After countless hours of work in Albany, NYSDA's legislative committee celebrated several victories in the Assembly and Senate.  Much to the disappointment of NYSDA members, Governor Eliot Spitzer has adopted many of the principles of his predecessor, and vetoed several pieces of important legislation. 

Governor Spitzer vetoed a bill which would have given counties the option of providing an additional retirement benefit to certain deputy sheriffs and local correction officers who participate in the Section 89 (25 year) plans.  As NYSDA pointed out, this is not "mandated" but merely creates a subject of bargaining.  In vetoing this bill, Spitzer said, "Proponents of this bill argue that it is not  an  'unfunded  mandate,' because  counties have the option to participate. In practice, it is not entirely clear that this is true. The  New  York  State  Association of Counties--the  representative  of  the government entities that would be given this option--opposes the bill, arguing that once in place it would generate pressure on them to join."

On the same day he vetoed a bill which would have required the appointment of a neutral hearing officer in disciplinary matters, arguing, "In addition, many public  employers  already  negotiate  or  otherwise adopt  a  wide  variety  of disciplinary procedures above and beyond the basic statutory protections set forth in Civil Service Law  Section  75, and  this  process  reflects the give and take of collective bargaining, and the needs of the particular employer  and  its  employees."

Where does Governor Spitzer stand on collective bargaining?  His first veto after taking office was a bill that would have ensured that disciplinary processes were subject to collective bargaining.  Then he vetoed legislation that would mandate a neutral hearing officer, arguing that the parties can negotiate such a benefit.  He vetoed legislation that would allow employees to bargain for enhanced benefits, but touted the "give and take of collective bargaining" in another matter. 

Many of us who had hoped for consistency by the new administration have been disappointed thus far.  It is impossible for us to address the concerns of a Governor when we are faced with these inconsistencies.  Even more disconcerting is the fact that certain assertions in veto messages are factually incorrect. 

In vetoing legislation that would have provided interest arbitration for certain employees of the Unified Court System, Spitzer said, "... arbitrators tend to grant higher awards than are achievable  through  the  collective  bargaining  process, and thereby increase costs to government and taxpayers."  This statement contradicts the facts available to us. Prior reviews of available data have shown that negotiated agreements "tend to" be higher than arbitration awards. We would be interested in seeing the factual basis for Governor Spitzer's claim.

In another case, the Governor is clearly wrong.  The veto message on the "additional 1/60th" bill claims, "There  is  already  one  optional  plan  that exists for the same employees under Article 14-B of the Retirement and Social Security  Law.  Other  optional plans  exist  for particular counties. I do not believe there needs to be yet another."  Article 14-B makes available certain benefits for deputy sheriffs who are directly engaged in criminal law enforcement.  The vetoed legislation would have provided similar benefits to local correction officers in addition to certain deputy sheriffs.  The benefits of Article 14-B are NOT available to local correction officers.

If you are interested in reviewing all of the Governor's veto messages, click here.

The text of other relevant veto messages is available by clicking on the links below. 

Veto 32 - Added 60ths

Veto 33 - Independent Hearing Officer

Veto 37 - Interest Arb for UCS

Veto 1 - Police Discipline

Veto 148 - Optional 20 year plan for local correction officers