The drumbeat of bad news for New York’s public and independent colleges continues. Last month it was the news that the Albany-based 103 year old College of Saint Rose would be closing its doors. This month, the bad news is from public colleges within the State University system. The well-regarded SUNY Geneseo announced that it was facing a $10 million “financial crisis.”

SUNY Fredonia, experiencing a 40% enrollment decline, plans to cut 13 degree programs to address a $10 million deficit, while SUNY Potsdam is set to cut nine degree programs over several years to address a $9 million structural deficit. Financial struggles extend beyond these institutions, with SUNY’s four-year public colleges and community colleges encountering serious financial difficulties in recent years.

A recent SUNY report indicates that, if current expense and revenue trends persist, the system will face an annual budget shortfall of over $1 billion in 10 years. Several SUNY colleges, including SUNY Maritime, Delhi, and Buffalo State, are grappling with deficits as well.

None of this should come as a surprise. In recent years the financial strain at SUNY has been increasingly evident. Even before the covid pandemic, SUNY had been hemorrhaging enrollments. Covid made it worse.

There is no single explanation as to why this situation has occurred, but public policies seem to have been a contributing factor. The Cuomo Administration had perhaps the biggest impact with its so-called “SUNY 2020” plan. That plan instituted regular tuition hikes at public colleges and universities and also severed the relationship between increasing college student financial assistance through the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) and the now rising costs of SUNY tuition.

It was that second aspect of SUNY 2020 that hurt colleges. Prior to the Cuomo plan, the maximum TAP award would go up every time SUNY tuition increased. This ensured that the poorest public college students would see their tuition costs covered. It had also helped boost independent (private) colleges by adding state support to those schools to cover a portion of their tuition costs as well.

The damage came when the Cuomo plan severed that relationship and froze TAP awards while public college tuition went up. That impacted public colleges since the state was not required to cover the difference between the maximum TAP award and the rising SUNY tuition. That “gap” swelled over time and became known as the “TAP gap.”

The TAP gap eroded public colleges’ finances as they were regularly being asked to cover rising tuition costs for their poorest students. Independent colleges were hit too. Since TAP awards were frozen, they too had to figure out ways to cover the financial assistance that would normally have come from the state’s TAP.

Rising costs coupled with restrained financial assistance contributed to a drop in enrollments. Fewer students equal less money for colleges that were already seeing reductions in state assistance. That “one-two” punch surely accelerated the weakening financial situations at SUNY – and smaller independent colleges – and the results are clearer every day.

Demographic trends have hurt too and the experience in New York is consistent with the national experience. Yet, pointing to the national demographic trends to explain the problem doesn’t lead to a policy response.

The knee-jerk reaction is to do more of the same: Shift increasing costs onto college students and their families. Instead, policymakers should be looking at the issue in a different way.

Colleges and universities have important jobs: they train the next generation of workers and help them to better understand civic life. In addition, they are economic engines that create jobs that stimulate and anchor local economies. They offer a stimulus to local economies that are virtually guaranteed to succeed.

Policymakers too often look at the newest “shiny object” when it comes to economic development policies. In New York, we have seen very expensive plans fail and in some cases even trigger corruption.

Why not view public investments in colleges and universities as the cornerstone to economic development instead of a pay-as-you-go experience for college students and their families?

Governor Hochul will soon unveil her budget plans. Will she follow the well-trod path of soaking college students and their families for the costs of higher education? Or will she look at the issue differently and view public investments in institutions of higher education as a social and economic good worthy of such support? Time will tell. Students, parents and college communities across the state will be paying close attention.

As we bid farewell to 2023, a year marked by global upheavals such as conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, and internal threats to democracy, the task of pinpointing the most pressing issue becomes a formidable challenge. Yet, when evaluating the threat that affects the largest swathes of humanity, the accelerating climate crisis emerges as the paramount concern.

The past eight years are already the hottest on record.  It is expected that 2023 will be the hottest in human recorded history.  The hotter climate drove extremes around the world in 2023.  For example, Phoenix Arizona saw 54 days of 110 degree temperatures or more, a new record.  Unfortunately, it wasn’t only the Southwest that endured brutal heat waves:  China, southern Europe and Latin America also saw intense heat.  There were also the devastating wildfires in Hawaii.

According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Africa, Asia and South America all had their warmest Novembers on record.  North America had its second-warmest November, while Pacific Island nations comprising Oceania had their fifth-warmest November.

The toll of climate change wasn’t confined to far-flung areas; the northeastern United States faced its own share of climate-related disasters. New York was plagued with terrible air quality, at one point air that turned orange kept many indoors, thanks to unprecedented Canadian wildfires.

