Albany's End-of-Session Rush to Legislate

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning again, everyone. Well, the New York State Legislature, yes, we're going to talk Albany and yes, it's going to be interesting, is scheduled to adjourn for the year on Thursday, tomorrow. After a relentless few weeks and months with so much consequential news on the fate of reproductive rights nationwide, the mass shootings in Buffalo and Texas and elsewhere, housing problems, education issues, there's still so much on the table, that they're going to resolve some of it at least in the next 24 hours if they adjourn on time.

Now, Governor Hochul and state lawmakers have been negotiating, among other things, an extension of mayoral control over New York City schools, plus smaller class sizes. Now put a bookmark in that one because this is being mentioned as an afterthought, but I think this might be one of the hugest things they're doing right now, so we're going to come back to it in a minute.

Smaller class sizes being mandated by state law, it looks like. Also, more gun control measures like Michael was just talking about on the news regarding Albany. Housing, namely the 421a tax subsidy for the creation of certain kinds of affordable housing. They've been all torn up over whether it's a necessity or an evil, will it stay or will it go, 421a? Also abortion access and more.

Let's take a look now. With this long menu, we'll do some bullet points with Jon Campbell, Albany reporter for WNYC and Gothamist. Hey, Jon, thanks for joining the show again.

Jon Campbell: Hi, Brian. It's my pleasure.

Brian Lehrer: I don't know how you're keeping up with all of these moving parts at the same time right now, but I do want to start on education. They're extending mayoral control of the New York City public schools, but not for as long as Mayor Adams wants it, as I understand. There's also this element of shrinking class size. Can you talk about each of those, to start out?

Jon Campbell: Yes, absolutely. The issue of mayoral control of the school system is one that comes up in Albany every few years since Mayor Bloomberg was able to successfully get that from Albany in the early 2000s. Mayor Adams had been looking for three or four-year extension. It's looking like he's going to get a two-year extension into June 2024. It came with this agreement that was struck late Monday between the senate and the assembly.

It came with this companion bill that also would mandate the reduction of class sizes in New York City significantly so, from 25 students to 20 students in kindergarten through third grade and 32 students in the middle school area down to 23, roughly, and 25 students in high school classes.

That is a big deal for several reasons. One, people say that smaller class sizes lead to better educational results for students, but it also would require perhaps more space for New York City schools, more teachers, and that is where Mayor Adams is raising a red flag right now and saying that that could lead to maybe guidance counselors laid off, so they can hire more students.

He's pushing for some guaranteed funding stream to implement these mandates, which would have to be in place by 2027.

Brian Lehrer: If they're going to mandate such a drastic reduction in class size, from 32 to 23 in high school, does that not come with a stream of funding?

Jon Campbell: The bill has some language in it that would require basically to highlight where funding would be needed and then the state would have to take that into consideration as it doles out education funding each year in the budget. Mayor Adams clearly wants a guarantee, essentially, that the city would get that funding. I talked to Michael Benedetto. He's the assembly education chair.

He said yes, he does think if they do this that it should come with the promise of additional funding, but it is something that would be phased in over five years. Every single year, the state legislature doles out the education funding, the foundation aid that could be used to pay for some of these things. It might be a situation where they pass the mandate first and then come back at it each year to try to figure out how much money they need to send along.

Brian Lehrer: Interesting. There are so many rivers that could feed into that. There's the old court ruling that they're still fighting over getting compliance with that mandates that the state increase funding to the New York City public schools from what it used to be to fulfill the constitutional guarantee in the New York State Constitution for a decent education for every child, how much money from the state actually equals that guarantee and so, if there is the need for smaller class sizes, therefore, maybe more buildings, more teachers, how is that going to be applied in court?

I can see those plaintiffs going back into court to argue for a greater court-mandated amount of funding for the city schools from the state. Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself here, but that's one of the things that popped into my head is something that could happen.

