Statewide satellite distribution of this program is made possible by the Lawrence Group,
providing residents throughout New York State with total insurance coverage.
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.
The host is political scientist and syndicated columnist Dr. Alan Sharton of the State University.
Hello and welcome to the Legislative Gazette. This week, ethics legislation agreed to by
state lawmakers will hear about a proposal for changes in mandatory auto insurance,
and then there's the question of government intrusion into public broadcasting.
That's all ahead on the Legislative Gazette.
Lawmakers announced on Tuesday that agreement had been reached on all details of conflict of
interest in financial disclosure legislation. The rules will apply to all elected state officials,
state employees earning more than $30,000 a year, judges some political party chairman and candidates
for state wide offices. Lawmakers would face new restrictions in representing law clients before
state agencies, and they would have to list financial assets including stock holdings and outside
income. In addition, the package sets up an auditing system for the legislature executive and
judicial branches of state government in hopes that it would provide better control on how the
government spends public money. We talked about details of the bills with Fred Dicker of the New
York Post. Fred Dicker of the New York Post, you're now holding in your hand perhaps the most
comprehensive piece of ethics legislation ever passed in New York State. Are there any holes in it,
Fred? Well, Alan, you know, in normal procedure for the legislature, this thing is 137 pages long.
They just handed it to us late in the week. We probably don't have more than just a few hours to
take a look at it carefully to see if there are holes in it. We're not obviously, you and me,
as journalists, trained lawyers, written, reading this stuff. There are some minor holes that I've
been able to see so far, but on balance, it looks like a pretty sweeping measure.
Okay, there are a couple of things that I think we ought to take a look at. Number one,
in the bill itself is the question of who will do the enforcing. Now, if you break a law in New
York State, the prosecutor at will can come after you, but apparently not in this bill.
Well, you're absolutely correct, Alan, and I'm sure that's one of the loopholes that are going
to be focused on by critics under this bill, if a state legislator or if a legislative employee
intentionally misrepresents falsely reports either income or a lack of income that should have
been reported by law, then a panel that is going to be named by the legislature itself will decide
whether to slap them on the hand and give them a civil penalty or refer it to a district attorney
for criminal prosecution, but it's just within the discretion of this legislative appointed
panel. So many here are going to be saying, as they already are, this is sort of Kidney Gloves
treatment that if you or me, the average citizen, falsely files information with a state, you and I
would get nailed, especially you. But here they're treating themselves separately. It's a loophole,
but I think the governor would say and he's probably right that this is the best you could do.
So Fred, if in fact all of this fighting between the governor and the legislature has involved
the fact that there'll be criminal penalties or not criminal penalties, and now we find out
that there is this idea that the legislature itself, which historically has always banded the wagons
and circled the wagons at the right moment to protect their members, is going to make the decision
as to whether recommend prosecution isn't this without merit then? Now I don't think so. Look,
it went from no criminal penalties to maybe criminal penalties. Now that's a weakness in it.
There's no question, but there are page after page after page of disclosure requirements,
the likes of which have never been seen in New York and I think most of the lawmakers will abide
by them and it's going to provide us in the media and then the public as a result, a more accurate
and closer look at the financial entanglements and involvements of the elected officials in this
state than ever before. And I think that's probably something to be glad for, to be justifiably
pleased with. Now Fred, the rest of it is this, well first of all, I have heard from senior people
around that one of the reasons that so many people have been included in this bill, virtually thousands
of state workers. Anybody who earns more than $30,000? That's about 60 to 70,000 state workers.
That's a lot of people. It's to include so much hoop lines, so much bureaucracy that the
legislature will be able to say the thing is unwieldy or it doesn't work or cost too much.
Well I've heard that too and as a result, Alan, and you know we both talked about this when the
first loophole riddled bill was passed in April, which had this kind of a proviso in it. I've asked
and they tell me that's no longer so. That in fact there's a provision in the bill now and I haven't
founded yet, but I was told this by Evan Davis, who's the governor's chief counsel, that there's
a provision in the bill that will allow the unions or individuals to come forward and request exemptions
for people or classes of employees. The unions will be effective there who make $30,000 or more,
but are not in policy making positions like university professors for instance. So that in fact,
thank God. So in fact, if Davis is correct, there will be sweeping exemptions which over a year or
two will whittle down the number of people required to disclose to a more manageable number.