Deadly storms rocked the state; with serious flooding upstate, including the Adirondacks, and downstate, including Long Island and New York City.  There can be no doubt that as the climate warms, these types of storms will worsen.

The escalation of such storms is an undeniable consequence of a warming climate.

Here in New York, the economic ramifications are substantial.  A study by New York State Comptroller DiNapoli revealed that over a ten-year span, more than half of New York localities’ municipal spending outside of New York City was or will be linked to climate change. New York City may need to spend around $100 billion to upgrade its sewer systems to withstand intensified storms. And those costs are on top of the $52 billion that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has estimated it will cost to protect New York Harbor from rising sea levels and storms.  Estimates suggest that Long Island alone could incur up to $100 billion in climate-related costs.

These financial burdens are projected to escalate, potentially reaching $10 billion annually for New Yorkers by the middle of the century.

Recognizing the untenable situation, 100 local elected officials in New York recently advocated for a legislative measure compelling major oil companies to contribute to climate-related expenses. This proposed legislation would demand these companies, responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions, to pay apportioned fees totaling $3 billion annually. The legislation aims to prevent these costs from being shifted onto the public, as confirmed by an independent think tank’s analysis.

However, despite these concerns, the Hochul Administration appears inclined to pass climate-related costs onto the taxpayers, with over $2 billion pledged for climate projects over the past year.

There are forces that are doing all they can to undermine the steps needed to address the worsening climate crisis.  They slavishly followed the lead of the fossil fuel industry and for years argued that climate change was a hoax.  We now know that the oil industry knew for years that the burning of fossil fuels would lead to a climate catastrophe, but they chose to mislead the public instead of helping the world to avoid the situation that we’re in now. 

Their supporters have now started to shed the “hoax” argument instead describing science-based environmental measures as “radical” and “unaffordable.”  Inaction in this area equals maintaining a disastrous – and worsening – status quo.  The urgency of the climate crisis calls for decisive action and dismissing environmental measures as “radical” or “unaffordable” perpetuates a perilous status quo.

As we step into the new year, we all must hope that among Governor Hochul’s resolutions is a commitment to maintaining New York’s leadership in transitioning to a renewable energy-powered economy and to also hold corporate climate polluters accountable for the mess they have contributed to.

New York’s 2023 legislative session is nearly complete – six months after lawmakers left Albany. The state Legislature normally meets during the first six months of the year. During that time, they approve a budget and typically pass hundreds of bills covering a wide range of topics.

This year, lawmakers approved nearly 900 bills, of which more than 600 were approved in June, the last month of the session. The fact that the vast bulk of legislation was approved at the end of session is not unusual, it is typical.

Under the state Constitution, once the bills have passed both houses, they are sent to the governor for her approval. The rules that you learned in civics class are clear to that point, but in Albany things get murkier when it comes to how approved legislation is managed once the Legislature acts.

In New York, the legislative house that approved the legislation first controls when it goes to the governor. In order to keep the governor’s office from being overwhelmed, there is an informal agreement that the governor requests batches of bills when her staff is ready to review them. Under the law, all approved legislation must go to the governor by the end of the calendar year.

As a practical matter, the governor’s office often holds back on its requests for legislation to be sent if her staff are concerned about aspects of the legislation, or they expect that they will have to veto a bill that has popular support.

Thus, December is the big month for gubernatorial action. Vetoing popular legislation is best done when the public is not paying attention – like during the holiday season.

As of December 1^st, 728 of the 896 bills that were approved had been acted upon – approved or vetoed – by the governor. It became clear that December would once again be the critical month for important action. So far, that has been the case.

During the past week, the governor has been busy. She approved 46 bills, some noteworthy. Governor Hochul approved legislation to move election day for some local offices from odd-numbered years to even-numbered ones. Her justification was that voters are more likely to go to the polls in even-numbered years and therefore making the switch would boost voter participation in local races (she’s right). The governor also approved a bill that establishes the New York State

Community Commission on Reparations Remedies to examine New York’s history with the institution of slavery, the subsequent racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, the impact of these forces on living African-Americans, and to make recommendations on appropriate remedies.

The governor also approved the so-called “birds and bees protection act,” which limits the use of a certain insecticide that can cause harm to bees, birds, and other pollinators. She also approved legislation that requires the disclosure of the “beneficial owners” of limited liability companies (LLCs). Currently, those LLCs are businesses whose owners are often secret. The legislation requires that the LLCs disclose those entities who own the companies. Both of those last two bills were approved by the governor, but only after she secured promises of significant revisions to the legislation. For example, under the LLC legislation approved by the Legislature, the information about the owners would be made publicly available in a searchable database. The governor insisted that the requirement be removed. As part of the agreements, the changes will have to be approved during the next legislative session.

