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 Shartock, of the State University.
In this edition of the Legislative Gazette,
we'll assess the impact of the New York City elections on the legislature.
We'll hear from Polster Lee Marangoff,
and get an update on toxic waste cleanup.
There was a major development this week in the area of toxic waste dumps.
As the Cuomo administration and top business leaders came to an agreement on a unique program for determining who has to pay for such clean-ups,
Leslie Brocaw has more.
New York State has almost 1,000 known or suspected hazardous waste sites.
Most are dumps where companies disposed of their most toxic wastes and byproducts.
About one-third of the sites, over 300, were used by more than one company.
As many as 100 companies are involved in some sites.
Currently, the cleanup of these sites has been an extremely lengthy and costly process.
Not just in determining which companies should participate and how the cleanup should proceed,
but also in figuring out what percentage of the cleanup each company should be liable for.
Such situations could lead to court suits to settle the issue.
Governor Mario Cuomo said on Tuesday that all the involved parties are anxious to avoid that situation.
Because every lawyer knows, and surely every litigant knows, that this is not the best way to resolve controversies in a courtroom.
It's very, very expensive. It takes a long time.
The only sure winner, and this is not snide, the only sure winner, is the lawyer.
The plan announced on Tuesday calls for the Department of Environmental Conservation to bring together representatives of all the companies potentially responsible for cleaning up a given site.
The representatives would agree on a mediator who would oversee bargaining sessions to determine the proportions of liability.
The companies would be encouraged to agree to make the negotiations binding,
and the State Attorney General's office would agree not to sue the involved companies if they do abide by the final settlement.
Robert Abrams is the New York Attorney General.
There is very strong law, both New York State law and federal law, that holds any entity, business entity, or individual, that contributes together to the creation of a public nuisance or a toxic dump site to be strictly liable.
You don't have to have a test of negligence. You're just automatically liable, and you're jointly and severally liable.
Very often there are disputes between the companies as to what is the measure of responsibility that they might have in order to avoid litigation.
And so this is an important concept because a mechanism is now being injected into the process that didn't exist before.
Abrams says that the mediator will be recognized and assisted by the State.
The Department of Environmental Conservation will be helping to acquire information from the company about their disposal practices.
The Attorney General's office is also prepared to use its subpoena power to produce the documents that a mediator would need to make an ultimate judgment.
Attorney General Bob Abrams.
Hopefully that will avert and avoid litigation so that we don't have to go to court, have the public expenditure of dollars that's involved in court, the tremendous time and perhaps unnecessary delay that's involved because what's the goal here?
The goal is to clean up these sites to end the potential danger to the public health and the environment.
Let's not have these sites continually out there with the potential of the chemicals migrating, moving, coming in contact with water supply, with Brooks or rivers or aquifers or wells.
So it's important for us to have the speediest possible resolution.
In a sense, the mediation process is simply the newest tool in the process of cleaning up polluted areas.
It was developed on the incentive of Attorney Abrams and formulated by the Public Policy Institute, a research affiliate of the Business Council of New York and by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation.
Peter Lanahem, the executive director of the Public Policy Institute, says that business is as anxious to solve the multi-user question out of court as is the government.
Lanahem explains that New York's law of joint several and strict liability is what has them scared.
Even though there are several corporations out of site, several responsible dumpers, one of them may be held liable for the entire cost of the cleanup.
In looking at this law, corporations find that they're not only worried about what the government might come forward with as a requirement for remediating a site,
but they're also worried about what their neighboring corporation might do to try to transfer liability.
So the result too often has been that the industry's choose to dig in their heels, perhaps try to go to court to get the answer.
Now at the same time that industry has problems with this law, the government sees the law as a very necessary tool to get on with the program simply because it ensures that somebody pays the cost of cleanup.
So you can see that somewhere in the middle between the industry position and the government position, there's a need to resolve the dispute and that's the job that the mediator will take on.
The mediators who are already on the roster are people with described stature in the business and public communities.
They include former judges in the state, court of appeals and U.S. district courts, as well as retired corporate executives in law school professors.
