Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is what I want -- buses full of angry taxpayers heading to Albany to make a stand oppostite the teachers and their union. What do I have? Neighbors who work for this school district and others on LI, SCPD and NCPD, and SUNY employees. Trying to get my point across is like shouting into the wind. They're too busy feeding at the trough.
As far as running for the local BoE, it is a rubber stamp machine; we've seen good people who don't fall in with the union get torn apart, smeared, and gone the next time their seat comes up for vote. It needs to be fought at the state level. We have a state controlled tax cap but local district contracts.
It's bold thinking but the chances of ending local monetary control of schools is never going to happen. Schools are funded by property wealth (local taxes) and state aid (equalizing) with a tad of Fed money sprinkled in (to "supplement" programs, not "supplant" them ie "not enough money but you better make sure you provide the service"). If those local contracts ended up negotiated at the State level, MAYBE we'd become the 6th "big city" district (NYC, Buff, Yonkers, Syracuse, Rochester).
That is the only way a Con Con does any of that. If locals pay the bills, locals will set the contracts. The real problem is that the school board is ignorant to the level the district and unions are smart. A board member gets a 2 day seminar in budgeting and collective bargaining from the Comptroller (if they actually go). The district and union have labor lawyers and a Superintendent with 30 years of experience. The Board should be looking out for the taxpayer but their priority will always be effective schools. So basically, no one is looking out for the taxpayer in these situations.
You know where I come from on the frustration front. I am blaming the whiners on here because they don't know what they are talking about, vote for idiots then pretend they never did and call me names because I know about this stuff. I get it. Town of Hempstead will never change since maybe 15k vote. 10k of them are already Repub committee members (pretty much unspoken MANDATORY at the job level) or their families. Game over. We spot them a majority of votes. All they have to do is show up. But they don't take chances. ToH employees go out and steal the opponents lawn signs off Jerusalem Ave and Hemp Tpke every night...while we pay them for it. So yeah, I get it. 100+ years of corruption isn't easy to fix. And none of our local problems are really adressable at a convention any better than finding a few votes and getting an amendment through.
I am 110% convinced we open up the constitution in this day and age, LI will be a bigger cash cow to an impoverished state than ever. Is that really the plan?! IF (and I'm fine with a yes or no as long as their is some thought behind it) people want to vote yes, you have to look at the state picture and not just LI. We are complaining about school jobs and pensions. Upstate they CANT find cleaners or maintainers. They offer LESS than minimum wage and no benefits. On LI or NYC a custodian job is a lottery ticket for someone with a HS diploma. Western NY it's worse than McDonalds. That is the reality across the state. We will get crushed if we let them. I don't trust a single LI pol to go do anything except line their own pocket.
Last edited by monstermagnet; 10-27-2017 at 01:32 PM..
Read up on the NYS Constitution, it protects more then just labor and pensions. Below is an outline of the topics covered but the state is more restrictive of law enforcement powers, creates the system of education where things like high schools or schools in rural areas did not exist, provides due process so your not sitting in a jail for 5 years, prevents politicians from selling the use of state land's to things like mining and fracking, provides statewide standards so one town can't outlaw a curse word and the next town allows it, provided social safety nets that must be kept up, provided religious protections, and safeguards for the press all not found or protected by the Federal Constition
Just imagine if the constitution was thrown out, cops could approach you without any reason - search you and your car without permission for things as lowly as a traffic infraction, imagine if the only high school was 50-100 miles away in order to save money ? what if rental and housing laws were modified to help a politicians interest that has been barred for almost 75 years. Lots of things on the table - but it's all about cops and teachers !!!!
The way I see it, cops could have more powers and we could have less teachers and less schools based on removal of what residents of this state thought was important to make the law of the land in 1938
State Rights that Are Broader Than Their Federal Parallels
- Criminal Procedural Rights ..
