Last week the New York State Commission on Legislative, Judicial, & Executive Compensation held a public hearing to accept comments on whether to increase the current compensation for the Legislature and the governor. The compensation levels recommended by the Commission will take effect unless changed by the Legislature and the governor. Since June 2015, the Commission consists of seven appointed members – three chosen by the Governor, one by the Senate Majority Leader, one by the Assembly Speaker, and two by the Chief Judge of the state’s highest court, one of whom serves as chair of the Commission.

The Commission is considering pay raises to the highest paid governor and state lawmakers in the nation. New York State legislators have a $142,000 salary, the highest in the country, and due to an ongoing legal challenge, the Commission may place no limits on outside income. New York’s Governor is also the highest paid in the U.S.

The current limits were set as part of an end-of-the-year and after-election decision in 2022, when the governor and the legislative leaders cobbled together a deal to raise their pay. That agreement also added one twist to satisfy an angry public: limits on how much income lawmakers could make from outside sources.

The rationale for the outside income limits was the principle that elected officials cannot “serve two masters.” They must be accountable to only one: the public that they serve.

The idea that “moonlighting” by elected officials should be limited is not unheard of. For example, the Congress has long had outside income limits. The Congressional system was an outgrowth of the Watergate scandal and has a proven track record of being effective in removing outside conflicts.

When the Congress adopted its system, it observed that:

“. . . substantial outside income creates at least the appearance of impropriety and thereby undermines public confidence in the integrity of government officials.”

In addition, the Congress bans income from any source for which the Congressmember has a “fiduciary” relationship. Being a “fiduciary” means putting the interests of your client ahead of your own. When you’re an elected official whose constituents’ interests are paramount, how do you do that when you have a legal duty to put your paying clients first? Can lawmakers serve two bosses? The clear answer is no.

The same potential conflicts that Congress addressed exist in Albany and the recent convictions of elected officials underscore how lucrative it can be for lawmakers to inappropriately use the powers of their public office for private gain. Beyond that, legislators routinely consider proposals that may have an impact on their outside business interests. A bright-line standard is therefore necessary.

Current law limits a Congressmember’s outside income to $31,800 above the applicable Congressional compensation rate.Notably, unlike the Congressional restrictions, the current New York State outside income limit does not ban income from activities in which the lawmaker has a fiduciary relationship with a client. As a result, New York’s stalled outside income restrictions are far weaker than the Congressional version and should be made stronger by the

Pay Commission – assuming that the courts ultimately allow the income ban to be in effect.

The outside income issue is not one for the Legislative branch alone.

New York’s statewide elected officials are paid at the highest rate in the nation, are full-time, and should not be allowed to do outside work. Yet, New Yorkers have seen that happen. The controversy surrounding former Governor Cuomo’s $5 million book deal underscores the need for meaningful restrictions on the outside income of the full-time, statewide elected officials (Governor, Attorney General and Comptroller).

Reviews by both the Assembly Judiciary Committee and the state ethics watchdog at the time, the Joint Commission On Public Ethics, alleged that the former governor pushed the staff of the ethics agency to approve the multi-million-dollar book deal and further alleged that the former governor used government resources in writing the book. Nothing of the sort should have been approved.

As the Pay Commission deliberates, it should recommend that any publishing contracts and other requests for outside income by members of the executive branch be subject to pre-approval by the full state ethics body – not staff – with the full text and conditions of approvals released to the public and prohibited if the publisher is doing business with the state.

New Yorkers know that providing reasonable compensation for public service is an important factor in making government work. Combating public cynicism, distrust and growing voter anger is as important a goal as identifying appropriate, defensible compensation levels.

That was the thinking when the governor and state lawmakers agreed to the current pay raises – making a clear linkage to restrictions on outside income. Until the legal challenge is concluded, the Commission should oppose pay increases for state legislators or statewide officials.

New Yorkers deserve elected officials whose only responsibility while in office is the public that they serve. Those elected to office cannot and should not serve two masters.

