APPEARANCES: SENATOR DEAN G. SKELOS, Co-Chairman ASSEMBLYMAN WILLIAM L. PARMENT, Co-Chairman SENATOR RICHARD A. DOLLINGER ASSEMBLYMAN CHRIS ORTLOFF MARK BONILLA, ESQ. ROMAN B. HEDGES LEWIS M. HOPPE, Co-Executive Director DEBRA A. LEVINE, Co-Executive Director James Rogers; Lake Placid Village Trustee Harry G. Gutheil, Supervisor, County of Monroe Barbara Bartoletti; Legislative Director, League of Women Voters Robert Boice, Vice-chairman of the Jefferson County Board of Legislators and Legislator for District Number 11 Sandra Corey, Election Commissioner Jefferson County Donald Coon, Principal of Coon, Barley and Associates Steve Breyman, Secretary of the Governing Board of Common Cause New York Philip Klein; Saratoga County Legislator Leon Peck; Johnston, New York Shaun Levine; Executive Director of the New York State Conservative Party David Renzi; Attorney Morris Sorbello; Chairman, Oswego County Legislature John Proud; Majority Leader, Oswego County Legislature Kern Yerdon; Business Representative IBEW, Local 97: Shawn Doyle; IBEW 97: Blair Horner; Legislative Director, NYPIRG Joyce Morency; Supervisor Town of St. Armand Dale French; Chairman Essex County Board of Supervisors Dan Shaw; Supervisor Town of Easton William Farber; Chairman Hamilton County Board of Supervisors Brian Levine; Student, SUNY Albany Alonzo Jordan Michael O'Connor; Warren County Republican Chairman Bill Thomas; Chairman, Warren County Board of Supervisors John Aspland; Supervisor, Town of Fort Ann Michael Rose Joe Dalton; Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce SUBMITTED TESTIMONY 1. Robert Politi, Mayor Village of Lake Placid (2 pages) 2. Mark Dunlea, Vice-Chair of the Green Party of New York State (4 pages) 3. Howard Riley, Village Manager Saranac Lake, Franklin County (3 pages) DEAN G. SKELOS; SENATOR, CO-CHAIR, TASK FORCE: This is the seventh hearing that the New York State Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment has held concerning the proposed redistricting lines for the next ten years. My name is State Senator Dean Skelos. I am the co-chair of the task force and in my opening comment I mention that these are proposals and I underline propose. We are conducting hearings throughout the State as we are today in the city of Albany, to get your input as to what you think of the proposed lines. How you -- you would suggest we change them and then the task force will make whatever appropriate changes should be made and then the task force will actually formally meet to vote on whether the lines then proposed, should go the legislature. The task force's responsibility is to make a recommendation to the entire legislature. It is their responsibility the -- the Senate, the Assembly and the Governor to then vote, yes or no. And if it is approved, it will go to the Governor for his review where he can obviously either sign it or veto it. So, we look forward to your testimony, we have a lengthy list and we would ask if everybody could keep their comments to about five minutes. We would appreciate it. And now I would like to introduce my Co-chair Assemblyman William. Parment. WILLIAM L. PARMENT, ASSEMBLYMAN, CO-CHAIR, TASK FORCE: Thank you Senator. Welcome to this hearing on the redistricting proposal, that has been forth by the two chairs of this task force. We look forward to your testimony and with that testimony in hand we will attempt to produce a final recommendation to the legislature, for consideration by the legislature. So that we can move this process forward. Again, I look forward to your testimony and thank you for being here. MR. SKELOS: Thank you, very much. Senator Dollinger is not here yet, but when he does arrive we will certainly have him make an opening statement if he care to. Another member of the task force is Assemblyman Chris Ortloff. CHRIS ORTLOFF, ASSEMBLYMAN, MEMBER OF THE TASK FORCE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and again, let me -- let me say -- in recognition of all people from this region from Watertown to Plattsburgh to Albany, on their behalf I want to thank the co-chairs for scheduling this additional hearing. There is clearly a need and -- and as you can see by the number of people in the room, my colleagues, there are easily as many people in this room as there have been in some of the other hearings in even more populated parts of the state. Ladies and gentleman, and my colleagues in the task force, I wish to refer to the Assembly plan. In 1964 and prior, New York State Assembly was a county-based apportioned body in which every county but Hamilton had one assemblyman and all counties large enough, had two or more. The results of that apportionment over time was -- had the effect of discriminating against the largest cities in the state and other urban areas. New York was not alone, but New York's Assembly unlike the Senate, which was population based before that, New York's Assembly was one of the more egregious examples of mal-apportionment. The United States Supreme Court in a ruling what has come to be known as the one person one vote decision in 1964, said that such districts were no longer constitutional or legal and that henceforth, New York's Legislature, the New York Assembly and all legislatures across the country must conform to a principle that districts be as nearly equal as practical. I am -- I am summarizing some of the case law that has transpired since then. In terms of the Assembly, the Assembly immediately reformed itself in 1964, '65 and '66; that year, the following year in 1972, 1982 and 1992, the Assembly under both Republican control and later under Democratic control, properly apportioned the seats in the State of New York. For as long as any of us can remember and long before that, New York has had three distinct geopolitical regions; The city of New York is one, Long Island, the Counties of Nassau and Suffolk, another and the fifty-five upstate counties, the third. These regions are not only recognized informally, they are recognized in many formal ways, by the division of New York State Administrative Agency regions for example and, of course, they continue to be the state political entities with interests of their own. As I said, from the time of one man one vote until this current year, every Assembly apportionment has given Upstate, New York City and Long Island, the proper number of seats according to the population in the preceding census, every single time. Today however, we are faced with an unprecedented plan in an unprecedented mal-apportionment, not seen in New York since the Supreme Court one person one vote decision. On the chart over here for our benefit, the figures in black lettering are the populations, certified 2000 census populations of Upstate, eight million two hundred fourteen thousand for New York City, eight million eight thousand and the Long Island counties of Nassau and Suffolk, two million seven hundred and fifty thousand. Alongside them are the proper apportionment of seats in the Assembly, sixty-five for Upstate, sixty-three for the city and twenty-two for Long Island. Our staff person here will play the role of the Assembly majority now in showing you how the assembly majority's plan proposes to apportion these seats. Instead of sixty-five Upstate, they take one extra seat away and apportion upstate only sixty-four. And instead of the sixty-three that the city of New York is entitled to, they take two seats, one from Upstate and one from Long Island and give the City of New York sixty-five Assembly seats. And -- and the two Long Island counties receive twenty-one. For the first time since one man one vote, one area of the State with a smaller population would receive a larger share of votes in the Assembly than the largest part of the State. This is what is known as mal-apportionment and this is the subject of a unified Upstate objection and Long Island objection to this plan. I should point out as I have in other hearings that Upstate and Long Island have nothing against New York City, we love New York. During the last six months the fifty-seven counties other than New York have sent blood, money, volunteers and prayers to New York City. This is not an anti New York City objection, this is a pro-voting rights objection, a pro one person one vote objection. This is wrong. New York City deserves two additional seats because of the population shift. It does not deserve four and I would hope that we hear, in addition to the particular concerns the counties and regions have today, I know my colleagues will hear a strong and strident objection to this unprecedented outrageous mal-apportionment that has never been heard since one man and one vote. So, in that context we look forward to your testimony with great eagerness. Thank you. MR. SKELOS: Thank you, very much. Senator Dollinger has joined us, he is a member of the task force. RICHARD A. DOLLINGER, SENATOR, MEMBER OF TASK FORCE: Thank you, very much. I will be very brief. I am Rick Dollinger, I am the State Senator for Rochester and Monroe County. This is about the twentieth hearing and I think you have -- I am sure Senator Skelos and Assembly Parment filled you in on what we have heard elsewhere. I look forward to the testimony today. I will apologize in advance the -- the Senate is going to meet at eleven o'clock, my duties require me to participate there. I will be much like a jack in the box bouncing in and out during the course of the day. Please don't take it as a lack of interest but my duties may take me from this room back to the capitol on several occasions during the course of the today. So, I apologize for the inconvenience and look forward to the testimony. Thank you, Senator Skelos. MR. SKELOS: Thank you, very much. If you care we could perhaps ask the majority leader, to keep the role open on those bills so could --. MR. DOLLINGER: Well, I think the only concern I have is that my -- my duties as the floor leader, I think there are a couple of bills which -- the deficiency budget bill, the Yonkers and my duties require that I be there. So, I appreciate it. MR. SKELOS: Another member of the committee, Mark O'Neil. MARK BONILLA, MEMBER, TASK FORCE: Good morning, ladies and gentleman. I am the newest member of the task force. I am an attorney by profession, residing in Rensselaer County. My first time here in Albany. I am delighted to be here and look forward to your suggestions and comments. Thank you. MR. SKELOS: Thank you Mark, and another member of the task force is Roman Hedges. ROMAN B. HEDGES: MEMBER, TASK FORCE: It is good to be back home and I look forward to the testimony of the day. MR. SKELOS: Thank you. To the witnesses if you could just come up forward and speak into the mike, and again if we can try keep it to five minutes, our policy is not -- not to -- not to call you on it, but to the extent you can, we would appreciate it. Robbie Politi, Lake Placid Mayor. JAMES ROGERS; LAKE PLACID VILLAGE TRUSTEE: Mr. Chairman, I am not he. I am next in line, but I have his testimony, which I would like to submit. MR. SKELOS: Okay, great. You are going to submit the Lake Placid Mayor's testimony? MR. ROGERS: Yes. MR. SKELOS: Okay great. One of the things I -- and that is a good point. I -- I would like to point out is if you care to submit testimony, that certainly will have the same weight and effect as oral testimony. MR. ROGERS: I also have the village manager from the Village of Saranac Lake's testimony which I would like to submit. He is Mr. Riley who is fourth on your list. MR. SKELOS: Okay, and your name again is? MR. ROGERS: My name is James -- Jim Rogers. MR. SKELOS: Okay. Welcome. MR. ROGERS: Chairman Skelos, Chairman Parment, distinguished members of the task force. My name is Jim Rogers, and I have lived in Lake Placid for over forty years -- for thirty-five years my wife and I owned and operated a radio station and then radio stations, in Saranac Lake. We have been involved in both Saranac Lake and Lake Placid since 1961. I hope I bring this task force a perspective that will be useful to you in -- in the considerations that you face. Essex County, in which Lake Placid resides, has made a motion to ask that this task force go -- put Essex County completely in one Assembly district. I have some concerns about the edges of that county and if you can't put Essex County completely in one district, please heed what I have to offer. I am here to advocate on behalf of a community, my community, not Lake Placid alone, not Saranac Lake alone, but an area that encompasses two counties and many more townships. A community of interest that some know as the Olympic region. As a member of the Lake Placid Olympic Organizing Committee and as a businessman and as a resident, I am very aware of the interrelationship that we know as the Olympic region. Saranac Lake blessed its confused heart is in two counties and three townships. It has another three townships that are an important part of its area. The towns of Franklin -- Franklin in Franklin County and the towns of North Elba and St. Armand in Essex County. I think you have a map in your folders that indicate what I am talking about. Lake Placid is wholly within the town of North Elba, but relies on and is an integral part of the towns of Wilmington and Keene, also in Essex County. It is this area, made up of these seven townships, that comprise the Olympic region. In years past we have been represented in more than one Assembly district. This schizophrenia of multiple townships and two counties with two Assembly districts has been replaced in recent years by a single representation. I cannot tell you how important it has been, for this community to have one voice, one person who can help in the coordination of their efforts. You also need to understand that this area is somewhat distinct from the rest of its counties. One would travel through thirty miles of woods from the town of Brighton before one gets to the county seat of Malone, one would travel through twenty miles of woods through the village of Keene Valley South before one reached the next type of community. The area is pretty well circled by mountains, that is not to say we are isolated it is to say that we are a distinct community of interest. We have much in common. We are better served by a common political representative on the state level than we would be if our region were divided on county lines between rep -- assemblymen. This area I have described, the Olympic region is worked as a unit for many years, we are according to the 2000 census, twenty thousand residents. That is bigger than the cities of Plattsburgh, Ogdensburg or Glens Falls, not much smaller than Saratoga Springs or Watertown. At the risk of bragging we have an international reputation. And as a result we pay host to many times our population each year. We have two school districts, a major hospital, two colleges, two private high schools, wonderful library facilities, the Adirondack Regional Airport, the Lake Placid Airport, Olympic facilities and an Olympic training center. We believe that we are not the crown jewels of New York State, we are at least an important gem in that crown. We -- our area would comprise one-sixth of any Assembly district, should we have a strong, and we should have a strong voice in that District. With our areas split into two districts, we will have only half of the import for each district that we might have in one. And worse yet we could well have a competitive relationship within the area that has worked hard to create a cooperative relationship. A cooperative relationship, that has become much more productive in recent years, the recent years that we have been represented by only one Assembly person. Chairman Skelos, Chairman Parment, members of the task force, I do not want to presume to tell you where to put us, that is, what district. I do find the Senate redistricting plan makes some sense. Also, I can tell you that the area most significant to our communities is Plattsburgh. It is where we shop, where we watch television, along with Burlington, Vermont. Where we send our severely injured or ill patients, if Adirondack Medical Center needs help, and for heaven's sake, for our sake, whether you put us in a district connected to the North or to the South, put us all together in one district, please. I hope I have made my point. I -- I probably could have made in less time, but please understand how firmly I believe that it would be a major disservice to our area, a rather important area to the State of New York to divide us along county lines rather than keeping us as one area with one representative in the Assembly. Thank you for considering my concerns. I must tell you that if we do find ourselves as a divided community of interest, I will try very hard to persuade the Governor to veto the plan. I know yours is not an easy task, and on behalf of the Olympic Region, I want to thank you for doing what must be an extremely difficult task. Thank you. MR. SKELOS: Any questions? Thank you -- thank you, sir. Now there is another James Rogers on the on the list, is -- is he here and -- MR. ROGERS: That -- he is -- he is my son. He is not going to appear. MR. SKELOS: Okay. Ralph Eannance, Oneida County Executive. Ron Conover, Oneida County legislator. Ron Townsend, Oneida County Legislator, Harry G. Gutheil, the supervisor of the County of Monroe. HARRY G. GUTHEIL, SUPERVISOR, COUNTY OF MONROE: Good morning. MR. SKELOS: Welcome. MR. DUFFIELD: As you announced I am the supervisor from the Town of Monroe and I am also on the Saratoga -- Saratoga County Board of Supervisors and on various committees. This is my sixth year in my current position and I have also served as trustee to the village of South Glens Falls. I came to address you today and I was prepared to go all the way to Manhattan -- had this not been scheduled belatedly here in Albany. Though I certainly want to thank you people for scheduling this at more of our convenience. MR. SKELOS: And I would like to point out to those of you who are here. We have held, and I appreciate the comment, and we did try to accommodate. We have had approximately, I guess seven hearings we had eleven or twelve hearings prior to that, the task force had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars advertising in the papers to make sure that we could get good a turnout of the citizens of the State to testify. And we probably had, what would you guess, four, five hundred people actually testify or submit at this time. So I appreciate your acknowledging the fact that, I think the task force does, as we did have this meeting in Albany. MR. DUFFIELD: Okay. You may find some of my comments a little terse but we feel very strongly about our representation --. MR. SKELOS: We have been used to terse comments. MR. DUFFIELD: Well, I feel it is a shame the way proposed district boundaries have been drawn in Saratoga County. The proposed districts now divide our county into six different Assembly districts, the two census -- 2000 census shows specific growth pattern, yet Saratoga County has been put in a position to share a representation with nine other counties. We haven't been afforded our own district, yet we have a population in excess of two hundred thousand residents. I have submitted my comments and maps to be available to your committee. I know you have got a difficult task to perform, when you look at the maps, you will see that the lines were drawn with -- were drawn for what appears to be political reasons. The mapmakers have bypassed Moreau, they basically started in south of Moreau, jumped across the Hudson River into Washington County, went north into Washington County, jumped back across the Hudson River to tie in Queensbury and towns north of -- of --- of Moreau. What this basically -- this comprised the new proposed 113th District. This effectively will put two very hard working diligent Assembly representatives in the position that they have to run against each other in one district. Mr. Ortloff called that mal-apportionment, I believe, in his -- in his remarks. And I think it smells of foul politics. It -- it simply is just not right. If adopted as proposed, South Glens Falls which is a village located in the Town of Moreau, it is just across the Hudson River from Glens Falls, would not be in the same district as Glens Falls and would not be in the same district as the town of Wilton, the city of Saratoga and most of the towns of Saratoga County, south of Moreau. Splitting Saratoga County into six districts will not give us the representation we are entitled to under the constitution. The New York State Constitution provides that each county in the State be entitled to at least one member of the Assembly. I encourage you to reconsider the proposed boundaries and do what is fair, and give us our legal right to fair and effective representation. The proposed district is not fair, we could not have effective representation, as we would be a minority in each of the six proposed districts. Thank you, for your consideration and I might add that we have a new Assemblymen in the 100th district, who we just had a costly election, you know what it is, to provide for election inspectors, people at the polls. We just had an election where we could effectively have an Assemblyman who will serve less than one year. So, thank you again for your consideration in the case. MR. SKELOS: Thank you. And what I would like to do is at some point show you the transcript from some of the other hearings in downstate area and you will understand what a terse statement is. MR. DUFFIELD: Right. MR. SKELOS: So, believe me, yours was gentle. MR. DUFFIELD: I know I could probably make those comments a lot more stronger than they were. MR. SKELOS: And we -- we appreciate. MR. DUFFIELD: Certainly I appreciate the opportunity. MR. SKELOS: We appreciate you being here. Any -- any questions. Thank you, very much. Barbara Bartoletti, Legislative Director, League of Women Voters. BARBARA BARTOLETTI; LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS: Good morning, Mr. Parment, Senator Skelos, members of the Task Force. My name is Barbara Bartoletti, and I am Legislative Director for the New York State League of Women Voters. Sitting next to me is Amy Allaud, she is our Government and Election Law Specialist and Lobbyist. Become involved help us draw the line, meaningful public participation begins with you. Your right to fair and effective representation is crucial. This is why the Task Force on Demographic Research and Apportionment is holding hearings to involve New Yorker's in the process. Do these words sound familiar to you. They should, they appeared on the public hearing notice which the task force released on February 21st, 2002. However, the task force has not appeared to have had as much commitment to obtain citizen participation in this second round of hearings, as it did in the first round. Since the number of hearings by this task force has been reduced from eleven to seven. We do make note of the fact that today's hearing held here in Albany, is in addition to the seven originally announced. As you -- as you noted earlier, you can see from behind you there are several -- or in front of you, there are several people here who have come great distances to testify at this round of hearings. In addition, the current schedule of hearings still ignores the northern part of New York State and the southern tier and requires New Yorker's to drive three to four hours, in some cases, to give testimony at the closest location. Your hearing notice did announce that interested individuals may send comments or testimony at any time to the task force. However, a public hearing is exactly that. It is an opportunity for citizens to state their opinion, be heard by their fellow citizens and participate in a dialogue with their elected representatives. Also, this series of hearings is being held over a much shorter period of time, two weeks, than the first round. The eleven hearings in 2001 were scheduled over a two-month period, from May 3rd to July 26th. Again we note that there is a compressed period of time to react to what will be significant changes in the political boundaries of the state for the next ten years. Because congressional lines have not yet been released, there will be no opportunity for citizens to react to those new lines. The census data has been available for