The Capitol Connection Show 1336, 2013 September 6

Welcome to the Capital Connection, a weekly program questioning New York State leaders
on a variety of issues.
Your host is Dr. Alan Shartock, political scientist and professor emeritus at the University
at Albany.
Distribution for the Capital Connection is made possible with the help of New York State
United Teachers, representing professionals in education and health care, online at nysut.org.
Hi, it's Alan Shartock and it's the Capital Connection joining us this week back in his
old job as legislative director for the New York Public Interest Research Group or NIPERG
where he is and has been a living legend for quite a while.
Is Blair Horner?
Welcome back Blair, it's so good to see you back on that perch you've been with the American
Cancer Society for a while now and doing a great job there but this is where you are
needed.
So what makes you do it?
Well, maybe I need my head examined.
I mean that's possible.
You know it's one of those things.
I always tried to make my decisions in my life more or less based on what I found most interesting.
And when I was looking ahead coming up in the next few years, for example, New York State
has a vote on a constitutional amendment on redistricting next year.
In 2017, they'll be a vote on whether or not there's going to be a constitutional convention
convened and the idea of being on the sidelines for some of those discussions.
I mean on top of everything else that goes on, there'll be a debate on election reform,
campaign finance reform, there'll be a debate on hydro-frag, I mean there's lots of other
issues.
But those big ones, the constitutional ones are coming down the pike and I think I would
go crazy having to be watching it from the side.
So you know NIPERG's a unique place, it gives me an unbelievable opportunity to be part
of the discussions and so I decided it was a good time to go back.
It's sort of that sort of simple and that's why maybe I do need my head examined.
Well how do you make personal decisions?
I know that once when I was in a great crisis, I'm working for the legislature.
That'll do it.
I was working for Senator Orin's seat at the time and I turned around to my wife and I
said I can't stand this.
I just can't stand it but we really do need the money.
I was making a lot of money like $10,000 at the time and it was just getting us over and
my wife said quit.
It's time to go.
You don't like it.
Quit will make out.
How did that happen in your case?
Well it's similar but I wasn't unhappy at the Kansas Society.
That was the difference.
I was making a lot more money.
The work was interesting.
People were great.
They worked very hard.
The issues were interesting.
The position itself had evolved more and more over time though into a management position
and I was doing less and less advocacy and I knew that that was going to be the case
when I went there because I was the vice president for advocacy and you know on the
scales though it was just tipping more and more to management and that's happened to
come inside at the time when I started to think about it.
It all started actually.
I was on this bike ride across the state of New York in early July and nothing quite like
thinking about things when you're riding for hours on end with nothing else to do.
Were you alone?
Well it was part of a trip put together by the New York, the Parks and Trails of New
York State Group and they had like 500 bicycles but a lot at the time you're by yourself
and there's really nobody to talk to especially when you're sort of a bicyclist like me.
I was worried I'd drive off the road.
So the combination of concentrating on avoiding broken glass and thinking about what I wanted
to do with myself led me to the conclusion that I wanted to do something else and I wanted
to go back.
So it was like that but it is a substantial cultural shift from a big billion dollar enterprise
like the American Cancer Society and Little Mypert.
I think you had to take a little cut in your salary.
I took a yes.
That's terrific.
I mean that really.
Well it's not terrific.
It's part of something.
It's something about you, Larry Horner.
I guess I want to just sort of go to some of the substantive things that you're looking
at but first I want to say that I'm old now and when I got here to Albany which is a
lot of years ago and began looking at the scene.
Nightburg was almost a joke.
People would kid about it and say you know a bunch of guys sitting with a single light bulb
over their head you know but now it's quite something.
It is really the premiere group which you know is holding people's feet to the fire.
How's it funded?
Well if you've looked at it again you know I've been gone for a couple years right so there
may be some shifts around the margins but if you looked at it as a pie chart roughly half
of the revenues come in the form of small donations from individuals roughly 60, 70,000 people
across the state.
Then of the remaining half of the pizza pie if you look at this basically thirds, third
from foundations and grants and things like that, a third from various entrepreneurial
projects that my perg has and then a third from colleges and universities across the state
where the students have voted to join.
And so that pie comes to roughly $5 million a year and you know again it may be a little
bit the percentages may be a little bit off in the last couple years but that's more
or less the fund.
How it's done.
Okay so when you first sat down with me you mentioned a couple of things that are coming
up that you thought were important enough to get you back in the game.
Let's go over them.
First of all let's talk about redistricting.