So that one other thing, there is a companion piece that will either be included in this piece
of legislation or now, which essentially is the auditing bill. So called. Yes, the so-called
auditing bill. Governor says it's very important. It's designed to allow either outside auditors or
the state controller to come in and take a look at how the legislature and certain executive branch
just spend their money. I think most of our citizens probably assume that was now being done anyway.
It's not. The governor says it's important. There's some reason to believe it is. The future of the
bill is not clear right now. The governor thinks he's going to get it and he's hinted that the pay
raises that we both know that the legislators want so much are contingent on their approving this
measure. Right now it looks like it has a good chance, but we won't know for several hours.
Well, the interesting thing about that bill is it seems to me in some cases it calls for independent
paid major auditing firms to do this work. Is that specifically what the controller of the state
of New York was established to do? Not specifically when it came to the legislature itself.
The controller was keeping the states books and overseeing the states revenues,
but since the legislature was a separate branch of government, technically the controller
is in the executive branch of government. Since the legislature is a separate and distinct branch,
the controller has been wary of looking at their books and let's be realistic about it now.
The controller has been wary too because the legislature controls the state controller's budget
every year and if the controller did a little number found some inappropriate things in the legislature,
the legislature might retaliate. When you have a law that says the state controller shall,
which in legalese means must do something, it eliminates or it certainly emulatorates the
concern that they will be legislative retaliation against the controller. Fred lasting. Big win for
Governor Cuomo. I think it is and if we're not sure that it is over the next few weeks, I'm sure
we're going to hear him say it 100 times. So he knows how to take Polenta and make it into
filet mignon when he wants to. He always in size of Fred Dicker of the New York Post.
This is the legislative Gazette and I'm Leslie Brokaw. Lawmakers were expressing relief this week
that the legislation on disclosure and conflict of interest finally was in the bag,
most said that it was past time that the bill might help restore public faith in the system.
Some however expressed reservation about parts of the bill. Assemblyman John Faso is a
Republican from Hudson, New York. Points of contention I have with the legislation are not the ones
that anyone has been reading about. For instance, let me give you one example. In the capital
district here, this is going to be particularly interesting to see how it works. The bill says that
any state employee making over $30,000 is required to file this form. Well, it's going to mean that
over 60,000 forms are going to be filed. I wonder, I just wonder whether or not that's a bit of
overkill. I would have preferred that the salary level for state workers be something somewhat higher,
say, $50,000. That would have made it, I think, a little more meaningful. There's another thing
about the legislation too, which is not addressed and that is the question of emancipated children.
Children and siblings and even parents of state officials, state wide elected officials and
legislators can also, by the nature of their relationship, have a fair amount of influence in the
operations of state government. While this bill does not address that question at all.
Assemblyman John Faso of Hudson, New York. Alan Shartock spoke about the ethics bill with
Stan Lundin, New York's lieutenant governor, who said that this was an historic piece of legislation.
First of all, congratulations, you guys really did get a tremendous victory here, but is there a loophole
that we have to look at here? And that is the way in which this whole thing is going to be enforced.
Now, as you remember, the whole fight during this session was whether there would be criminal penalties
attached if legislators didn't adhere to this code of ethics that was being brought forth in this bill.
Now, we're hearing that the legislature itself will police itself and that prosecutors will not be
able to prosecute for not adhering to the code unless the charge is forwarded from the legislature
to the prosecutor. Somehow, isn't that the old Fox guarding the henhouse?
Well, perhaps it is, but I think that's common to most legislators in the country and it is the case with the Congress.
Here, I think we have a joint legislative committee involving both the assembly and the Senate.
You know, we've never been able to achieve that in Washington.
It is true that the legislative commission on ethics would review a violation and then decide either
to impose a fine up to $10,000 themselves or it would be their decision to refer it to a prosecutor
and a prosecutor couldn't take action for a violation of the disclosure provisions of the
legislative unless it was referred to them.
What about the other side? What about the other violations other than disclosure?