Also, when the mayor proposed and the city council proposed their version of the New York City budget, which they have to finish up this month because the new fiscal year starts July 1, I was looking at the pie chart. I don't know if you've ever looked at this, Jon. For all the debate over how much the police department gets, which is like 10%, 11% of the city budget, they spend, by far, the largest share, the city does, of the city budget on education.

It's like 30%. It dwarfs everything else. I'm not saying that's wrong. It's probably right, but the city already spent so much money on education. To mandate that many more additional classes, classrooms, and teachers without a stream of funding from the state, that could place a huge burden on city taxpayers.

Jon Campbell: Yes. It's similar in the state budget too. The two largest pots of state funding, by far, are Medicaid and education. The state and the local districts and the city school district together, they spend way more per student than any other state in the country. It is setting up an education funding battle, essentially, if this is to go through. Now, the senate and the assembly, they both say they're on board with the two-year extension of mayoral control and the reduced class size bill.

Mayor Adams made clear yesterday that he's clearly going to try to scale back at least the class size bill, if not get it withdrawn entirely, but if the legislature wants to pass this, they can. Governor Hochul would have to sign it into law. She hasn't said which way she's leaning on either of these bills. Her office released a statement yesterday saying that she will review them when they're passed.

Brian Lehrer: On the mayoral control extension, if it's two years or if it's four years, they're not going to take control of the school system away from the mayor. I think they're just not. They're not going to decentralize the school system and not allow the mayor to appoint the chancellor and make education policy and give it back to the local-- there's 32 local school districts like it was, as you say, before the Bloomberg administration.

Almost nobody thinks that's a good idea. I guess it's just about extending it a few years at a time or more years at a time to use it as a political bargaining tool with whoever the mayor happens to be at that moment to get stuff.

On the class sizes, this has been such an agenda item for so long for education advocates. There's probably nothing bigger. Maybe there's something that I'm not thinking of. There's probably nothing bigger for people who advocate for improving educational outcomes than smaller class size that has come up over the years that I've been doing the show over and over and over and over again and yet it's only happening now.

Is this an expression of the very progressive legislature, the historically progressive legislature that we have in Albany right now?

Jon Campbell: I think it's that, but it's also a matter of using the leverage that they have. Why do they not just make mayoral control permanent? Because every couple of years, they get this leverage point where they can extract more things. It wasn't just the class size bill  in this case, even though the sponsors of the legislation say that these two issues aren't necessarily tied together though they were negotiated at the same time.

They also were able to, in this mayoral control bill, they're going to expand what they call the panel for educational policy. It's mostly an advisory panel that oversees the city school system. That's going to expand from 15 to 23 under this bill, and the big thing there is more of those members are going to have to be public school parents. That is one thing that the legislature made a big deal of trying to extract.

Yes, it is a matter of the legislature shifting further left but it is also a matter of the legislature exerting its influence at these leverage points that it has when mayoral control expires.

Brian Lehrer: Let me ask you one thing about that expansion of the panel for educational policy to include more parents, and then we're going to go to some other things, housing, abortion rights, guns as much as we can get in in our allotted time.

Jon, if they put more parents on the panel for educational policy, which at least advises the mayor and I guess has to approve some of the things that whoever the mayor is comes up with, if you put more parents on the board in Florida, it would probably mean one thing right now. Remember that DeSantis 'Don't Say Gay' law is called the Parental Control of Education Act. What does it mean to put more parents in control of education in New York City? What are the legislators who put that in think that's going to mean?

Jon Campbell: Well, you can point to some issues that our colleague Jessica Gould had pointed to in our reporting on this, and the PEP does have some ability to flex its muscle. They voted down a contract for a gifted and talented test. They have some authority over the school funding formula, things like that, in New York City. More parental representation in theory gives a better sense of where public school parents are and what they do and do not support.

That's the idea behind having more parents on the board. The mayor is going to get more appointees. Proportionally it remains the same or similar, I should say, but four of his appointees are going to have to be public school parents. Right now, it's only two. Add that to the five appointees from the Borough presidents and five from the local boards and you have 13-- I'm sorry, I lost track of the math. They're 14 public school parents that are going to be on this board.