Jury Trial
Grand Jury
Right to Counsel
Effective Assistance of Counsel
Searches and Seizures
Self-Incrimination
Double Jeopardy
Due Process
Religious Liberty
Freedom of Speech and the Press
Immigrants’ Rights
State Rights That Have No Federal Parallel
Education
Social Welfare
Housing Conservation
State constitutions are significant, not only because they complete the U.S. Constitution and are the pillars of the federal system, but also because they address dimensions of the polity left untouched by the national Constitution. Within the limits set by the national document, state constitutions establish the rules governing the conduct of public business and policy- making in the state.
The national Constitution does not:
contain a “forever wild” provision governing New York’s Adirondack and Catskill regions;
1 mandate New York to pay prevailing wages on all public works jobs;
2 or require a vote every twenty years on whether to hold a convention to revise and amend the constitution,
3 a noteworthy and enduring example of popular sovereignty.
New York has actually had four constitutions. The first New York State Constitution was adopted on April 20, 1777, by the Fourth Provincial Congress acting as a constitutional convention. Subsequent constitutions were adopted in 1821, 1846, and 1894. The current state constitution has been amended over 200 times since 1894, including substantial revisions by the constitutional convention of 1938.
The protection of rights at the national level has expanded and contracted over time. To the extent that the state’s political culture and understanding of rights creates different expectations, rights derived from these expectations can be insulated from changes in national policy. Whatever happens concerning due process protections, right to counsel, search and seizure protections, environmental protections, abortion rights, same-sex marriage, equal protection and the like, New York, through its constitutional and statutory law, can provide a “safe harbor” for their continued, even expanded protection. Surely, that is the genius of federalism
Read up on the NYS Constitution, it protects more then just labor and pensions. Below is an outline of the topics covered but the state is more restrictive of law enforcement powers, creates the system of education where things like high schools or schools in rural areas did not exist, provides due process so your not sitting in a jail for 5 years, prevents politicians from selling the use of state land's to things like mining and fracking, provides statewide standards so one town can't outlaw a curse word and the next town allows it, provided social safety nets that must be kept up, provided religious protections, and safeguards for the press all not found or protected by the Federal Constition
Just imagine if the constitution was thrown out, cops could approach you without any reason - search you and your car without permission for things as lowly as a traffic infraction, imagine if the only high school was 50-100 miles away in order to save money ? what if rental and housing laws were modified to help a politicians interest that has been barred for almost 75 years. Lots of things on the table - but it's all about cops and teachers !!!!
The way I see it, cops could have more powers and we could have less teachers and less schools based on removal of what residents of this state thought was important to make the law of the land in 1938
State Rights that Are Broader Than Their Federal Parallels
- Criminal Procedural Rights ..
Jury Trial
Grand Jury
Right to Counsel
Effective Assistance of Counsel
Searches and Seizures
Self-Incrimination
Double Jeopardy
Due Process
Religious Liberty
Freedom of Speech and the Press
Immigrants’ Rights
State Rights That Have No Federal Parallel
Education
Social Welfare
Housing Conservation
State constitutions are significant, not only because they complete the U.S. Constitution and are the pillars of the federal system, but also because they address dimensions of the polity left untouched by the national Constitution. Within the limits set by the national document, state constitutions establish the rules governing the conduct of public business and policy- making in the state.
The national Constitution does not:
contain a “forever wild” provision governing New York’s Adirondack and Catskill regions;
1 mandate New York to pay prevailing wages on all public works jobs;
2 or require a vote every twenty years on whether to hold a convention to revise and amend the constitution,
3 a noteworthy and enduring example of popular sovereignty.
New York has actually had four constitutions. The first New York State Constitution was adopted on April 20, 1777, by the Fourth Provincial Congress acting as a constitutional convention. Subsequent constitutions were adopted in 1821, 1846, and 1894. The current state constitution has been amended over 200 times since 1894, including substantial revisions by the constitutional convention of 1938.