Last week, the Hochul Administration issued an edict that state agencies develop plans for a no-growth state budget for the next fiscal year. That order is typical: State agencies’ proposed budgets have been more or less frozen for years. Yet, the announcement by the Division of the Budget – the agency responsible for developing the governor’s executive budget – is an often overlooked first step in Albany’s annual budget “dance.”

The development of the governor’s budget plan goes on for months, with agencies’ budgets subject to review by the Division of the Budget, hearings on the plan, and then presentation to the Legislature in mid-January. The budget is supposed to be finalized by April 1^st. The current state spending plan budgeted nearly $240 billion.

The budget fight over next year’s plan will likely be intense. The budget forecast for the next three years predicts a cumulative three-year budget gap of $13.9 billion, with projected deficits of $2.3 billion next year, $4.3 billion the year after, and ballooning to $7.3 billion the year after that. Of course, these are all projections and are a relatively small percentage of the nearly one-quarter trillion-dollar state budget.

But the challenges will not end by addressing the potential revenue shortfalls.

Next year’s budget will face a myriad of other challenges. One is how will the state deal with the governor’s “pause” of New York City’s congestion pricing plan? The plan – which sets tolls for driving into parts of New York City – was supposed to go into effect at the end of June. The governor – citing concerns over costs – derailed the plan. She is expected to propose reducing the size of the congestion pricing tolls, but that will result in shortfalls in revenues that will have to be addressed in the state budget.

Another big item is education funding. Every year, how the state provides financial assistance to local school districts is a key component of the state’s final budget plan. The state’s assistance is allocated to districts based on a formula, known as Foundation Aid.

The current budget includes a measure calling for the Rockefeller Institute of Government, a public policy think tank housed at the State University of New York, to assess the state’s Foundation Aid education funding formula and discuss potential modifications to how the formula works. Any proposed changes to the existing system will undoubtedly cause a ruckus in this year’s budget debate.

Another issue will be how the state funds higher education.

Last year’s budget made significant changes to the state’s Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) and made college financial assistance available to many more students. TAP is New York’s largest need-based college financial aid grant program. The aid is based on income – the less you make, the more aid you are eligible for. TAP is available to students in the State University of New York (SUNY), the City University of New York (CUNY), and the independent sector. Aid is available for students attending full-time, part-time and in non-degree programs.

In the current year’s budget agreement, for the first time in decades the state increased the income eligibility to $125,000 and increased the size of the minimum award from $500 to $1,000 – essentially updating those amounts to cover the loss in purchasing power due to inflation.

Unfortunately, the budget did not do enough to reverse the erosion of state assistance that has contributed to the decline of too many New York colleges and programs.  Despite the improvements to TAP, the state budget does not include an increase in the amount of the maximum award for the neediest students.  The maximum TAP award still does not cover the full tuition costs of students attending SUNY and CUNY.  

The budget contained, essentially, flatline funding for SUNY and CUNY.  Moreover, despite a growing financial crisis in the independent sector of higher education, the budget made a major cut in funding to the program providing state assistance to independent colleges and universities (Bundy Aid).

The failures in that budget plan will be a big debate in the budget for the upcoming fiscal year.  Not only are New York’s colleges and universities important to educating the future civic and community leaders of tomorrow, they are important economic engines today.  Cuts to higher education, for both the public and independent sectors, harm the state’s economic vitality.  For example, CUNY graduates stay to work in New York at higher rates and studies have shown that for every $1 invested in SUNY, the economy reaps $8 in benefits. College should be affordable for all, providing access to one of the greatest economic equalizers for those who seek it. 

Of course, the necessary increases in the TAP program run headlong into the constraints of the budget shortfalls, as well as the likely spending hikes needed for mass transit for New York City, changes in education funding, and the rest of the state agencies’ spending. Yet, even with those pressures, investing in higher education – both in terms of affordability for students as well as assistance for the institutions themselves – will result in heightened economic activity and a more educated citizenry.

How the governor views the importance of those goals and balances funding priorities will soon be made clear in her January budget plan. At that point the budget dance will be front-and-center.