The program is the first of its kind in the country. It will be tested at two locations in New York.
Our next step is to choose two sites in the state at which to test the process.
Importantly we'll be continuing to work together to monitor how this works, to see whether it in fact does speed up the process and to make any changes that might need to be made.
Peter Lanahan, Executive Director of the Public Policy Institute, Unlessly Brocaugh.
Meanwhile, the Senate Environment Committee is about to launch a series of hearings on several other bills relating to toxic waste.
Bill Walty spoke with committee chairman, Senator Ufarley.
What are some of the major areas of concern to you and the committee as you head into these hearings?
Well, this is a hearing on four major environmental bills.
Number one, the super-leamed, which places a lien on real property in which there's toxic waste.
Criminal liability for those that dispose of toxic waste illegally.
In joint and several liability, if somebody has toxic waste in a landfill, they could possibly be responsible for cleaning up the entire landfill.
And the fourth is the bill for bulk storage of waste and petroleum products and so forth.
These are all bills that a couple of more new, but one or two have been around for a while.
There has been concern, let's say, with the bulk storage bill by many of the farmers that they feel they're not going to be able to store petroleum products.
There's been concern on the super-leamed by real estate interests and by banks and mortgage holders and some real property owners that they might have ramifications.
And the concern is also on criminal liability that the wrong mouse might get caught in put in jail, a corporate officer that might be a good environmental citizen.
I think business and government in everybody wants this criminal liability bill is just going to be tuned right.
And joint and several liability, of course, lots of people have raised some concern.
I think it's something of a perception problem on the part of the public, which tends to think perhaps that the legislature can, quote, take care of hazardous waste in one bill, more or less not realizing the complicated nature of it.
I think the year point is well taken.
I know when talking to some editorial boards around the state and another matter, they brought up my idea of holding public hearings, nine public hearings on these major environmental bills, and several of them complimented me on that.
They said that the legislature, generally speaking, in their judgment, passes too many major bills without any public input and without public hearings.
Because we're holding these hearings to learn what are the concerns, what would be the problems, how could we do this better?
And I've never held a public hearing where I haven't learned something, and that's the purpose of these public hearings and to alert the public of the possibility that these bills will become lawful.
When I get down to it, the bottom line though, is it still the bottom line? Does it still come down to money in a great many of these areas?
No, this is not money. This is more or less regular regulating if you will, the disposal of hazardous waste and making those that are responsible for illegally and disposing of waste,
making them financially responsible and criminally responsible. And also, this would not cost the state money, but it would be a regulatory device on the general public and business.
Senator, you Farley. Now let's check in with Dr. Lee Marringoff. He's the director of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion and a regular contributor to the Gazette.
As many New Yorkers are already aware, President Reagan's tax reform proposal contains a highly controversial section, the end to the deduction for state and local taxes.
Although the estimates vary, residents, states like New York will be particularly hard hit if this element of the Reagan package is adopted.
New Yorkers should expect a very heated debate on this issue during the fall, spearheaded by New York's Governor Cuomo.
When Cuomo first announced that he would vigorously oppose President Reagan on this issue several months back, it looked like Cuomo and several other Northeast governors would stand alone in opposition, but there seems to be growing opposition to the proposal.
As leaders from other parts of the nation are becoming worried over the potential disruption to local state revenues and services which might occur.
The report indicates that Cuomo plans a full-court press on this issue and he tends to take the fight to President Reagan's home court in Washington.
This past week on Meet the Press, Cuomo launched into his attack, also he is drafted in op-ed peace of the ductibility-intensive newspapers across the country.
New Yorkers should expect a lot more of this from the Governor in the week to head. What is the likely outcome of this for Cuomo's future?
Win or lose, almost national name recognition will probably soar, but he also should expect that New Yorkers who believe he is spending too much attention to national politics and not enough on New York state might also grow.
Cuomo will bank on the fact that his involvement in the national political arena is consistent with the Tony and Sets since running for office, namely that national politics has a major bearing on New York and to be an effect of Governor he has the battle for New York in distant lands.
