News from STATE SENATOR

Liz Krueger

New York State Senate, 26^th District

COMMUNITY BULLETIN – February 2006

Message from Liz . . .

In this month’s message, I am returning to the issues of reform in Albany. The legislature is back in session, and as I listen to many of my colleagues talking about all the great reforms we achieved last year, I have to point out to them that what we did last year on public authority procurement, lobbying, and ethics reform were only the first steps toward fixing our dysfunctional Albany system.

Two key areas that we have not addressed at all are campaign financing and the influence of lobbyists over legislators. Recent federal scandals involving the lobbyist Jack Abramoff demonstrate that these two areas are often closely interrelated, in that campaign contributions are one of the easiest ways for lobbyists to potentially influence legislators. It will probably not surprise you to learn that New York State has some of the loosest standards in the country when it comes to controlling campaign financing and lobbyist interactions with legislators. And it’s not like we don’t need better standards here – even with our loose rules, two legislators have gone to prison in the last few years for ethics improprieties. This session I expect to devote a significant part of my legislative agenda to identifying ways of developing stronger standards in these areas.

One of my first targets is gifts from lobbyists to legislators. I have proposed changing the Senate rules to ban legislators from receiving more than $25 in gifts from any legislator or lobbyist during any calendar year. I proposed this rule because Majority Leader Bruno has stated he supports such a ban – in fact he inaccurately claims the Senate already has such a rule. In 1999 the Senate did pass legislation that, if adopted by both houses, would have imposed these gift rules, but since the Assembly never voted on them, neither house has to follow them. However, there is nothing stopping the Senate from acting on its own by putting a gift ban into the official Senate rules. Despite Joe Bruno’s stated support for a gift ban, he has not allowed my rules change to be considered by either the Rules committee or the Senate as a whole.

In addition to this proposed gift ban, I have recently introduced legislation banning legislators from receiving paid honoraria for speaking engagements related to their legislative duties. Honoraria are another method that lobbyists and interest groups can use to financially reward public officials, and therefore have the potential to inappropriately influence government decisions. Twenty-three states have already recognized the potential dangers associated with honoraria for public officials, and have enacted statutes prohibiting them. New York should join those other states in enacting this basic ethics measure.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

District Office: 211 East 43^rd Street, Suite 1300, New York NY 10017 (212) 490-9535 Fax: (212) 490-2151

Albany Office: Room 302, Legislative Office Bldg., Albany NY 12247 (518) 455-2297 Fax: (518) 426-6874

Email: liz@lizkrueger.com

On the Web at http://www.lizkrueger.com

Of course gifts are only one way in which lobbyists influence legislators. Campaign contributions are another key mechanism, and New York State currently does not even require lobbyists to report their campaign contributions on their filings with the state lobbying commission. I am currently drafting legislation to impose a number of new reporting requirements for lobbyists, including reporting campaign contributions and detailing business relationships between lobbyists and legislators or their family members. The public has a right to know if a lobbyist is lobbying a legislator who also works for a law firm employing that legislator, or if a legislator’s son or daughter works for that same lobbyist.

Better public information is one part of the solution, but we also need to impose stricter standards on campaign contributions from lobbyists. Last year, Connecticut passed an extremely strict new campaign finance law, which includes public financing and a total ban of contributions from lobbyists to campaigns. I strongly support similar public financing legislation in New York, and believe we should look at an outright ban on contributions from lobbyists. However, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, there may be serious Constitutional problems with an outright ban, so I am also looking at alternative solutions. Pete Grannis, my colleague in the Assembly has proposed limiting contributions from lobbyists to $250 and banning them entirely during the legislative session, which I think would dramatically reduce the importance of lobbyists in the area of campaign financing, and thus reduce the potential for inappropriate influence over legislators.

As I turn to lobbying and campaign finance reform this session, my fight for legislative rules reform continues. As you may recall, late last year State Supreme Court Judge Solomon issued a mixed ruling in my rules lawsuit, allowing several claims to proceed while dismissing several others. Both our attorneys and the state attorney recently filed their briefs appealing the various adverse decisions, which will be heard at the appeals level sometime in the next few months. For me, all my efforts to reform Albany are of a piece, in that they all strive to create a more democratic and deliberative legislative process, in which all New Yorkers have an opportunity to participate and have their voices heard.