During that same week, the governor vetoed 43 bills. She vetoed a bill that would have prohibited “non-compete agreements and certain restrictive covenants.” Non-compete agreements are sometimes required by employers, and they prohibit or restrict employees from getting jobs with businesses that compete with the company they work for. The governor also vetoed legislation that would have restricted state agencies from purchasing tropical hardwoods, since such purchasing leads to the destruction of important natural resources. The governor cited cost concerns. She also vetoed a bill that would have required the reporting of lobbying to influence the appointment of public officials subject to state Senate approval. Ironically, that last veto was framed as a way to protect those who were spending the money to influence gubernatorial appointments while the governor stated her commitment to transparency.

As the year draws to a close, there are only four bills left, the most notable is legislation to change New York State’s “wrongful death” law, which has been on the books with little change since 1847. Wrongful death cases are what they sound like: lawsuits brought after someone dies due to the negligence of another. The bill modernizes the definition of family to one more consistent with that found in 2023 and allows recovery for the emotional losses of surviving loved ones, as is the case in 48 other states. In addition, the governor hasn’t yet acted on legislation to change the new voluntary system of public financing for elections. This bill makes changes in the program that just started last year. The legislation has been roundly criticized by civic groups who are urging a veto.

With a handful of bills left, the governor’s work will be done – just in time. Lawmakers return in two weeks. And the process will start all over again.

December is usually a quiet time in Albany. The Capitol is buzzing, but most of the activity flies below the public’s radar. Usually, the only visible stirring is around decisions by the governor to veto popular legislation that she doesn’t like. December is a good time to do that since most New Yorkers are focused on the holidays, not the antics at the state Capitol.

Yet, last week big news was made by the state’s highest court, sending shockwaves through New York’s political establishment and reverberating nationally.

In a split decision, the Court of Appeals decided that the political boundaries of New York’s Congressional districts can be redrawn by the state’s so-called Independent Redistricting Commission. The IRC was established in 2014 as part of the state Constitution and was charged with establishing the political boundaries of the state Senate, Assembly, and New York Congressional districts. Usually drawing district lines takes place once a decade after the U.S. census is released – thereby adjusting political boundaries to account for population shifts.

The IRC was the brainchild of former Governor Cuomo. Its structure allows for equal representation of Democrats and Republicans on its 10-member board, making it a bipartisan commission, not an independent one. In simplest terms, the Commission develops the maps for federal and state offices and then the Legislature and the governor approve or reject them.

Under the redistricting rules, the IRC develops maps and the Legislature then approves them with no changes or rejects them. If rejected, the IRC then develops a second set of maps, also subject to thumbs up or thumbs down vote by the Legislature. If the second set of maps fails to get approval, the Legislature is allowed to draft maps of its own subject to the governor’s approval.

The lines drawn after the 2020 census were the first under this new system. Critics had argued that the bipartisan nature of the IRC would lend itself to gridlock unless the two major political parties could come to an agreement – unlikely when faced with consequential political decisions.

In the debate over the maps for the 2022 elections, gridlock occurred. The IRC could not agree on maps, so the Democratic and Republican members of the IRC sent separate maps to the Democrat-dominated Legislature, which rejected them. Then the IRC could not agree on advancing a second set of maps, so the Legislature stepped in and approved one of their own.

Republicans challenged that decision and in the litigation that followed, the Court of Appeals rejected the Legislatively-drawn maps, saying that they had acted unconstitutionally since they had not received the second set of maps from the IRC. Instead, the court drafted maps of its own for Congress and the Legislature for the 2022 election.

Those court-drawn maps helped Republican candidates in New York and contributed to the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in Washington.

After that election, Democrats challenged those lines in advance of the 2024 election arguing that the court-drawn lines were only for that one election cycle and that the court should allow the IRC another chance to draw lines as required under the state Constitution.

Last week, the court sided with the Democrats and the IRC now has the responsibility to get its plan approved before the end of February in order to ensure that primary campaigns and elections can run smoothly at the end of June.

This is no small matter: Those new lines could have a profound impact on the future of the nation – and the world.

Right now, Republicans have a 4-seat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives (N.Y. Republican Congressman Santos was recently kicked out). According to the Cook Political Report, New York has six incumbents that are considered vulnerable, five Republicans and one Democrat (who is in a district that “leans” Democrat).

All of those incumbents won their 2022 races with razor-thin majorities. Thus, whichever political party dominates those races may well control the House in 2025. Control of the House has obvious national implications, but it also may determine world history. For example, the current Republican House majority has blocked U.S. support for Ukraine as it defends itself from the unprovoked Russian invasion. Democrats see that matter otherwise. Control of the House may determine the outcome of that war.