one full year, congressional lines are equally as important to the citizens of New York as representation in the State legislature and to deny citizens this opportunity is contradictory to the stated aims of this body as quoted above. We would also like to make a brief comment on the task force reports printed copy, which we have right here and probably -- and looks as if all of you have copies. A narrative which explains the rationale behind the proposed lines, i.e, principles guiding redistricting and some statistical information on the characteristics of New York's population which affect redistricting would have been helpful. The same information which is available on the website should have been included in the print version. A key to the information which follows the map to describe each proposed district, would have made that information more meaningful. Also, those sections should include the names of counties which are included wholly or partly in the proposed district. Although some people will use the website map because it can be enlarged for detailed examination of the proposed district, it is still important to recognize that most of the population in New York State may not be computer literate. Because of what we believe to be an inherent conflict of interest present in the way we conduct the apportionment and redistricting process in this state, the League of Women Voters of New York State have adopted a position in support of a non-partisan apportionment commission. Legislation in the form of a concurrent resolution of the Senate and the Assembly proposing an amendment to the New York State Constitution to create a non-partisan apportionment commission has been introduced by Assemblywomen Sandra Galef and that number is A3579 and Senator Richard Dollinger, F773, this bill provide for a re-apportionment committee composed of non-political, non-elected representatives. The majority and minority leaders of both legislative houses would each appoint one member of this committee. Those four members would elect a fifth member to serve as chairman. These members removed from any political motivation or self interest could re-draw the districts without the political considerations that drive the current redistricting process. Some states even re-district the membership -- restrict the membership of the redistricting commission in the following way: Members may not run for the legislature in the two to four years following redistricting; Hawaii, Idaho, Missouri and Montana do that. This legislation does not however current -- the current one that has been introduced into our Assembly and Senate includes that provision. We believe that the Galef-Dollinger Constitutional Amendment legislation will move us toward a non-partisan process and is the first step towards refarming -- reforming what is now a totally partisan process. As the League stated in its last testimony before this task force, competitiveness is the life blood of democracy, only through the clash of ideas can voters intelligently understand complex public policies and think through the implications of policy alternatives. Competitive elections stimulate voter interest in elections and increased voter turnout. The redistricting lines as they are currently drawn, fly in the face of competitiveness and the partisan process used, has allowed the political parties in power, in each House of the Legislature, to literally choose the voters before the voters get a chance to choose them. Although, Mr. Parment has publicly stated that competitiveness is not given much consideration in this process, the League believes with due respect, that it must be one of the major goals of redistricting once the constitutional and statutory criteria with population quality, compactness, contiguity and integrity of political subdivisions are met. We are disappointed, though not surprised, by this year's redistricting lines. In the assembly only twenty-three of a hundred and fifty seats are competitive. And in the senate seven of sixty-two seats qualify. Assembly Democrats and Senate Republicans have artfully used the legal ability to go five percent above or five percent below the ideal district size. In the Assembly, Democrats have crafted downstate districts at the lower end of the population range to create new seats and have drawn upstate Republican lines at the upper range. In the Senate, Republicans did just the opposite. They drew rural and suburban districts Upstate at the low end of the population scale, while downstate Democratic districts are on the high end of the scale. With no attempt to decide for partisanship with which these lines are drawn, each majority consolidated power in their house and ensured incumbency for their party for the next ten years. Creative cartography, design in district, it doesn't matter what name you give it, what it means is that voters lose. Voters do not feel that they are given any real choices and throw -- so throw up their hands in frustration fueling voter cynicism. Can anyone seriously wonder why New York State has a voter turn out of forty-nine percent or that state budgets have been late for seventeen straight years. This redistricting proposal does a great disservice to voters and undermines the basic concept of our representative democracy. We urge this task force to can the plan and move immediately to a special master who can draw lines allowing for competitive districts where a dynamic exchange of ideas can occur and where citizens can be engaged in a political process that gives them a choice of candidates and true debate on issues. As a League member said in an earlier testimony before this task force, a -- and I quote, strong and vibrant representative democracy thrives when all players; voters, elected officials and challengers have to pay careful attention to the interests and views of all the people in their communities, unquote. The League of Women Voters of New York State believes that these district lines and this process have accomplished none of these goals. Thank you for the opportunity to share our views with you. MR. SKELOS: Any questions? Thank you. Robert Boice. ROBERT BOICE, VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF LEGISLATORS AND LEGISLATOR FOR DISTRICT NUMBER 11: Good morning. Chairman Skelos, Assemblyman Parment and distinguished members of the Redistricting Task Force. My name, as you have already heard is Robert Boice, and I am Vice-chairman of the Jefferson County Board of Legislators and Legislator from District 11, representing the town of Watertown and Rutland. My sincere thanks to you for providing us with this additional hearing opportunity to prevent our -- present our views on redistricting. I understand the complexity of your task as set forth in law and after reviewing all the constraints and objectives in that law, I do not envy the challenge you have been given. However, I come to this hearing to offer recommendations and suggestions that I believe are very important in the redistricting process that will recognize and strengthen the communities involved and strengthen the democratic priorities of our government. Assemblyman Ortloff, as a representative of the Jefferson County legislature, I want to convey my full endorsement of your position presented earlier. There are two parts to my presentation. First on behalf of our chairman of the Board of Legislators, Robert J. Thomas, I would like to read into the record of this hearing and present to you a certified copy of Resolution Number Ninety-six, expression of concern regarding the State Assembly reapportionment plan, adopted unanimously by the county legislature at the regular monthly meeting on March 5th, 2002. Now, because there is a five-minute limit I am not trying to read the whole thing, but essentially this is requesting, keeping the county whole for the most part since it does have almost the same population requirement for an Assembly district. The second part, and I will present this in evidence here. The second part addresses my concerns and offers my recommendations relative to the redistricting process. But, before I do that I would like to offer some information about myself, hopefully, this will lend some credibility to my statements. I was born and raised in Saratoga County and still have family living there. Thus I understand the splintering and fragmentation of the county voting population. In 1990 I retired from a thirty-four year career with Cooperative Extension, thirty years as an extension agent, executive director of Jefferson County. My responsibilities involved extension education programs, not only in the county, but also in the neighboring counties of the North Country. I have had a close association with people, economics, natural resources and traditions of Northern New York. In addition, I have served on several committees and boards serving Northern New York and New York State, focusing on economic development and the management of natural resources. Served as a commissioner on the Commission on the Adirondacks in the 21st Century, the Governor's Environmental Committee for Governor Cuomo. And as the first chairman of the Conservation Fund Advisory Board for ten years. I do believe I have the credentials, as well as the experience to speak on North Country community issues and concerns, as they are impacted by redistricting. I fully agree that under the law a redistricting plan for a district must be in compliance with two mandatory factors, equal population and racial fairness. However, inherent in that law is the need to consider communities of interest, respect for traditional boundaries, contiguity, compactness and a community, i.e. the county, shall have a representative when that community is close to meeting the established population requirement. First point; community interest, Jefferson and Lewis County are both rural agricultural communities with dairy production as their leading industry. There are many similarities; the Black River runs through both counties and has given rise to the paper industry, power plants and recreational opportunities. Both counties make up the entire Northern half of the Tug Hill Plateau. Second; traditional boundaries, it has been traditional that Jefferson County was almost a -- with almost a full population requirement is joined with the northern part of Lewis County to form an Assembly district. Contiguity, the Black River Valley, the Tug Hill Plateau and the Lake Ontario, Lake Plains with routes 3, 11, 12, 126 and 177 make a very contiguous district both geographically and within the existing transportation corridors. Fourth; compactness. In the traditional assembly district involving Jefferson and part of Lewis counties, the farthest distance within the boundaries would be fifty to fifty-five miles. Under the proposed district, the town of Rutland would be over eighty-five miles to the farthest boundary of the district. We need to be as energy efficient as possible, not only in terms of gas mileage, but also in energy to be expended by constituents as well as the elected officials. Community representative; because Jefferson County had been very close to the population requirement for a representative, the county has always had a representative, nothing has changed. At present we have a hundred and twelve thousand of the hundred and twenty-six thousand population required; almost ninety percent of the required population. In summary, I would ask that the task force make every effort to continue an Assembly district keeping Jefferson County as a whole and continuing the community alliance with Lewis County to complete the population requirement. Thank you, again, for this opportunity. MR. SKELOS: Thank you. Are there any questions? MR. ORTLOFF: Bob, can I just ask you, you -- you referred to the town of Rutland? MR. BOICE: Yes. MR. ORTLOFF: Which -- which assembly district would that be in? MR. BOICE: The 114th District. MR. ORTLOFF: Okay. MR. BOICE: Si -- Assemblyman Nortz. 117th, excuse me I misspoke. MR. ORTLOFF: I know it -- and I noticed -- I noticed that -- it is how far from one end to the other? MR. BOICE: At -- at the present time? MR. ORTLOFF: No, how was in the proposal? MR. BOICE: The proposed would be over eighty-five miles because it goes beyond the village of Herkimer. MR. ORTLOFF: Thank you. MR. SKELOS: Sandra Corey, Election Commissioner Jefferson County, thank you. SANDRA COREY, ELECTION COMMISSIONER JEFFERSON COUNTY: Good morning, Chairman Skelos, Chairman Parment and distinguished members of the task force. I am Sandra Corey and I live in the town of Antwerp in northern Jefferson County. My next door neighbor is Fort Drum, major employer of Lewis and Jefferson Counties. My children graduated from Indian River Central School and my grandchildren are now attending. I would like to thank all of you for giving us the opportunity to speak out to you today. I felt I had to come here today to tell you why so many citizens of Jefferson County are unhappy with the way you want to split our county apart. I believe everyone understands the enormous job all of you have undertaken, and we know it is not an easy one. I believe our largest concern is how can a county be truly represented at the Assembly, when it is split into three separate districts. It is my understanding that when making up these districts, a community of interest must be apparent. How has this been accomplished in Jefferson County; Jefferson and Lewis Counties have similar interests. Fort Drum is the major employer of both counties, agriculture is similar in both counties and our school districts are very much alike. The people of these counties have the same cultural backgrounds. There is a saying we use often in northern New York, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why is it not possible to leave Jefferson County with the northern part of Lewis County. The present districting has also split the Indian River School District into two different Assembly districts. Traditionally, when the representatives of the school district need to communicate with their Assemblyperson, they only needed to speak with one person, this person was always available and understood their concerns because he represented the whole school district. With the proposed splitting of the district, which representative would be the appropriate representative to take the initiative to resolve any issues, I envision that this will be another example of those problems we will be facing with splitting apart a county. Representatives representing constituents when they don't understand the local culture. I also feel this split is taking away the personal contact with our Assembly representatives, that we have always enjoyed. It is so much easier for people to talk to people they know. We in Jefferson County truly hope that you will return to the map and show northern New York that government does care, by leaving Jefferson County with one representative as it has always been. As you have noticed I have not talked on the elections. I am on the election board. The election ads in our office we are calling will be disaster number one when we have to split three ways and try to figure out all the things that we have to do for the ballots and everything else, I did not speak about that mostly because my counterparts could not be here with me today, but please, we really need to have Jefferson County within its own. Thank you, very much. MR. SKELOS: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you, very much. Donald Coon, businessman. Welcome. DONALD COON, PRINCIPAL OF COON, BARLEY AND ASSOCIATES: Good morning Chairman Skelos, co-chair Parment, and members of the Task Force. My name is Donald Coon. I am the principal of Coon, Barley and Associates, Commercial Real Estate Appraisal and Consulting that serves the North County. Our main office is in Watertown. I like many others appear today in the interest of fair and effective representation in the New York State Assembly. I am a resident of Jefferson County. Jefferson County has never before been split in regards to its Assembly representation. And, now, we find ourselves split into three different districts. I will live in the proposed 117th District, I reside three miles East of the City of Watertown in the town of Leray. Fort Drum and the 10th Mountain Division are located in the town. The town of Leray will not be in the same district as the City of Watertown where my children attend school. Now the town of Leray will be in the district that includes Old Forge and Thendara in the Adirondack Park, and the villages of Herkimer and Little Falls in the Mohawk Valley. A drive from the Northernmost section of the district to the southerly point will take more than two hours. The City of Watertown will be in the proposed 122nd District. That Assembly district will include the cities of Oswego, Fulton and Watertown. Again, driving from the northerly section of the district to the southerly section will take more than two hours. The northern towns of Jefferson County will be in the proposed 118th District, those towns will be in the same district as the village of Massena, two hours north of the Jefferson County Town of Clayton. If one of your criteria in redistricting is the recognition of a community of interest, you have truly missed the mark with this plan. Jefferson County's City of Watertown is the economic center of a large geographic area. Located within the city are a regional newspaper, four major television stations and a dozen radio stations, that serve the north country with the primary market being Jefferson County. New York State government recognizes the orientation of Jefferson County and the City of Watertown as well. The regional offices of the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Department of Transportation, the New York State Health Department and the Development Authority of the North Country are all located in Watertown. Jefferson County has a community of interest. The community is diverse and the interests are diverse. Recruiting new business, supporting agriculture and supporting Fort Drum, are all issues that are best served in Jefferson County by the organizations and institutions that now exist in Jefferson County. The village of Little Falls or Herkimer while Mohawk Valley communities, share little with Jefferson County. The cities of Fulton and Oswego share a community of interest and should be kept together. But the City of Watertown is distinct in its interests and should be left with the rest of Jefferson County. The current plan will hamper economic development efforts, will dilute the voices of Jefferson County Schools and will further complicate the ongoing efforts to support Fort Drum. The North Country's economy is among the most tenuous in the State and further diluting the cohesive nature of its institutions and voice will not be helpful. You have the power to recognize our communities of interest. I urge you to look hard at the lines that you have drawn, take into consideration the interests of our struggling rural community and redraw the Assembly district lines in a manner that recognizes the needs and interests of our various north country communities. Thank you. MR. SKELOS: Thank you. Questions? Anthony Keating? Is Mr. Keating here? Paul Warnack? Mark Dunlea? Steve Breyman? STEVE BREYMAN, SECRETARY OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF COMMON CAUSE NEW YORK: Good morning. Senator Skelos. Senator Parment. Distinguished members of the New York State Legislative Task Force and Demographic Research and Reapportionment. I am Steve Breyman and I am the secretary of the governing board of Common Cause, New York and -- and I am very pleased to have the opportunity to testify today on the redistricting. it is in our understanding it is the underlying issue that frames all other in relation to democracy in government. For more than thirty years, Common Cause has been a leading advocate for democratic reforms in our political process, reforms on issues like those raised in the 2000 elections that are critical to realizing the principle of one person one vote. We have been a leader at the Federal and state level on campaign finance issues, legislative and executive ethics rules, reapportionment and with the district taking in other election related laws like Same Day Registration and Motor Voter. We have also been consistent participants in civil and voting rights coalitions and in attempting to energize and mobilize all citizens to participate in our democracy. Common Cause New York endorse the findings of a NYPIRG study released about a year ago that showed how drawing the District lines impacts the democratic process. Key findings of that study included only twenty-five incumbents had been defeated in the general electrons in New York State for the past twenty years. In the last four thousand two hundred and twenty legislative races in the general election, incumbents were defeated only twenty-five times. That is less than one percent of the races. And the trend for incumbency protection has increased over time. In the last three general elections only three incumbents were defeated, in addition, victors win with overwhelming margins. The average percentage margin of victory of the Senate was a staggering sixty-three percent. In the Assembly victors won by an average of fifty-nine percent. Only twenty-five of the two hundred and eleven legislative districts have major party enrollments that could allow frequent competitive elections. Of the sixty-one state senate seats, twenty-four -- or districts I should say, twenty-four are drawn to give one political party an enrollment edge of forty thousand or more, eighteen granted enrollment between twenty-five thousand and forty thousand enrollment edge. Normally, it would be extraordinarily difficult for challengers to take on an incumbent in these districts. However, campaign finance advantages have helped senate Republicans to take seven of these districts. Only ten are competitive districts, those of which the enrollment difference between the major parties is thirteen thousand or fewer, all have Republican advantages and have been won by Republicans. And in the one and fifty State Assembly Districts; sixty-five grant an enrollment edge of twenty-five thousand or more, forty-one granted enrollment edge between ten thousand and twenty thousand, only eighteen are competitive districts, those with enrollment differences of five thousand or fewer. One hundred seventy-seven of the two hundred victors in the 2000 election outspent their opponents by a ratio of at least two to one. In political campaigns money talks and it talks loudly. Campaign contributors like to bet on the winners. So when -- when it comes to New York elections, incumbents almost always win. In competitive races, many victors outspent their opponents by a huge ratio. In many of those races, the victor's fund-raising efforts were enhanced by the nation's transfer directly from PACs controlled by the legislative leadership. The majority party had a huge edge in the campaign fund raising of the 2000 election cycle, the majority party out-raised the minority party by over two to one. New York law creates legislative tax that are controlled by the legislative leadership, contributions to those PACs are extraordinarily high with an annual of seventy-six thousand five hundred dollar limit. These legislative committees then are allowed to transfer unlimited amount for the candidates of their choice. The bulk of which ends up being spent in competitive races and make the difference. Competitive elections are the life blood of democracy. Only through the clash of ideas can voters intelligently understand complex public policies and think through the implications of policy alternatives. Competitive election stimulate voter interest in elections and in state government in generally. New York's policies of determined legislative districts and set campaign finance practices, smother competitive elections. Thus endangering democracy. It does not have to be this way. As lawmakers contemplate the constitutional redistricting obligations, we must ensure that nourishing competitive elections is the top objective. Here are critical components to any meaningful reform package endorsed by NYPIRG, the League of Women Voters that you have already heard