Well, right now we have none of these requirements on the legislature and I think that it's a breakthrough
that we get them. The requirements in this law will be reviewed as to the legislature, will be
reviewed by the legislative joint commission as to the executive branch. It will be reviewed by an
ethics commission and I think that there is a degree of independence here we've never had before
and a consistency with what the best ethical requirements in other states and in the national government
provide. Now, there is a second commission that is being appointed by the governor that will
have something to do with the legislature. Do you understand what that does?
Well, the commission appointed by the governor apparently works in parallel with the legislative
commission basically reviewing the executive branch. So they do similar functions, one for the
executive branch and one for the legislature. Will you be looking for more than this next year's
decision? Oh, this is not the end of the battle for integrity in government and New York state.
We hope we will not only get an ethics law but also an audit and guidelines law so that the
taxpayers know that there's going to be some review of all the functions of government, the courts,
the legislature and everything with regard to no show employees and a lot of the other
violations that have been going on. I think that will be an enormous accomplishment this year
but there's a lot of other ethical questions that require review including how we finance
political campaigns and what the limits on campaign contributions ought to be and that kind of
thing. The Fiery Commission that is established under the Morland Act and the Blue Ribbon Commission
that the legislature adopted that's headed up by former governor Malcolm Wilson, I think both
should take a look at these other ethical issues. I don't think we're done with the question of
integrity in New York state government but I think we've achieved a significant accomplishment.
One thing to stand in that is the question of practice before courts. Now this bill would
specifically exclude legislatures from appearing before state agencies representing private legal
clients but they can still go to state courts. Isn't that the same thing? You know I don't think so.
We really have a pretty independent judiciary and I don't see anything wrong with a legislator
or lawyer practicing before the Supreme Court in New York state. Let me argue with you about that
for a second. It seems to me that the theory of the practice before state agencies whether the
state agency heads would not feel compelled to allow this quote lawyer who was also a legislator
special privileges because he was a legislator now that's because he votes on their salaries,
that's because he votes on their bills. The same thing is true with the legislator and the
Supreme Court trust. The same to Ruckway. If a lawyer legislator is a chairman of a committee
that regulates, let's say banks because I don't think either of those chairman are lawyers but
practicing lawyers but in any way if they regulate banks and then they go in and represent it
bank before the banking superintendent. Well that's pretty obvious. Well what if the guys
the chairman of the judiciary committee which votes on all kinds of things having to do with the
state courts and then represents a client before a judge? There are so many judges in the state
that I think that is a very distinguishable situation and it is highly unlikely that that judge
would feel intimidated. He personally is only indirectly affected by the legislative decisions
that that lawyer legislator makes as a legislator and I don't think there is the potential for abuse
that there is in the regulated agency situation. Lieutenant Governor Stan Lundin.
There's been a move on this legislative session to pass a new auto insurance bill. Right now car owners
are required to carry insurance that would pay $10,000 to a single person injured in an accident
with that car and $20,000 for injury to more than one person. Many people already choose to carry
more coverage but some lawmakers say that the required minimum ought to be raised as protection
from those lesser insured drivers. A bill sponsored by Eugene Levy in the Senate and Helene Weinstein
in the assembly would raise those minimums from $10,000 to $30,000 to $60,000. Among the groups advocating
the bill this session has been the alliance for consumer rights, the public relations arm of the
New York trial lawyers. Rick Schrader is their director. Rates have not been changed since 1957.
Really it's an economy frozen in time over 30 years and what this will do will rebalance this
particular piece of economics. The consumer price index has tripled since the late 50s and we just
want to get things up to where they would be ordinarily. Now there will be those cynical people out there
Rick who are going to say to you wait a second this guy says he's from the alliance for consumer rights
but then he tells us it's an arm of the lawyers to trial lawyers. Now he says he's here like the
government to help us but what he wants us to do is to raise the basic amounts that people
are covered for insurance and I think I bet that he really what he really wants to do here
is to raise the amounts of money that the people will have on hand in settlement so that the lawyers
can get their hands on their share of it. Unquestionably the lawyers will be able to get the same
percentage but a higher piece if they're only getting 10,000 out of lawyers would get between a
fifth and a third of that. This is not a lot of money. We're not going to talk about the trial
lawyers throughout New York State wanting to fight vociferously for a bill and it's been a vicious
fight this session that they're going to get maybe $10,000 per firm increase in their overall firm
right now if they get $3,000 out of a 10,000 settlement they may get what 9,000 out of a 30,000
that's all shared by partners. It's not a big money item for the trial lawyers. What it really is
though it's an attempt on the part of a lot of consumer organizations a lot of other groups we
were having a fairly broad range coalition including the automobile club citizen action in Nipurg
as well as organizations like the communication workers and the Petrolman's Benevolent Association.
