here knock off our corporations, decimate them, shut them down, close them off, put people out of work.
By that veto we don't have that protection in New York anymore. We could have had it even if there were some questions.
We could have settled those 30 days from now 40 days from now 50 days now while we had the protection in the meantime the Abrams memorandum very clearly says that this legislation is an improvement on the existing law and that while there may be some tests in it he did not find it to be unconstitutional.
One of the problems constitutionally that has been raised with this is that what is the state of New York doing getting involved in this kind of thing when this is really a federal question, a question of a commerce clause that a state shouldn't be making these rules that the federal government should be regulating this.
What do you think about that?
Oh, that's the classic hide behind the feds issue. I just hogwash because a company to become incorporated must incorporate within the laws of a state.
There is no national law that provides for incorporation. Now the governor knows that and the attorney general knows that and the opponents of the legislation and the proponents know that businesses incorporate state by state.
It is required by the state to set statute for the governance of a corporation and that's what we were talking about here in New York.
This bill was known as the Ted Turner bill. Was that unfortunate from your perspective?
Oh, it really was Alan because I suppose if we ever sit down and really do a good academic analysis of this legislation.
No one in this state was ever opposed to this kind of legislation. The Turner forces at the time they're trying to take over CBS immediately labeled this as anti-turner.
And that seemed to capture everyone's imagination that it was a TBS or CBS bill and you know the whole record of when we first discussed the specific legislation with the governor last December at our summit meeting with him.
There was no Turner offer to take over CBS when the legislature opened in January and the sponsors started working. There was no offer in February and March when the legislation was printed.
There was no offer but it still got labeled that this was to stop Ted Turner. Well, it's interesting. Maybe it did stop him.
He's not now taking over CBS. He's got another target but it really it had nothing to do with with Ted Turner. It was unfortunate and I think if we ever look back at the history of the evolving bits of this legislation.
Whoever cleverly label it as that I think did great damage to the hopes of that legislation being signed into law in the arc for the protection of shareholders and communities.
Not to digress but is that a problem with our media that they saw that as an opportunity to clarify what this bill did by attaching it to one case and therefore may have ruined it for a lot more?
Well, I wouldn't sit here and be on your show and attack media. No, I don't. I think in reality, you know, you have to simplify issues for public understanding of them.
And the Turner issue was a good way to show what it would or wouldn't do but it really wasn't aimed at him. I'm not even too sure that the way the law was drawn that it would have even applied to him.
The reality being though that in our media works, you have to simplify things.
Is it conceivable that the bill would have passed if Ted Turner had not been involved? In other words, if my gun's sailing through without the Ted Turner issue complicating this?
Well, it passed overwhelmingly in the legislature and I don't think the Turner issue meant anything in the vote in the legislature. I don't, you know, I didn't start aimed at him and it didn't pass either aimed at him or for CBS. I don't think it really played a significant role there.
There are those who feel, however, that it would have been created in a more business like routine fashion if the Ted Turner thing had not sensationalized it.
I think you're probably correct in that. You know, you're a good analyst of public issues.
I think you're probably right. I think what it did is it put a wrong focus at the wrong time on the legislation because if you read the legislation in detail, if you know what the objectives were that were set out in the original legislative arguments, clearly this legislation met those tests.
Now, the governor did an interesting thing in his press conference yesterday in critiquing you and your organization. He said he had heard from other members of your organization who did not agree with you. That's sort of a divide and concrete thing. Some people might think that's nasty.
Well, that governor has the right to say what he feels like saying on issues like that. The reality is that an overwhelming number of our membership and overwhelming consensus support at this legislation.
I have to say there were a hand few of the 30, 900 member firms who did not. They happened to all the Wall Street firms or Wall Street connected. And unfortunately, we get into a classic situation of Wall Street versus Main Street.
And in this instance, it looks like the Wall Street crowd had their way with the governor. That's very interesting because as you know, there's a significant biographical body of knowledge.
If you want to put it that way around here, which says that governor Cuomo doesn't like Wall Street that he has been reacting adversely to them in a number of ways, which can be demonstrated.
Do you think in this case he was playing to them?
No, I don't know. I don't know if I could characterize it that way. In this instance, when he says that he heard from other businesses, I would only say that the overwhelming number of businesses that he heard from in opposition to the legislation were investment banker type firms, the Wall Street groups and crowds and so on, not businesses who employ manufacturing people, service sector people and so on.
And in fact, the few companies of ours, very active with us who had no interest in the bill, really took sort of a middle ground position that they felt it would be good for the economy of New York State, but they didn't themselves have a direct interest in it, but they did from their suppliers and material people who support them.
So what's the prognosis? You think that you'll work together and you think there'll be a bill this year?
Two years ago, when the governor said we weren't ready to do a personal income tax cut, we didn't give up then and we kept working and we now have one in New York State.
I don't give up on issues that are important for the business community, its workforce, its employees in New York. We will continue to work until we have a perfect piece of legislation that becomes the laws of the state in New York.
Here's the $50,000 question. Why did you veto the bill? I have yet to find anyone who's been able to give me that answer. The message doesn't tell us. I sat long before the veto came out with his staff people.