from this morning and Common Cause, New York, the organization that I am representing today. First point; allow the public to participate in the redistricting process. The 2000-2002 redistricting process could be the most open in the nation's history. With unprecedented advances in technology, citizens now have the capability of participating in the redistricting process, but only if lawmakers cooperate. New York State must add to its web site, all the information it uses or considers in the development of its district lines. In addition, lawmakers should issue draft district lines well in advance of the June 2002 deadline, so that citizens may have time to consider and comment on them. We must note that the notice for this public hearing was not easily found. We -- we had a gentleman, I heard, he earlier said or may be this was Barbara Bartoletti was quoting from a notice, was tougher for us to find. We thought that the process could be considerably more transparent. We much appreciate the fact that there have been, this, as I understand is the eleventh hearing, with transparency for us to crucial issues, especially as it involves getting the public, directly engaged to the redistricting process. Our second recommendation is that we minimize the role -- the partisan role in developing new district lines for the 2002 elections. New York State's redistricting process it seems to us is incredibly partisan. The legislative leadership controls district lines for each house. The Republican controlled Senate draws its lines. The Democratic controlled Assembly does the same. Both Houses agree to the others plan and the legislation is sent to the Governor for his approval. There are alternatives. As you know, some states have a nonpartisan redistricting system. The State of Iowa, for example, has a nonpartisan -- nonpartisan system of redistricting that could be followed in New York in time for the 2002 changes. There, a civil service like technician make the first draft of the district lines. These staff are not allowed to consider incumbent's home addresses or to use the party affiliation of voters in considering district lines. The proposed district lines are sent to State lawmakers for approval or disapproval. The legislature is not permitted to amend the proposal. The courts are empowered to step in, if there is no agreement. You might have seen, a quick aside, a week ago or so, the New York Times had an article about competitive congressional elections at the Federal level. Four out of five of the House seats in Iowa are considered competitive. It is like nowhere else in the country. So, it seems on the score of competitiveness, that the Iowa System is going to -- MR. SKELOS: You -- you are saying that -- that New York is the same as Iowa? MR. BREYMAN: No, I am saying that a similar process, one where the redistricting work is initially handed to either a special master, or in the Iowa case, civil service like technicians who -- who take the first whack at it, come up with a draft, that then it is presented --. MR. SKELOS: Is Iowa already a voting rights state? MR. BREYMAN: It is not. MR. SKELOS: Is not. MR. BREYMAN: No. MR. SKELOS: Because we have three counties in New York State that are covered by the voting rights? MR. BREYMAN: No such problem in Iowa. MR. SKELOS: You -- you mentioned that they don't use enrollment. If they don't use enrollment, how would you be able to determine in some of the other studies whether a race is competitive or not. MR. BREYMAN: They were basing the research on previous incumbency rates, the fact, again, that the it appeared to the researchers at the time including the New York Times' staffers that lines had been drawn with incumbency protection in mind and when that is pulled away from the legislature directly, put in the hands again of a nonpartisan body, incumbency protection is not a consideration. MR. SKELOS: The New York State is a FLEX state and we have seen people, whether it is today or in other communities talking about continuity of districts that is very important, relationships that they have established with legislators whether you like it or not, people like the fact that they have established relationships with legislators that they trust, that they feel will represent their community well. The courts upheld that the continuity of districts, the core of districts, is appropriate. The courts have recognized and I am talking about the Supreme Court, some may thing they are above the Supreme Court, but to me that is the highest -- have also said that politics can be taken into consideration when doing redistricting. So when you -- when you do a redistricting plan in New York State because we are not Iowa, you have to take into account the regions of the state. You have to take into account communities of interest. You have to take into account one person one vote, you have to take into account the deviation that the courts have approved and say it is -- it is appropriate to use deviations. You have to take into account counties. You have to take into account town lines. So many things have to come into play when we do the redistricting in New York State and I -- I just think it is a lot different and I am not denigrating Iowa than the cornfields of Iowa when you draw lines in New York State. And part of our job is to take into account what people here are testifying over a hundred people in -- in Queens, in the Bronx and Long Island yesterday, we must have had eighty or ninety people testify. All of them want us to take into consideration their opinion, not just the opinion of a technician that you are talking about who should draw the lines. So I think we have a -- a real, you know, problem here in New York State concerning your proposal and the proposal of the others as to what the -- the public is looking for. MR. BREYMAN: Certainly I understand --. MR. SKELOS: I know that myself, when I was elected, supposedly in -- in well, actually in '82 after redistricting, supposedly, the district lines that were created at that time, I was supposed to win, I was in the Assembly then. I lost. I lost to a -- a Democrat incumbent at that time. Two years later, I defeated that incumbent. My district has -- has been considered competitive for I don't know long, and yet, I have been winning. I won when I have been able to outspent my opponent. I -- I have lost when my opponent has outspent me. And I have won when my opponent has outspent. So, I -- I think to some extent when you say that the redistricting process is not what the public wants. I think to a great extent we demean the public by saying that and insult their intelligence. I think the public knows what they want when they vote. I think they -- this year or last year, I think it was, we had -- we had the opportunity to establish a -- a constitutional convention where many of your proposals or the NYPIRG or League of Women Voters could have been considered, they opted not to. They voted down the constitutional convention. So, again, I -- I think what we have to do is when we -- we talk about redistricting, and I know it is a difficult process and -- and there are good parts to it, may be there are not some good parts to it. But -- but the bottom line is, I think to have some technician just come in and draw up little boxes does not work in New York State. MR. BREYMAN: Senator, my sense of this --. MR. SKELOS: Senator Paul Miesta's district is competitive. He is a democrat. It is competitive because it is more Republican, but he -- he wins Assembly Parmeter. And it continues to be a competitive district, I believe, MR. PARMENT: It will be more competitive after this process is finished. Unfortunately. MR. BREYMAN: Gentlemen, I -- I don't to minimize the benefit of a close relationship, you know, a personal one with incumbents. My sense is that given the choice between genuinely competitive district and one in which an incumbent is returned eternally, until he or she dies in office or resigns, that the public would indeed opt for a competitive district. I don't believe our proposals are an insult to public intelligence. I think instead said, Senator, that the data shows very clearly -- MR. SKELOS: Let me ask you, do you have any statistics that would show that a number of people from north county that after all his years of service that Senator Stafford because of the relationship that they have established with Senator Stafford, or right now, I know with Senator Wright in -- in some of those communities that they would prefer to have them for some reason, thrown out of office or that -- that they are making the wrong decision because they have established a tremendous relationship with Senator Stafford what he has been do for Lake Placid and those communities, if some reason, we should now do something artificially and throw him out of office. I -- I think many of the people in the north country are very satisfied with the representation they get. MR. BREYMAN: We are talking about principles here, Senator. I happen to live in Senator Bruno's district. I don't to need to tell you that Senator Bruno is very good at constituent service and at meeting the needs of his constituents. On that level, do you want Senator Bruno to serve for life. On another level it seems to be just part of basic democratic sense of rights that voters be given a choice. And in the current arrangement, in both Assembly and Senate districts, these are one party districts. MR. SKELOS: When you -- that happens -- that happens. I mean in New York City, I -- I guarantee you whether it comes to the Assembly or the Senate, it is very, very difficult to make a competitive race between a Republican and a Democrat, because of the fact that New York City is overwhelming Democrat, perhaps, ten to one. And I think also in some of the upstate communities because they have opted to be republicans, that many of those communities would be very difficult to make competitive because of the overwhelming Republican enrollment or -- or Republican voting habits. So, again, when you -- when you take this decision, now it is very easy to come in and say there are two hundred and eleven legislators and only x amount of them are competitive. Well, I guarantee you and I -- I know Assemblyman Ortloff has brought this up at other meetings and I -- I forget the numbers that he used. I guarantee you that almost, at least two-thirds, if not more of the districts because of the New York City overwhelming democrat enrollment. It is almost impossible to make competitive districts. So, when you -- you start narrowing it down that there -- there are very, very few races. So, it is -- it is very dramatic to say two hundred and eleven, not competitive, whatever, very hard to -- to make two hundred and eleven seats competitive in New York State. MR. BREYMAN: Senator, I -- I don't doubt what we know about the realities of enrollment in the state, heavily Democratic downstate, heavily Republican upstate. And these are -- are indeed difficult technical hurdles. But at the same time, I see nothing but benefits for public spiritedness and civic mindedness across New York State if we took redistricting out of the hands of the legislature and put it in the hands again, of some kind of nonpartisan body. And we could talk about the shape of that and -- and whether or not they are technicians or civil servants, whether they are -- whether they are distinguished public figures from across the state. MR. SKELOS: So, you -- you would essentially be saying we should have political eunuchs that are the ones that draw the lines. MR. BREYMAN: No, I wouldn't say that, the -- Senator, when -- among the other hats I wear, is as a college professor, and if -- having you, the legislature drawing your own lines is equivalent to having my students grade their own papers. We don't permit that because we have some other nonpartisan, objective, unbiased, observer do the evaluation. The special commissioner or the special master some people talked about this cycle would serve that same role, would take out any appearance of conflict of interest. I do not even want to accuse you, you can, you -- obviously you are in -- in competitive districts as I understand, but then the cynicism that seems to me to reign far and wide in this state about the extent to which the state legislature truly provides voters a choice on election day could -- could be directly confronted. You can say, hey, look we are passing judgment on a plan that we did not come up with, rather than, hey, right -- as you know right now, it looks like we drew the lines to ensure that we have another term in office. MR. SKELOS: I guess -- I guess my opinion, I -- I think that the -- and I will stop and I appreciate your patience. I just think the intelligence of the voter is a lot more in terms of involvement. My district my vote district, they go for Republican, they go for democrats. On the local level. It is a mixed bag. So, I just think that the voter is a lot more intelligent than sometimes some groups give them credit for. MR. BREYMAN: I -- I appreciate the interaction. I was afraid we would not have the opportunity so -- so thanks very much for that. Let me just make one other brief point and then give the rest of the folks who are here this morning a chance. Our third point recommendation for this body is that you and I understand it is not directly within your purview given your current assignment, but we think it is hard to separate the -- the issues of redistricting and the other matters of process that we talked about from campaign finance reform. And so, our recommendation is to enact comprehensive campaign finance reform there are a number of exciting models out there as you know, clean money, clean elections has been enacted in several, in I guess it is four states now across the country, including our neighbor Massachusetts. Common Cause itself very much likes the New York City model of the public campaign, financing that has firmly established competitiveness at the City Council level, such that now big money no longer dictates who gets on the New York City Council. We would like you to take a very close look in the state level. Again understanding that -- MR. SKELOS: Is -- is it -- is that the same financing that exists for Mayor and citywide positions? MR. BREYMAN: That is correct. MR. SKELOS: What is a public servant like most of us here who are elected, how do we compete with a Corzine or Mayor Bloomberg. I mean how do we compete with that if we use the New York City model? MR. BREYMAN: The -- there may have to be tweaks, I agree with you it is difficult, that if an independently wealthy candidate can come in opt of the system and then just spend endlessly, which we have seen in -- in those few examples you cite, like tens of millions of dollars. One possibility is that there be special fund to match that kind of extraordinarily high level of private spending. Another would be perhaps this would be constitutionally dicey, but we could wonder about restricting candidates to the system, that is that unless you opt into a New York style system, you do not get to be a candidate. MR. SKELOS: Yes, I -- I have seen statistic I wish -- I wish had them here because I didn't expect you to go into campaign finance, I thought it was going more in redistricting that basically says the -- the public really does not want to see State dollars spent on campaigns. They would rather have the public contribute, if somebody is happy with me and one of my constituents, why shouldn't they be able to contribute? MR. BREYMAN: What I said Senator, is actually that there is considerable public cynicism about campaign finance system in this country. And that a number of -- of cynical slogans like one dollar one vote and it is not about buying access, it is about buying public policy, are now quite pervasive at least in the -- in the circles I move in. And that a -- a dollar spent on a publicly financed campaign is a much better expenditure of -- of public funds that is the benefits that a campaign contributor gets for his or her campaign contribution. So, we see over and over again that a relatively small campaign contribution is frequently translated into an enormous contract or some other benefit for a contributor that looks like a not -- not a very good exchange. So, again, that, you know, I would rather spend a dollar on your campaign than a dollar on say, corporate welfare that is the consequence of some deal struck between a legislator and a contributor. MR. SKELOS: How -- how would you define corporate welfare. I mean, you know, sometimes when we do things in terms of tax cuts whether it is people, individuals, personal income tax, things like that or Workers' Compensation reform which brought down some of those rates so that the upstate communities try to expand their manufacturing base when you do some business tax cuts, it is surely to create jobs. So you -- you may call it corporate welfare, but I think many of us like to look at it from the point of view that in the last eight years that we have created hundreds of thousands of new private sector jobs in New York State. Is that bad? MR. BREYMAN: We do get off the -- the topic indeed as I understand the studies say done by Frank Morrow (phonetic spelling) at the Fiscal Policy Institute that many of these public investments whether they would be business improvement districts in other local entities or all the way up with the state and federal block grant moneys, actually do not pay off. The subsidies can rise as high as I -- I have seen certain instances in New York State three hundred thousand dollars per job in combined public funds. That probably does not seem like in my viewing the best expenditure of funds. Let me sort of finish up. Again, I -- I very much appreciate your interaction. We urge you to dramatically revisit how you implement redistricting in New York State, nothing less than our democracy is at stake. First make the process transparent, involve the public. Secondly turn the tide on the overtly partisan redistricting that takes place today and replace it with a nonpartisan model that put citizens before politics, Common Cause New York, looks forward to working with you to achieve the goal of a working democracy, and thanks again for the opportunity to testify. MR. SKELOS: Thank you. Any other questions? MR. ORTLOFF: I have -- I have been sitting here listening to your -- and for the benefit of those who have not attended these hearings before, we generally have a representative from Common Cause, from the League of Women Voters or the New York State Public Interest Research Group who makes the case for competitive districts. I have been sitting here looking at some friends of mine in the audience who -- who run for office, win fairly substantial majorities in their home counties and it occurred to me that you are singling out two hundred and eleven elections, out of this, probably thirteen or fourteen hundred in the state for this competitiveness edge, now where do I get my thirteen hundred number? We have got sixty-two counties. They all have some countywide elections. I see the clerk of one county here. I don't know if you would say Essex County was competitive, but I think you would agree that it is a Republican and probably would not be a competitive district, and you have got eighteen towns in one county, twenty towns in another. They all have elections, but you have got sixty some villages, fifty-five cities, and, of course, you have the five statewide elections senators, governor, controller, and attorney general. None of those races, none of those jurisdictions ever gets to change their bound. I should not say ever, essentially, we do not do redistricting for counties. I -- I am genuinely interested in your train of thought, but I -- I like to try and apply a particular theory to everyone, not just in one group, I don't think it makes sense to single out any one group for a new set of rules. So, I am trying to think, if competitiveness is so important, why aren't you advocating that the counties be redrawn or that the towns be split up or that the villages be redrawn. You have got thirteen hundred elections in towns, villages, cities, counties and the five statewide -- none of them can change their boundaries and many of them are -- are uncompetitive by your measure. What are you going to do about that? Why only apply it to two hundred and eleven legislators? MR. BREYMAN: Well, Assemblyman, you hit the nail on the head when you say it is only the state legislature that has the power to draw some boundaries. And it -- it is because of that -- that, again the suspicion, the implication of the incumbency protection comes in. I hear from you gentlemen that on one hand is okay, the Supreme Court has allowed political considerations. On another hand, I -- I think you find the -- the charge, or the claim objectionable to some extent, and I can understand that. But again, it is because of the very point that you get in a way that none of the rest of us do in our daily lives to draw the contours of your job. It is more than just being able to say write up your own job description. It is more than, it is -- for the rest of us not an un-elected officials, it is -- it is an envious position to be in. It is as if I could set my own salary. MR. SKELOS: Are you -- are you a professor? MR. BREYMAN: I am. MR. SKELOS: Do you have tenure? MR. BREYMAN: I do. MR. ORTLOFF: The notion that somehow nonpartisan line drawers can create competitive districts, is what intrigues me. As I look at the map of the state here on -- on the computer screen, and as I think about it in my head. I don't think that most of the county lines or the town lines were drawn for partisan political reasons. In fact, in most cases, the land was empty when they drew the lines. So, I think you can -- you can conclude that the drawing of the lines of the towns and the counties were done by as nonpartisan a line drawers as you can come up with. So, how come those jurisdictions result in noncompetitive elections? I don't see the connection between competitiveness and nonpartisan line drawers or we wouldn't have all these towns and counties that are noncompetitive. MR. BREYMAN: Again, I do not doubt Assemblyman that the nature of New York politics has it heavy democratic to the south and heavy republican to the north and that even nonpartisan body line drawers are going to have a difficult time coming up with genuinely competitive elections. It is -- it is the nature of our demographics and geography. I do not need to tell you that. But again it seems to me that the symbolism, the imagery, the faith in process that would be shown if the this body turned over the -- the redistricting authority to a nonpartisan body, again, we can only wonder about what citizens, how large it is, how much time it has. In the end, you get to decide, of course as the legislature, our preference is for no amendments that it is a straight up or down vote. So, it is as if we are wrenching away the authority ultimately, but that -- that the concerns, again may just be appearance, may not be genuine realities, but you have got to admit that the concern of the conflict of interest or taking care of your own or -- ensuring control over the next decades or the next redistricting process, is at least on the minds of more active citizens who pay attention to this process. So may be we need a separate committee to handle the local level -- to look at villages and hamlets and counties and special districts, that is an interesting suggestion. And Assemblyman Ortloff perhaps you are going to introduce some --? MR. ORTLOFF: I don't think we can get that. MR. BREYMAN: I see. Okay. At least these is some interest -- MR. ORTLOFF: I think there would be thirteen hundred people instead of two hundred and eleven, and all the citizens of those counties and you are going hear from some of them today. You are a professor of political science. MR. BREYMAN: I am actually the Department of Science and Technology studies of RPI but I am political scientist, that is correct. MR. ORTLOFF: My final question is -- is -- is as to the focus of Common Cause and your -- your political -- there is an old story. I wish I could remember the name of it, but I will try to paraphrase it very briefly. There was a detective on the police force who was obsessed for years and