A Radical Proposal for Reforming Albany

By Ruth A. Wooden

The backroom wheeling and dealing that has driven New York State politics for as long as anyone can remember is alive and well. Fresh evidence in the recent months include the closed-door demise of the New York City congestion pricing plan that happened without a vote and the “mysterious” inclusion of an item in the state budget that prohibits holding teachers accountable in tenure reviews for their students’ standardized test scores (mysterious only because it isn’t clear who inserted the item, not why). Both were decried for their lack of transparency and their total exclusion of the public from participation in debate on the issues.

Voters across the state, of many political stripes, hoped that the reform-minded Spitzer administration would change things in Albany. The obliteration of those hopes came long before Governor Spitzer’s personal flame-out. The early days of the new Paterson administration have not provided much new hope that the backroom negotiations approach to policy formation will be ending. New Yorkers are getting more and more angry about how politics are being played in the state, and with good reason.

Many, including the editorial pages of The New York Times, have proposed various ways to reform Albany, mostly focusing on voting for forward-thinking politicians or legislating specific acts to clean up politics. But since trying to advance legislative reforms have failed so many times in the past, a completely different approach is warranted. Angry editorials and blaming certain legislative leaders hasn’t produced reform. We need big changes in the way we conduct politics in our state. Otherwise, the current anger will likely simmer down to mere disillusionment and lingering dissatisfaction among voters, and we’ll continue to see the same gridlock in Albany.

Here’s the radical suggestion: Why not make New York politicians more accountable to the people who elect them by utilizing public dialogues across the state?

Please hold the obligatory accusations of naiveté. I am going to explain how genuine public dialogue works. It is an approach that has been used in other states and communities with much success.

Public dialogue moves power out of the backrooms and into public meeting rooms where issues are discussed by citizens and leaders in open forums and where areas of agreement that can be the basis of real progress take center stage. Public dialogue takes the old fashioned town-hall meeting format and gives it much more purpose and structured discussion frameworks to build foundations for sustainable policy solutions. It also champions discussion among a representative range of citizens, not just the strident types who tend to hijack microphones at old-style town hall meetings.

But for public engagement to work, political leaders need to welcome using their power in different ways and actually help bring citizens into the process. There also needs to be an investment in public engagement by building a system of regular public input on challenging issues.

Strong public engagement does not at all mean an abdication of power for political leaders. Effective public dialogue simply identifies areas of common ground that public-minded political leaders can use to great effect to advance solutions that are practical, sensible and can stand up to public scrutiny. In places where civic engagement is more a part of regular political life, the public still expects elected officials to make final decisions. But public engagement improves the likelihood that decisions are viewed as legitimate because the public is involved in the process.

For leaders who truly believe in representing constituents, it is a way to substantiate their positions and to mitigate pressure from special interest groups. For special interest groups themselves, public dialogue has the potential to substantiate public support for a given position – but that, of course, depends on the openness of the dialogues and their use as a means of genuine deliberation rather than for spin-meistering. Citizens should be given the opportunity to really understand the full ramifications of alternative policy approaches and be able to weigh in with their own concerns and beliefs.

New York is lucky in that it is home to The Atlantic Philanthropies, Ms. Foundation for Women, Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Surdna Foundation, all of which are members of the group Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement and have a strong track record of supporting public engagement initiatives. Perhaps they could be enticed into helping their home state make progress using civic engagement practices. In addition, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has been burned by Albany politics several times recently, has gone on record supporting independent approaches and more citizen involvement in tackling tough issues. Perhaps he would endorse the development of such a movement.

A system for addressing issues using public dialogue would radically alter the existing political power structure and force politicians to truly listen to citizens. How refreshing would that be? Other states and communities have used public dialogue and have found it to be an extremely productive way of moving legislation forward that has broad public support.

New Yorkers are tired of being left out of politics in our state and something has to give in Albany. Public dialogue is a less radical approach than storming the Bastille. But the power of citizens and fair-minded leaders working in tandem through public dialogue might be a far more profound change in the long-run.