Talk:David Carlucci

New Sections

The new sections added today have credible sources and should not be deleted from the main page. ~~grubiakm~~

Lauren's Law[edit] Senator Carlucci sponsored a bill that was signed into law that requires all New York State drivers to decide whether to become organ donors on the driver’s license application instead of opting out by default. Lauren’s Law is named for Lauren Shields of Rockland County, who received a heart transplant when she was nine years old. [6]

The goal was to increase the number of New Yorkers in the state’s “Donate Life Registry”. Prior to Lauren’s Law, only about ten percent of New Yorkers were registered donors and hundreds on New Yorkers died waiting for organ transplants each year.[7]

Jobs for Heroes[edit] Senator Carlucci sponsored a bill which was signed into law called Jobs for Heroes[8], which gives a tax credit to local businesses as an incentive for them to hire returning veterans. This new law works to combat the high numbers of recent veterans who are currently unemployed.[9]

Expansion of Elderly Pharmaceutical Insurance Coverage (EPIC)[edit] Senator Carlucci worked with his colleagues to expand the Elderly Pharmaceutical Insurance Coverage (EPIC), which provides discount drugs for senior citizens. The expansion allows for an increase in number of senior citizens living in New York who will qualify for the program. Prior to the expansion, the EPIC program covered very few seniors when considering the cost of living in New York and the high medical costs of senior citizens. The expansions passed in early 2014.[10]

Inspire New York[edit] Senator Carlucci passed a law to create a tax credit which serves as a motivation for businesses to hire individuals with developmental disabilities, thus giving them both a paycheck and a chance to be more included and have a sense of belonging in their community.

The initiative passed in March of 2014.[11]

Vice Chair of Senate Heroin and Opioid Abuse Task Force[edit] In June of 2014, Senator Carlucci’s bill to create a relapse prevention program to combat the epidemic of heroin addiction in New York State became a law. The program seeks to lessen the number of heroin addicts who relapse, which is currently at eighty percent, by providing several services to help recovering addicts maintain sobriety. These services include educational resources, legal, financial, social, family, and childcare services, peer to peer support groups, employment support, and transportation assistance.[12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grubiakm (talk • contribs) 18:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think these can maybe be all within a single section, "Legislation" with one sentence each "Senator Carlucci sponsored a bill that was signed into law that requires all New York State drivers to decide whether to become organ donors on the driver’s license application instead of opting out by default. He sponsored a bill which was signed into law called Jobs for Heroes[8], which gives a tax credit to local businesses as an incentive for them to hire returning veterans." Etc. Just the facts. That's pretty standard for politicians involved in recent legislation. Flyte35 (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Flyte35, I agree with your take that these all be part of a single section because as they were presented, they didn't seem to warrant their own write-ups. The reason I placed Carlucci's stance on the safe act, women's equality, and the first amendment as separate sections is that they are important issues that are more far reaching in their scope. Stances on constitutional rights, especially those which have been covered extensively by the media should merit a greater discussion including viewpoints of contemporary journalists. Such presentations of contemporaries helps provide adequate context in explaining the importance of these stances.

Ok, so you're fine with the legislation summary used in this edit? Flyte35 (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually I'm not fine with: "In June of 2014, Carlucci’s bill to create a relapse prevention program to combat heroin addiction in New York State became a law. The program seeks to lessen the number of heroin addicts who relapse by providing several services to help recovering addicts maintain sobriety. These services include educational resources, legal, financial, social, family, and childcare services, peer to peer support groups, employment support, and transportation assistance.[16]" there is something about it that seems overly vague and unimportant. There are some other sponsorships which I think should be included. I'll gather them and post them here for you folks to take a look at tomorrow.

OK, I'd just like to emphasize, again, that we don't need THAT much information. Even for national politicians recent legislation is usually only a line "he passed a bill that did X." The reasons for the bill, or what it's SUPPOSED to do in the long run are generally to be avoided. Also, a political sponsors lots of bills. It's best only to include the most important ones.Flyte35 (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Women's Equality Plan

Samuelj6763, I understand you believe this to be an important issue, but it’s surely not worth devoting 6 paragraphs to this matter, more than in any other section. The factual matter is that the subject is a member of the Independent Democratic Conference. The governor proposed a bill to offer various protections to women working in New York State. The IDC blocked that bill, and the Rockland County Democratic Party sent an angry public letter to the subject. That’s what occurred factually. A four sentence graph outlining what happened in the “Independent Democratic Conference” section, as I proposed, would provide sufficient coverage for this encyclopedia article. Something like:

In the Summer of 2013, the IDC blocked Governor Cuomo's ten-point Women's Equality Plan, effectively killing legislation to address discrimination and inequality based on gender.[10] Frustrated with Carlucci's role in the IDC, the Rockland County Democratic Party posted an open letter making the senator aware of their discontent. The Chairwoman of the Democratic Party stated "As...the IDC owe their allegiance, their power, and their large staff and offices to the Republicans, they have paid this debt by selling out New York Women," further admonishing that they should "start acting like Democrats."