years and years and years about an unsolved case to the point where, on any given day, he would walk down the street, walk right past an armed robbery in progress. He would walk past the fire, and not call the fire department and -- and yet he didn't understand that there were other considerations other than his single obsession. Now without characterizing this as an obsession, I think there is a parable. I have spoken now for the last, well, since the plans came out on St. Valentine's Day, and indeed, during the last year asking NYPIRG, asking Common Cause and asking the Legal of Women voters to take a look at the malapportionment that is happening in the Assembly. I am going to give you an opportunity to comment on that or your group. I am going to ask you if since the plan has come out and since you have been asked to take a look at it, if you have taken a look at it and if you have, what do you think about dealing with something that is a -- a -- blatant violation of - in my opinion of the voting rights act and if not that certainly a blatant violation of fairness staring us right in the eye and -- and give you an opportunity to draw your attention to something that you really can do something about in the next few weeks. So, have at it? MR. BREYMAN: I think it was clear from my introductory comments, Assemblyman Ortloff and -- and from the reputation of the Common Cause at the national level and also the city chapters that we are a nonpartisan organization, and I hope I -- I was fair in my emphasis on both what we see as the defects of the process when it comes to drawing Assembly lines and the Senate lines and so your reference to the -- this particular map of Assembly lines, I think we agree with the problem mal-apportionment. We are looking at though both houses, we understand you have a deadline. MR. ORTLOFF: The Senate does not do that. The Senate maintains the proper proportion between upstate and the city, only the Assembly. And only this Assembly majority in thirty-eight years has attempted to do something about it. There are going to be other witnesses today and other witnesses elsewhere who have said if that mal-apportionment is in the Assembly plan, then the plan ought to be canned. I don't hear these three high profile good government groups even addressing, let alone saying that the governor ought to veto the plan that is in there and I would call -- I would call upon you to be good to your reputation. This is not a partisan issue those are people, those eight million two hundred fourteen thousand people. Those are people who are entitled to those sixty-five votes under one person one vote. And there are people who are entitled to sixty-three. Where is Common Cause? Where is NYPIRG? Where is the League of Women Voters crying out for a fire that is about to burn down thirty-eight years of voting right's history in this state, while you continue to walk along obsessed with changes in the process that at the very can't happen without a constitutional amendment. Please focus on current reality. MR. BREYMAN: Our -- our position is as you heard from Barbara earlier, is to can the plan. So --. MR. ORTLOFF: For that reason, I would like to see you address that. MR. BREYMAN: By canning the plan, it gives us a chance to go back and look at these specific districts. So, I -- I hope that has been responsive we are not ignoring particular cases and I agree with you it is a genuine fire that is burning and needs to be put out. But by having a global view, looking at both the --. MR. ORTLOFF: The Senate, it doesn't do that. The Senate maintains upstate with one more seat than New York City. They -- they maintain this proportion. Only the Assembly does this. It is so clear. It is so distinct. It is so obviously crying out and you -- you talk about a fire, I started the analogy you have got most of the fire trucks, roll them out of the station, help these people. MR. SKELOS: If -- if I could just follow up one thing, I -- I believe the League of Woman Voters said can the plan and let a special master draw them up. MR. BREYMAN: Yes. MR. SKELOS: I think that would be an abrogation of what we are supposed to do as elected officials. And to -- to, as a task force and as a legislator. It is our responsibility to come up with a plan for the Senate and the Assembly. So just to say, can the plan and go to a special master, I -- I think that is wrong that is just quitting. MR. BREYMAN: Well, in the end again, Senator, of course, you do get to vote on the plan. But, you know, I believe the special master would go directly to the problem of -- of alleged voter rights act violations in the drawing of Assembly districts. I -- I think that a special master would have to be beyond reproach. There could not be a scent of that kind of hanky panky, especially with a -- -- with a brand new system that we bring in under the banner of reform and good government. But to directly address again Senator, I don't believe that sharing the process with some transparent nonpartisan entity, Special Master, a -- a committee of civil servants or distinguished citizens on the Iowa model as you abrogate your responsibility. You are still there standing behind it saying, we are going to have our say on the plan that is devised. But I believe it is precisely this problem. It could be a fire truck we are after. MR. PARMENT: I just wanted to respond to some of your comments. You mentioned in your comments that you felt that we should put all of the data available on our web site. And to the best of my knowledge, we have done that. And we are -- I think the first task for us to be as open in that regard as we have been. I have not attempted to access to that data, in part because I don't use the computer that much. But we early-on voted as a task force to make available to the public through our web site, all of the data that we use in redistricting. And, so, that data is there on the web site and -- and any -- any one in the public that does want to access it can. And, I am sure that many have because we had plans submitted to us by several groups that reflect the database that -- that we are using. Secondly, I think that we have been transparent in regard to public hearings. This has been, I believe the nineteenth public hearing we have held. And, in our efforts to be transparent, we have spent by my estimation, an incredible amount of money on these hearings. I estimate that it will be costing approximately ten thousand dollars per hearing. And I am sure that it will be shocking to most of the folks that come from the north country because I know that their reputation there is as my community to be fiscally responsible and -- and I am a little shocked that we have spent so much money trying to advertise these hearings. I think the last time I saw a bill for advertisement, it was a hundred and forty thousand dollars for advertisement alone. LEWIS M. HOPPE: CO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: And that does not include this hearing. MR. PARMENT: I guess that does not include this one. So, we are now up over a hundred and forty thousand dollars in advertisement alone and we have done the advertisements in a multitude of -- of print media outlets, in several languages. Making an attempt as we were called upon, early on in this process, to make this process transparent. And, so, I think to that extent that we have been more open to the public and more responsive than some of the task force might have been in the past. And, so, I -- I wanted to put that on the record because both yourself and I believe one of the voters representatives basically made the same point. And I don't feel it is appropriate for me to allow it to be -- to go unchallenged. Interestingly, in the first round of hearings, or eleven of them, we had very sparse comment on the Senate and Assembly plans mostly on people's desires to see a particular member of congress be saved. It -- sort of, really been counterpoint to what the League and -- and Common Cause were saying. People were lined up at our witness table signing in to say please save our particular member of the Congress which frankly got a little tedious because it really was not what we wanted to hear. We wanted to hear people talk about it -- but I -- I do think we have been open and transparent and I don't really subscribe to the theory that we should be nonpartisan. I know that that is the goal of the so-called reform elements in our society. But I really believe that it is counterproductive and I think a lot of our political problems today are caused by the demise of the two-party system, which declined, but it is a -- really declined, but it is not nearly as strong as it was fifty years ago. And a continual harangue against it has created the opportunity for an individual, you mentioned the senator from New Jersey Corzine, spent fifty million plus. Mr. Bloomberg here in New York spent approximately the same amount of money. You know, Bloomberg was a democrat, now he is Republican mayor of New York City and --. MR. SKELOS: He saw the light. MR. PARMENT: He saw the light -- I guess the voters did too, a lot of opportunity to see that light. But I thought one of the interesting things about the New York City election was that all of the candidates seemed to be -- almost all of them -- almost all of them that were -- were in the public funded process wound up getting fined. And it was only Bloomberg that did not get fined and -- because he spent his own money. Really, I thought that was a strange comment on this public financing of elections. Almost impossible for the people who accepted public financing to proceed through the process without getting criticized in the press or being fined and yet the guy that really won the election got off? No one said anything about that. So it was -- really I thought it was strange. But again, I think that is reflective of the decline of the two-party system and -- and I have spent a lot of time in my county making the two-party system work. And we are pretty competitive there. In fact, as the Senator has indicated my district, I think Common Cause and NYPIRGs in my Assembly district, is the most competitive district in New York State. So, it has become very competitive, but it is based on a reinforcement of the two-party system and not a diminishment of it. And so, I think, sometimes Common Cause and NYPIRG and the League of Women Voters in attacking the two-party system do a disservice to our democratic process. I know there are a lot of folks who don't agree with that, but the best way it seems to me. So --. MR. BREYMAN: I guess I appreciate your comments, Assemblyman. I guess part of our complaint is really that the two party system is not working, with the consequence of the plan that is before us is that you have one party control of one house and one party control of another house and that is not a two-party system. It is not genuinely competitive and that is a consequence of a partisan redistricting process, not a nonpartisan one. And the fact that there are still some kinks in the New York City public financing system ought not I think to over cloud the fact that apart from a billionaire still being able to buy the election in an obvious loophole that of course Common Cause would like to fix, that the New York City Council races, for example, are probably the most competitive in any big city in the United States as a direct consequence of the public financing system. You don't need to be a billionaire, you don't need to sell your vote to the highest bidder. You can be more or a less a regular individual and stand a very good chance of being elected to that body as a direct consequence of the public finance -- MR. SKELOS: How many republican are in the New York City Council? MR. BREYMAN: The -- the competitiveness in those terms, of course, as I said, within the party. MR. SKELOS: Any other questions? Interesting discussion. Yes, we appreciate it very much. MR. PARMENT: You were saying before I -- and -- and thank you very much maybe we should come and co-teach one your classes. MR. BREYMAN: I would love to have you there. MR. SKELOS: And we -- we thank you for your patience we are going to get back to the list. You have had a number of hearings and as it is drawing to -- to a close this is sort of our opportunity to -- to open up a little bit and discuss the issue. MR. BREYMAN: Thank you Mr. Chairman. MR. SKELOS: We appreciate your being here. Thank you, very much. Donald Neddo, N-E-D-D-O. Supervisor Philip Klein -- next would be -- after Mr. Klein will be Jack Rosenburg, if he is here he can start coming up and then Leon Peck. PHILIP KLEIN; SARATOGA COUNTY LEGISLATOR: Good morning, gentleman. MR. SKELOS: Good morning. MR. KLEIN: As indicated my name is Philip Klein I am a Saratoga County legislator. First, let me offer my most sincere thanks for your decision to schedule this extra hearing in Albany. I know it was not easy for you to change your schedule and I appreciate the flexibility and the eagerness to hear all the comments on your plan. You have proved that you are listening to the people. I am very hopeful that you will also act on Saratoga County's concern that the voice of its citizens is being diluted under the plan proposed. At the Rochester hearing, Senator Dollinger asked that we from Saratoga County, would not be better served by having six Assemblymen rather than the four who now cover the county. That might be a valid point if our residents were a significant part of the six districts. However, that is not true in the districts as they are currently drawn. In the 106th Assembly district we would have just seven percent of the district, which would be dominated by the interests of Albany and Rensselaer County. Only two of our towns would be placed in the 112th district which we would only be thirteen percent of. Primarily, growth district, where the needs of Warren and Washington counties would be way ahead of us. The 113th Assembly district runs from the Vermont border to Gloversville. We would only be twenty percent of this district which would require a three-hour car drive to go from end to end. We would compromise only twenty-four percent of the Assembly district 108, and thirty-nine percent of the Assembly district 109. In fact, the only district in which we are a significant player is the 110th, which includes the cities of Schenectady and Saratoga Springs. We would be hard pressed to find any community of interest between those two municipalities as they stand today. Saratoga County is the fastest growing county in upstate New York. While the rest of the upstate was loosing population over the past decade, we have posted a ten point four percent increase. Since 1970 we have grown by nearly seventy percent. The people of this county deserve a voice for their unique -- unique problems and needs and furthermore that voice was guaranteed by the New York State constitution. With all due respect, I ask this legislative task force to redraw the Assembly district maps to provide Saratoga County with at least one district that is wholly within its boundaries. Thank you, very much. MR. SKELOS: Thank you, are there any questions? MR. ORTLOFF: Would you have suggestions for the task force or in this case for the Assembly majority about how they would better draw the lines in Saratoga County? MR. KLEIN: Well, with a county of two hundred plus thousand people in it, we ought to be able to find a way to have at least one Assembly district contained within that county. Granted there are fringes that probably go towards other municipalities, to do shopping and things such as that. Prior to me speaking I believe one of the -- the first speakers were Supervisor Gutheil from the Town of Moreau, which is just south of Warren County. They tend to go across the river to Glens Falls and -- they get their newspaper out of Glens Falls and things such as that. So, there are areas that could be carved out with -- but the vast majority of Saratoga County could be well represented -- from Saratoga Springs as its axis going out. MR. PARMENT: You know one of things that I -- I would like to point out. I -- I understand your message and I -- you know, would feel the same if it were my county. But in this particular plan that has been recommended, one of the things that we attempted to do was to keep counties whole, believe it or not. And we wound up having to cut up a couple of counties, Jefferson was here and spoke to the issue of representatives from Jefferson and yourself from Saratoga, but basically this plan St. Lawrence, Franklin -- several others in the north country region are whole under this plan. Hamilton and -- so the point is that as we adjust the assembly lines to meet the requirements for the populations, there inevitably will be counties that need to be subdivided. And I guess that the message that I am hearing from Saratoga and Jefferson is we picked the wrong counties to subdivide. Obviously, if we change the plan, people should be prepared to understand that other counties will have to be subdivided and so --. MR. KLEIN: I understand that that you have a daunting task but let me give you one example. In my School District alone I will have three Assembly people, that is just one school district. How do we -- how do we best communicate our concerns with regards to education, funding, different issues that affect the school district as a whole, when we have to go and repeat three different messages, three different -- message three different times to the people that are carrying that message to Albany, that are our voice in Albany. I really think that disservice has been done to Saratoga County, especially with the fact that it is large enough to have its own assembly district. MR. SKELOS: Any other questions? MR. KLEIN: Thank you very much. MR. SKELOS: Thank you very much for being here. All right Jack Rosenburg, is he here. Leon Peck? After Mr. Peck would be Shaun Levine. David Renzi. LEON PECK; JOHNSTON, NEW YORK: Good morning, Chairman Skelos. MR. SKELOS: Welcome. MR. PECK: Assembly Parment, Assemblyman Ortloff, Senator Dollinger, distinguished committee members, ladies and gentleman. My name is Leon Peck and I am from Johnstown, New York. Before I begin my submitted testimony I wish to -- I would like to ask Senator Skelos, if you enjoyed your breakfast this morning, sir? You certainly did a fine job. I appreciate your comments during last three presentations. I have come here today to protest the current proposal for the reapportionment of the New York State Assembly. The proposal in its current form is an unbelievable -- no indefensible power grab by New York City politicos. Whereas in a very similar case in the Adirondack Park Authority seek to oppress the people of upstate New York benefit potion which live within the five boroughs of New York City. Why though are they doing this? I believe that they mean to take away a portion of the state and federal dollars, which rightly should be going to the citizens in the upstate. I offer -- offer following facts to substantiate my contentions. (A), according to the census of 2000, upstate New York has eight thousand two hundred and fourteen -- or pardon me, only eight million two hundred and fourteen thousand people. New York City has eight million eight thousand people. That means that upstate New York has two hundred and six thousand more people then New York City. New York City may have gained in population since the census of 1990 with some of the rest of the state. In fact -- the fact remains that the city did not pass upstate in population. The current shifts seats to New York City stealing two of them from the rest of the state. In this step the representation amounts to an unequal status under the laws of the land. This is in direct violation to the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, which provides for equal justice under the law. If you are under represented as you would be under this plan, you are not equal under the law. Just as people were once robbed of representation in the days of Jim Crowe, under this plan, upstater's will be counted as less than a full person. Are you trying to bring back the days of Jim Crowe inequality? The only difference between this is and the bad old south is that instead of oppressing a racial minority, you are attempting to enslave a geographical majority, simply because you have the political ability to do so. The founders of our nation railed against taxation without representation. It seems to me that is the goal of our elected officials, they will take our tax dollars, our hard earned pay and redistribute it to their constituents, and by keeping us unrepresented, they will deprive us of any voice, any controls over where our dollars go. I constantly hear candidates and officeholders speak of how the upstate economy is suffering and lagging behind the rest of New York and the nation. Yet, it is just because of policies like these, that the economy of upstate New York is losing ground. Policies like the Adirondack Park Agency which -- not allow citizens who live inside the borders of the Adirondack Park to have a say about how they may use their own land. About whether or not someone can open a business or start up an industry or subdivide their property to allow their children to build a home on that property. But it goes beyond that even. Unequal representation means lost school aid, lost highway aid, lost housing aid, and a lost voice in our future. Every time upstate and New York City interests are in conflict, upstate will lose. And when we lose, we will lose billions of dollars in jobs on which our future depends. I constantly hear these same candidates, elected officials talking about doing things for the children. Well, it seems to me they are taking away any future for the children in the upstate, gives lie to the true motivations. But, why should I Leon Peck, care about this? Who am I to question the wisdom of my government? I am a citizen, who lives in the city of Johnstown, Fulton County, New York. My own county is one that will be directly affected by this plan. My current Assemblyman Marc Butler loses our county from his district. That means that we go into a newly created district which pits two existing Assembly persons against each other. My Assembly representation in fact is vaporized. The district we are forced into has very little in common with my county, and we are geographically more in tune with the western Mohawk Valley. Only a small northern portion of the county shares common interest with the central Adirondack area. But the proposed new district is primarily along the upper Hudson River, in southeastern Adirondack mountains. While we do not begrudge the interest of the people in this region, and we wish them well in meeting their needs. We shared a common -- very few common interests, goals or needs, and in fact being absorbed into this new district will over the next ten years or longer place my county into the backwaters of New York political interest. We are already a depressed area economically, and will only become more so if this plan succeeds. Fulton County has not changed in population since the last census either up or down. We have in fact stayed virtually the same. Our interest and needs have stayed the same. Moving out of the current 113th Assembly district will pit us against our neighbors who do not share those interests. We would therefore lose our voice and effectively our representation and our future. If you believe that I am alone voicing this issue, I will tell you my views are supported by many others across the state and nation. Gentlemen and ladies, this fight this fight is about our rights -- we are supposed to enjoy as citizens. It is about the right to choose our representatives, and to choose representatives who share -- our interests and our values. It is about our right to be heard by our government. If you take away our voice you are doing a disservice to us and the oaths you took. Worse, though, you turn -- you turn your back on the principles our nation was founded on. Principles that New Yorkers fought for two centuries ago. You will be betraying something bigger than all of you. You will be betraying the Constitution and its guarantees. I am a simple man, a citizen, I do not call upon my representatives often, but when I do, I hope to be heard. Don't rob