Perhaps the Democrats might want to retaliate by making it easier to remove civil servants who don't do their jobs, thereby forcing all those Pataki appointees to work.

Perhaps public sector managers should be allowed to fire those who they do not believe are doing a good job, which is what those of us in the private sector face, with severance pay that grows with tenure substituted for protracted removal procedures as a financial inhibition to political firings and favoritism.

Perhaps, given that Pataki's appointees will have seniority over future Democratic appointees, Democrats might want to amend the 40-year practice of handing out pension enrichments to those cashing in and moving out in every boom, offset by lower wages and benefits for new hires -- who are thus less qualified and motivated -- in every bust.

Perhaps steps should be taken to ensure the majority of future compensation increases go to those on the wrong side of past deals until those deals are fully offset, thus benefitting future Spitzer appointees (along with younger generations, who have been victimized over and over by both political parties on a variety of issues at all levels of government).

Just a thought.

Sen. I couldn't agree with you more. Although, while I deplore these midnight appointments, they have been done by democrats in the past as well. There was no shortage of last minute Cuomo appointments in 1994.

We need rules that better clarify how these appointments are made, when they are made, and how long they last for lame-duck governors. I also agree with Larry that we should be able to fire poor performing public sector managers and administrators, with severance when appropriate.

While there are surely many abuses that we could point to in this administration over the last 12 years that were above and beyond the norm, this doesn't appear to be one that reaches that standard.

Let's move beyond partisanship (which I beleive Sen. Krueger often does) and find ways to fix our broken government.

I couldn't agree more.

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this procedure and hopefully the Democrats will be more accountable.

>There was no shortage of last minute Cuomo appointments
>in 1994.

Actually, Robert, there were no "last minute Cuomo appointments" in 1994 -- the Senate did not meet after Pataki defeated Cuomo until January.  I'm sure that Mario Cuomo wanted nothing more than to keep his cronies in key positions in Albany, but the Republican Senate was not about to do that to the incoming Republican Governor (plus, they were busy deposing Ralph Marino).

Nicolo -- should the next Governor make war on a holdover agency if the current agency leadership is not capable of getting the job done (let's use the current MTA leadership as an example)?

That is the question.  If they are doing the job, perhaps it shouldn't matter if they are appointed by Pataki or not.  If it is a sinecure rather than a job, perhaps it should be gotten rid of.

The problem with the MTA Board is it did its job too well.  It's job was to cut the fare with discounts and reduce the amount of city and state support it needed from 1995 to 2002 to make the politicians popular, deferring the cost to a diminished future.  The person who went along with that wasn't Kalikow, it was his predecssor.

Everyone knew what was going on, but the legislature pushed through the debt laden 2000-04 and 2005-09 capital plans over the protests.  It didn't matter who screamed or how much -- they didn't care.  The entire MTA Board should have resigned twice over in protest by now.  But people who would do such a thing do not get appointed to a position like the MTA Board.

Note how similar the decision to run up the debt is to the decision to hand out pension enhancements while cutting contributions to the pension funds.  "Everybody wins."  Most of us don't count as part of "everybody."

Begs the question: Why aren’t you, as head of the Democratic state Senate campaign committee, doing more to unseat Republican Senators?  Even in tough districts you could have at least set up a one two punch to run this year have your candidates get known and the opponent get weakents with the anticipation of taking incumbents out in the high turn out presidential year.

Anon, you may be right, I may have spoken somewhat out of turn. I was much younger in '94 and not the politically astute person I am today.

However, there were many Cuomo appointees that lingered long after pataki took over. They may even have been better than the pataki picks. But that doesn't negate the issue that a governor should be allowed to pick the people to run the arms of gov't who will be with his program and follow through on his priorities.

After all, isn't that why we elect new people, for change? Should that chance for change be thwarted by imbedded members of the old guard who will benefit more from the failure, and not from the success, of the new administration?

Maybe the terms, if we even need them at all, should be null and void if the administration changes. A chance for new blood and new leadsership.

greund thrushlike acidanthera virent conjective ungenuinely colloped anglophobe
Apptical Corp.
http://www.wendywindblows.com/

greund thrushlike acidanthera virent conjective ungenuinely colloped anglophobe
Apptical Corp.
http://www.wendywindblows.com/

greund thrushlike acidanthera virent conjective ungenuinely colloped anglophobe
Apptical Corp.
http://www.wendywindblows.com/

greund thrushlike acidanthera virent conjective ungenuinely colloped anglophobe
Apptical Corp.
http://www.wendywindblows.com/