After a year or so of relative calm, New York’s political world was shaken by the federal indictment of New York City Mayor Adams. While the action was not altogether unexpected – the Mayor and his top aides had been under investigation for quite some time – nevertheless it was the first time that a sitting New York City Mayor was indicted.

The feds allege that Mr. Adams, both before and during his time as Mayor, used his influence to benefit special interests. In particular, the federal indictment alleged that the Mayor received overseas trips and illegal campaign contributions from Turkey in return for political favors. The Mayor is also accused of illegal campaign financing activities allowing him to receive $10 million in City public matching funds via “straw” campaign donations (contributions that are given by one person in the name of another).

The Mayor has pled not guilty and has repeatedly denied having acted illegally, arguing that the indictment is “entirely false, based on lies” and that he will not “resign, he will reign.” He is, of course, presumed innocent until the charges are heard in court. Despite increasing calls for his resignation by some elected officials and advocates, he is entitled to have his side of the story told.

The Mayor, at least publicly, argued that he became a target because of his criticism of the Biden administration’s response to the migrant crisis.

The cloud over City Hall extends to other high-ranking New York City officials who also are under scrutiny by the feds. Adding to the Administration’s problems is that several key senior officials – including the police commissioner, the schools chancellor and the mayor’s top lawyer – have recently resigned. And the probe is ongoing as federal and state agents seized the phone of the Mayor’s chief adviser after the indictment dropped.

While this is not the first time that Mr. Adams has faced questions about his actions, this is by far the most serious. If convicted, Mayor Adams could face up to 45 years in prison.

So, what is next? There are three scenarios of what could happen. The most obvious is that the Mayor could resign. If he does, the next official in the line of succession is the Public Advocate. The New York City Public Advocate is selected in a citywide election and under the New York City Charter would become the interim Mayor (if he cannot accept the role, the other citywide elected official, the New York City Comptroller becomes the interim).

That position is only for an interim basis. The City Charter establishes complicated options for how the interim Mayor should call for a special election to replace an elected Mayor who resigned. However, the Charter makes it clear that the interim Mayor must “Within three days of the occurrence of a vacancy in the office of the mayor, the person acting as mayor shall proclaim the date for the election.” That special election date would most likely (as of now) have to occur within a couple of months. The newly elected Mayor would then face re-election at the end of the existing term, November 2025.

The New York City Charter does offer a path for removal of the Mayor by action of the City’s political leadership. While this provision has been untested, it works like this: Under the City Charter, an “inability committee” can be formed to remove the Mayor. That committee consists of five positions: the corporation counsel (the City’s top lawyer), the City Comptroller; the City Council speaker; a deputy Mayor picked by the Mayor; and the longest serving borough president. At least four members must vote to remove the Mayor. If removed, the Mayor is replaced by the Public Advocate.

The third option is one that impacts Albany. Under state law, Governor Hochul has the power to remove the mayor of any city in the state – including New York City. Also according to the City’s Charter, “The mayor may be removed from office by the Governor upon charges and after service upon him of a copy of the charges and an opportunity to be heard in his defense. Pending the preparation and disposition of charges, the Governor may suspend the mayor for a period not exceeding thirty days.”

The Governor’s power is broad but largely untested when it comes to the removal of a New York City Mayor. Historically, it has only been used for that purpose once, when former Gov. Franklin Roosevelt initiated removal proceedings against a former Mayor, who resigned prior to action. That power, however, has been used for the removal of other local officials.

Yet, such an action by the Governor would add another explosive issue to an agenda that includes what to do about congestion pricing, the state’s upcoming budget and its potential deficits, her involvement in the election of Democrats this November, and of course, her day job – running state government.

How Governor Hochul juggles all of this is important to all New Yorkers. But most importantly, as the Governor herself stated, when it comes to the charges against the Mayor, “We must give New Yorkers confidence that there is steady, responsible leadership at every level of government.”

New Yorkers couldn’t agree more. Let’s see how this all plays out.

