News
from STATE SENATOR
Liz Krueger
COMMUNITY
BULLETIN – March 2005
Message from Liz . . .
Last Month, my fight for real reform
of the legislative process continued, as I joined Republican Assemblymember Tom
Kirwan and the
The complaint
incorporates the recent report of the
Among the practices
challenged in the complaint are the following:
·
Unequal funding of member support: Minority party
legislators receive less funding than members of the majority party with equal responsibility
for constituent communication and other necessary expenses.
·
Unequal member items: Minority party members also receive
less funding for “member items,” which are funds for legislator-initiated
projects in their districts made available in violation of the constitutional
appropriation requirement.
·
Placing insurmountable obstacles to discharge motions: Minority party
legislators are effectively prevented from bringing bills to a vote before the full
house because majority leaders control when and whether bills are reported out
of committee, even when they have a reasonable prospect of success.
·
Secret debates and votes: Members of the majority party meet in
secret conferences to debate and vote upon pending legislation.
·
Abuse of messages of necessity: Although the
Governor frequently invokes messages of necessity to pass legislation, thereby
avoiding the State Constitution’s requirement that all bills be on the desks of
all legislators at least three days before the vote, he does not personally
sign the messages of necessity or certify facts requiring an immediate vote as
required by the Constitution.
·
Leadership control over member pay: The leaders of each
house of the Legislature control whether members receive additional
compensation, commonly known as “Lulus,” and they punish members who fail to
follow their direction by reducing or eliminating altogether these stipends;
this makes it nearly impossible for a member of the minority party to solicit
the support of members of the majority party.
I had hoped that my colleagues would recognize the need to respond
to the public outcry over the way we do business in
Community Spotlight
Opposing Proposed Changes to the
The Parks Department has proposed redesigning
the northern section of
Fundraising & Proposal Writing for Public
Schools:
State Senator Liz Krueger & The Foundation
Center invite parents to a workshop on fundraising and proposal writing. Learn proposal writing basics and what
resources are available for your school.
Share and hear fundraising ideas from other parents. The event will take place on Thursday, March
17th, 2005, from 9:30AM-12:00PM. The
Free Tax Help for Seniors:
Eviction
Intervention Services (EIS) is offering a free tax clinic for seniors every
Tuesday through April 12, 2005, from 10:00 AM to 1:30 PM. The clinic is located at the EIS office at
LEGAL
BOUND Summer Junior High and High School Intern Program:
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office is
accepting applications for its Legal Bound Summer Internship Program. Students between the ages of 14 and 17 (or 18
if still in high school) with an interest in the law are encouraged to
apply. Applicants should send a resume
and an essay explaining their interest in the law to Community Affairs Unit,
New York County District Attorneys Office, Attn: Ms. Carol Ragsdale,
The Fourth Annual
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:
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
This week, the Senate
has again passed legislation to “fix” the death penalty, which was declared
unconstitutional last year by the New York State Court of Appeals. I opposed this legislation, since I believe
that the death penalty is neither a fair or effective mechanism for addressing
violent crime.
While I have always
been opposed to the death penalty, the arguments against its use have only
gotten stronger in recent years.
Technological advances in DNA processing have demonstrated conclusively
that many innocent people have been sentenced to death, and have led other
states such as
There are also strong
racial disparities in the administration of the death penalty, both in terms of
the race of the defendant and the race of the victim. About 42% of current death row inmates are
African American. The racial disparities
are even greater when one looks at the race of the victim of a given
crime. African Americans are much more
likely to be the victim of murders than whites, but the killers of African
Americans are much less likely to face the death penalty. Since 1976 80 percent of death sentences have
been meted out to the killers of whites.
From a crime
prevention perspective, the death penalty also makes little sense. There is no evidence that the death penalty
is effective in reducing crime rates.
Furthermore, it is more expensive to administer the death penalty than
to keep someone in prison for life.
Since
The growing evidence
regarding the ineffectiveness and dangers presented by the death penalty, along
with declining crime rates, have shifted public opinion regarding the death
penalty. According to a 1993 Quinnipiac
University Poll, New Yorkers now prefer a maximum sentence of life without
possibility of parole to the death penalty by a margin of 53% to 38%. While earlier polls often did not mention the
option of life without possibility of parole, they also suggested much stronger
support for the death penalty in
The state Court of
Appeals ruled in its decision last year that the sentencing methods of the
capital punishment statute were unconstitutional because jurors are instructed
that if a jury deadlocks between execution and life without parole as the
punishment, the judge will sentence the defendant to life in prison with the
possibility of parole. The judges said
that option might pressure jurors to vote for execution because they did not
want to create the opportunity for the defendant to eventually be released from
prison.
The Senate bill fixes
this problem by specifying that when a jury deadlocks over the punishment in a
capital crime, the default penalty will be life without the possibility of
parole. This change would appear to
address the courts concern, and would likely lead to the reintroduction of
capital punishment in
Fortunately, as of
now, the Assembly has shown no interest in adopting the Senate proposal to
reintroduce the death penalty. I share
the belief of many of my colleagues in both houses that