That increases public school parent representation, and lawmakers think that's a good thing and that's what they're going with.

Brian Lehrer: All right, we're going to do more on this topic on Friday show when our education reporter Jessica Gould, who, Jon just name-checked, will be on the show. Jessica Gould and more of these issues on Friday. Right now, we are with Jon Campbell, Albany reporter for WNYC and Gothamist with a legislative session scheduled to wrap up tomorrow and so many loose ends on so many major policy issues being tied up.

Let's move on to housing. Mayor Adams and Governor Hochul have been pushing for an extension of the 421a subsidy, as it's known. Some Democrats have criticized that tax incentive and labeled it a giveaway for developers in exchange for an inadequate stock of affordable housing units. Some people want it revised to require more development of more affordable units. Other people say it should be abolished entirely. Where does 421a stand?

Jon Campbell: By all accounts, 421a does not appear to be headed towards passage in New York this year. That has happened before where lawmakers have allowed it to expire. This year, it seems to have gotten caught up with the debate over good cause eviction, although lawmakers are very hesitant to say that publicly, but that seems to be the case here because Good Cause Eviction does not seem to be a moving forward either. That is something that is supported by a lot of people who oppose 421a. Those two issues seem to have gotten wrapped up together and neither of them--

Brian Lehrer: Good Cause Eviction making it harder to evict people and also making it harder to increase the rent beyond a certain point in non-rent stabilized apartments.

Jon Campbell: Yes, it would essentially tie rent increases to inflation basically, and also make it--

Brian Lehrer: Not a good year for that.

Jon Campbell: You have good cause to evict somebody and restrict a landlord's ability to evict somebody by just hiking up the rent a ton. Those two issues both seem like they're not going to make it. Like I said, on 421a, that has expired in the past for a period of a few months and then, then Governor, Cuomo, and lawmakers resurrected it. That could be something that happens here as well but neither of those issues look like they're going to get a vote this week.

Brian Lehrer: State legislators have addressed NYCHA in this legislative session too, is that right?

Jon Campbell: Well, it's looking like they could, let's put it that way. There's a bill regarding the NYCHA trust, basically, it would create this new entity that can access private financing and access Section 8 federal funding rather than Section 9 federal funding where federal funding seems to be shifting from Section 9 to Section 8. The idea is that the NYCHA could access more federal funding that way, but there are concerns from some lawmakers about whether that could lead to NYCHA tenants sacrificing some level of their rights as tenants and make it easier for perhaps NYCHA to evict tenants.

That is still a debate in Albany, that's one that's a little unclear whether that's going to get passage, but lawmakers seem to be cautiously optimistic that that could get passed by the end of Thursday.

Brian Lehrer: Based on all of what we've discussed so far regarding housing, has the real estate industry reclaimed some power that it had previously lost at the state level?

Jon Campbell: Well, even when the real estate industry lost power, they were still quite a powerful entity and they remain incredibly active in the campaign finance sector and financing a lot of lawmakers' campaigns, including the governor's campaign.

They still have muscle to flex in Albany and you can guarantee that, come next year, after 421a has been expired, they're going to try to make that a big push next year to get it reinstated. The strength of its muscle, that's when we're going to find out for real.

Brian Lehrer: We're going to continue in a minute with our Albany reporter, Jon Campbell. We're going to get to how the New York state legislature is responding to the likely reversal of Roe versus Wade and other things.

We can take a few phone calls for him too. Teachers, anybody want to weigh in from the education sector on whether you think reducing class size is the most important thing you could do to improve education in New York City or elsewhere, or is it something else now that this is actually in the bill that it seems likely to pass and the mayor of New York is opposing it?

212-433-WNYC. What else of the many things, and we'll tick down some more of the list of these last-minute items, that you may have had your eye on with respect to the very active New York state legislative session this year? Do you want to call in and ask about how it's going to turn out or say something about, 212-433-WNYC, 433-9692 or tweet @BrianLehrer, or watch our Twitter feed go by two, stay with us.