me of my voice. MR. ORTLOFF: Mr. Peck, I just want to compliment you, of all the testimonies we have heard across the State, you are among the most eloquent and well argued. I only wish that -- that all of the representatives and good government groups were still here to hear you. I do note that one representatives of the League of Women Voters is here, but the other two who came to testify, unfortunately have not been able to hear you. Suggest perhaps you mail them a copy of your testimony. They should hear it. MR. PECK: Thank you. MR. SKELOS: Thank you, very much. Shaun Levine. SHAUN LEVINE; EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSERVATIVE PARTY: Good morning, Chairman Skelos and Assemblyman Parment and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Shaun Marie Levine, I currently serve as the Executive Director of the New York State Conservative Party. I am here to express the state party's objections to the proposed Assembly lines that create a disapportionment of the New York City's assembly seats and an additional unnecessary split in counties and community. Reapportionment has always been a thorny issues. But the Supreme Court in 1964 established the law of land. When it made it clear that one principle must be adhered to, one man or to be politically correct, one person one vote. Based on this decision which ironically came about because of the inequity of the party system based on area and wealth, has become the only fair and equitable way to have each person represented, one person one vote is the law. Guided by this whole set of legal principles, when you take the total state population, and divide it by the one hundred and fifty Assembly districts, the number set by our State Constitution, each district should contain approximately one hundred twenty-six thousand five hundred and ten residents. New York City with a population of eight million eight thousand two hundred seventy-eight should therefore have sixty-three seats up from the sixty-one of ten years ago. The rest of the state, Long Island, and all the areas north and west of the city should have the remaining eighty-seven district seats. The proposed plan gives New York City sixty-five districts, two more than required by the legal principle of one man, one vote and in our view a blatant grab of political power from Long Island with the loss of one district, and in upstate of New York losing another district. While many may argue that New York City's population rose at a higher rate than the rest of the state, and therefore should be entitled to an equal increase in the number of Assembly seats. This argument is a disenfranchisement to voters outside of New York City. As I stated, every reapportionment plan must respect the well settled law of one person one vote by creating districts that are within a few hundred people above or below of a hundred and twenty-six thousand five hundred ten population average. The Conservative Party, also objects to the many examples of gerrymandering that have resulted in counties and communities being hacked into numerous pieces. In as much as this hearing is being held in the capital region, we wish to strongly object to the Assembly plan of cutting Saratoga County into six different districts. Frankly, we thought four districts ten years ago was inappropriate. Now, you propose splitting a county with a population of two hundred thousand into six different districts, while coupling two current Assembly districts. Under the assembly proposal, Saratoga is but a small part of the districts that are heavily weighed in other -- counties. Thus the influence of Saratoga residents within these districts is greatly diminished. Yet Saratoga is a county with similar interests and needs. It is the opinion of the Conservative Party that Saratoga County will be far better served by fewer districts, not an additional two. Additionally placing two newly elected assemblymen Roy McDonald in the same district Assemblyman Betty Little just two days after Assembly McDonald received seventy percent of the votes cast in the special election, is a disservice to the residents of both districts and politics at its worst. The Conservative Party of New York State believes the Assembly can and should do better. We hope that these hearing swill result in a new plan, one based on the principle that has served us well and one that protects residents throughout the New York State. Should this plan be the final plan, we will urge the Governor to veto what we consider a severely flawed plan. Thank you for your time and consideration. MR. SKELOS: All right. Any questions? David Renzi, R-E-N-Z-I. And then after that the -- Morris Sorbello and John Proud, if you are here? DAVID RENZI; ATTORNEY: Good morning. MR. SKELOS: Good morning. MR. RENZI: As you know, my name is David Renzi and I am an attorney practicing in Jefferson County. And I came up this morning from Sackets Harbor. One thing I would like to say before I start is I would like to ask the task force -- emphasize some of the statements that were previously made by other upstate individuals specifically Saratoga County, and also Assemblyman Ortloff. I have provided copies of my testimony and I am hoping it will be made part of the record. As a lifelong resident in northern New York, currently the 114th Assembly district. On behalf of my neighbors and friends, I formally object to these proposed assembly redistricting and for your task force. The very foundation of our nation itself is based upon the premise that all citizens have an unalienable right to have equal representation for our government. Denial of this most basic rights can cause our nations forefathers to throw off the yoke of tyranny over two hundred and twenty-five years ago. The proposed redistricting pending before this task force denies us that most basic right. For many years now, the people from the north country have felt they have been treated as second class citizens, by our state government. We are not a Siberian outpost to be forgotten, but an area full of hard working, decent citizens, unsurpassed natural beauty, and a people who need a faithful voice. Specifically, we oppose the obvious political motives of your plan to redistrict. It forces upstate districts to average a hundred and twenty-six thousand citizens, plus five percent or actually a hundred and thirty thousand. While downstate districts need -- need only a hundred and twenty-six thousand citizens, minus five percent, or actually a hundred and twenty-two thousand. Thus by this plan, you are stealing eight thousand citizens from each upstate district, nine equal representation upstate regions. This reeks of the illegal practice of gerrymandering, which is defined in Black's law dictionary as the process of dividing a state or other territory into the authorized civil and political divisions. But with such a geographical arrangement, as to accomplish an ulterior or unlawful purpose, as, for instance, to secure the majority for a given political party in districts where the result would be otherwise, if they were divided according to obvious natural lines. In my current district, the 114th Jefferson County, there reside already roughly a hundred and eighteen thousand people. We remain unified with a small percentage of Lewis County population. The 112th currently became St. Lawrence County, and the other half of Lewis County. Lewis, Jefferson and St. Lawrence County have plain cultural and economic similarities, they share the common bond of being proud north country residents. Watertown, Fort Drum and the surrounding areas, obvious commonality, are logically linked in the same district. Your proposal completely alters and emasculates the three counties of the north country. Jefferson, formerly one district, would be cut up into three rendering its citizens without effective representation. Specifically, number one, Fort Drum in northern Jefferson County would be bifurcated from its home base of Watertown, be forced into the St. Lawrence County district where the county seat is hours away. Number two, western Jefferson County and all of Lewis county would be forced out of their north country base, and linked with Herkimer County to points over a hundred miles away. Number three, Watertown and the southern Jefferson County will be put in a district with Oswego and Fulton, and likely be swallowed by Central New York issues. In short, the once unified northern New York area is being systematically cut up and its citizens left powerlessly without a voice dangling in the wind. The fairest, most sensible solution is to one, allow St. Lawrence County the current 112th to add the proposed St. Regis Reservation district and a small area of Franklin County. And number two, allow Jefferson County to remain whole and to include more of Lewis County specifically Lowville. Your goal as a task force, I submit should be to keep counties and regions whole. Your role on this committee goes way beyond any political deal making. The oath you have taken is to protect the citizens of our state, and our nation itself is at stake here. The fabric of our democracy rides upon your decision. And I ask you all to rise above political deal making, political pressures, and to do the right thing here. I ask you to allow the North country to retain an effective voice in the state government and in our Assembly and the people of our community demand you rise above politics and do your duty in this regard. I want to thank you again for the opportunity to be heard. MR. SKELOS: Any questions? Nothing. Thank you. MR. ORTLOFF: I am -- I am just -- ditto my remarks to -- to Mr. Peck, if you -- if you would seek out the League of Women Voters and ask them personally if they won't please roll out the fire trucks and help us. MR. RENZI: Thank you. MR. SKELOS: Morris Sorbello. And I believe -- are you Mr. -- Mr. Proud? MORRIS SORBELLO; CHAIRMAN, OSWEGO COUNTY LEGISLATURE: Yes I am. MR. SKELOS: John Proud. MR. SORBELLO: Good afternoon, Chairman Skelos and Chairman Parment. I thank you very much and -- the distinguished people on this force, I appreciate the fact that I have been able to testify as Chairman of the County Legislature of Oswego County. Oswego County is a hundred and twenty-two thousand three hundred and seventy-seven people with two cities, twenty-tow towns and six villages. With the apparent five percent listings that we have for the Assembly districts today, this would fall in the category of being self sufficient in the sense of organizing the districts. And at this time we very heartily endorse that idea as we have been. Our legislature, last Thursday, March 14th, passed a resolution which I would like to read into the record. Whereas the proposed New York State Assembly re-districting plan divides Oswego County into three assembly districts, which is a stark contrast to the single assembly district that currently reverse -- represents the entire county. Whereas a proposed division of Oswego County into three assembly districts effectively diminishes the county's unified voice in the state assembly. With a proposed split of hundred and twenty-two thousand three hundred and seventy-seven residents of Oswego County will dilute their voting strength by arbitrary placing the residents in -- with larger portions of populations from outside the county, whereas the proposed three Assembly districts plans severely limit Oswego County to obtain assembly recognition by placing Oswego County in direct competition for the assembly funding measure with Cayuga, Cortland, Jefferson, Oneida and Onondaga counties. Whereas Oswego County unique interest in the communities of emergency preparedness plan, economic development, school district, the SUNY Oswego campus, Chamber of Commerce, judicial districts would be damaged severely in the proposed assembly plan. Whereas Oswego County will be in a severe disadvantage as a result of the -- disapportionment of larger populations size proposed three districts -- assembly districts in comparison to these proposed assembly districts with smaller populations thereby violating the 1964 United States Supreme Court one vote one rule, whereas Oswego County as a geographical, political entity meets the new requirements to be one assembly district. And upon recommendation of the general government committee of this body resolve that Oswego County be restored as a single assembly district. I have some deep concerns, ladies and gentleman, with the fact that we have an -- the energy capital of New York State. We have three nuclear plants and numerous other power generating facilities which not only supply our county, but over six hundred thousand homes and residences and businesses throughout upstate New York and we also ship power to the southern part of the State. As a chief elected official, when we have nuclear drills, safety and security is our most important concern. And I am deeply concerned about the fact with the duli -- dilution of the Assembly district as we are seeing it in such a complicated situation, that we are -- are we going to be able to secure and run these nuclear plants and the other facilities safely. Our assembly people who is there now -- our assembly person who is there now along with our Senator have always been key players in all these issues with our power plants and the way we run the emergency drills and so on. Our concern is one of genuine concern since 9/11. We have added responsibilities since then. I believe that this area should be a protected area -- it is a secured area. And we have as I say, that issue to be concerned about. In my other life, I am also a vegetable grower, with my son we run a family farm, grow the finest onions. And as a business man and also as business and economic developments is a concern of ours -- of mine as well as our legislature, we see as partners our Senator, our Assemblywoman who have always been partners and with a team we have been trying to retrain -- I mean reestablish ourselves in upstate New York, as you know six point seven is not a good issue for unemployment. We are trying to bring that down. We are bringing it down. We are working through economic development and many issues and they are a great team of people and I certainly would -- in all respect, say we keep these, if possible, Oswego County as a whole Assembly district. I really would appreciate it and I thank you very much for letting me have the opportunity to speak before you all. Your job is not easy, as elected official we just did our re-districting for the legislative seats. So I understand what you are going through. So thank you very much. MR. SKELOS: You satisfied with the Senate district. MR. SORBELLO: The senate district is satisfactory, yes. Thank you. JOHN PROUD; MAJORITY LEADER, OSWEGO COUNTY LEGISLATURE: Good morning, Chairman Skelos, Chairman Parment, and distinguished members of the task force. My name is John Proud. And I am the majority leader of the Oswego County Legislature and a life long resident of Oswego County. Today's hearings represent an important and highly positive aspect of the democratic process upon which our government is founded. You are to be complemented for making the hearings accessible for people from Oswego County and other counties to be affected by the proposed redistricting plan. Since the plan for Senatorial district maintains the geographic, economic, community and educational integrity of Oswego County, I will offer no comment, other than thank you for a job well and fairly done. However, I must respectfully, but strenuously object to the horrific rendering of Oswego County inflicted by the proposed assembly redistricting plan. This division of Oswego County's population of a hundred and twenty-two thousand three hundred and seventy-seven represents less than three point three percent from the ideal target population figure into three disparate sections to be clumsily lumped with similarly agreed sections of our neighboring counties into the proposed 122nd, 115th and 123rd districts, makes little geographic, economic, community or educational sense. Change is a necessary and often productive element of our democratic society. In this case however, the proposed changes will produce disruptive and destructive effects upon traditional communities of interest, not only in Oswego County, but in our neighboring counties as well. Our traditional unified representation in the Assembly will be fragmented into three districts, not one of which represents the majority of the residents in the county. I might suggest to the task force that dilution is not representation. This task force has the obligation and the responsibility to produce a better plan for Assembly representation and not to indulge in the destructive numbers game between upstate and downstate. When every -- I am sorry -- in conclusion I would urge the task force to adhere scrupulously to the one person one vote rule and to restore Oswego County to its unified representation in the Assembly. Thank you. MR. SKELOS: Thank you, any questions? Thank you for being here. MR. PROUD: Thank you. MR. SKELOS: Kern Yerdon, Y-E-R-D-O-N and then Shawn Doyle. You are both from the IBEW? KERN YERDON; BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE IBEW, LOCAL 97: Senator Skelos, Assemblyman Parment and committee members. My name is Kern Yerdon, and I am the business representative for International Brotherhood of Electric Workers, Local 97. Local 97 sent me here today to bring concerns that many of our members have --. MR. SKELOS: You to speak in the microphone a little bit, we can hear you, but I am not sure the people behind you can. MR. YERDON: All right. I am sent here to day to bring concerns that many of the members have with the newly created Assembly districts that are being proposed. The IBEW Local 97 has a membership of over six thousand three hundred members. The current majority of the electricity producing plants in upstate New York. Oswego County, members cover the three nuclear plants that are located at Nine Mile Point and a steam plant located in the city of Oswego. We have -- we have always had one Assembly person represent Oswego County making it easy for us to address issues and concerns that may affect our members. With the new proposed lines, there will be three assembly districts in Oswego County. There are horrific -- excuse me -- the horrific terrorist attack of September 11th, has forced the reexamination of the security of our nuclear power plants all over this country. This may cause changes, that could affect our members at these nuclear plants. With the new proposed lines, we would have to contact three assembly person to discuss concerns that may arise. We do not think this is the time for a such drastic change in our political system. It has worked effectively for many years. The Senate, Assembly leaders and IBEW leaders have similar responsibilities. They are all elected to do the best job they can and represent their constituents. Their jobs at times can become very difficult, because somehow in the end, the compromise is made and things get done and we move on to the next problem. We believe, this is one of the difficult times where decisions have to be made and the question you have to ask yourself is, what is best for the people you represent. Members and leaders of the IBEW Local 97 are asking the legislative task force on reapportionment to reevaluate the proposed Assembly district lines for Oswego County. According to the 2000 census, the population of Oswego County is a a hundred and twenty-two thousand three hundred and seventy-seven which is still beneath the plus or minus five percent level of deviation. We do not believe this is the time for such a drastic change for the people of Oswego County. Present population, allows the people of Oswego County to keep one representative. We feel that breaking the County into three new districts will be unjust and not fair to the people of Oswego County. As a representative from the IBEW Local 97, I would like to thank the committee for allowing me to speak on this important issue today. I am sure when all the facts are in, that you will make the right decision and do what is best for the people that you represent. Thank you. MR. SKELOS: Are there any questions? Mr. Doyle, please proceed. SHAWN DOYLE; IBEW 97: Senator Skelos. Assemblyman Parment. Honored representatives of the task force. First I would like to personally opine that if perhaps NYPIRG and Common Cause had been present at the constitutional convention, I suspect they would still be deliberating in Philadelphia. I live in Pulaski, in Oswego County, New York which is part of the 117th Assembly district. I am here today as a representative of my local union, IBEW Local 97, and also -- which represents the bargaining unit employees at the three nuclear power plants which Kern just described and our county is host to. I also serve as the Planning Commissioner for the Village of Pulaski and I am on various voluntary organization as a board member throughout the county. I am also a ninth generation resident of Oswego County. In the two hundred years of our settlement and a hundred and ninety-three years as a county, we have seen changes from a military outpost and strategic route to Canada through agricultural development to building of canals, rails, and minor/major industries that attracted tens of thousands to the area including thousands of immigrant families during the 1800s and early 1900s. Our county entered the 20th century strong and yet following World War II began a slow spiral of economic decline which altered the landscape of most of the northeast, also carrying our region along. In the late 20th century, our regional leaders made agreements with the former Niagara Mohawk that nuclear power -- power plant are sited along our lake shore. These three plants are represented by our union. While many regions in our state have turned the tide of economic decline, our county has made great strides forward, only to suffer double setbacks along the way. At the beginning of this century, our county government took steps to reorganize and also redouble their efforts to attract new industry. Our three nuclear plants changed ownership with new PILOT tax agreements negotiated by the county to ensure stability. Our state colleges expanded and continues to expand, bringing many from across the state and the world to our region. We have developed a large tourism economy returning to our lakes and rivers. Our historic strategic asset, now are our economic jewels. During this period with the strength and strides, we have also suffered great shocks with the downsizing of paper mills such as Schoeller (phonetic spellings) in Pulaski and Hammermill which just closed in Oswego. Many downsizings and closures throughout the City of Syracuse in that region where so many of our natives commutes daily. Through all of these changes, the good and bad, we have always felt, we had a voice within our county -- with our county as one Assembly district. And it is part of a distinct senatorial district. Personality aside, our Assembly representatives have been our strong, first link with State government. Our county has historically been whole and still falls well within the five percent margin to constitute a distinct district whole in one community of interest. We are a distinct entity, differing from metropolitan and suburban Syracuse and certainly, distinct from our neighbors in surrounding areas, east in Utica and Rome, and to the north in Watertown. From most any elevated point in our county, one can see the lakes or one of our small redeveloping river -- river valleys. We also can see our three nuclear plants. Our 117th Assembly districts office has historically kept a staff member trained as part of our emergency plan for the three plants and they serve as a link to the State. Our current Assemblywoman visits the plants regularly and as a security guard, I often escort her in. Senator Wright, also is a frequent visitor of our plants and quite familiar with our -- our facilities. The proposed changes, chopping up our county will change this relationship forever. Looking at the population breakdown for the proposed districts numbers 115, 122 and 123, we in Oswego County will be fortunate to garner any one of these seats in the given election. At our nuclear plants, we will be -- we will be part of the district that stretches along the shores of the Lake north to Canada. Our four rural agri -- agrarian county recovering from industrial loss and host to three nuclear power plants. One of the largest concentrations of nuclear power in an area nationwide. Our county faces an economic loss, an enormous loss of representation in this proposal. Many towns and county government leaders of both parties, I have spoken to agree on the desirability to keep our county whole. As a union representative at one of the Nine Mile Point plants, and as a community activist and volunteer, as a historian and political scientist -- student, I ask you to reconsider the division of Oswego County and further, the whole disruption and partition of the north country by Assembly leaders who are from the greater New York area. I have no complaint on the senate plan which keeps our county whole and in equal partner with our neighbors to the north. I thank you very much. MR. SKELOS: Are there any questions. Thank you very much. Henry Cosselman? Mr. Cosselman here. We have one from NYPIRG. After Mr. -- why don't we take a two minute breaks, just two minutes -- two minutes. And then, we after Mr. Horner, we have Joyce Morency, Dale French, Dan Shaw and we will move through quickly. But let us just take a two minute break. (Off the record) MR. SKELOS: Mr. Horner, NYPIRG. BLAIR HORNER; LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NYPIRG: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Blair Horner. I am a Legislative Director for NYPIRG. As you know, NYPIRG has been keenly interested in your work and we have, as much as possible, sought to analyze what you have done and testified across the State. And as we stated in the past, we are disappointed with product of -- so far. I will summarize in my opening comments, since it is getting late. First of all, we don't believe that the task force has behaved in a transparent manner. There -- there were too few public hearings, the first time eleven. There are too few public hearings. This is time eight, all of them in the day, none at night. The web site is apparently designed for the expert, the information was helpful for us to use in terms of developing maps that we published on our web site, but it was hard to use. And certainly, we have been talking to our technical people, trying to match up the information with the various -- to -- to figure out the information was difficult for us, clearly it was difficult for us it would be virtually impossible for the average citizen. In fact, we have had people call us to try to figure out the data that was made available. As far as we know there is no serious out-reach to the public to let know about the web site. And actually use information even if they could. Secondly, as you know, we have been very critical of the fact that there are too few competitive districts in terms of enrollment patterns in the plan. Clearly, as you know, we believe competitive elections are a good thing and the majorities in each house have used the opportunity to maximize a partisan advantage and protect their incumbents. From Syracuse, Professor Mark Monmonier (phonetic spelling), has written that the task force should use the legislature, not the public as its chief client and political patron. He has also stated that the legislative task force really works -- and I have dug out a couple of interesting quotes, I will offer them now. This is what Mel Miller had to say about the redistricting, quote, when we drew the lines in 1982, Jack Haggerty, whom some of you may remember, said to me, don't you want to leave any of the Republicans in the Assembly. Not if I can help it, Miller said. Former majority leader Ralph Moreno talked about the redistricting process when he was the majority leader and this is the way he -- he viewed it. He said, you take care of your house and you leave us alone, he is talking about the Assembly. Generally, that is the way it works. In my experience, the Assembly will tell us what district lines they suggested for the Assembly and we tell the Assembly what we are good Senate lines. The Congress was up in the air. So far as we can tell from looking at these kinds of quotes and the product so far, there has been no case -- there has been no real effort made to try to maximize the competitiveness either this time or in the past. In fact, it appears to us the goals are to maximize incumbency protection. So, if that partisan domination result -- results in too few competitive districts and denies New Yorker's electoral choices. And, as you know, we have done some analysis on that that under the current plan, only -- on the current lines only twenty-nine of the two hundred and eleven districts have close enrollments. You will find within ten percent between Ds versus Rs. Under the current proposed plan of two hundred and twelve districts, only thirty. And even in counties where there were close enrollments, Ds versus Rs, in those counties themselves that had closer enrollments in the statewide average, even in those districts, seventy percent of the districts we found to be not competitive. So, why is it detrimental? Well, because, we believe it affects public policy. One political scientist has commented on the more or less permanent balance of power in Albany saying by any reasonable definition of a representative democracy it is just not working. The bipartisan control leads to a deadlock and an incapacity to respond and that is institutionalized as a way campaigns are financed and districts are apportioned. Redistricting is the corner stone of the status quo in Albany. The use of redistricting with the help of a scandalous campaign finance system to perpetuate the majority and ensures nothing really changes. While the rest of the nation legislatures evolve, Albany stands frozen in time and purviews the changes reflecting national votes. One independent observer commented, there are many state capitals you can visit these days, to get clues about what legislating in the 21st century will be like. But if you want a lesson on the way the process is working for most of the past century, Albany is the place to go. It is the capital of yesterday's politics. As a result, too often, the public business is left undone. Late budgets, for example, superfund program and money, auto insurance skyrocketing, all these are serious public issues that were left unaddressed. Yet, the number of Albany based campaign fund raisers continues to climb, even as the number of public -- the percentage of the voters that chose to vote shrinks. All of this has occurred with no real effort by the government and the leaders to reform the system. This is something what we call democracy death spiral. And the reason the increasingly insulated state government too often interested in the -- in the needs of special interest and -- and not in the interest of the public. And the public becomes more cynical and it is turned off. That is why the system must change. The changes should begin here with your product. NYPIRG once again urges you to redraft these lines with an eye to the goal of maximizing the number of competitive districts. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. MR. SKELOS: Any questions. Thank you. Joyce Morency, and then Dale French and then, Dan Shaw. JOYCE MORENCY; SUPERVISOR TOWN OF ST. ARMAND: Good morning. MR. SKELOS: Welcome. Thank you for your patience. MS. MORENCY: Good afternoon. Senator Skelos, Chairman Parment, honorable members of the committee. Good morning -- good afternoon. My name is Joyce Morency and I am elected supervisor to the Town of St. Armand in Essex County. I am also a member of the Essex County Board of Supervisors and I have been honored and privileged to hold this office since 1982. I have also had the privilege of serving as chairperson of the Essex County Board of Supervisors in 1994 and 1995. With me today, I would just like to, kindly bear with me, I let you know, a really nice contingent here from Essex County and I would like to enter their names into the minutes here. We have Chairman Dale French who will be speaking after me. Joe Kelly, who is the supervisor from the Town of Minerva. Catherine Moses, supervisor from the Town of Schroon. Ron Jackson, the supervisor from Essex. Joe Provoncha our Essex County clerk. Michael Diskin, our Essex County Treasurer. Lewis Sanders, our Essex county Commissioner of Elections, Donald Sage, a Schroon Lake Board member. Brenda Sherman, a Westport Chairman of the Republican Committee. And I believe up in the back there are two young republicans who work for our Youth Bureau, two young member who are with us today. I request permission to submit these remarks for inclusion in the official record of this hearing. Under the assembly's proposed redistricting plan, the Town of St. Armand is one of the two of the towns in Essex County that has been partitioned from the rest of Essex County and placed within a separate assembly district. The other town is the Town of Wilmington. I am here today to request that the assembly revise its proposed plan so as to include all of Essex County in the same Assembly district. It is my understanding that the New York State Constitution, Article Three, Section Five, as well as the statutes adopted by the state legislature, State Law Section 120 provide for apportionment of the one hundred and fifty Assembly districts in one county. The use of the term county is extremely important, indicating the clear indication that county, not town or villages or cities, be considered as a basic component of redistricting to the extent possible. County boundaries are extremely important in the redistricting because it is at the county level that the greatest number of services are furnished to residents, social services, public health services, mental health services, election services, law enforcement services and much more. I realized that it is not required for the county to remain undivided. And certainty such would be impossible in more populus counties. However, the goal in the Assembly -- the goal of the Assembly in drawing the boundaries of the new district, based on the 2000 census, should be first to keep any county whose population is small enough to be situated in a single Assembly district within such a district. And, second, to divide those counties which cannot be so situated into as few Assembly districts as possible, so as to respect metropolitan areas and communities. These two guiding principles can be easily applied to produce a redistricting plan which is more fair and which does not have the appearance of political influence. Based upon the 2000 census, each of the one hundred and fifty districts should contain approximately one hundred and twenty-six thousand five hundred and ten people. In the currently proposed redistricting plan, there are a number of upstate assembly districts which have substantially more people than proposed districts in New York City. For instance, an assembly district of Erie County the 146th Assembly district contains a hundred and thirty-three thousand and thirty-eight people, while some Assembly districts in New York City, the 78th assembly district contains a hundred and twenty-one thousand one hundred and three people. The proposed 146th Assembly district has a population deviation of more than five percent. The proposed assembly plan does not fairly apportion the one hundred and fifty Assembly districts in all counties, rather it apportioned the districts first among the New York Metropolitan area allowing for sixty-five districts, primary -- primarily in New York City with the remaining districts apportioned throughout Long Island and upstate New York State. Neither the constitution nor the state law speaks of apportionment among metropolitan areas. More importantly, however, the proposed plan unfairly gives New York City two assembly districts more than its population warrants. The 2000 census population for New York State is -- eight million eight thousand. The upstate population is two hundred and six greater at eight million two hundred and fourteen thousand, with the balance of the state population on Long Island. The upstate area should have at least one if not two more assembly districts than New York City not the other way around. Long Island with a population of two million seven hundred and fifty-three thousand should have twenty-two districts not twenty-one contained in the proposed plan. The proposed redistricting plan also takes a small county like Essex County with approximately thirty-nine thousand people and splits it up between two districts with sixteen of the eighteen towns being placed in one district and the two -- two other towns in another. The combined population of the two towns, the Town of St. Armand and Town of Wilmington amount to only twenty-four hundred and fifty-two people; hardly a number that necessitates dividing Essex County into two assembly districts. There is at least one draft plan which maintains the integrity of the rural counties, accommodation of metropolitan areas and establish communities, and fairly apportions districts throughout the entire state. But it is not the proposed Assembly plan. Essex County, I just have to say about Essex County. It is a very small rural county and I am sure you have probably all been there to visit us it is a wonderful tourism place to come and it is located in the heart of the Adirondacks -- the Jewel of the Adirondacks as Mr. Rogers said. And we are proud to be known as the Olympic County and tourism is our big draw and the our big economy of Essex County. We are all very proud of Essex County and we wish to be whole and that is what we are asking of the -- do whatever you can to make Essex County whole. And finally, I request -- I respectfully request the -- request that the Assembly revisit the redistricting plan and do the right thing. Draw assembly districts which represent county boundaries first and thereafter respect metropolitan and community areas, which fairly recognizes the dispersion of population throughout the entire State of New York with no preference being granted to the New York City, upstate and Long Island. Respectfully, submitted Joyce Morency. Thank you. MR. SKELOS: Questions? Thank you, very much. MR. HEDGES: Just one small observation. I mean our first witness today actually specifically asked us to make sure that Saranac, Lake Placid, Keene -- Keene Valley, Franklin, Brighton, be in a district together. MR. ORTLOFF: I do not believe -- I am -- I am sorry. MR. HEDGES: With -- which he did and he presented maps that -- that demonstrated that. He -- he asked that the Olympic region be kept together as a community. Of necessity that would divide counties. And I understand what you said, you said it very -- very -- very well. But I think one of the concerns that -- that we will have as -- as we try to figure out how to respond to the sometimes conflicting public testimony of the people who come to -- to talk with us, is the notion of community as opposed to the notion of county. And -- and I think at least if I understood what was said earlier today, the notion of community in the Olympic region wasn't respectful of county lines. And I guess, I would like your advice as to how we sort through that. MS. MORENCY: Well, I disagree with what Mr. Rogers said first of all. I am sorry. I disagree with what Mr. Rogers said. Essex County is the Olympic County, North Elba is a big part of that, Lake Placid, North Elba. But we as a whole, we consider ourselves the Olympic county. All eighteen towns in Essex County and to split us up with other villages and towns in Franklin County, I mean that is kind of stretching it, Essex County has always been, since 1932 the Olympic county. And it is fine to suggest that Essex County be split and put in with other villages and other towns and say all of a sudden that is the Olympic territory. I beg your pardon. Everybody in Essex County would not agree with that. So, we feel we are the Essex County, the Olympic county and we don't want to be divided saying that maybe the southern towns in Essex County are not part of this. We are all part of it. We support the Olympics, we support the towns, we support every effort that goes in up there, tourism is one of our biggest sources of money for our current county budget, Fed tax of over ten million dollars helps support the budget of Essex County, I am a budget officer, so I know how important that is. And we are all in this together all eighteen towns and we wish remain together. MR. ORTLOFF: Mr. Chairman. Just to clarify -- I listened very carefully to what Mr. Rogers said and if you -- if you have an opportunity to review the record I believe you will hear he said if you cannot keep the county together. Let me give you some guidance about how to divide it but he agreed with the position of Essex County that the first priority was to keep the county together. Only if, I believe, he is not here, but only if you conclude that you have to divide these counties, then he had some advice. So please don't take that out of context. MS. MORENCY: Well, it would be so much simpler if the -- where I am situated now to add like twenty-four hundred people back into the Essex County, we are not but twenty-four hundred people have been split off at this point and so I do not want to lose them in the -- in the same county -- in the same district and I don't want to lose other towns and that is the way a lot of us feel and came here today and we wanted to give you that message. MR. PARMENT: I just wanted to offer a comment to you, say the section of the State Constitution regarding redistricting. The comment that I would offer is that that section still exists in our constitution, but major portions of it have been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court and I guess from my point of view it is unfortunate they didn't declare the whole section null and void because it leaves us as redistrictors somewhat in doubt as to what that section now means and portions of it that still seem to have weight and the requirement upon us, are not clearly decided in my opinion and I have discussed this with other task force members. And -- and several times we have had a difference of opinion among ourselves about what the remaining portions of this section of the constitution mean for us as redistricting and what in fact we have to do to comply with the State constitution or at the same time applying the Federal constitution and the case law built on the federal constitution. One of the points, that is very difficult to deal with is a requirement that we interpret to mean that towns on borders of adjoining Assembly seats have to be examined and basically the Assembly seats need to be balanced in a way that if there is a town on a common border such that when that town is transferred from one Assembly seat to the other, that the result is that -- that two Assembly seats are more equal in population, the constitution requires us to do that. Now, that causes a lot of problem in district lines around -- around the State and there is a ripple effect to it because once you have moved a town, then you have to go re-examine the common boundaries of the districts that you passed the town to. And the next thing you know you are chasing this balancing act all the way across the state. As I say, there is some debate about what that particular section means. But I wanted to point it out to you because it is a part of what we have considered in -- in drawing this particular plan. MR. MORENCY: The common -- the common boundaries and the common connections with us as a county is the two towns I referred -- referred to my town of St. Armand, and Town of Wilmington, fortunately White Face mountain, it is in the town of Wilmington. The back side of White Face mountain is in my town. So, I don't know how much more common you can get in Essex County, North Elba and all other, Jay, Keene, Wilmington all the way down to Ticonderoga we all do have a common cause and we are the county and we wish to stay. MR. ORTLOFF: May I ask the Chairman a question. You referred to the -- the town on border as if it were applied regardless of county lines. And, I would like to establish if we can and not only for my benefit but for the benefit of Common Cause and the League of Women Voters and NYPIRG, and these good citizens here, does the Assembly apply town-on-border across an unbroken county line or only within the county. Can you answer that? MR. PARMENT: I am not sure I can answer that. Generally speaking in this particular plan we -- we have applied it across county borders and we have taken the position that it does apply but again I think that this particular section of the constitution is debatable and is very vague and of course a major portion of it is has been declared unconstitutional -- all of that -- all of that language dealing with counties receiving a Assembly seat and so forth was all declared unconstitutional. So, then you -- then you have to ask yourself what -- what the remaining portions of it continue to mean what -- I might just defer to other panel members, if there are others who would hazard a guess at what this means and what we need to comply with. MR. HEDGESI: I think with respect to both town and border is that, you know, it applies within the counties that are already divided, that county borders in an explanation that is offered for why there were population deviations in different parts of the state. And -- and indeed as it relates to New York City that that is part of the explanation that we will offer. MR. ORTLOFF: If I could just clarify that, so if you put St. Armand and Wilmington back in Essex County, you would then have an unbroken county line between Essex and its two neighboring counties and you would not then have to apply town-on-border. MR. HEDGES: You have got to look at the whole plan and -- and look your way all the way through it. And so I don't know that I can answer it in isolation. I think it's -- it's got to be answered only in the context of -- of looking at all the districts. But certainly it can be an explanation why there are differences in population of two adjacent districts that are otherwise separated by a county line. MR. ORTLOFF: I -- I understand your question and I apologize that this is technical. This gets right to the heart of the issue because what you and we in the north country want to do, keep our counties whole, depends entirely on how you are going to apply that rule. I have on the computer here take my word for what it looks like Mr. Hedges can see it, I am taking St. Armand and Wilmington, put it back into Essex County, now you see an unbroken county line across there. My question is not, could you cross the county line because that is your choice. But my question is in this situation as it applies right there, are you required to apply town-on-borders on that county line. MR. HEDGES: I don't know what the populations of all the adjacent districts are. So I -- I can't answer the question in isolation but -- but certainly it is something that we can look at. MR. PARMENT: Okay. Let me just offer here that change will affect Saratoga County. That -- that is where you get into chasing a town-on-border rule down the state because by changing the population of proposed 115th district, it then will have an affect the townships lying in -- in Saratoga County, but it is useful to us though, to have your testimony. MS. MORENCY: Well I know we were not in that district before -- we were whole before. I appreciate anything you can do for as a county. MR. SKELOS: So, the last thing, I -- I believe the town-on-border rule applies to only within the counties. And I think, the constitution is pretty clear about that. MR. ORTLOFF: So, in other words just to get right to the nub of the issue if they -- if it's done when it is not required, then it should not be said after the fact, sorry we had to do it. I don't hear any disagreement. MS. MORENCY: Thank you, very much. MR. SKELOS: Mr. Dale French -- Mr. French here. And then Dan Shaw and then William Farber. DALE FRENCH; CHAIRMAN ESSEX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Good afternoon. I didn't know I was going to be here till yesterday afternoon, so bear with me. I would like to first address the -- I am Dale French, Chairman