Morning read: Is this real mandate reform?
The Plattsburgh Press-Republican notes that state Senator Betty Little — a member of Governor Cuomo’s mandate-relief task force — is bringing a “first do no more harm” approach to state rules and regulations.
“By enacting a state law or constitutional amendment to prohibit the imposition of new mandates with very limited exceptions, we will give schools and local governments the assurance that the state won’t be passing the financial burden of new mandates down the line.”
But the Glens Falls Post Star is reporting that some area lawmakers wanted more specific ideas for scaling back existing mandates.
Two area state Assembly members said they hope recommendations in future reports will be more extensive.
“There’s nothing of substance in this report. There really isn’t,” said Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward, R-Willsboro.
Assemblyman Tony Jordan, R-Jackson, was a bit more optimistic.
“If this is the start, then it’s a good start,” he said. “If it’s the finish, then the governor has let us down.”
The panel will keep meeting and plans to issue more reports in the future. Gov. Cuomo praised the group’s initial progress.
“In these first two months of work, the Mandate Relief Redesign Team has discussed a framework to change this system,” Cuomo said.
So what do you think? Are we inching toward serious reform, or is this more Albany committee-speak?
Tags: politics
I’d like to see some sort of provision made for refusal by NYS to abide by unfunded Federal mandates. Other States are exercising their Constitutional rights to ignore the Federal gov’ts mandates, policies and laws where they clearly overstep their boundaries. NYS should join in that effort.
Will NYS ever fix the unfunded or harmful mandate issue? I doubt it, but any movement in that direction is a good thing.
No. It’s called “let’s pretend.”
This is a distraction Gov. Cuomo has provided while he guts education funding. Schools need immediate mandate relief – their crisis is now. It appears this group has lots of “looks good for the future” ideas, none of which will prevent layoffs of hundreds of North Country school employees.
Going after federal mandates is a good way to say, “Look at that shiny object over there!” and then not do anything. A distraction.
Focus on all the stupid Albany regs, like the historic district rules that prevent energy efficient upgrades, or not allowing local areas to determine minimum speed limits to enhance pedestrian safety (can’t be lower than 30 unless there’s a school nearby), zoning rules that often prevent smaller cities from building dense, more environmentally friendly and affordable apartment buildings (let’s use the space on empty parking lots!), and about a thousand more dumb rules that In Box commenters could ID. The feds, which Little brings up in the article, are a convenient scapegoat and political symbol that allows pols to ignore their own back yards.
But within school systems mandate relief won’t be harmless or non-controversial. Aren’t the most expensive mandates that NYS schools wrestle with have to with accommodations for special education and disabilities? If we are going to do mandate relief it would be important to do a cost analysis of exactly what mandates are causing the cost problems. Sure we can come up with silly examples of things Albany may require, but what are the real cost drivers? My bet is that it is special education and when you try to cut that you are going to get major pushback.
And keep in mind that those special education mandates you refer to are Federal mandates and not necessarily NYS requirements. Specifically the Federal legislation known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA…..
Exactly.
Mandate reform sounds easy, the reality I think will be much harder particularly when we get into the really expensive mandates which all focus around expensive required services that are unfunded.
If Clapton is God, Warren Haynes is Jesus,
NY has a lot of special ed mandates beyond what the feds mandate. Then there a number of mandates with respect to labor relations and employee benefits. The commission didn’t want to anger the unions, which is why the report was so inadequate.
Even beyond the unions there are pretty strong interest groups around those specific issues. Which is okay you need to advocate for what you see as needed, my only point is mandate reform will be painful and controversial. There are two parts to an unfunded mandate, the mandate and the refusal to fund the mandate. Maybe part of the solution is demanding the state department of education fund each mandate they require, they may indeed require fewer mandates if that were the case.
I’m somewhat torn on Special Ed mandates. As the parent of 2 kids with SE requirements I can see the benefit some extra instruction and one on one instruction gives. OTH, I’ve seen my wife work with kids who frankly will likely not live past 10-12 years old and who will never be able to communicate beyond very, very basic “signals”. (A truly sad situation, and one that breaks our hearts) Finding a balance point is the key, but one size fits all mandates don’t even consider that.
My only problem with mandates is the unfunded part. If any level of government wants to mandate something, it should pay for it. Mandates should not be passed down.
Speaking of unfunded mandates, I would include all mandates on car manufacturers. I should not be forced to pay for a rear-view camera (as is planned) if I ever buy a car in the future.
All cars should be sold as a basic car without an “safety” mandates included. They should be options, if you want them. Otherwise the Federal government should pay for them.
Scratchy,
That’s why I put “and not necessarily” in my sentence in reference to the IDEA legislation. And I would also add that the IDEA act is probably the biggest driver of additional state mandates as the state doesn’t want to be sued and thus goes even beyond what IDEA requires. Sort of a “better to be safe than sorry” kind of thing.