Given the high stakes in redistricting, it should not be overlooked that the “do over” of Congressional map drawing is the result of the fatally flawed redistricting change in 2014. Allowing the two major political parties to decide political boundaries is like allowing the “fox to guard the henhouse.” That the foxes could not agree is no surprise.

Unfortunately, across the nation partisan actions like in New York are the rule – not the exception. In far too many states, partisan considerations drive the decisions about political boundaries, not what’s best for the public.

Changes are needed both in New York and in the nation. Independent, professionally-run, competent commissions using stringent criteria should be developing the political boundaries of the nation, not those appointed by the political parties. Until that system is put in place, we will all suffer under the current savageries that are the hallmark of the modern American political system.

Under New York’s Constitution, legislation approved by both the Senate and Assembly must be delivered to the governor for her approval before the end of the calendar year. Under those rules, the Chamber that approved the legislation first “controls” when the legislation is sent to the governor. The governor then has 10 business days to sign or veto the legislation. If the governor vetoes the legislation, the Legislature can override her action with two-thirds majority votes in each house.

Under those rules, technically one house could overwhelm the governor’s office by submitting hundreds of bills at one time and forcing the governor’s staff to work around the clock to review those approved bills. Under those circumstances big mistakes could be made. In order to avoid such a mess, there is an informal agreement between the executive and the Legislature to send legislatively-approved bills in batches. Those batches are requested by the governor’s office when they are ready to review the bills.

Once December gets underway, there are lots of bills whose fate hangs in the balance. Frequently, the governor’s office requests bills that they don’t like – but are publicly popular – during the holiday season and acts on them when few are paying attention.

Late last week, Governor Hochul announced her veto of legislation that would have expanded the definition of lobbying to include efforts to influence the state Senate’s deliberations over confirming gubernatorial appointees.

Under New York law, attempts to influence many state and local governmental decisions are considered lobbying if the advocates spend $5,000 or more in their overall efforts. If such advocacy is considered lobbying, those entities are required to report their activities to the state’s ethics agency, the Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government (COELIG). Under current law, efforts to influence legislation, legislative resolutions, executive orders, agency rules or regulations, government purchasing, or utility rates, are considered lobbying.

Thus, under New York law, lobbying to influence the appointment of a member of the state Board of Regents (which oversees education) is considered lobbying since the appointment is done through a joint resolution of the Senate and Assembly. However, attempts to influence the state Senate’s confirmation of gubernatorial appointees – such as membership of the Public Service Commission, or heads of agencies, or judicial appointments to the top court – are not considered lobbying, since none require the use of a resolution. Ironically, attempts to influence utility rates is lobbying, but attempts to influence the commissioners who set those rates are not.

These loopholes in the state’s lobbying law were thrown into stark relief in the recent fight over Governor Hochul’s nomination of a chief judge to oversee the state’s top court, the Court of Appeals.

As reported, lots of money was spent both in advancing and opposing the candidacy of Hochul’s pick. But because of the loophole, the exact spending remains a mystery.

Legislation was approved with bipartisan support by both the Senate (introduced by Senate Deputy Majority Leader Gianaris) and in the Assembly (introduced by Assemblymember McDonald who chairs the Governmental Operations Committee). The vote in the Senate was 46-16 and in the Assembly it passed unanimously. It was that legislation that the governor vetoed last week. Both houses appear to have the two-thirds votes to override the governor’s veto if they chose to do so.

The governor’s rationale for her veto was two-fold: she argued that the legislation would add new costs for oversight to the state’s ethics agency, and that the legislation was written to go into effect on January 1^st of this year (2023), which would mean that those who did not report their advocacy on the chief judge pick would retroactively have to do so.

Both are pretty weak arguments. In terms of costs, it’s the advocates who would have to comply, the COELIG simply receives the information and then publishes it. The second complaint is trickier, in that it is true that those who spent money to influence the judicial nomination expected their efforts to remain secret and now it would become public.

Yet, doesn’t the public deserve to know that information? After all, a big bucks public campaign to swing a Senate vote for the state’s top judge is a big deal, the outcome of which would surely impact the public. Moreover, what’s the harm in reporting that spending?

So, now what? The sponsors will decide how they wish to proceed: override or re-pass the legislation next year. It is expected that there will be some activity in the area of lobbying and ethics reform since earlier this month the ethics agency has advanced its legislative recommendations.

While there are limits over how advocacy efforts should be disclosed, surely efforts to influence the state Senate’s consideration of gubernatorial appointments should be within the bounds of reporting. In her veto message, the governor cited her commitment to “transparency” in government. Let’s hope that one year from now, that commitment shows itself through a stronger lobbying reporting program.