The protection of rights at the national level has expanded and contracted over time. To the extent that the state’s political culture and understanding of rights creates different expectations, rights derived from these expectations can be insulated from changes in national policy. Whatever happens concerning due process protections, right to counsel, search and seizure protections, environmental protections, abortion rights, same-sex marriage, equal protection and the like, New York, through its constitutional and statutory law, can provide a “safe harbor” for their continued, even expanded protection. Surely, that is the genius of federalism
A con-con is not the equivalent of throwing the State Constitution out; It's more akin to going from room to room in one's home deciding one by one if they are dated and in need of new carpeting, furniture, paint, or a wall torn down to create a larger master suite.
Any proposed changes have to be voted upon by NYS residents, unlike the way Cuomo pushed through the SAFE Act in the dead of night.
This is a crap shoot. YES, we could end up not realizing the results we wanted; it could bite us on the butt. Voting NO means we are willing to accept the same old same old. It heralds complacency and rewards inertia.
Last edited by OhBeeHave; 10-27-2017 at 03:56 PM..
Any proposed changes have to be voted upon by NYS residents, unlike the way Cuomo pushed through the SAFE Act in the dead of night.
You do realize that if the changes are put up to a popular vote, the left will win, right? This is New York. A Republican hasn't won statewide office here since Pataki in 2002. So that part is just a rubber stamp if the changes favor the left, which they are bound to do given their power in this dump.
You do realize that if the changes are put up to a popular vote, the left will win, right? This is New York. A Republican hasn't won statewide office here since Pataki in 2002. So that part is just a rubber stamp if the changes favor the left, which they are bound to do given their power in this dump.
I don't think people realize. The pro-gun and pro-life groups hoping to open up the constitution and slip in measures protecting their interests should keep that in mind. NYC and its left-leaning constituency dominate the state-wide voting. At the same time some conservative groups are wise enough to realize change that occurs (via the convention AND the statewide voting) is unlikely to benefit them.
The unions are pitching in full force, and the fear is palpable. You can practically smell the fear in the air.
They'd not go to such extremes out of concern for us. Obviously they have much to lose if this passes.
VOTE YES!!!
Now you just sound silly. First they are all powerful but then they are cowering in fear. In reality they are playing the game that's been developed over years of gridiron battles over inches. Neither side ever wants to give up an inch. They aren't afraid, they are using their power and money to win. That's their job.
Big however, when I see that nasty, scary commercial they keep running I'm immediately with you on the protest YES vote. Bad enough they monopolize democracy, they need to lie and run Tammany like BS scare ads as well?!
You do realize that if the changes are put up to a popular vote, the left will win, right? This is New York. A Republican hasn't won statewide office here since Pataki in 2002. So that part is just a rubber stamp if the changes favor the left, which they are bound to do given their power in this dump.
Let's cross that bridge when we get to it. Last Gubernatorial election, only 3.7 million voters (29% of eligible voters in the state) turned out for the midterm elections. While there has been more noise made about con-con by special interests, we have to question if that wil bring out more voters overall, or just a large percentage of the anti con-con crowd. This could be finished before it even begins.
I had acknowledged that a YES vote comes with risk. I've reposted that pertinent nugget:
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhBeeHave
This is a crap shoot. YES, we could end up not realizing the results we wanted; it could bite us on the butt. Voting NO means we are willing to accept the same old same old. It heralds complacency and rewards inertia.
I want to take my chances now and intend to vote YES.
It's not that a change to the constitution would result in the lowering of of pension payments. It's that it might be changed to allow the state to "borrow" pension funds, something it is not currently allowed to do. This "borrowing" is the same thing that the federal government did to the social security trust fund, making it virtually bankrupt.
Totally agree.
Also I rather trust in unions than in lobbyists.
If I vote yes they (the rich and politicians) have the key to benefit themselves, as it happened for the past 50 years.
I vote NO.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