If you think more is necessary that's fine, but I don't think MUCH more is necessary.

Giving a play-by-play of the IDC’s proposed plan and the governor’s proposed plan is confusing and bogs down the article. If you think it’s necessary to provide a whole lot of information about this fight, you should consider a new wiki article about the Women's Equality Plan, or just link to a journalism piece about the fight in the “External links” section of this article.

At the very least, it’s quite inappropriate to use words like “Misogyny,” “approaching a new low,” “essential freedoms,” “scattershot approach” and “fundamental rights” because these are not neutral words. Flyte35 (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Flyte35, I had entered a bunch of edits on here and then my internet went out. I will go through each point, but I didn't want you to think I forgot about this. In regards to the above, misogyny, essential freedoms, and fundamental rights are not neutral words due to the meaning associated with them beyond their definition. However, I still stand by the use of these terms regarding the rights of women. What would you use instead of these three terms? Open to suggestions, as long as they capture the essence of the issue.

None of these words or concepts should be expressed at all, unless in a quote. The summary, if included, should convey only factually what occurred. That was what I was attempting to propose in the indented graph above. Flyte35 (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

How would you better describe women's equality as a whole?

There doesn't strike me as any need. This is only about the proposed legislation. But since it didn't go anywhere, and this seems like such a contentious issue, it might be best to just leave the whole proposed legislation out.Flyte35 (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Stating just the facts

This wikipedia page has become out of control. I would like to request that we just have simple facts instead of the blatant attacks from Samuelj6763. No positives or negatives should be added to the page.

I have to interrupt you right there, I did not present any "blatant attacks." Everything I added was supported by a verifiable citation. Each entry I made was an attempt to archive the senator's actions for posterity, including those things that get easily glossed over.

I made new edits that simply state the facts. Your personal attack through "wikigate" is simply not appropriate and really gets away with what the wikipedia page is trying to do. I hope you will agree Flyte35 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grubiakm (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I proposed a version that I think did this, in which everything was pretty much simplified, both the information about the IDC and the Women's Equality Plan and a general summary of legislation that was enacted (the last edit I made). I think that was pretty balanced. Flyte35 (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone? Flyte35 (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I posted something above this

Flyte35, an anon user had made an edit which retained important elements of the issues I presented, which were then entirely deleted by grubiakm. We can't just have him deleting things to suit the senator's fancy, we need to have an encyclopedia entry that is factually accurate and historically representative of the senator's time in office. I still believe that the women's equality piece should be separate from the IDC section.

The last edit you made to the IDC and women's equality agenda was factually false as well. See, http://nownyc.org/womens-equality-agenda/32-state-senators-vote-against-choice/ and http://m.timesunion.com/local/article/Game-of-legislative-chicken-over-Women-s-Equality-4613497.php

All five members of the IDC support all ten points of the women's equality agenda, however due to lack of support and votes from the mainstream democratic conference the bill has failed see, http://www.nystateofpolitics.com/2013/06/klein-offers-hostile-abortion-amendment-fails/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotnys (talk • contribs) 04:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC) 

The last edit I made stated only that the IDC blocked Governor Cuomo's legislation and the Chairwoman of the Democratic Party sent an open letter to Carlucci about it. That's what the sourcing seems to indicate. I don't think this needs a play-by-play of the maneuvers, since it's just failed legislation, anyway, but if you've got a better few lines to use that would be great to see. Flyte35 (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll draft something, once again; it's not every day that the party chair pulls its support from a candidate so immediately. The sentiment of the party as well as woman's rights groups should be presented. Be back soon with this.

The IDC did not block the governors women's equality agenda, all five members are co sponsors on the bills and have supported all 10 planks of the bill. The legislation failed due to lack of support from the mainline democratic conference in the senate. Additionally the letter sent by chair of the county party seems to be politically motivated for other reasons, "The Rockland County Democratic committee is chaired by Kristen Stavisky, whose husband is Evan Stavisky, a partner at the consulting firm Parkside Group, which has close ties to the mainline Democratic conference." http://www.nystateofpolitics.com/2013/01/carlucci-under-pressure-from-local-democrats/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotnys (talk • contribs) 04:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well the source doesn't actually say that all five members are co sponsors on the bills and have supported all 10 planks of the bill and the legislation failed due to lack of support from the mainline democratic conference in the senate. That still might be true, of course. So you just want nothing about the IDC and Governor Cuomo's legislation? I'm trying to come up with text that works, not rehash the issue. Flyte35 (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I want to see things in there about the IDC and Cuomo, they are very important to the story of the senator.