We're finding that the insurance issue was raised last year and heightened people's consciousness
that insurance generally is a kind of organic economic impulse as opposed to just simply something
once in a while you buy for your house, your car. Because of that people with auto insurance
began to look at the insurance issue in a more political way and see insurance as something which
they have a sense of rights towards. Well it isn't people who are starting all this it's you guys
it's the trial lawyers right? No it's not our bill. I mean the bill was raised by a number of other
organizations. Again the automobile club was key in some of this the trial lawyers certainly
have been the one major political engine as far as the overall political struggle this year.
But it's a piece I think of a longer and broader consumer tradition and in this case it's certainly
an issue that affects victims too. The issue here is that someone heard in a reckless driving incident
it's only going to get $10,000 and if they were a child that's the terrible hypothetical
if they're a child and they could for the rest of their life get no more than the 50,000
under no-fall than the 10,000 under this coverage. Well what would that be? In other words I could
sue you you might not have that kind of coverage but if you had the money or if you had the resources
or the court could garnish or attach a salary right? I mean it's not limited to what I can win
from the insurance coverage. Generally speaking now the people who have 10-20 are people who are
judgment proof they don't have anything you can really sue for. Many times they don't even have
homes so we're talking about people who are not deep pockets and they don't have resources
that you could fall back on. Who's the enemy in this? Does the insurance companies against the
system? It's very interesting. The enemy is out there and it is us. The insurance industry is not
visible in opposition in some cases they are supportive. The insurance agents of New York for
example have been very supportive and wrote a memo in support to Senate Majority Leader Warren Anderson.
We're not finding the insurance carriers being very visible on this. The only people we see
the only person we see I should say in direct opposition to it is Senator Joseph Bruno who's
the chair of the insurance committee a very very tough opposition he can kill the bill or why is he
opposed? He argues that people in the assigned risk categories people with bad driving records or
young drivers they're going to see their rates skyrocket. State insurance department thinks differently.
The State Insurance Department and the Quombe Administration and Richie Kessel from the Consumer
Protection Board suggested the increases for the assigned risk which would be the highest
placed on any drivers in the state would be under 10 percent probably more like 5 percent increase.
So bottom line in all of this what's the chances that this bill will pass this year not very good?
I think that we need to allow the bill to get out of the Senate floor. If we're to get in the Senate
floor I could say on categorically we'd have about 50 votes for it but without getting out of the
insurance committee clearly there's no chance it's being squelched there oftentimes the States
and it's the place the Alphans graveyard of reasonably forward looking legislation and it's no
different this time around. Rich Shrader is executive director of the trial lawyers group Alliance
for Consumer Rights. Meanwhile the Senate sponsor of the Bill Eugene Levy has gone over the head of
the Senate Insurance Chairman Joe Bruno in petitioning the legislative leadership to bring the
issue directly to the floor. The bill already has passed the assembly Leslie Broadcast spoke with
Senator Bruno about why he's held up the bill in committee. Well because I have a great concern
that the cost of insurance for cars is already too high for the people of New York and if this bill
passes it could very well double the cost of insurance for cars for a lot of people. That's my
major concern that's why we're being very cautious and very careful and that's why we're continually
exploring the ramifications of this bill. Some people have said that the hike in the cost that
this is the key issue that you say that it would be doubling some people's bills others say they
would be adding as much as a hundred dollars but maybe only five to ten percent where do you come
up with your numbers. Well I'd like to know where they come up with theirs. The trial lawyers who are
the greatest beneficiaries of raising the limits because they would you know get higher fees for
representing people in lawsuits they come up with five or eight percent. I think that's nonsense
and that's the reason again why we're being very careful as we move forward and I expect I may be
having hearings on this subject before we take any definitive action. I'm just being careful
that's all because people already pay way too much for their insurance and I don't think that we
ought to in any irresponsible way just go ahead and force people to have to buy triple the
minimums that they presently have to buy today. Again though where did you get your numbers from?
