On Ethics And Reform: It’s Darrel Vs. Darrel

Submitted article

He has two minds on how to fix Albany — votes against “reforms” he now embraces

Incumbent Darrel Aubertine, already under fire for sponsoring the state’s new ethics law — then promptly breaking it by putting a family member on the taxpayer-funded state payroll — also appears to have trouble making up his mind on reforming Albany.

Aubertine recently announced a package of four “reform” bills that he said would end Albany’s dysfunction.

“These reform measures are a start toward ending the partisan dysfunction in Albany,” Aubertine said in a July 25 press release touting the proposals.

But Aubertine voted against the same measures as a member of the Assembly just one year earlier.

“My opponent tells us he’s a reformer. But when he’s with the Albany crowd, he simply does as he pleases, or as his political bosses direct,” said State Senate candidate Dave Renzi. “That not working for us, and it’s certainly not what we expect from ‘one of us.'”

“As Senator, I’ll say what I mean — and I’ll mean what I say. And when I go to Albany, it will be to represent the voters who elect me, not the party bosses or my own self-interest,” said Renzi.

Aubertine offered his “reform” canard in response to criticism that he failed to pass any bills that were requested by local governments, including the Oswego County Village of Parish, Towns of Granby and Schroeppel, and the APW School District.

But Aubertine’s “reforms” were the very same ideas he voted against as a member of the Assembly Majority in March 2007, acting in lock-step with Speaker Sheldon Silver and the Assembly’s New York City-based leadership.

“On issues, on ethics and, now, on reform, my opponent seems to have trouble deciding which side he wants to be on,” said Renzi. “But having one set of rules for yourself, and another for everyone else is not how it’s supposed to work, and voters will need to remind him of that fact on Election Day.”

Attached is a comparison of Aubertine’s “reforms” and the proposals he voted down last year.

Darrel Aubertine’s words don’t match his actions

Sen. Aubertine’s “Reform” Package

Aubertine Says “No” to Reform

Assembly voting record March 5, 2007

“Home Rule” bills

“Make it easier for home rule legislation to reach the floor for a vote.”

Require bills with Home Rule requests from local municipalities to be considered in committee within four weeks of introduction. (E.231)

Aubertine vote           X NO

Conference committees

“Create conference committees when similar legislation passes both the Assembly and Senate.”

Requiring immediate convening of conference committees when bills addressing the same subject have been passed by both chambers. (E.228)

Aubertine vote           X NO

Bill sponsorship

“Allow any member, regardless of party, to co-sponsor a bill.”

Allow each member to sponsor a bill without first obtaining the consent of the introducer. (E.237)

Aubertine vote           X NO

Equal resources

“Equalize office resources among Senators.”

All legislators shall receive equal resources and staff allotments. (E.241)

Aubertine vote           X NO

1 Comment

  1. It would be more informative if the accused, Senator Aubertine, were given the opportunity to respond along side of the accusation. This is the second attack article that has appeared without rebuttal opportunity. The citizens deserve to have all of the correct information to choose, vote for, the person that best can serve them.

    [Connie: Thanks for your note. Our news articles attempt to present both sides of the story. However, our policy has always been to publish legitimate news releases from local organizations so that people can read news with the “filter” turned off. This is a Renzi campaign news release, not a news story. You’ll note that, earlier in the week, we combined Renzi and Aubertine news releases on the same topic into one page. There was no answering release from Aubertine’s camp on this issue. If and when there is, we’ll put it here, too. And all of Aubertine’s material is being posted as well.

    I will say that the volume and tenor of some of these releases have made us uncomfortable, but they are, at the end of the day, op/ed arguments. And if we really believe in taking off the filter and letting people decide for themselves, then it cannot be something we do only when the content is non-controversial. -Dave Bullard]

Comments are closed.