Yeah I mean next year the legislature has passed twice a constitutional amendment to
change the redistricting system in New York State was that the result of a negotiation
between the governor and legislative leaders that vote comes up once it's approved by two
successive legislatures it then goes to the public for approval and that vote is scheduled
to be a year from now basically November of 2014 when the governor is up for reelection
and we have a problem with that.
I'm Nipe herg opposed the redistricting so-called reform.
I was going to say it smelled a little.
Yeah well I mean the so-called reform.
You know I was not involved in it so I can't give you chapter in verse of all the various
provisions but when you look at it fundamentally in New York State right now there's a allowable
10% range in population from any state senate district largest the smallest population
and assembly largest the smallest population 10% different so in the state senate district
that's like 30,000 more people in the biggest district than in the smallest district in New
York State.
When you look at the congressional lines they're basically zero difference in population.
So why is it that New York allows gigantic population differences?
They use the gigantic population differences it's legal to sort of reorganize the districts
to give the Democrats in the assembly more of a majority than probably they would deserve
on population alone and certainly for the senate Republican slash independent democratic
coalition to control the senate so they rig the game by these population differences.
Now you can't fix that statutorily.
You can do things some things to make the system better.
You have to change the constitution because the state constitution was written in the
early 1900s basically organizing in such a way that towns were going to be protected
in the constitution more than cities.
Towns in those days tended to be Republican cities in those days tend to be democratic
was a way to sort of engineer it to keep the Republicans in charge.
And have been ever since with a couple of minor exceptions.
Well for the state senate that's absolutely true.
And so that just is fundamentally unfair if you believe in one person one vote.
That should not be the case that you allow gigantic population differences.
But because of these constitutional provisions and state constitution you can't fix it.
So when the governor negotiated the legislation with the legislature he left all those provisions
in.
And so the new constitution reform redistributing voting on which we'll be voting on
next year allows continued significant population differences instead of testing.
And 10% he negotiated it down to six if approved.
So we think that that's a mistake.
We think you should clear all the underbrush out of there.
Go to one person one vote create a real independent commission.
The process for that right now is they're appointed by the legislature to continue to more
lessen that some of the pattern under the reform.
All of that stuff we believe should change.
And so we'll be involved in that discussion.
Now I can't tell you exactly what Nipurge is going to do because it's only day two for
me on the job.
But you know we're continuing to be opposed.
Yeah, you know you raised an interesting issue here.
The governor when he ran for governor announced that he would veto any reapportionment that
didn't go to an outside group of neither professors or whoever you're going to point as other
states have done.
So that the principal players didn't get to draw their own districts.
And then he didn't do what he said he was going to do.
He in fact didn't veto that bill despite promising to do it.
And as a result the same old same old happened.
And you worked for the governor at one point when he was turning general.
So you have some insights into this man that maybe I don't.
But what was up with that?
Was it all phony from the beginning?
Well, you know again I wasn't there right so it's hard to know for sure I wasn't involved
in the conversations.
My guess is you know the governor like any governor triages the issues that he cares most about.
And I think when the governor this governor Cuomo first got elected I think is what he
wanted to be viewed as the image he wanted to be viewed as among the members of the public
is he's the guy who rolled up his sleeves and fixed the state government after years of
complete chaos and his function he was going to make it functional.
And so I think on these some of these reform issues on the ethics bill which was weak
to the ethics reform that he got enacted.
He created something called J. Cope which others are calling J. J. J. J. J. J. J. J. J.
Some others are not happy with it and it's structural problems that they agreed to.
Now you know it could be the governor doesn't have unilateral power.
He would rather try to get a budget done on time and to get his pro let's say in this
particular case a property tax cap approved.
It would be willing to trade the veto that he was he said he would do on redistricting.
So what happened in the redistricting deal was that the lousy current status quo was
left in place so the lines were drawn for the next 10 years under the current lousy system
and then the reform proposal you know you can argue maybe is better than the status quo but it's
not very good.
And so my guess is he was triage that he focused on the things that he wanted to get done that he was
willing to fight for and there are things that he just wasn't willing to fight for and it turns out
that redistricting was one of them.
Even though it seemed to be at least his number one campaign promise that he was campaigned.
Well you know he put out a number of books he put out a lot of things you know but again I think
he has this is my view I'm not talking about it that he wants to be viewed by the public as the
guy who fix things and got things done sort of like you know he likes cars and I think he wants
that sort of the mental image of the governor under the hood of government making it run better
and so I think he was willing to give up on some things where the implications for redistricting
changes don't occur for 10 years and in 10 years he won't be governor and most of the guys
are in a legislative that won't be there that's right although you and I will still be here.