But Cuomo's political image remains strong and New York may also turn on whether or not New Yorkers agree with him on the substance of the issue, that the Reagan deductibility proposal is unfair to the state.
If on the other hand Cuomo's popularity falls, he will have to ask himself whether or not the drop is from Reagan backers who would be unlikely to support his reelection bid anyway.
This to remain to be seen, any event expect tax reform to be an increasingly hot issue during the fall and expect Governor Cuomo to be right in the center of the action.
For the meantime, for the legislative concept, this is Lee Merringoff at the Marist College Institute for Public Appendian in Pekipzig.
One of the things that makes New York's politics so fascinating is the relationship between state politics and New York City politics.
While in many areas, particularly upstate, a seat in the assembly or senate is considered a lofty political position, in the city it is occasionally a stepping stone to a more powerful local post.
Several incumbent members of the legislature have been involved in New York City races and we're on the ballot there for this week's primary.
For an insight into that and the possible impact of New York City politics on Albany, we turn to the respected veteran lobbyist and political adviser Norman Adler.
Norman are you tired? Yes. Why? Well, I went to sleep at 3 and I got up at 7 and we had a long, long day.
So we should make this clear that we are talking on Wednesday, the Wednesday after the Tuesday election.
That's right, Alan. Norman, the question of the day really is this is a program about state government and the ripple effect.
What is likely to see which will affect the total state that comes out of the New York City primary elections?
Well, you see an extremely powerful mayor of New York City, a one by an overwhelming majority and is going to be firmly entrenched in his office for at least another four years and is generally conceded to have control over the upper house of the New York City legislature, the Board of Estimate.
To the extent that that makes for impact on the state of New York, there should be some pretty substantial impact.
Will he be able to control the New York City delegation because he won so big?
I don't think in this day and age anybody can control a delegation regardless of how big they win. Why is that?
Well, for one thing, the mayor has very little role in the nomination and election of senators and assembly members in New York City.
Most of them have their own political bases, many of them have their own political organizations fundraising for them is not all that difficult that they have to go to him for it.
So generally speaking, he is not responsible for electing or defeating anybody in the state delegation.
For another thing, the minority leader of the Senate and the speaker of the assembly both come from New York City and I think they would be a little put out if they thought that the mayor was encroaching on their turf.
Now the minority leader of the state senate, Manfred or Fred, or Einstein, as people call him, I understand in Doris not Koch but is opponent Bellamy. What will the ramifications be for him?
I don't think that there are going to be any ramifications at all. For one thing, although the mayor is reputed to be somewhat vindictive, I would imagine a victory of these dimensions would make him feel very kindly toward the whole world for another or Einstein is pretty well entrenched in his area.
Carol Bellamy is a former state senator and closely identified with the political interests of the west side of Manhattan where most of his district is and I think that he was pragmatic and the mayor generally appreciates pragmatic people.
So let me then move from the island of Manhattan to that other borough, one of the biggest cities in the world by itself, Brooklyn, where you had Mr. Golden who was running for borough president posed by a popular state senator in that area, Martin Markowitz, and Golden apparently crowns him.
Now what's interesting about that story is that Golden was not being supported by the powerful speaker Mr. Fink who allegedly had a hands-off posture there but whose entire organization was known to be working very, very hard for his opponent Mark with Bellamy.
Now what does that do when he comes up to Albany?
Well first of all he doesn't come up to Albany which is one of the things he was criticized for. Who doesn't come up to Albany?
Howard Golden.
No I meant, however, what he was doing to think when he comes back to Albany.
It doesn't do, it doesn't harm him in the least. The one thing I don't think anybody views this as a defeat for Fink.
Secondly, Golden did not get 50% of the vote. There was another legislator in that race, Al Van and Black Assemblyman from Brooklyn and a former Assemblyman Joe Farron.
They together probably divided up about 51.5% of the vote. So I don't think that will have any impact on Fink at all.