Community Spotlight

Update on Plans for the Con Edison/Waterside Site:

On January 20^th, I convened a meeting with community leaders to discuss the Con Edison Waterside development and possible strategies for moving forward with the community’s vision for the site. Attendees included the newly elected Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, Council Member Dan Garodnick, representatives from every other local elected official’s office, and representatives from Community Board 6 and the East Midtown Coalition for Sensible Development. The meeting resulted in the establishment of the Waterside Working Group, which will allow elected officials and community leaders to discuss the proposed development and work on strategies to combat the current plan, which would bring several new 60-story residential buildings and an 80-story mixed use commercial/residential tower along the East River. The working group will be expanding its membership in the coming months to include a broad coalition of stakeholders and community groups.

Additionally, my office will be co-hosting a town hall on plans for the Con Ed site on February 22 at 7PM at NYU Medical Center’s Farkas Hall, located on First Avenue at 32nd Street.  The town hall will offer an opportunity for residents to express their ideas about the proposed development, and allow us to share information with the community about the land use review process in preparation for a scoping hearing the Department of City Planning will hold on the project in mid-March.  I urge everyone interested in this important project to attend the town hall on the 22nd.

Second Avenue Subway Update:

The Second Avenue Subway project continues to move forward, with news reports suggesting that the new line is in the final stages of obtaining full funding agreement from the Federal Transportation Administration.  Construction of the new line will be a boon for the New York City and East Side economies, but will also cause some very real short and long term problems for those living within the path of construction.  This month, my fellow East Side elected colleagues and I wrote the MTA to request their attendance at future meetings of CB8's Second Avenue Subway Taskforce.  My office has been in touch with CB8's new chair to set up a meeting of the CB8 Second Avenue Subway Taskforce to deal with the unresolved issues facing tenants who may be evicted from their apartments and those living in buildings where the MTA has proposed acquiring parts of lobbies or ground floor retail to make way for subway entrances and facilities.  I look forward to resuming sessions of CB8's Taskforce and discussing these issues further in the coming months.

Free Tax Assistance for Low-Income New Yorkers:

Community Tax Aid is offering free tax preparation services to New Yorkers with incomes below $25,000 for singles and under $35,000 for families.  To be eligible, no more than $2,700 of income can come from interest, dividends, or capital gains.   Services are provided by paid volunteers under the supervision of CPA’s and/or lawyers.  Tax preparation is being offered at ten locations citywide, including:

          Union Settlement Association                   Housing Conservation Coordinators

          237 East 104^th St. (b/t 2^nd and 3^rd)                        777 Tenth Avenue @53^rd Street

          Saturdays Feb 18^th – April 15^th                 Wednesdays February 15^th – April 12^th

          10AM – 4PM                                             6:00 – 8:30PM

You are advised to arrive early, as locations may be crowded.  Please bring your W-2 forms, other income information, rent expenses, etc., and a copy of last year’s return, if you have it.  In addition, bring any notice you received from the IRS or State tax department, and the social security card for all family members.  For more information call 212-613-3101 or visit http://msn.communities.com/ctanyc on the web.

Interested in Becoming a Community Board Member?

The Manhattan Borough President is currently accepting applications for all twelve of the Borough’s Community Boards.  If you would be interested in serving on your local community board, you can obtain an application from the Borough President’s website at www.mbpo.org, from your local Community Board office, or by contacting my office at (212) 490-9535.

Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Assistance Available:

The New York City Department of the Aging and Met Council on Jewish Poverty are cosponsoring Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Enrollment and Assistance Centers throughout New York City.  Residents of Community Boards 5 and 6 are being served at ACES/Community Service Society of New York, located at 105 East 22^nd Street.  Appointments are available Mondays – Wednesday from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM – call (212) 614-5310 to make an appointment.  Residents of Boards 5, 6 and 8 can also receive assistance at the United Jewish Council of Poverty, located at 235 East Broadway, Mondays through Thursdays from 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM.  Again, an appointment is necessary – call (212) 233-6037 to make an appointment.  All borough residents can also visit the Department for the Aging at 2 Lafayette Street, 6^th Floor, which is running a walk-in assistance center Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.  For additional information, call the Department for the Aging at (212) 341-3200.