[music]

Brian Lehrer on WNYC with our Albany reporter, Jon Campbell. You had a story in Gothamist this morning about a bill in the legislature that would consolidate local elections and place them in even-numbered years. Does that mean that the New York City mayoral elections wouldn't occur? If people think about the election cycle, the mayoral election is always the year after the presidential election.

We had the 2000 presidential election, then the 2001 mayoral election, the 2020 presidential, 2021 mayoral, et cetera. It's an off-year, there are no members of Congress up, there are no governors up. The New York governor is not up in that off-year. New York City council, New York City Mayoral, it's a weird odd duck year that the New York City elections take place. Are they taking aim at that?

Jon Campbell: They are not, and that is because city elections constitutionally are in odd number of years. The bill that was under consideration and was looking like it was gaining some momentum just last week would apply to  town and county elections. Our listeners in Westchester county and Nassau county, it would've applied there. Republicans were very, very mad about that because they have performed well in some of those off-year elections.

Democrats say, well, that's, in part, because there's very small turnout in those non-presidential non-statewide election years. They're trying to align the elections so you have more turnout with these federal elections. It trickles down to more turnout with these local elections, but it would not have applied to city elections, including New York City, because those are constitutionally in odd numbers of years.

Then it all ended up being moot anyway, because Amy Paulin, the assembly member who sponsors the bill amid this pushback said, "All right, we're not going to pass it this year. We want to do some public hearings. Let's talk again next year."

Brian Lehrer: Oh, interesting. We certainly saw examples in our region of how that off-year election benefited Republicans last year. 2021, the same year that Mayor Adams got elected in the city, there was all this pro-Republican change on Long Island, for example, where the democratic Nassau county executive got defeated by a Republican in a year where there was a lot of backlash to bail reform and mask mandates.

Same thing with the two Long Island DAs, Suffolk County and Nassau county DA both flip from Democrat to Republican. I guess, besides whatever the issues are at the moment, there's a pattern that Republicans-- I think we see this in the midterm congressional elections too, cycle after cycle like are coming up this fall. Republicans tend to turn out voters in low turnout elections better than Democrats do, right?

Jon Campbell: Yes. That's why Republicans were viewing this bill as an attack really. They tend to perform better in these midterm cycles. That has been true in New York. It has been true across the country. They viewed it as an attack essentially that Democrats are sponsoring this bill because they want Democrats to do better in these local elections by tying them to high turnout elections, presidential years, where New York, every four years, votes overwhelmingly for a Democrat, that trickles down to the local candidates.

They push back very hard. They make arguments that it's unconstitutional, against the law, et cetera, et cetera. Like I said, it ended up being moot because while it was picking up momentum, that bill, the assembly says it's not going to take it up this year.

Brian Lehrer: Here's a caller on the education bills. Kamala in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC. Hi, Kamala.

Kamala: Hi, it's Kamala. I am calling because I have to say that segment really infuriated me. There are so many things that we spend money on for education; high stakes testing, charter school rent is sky high, all these spurious reforms, when there's so much research that shows that class size is actually what could make the difference. Instead of framing it as like, oh, it's so much money, it's actually money that would be well spent instead of money that isn't.

The other thing that was really annoying to me was this idea that having parent representation on the PEP is somehow akin to Florida's Don't Say Gay. Actually, almost every other place in the country, except for a few cities that have majority Black and brown student populations have direct democratic control of their schools, not one man controlling them. I think public schools are one of the most important parts of our democracy and to have the public be removed from them, frankly, I think narrow control should have been extended only for a year so that they had time to have a commission to transform it to something else.

It's really wrong that we parents or any citizens of our community don't have voice in how our schools are run.

Brian Lehrer: Well, the reason I brought up Florida with the "Parental Control Act" was just to try to get out of contrast. Maybe you can help explain it as an advocate of this, of what changes you think more parental control of education, which is in this bill, would bring about. I was just saying, in Florida, it might be one thing, in New York City, it would probably be something very different or a set of things that are very different. What do you think more parental control would result in policy-wise?