"Over the past ten years, from Democratic, to Republican, to coalition control, there have never been 32 pro-choice members of the New York State Senate. Last year the Senate was proud to pass nine of the ten point Women’s Equality Act. As Andrea Miller should know, Senator Klein leads the only 100% pro-choice conference in the New York State Senate, the IDC."http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/203213/naral-to-klein-womens-equality-act-is-still-waiting/

However, it is not needed for this page, there is an excessive amount of false information and spin linked to the issue, so much so that I do not think that it can be mentioned in a non-biased way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotnys (talk • contribs) 05:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me, but I think you need Grubiakm and Samuelj6763 to agree for consensus. Flyte35 (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's clear that samuelj6763 will not agree due to the blatantly attacks and smear of their previous edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriotnys (talk • contribs) 06:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Well Samuelj6763 should propose something else then. I'm not really sure how to go about this if neither of the editors involved in the major edit war are involved, however.Flyte35 (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Flyte35 I agree with Patriotnys. The page has been locked for the next couple of days due to inaccuracies. I also plan to refute other misstatements in the article. The women's piece has already been removed by another wikipedia article because it was not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.154.242 (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's been locked because of editing disputes. That's what this talk page is for: resolving editing disputes. The first issue is the IDC and the governor's women's equality agenda. We should get that issue resolved, preferably with the participation of Grubiakm and Samuelj6763 and then move on to the other issues.Flyte35 (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Before I address all of the content added here, why are my words seen as blatant attacks? PatriotNYS, the articles you posted seem to contradict some of the sources I utilized, however, I will get into my take on the discrepancies later on.

Let's just work on the content. That's the most efficient way to come to a resolution here. Patriotnys made a pretty convincing case that the IDC and the governor's women's equality agenda issue is rather more complicated than the graf I'd proposed for it. It seems to me, considering legislation wasn't enacted anyway, that this doesn't really need to be in here.Flyte35 (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It was important enough of a matter to keep the senator from receiving the party's nomination at the convention. The point of the matter is that NO legislation was passed. The blocking power of the IDC is essential here. It disrupted important legislation from being passed. If you ignore this point, you might as well live in a fantasy world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelj6763 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, I don't agree with Patriotnys that the women's issue should be ignored just because it is too complicated. Also, I am trying to work with you guys to come up with a historically accurate portrayal of the senator, I would appreciate you stop saying that I am blatantly attacking anyone or smearing anyone. Everything I posted was found in the citations, if you have a problem with the content of those articles, perhaps you should contact the authors and raise your concern with them.Samuelj6763 (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are false. 9 pieces of legislation were passed, and in fact Senator Diane Savino was the lead sponsor of the 10th plank of the bill which, the IDC tried to get onto the floor via hostel amendment. See my citations above which clearly outline this. Patriotnys (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This is why we should probably just leave this information about the women's equality agenda out. If you guys can't reach consensus about appropriate language/aren't trying, this isn't going to go anywhere and we should just move on to the legislative summary so we can get this resolved.Flyte35 (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Rather than try to work on every aspect of this at once, lets focus on one issue at a time. Let's start by working on the most difficult area first. I'm guessing Patriotnys and GrubiakM are the same user, if not, it would be nice to have GrubiakM here, but since they both use the term blatant attack, they sound very similar. My proposal: The falling out between the senator and the Democrats that lasted over a year. There are some news sources and this is fairly interesting.

==Falling out with Democratic Party- Dissention Among the Ranks= Samuelj6763 (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the paragraph that 's in there now, under the heading Independent Democratic Conference, is fine:

On January 5, 2011, David Carlucci departed from the Senate Democratic Conference and co-formed the Independent Democratic Conference (IDC), with several other Democratic senators.[1] The formation of the IDC enabled Carlucci to be courted by both Democrats and Republicans for support. This break away from the Democratic Conference was seen as a betrayal by the local Democratic party and nearly prevented him from receiving its endorsement for the 2014 senatorial election. At the convention, some Democrats were particularly aggrieved that he did not deliver on his promise of introducing the Equality for Women Act while pushing for legislation contrary to the party's platform.[8] Although Govenor Andrew Cuomo had previously supported Carlucci, he later said that all of the Democrats in the IDC would face primaries unless they severed their ties with Senate Republicans. Organized labor also pressured Carlucci, along with the rest of the IDC, to realign himself with the mainline Democrats in the Senate Democratic Conference. Implied threats by union representatives suggested that organized labor would place its support elsewhere if Carlucci didn't support the Democratic party's policies.[9]

I would drop the last line because it doesn't indicate what actually occurred WRT labor, however.Flyte35 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The formation of the IDC enabled Carlucci to be courted by both Democrats and Republicans for support. This break away from the Democratic Conference was seen as a betrayal by the local Democratic party and nearly prevented him from receiving its endorsement for the 2014 senatorial election. At the convention, some Democrats were particularly aggrieved that he did not deliver on his promise of introducing the Equality for Women Act while pushing for legislation contrary to the party's platform.

