Press release:
Assemblyman Steve Hawley (R,C,I-Batavia) proposed a measure on the Assembly floor on Monday that would require a two-thirds vote of the house for Messages of Necessity to be accepted when issued by the governor. Legislation is usually subject to an “aging” period of three days before it can be voted on, but Messages of Necessity are issued by the governor to forgo this process and rush a vote on important and/or controversial legislation, as was done with the SAFE Act.
“Messages of Necessity should only be used in extreme circumstances, and all legislation should be subject to proper vetting and examination instead of being irresponsibly rushed through the legislative process,” Hawley said. ”This tactic is often used to pass legislation before the public and media have time to criticize it, and that is cowardly. I am disappointed this proposal was voted down by the Assembly Majority but I will continue to beat the drum for ethics reform in Albany.”
The Assembly also took the next step toward stripping pension and retirement benefits from corrupt lawmakers today by passing a constitutional amendment which has been championed by the Assembly Minority for years.
“I was pleased that the Assembly passed our pension forfeiture bill today and took an important step toward breaking down Albany’s culture of corruption and malfeasance,” Hawley said. “Corrupt lawmakers should never be allowed to collect a taxpayer-funded pension after betraying the public trust, and I am proud to have voted for this measure.”
If the bill passes the Senate this year, it must be approved by voters as a statewide referendum before becoming law.
Well, the defeat of
Well, the defeat of Assemblyman Hawley's proposal against Messages of Necessity abuse is no surprise. Unethical maneuvering is how the snakes from Cuomoland operate, and regrettably they control the Assembly. The second item here appears to be a huge victory and also a surprise. NOT SO FAST... There is an important 'glitch' however that seems to be overlooked in this report. Earlier this evening I received an eMail from Senator Ranzenhofer addressing the Pension Forfeiture Bill, and another surprise... it passed the Senate also. Then, re-reading Ranzenhofer's message, the 'glitch' jumped out. It says very clearly "Under the Constitutional Amendment, if a public officer is convicted of a felony related to their official duties, then their taxpayer-funded pension MAY BE REDUCED or revoked. There's the operative words - MAY BE REDUCED - a sort of Nancy Pelosi scam where 'we have to pass it to find out what's in it'... why not Will Be, or Must Be Revoked??? period!
Great point, Brian! Of course
Great point, Brian! Of course, you and I know why the word "may" appears so often in legislation. It's written by politicians who truly believe that the majority of people aren't smart enough to figure it out.
Whenever I see language like that used, two, well known phrases immediately pop into my mind: (1) "Guaranteed up to 3 years" - the operative words being "up to"; and, (2) "Everything you say can, and will, be used against you in a court of law" - clearly, "everything" a person says couldn't (always) be used against them, so the words "and will" means absolutely nothing.
It's politispeak.
while I am against anyones
while I am against anyones pension being denied due to a punishment, i'd like to see all members of our government having a health insurance plan similar to mine. a plan where 2 days pay a week is required for the premium. a plan where there is a $3,600 deductible and then insurance will pay 80%...... a pension is a benefit a person has worked for, you can't go back and take it away.
I believe that if you work
I believe that if you work for the State, and commit a crime related to your job in government (like taking a bribe), and are convicted of that crime, you forfeit your pension. But I would want it to be a felony conviction