of the Essex County Board of Supervisors, supervisor town of Town of Crown Point, currently 109th district. Like to keep it that way. But the overall picture I would like address first are the numbers of upstate, the inequities between upstate and downstate with the number of seats and the allocation. There is a famous line from a book called, The Animal Farm by George Orwell and if you have not read it you should and if haven't in a while, read it again. The famous line was some pigs are more equal than others and this -- this northern redistricting that takes our seats away from us, upstate, effectively takes us back to something when the -- the citizens were called three-fifths citizen. We have got rid of that repugnant part of our democracy and many-many years ago. In many of the districts upstate says that -- it says less than whole citizens, less than a full vote. And that is repugnant for our constitution, repugnant to our republic. In regards to our redistricting there is another famous saying I forgot who said it famous politician said in politics there is no mistakes. And look at the carving up of -- of our county and the counties of the north country and the total realignment of us, was the entirely new east west flavor rather than north south. Historically, we have been with Warren County been along the Revolutionary War trail, Lake George, we share highway 7, we have common goals, common interests, common history, common culture and all of a sudden a rift to east west culture, east west orientations doesn't make any sense, there is no logical whatsoever and Mr. Parment earlier said that many of the people who previously testified were somehow trying to get security for their incumbent -- their incumbents telling the people we like our Assembly person quite well. She does quite well, Elizabeth Betty Little. She is very attentive, if there is function Betty is there I can't believe anybody can eat that much chicken to tell you the truth. But -- but it looks like the way the district was carved was a surgical -- a surgical removal or something. Now that -- that is like the assembly is an equal employment opportunity employer here, taking -- just changing -- reorienting our entire north country to an east west flavor to -- to the western fringes we have no -- nothing in common with. So, now we should -- we have our county back together, it should be reoriented the way it historically was. It doesn't make sense, the numbers and these populations couldn't have changed that much, to justify the complete -- complete reorientation of our county. It makes no sense whatsoever. And like I say and the famous person said, if I could remember his name, there are no mistakes in politics -- to peal off the northern part of our county and then shove us into a whole new different district it makes no sense to us and it is not acceptable to us. And I can understand the problem with the -- with -- the Saratoga County being six districts that -- that is actually crazy, but we would like to be whole again. We expect it, we have a lot in common with that southern border, with us we have paper companies, we have loggers and farmers and recreational industries. And we would have to stay line with what we have historically, it makes no sense realign us with something totally -- different from our culture and from our history. And that is all I have to say. Thank you. MR. SKELOS: Any questions? Thank you. Dan Shaw and then William Farber and Brian Levine. DAN SHAW; SUPERVISOR TOWN OF EASTON: Good afternoon everyone. I am Dan Shaw, supervisor of the town of Easton, Washington County. I don't know how familiar you are with Washington County. It is just north of Rensselaer County and I would like to introduce some people here today. I have the pleasure to recognize JoAnn Trinkle who is the supervisor to the Town of Cambridge and John Aspland who is the supervisor of the Town of Fort Ann. I have Henry Gallinari from the Town of Hartford, supervisor Town of Hartford, Carol Limihof, town board member from the Town of Cambridge. I have Sandy Lufkin, who is the Commissioner of Elections for Washington County. I have Terry Mercuier, who is the state committee representative from Washington County. I have Sam Hall, a businessmen -- businessman from Washington County. I have Lou Imhof, businessman and county conservative chairman. And I have Paul Rupert, retired town supervisor from Washington County here today. So, this is a big -- big issue to us. This will be the first time in at least three redistricting sessions -- it might go back further than that. I am not old enough to -- to state that -- that Washington County has always been whole. And your present outline that you have shown up there. You have taking -- taken out of the Town of Easton and the Town of Cambridge from Washington County. Now, I don't know if you are familiar with where the Town of Easton is but if you are familiar with the Washington -- with the Saratoga Battlefield, if you stand on the bluffs of that battlefield and look over the Hudson River, you will be looking at the landscape of the Town of Easton. Now, the focus -- there are actually two issues but the main focus I want to speak to you about is agriculture, which I think is very fitting now. It is after one o'clock and I am sure everybody's stomachs are growling and food has become a major issue here today. Washington County, is basically an agricultural county. It is the number one industry and in the infinite wisdom of the Assembly ten years ago, when they redistricted, they put Washington County with northern section of Saratoga County that borders the Hudson River, which is their main agricultural area. And at present, the 100th district is a very strong agricultural area and what you have done is pulled out two towns, the Town of Easton, the Town of Cambridge and you put them with Rensselaer County and you have broken up Washington County and that agricultural base and you have weakened agriculture and the State Assembly and the Federal Government over the years has been pouring money in and developing all different scenarios of plans to help strengthen agriculture and this -- this redistricting proposal actually is going against the grain, it is actually weak -- weakening agriculture in our area. And I am sure that it is an oversight that that's occurred. But I -- I wanted to bring these facts to you because I -- I know politics enter into every decision that has to be made. But, I think that agriculture needs to be the focus when you start dealing with this area of Washington County, northern Saratoga County, and you want to keep agriculture strong. And in the last ten years, since the redistrict -- last redistricting occurred, agriculture has been on the come back. It is has strengthened -- it has been strengthened, it has improved and it is easy to point out the mistakes here and you probably are looking for a solution, well I have one and that is to leave the district that we have alone which was the old 100th district, which is currently being represented by Roy McDonald, a new Assemblyman. And the other issue I would like to bring out that you are not aware of probably, when you pulled the Town of Easton and the Town of Cambridge out, you are dividing two villages. The Village of Greenwich which lies within the borders of the Town of Greenwich and the Town of Easton. The Battenkill River is the -- the dividing border between those two towns and the waterfalls, was the nucleus which is where the Village of Greenwich grew. And now, you split that village and the Town of Cambridge and the Town of White Creek is -- are the two towns that encompass or I should say the Village of Cambridge encompasses those two towns or lies within the Town of White Creek and the Town of Cambridge. Now, you have pulled that out. The Town of Cambridge out of the village of Cambridge and -- and I have a -- a note here from the Town of Cambridge. If the redistricting plan remains unchanged, you will have a situation within the village of Cambridge where citizens on one side of the street will have a different representative in Albany from those who live on the other side of the street. And I -- and I really think that you need to consider these issues when you take your report back to the assembly. It is a very important issue and one that as a representative of Easton, I cannot accept that you would intentionally hurt agriculture that badly, pulling these two towns out. And I will appreciate if you would consider that in your recommendations. Do you have any questions? MR. ORTLOFF: Dan can I just ask you to clarify your -- your position is, start with the existing 100th district, keep it together? MR. SHAW: Yes. And I mean I know that you have to modify the numbers and work those situations up, but keep in mind the agricultural aspect for some unknown reason and I must assume that it is the wisdom you created a perfect Assembly district when you created the 100th district for agriculture. If you had agricultural in mind, you did a perfect job of it with the 100th district and if somehow, you can keep that together, it will be a benefit to everyone. MR. SKELOS: Are you satisfied with the Senate lines? MR. SHAW: Yes. MR. SKELOS: Any other question? Thank you very much, sir. MR. SHAW: Thank you. MR. SKELOS: William Farber. WILLIAM FARBER; CHAIRMAN HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Good afternoon. I am Bill Farber. I am the Chairman of Hamilton County Board of Supervisors. And I have been a supervisor there for fifteen years. I want to thank the group for their decision to have this hearing in Albany. It certainly makes our travel much simpler to be heard. No doubt, a number of the issues that I am going to -- going to touch on are going to be reiterations of things that have already been said. But basically, I am here today because the -- the supervisors in Hamilton County and the residents of Hamilton County feel that the -- the assembly plan as proposed is flawed. We take strong exception to the malapportionment issue. The issue that appears to not equally represent upstate citizens. And we are very concerned with the way communities have been divided up. The communities of interest issue is very important to upstate because of the size of our communities we have a great deal of networking of communities and a lot of those networks are created within existing Assembly districts and when you -- reorient those districts, it makes it very difficult to maintain some of those -- some of those networks that have been developed. Quite frankly, I think you heard the recurring theme from a number of the people that have commented today and that is that -- that the existing districts come closer in a lot of ways to meeting the needs not only the community of interest issue but also not cutting up counties as dramatically as -- the as the Assembly plan has proposed. Obviously, we all recognize that because of the population changes, there is going to need to some modifications or reconfigurations of the -- the districts. But the radical overhaul as proposed in the assembly plan doesn't really seem to make a lot of sense. It doesn't seem to be the solution to this problem. It quite frankly, appears to disadvantage upstate and Long Island. It appears through that it is attempting to divide the state, that has probably never been as united as it has been since September 11. And I take exception to that not only as representative from Hamilton County but as a citizen of this state. I think it is a shame that -- that is happening. It certainly disregards the communities of interest issue. Through our existing assembly district, the 113th where we are in presently an Assembly district that includes Herkimer and Fulton Counties, the communities in the southern part of Hamilton County have worked strongly and diligently with counties -- or towns in Herkimer County to get Scenic Byway Designation. We got the -- the linkage -- the obvious linkage between Webb and Inlet, the -- probably one of the best known snowmobile trail systems in the State of New York as well as a lot of community development work that those towns are trying to do now. Now, bringing in Rapid Lake and Forest Port into the mix and trying to create more of a regional effort. I think the -- as we all know, the lines as they are presently drawn, leave us with no incumbent in the 113th. It is drawn in a way that cuts Hamilton County off from our existing representative Mark Butler ends up in the 117th, in a plan that runs the 117th up far enough to cut Jefferson County into three pieces. To the -- obviously to the east of -- of Hamilton County, we have heard all about cutting Saratoga County up into six pieces and we end up with the adjacent district to the east having two incumbents while the district we now reside in has no incumbent. It is -- there is strong appearance that this -- if it was well thought out, I apologize, I cannot follow the logic of it. On a more localized note something that -- that my constituency feels strongly about and wants mentioned. There is a lot of support within Hamilton County to return Mark Butler to the 113th Assembly district. And it is not for covert political reasons. It has to do with not only the ties that you develop between communities but the ties that you develop with your legislative representative. People spend years bringing people up to speed, getting -- making them aware of the issues. And quite frankly, the voters feel disenfranchised when you pull them out for -- for seemingly meaningless purposes. The populations of the existing district upstate appears so close that -- that modest changes -- would have to meet the tests of the census numbers and this radical overhaul is not -- is not called for. I really, despite the fact that I recognize the enormity of your task and the difficulty of it. I respectfully submit that I think you can do a better job of -- on the Assembly plan and implore you to go back and take to the drawing board and take a second look at it. MR. SKELOS: Questions. MR. ORTLOFF: Thank you, Bill. MR. FARBER: Thank you. MR. SKELOS: Brian Levine. Next would be -- after Brian will be Alonzo Jordan and then, Michael O'Connor. BRIAN LEVINE; STUDENT, SUNY ALBANY: Good afternoon, Chairman Skelos, Chairman Parment, distinguished members of the task force. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to testify here today. My name is Brian Levine. I am a lifelong citizen of the Empire State residing in Long Island. I am currently a student at the State University of New York at Albany majoring in political science. In districting, there are important criteria that district lines should be based on. One; districts to the best extent possible should be of equal population. Two; districts to the extent possible, should respect municipal boundaries. Three, district should be contiguous. And four, districts should be compact. These are the criteria which you should be basing the districts on, as you draw the map but unfortunately, it appears clear that the primary -- the primary criteria for drawing districts is to ensure the majority parties in both the Senate and Assembly stay in majority. If you just look at the line, for example, of Senate District 34, would anyone call this contiguous and compact. It is -- breaks up and cuts out from a portion of the district which is contiguous of past district. The area of Mt. Vernon which is a largely democratic area, was drawn to carve out that area to preserve a republican incumbent within that district and the same thing is done in the Assembly with a democratic thing. That is just one example. I don't want to go into all the different examples itself but just a name a few others things of concern. You have heard earlier of how the county of Saratoga is being divided up, without any respect for municipal boundaries there, into about six different district this is not appropriate, I believe and is unfair to the resident of Saratoga. Regarding district sizes, all district appear to be within the five percent deviation rule. There is clearly intentional deviation in the senate -- in both the Senate and the Assembly. In the Senate district size in New York City are larger than those upstate and efforts to minimize the number of democrats elected to the senate and in the assembly it appears the opposite is true with district sizes. They are smaller in the city and larger Upstate to maximize the number of Democrats elected. This is wrong and goes against the principle of one person one vote. Once again I ask you to redraw the districts based on the following criteria; equal population, respect for municipal boundaries, contiguity and compactness. Thank you for consideration of my testimony today. MR. SKELOS: Thank you for being here. MR. LEVINE: Any questions? MR. SKELOS: Thank you. MR. LEVINE: All right. MR. SKELOS: Alonzo Jordan and then Michael O'Connor and then Bill Thomas. ALONZO JORDAN: Let me say good afternoon to our distinguished panel. I want to first -- first say good to see you. DEBRA A. LEVINE; CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Thank you. MR. JORDAN: To Assemblyman Chris Ortloff, yesterday when I spoke about the redistricting in regards to the prisoners that there maybe read the excerpt from my colleague I kind of walked away. At this time I would like to apologize if I was a little abrupt I mean no disrespect to you. I come a long way to say that, yesterday because I had -- yesterday in the interest of the redistricting on the part of the inmates in the prison, and we discussed that momentarily. Today, I come with an interest more from a demographic research approach. It deals with the area of Monticello, where my bishop and also I am an associate minister Betty Little as she presented to me -- she wasn't able to make it today. We have -- some forty acres and we run a camp there. And we are looking to make that somewhat like a fresh air farm, and might do some other kind of development there, with some of our leaders, including my wife who is one of the -- the administrators there. Interest in that would be or less for like land preservation and water consumption and usage, the air quality and various zoning laws. More to just inquire what is going on in the New York city area. It is hard demographics. Also, like I said yesterday I work as a journalist for a agency called School News Nationwide and I had the pleasure of meeting a lot of journalists from various areas and I just want them to take a few seconds -- a few -- two minutes maybe of your time, just to mention an article I found after yesterday's forum which I found overwhelming to say the least I commend you on standing your ground about the ethnic culture, but maybe to bring sort of a little bit of closure because some of constituents were there as well, the NAACAP and the Congressional Caucus but just going to read you a brief article from the -- it is from the publisher, his name is Earl T. Graves, Sr., from Black Enterprises. The topic is unfinished business and I reads thus, we have become comfortable with the idea that African-Americans have achieved something approaching parody when it comes to political representation in the American government. The 30th Congressional Black Caucus founded thirty-one years ago, is an established institution on the American political landscape and also over the past three decades African-Americans have distinguished themselves as many of -- hundreds of municipalities including many of the largest and best running cities. And during the past decade our increasing and -- appropriate focus on economic advancement has caused some to battle for greater political representation is, if not one, that at least no longer a central factor of continuing the empowerment of African-Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth he says. The task of gaining true political representation and the power in this unfinished business. And, will remain so for as long as the U.S. Senate and the national governors association remain taxpayer finance, and excuse my French white only clubs. When L. Douglas Wilder was elected Governor of Virginia in 1990, he became the first African-American to hold the office in any state. In the eight years since he left there has not been a second and there have been only two African-Americans elected to the powerful, one hundred member Senate since reconstruction. Ed Brooke, a Republican representative, represented Massachusetts in the senate from 1967 to 1979 and Democrat Carol Mosely-Braun represented Illinois from 1992 to 1998. In other words, our distinguished panel, while African Americans constitute more than twelve percent of the nation's citizens, we have never experienced more than one percent of senatorial representation and that for a grand total of only eighteen years. And it goes on to say why he supports qualified and experienced gubernatorial candidates as New York State H. Carl McCall, and former Oregon state treasurer Jim Hill as of critical importance. McCall and Hill and I am almost finished, are among the seven African-Americans running for Governor this year. Other black candidates are seeking office in Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. In addition there are two African-Americans former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk and former state house speaker Don Bill of North Carolina running for U.S. senate seats. On the heels of the 2000 elections, and the disastrous Florida primary, the 2002 elections are -- are our opportunity to take the battle for black political representation to the next level. The voting right acts of 1965, responsible for the very existence of the CBC does not include advanced ceiling provisions for African-Americans, dead ending our political aspirations at the offices of Mayor, U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives and therefore blocking us out of the highest levels of our government. You know, yesterday it was the interest of having African-Americans on your panel, that's why I am reading this in the hearing if you are wondering. No longer afford to have a zero representation among our nations Senators and Governors. If for no other reason that these offices have historically been a stepping stone to the presidency of the United States. It long past the time for us to take care of this particular piece of unfinished business. That is all I have. MR. SKELOS: Thank you, very much. MR. JORDAN: Thank you, very much for your time. MR. SKELOS: Michael O'Connor and then Bill Thomas. MICHAEL O'CONNOR; WARREN COUNTY REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN: Mr. Chairman and members of the task force, I thank you for this opportunity to make comments to you with regard to your proposed plan for redistricting. I am Michael O'Connor, I am the Warren County Republican Chairman. And, today I have the privilege of not only speaking on behalf of myself for Warren County, but also speaking for the Republican Chairman of the Fourth Judicial District. There are eleven counties in the Fourth Judicial District and it is the northeastern portion of our state. Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Hamilton, Montgomery, St. Lawrence, Saratoga, Schenectady, Warren and Washington. There are -- there is a population in excess of eight hundred and sixty-two thousand in those eleven counties. That is over ten percent of the upstate population. At a meeting of our group last week, the group asked me to report to the task force, their rejection of the proposed redistricting for the assembly. The proposal has been rejected on two grounds, the first ground is that it is unfair. On behalf of the eight hundred and sixty thousand population, we ask that we be treated fairly and equally with those who live downstate. It is clear that whoever is behind the plan, is simply making a blatant grab for power at the expense of upstate representation. It is time for the Democrat leaders to stand up for the people, not the politicians. Dave Farrell, the new Democratic State Chairman was in our area the other day, and the local headline says, Democratic Chairman defends redistricting plan. His defense of it is, I believe the districts will be sustained by the courts. He basically is saying they will go by the letter of the law, not the intent of the law. What about the people, those are the -- that is who is supposed to benefit from redistricting; not political parties or political entities. If you look at how it has been drawn, it serves -- it doesn't really serve the upstate counties, particularly those that are within the Fourth Judicial District. And if I make an honest statement, it is my belief that however we draw those lines, the politics of those that will be elected are going to be the same. They are going to be Republican just like somebody has said for said downstate Manhattan. The overriding majority of the enrollment is Republican. But we are not arguing whether we have a Republican or a Democratic representatives. What we are really arguing about is having everybody there have an equal right to vote, a one man one person vote, and have lines that make sense to all of the different counties that are represented. The proposal second -- secondarily rejected because it unnecessarily divided counties. And you had a discussion about on-the-border towns. If you take a look at your proposed plan, St. Armand and Wilmington from Essex County is put into the 114th with Clinton and Franklin. Johnsburg, Chester, Thurman are separated from the rest of Warren County and put into what I call the phantom 113th district. There are five different counties that this person, whoever this person is in this phantom district would represent in the 113th under this task force plan. Easton and Cambridge were separated from the rest of Washington County in the 112th and in Saratoga County, Wilton and Northumberland by reverse being added to the 112th were taken out of the core of Saratoga County. They were separated from Saratoga County. The lines just don't make any sense as it doesn't appear to be any community of interest. You will hear from different people who will speak about their different programs, why there are regional features and why -- they will ask why were they were ignored. In our particular area we have got the Adirondack Park, we have got the watershed of Lake George, we have got a two-county industrial agency that shares infrastructure. We have got a local airport that serves two counties and perhaps even three counties. We understand that you have got a difficult task and we understand that compromises need to be made. But we need to have this looked upon in a global sense and not necessarily as a make-work type project, which is basically where I have seen these lines having been drawn. A lot of time and effort has been devoted to this unnecessarily. We have a plan that we would propose that would treat in the first instance counties as whole. And it treats most of the counties as whole that I have spoke of in our fourth judicial district. We have got a large map of it up here I have got some smaller maps, which I will also share with the task force. And if I begin simply in the upper right hand corner, in the northeast corner then we have the Canadian border and the Vermont border to back ourselves against, so that we don't have the bulging balloon on all four sides. We could treat Clinton and Franklin County as one district. We could treat all of Essex County and Warren County with five towns from Saratoga County as one district. And I acknowledge that that takes five towns out of Saratoga County, but this is where we have sat back and said that we understand that this is a difficult task and that some compromises might need to made. MR. ORTLOFF: Mike, do you have the copies of those that the task force --? MR. O'CONNOR: Yes I do. MR. ORTLOFF: Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR: I think I left with the 113th, which would be all of Essex, all of Warren, and five towns from the upper part of Saratoga County. All of Washington, a portion of Saratoga, which is a good part of the -- of the prior configuration of the 100th district and I believe, three towns or four towns from Rensselaer County. If you go to the west then you have all of Hamilton, all of Fulton, which are biased by that rule in the constitution which says those two counties need to go together. Although, I don't know if it is still enforceable. And you got all of Herkimer. I understand that 118th is all of St. Lawrence and part of Lewis. And, as you go over to Jefferson, it is all of Jefferson and part of Lewis. The counties as they are shown on here pretty much abide by county lines. Now, county governments have county projects, they apply for grants as a county unity, a unit, they try and bring their message to New York or to Albany, through their elected leaders in the Assembly and the Senate, are we telling them like in Saratoga, that if they have a county project, they have got to go to six different Assembly offices to get the support for a countywide project. We don't need to do that. These numbers actually fit within the numbers and the scheme of the numbers, the five percent above and the five percent below. We think that we have come up with a fairly decent plan that can fit within that corner of the State. I apologize, I don't have a map of the entire state to know if goes -- increase problems on the outer boundaries of it. But there is a community of interest there and all the buzz words there is the traditional boundaries, there is contiguity, there is compactness. Look at the 113th that you have in your book, you have got people coming from I think, Fulton County, Oppenheim, Essex County, Chesterfield. Unless they take up flying it is going to take the better part of half a day to get there. it just doesn't make a great deal of sense. I am more familiar with where my county would fall within this, which is the 113th and I also have a maps to to with this. I don't mean to steal the thunder of Bill Thomas, who's is the Warren County Board of Supervisors who will come and speak also on behalf of Warren County. But I will speak, maybe regionally, if I can. Both Warren County and Essex County which make up the principle part of this new configuration of 113th are rural. They are tourism oriented. They have been together traditionally, at least in my memory -- my memory maybe as not as long as some others. They are contiguous, there is a compactness. They are all within the Adirondack Park. The Adirondack Park is not a park where people drive in at night, close the gate behind them and turn the lights off. Adirondack Park is a vast area of land that you have a good number of citizens trying to make a living in. They have common problems, they have same type of wants, desires. And you got a good portion of it within the 113th. You have got a good portion of Lake George watershed. You got the Lake George Park Commissions. You have got between the two counties, ORDC, the Olympic Regional Development Commission. They have two facilities in the State of New York that I am aware of, I may be corrected on this. That is the one in Essex County and the one in Warren County. Gore Mountain in Lake Placid, the Ski Mountain in the north. That is ORDA that is the Olympic Regional Development Committee. You have got a train line that we have recently have obtained, I think, and I will be corrected on this maybe nine million dollars, to develop a ski trail which will come up through the towns that are shown here in Saratoga through Warren to Gore Mountain. There is a thought that it might even be extended further to go into Newcomb to have a train that visits to old mines. There is some regionality here that these people will stand together with their tourism business. They should not be separated. They should be treated together, they should be able to go one representative and have that representative obtain the help that we need with the programs that we tried to involve the state in. Much of the state programming are all in that particular region. They are not divided. So, we think that we have given you a fairly, simple, common sense alternative. We don't know of fatal flaws in it. We have got a group of eleven county chairman that will be glad to share whatever information you want from a regional point of view, so you have some better understanding of the communities that you are dealing with, if you want that type information. And I thank you for the opportunity to speak before you. Thank you. MR. SKELOS: Questions. Thank you, very much. MR. O'CONNOR: Okay. MR. SKELOS: Bill Thomas. BILL THOMAS; CHAIRMAN, WARREN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for meeting with us today. Before I begin I would like to just state that we have one supervisor, Ron Montesi, Queensbury at large supervisor here with us today. The others were all are busy in Warren County. Compared to others today I have a fairly short statement and since Mr. O'Connor has spoken before me and as an attorney he stole a lot of my thunder. So, just bear with me as I go through this. As chairman of the Warren County Board to Supervisors and Supervisor of the Town of Johnsburg, I am very concerned with the proposed legislative redistricting. If the new district representation were to be -- to be implemented, the Warren County towns of Johnsburg, Chester and Thurman will become part of a new district. Johnsburg is the town that I represent. Warren -- Warren County has worked hard to utilize the strengths we have, working together towards a common goal. Johnsburg provides winter recreation and Gore Mountain at the northern end of the county, the rail road, that Mike mentioned, that is linking the county and providing our towns like Thurman, with unique attractions which will greatly enhanced future economic development in the county. We have received help from legislative -- Legislator Betty Little in all of these endeavors, and need to continue to be represented by one voice for all of Warren County. Years ago, in the 1970s the State strongly encouraged the Town of Chester -- and consolidated their school districts and with legislative assistance they were able to build beautiful new school, which if this is to be re-districting is approved each town will now have separate rep -- representation. School issues would have to be taken to two state assembly people work working -- finding -- making it very difficult for the two -- to have a concerted efforts to pass legislation that would make it very difficult for them and remember the State did strongly encourage the consolidation of schools. The other -- one other issue I have is the access to northern Warren County as Route 9 and 28 and the Northway which if you are skiers you recognize -- somebody is which all pass through Warren County. The new district's major access to me appears to be Route 30, the district which bypasses all of the Warren County. So we have no direct connection, if this changes and we go into the phantom district. This is a concern. The well being of Warren County's future depends on the entire county remaining in the same district. A couple of other things that have come up since -- since I have got here today, is this map. What a couple of others have said Supervisor Klein from Saratoga County was discussing upper Saratoga County's communities being in our total district. If you look at the bottom of the map, map over there, you will see there are five counties that are in orange that are actually upper Saratoga County joining the district. And this is acceptable I believe with the Saratoga County people Mike has talked to the them about it. And as Joyce Morency stated earlier, Essex County is the Olympic County and Gore Mountain is an Olympic venue. So, we both work together, and -- and in this plan Warren County and Essex remain as one. And we believe this is a common sense approach to the -- to the situation, and we will hope that you would consider this. Thank you. MR. SKELOS: Questions? Thank you. John Aspland, supervisor, town of Fort Ann. Then Michael Rose, and Joe Dalton. JOHN ASPLAND; SUPERVISOR, TOWN OF FORT ANN: Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, and members of the task force. My name is John Aspland, I live in the town of Fort Ann, New York. I am a veteran, a local business man. I am the elected town supervisor. I was very pleased to see the task force, as the direct results of the efforts of the recently elected Assemblyman Roy McDonald and Assemblywoman Betty Little, and pressure from others across upstate New York, to hold this public hearing in the capital of New York State, the city of Albany. As the capital, we all know it is located in upstate New York. The upstate New York communities are appalled at the blatant political efforts of Sheldon Silver and his Senate and the state party leader, Assemblyman Herman Denny Farrell and their democratic cronies. These efforts are designed to steal voting power away from upstate New York to benefit districts of their own choosing downstate New York. The facts demonstrate that all of New York State as a whole gained in population over the last decade. Upstate New York has eight million two hundred and fourteen thousand people and New York City has eight million eight thousand. The only -- the last proposed plan which radically dissects my assembly district and other upstate districts, New York City would have more assembly votes. This will negatively impact us upstaters. The impact will be seen in lost school aid, lost highway aid, lost housing aid, lost jobs, more tax money going to down state districts. Less support for agriculture, tourism, and other areas vital to the upstate community -- their economy, excuse me. Each assembly district should have a population base of a hundred and twenty-six thousand five hundred and ten, not a hundred and twenty-one thousand for New York City, and a hundred and thirty-one for the districts in upstate New York. Do your job, work for an ethical resolution of districts by size, by population, and by geography. On March 15th, 2002, the Washington County Board of Supervisors, both Republicans and Democrats passed Resolution Number 107, titled, to oppose redistricting plan proposed by the New York State Task Force on Demograph -- Demographic Research and Reapportionment. This resolution passed with a unanimous vote stating in part, Whereas in addition to disrespect of upstate residents, this plan shows a blatant lack of regard for the law and principle of one man one vote, upon which this state and country were founded. We, the voters of upstate New York ask for a fair and equitable assembly plan in accordance with the governing laws and guidelines of New York State. Take the unreasonable politics out of this decision, set the districts quickly, and also while you are at it pass the state budget on time. Thank you, very much for your time and consideration. MR. SKELOS: Any questions? Michael Rose, and then Joe Dalton. MICHAEL ROSE: First of all, let me say good afternoon, members of the task force, Senator Skelos and Assemblyman Parment, I would like to take a brief moment to thank you all for holding these hearings in the state capital. I was a little concerned that there -- there weren't hearings scheduled in the state capital, but at this point we really happy and pleased that they are. Before I go on and read my statement, I wanted to just echo and reinforce some statements that have already been made by Michael O'Connor and -- and Bill Farber and Leon Peck from the County of Fulton also. As a member of the eleven county Fourth Judicial District, group of chairmen that Michael O'Connor spoke to, as a member of that group, I wholeheartedly endorse his comments made before this committee today. I am a lifelong resident in the city of Gloversville, in the County of Fulton as well as a member of the Common Council of the City of Gloversville for the last eighteen years. I come here today to protest the inclusion of Fulton County in the newly proposed 113th Assembly district. As you are aware, Fulton County is included in the current 113th Assembly district which includes all of Herkimer County as well as Hamilton County. The new 113 while separating Fulton County from its common neighbor, Herkimer County, has also thrust our current Assemblyman Mark Butler into the newly proposed 117th Assembly district. Now, while our County has remained whole in the new district, our assemblymen has virtually disappeared. He has been shifted to another district and we are now in -- in this phantom district, I believe this -- Mr. O'Connor, so eloquently stated with no assemblyman. Keeping in mind that the reapportionment is based largely on the census, I need to inform that the population of Fulton County hasn't seen any dramatic increase or decrease in its population. We have remained relatively same since the last census. If our population has remained the same, and our county and its borders have remained whole, then why are we included in a new assembly district and why do we lose our current assemblyman. The proposed 113th assembly district while including all of Fulton County lands us in a district which includes part of Saratoga -- parts of Saratoga, Warren and Essex County. This sends us if you will in a northeasterly direction, and puts our county in a district that can be best described as a northern Hudson River border. Fulton County's sense of community and commonality are more in turn with being north of Mohawk River and the west of Mohawk Valley as well as being described, always described as the gateway to the Adirondacks, the central Adirondack region. In our current configuration with Herkimer County to the west and Hamilton County to the north, we share many common interests, as well as geography with the central Adirondack region. The new proposal will place Fulton County far off in a district that stretches well to the east and far to the north, actually, up to the Vermont border, with little sense of community or community for the central Adirondack region. Fulton County's population has not changed, our interests and our needs have not changed, but shifting us southeast or northeast in some haphazardly carved district will sure -- surely place us which I guess can be best described in a state of angst with our far away neighbors that do not have the same common interest goals or needs as do we in the Central Adirondack region. I guess the most important part of my testimony today would be a reminder to the task force to try to adhere to the Constitution of the State of New York. And I would call your attention to the constitutional requirement, that requires Fulton and Hamilton counties that they be in one Assembly district. The newly proposed 113th Assembly district follows this requirement in keeping Fulton and Hamilton counties together. However, the proposed lines are subject and rightfully so, to change. Hopefully, any discussions on redrawing proposed lines would involve keeping Fulton County whole along with Hamilton County as it is -- as it is currently configured. And I am including Herkimer County in that, which is the current 115th. To geographically fragment Fulton County by placing towns or cities into more than one Assembly district would in effect be unconstitutional. The Constitution requires that Fulton County be whole and together with Hamilton County in one assembly district. Anything less would be considered a flagrant violation of the Constitution of the State of New York and I know that Fulton County would stand fast to defend the constitution if the need should arise. We would probably petition the Governor to veto any proposal that violate this constitutional requirement. For the last ten years, Fulton and Hamilton counties have been together in one assembly district. We have adhered to the Constitution of the State of New York. I only ask that you consider keeping Fulton County sense of community and continuity intact, as it is currently configured in the existing 113th Assembly districts and I thank you for your time. MR. SKELOS: Thank you, any question? Thank you for your time. Joe Dalton, Saratoga County Chamber. JOE DALTON; SARATOGA COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: Good evening. MR. SKELOS: Almost. MR. DALTON: Almost. I would like to thank you, number one, for working through the lunch period. You saved a lot of us who have appointments and as you do have appointments. I appreciate that. My name is Joe Dalton, I am president of the Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce which represents twenty-six hundred business and professional firms throughout Saratoga County. The Saratoga County has a population of over two hundred thousand residents, and projections by the Capital District Regional Planning Commission indicate the fast growth in our county will continue over the next three decades. That growth is projected to increase our population by at least thirty thousand residents. Yet, Saratoga County is the only county with over two hundred thousand population in the state, not to have a self-contain -- contained assembly district. Much to our surprise, we will have six separate assembly districts in our County and Saratoga County residents in each districts will be in a minority, that seems totally unfair. Elected officials are supposed to represent their constituents but as majority members of six other districts, our positions on issues can easily be overlooked because of differences of opinion of the majorities in that -- in those districts. Why the second largest populated county in our region with guaranteed growth is being relegated to minor positions in the legislatures is beyond us. At present, Saratoga County has four Assembly persons representing their interests. Only one of those Assembly persons represents Saratoga County only. The -- the remapping takes this one seat away from our county. The growth projections indicate that it could be possible in the future to have a population base -- base sufficient to authorize two assembly seats. Will we then be chopped into nine assembly districts. I can hear someone saying that Saratoga County will now have six Assembly persons representing it. We don't want six minority representatives. We want at least one assembly person totally elected by Saratoga County residents. If dis -- district designation is granted to populations of as low as a hundred and twenty thousand, why can't a population group of two hundred thousand have a complete district? The proper way to re-map the state's districts is to go back to the basic formation of government. The counties are the legal and accepted base of government in the state. It the county has a population that justifies a seat, it should get that seat. If it falls short of that number, it should be merged. If it does not exceed by multiples of the base, the excess should be merged with other -- with another population base. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of our county residents can't name the four assembly persons that represent our county. If they cannot name their representatives, how can they communicate to those representatives. I realize a great deal of time has been spent re-mapping, but no matter how much time has been spent, it is still an unfair plan that should go back to the drawing boards. You won't be starting from the scratch, the research has been done, you have got your homework done, now it just necessary to put together a final fair plan. Thank you, very much. MR. SKELOS: Have you any questions? What I am going to do now, is what we do at all the meetings, I am going to read through the names of the individuals who were called before but weren't here; Ralph Eannance, Ron Conover, Anthony Keating, Paul Warner, Mark Dunlea, Donald Neddo, N-E-D-D-O, Jack Rosenburg, and Henry Cosselman. Does anybody else wish to be heard at this time before we close the meeting? If not, I would like to make a motion to adjourn. MR. HEDGES: So Moved. MR. SKELOS: In favor aye, opposed nay, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. (Adjourned at 2:06 p.m.) STATE OF NEW YORK I, Rickey Farmer, do hereby certify that the foregoing conference was reported by me, in the cause, at the time and place, as stated in the caption hereto, at Page 1 hereof; that the foregoing typewritten transcription, consisting of pages number 1 thorugh 185, inclusive, was prepared under my supervision and is a true record of all proceedings had at the session at which said prehearing conference was taken IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name, this the _____________day of April, 2002. ___________________ Rickey Farmer State of New York |
|
BACK |