We will that's right okay let's go to the next thing you were going to talk about which is a
constitutional convention now my very good friend Jerry Benjamin professor at New Pulse and a
wonderful man is always for constitutional conventions and change I have been a diver all along
I actually remember having worked in and around a constitutional convention many years ago and it
would be many years ago and it was a it was a forest it was a forest the same old politicians got a
hold of it they took off one hat and they put on another hat and got paid for both yeah the
constitutional convention they screwed it all up and in the end we got very little done as a result
and by the way and then I guess the next time there was a deal that they were saying that they
wouldn't run but they had cronies who ran and they got these other guys to run so I'm not a big
fan fooling around with the state constitution although it's an obscene document filled with nonsense
like ski trails and they had a run to accident the constitution I mean there's little crazy
things in there no it's crazy the US constitution is I last remember counting the words was about
6,000 words and this thing is just out of control it's like the telephone it is okay so then you get
this thing a constitutional convention the polls jump on it they they all have their own thing
and it's doubtful that you're going to get anything done and you spend millions and millions and
millions of dollars getting it done well and possibly bad things could happen I mean that's right
anytime you're all the dice anything can happen so just so you're listening to every 20 years under
the New York State Constitution there's a vote put to the public as to whether or not they want to
convene like it a constitution convention and if they convene it the way it works is each state's
senate district elects three delegates and then there's 15 statewide people elected to the convention
now let's remember we'll take you back to what we've just talked about redistricting some of those
state senate districts are not too healthy to begin with I mean and who else can run who else can
take time off from their job to run to be a delegate right I mean that there's going to be working
for the criticism though the most legitimate criticism of the process of the Constitution
convention is that elected officials are most likely the people to run and a senator and to assembly
members for each senate district but even if they don't even they say that's wrong my buddy Louis
will run right but there's again there's no restriction on who can run yeah and they get paid as
if their state legislators and I think the last time there was a convention the president of
the convention was the speaker of the assembly who was able to get paid by both both as a delegate
and as a speaker of the assembly so then the question is what do you do about that if you want to
change the delegate selection process you have to start now and so that's one of the reasons why
I'm are you even raised it I think it's important and I talk to my colleagues in a form community
about this is time plays out is that we advance proposals to make the delegate selection process
most likely to be one that where delegates would be elected from average people that normal people
would be able to have a system of public financing for example average people who watch perillaume
companions or anybody right I mean like the people who elect the president how you do that what you
have to change the delegate selection process well give me an idea of how you might do that well I
mentioned one example just now you'd allow public you'd have public financing so that let's say a
Blair Horner who lives in Duane'sburg New York who doesn't have personal wealth has never been
elected official and I'm not even enrolled in a political party I would be able to run as a delegate
if there was public financing I would not be able to seriously run if there is not well so a
pig just flew through the room in other words then digs live I was wondering what that was
and big why you know these guys they're never going to change the rules if they can help it
well they don't like public financing they I know the assembly passes public financing bills
but that's because they know the republicans aren't going to do it and they got there under the old
rule so what do they change the rules so Blair Horner can do it not Louis the guys second cousin
no I mean and then maybe they won't right but then that's the or at least the public when they go
to vote on whether or not there's going to be a constitution convention the issue of how the
delegates would be elected will be debated in advance and if the public doesn't like that process
no vote down the convention they won't do it if the process has been reformed maybe they'll want to
do it right but you can't wait until 2016 to make that happen you have to start advancing the
proposals in 2014 make it an issue in the governor's race let the gubernatorial candidate say what are
they going to do to have a people's convention is compared to a policy convention and then let's see
if we can have a debate on that make it happen if it doesn't happen it doesn't happen we wait
wait a second let me just get this straight was that the same governor who said that he was going to
veto any bill that was not a fair portion and yeah so he says it so well I think you know then the
bills don't pass right I mean at the end of the day though instead of the public not knowing what's
happening voting one way or another based on whatever fear campaigns are mounted which they will be
there will have been a democratic process opportunity to fix the constitutional convention process
in advance if it fails that helps make the case not to do it sure well quite right now
let's talk a little bit about one of your pet issues that's transparency in state government
I know when you mentioned before that you had gone to do a little job for the governor now
then the attorney general that he was interested in transparency and creating a transparent system
I'm gonna tell you right now I don't think this governor is particularly transparent despite the
fact that he hired John in the old days to do that was weren't these her generals officers and he
get hired at the governor's office yeah yeah but character is character and you know things on
sheet this governor is in aspects of what he does is as secretive as any other governor that we've
seen in modern time do you think yeah and that there are other areas though where he's open and I