Flyte35 I would argue you should take this line out as well. PatriotNYS made a good point arguing that the Women's Equality Act was actually introduced and brought to the floor of the State Senate. Grubiakm

I don't know about that. The line is "some Democrats were particularly aggrieved that he did not deliver on his promise of introducing the Equality for Women Act" and that's sourced.Flyte35 (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you it is sourced but as PatriotNYS mentioned, all ten bills of the women's equality act were brought to the floor. 9 passed the Senate and the 10th did not pass but all were voted on and Senator Carlucci voted yes on all ten bills. I would argue that the source itself is poorly fact checked.

Again, the Senate brought all ten points to the floor. Senator Carlucci voted yes on all ten points. Additionally, Senator Carlucci is not a majority leader so there was no way he could even bring the legislation to the floor of the Senate. The "some democrats" referenced in the article either did not understand what was actually happening or had other ideas of what delivering on a promise would be.

I would think voting yes on all ten pieces of legislation would mean he delivered. Grubiakm — Preceding undated comment added 20:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Well no, the line is that some "Democrats were particularly aggrieved that he did not deliver on his promise of introducing the Equality for Women Act." The article indicates that they WERE annoyed that he didn't introduce it. The fact that someone else later introduced it and he voted on it doesn't contradict the statement.Flyte35 (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

We are getting mixed up on our definition of introduced. The democrats in the article were upset all ten bills were not successfully passed as one comprehensive package. As a Senator, Carlucci can only sponsor and vote on legislation, he can not introduce bills onto the floor. Only the majority leader of the Senate can do this (Dean Skelos & Jeff Klein). ~~http://nypost.com/2013/06/17/cuomos-womens-equality-agenda-introduced-as-bill-without-abortion-rights-proposal/~~ Specifically note this text ″ In order for a bill to get a full vote, Skelos and Klein must both sign off on it or break the power-sharing agreement.″

Therefore they were annoyed that he could not do something he legally was not allowed to do. On top of all of this, Senator Carlucci did support all ten bills when they were individually introduced by Senator Klein and Senator Skelos, the majority leaders.

Make sense? ~~Grubiakm~~

The source indicates that Democrats were particularly aggrieved that he did not deliver on his promise. Perhaps their concern was unwarranted, but that's still not a reason to remove the line. Voters are often misinformed. That doesn't mean it's inaccurate to say voters were annoyed with him.Flyte35 (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

NY Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act of 2013

This information has nothing to do with Carlucci's biography.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, the New York State Legislature passed the SAFE act on January 15, 2013. The law was criticized as being "rushed through" by the legislature as a knee jerk reaction to the Connecticut tragedy.[10] Some of the criticism of the SAFE act included the implication of immediately criminalizing all police who carried standard ten-round magazines and that the seven-round magazines simply did not exist. The bill rendered most gun owners outlaws until the governor pushed for a suspension of the seven-round clause.[11]

The quote is fine.

Grubiakm

It's true that this doesn't seem to have anything to do with the subject specifically. I don't think it should be in the article, no.Flyte35 (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The First Amendment and anti-cyberbullying movement

I also do not understand why this is entire section is part of his bio. Carlucci was a co-author on the report but the legislation discussed in the report did not pass. Grubiakm

More importantly, the source doesn't even mention his name. That's why I keep trying to take it out.Flyte35 (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Taking it out entirely sounds good to me. Grubiakm Thanks

Daily Show

This came at a time when the debate of legalizing same-sex marriage was raging and Senate was in extended session.

This is inaccurate. Carlucci brought up the Onion bill on an entirely different day. Marriage Equality was passed on June 24th 2011 while the onion bill was discussed on June 21st.

Grubiakm

More importantly, and "Senate was in extended session" is not provided in the sourcing. So that should be out, yes.Flyte35 (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Career

"In 2010, during his run for Senate, Carlucci accepted a pivotal endorsement from Preserve Ramapo because of an alignment of ideologies."

Senator Carlucci was endorsed by Preserve Ramapo but he was also endorsed by an enormous amount of groups from around the State.Grubiakm (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)http://ballotpedia.org/David_Carlucci#Endorsements To name just one would be inappropriate for the bio page. I would suggest to name all of his endorsements from 2010 but the information is outdated and too political for a bio page. This should be removed.

"This endorsement helped Carlucci beat out Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef by 6 percentage points."

This is just ridiculous. The source is a NY Post article showing Carlucci won in 2010 by thousands of votes. No mention of Preserve Ramapo at all. This should also be removed.

The source does not indicate that the endorsement was important to the election, so yes. "In 2010, during his run for Senate, Carlucci beat out Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef by 6 percentage points." would be a better sentence.Flyte35 (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)