Brodsky’s Parting Recommendations On The “Soviet-Style” Bureaucracies
Assemblyman Richard Brodsky’s career in the state Legislature ends this week, but he’s not leaving without a final word on his signature issue during his tenure: the state’s troubled public authorities.
Brodsky, the Westchester County lawmaker who lost a bid for attorney general this year, has led the battle to reform the state’s more than 700 public authorities, which are quasi-government agencies that often fly under the public’s radar but rack up big debts on the public’s dime.
Brodsky has crusaded against the authorities and investigated many of them as chairman of the Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions. His biggest victory was earlier this year, getting the state Legislature and Gov. David Paterson to sign Public Authorities Reform Act.
The law created a new agency to oversee the authorities, and in its early months has already exposed how some economic development agencies have paid out big bonuses to its executives.
In today’s report, Brodsky offers his recommendations on how to rein in the authorities—which may very well serve as a blueprint for incoming Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who has made consolidating government a key reform of his administration.
And of course, Brodsky couldn’t leave without including his signature moniker for public authorities in his statement: a “Soviet-style bureaucracy.”
Ironically, Brodsky just visited Russia to talk about the resurgence of Nazism.
“The failure of government to receive value for its investments is a crisis that can no longer be ignored,” Brodsky said in a statement. “Public funds, including those issued to public authorities, need the same protection and return as private funds. As state government grapples with the cost of providing essential services, and reduces them, state leaders need to address and answer these issues.”
Here’s his recommendations on how to clean up the public authorities.
Brodsky Report on Public Authorities
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
Advertisements
Assemblyman Brodsky was no doubt a very intelligent legislator who made a mark in Albany. As a former staffer in the New York State Assembly who did not work for Mr. Brodsky, I can attest to his work ethic. However, I was very disturbed by his hyper-political approach to his legislative work in the Assembly. Mr. Brodsky was one of 6 Assemblymembers in the Democratic conference who would block and outright refuse Republicans the opporunity co-sponsor a bill with him. In fact, labor leaders, lobbyists and the like would have to go to him to ask on behalf of a fellow Assemblymember the opportunity to work with Mr. Brodsky on legislation. This was embarassing and cheapened the process in Albany as well as reinforced the viewpoint that Albany was disfunctional. I personally would visit his office and ask to allow my Assemblyman the opportunity to sponsor a bill with Mr. Brodsky. I can tell you that for over a decade he would not comply. Finally, when faced with his daughter’s condition, did he finally allow Assemblyman James Conte a Republican from Long Island to sponsor a bill on organ donation with him. Mr. Conte is a champion of this legislation as he himself received a transplant.
Mr. Brodsky truly worked hard and made a mark. I can’t help but wonder if he had a different attitude and open mind with his colleagues if he could not have done more.
Mr. Spector, (URGENT!)
Did Assemblyman Brodsky’s Bill ( A.9410 BRODSKY Makes provisions requiring every application, petition or request submitted for a variance, amendment change of zoning
approval of a plat or change of a land use regulation to have appended thereto a disclosure statement setting forth any interest of a state officer, municipal officer, or municipal employee in such application. ) ever become law?
Can you assist.
Regards,
Ed