The truth of the matter is that if you're a member of the New York State Assembly, you have to do business with the speaker of the New York State Assembly.
Has that changed from the old days when the political parties had to be?
Yes, why is that?
Well because at one time, legislators were, most legislators were nothing more or less than Aaron Boyz for the county organization.
They would send up there, they spent the term or two and then they became judges or commissioners and the legislature was not regarded as a career.
Nowadays, the legislature is more professional, more people who are elected to it. See that is what they're going to do for more than just the immediate future.
And the legislature, of course, I think has an awful lot of resources of its own so that it collects a lot of money for campaigns, things of that country, so that they can give that money out and instead of the legislature being beholden to the party organization, which used to help him win re-election.
He's now beholden to the speaker who gives out all the money.
Right.
And his own codery of supporters who come around to help with re-election campaigns.
So now, tell me Norman, where do you get into this?
Here you are, regarded as one of the two or three top lobbyists in Albany every year.
You work for the American Federation of State Municipal Employees and Victor Gottbounds, local in New York City.
And you raise money, you've talked to us on this show about how you've helped with printing and put people out on the street and helped to pick up people elected.
So where does somebody like you come into this thing? Who are your candidates in this election?
Well, John, Jose Serrano, one of the two candidates for President of the Bronx was one of the candidates that Maillunian tried to help and spent a lot of resources and personnel on for a number of reasons.
One was that the Gottbounds thinks that a city where almost half of the residents are minority would have some minorities in government governing the city.
Second reason is that Jose Serrano originally came from this union and the third reason was he was the best candidate.
And we architected his campaign and raised a substantial portion of the money and the manager was Guido Menta, who's one of our staff.
And the campaign director was Jennifer Cunningham, who's a member of our staff, so we would have only involved.
Now how does that translate out to you, Norman Adler, when you come up here to do business in Albany?
Well, we launched.
Yeah, but not by much.
And everybody was assuming that at least to begin with, although it looked much better for Serrano as time went on, that he would get tramps.
So he comes really close. It's got to be very helpful to Serrano personally in terms of identifying him as a key leader, certainly a Hispanic leader, that people have to do business with for now on.
But you did that. You helped with that. Now how does that translate out into, hey, this is a guy who can put this kind of thing together for me someday if I run for offices in the back of everybody's mind.
That's you with up in all the time.
That's one thing is that people think that if they get in trouble and they have the support of the Got Down and District Council 37, that maybe they can get Adler to come and run their campaign.
Another thing is legislators think if they want to run for higher office, that we could help them put together their operation to do that.
Some legislators have to think that if we get mad at them, that maybe we'll use that talent against them.
And some of the legislators were on the other side and they might be angry at us. They might say, why did you stick your nose in this one? You made us look bad. You made us spend the whole summer at home when we would rather have been offered the beach or something.
So there are some positives and some negatives, but on balance, our union and I think that we do quite well by heavy involvement in the political process.
Norman, when you think about you a little bit and you think about what the political parties used to do, the guy who came knocking at our door every week on 96 streets saying, please sign our petitions from the political party and I make it a job someday and I make it promoted.
That was 30 years ago, 20 years ago. You are doing your union is doing exactly what the political party used to do.
You are supplying the printing and doing the petitions, you are organizing the campaigns. So essentially has the union and groups like it become the new political party.
No, we are not political parties. We can involve ourselves in a number of the activities that the party performed.
But we are basically not in the business of nominating and electing board scale people to public office.
Well, why do you say that? Because you do it.
Well, we are closer to the Hessians than we are to the crown of Great Britain if you want to draw parallels.
We come in and we spot in different races and get involved in the activities of those races, but we really do not duplicate the party election for election, nomination for nomination, function for function.
Well, here is a case of the Bronx. The Bronx is a tremendous political organization there. Stanley Friedman is supposed to have this thing wrapped up.
You come in and you do exactly the same thing. It certainly escapes me what the differences are between what you do and what they do in terms of an election of this kind.