For more than two decades, New York State has greatly restricted the use of tobacco products. The rationale at the campaign’s start – and to this day – is that tobacco smoke can harm both the health of smokers and can harm the health of non-smokers. Experts say that there is no safe exposure to tobacco smoke, either by the smoker or the non-smoker who inhales it.

Essentially, current state law bans smoking in all but an individual’s private spaces. No one can smoke in indoor public places, in workplaces, and in many outdoor areas. Smokers can usually smoke within their own homes (although restrictions increasingly exist in apartment dwellings) and in their own cars (although there are calls for banning that when children are riding in the car).

Research has shown that as a result of these restrictions, there has been a significant reduction in heart attacks and respiratory ailments.

A recent report documented that there has been a notable reduction in cancer incidence and death in New York. There are, of course, many reasons for this. Better screening, increasingly effective treatments, and a greater use of vaccines that can keep cancers from starting.

Yet in many ways, New York’s reductions in cancer deaths can be traced to the state’s smoking and tobacco use restrictions.

It is well known that smoking causes respiratory cancers. Over 90 percent of lung cancers are the result of smoking. Were it not for cigarettes, pipes, and cigars, lung cancer would be considered a rare illness. Instead, it continues to be the single biggest cancer killer. There are other cancers caused by smoking. Over 85 percent of larynx cancers are from smoking. More than half of all mouth cancers are the result of smoking. The same is true for cancer of the esophagus and bladder.

But smoking can raise the risks of other cancers as well. Kidney (16.8 percent), cervix (9.9 percent), pancreas (10.1 percent), stomach (16.3 percent), liver (26.5 percent), and colon (10.7 percent) cancers all have a notable number that are the result of smoking. All but one of the cancers mentioned above have seen reductions in deaths since 1990. The one outlier is liver cancer. (Alcohol is another contributing factor in liver disease.)

According to experts, nearly half of all cancer deaths are caused by smoking.

As there has been a demonstrable reduction in cancer deaths over time, that reduction (other than liver) coincides with the dramatic reduction in smoking rates. And those reductions are the result of policy interventions, most notably the legislation restricting tobacco use.

Yet, despite those policy interventions, New York’s smoking rate is only the twelfth lowest in the nation. Had New York followed the advice of the nation’s experts and its own independent advisors, more lives could have been saved.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offers states scientifically-based best practices for reducing tobacco use. The CDC recommends that New York State spend between $142 million and $203 million annually on its tobacco control efforts.

New York has never spent the money recommended by the CDC. In fact, its highest spending levels were in 2007, 2008, and 2009, before the state started cutting back. The biggest program cuts occurred during the former Andrew Cuomo Administration, which essentially set a spending ceiling that was half what it had been.

Nothing has changed since then. With its budget frozen, the tobacco control program has shrunk even more due to inflation. According to an independent review of the state’s tobacco control funding, New York’s budget is “only 17% of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) recommended level for the state, even as New York faces ongoing health and economic effects from tobacco use. The low funding levels in recent years have posed challenges for the Program to make progress across its areas of focus.”

Why does New York fail to follow the expert advice of the CDC? It can’t be from a lack of money. The state budget totals $237 billion. It also can’t be that the state doesn’t collect enough from tobacco users – through taxes and other revenues – to fund efforts to help them quit and to keep kids from starting. The state recently increased its cigarette tax by $1, making it the highest in the nation.

New York annually collects nearly one billion dollars in tobacco taxes and has received billions more over the term of a litigation settlement (the Master Settlement Agreement) with Big Tobacco.

New York State has the money to adequately fund its tobacco control efforts, but it chooses not to. As a result, more lives are harmed.

Governor Hochul should in her upcoming budget follow science and invest a portion of the hundreds of millions of dollars the state gets from smokers into programs that will help them kick the addiction and keep kids from starting. Rejecting scientifically based funding recommendations and starving the program will result in the needless misery and early deaths of far too many into addition to more expensive health care for everyone.

New York City – the nation’s largest – is one of the great urban areas in the world.  The Big Apple is also a powerful economic engine.  The City, with its center in Manhattan, is a world leader in banking, finance, culture, and communications.

