Brennan Center Statement on Legislative Rules Changes

For Immediate Release
Monday, January 10, 2005

Contact Information:
Natalia Kennedy, 212 998–6736

Brennan Center Statement on Legislative Rules Changes

New York, NY – Today, the Assembly and Senate will each pass changes to their internal rules in an effort to address what has become a groundswell for reform across the State. We are heartened that, after many months of denying that there was any reason for change at all, a majority in both chambers has recognized the profound need for reform. While we applaud that recognition as well as many of the proposed changes, the proposed changes do not go far enough in either chamber, and our work continues.

To their credit, the Assembly has taken significant steps in making its Rules Committee more transparent, ending empty-seat voting, requiring annual agency oversight hearings by committees to assess the relevant agencys implementation of programs, convening budget conference committees with the Senate to reach agreement on budget proposals, and requiring that a message of necessity will not be used to circumvent the State Constitutions three-day aging requirement without an on-the-record vote by a majority of the Rules Committee. Together, these reforms may introduce new accountability, allow greater scrutiny of decisions, and, in certain cases, allow greater deliberation and compromise. For this reason, we support these changes with the expectation that they will form the first of several steps toward meaningful rules changes.

That said, the Assembly has failed to address many critical areas that stifle deliberations and debate and slow the passage of popular legislation. To name a few:

• The Assembly reforms leave almost completely untouched a committee system that does not allow committee chairpersons to hire and fire committee staff (the Brennan Center report recommended that committee chairpersons be empowered to hire and fire staff.); requires the chairpersons agreement to hold public hearings on legislation (the Brennan Center report recommended that public hearings be held if at least one fourth of the committees members petition for such a hearing); does not require committee reports (the Brennan Center report recommended that such reports be required for all bills reported to the calendar), and allows bills to languish in committees without a vote for as long as two years. As a result, the independence and activity of committees have not been enhanced significantly.
  
  
• The Assembly has failed to prevent the abuse of the message of necessity by raising the threshold that must be met before such a message can be used by the chamber. (The Brennan Center report recommended requiring a two-thirds vote in the full chamber.)
  
  
• The Assemblys partial relaxation of the timing restrictions on discharge motions falls far short of what would be necessary to make it substantially easier for bills to be brought to the floor, and far short of other states practices. (The Brennan Center report recommended a series of steps to make it easier to discharge a committee from its consideration of a bill.)
  
  
• The Assembly has not addressed at all the differential funding levels for members, or limited the ability of leaders (majority and minority) to take away resources from individual members. (The Brennan Center report recommended equal funding for the operating and staff costs of all members offices.)
  

In the Senate, we remain unable fully to assess the proposed reforms because the Senate has not yet released the actual language of the rules changes a regrettable choice given the importance of full public review and comment. The Senates summary report promises several positive reforms, including: significantly relaxing the timing restrictions on discharge motions, requiring committee reports, reducing committee assignments from the current average of eight-per-member to a maximum of seven, and codifying what the Senate majority has asserted to be the current practice of allowing committee chairpersons to hire and fire committee staff. In addition, the Senate has called for a joint task force to analyze the conference committee process and recommend improvements, a proposal that should be taken up by the Assembly. If implemented, these changes would be positive, though quite limited.

The Senate has failed to address many important areas in need of reform. To name a few:

• The proposed reforms do not eliminate the practice of allowing members to vote in committees on legislation without being in attendance at the committee meetings (i.e., proxy voting). (The Brennan Center report recommended requiring attendance at all committee meetings and committee votes.)
  
  
• The proposed reforms do not enhance the ability of members to convene public hearings (as against public forums, which are presumably not funded out of the committees funds or out of the majoritys funds but rather out of the minority party conferences funds). (The Brennan Center report recommended that public hearings be held if at least one fourth of the committees members petition for such a hearing)
  
  
• The proposed reforms do not alter the fact that bills now languish in committees without any mechanism to force a vote. (The Brennan Center report recommended that a vote should be held in committee on any bill no later than 10 days prior to the end of session if three or more members petition for such a vote.)
  
  
• The proposed reforms do not eliminate empty-seat voting and, in fact, appear to codify the practice, at least until additional reforms are made. (The Brennan Center report recommended the elimination of this practice in its entirety.)
  
  
• The Senate has failed to prevent the abuse of the message of necessity by raising the threshold that must be met before such a message can be used by the chamber. (The Brennan Center report recommended requiring a two-thirds vote in the full chamber.)
  
  

• The Senate has not addressed at all the differential funding levels for members, or limited the ability of leaders (majority and minority) to take away resources from individual members. (The Brennan Center report recommended equal funding for the operating and staff costs of all members offices.)

* * *
Do these proposed reforms create rules for a legislature that is truly open and deliberative? Do they produce committees that function fully and effectively? Do they encourage debate and resolution of the most important issues through public compromise and negotiation? Unfortunately, the answer to these questions is not yet. These reforms are an important first step, but only the first step, in a longer road to reform, said Jeremy Creelan, Deputy Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, founded in 1995, unites thinkers and advocates in pursuit of a vision of inclusive and effective democracy. Its mission is to develop and implement an innovative, nonpartisan agenda of scholarship, public education, and legal action that promotes equality and human dignity, while safeguarding fundamental freedoms.
Please visit www.brennancenter.org.