Business leaders press Albany reform

Mark Bitz, a 45-year-old Onondaga County turkey farmer, sounds like a lot of other disaffected New York businessmen when talking about the problems of making a living in the Empire State.

"Property taxes, workers' comp, health insurance, electrical costs — they're all killing me," he said. "That's why I'm taking my investments elsewhere."

But in another way he is unique: He has become an organizer for people trying to change how business is done at the state Capitol and has even set up a Web site to push his agenda for reform.

His goal: To persuade "the Republican and Democratic Party committees … to nominate common, plain-speaking candidates with win-win philosophies, who are committed to restoring the democratic process."

Although the production of many goods has declined in New York in the past few decades, the past year has brought in one bumper crop: ideas on how to reform state government.

In the wake of obvious procedural failures like not adopting a budget on time for 20 years, ethical scandals and the continued economic problems that the state hasn't acted to stem, more residents than ever are crying for change.

Bitz, other individuals and community groups all over New York have taken up the call for change, and dozens of lawmakers have different plans for how to shake up the status quo. This year's session kicks off Wednesday with Gov. George Pataki's State of the State address.

The ideas are diverse, but one key element many of them have in common is that the state's economic troubles flow at least in part from the flawed process by which laws are made in Albany.

So if the process is fixed, the reasoning goes, the clout of pressure groups will diminish and the chances will increase that problems that Bitz and other business leaders have been citing for years can be addressed.

Those who want change point to the defeat of three incumbents in last year's primary and general elections — one Assembly Democrat and two Senate Republicans — as an example of the potency of reform as a political issue, while others say that's small potatoes in the 212-member Legislature.

Still, "dysfunctional Legislature" has become a catchphrase among those seeking change, picking up on a report during the summer from New York University's Brennan Center for Justice that found the lawmaking body the "most dysfunctional" in the United States.

After first deriding the report as ill-informed and unimportant, legislative leaders got in line, committing themselves to making changes or at least setting up panels to study making changes.

But nothing significant has happened yet.

The danger, one student of state government said, is that only minor tweaks will be made in the system and the moment for reform will pass without anything significant happening.

"There could be just superficial changes made, and that could be passed off as reform," said Gerald Benjamin, a SUNY-New Paltz dean. He cited passage of changes in the state's budget-adoption system, where some power would shift from the governor to the Legislature, as an example of sham reform because it would make little difference in how Albany operates. Lawmakers are considering whether to override Pataki's veto of the measure, which they passed last year.

Others point to ever-higher state and local taxes, bribery, theft and sex scandals involving lawmakers and staff members, and the continued economic struggles of parts of the state as creating the "perfect storm" for reform.

The greatest momentum is behind these changes:

• altering the rules the Legislature operates under, such as weakening the power of the leaders (though the leaders would obviously be reluctant to get on board);

• giving minority-party members a more equitable share of power and money;

• allowing more bills to come to the floor for action;

• strengthening committees;

• and ending the practice of allowing lawmakers to be recorded as voting "yes" on an issue when they're not even in the chamber.

These and other rules changes are the most likely reforms to be adopted because each house can do them on its own without the approval of the other house or Pataki.

While some doubt that such relatively minor shifts would mean anything to average New Yorkers, others see them as a first step toward changing the way the state operates and therefore helping to improve the economic situation.

"These changes will begin to hold these people accountable, and that's the first step towards competition," said E.J. McMahon of the Manhattan Institute, a business-backed think tank. Competition means they would be more likely to make decisions that benefit the state as a whole rather than a pressure group, he said.

"They would be put on the spot on things," said McMahon, who has also worked for Republicans in the Assembly and in high-level jobs in the Pataki administration. "They would no longer be able to tell everyone they were with them and then say they're powerless because the leaders are against them."

While nothing substantial may happen soon, at least there seems to be a consensus that things have to change, Benjamin said.

"We've gotten used to this pathology under this misapprehension that it's normal," he said. "First, we had to convince the state it's not normal. I think that's happened. There's a consensus that the current situation is bad and something has to be done about it."

That hasn't occurred before because "people have paid insufficient attention to state government," Benjamin said. "There are a lot of other big stories in New York, mainly New York City."

Bitz, the turkey farmer, started paying attention a few years ago when he first considered selling his farm because he believed government mandates and taxes were unfairly cutting into his profits. He said the cost of doing business in New York adds about $600,000 annually to the expenses incurred by his $20-million-a-year business compared with what it would cost in most other states.

"New York needs to hold the growth of its government spending to inflation and reduce its mandates to bring it in line with other states," he said. "New York doesn't have to be a low-cost state, just in the middle of the pack. ... At one time, New York was a third of the nation's economy. Now we're a joke. A has-been."

So why is he still here?

"It's a great place to live. We have the Finger Lakes and ideal climate for six-eight months of the year. We have no hurricanes. No monsoons. An abundance of water, great parks, great roads, great workers. There are a lot of reasons to be here," he said. "We only lack a functioning democracy, fiscal integrity and discipline and leadership that is accountable to standards of performance."