think there's like can you name some of the ones that he's open that you're well let me let me
make a distinction I think there's a distinction in the governor's mind again this is just my guessing
between the process of governmental decision making and access to government information so for
example he has done a number of things in the project I worked on at the attorney general's office
was to bring new technologies to bear on governmental data so that the public would have easier access
to it for example well what I worked on was the thing called project sunlight which was a
created database where the public would be able to simultaneously search for lobbying of funding
the introductions of bills campaign contributions government contracts etc you could look at that in
one place the governor has done similar things with this open new york order he put out which forces
the agencies to make their databases more available so if you go to the health department website for
example information you would be able to normally get under foil is now posted on that when you ask
for information right right so that the public access so now they just make it available and they
make it available in excel spreadsheets where you can look at nursing home complaints for example
in a relatively easy way so I think that's an area that he views sort of like these are not his
words as we might sort of a a digital democracy where you can actually make government information
available through new technologies on the process of this making decisions he negotiates budgets
in secret he negotiates his big bills in secret but that's not any different than most other
so those are wrongs don't make a right i'm not saying it's right nipers you would be that that's
wrong nipers complained even about the safe act the way that the passage going on the gun control
legislation but i think that's the distinction he makes that he would rather negotiate in secret
hammer deals out make it happen quickly so his opponents have no time to react because he views
that as a tactical advantage for himself we've think that he leads the worst public policy because
we negotiate things in secret more mistakes get made because you're not bringing to bear everybody
is involved on the other hand and i don't like to give the other hand and give him a helping hand
on the other hand i have a feeling that unless he had operated under the so-called message of
necessity we might not have a gun bill in New York state right that may well be true the force
the forces opposed to what would have mobilized and acted against the legislation made it hard
for the bill to pass but again that's a tactical decision he makes the ramifications are
that he runs an administration which is much more secretive than we believe it should be because
after all the government is by the people and if the people don't know what's going on i mean
the whole basis of democracy is that the public is there informed consent to the representatives
to make decisions how can you give informed consent if you don't have information so just that has
the chain yeah there is a googoo community we call it in the good government community in Albany
have some of the same old same old people many of the faces haven't changed that you are here
the last time is there a way to organize all those so-called googoo groups good government groups
so that their cloud is increased because they are cooperating well it hinges on the institutional
interests of the groups you see this a lot of groups the environmental communities as an always
act as one and to some extent that's because there are institutional conflicts that occur
sometimes it's personal between people are involved in issues sometimes it's institutional to
circumvent or you know somehow deal with that you have to change that dynamic the good government
community over the years that i've been involved in which is like 30 years now tends to be more
likely to work together than not but doesn't always work together in recent years it's been less
likely to work together and some of that are policy differences and some of that are you know
institutional well i've always wondered for example i've always liked Barbara Bartlett
and the League of Women voters have been around for a long time too but i always think that sometimes
when they sign on to something that i wouldn't have signed on to it's in order to get a half a
loaf and to be able to say well see what we accomplish group to their own members it's destiny
well and by the way i'm not singling her out because i frankly don't know what that's about
yeah well i mean i mean that's always the problem of any advocate right you never get what you want
but is that famous british philosopher mick jager says do you get what you need
right and so what is you know do you are you improving on the status quo or you not i mean
none of us have the kind is it worth it to improve on it by it half an inch well or centimeters
as opposed to making a good example is the league as i understand it and other groups i think
citizen union supported the redistricting reform that's right and not good did not yeah and so
you know we there are sometimes policy differences and that's okay i mean that happens right but
you that's there's a good example a case study where the groups did not agree on how many slices of
the loaf were enough to feed them and sometimes you do but when you're an advocate you're all usually
in a situation of deciding at the end of the day is this enough of an improvement over the status
quo that's worth supporting well blare hornar this will be the first of many times i am sure that
you're back talking to us if you'll come back um our guest has been the magnificent blare hornar
we are so glad he's back in the saddle legislative director for new york public interest research group
niper blare again thanks for doing all of this at some sacrifice to yourself and we'll be talking to
you soon thanks for having me the capital connection is distributed with the cooperation of the
public radio stations of new york state david gastina is the producer of the capital connection
a production of w a mc northeast public radio in albony support for the capital connection comes
from new york state united teachers representing professionals in education and health care
online at nys ut dot org and nisk kasa the new york state coalition against sexual assault working
to support men in their decision to end sexual violence with the my strength is not for hurting
online at nys c a s a dot org
and
and