Heat Season Rules:

The City Housing Maintenance Code and Multiple Dwelling Law requires building owners to provide heat and hot water to all tenants. Building owners are required to provide hot water 365 days per year at a constant minimum temperature of 120 degrees Fahrenheit. Between October 1st and May 31st, a period designated as "Heat Season," building owners are also required to provide tenants with heat under the following conditions:

·   Between the hours of 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM, if the outside temperature falls below 55 degrees, the inside temperature is required to be at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit;

·   Between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM, if the temperature outside falls below 40 degrees, the inside temperature is required to be at least 55 degrees Fahrenheit.

Tenants who are cold in their apartments should first attempt to notify the building owner, managing agent or superintendent. If heat is not restored, the tenant should call the City's Citizen Service Center at 311 (311 can be accessed outside of New York City by dialing (212) NEW YORK). For the hearing impaired, the TTY number is (212) 504-4115. The Center is open 24-hours a day, seven-days a week.

Spotlight on Policy

Privacy and Google

Last month, the Justice Department asked a federal court in San Jose, California to force the internet company Google to turn over search records for use as evidence in a case where the government is defending the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). Google has refused to comply with a subpoena for those records, based in part on its concern for its users' privacy. Other Internet companies have been more cooperative with the Feds – both Yahoo and AOL have turned over the requested information to the Justice department.

This is just the latest in what seems to be an ongoing effort on the part of the Bush administration to undermine the right to privacy. Like the National Security Administration’s ongoing warrantless eavesdropping program, efforts to use internet companies to conduct data-mining operations on behalf of the government violates basic understanding about our civil liberties, and raises serious questions about how such information could be used.

The subpoena to Google currently asks for a random sampling of one million URLs from Google's database of web sites on the Internet. More importantly, the DOJ is also subpoenaing the text of each search string entered into Google's search engine over a one-week period, absent any information identifying the people who entered the search terms. While the ostensible reason for this operation is to identify search terms that might lead to adult oriented websites, there is nothing to prevent such an operation from examining searches for other information, such as political or ideological content.

The current controversy only highlights a broader privacy problem: Google logs all of the searches you make, and most if not all of those queries are personally identifiable via cookies, IP addresses, and Google account information. While I am particularly concerned about government violations of privacy rights, because of the potential impact they have on the political process, the reality is that many private companies have long shown little respect for securing the information provided by customers.

I hope that the current attention that issues of public and private breaches of privacy will help build the political will across the political spectrum to fight for privacy rights. Unfortunately, as technological mechanisms for data-mining become ever more sophisticated, protecting our basic civil liberties is becoming increasingly difficult.

Safety Net Assistance

The New York State Constitution requires the State to assume responsibility for “the aid, care and support of the needy.” This obligation has become increasingly important in the wake of federally-initiated welfare reform, which requires an end to federal support for needy families after five years. While the majority of people leave welfare within the five-year time frame, for those who cannot, the State currently provides aid through its Safety Net Assistance program.

Late last year, the State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) proposed new regulations impacting families who reach their eligibility limit under the federal Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF ) program. These proposed regulations would have denied benefits to cases transitioning to Safety Net Assistance for a 45-day waiting period.

This proposed regulation represents an act of needless and deliberate cruelty to the neediest segment of the state’s population. I am concerned that the real motivation for proposed change was simply a desire to reduce caseloads, regardless of its impact on the lives of the individuals eligible for Safety Net Assistance. OTDA estimated that 10-20% of the caseload will not reapply for benefits. Given the volumes of studies documenting accounts of intimidation, incorrect information and wrongful case closings at city and county social service agencies, it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of those not applying for Safety Net Assistance will do so as a result of a local administrative error or other reasons unrelated to their actual need. Closing these cases and then processing an entirely new application would only create additional bureaucratic hurdle for already overburdened social service agencies. Such a change would also disrupt other benefits and result in evictions, hunger and debt from emergency healthcare visits not to mention burden county homeless agencies and public hospitals with uncovered medical costs.

Because of the potentially devastating impacts of these proposed changes on the lives of needy New Yorkers, I joined social service advocates and other elected officials in challenging this proposed rules change. I am please to report that in response to this outcry, last month OTDA withdrew this proposed change. I am heartened by this important victory, which saves an important piece of our increasingly frayed social safety net, and also demonstrates that it is still possible for organized advocates to positively impact social welfare policy, at least at the state level.