As a matter of fact, the morning of the veto, we spent two hours with the secretary of the governor, with the council to the governor and with his economic development director, and none of them could give me a specific reason as to why the governor was vetoing the veto.
Is the body of thought out here who thinks that he vetoed the bill because he assembly in Senate when it hadn't passed it without really including him in the business community without really including him in negotiations.
One lobbyist I spoke with, a labor lobbyist, this said specifically to me that he had been purposely excluded and that the expectation was that he'd go along.
What do you think about that? In other words, you might have had an angry governor who says if you're going to design legislation, make sure I'm in on it and it may have been that kind of peak.
Oh, I don't think the governor of our state makes decisions on that basis. That would surprise me. As a matter of fact, I don't believe the governor was out of it at all.
I think he was aware of it in December when he met with us. He was furnished copies of it and I have written comments back to us on the draft legislation from members of his administration.
Maybe not him directly personally, but he had later in March received copies of the legislation that he had some input.
He had March, April, May, June into July to make whatever input he had and I'm sure that in the legislative process on his end of the table, he probably had some discussions with the leaders.
I don't think the governor would have acted in a fit of peak because he wasn't involved and besides he had extra couple of weeks even after the legislation came to him to get over any concern he may have had about that.
I just think that in his view, he wasn't all the way there yet. I think he's 85% there on this legislation and our mission and job over the next couple of weeks is to get him the rest of the way.
Do you see this as a major defeat for the business council?
Well, hardly. When I can say to you that in two houses, there are three votes against the legislation and when it was lobbied by some of the most expensive, high-powered, expensive lobbyists in this state who flew in here and put on one of the most deciduous campaigns that we have seen in all but in a very long time and it's still passed and that the governor had to ask the legislature to give him at least two more weeks to consider what he should do with this legislation.
And then in turn, when they will invite me in before the decision and say, now look, how will we come together to make sure that we get a bill? Yesterday, and I may be off on our days now because the days sort of run together and all but the morning of the legislation, a personal commitment was made to me by the secretary of the governor and the council of the governor's economic director that we will have a piece of legislation ready for you to look at right in 30 days.
So it's 30 days and counting. Raymond Schuller, president of the state business council.
So Governor Cuomo has gone and done it. He's detailed the corporate takeover or Ted Turner bill which would have made it tougher for the T-Boone Pickens types to acquire corporations in unfriendly takeovers.
So all all the needs of blaze and discussions of why the governor did it. Here are some of the possible answers.
One of the governor's answer, he says that he did it on constitutional ground. He said that the controller and the attorney general refused to tell him that the bill was constitutional.
He says that the bill would have been challenged in court and that while he didn't like green mail and that while he was sympathetic, he would still veto the bill.
According to the governor, there was not politics here but just reading the bill and deciding on the merits.
Other speculation says the governor is wrong.
So, two, the Ted Turner answer. This line of reasoning suggests that the one thing that intrigued the governor about the bill was the opportunity to help CBS, the great national network from being taken over by Ted Turner.
This reasoning continues that when a federal court knocked Turner out of the running in his efforts to take over CBS, that Cuomo really wasn't that interested in helping the business community and why not. That's reason number three.
In this case, the scuttle butt all over Albany is that the business community chose to play a hard ball with the legislature without dealing the governor in.
In other words, they took this bill directly to the assembly in the Senate and didn't bother to do more than keep the governor in form.
So, let me ask you, if you were the governor, would you like that? And indeed, business inside is suggest that the impression that the governor was excluded from this part of the process may have been complicated by the fact that the governor thought that they,
the business community and the assembly in the Senate were playing footsie earlier in earlier tax proposals, again leaving the governor as the odd man out.
If you read the corporate takeover veto carefully, the governor makes it clear that he is willing to draft a new bill achieving the same purposes, but this time with Mario Cuomo sitting at the head of the table.
And finally, for the presidential answer. This reasoning goes that the governor has been suspect by groups like the Wall Street Journal and the like for years.
They didn't like this corporate takeover bill at all considering it protectionist and parochial from a New York point of view.
If Cuomo was a presidential candidate, he's showing them that he was sympathetic to a national view like a good dose of chicken soup couldn't hurt.
And in fact, the day after the veto, the Wall Street Journal gave him an editorial send off you wouldn't believe a big pat on the back.
So there you are. There are just a few of the possible explanations of why Mario Cuomo vetoed the corporate takeover bill. You pick them and you choose them.
That's our show for this week. Join us again next week for another look at state government and politics.
They'll growl the edits and produces this program this week. He really had to edit it. We had help from Marianne Snell. Please address comments and questions to us at WAMC, Fox 13,000, Albany, New York, 1-2-2-1-2. I'm Alan Chardock.
The legislative Gazette is a production of WAMC news. Alan Chardock is executive producer. This program is made possible with funds provided by the state University of New York College at Newport.
The state government has been working on the state government for the last few years.
The state government has been working on the state government for the last few years.
The state government has been working on the state government for the last few years.
The state government has been working on the state government for the last few years.