Kamala: Well, I think you mentioned one of them, which was the G&T thing and gifted and talented. That would be a push towards more equity. This is a school system that has over 100,000 children living in temporary housing. This is a school system where the growing economic inequality in our society is really mirrored. I think, if we had true representation, you would see more things moving towards that.

An example, I'm very active in the anti-high stakes testing movement. The City Council, in 2015, unanimously passed a resolution saying that the department of education had to inform parents of their rights that they could refuse stake tests.

The Department of Education never followed that City Council resolution because the City Council is powerless in the face of the mayor. How can it be that we elect our representatives and every single one of them said, "I'm in favor of this," and yet the department is controlled by one person who doesn't have to follow a resolution?

Brian Lehrer: Kamala, thank you so much. Call again. Lawrence in Brooklyn has a question about another thing they've been considering in Albany. Lawrence, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Lawrence: Hi, Brian. Basically, it's been three years since Albany has passed significant climate legislation. We're right now at just 4% wind and solar generation, which is one-fifth of Texas. There's a bill that would help us get to 100% renewables by 2040 while creating 51,000 jobs. The Build Public Renewables Act is the only major bill that's moving right now in the legislature.

It's right now on schedule to pass to Senate and it's also one of the only bills, and probably in the United States, and definitely New York, that is not just decarbonizing, but also building towards the future that we need to live in.

Right now, it is on the course to pass to Senate. We are basically wondering, what's happening with assembly? It's now really on Carl Heastie now to push the bill and make sure it gets to a vote before the session ends.

Brian Lehrer: Carl Heastie, the speaker of the assembly. Jon, do you know? Anything else climate-related? We've covered a couple of climate-related bills making their way through the Legislature this spring. What's going to pass to Lawrence's question in particular and anything else?

Jon Campbell: As Lawrence said, the Build Public Renewables Act, which I have to be honest, I don't know inside and out, but essentially, it would make some changes that would allow the New York Power Authority a greater ability to build and provide renewable energy to customers. It is on track to pass in the Senate today. It's one of a hundred and something bills that are on the Senate agenda today.

The assembly is where we don't know where that stands right now. Honestly, the assembly, that's been a pattern really where we have a better sense of where things are in the Senate than the assembly. We haven't really heard much from Carl Heastie, the assembly speaker, this session really, but in particular, these last few weeks, we haven't heard much from him publicly.

That is one where we're not quite sure where that's going to go. One of the bills that has been pushed climate-wise is one that would require new construction to be electrified, to not have natural gas hookups. New York City already has something like that on the books that is being implemented. This would expand that statewide. That does not seem to be picking up much momentum in these late session days. I'd be surprised to see that one get through.

Brian Lehrer: I see we have a call from a New York City public school teacher who wants to push back on the idea of more parental control over educational policy. Brian in Hoboken, you're on WNYC. Do I have that right?

Brian: Yes, absolutely. Thanks so much for having me on, Brian. I teach in New York. I come from a family of teachers. My mother is a teacher, second grade. My father was a high school English teacher his whole life. I do want to push back on having parents become part of the way we educate our children in a serious way. I appreciate the former caller speaking about a more equitable,  diverse, inclusive classroom experience, and how parents could maybe contribute to that conversation.

However, I find, in my experience, that the exact opposite happened in that the types of parents who get involved are not necessarily the parents that are advocating for those things. I think great educators are trained individuals who know what it is like to work with young people in a classroom setting.

When parents get involved, the opinion starts-- It's like opening the floodgates many times. Now, all of a sudden they can pick apart your reading list. They don't like that you start class that way. Their kids said that you said something in class that they maybe didn't agree with and now parents show up.

Brian Lehrer: Brian, this is exactly why Virginia elected a Republican governor last year because the Democrat said parents shouldn't have any say over education. He said something like that. That got played over and over again. Parents shouldn't have control over education. That's up to the schools. That so infuriated parents. The Republican, Glenn Youngkin, ran against it and got elected.

