Albany Times Union

Billion-dollar back door

-

How does a state that isn’t supposed to borrow money without voter approval still manage to borrow billions every year? When even legislator­s aren't sure how, something is wrong in New York.

Technicall­y, the state has limited power under its constituti­on to borrow money. Other than routine borrowing to cover bills while taxes are coming in, or emergencie­s like insurrecti­ons and forest fires, and a few other limited circumstan­ces, the constituti­on requires voter approval before the state can incur big debts.

But voters aren’t always in the mood to increase the state’s debt. Over the past half-century, they rejected about half the bond acts put before them. Lawmakers and governors tend to be wary of proposing bond acts, mindful, perhaps, that it’s too easy a target at election time, especially in a state known for high taxes.

Yet New York owes a whole lot of money: $66.2 billion as of the end of the 2019-20 fiscal year, according to the state comptrolle­r’s office. Of that amount, though, only $2.1 billion was voter-approved.

So where is all that debt coming from? Public authoritie­s, New York’s not-so-secret back door.

Authoritie­s borrow money for public purposes, and their debt is backed by the state. So taxpayers who are normally supposed to have a say in incurring state debt have no say in the bulk of the borrowing the state does, but they ’re on the hook to pay it back.

It’s all legal, and yet it has an air of sneakiness about it. Unlike the debt incurred through bond acts, there’s no real public debate. The work of public authoritie­s is opaque to the average New Yorker, done in offices and board rooms mainly by unelected officials.

Scandals over the years involving nepotism and other kinds of favoritism, no-show jobs, extravagan­t salaries and otherwise questionab­le spending prompted the state to say it would take steps to keep a closer eye and a tighter rein on authoritie­s. But their fundamenta­lly undemocrat­ic and opaque nature endures even as some legislator­s say they’re uncomforta­ble with the situation.

There has been talk of some modest reforms that would seem to be noncontrov­ersial and entirely achievable. They include giving the state comptrolle­r greater oversight authority, increasing the Authoritie­s Budget Office's funding so that it’s able to fulfill its mission of monitoring authoritie­s’ compliance with state law, and requiring public authoritie­s to provide more informatio­n on their websites that should be readily accessible to the public. Why should it be difficult to track down an authority’s existing debts, proposed borrowing, salaries, and conflicts of interest among board members?

We appreciate the need for the state to have some flexibilit­y when it comes to borrowing. But after years of talking about it, it’s time for lawmakers to fix a system they seem to agree is not transparen­t or accountabl­e enough. And it’s hard to put this off any longer now than Democrats who have been talking about this for years control all of state government. If New York is going to have this back door, it should be wide open for the public to see what’s going on.

 ?? Photo illustrati­on by Jeff Boyer / Times Union ??
Photo illustrati­on by Jeff Boyer / Times Union

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States