02/13/2007: "When is a reform a reform and other musings"

It’s been a fun winter here in Albany thus far, watching the new administration confront the reality of a government system that all agree is in need of reform. But when is “reform” not needed? You might say that reform takes place continuously because whenever the balance of power shifts, those whose power has increased make changes to secure their position and those who are suddenly out of power start campaigning for reforms that can get them back to where they were.

Too often the wrong things are reformed in the process. Superficial changes are made when fundamental ones are needed or the new procedure/system is worse than the old one, except of course from the point of view of those who now benefit.

Without a set of principles from which one can judge reform, what we end up with is change for change’s sake. So what criteria should we use to evaluate what’s taking place in Albany today?

1. A primary consideration in the 21st century has to be transparency. Prior to the Internet era, the cost of true transparency was high. Today it is cheap and even more necessary than ever.
2. Along with transparency, change must result in more accountability. For too long elected officials could say one thing and do the opposite without their constituents having a clue. We still have a long way to go however in holding our elected officials accountable for their actions and inactions.
3. Finally, reform must result in more equity than before. Equity can be provided in terms of opportunity or outcomes. Change is good if it means more people are eligible for or actually receive a benefit.

Now, let’s consider what reforms could occur that would yield the above results. I’ll suggest one such reform, but would like to hear what reforms you think are needed and why. Send suggestions to me at epeditor@emprirepage.com.

Here’s my reform: Reduce the power of the Speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Majority leader. To create more equity, accountability and transparency, the authority vested in those positions has to be dramatically dispersed to the members. That reform would alleviate the need for a lot of the superficial changes recommended by the so-called good government organizations, which in many cases would only add to the bureaucratic inefficiencies and cost of running our government.

*

Each year dozens – well probably hundreds – of bills are introduced in the NYS Legislature that are truly stupid. We need a name for these. I’ll give you my most ridiculous bill of the week and you can help me find a name for this category. I’ll also accept nominations for bills to highlight in future blogs.

The winner this week is Queens State Senator Toby Ann Stavisky who wants to make “driving while drowsy” a crime. This is an example of if there’s a bad way to solve a problem there’s always someone ready to put it into law.

Let me ask Senator Stavisky if she’s also ready to criminalize the following actions: driving while eating or drinking, driving while talking, and driving while thinking? Probably not, but I’ll bet more accidents occur because people are not paying attention than due to drowsiness.

But then again maybe some engineer can come up with a test for drowiness that the police can administer when they pull you over. "Here's a pillow. I'm going to time how long it takes for your head to hit it. That will give us your drowiness quotient." "Whatever you say officer."

*

Best recent editorial: “Change in state Senate” February 11 by the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. The editorial argues persuasively in my opinion that a Democratic Party takeover of the state Senate would be bad for upstate. Do you agree? Here's the link.

The Editor's View

02/13/2007: "When is a reform a reform and other musings"