And you come damn close to beating them. Now, I am sorry, no, I understand that you do not do it across the board, but it does seem to me that you have served almost all of the functions of the political party in this particular case.
In this particular case, but that is exactly my point, Alan. We can do it in cases, but we do not do it across the board.
The one thing that the party leadership, where there is a party leadership has is that they are involved in selecting judicial delegates to nominate judge candidates and putting people on the ballot to run for corner and share it from that sort of.
And we do not do that. We do not care about that. It is of no interest to us. If you come to us and ask us to help with those sorts of things, we will probably say no.
And to that extent, we can never parallel or equal a real political party. The truth is, in many places, there is no real political party. And so people view us as a party because we fill in the gaps.
By now, the legend of Norman Adler has grown. And one of the points of that, of course, is the crucial role you played in the election of Mario Cuomo, helping to develop the strategy and operation of his election, both in the now famous primary against Koch, and of course in the general election.
Now, Norman, where does somebody like the governor come out or get affected by what we saw in the elections this week in New York City?
Well, he made two endorsements, Walter Crowley for the City Council and David Dickens for Manhattan, Burrow President, and both of them won. So he is batting a thousand in endorsement in New York City.
Those were considered to be fairly safe endorsements.
Yeah, that is what I was told. But he made them. And they were friends with him. They both won. The governor has wisely chosen not to take a direct role in the primary process and out there in the communities.
And I think that that's a good and healthy decision in that he's doing what a the teacher, the leader of the Democratic Party, what to do, which he is that he's working on the overarching concepts strengthening the state committee and the state organization and coming to the aid of Democratic candidates when they run against Republicans.
Norman Adler, there are circles within circles within circles. Every action has a reaction. Every time you drop a pebble in the political water, a series of circles radiates from the place of impact.
So it is with elections. Mayor Koch wins a tremendous victory in New York City and his hand is strengthened with a legislature.
Assemblyman Jose Serrano comes close in his election for Barrow President of the Bronx and by almost demolishing one of the preeminent political machines in the state, Serrano, an extraordinarily decent man, rises from being a mortal assemblyman to a new status as the preeminent Hispanic politician in the state.
And an organization like Norman Adler's District Council 37 AFSME, which almost pulled off the upset becomes even more legendary than it had before. Can you imagine Jose Serrano was a member of Adler's union, then they helped them get elected to the assembly, then he became chairman of the state assembly education committee, an extraordinarily powerful position.
Then they run him for Barrow President of the Bronx, manages campaign, collect the signatures, donate the campaign managers. So he doesn't win, but look what they've done for themselves.
Well, overall, but he legislators have got to be shaking their heads, thinking what Adler and his troops could do for them or, of course, against them.
And next session when Adler, the union political director turns into Adler the lobbyist and goes up to the capital lobbying for his legislation.
Don't you think that all of this might help him get what he wants? In addition to all of that was the interesting interchange during the interview about how the union has been taking over many of the functions that used to be performed by the local political parties.
They carry the petitions, they manage the campaigns, they print the literature and then mail it, and they even use their big computers to figure out who to call and who to stay away from.
But of course, with all that said, they lose a few, too. Ed Conch has never been their favorite.
But Norman Adler seems to think that when you run it hard against the mayor, the mayor respects you in the morning afterward.
Well, who knows? But one thing is for sure, the name of the program is the legislative gazette, but the more I see, the more I understand that to look at the legislature as a distinct and separate subset would be naive.
It is clear that what happened this week in the New York City elections has a great deal to do with the way business is done in the halls of the legislature starting in January.
That's our show for this week. Join us again next week for another look at state government and politics.
This week I want to welcome Leslie Brokall to the show as associate editor.
She'll be working with me and editor producer Bill Graulty on future programs.
Please address comments and questions to us at WAMC Box 13,000, Albany, New York 1-2-2-1-2. I'm Alan Chartock.
The legislative gazette is a production of WAMC News. Alan Chartock is executive producer.
This program is made possible with funds provided by the state University of New York College at Newples.
The program is made possible with funds provided by the state University of New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at New York College at
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0