We have numbers that come from the industry and we are still collecting information but what I'm
saying is I don't know for certain and that's the reason why we're being very careful but you know
common sense would tell me that if we force people in the insurers to provide triple the coverage
common sense would tell me that you're going to have to increase the premium in order to give
triple the minimum coverage aren't you. You think you're going to get three times the coverage
for the same amount of money or for a few dollars more I don't think so. Joe Bruno is state
senator from Rensler County and chairs the Senate Insurance Committee. Last month in the Albany
area it became big news to learn that public television and radio station WMHT had a $6 million
reserve fund in the bank. State officials say that about a third of the state's public TV
stations operate with no reserves that another third have modest reserves of about a quarter million
dollars and that about a third have sizeable reserves. But WMHT with $6 million has over one
year's budget set aside. The state official in charge of overseeing public broadcasting says that
in the wake of the MHT issue the state will be considering imposing limitations on the amount
of money that can be sitting in the bank at any time. He said two thirds of the yearly budget is
the amount now being discussed. This week on the Capitol Connection WAMC's interview with Mario
Cuomo the governor said that there is a move afoot by some Republicans to further regulate public
broadcasting. I'd be opposed to any kind of government regulation of WMHT, WAMC, any public
television, any commercial television. I agree with the president who repealed the fairness doctrine.
I disagree with all the Democrats and all the Republicans who voted for the fairness doctrine
and they voted overwhelmingly. Now that's an interesting proposition with WMHT. I have been one of
those who supported as vigorously as I could giving money to public television and public radio.
I think both are important. I am prepared to do it without any regulation at all. But I can see
people being tempted now in the Capitol District. I can see Arnold Praskin or Faso saying,
hey, they've got that big thing. We ought to regulate them, you know, especially Republicans who
regulate public television and public radio very easily because they think it's too liberal.
So I think you should look out for the Republicans who will now try to attach to the money they
give you conditions. Governor Cuomo speaking on the Capitol Connection. However, the two Republican
Assemblymen that Cuomo named Arnold Praskin and John Faso say they'd never heard of a plan to
further regulate public broadcasting. The governor is obviously confused. I don't know why he's
making such rash allegations. They're untrue. He knows them to be untrue because he just made it
up out of thin air. I have to say the governor is not telling the truth. It's absolutely false.
That was John Faso and his thoughts are echoed by Assemblyman Arnold Praskin.
I think that the governor is acting in a totally irrational way. I think that if one of my kids were
to say something like that, which is a total absolute fabrication. There's no basis to it. He'd
be punished for quite a long period of time. I happen to be a subscriber dummy at WMHT before
Mario Cuomo came to Albany. I've been a supporter of public television and public radio. We contribute.
I give of myself. And I think what he's doing once again is just totally absolutely fabricating
a statement to perhaps fend off something. I don't know what. As you know, I asked the other day
for an independent investigation of the through way authority and for other little fires that
really almost rise to the highest unethical perhaps. And if true illegal actions within the
governor's cabinet, within the administration, and perhaps this is his way of saying, well,
I'll point to him and I'll call him names. I'll say he's not in, he's taking some other position.
I think it's terrible that a man who aspires to the presidency and I think he does,
would act this way. What would he do if Gorbachev said something about him that he didn't like?
Would he push the button? Assemblyman Arnold Praskin, both Praskin and Faso say there are no
plans that they know of in either house to further regulate public broadcasting. And Praskin says
if there were, he would not be in favor of them.
And that's the legislative Gazette to this week. Our show is produced by Leslie Brokaw with
help from Dan Antleleck, Dan Brody, Mori Small and Dave Galetli. We'll be back again next week.
For now, I'm Alan Shartock. The legislative Gazette is a production of WAMC news.
Dr. Alan Shartock is executive producer. This program is made possible with funds provided by
the State University College at Newport.
Statewide satellite distribution of this program was made possible by the Lawrence group,
providing residents throughout New York State with total insurance coverage.