Also, a lot of people, I'm sure our previous caller, Kamala, but many parents would hear what you just said and be so offended that the most, if I hear you correctly, those parents who tend to be activists on behalf of their children have the worst ideas. To disrespect the activist parents like that who are the most meticulously involved at the policy level, I don't know that that raises trust.

Brian: I understand. I think that there's a delicate balance that needs to be reached. However, there's a culture growing where parents are calling the shots in our schools. I do not agree with that. I think we need better educators. You really want to raise the bars with education, teachers need to be paid more. That would attract more diverse, trained people to the occupation.

Certainly, many teachers are not doing their work in the classroom but I'm speaking for the educators that care. The educators that approximately--

Brian Lehrer: Many parents would agree with good teacher pay. Just give me one brief, because we're going to run out of time. Give me one brief thought from your perspective, Brian. Do you think that you have confluence of position with the parents who say class size is about the most important thing?

Brian: Yes, absolutely. I think class size is an incredible positive step forward. However, I think the most important thing is paying teachers more. We're overworked, we're underpaid. 15 versus 20 kids in a class, if we had more resources and the incentive to give more time to our students, then I really think the position would feel we're doing something positive where--

Brian Lehrer: I'm going to leave it there. I apologize but thank you for your thoughts, and call us again. Jon, that was pretty interesting, the contrast between those two callers.

Jon Campbell: Yes, absolutely. It's a tension, so to speak, that you've seen play out all over the state and all over the country. You know what I mean? It's school board issues, in this case, school panel issues, are a big topic of- a big flashpoint right now for tensions between parents and, in this case, teachers, but even among parents, the very different viewpoints they have. I think that's what you were trying to get at with Florida versus New York there. That's what we're seeing.

Brian Lehrer: We have about a minute left. Let me do two quickies with you even though they're on huge things. Abortion rights with the prospect of Roe versus Wade going away. There are already abortion rights in New York State. What's the legislature going to do to add to that? I gather it's something.

Jon Campbell: Yesterday, the Senate and the Assembly passed a bill that would expand legal protections for abortion providers. It makes it so they can't be, say, extradited to another state unless they were to have performed the abortions in that state and fled that state. There's also a push for an Equal Rights Act that would essentially enshrine the right to an abortion in the New York State Constitution. It's much broader than that, though, and there's been some debate over religious rights in that. That's one of those things that are up in the air and it's not quite clear whether that's going to get passage by Thursday.

Brian Lehrer: Like requiring Catholic hospitals to provide abortions, that sort of thing?

Jon Campbell: That's one of the issues that they are debating the ripple effects of what this amendment would do, this constitutional amendment. That's also something that would take several years to get into place.

Brian Lehrer: Last thing, guns. I think with the Buffalo shooting, a lot of New Yorkers who thought that after Newtown 10 years ago, New York passed maybe the strictest state-level gun control law in the country. We're shocked to learn that this 18-year-old was able to buy an AR-15 legally in New York state. What's the legislative response?

Jon Campbell: They're going to pass a series of gun control bills that have been agreed to by the legislative leaders and Governor Hochul. One would require a license to purchase semi-automatic rifles in New York State, which would have the effect of increasing the minimum age of purchase from 18 to 21. New York City already requires a license or a permit, I should say, for long guns already but this would apply to the entire state.

They would also implement a potential microstamping mandate which allows for, when a gun is fired, a unique code to be etched into the bullet casing, which would then say where the bullet was fired from, who purchased that gun originally, et cetera. That is something that would be implemented over a series of years of requirement in handguns that they'd be microstamping capable and only if the state were to certify that this technology, which is still emerging, is viable, but that was one of the other bills that will be passed, I should say.

Brian Lehrer: WNYC and Gothamist Albany correspondent Jon Campbell with a very busy day ahead with a legislative session expected to end for the year tomorrow and a hundred or more bills still on the table to be resolved, and so much still unresolved as you've heard in this segment. Jon, good luck. I don't know if you stay up through the whole thing or if you set your phone on 'Text me when there's something', a development, but good luck over the next day or two. Obviously, we'll keep checking in with you.

Jon Campbell: Thanks, Brian.

 

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.