New York City is also highly congested, with its large population contained in a dense geographic area, and its roadways often choked with traffic – particularly in Manhattan’s core.  That congestion not only leads to long commutes, but damages the health of its residents.  It also creates incredible challenges for emergency service personnel and everyone else trying to get around.

For well over a century, New York City has helped reduce its congestion through an extensive network of mass transit systems – its subways, ferries, and buses.

Despite the importance of these systems, over the decades New York has not funded them adequately.  When the City endured its financial crisis in the 1970s, cuts to the mass transit programs, coupled with years of neglect, almost brought the City to its knees.  

Recognizing that a deteriorating City mass transit network damaged businesses and the overall quality of life, government acted.  Through substantial investments and important reforms in the 1990s, the subways and buses of New York City were significantly improved.

Unfortunately, in recent years the mass transit system was taken for granted and support stagnated.  In 2020 the impacts of the Covid pandemic led to a dramatic downfall in ridership and thus revenues – deepening the problems into a crisis.  Covid also led to greater use of cars and with that more roadway congestion and worsening air quality.

It was the combination of eroding service, antiquated equipment and deferred maintenance that drove lawmakers to seek a solution.  

In 2019, congestion pricing was passed into state law with a mandate to raise $1 billion per year for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (which runs the mass transit system) capital improvements program.  In 2023, the state received final approval of the program from the federal government.  

What is congestion pricing?  Congestion pricing is a system of surcharging users of public goods that are strained by overuse due to excess demand, such as through higher peak charges for use of bus services, electricity, metros, railways, telephones, and road pricing to reduce traffic congestion.  Applied to urban traffic congestion, the approach is to charge a vehicle if it passes into a certain zone of a city, often only during certain “peak” hours.  Congestion pricing is not an untested, novel idea:  There are cities around the world that have successfully adopted it, including Singapore, London, Milan, and Stockholm.

New York’s congestion pricing plan was scheduled to go into effect at the end of June.  Earlier this year, the MTA announced that it would start charging most passenger cars $15 a day to enter a congestion zone below 60th Street.  Trucks would pay $24 or $36, depending on their size.  Taxi fares would go up by $1.25, and Uber and Lyft fares by $2.50.

The announcement of those tolls triggered an intense opposition to the program’s implementation.  In early June, Governor Hochul announced a “pause” in the implementation, without setting a date for when that pause will expire.  Her announcement was surprising given that just two weeks earlier she had crowed of her success in getting federal approval.  In her self-congratulatory statement the governor said, “It took a long time because people feared backlash from drivers set in their ways.  In New York City, the idea stalled for 60 years until we got it done earlier this year.”

The “pause” not only reverberated throughout the transportation world, but it also created an enormous hole in the MTA’s finances.  Last week, state Comptroller DiNapoli released a report detailing the financial plight of the MTA.

According to the Comptroller, the MTA faces a potential $27 billion funding gap in its next capital budget that would replace thousands of rail cars, strengthen the system against extreme weather and increase accessibility.  

Without the revenues expected from congestion pricing, the MTA is unlikely to be able to fund needed improvements and enhanced services.  One option will be to hike the cost of the fares for service, which hits the working poor the hardest, those New Yorkers already struggling to afford mass transit.

Whether that happens is a function of when the governor chooses to lift the pause.  The sooner she does, the smaller the budget hole.  If she chooses to make it a permanent pause, then the precarious finances of the MTA become more dire.

It is not expected that the governor will make her decision before the November election, which makes it increasingly likely that it will become a dominant factor in the upcoming state budget deliberations that start in January.  How the state and city provide the needed funding is anyone’s guess, but will likely be a feature of the final budget agreement. 

Keep in mind that New York City is the economic engine of the state, and the nation.  Its lifeblood is a functioning mass transit system.  That system is in jeopardy as a result of Governor Hochul’s 11^th hour “pause.”  If changes to the program occur within the context of the state budget, where those revenues come from could impact the quality of other, non-transit, services and the taxes we all pay.

The congestion pricing mess is one that affects us all.  We should all hope that the “pause” ends quickly.