New York lawmakers have certainly grown accustomed to criticism about the “dysfunctional” nature of politics in Albany, but we remain hopeful that with leadership changes coming about this year that the legislative process just might change for the better.

Some specific points to consider were released this week in a study by the Brennan Center for Justice, part of the New York University of Law, which concluded that nearly all the aspects of an ideal legislative process are lacking in Albany.

According to the report, bills drafted by individual lawmakers should be subject to public committee hearings, where strengths and weaknesses can be identified before revisions are made.

In Albany, unfortunately, that's almost never the case, as Assembly and Senate leaders, not rank-and-file lawmakers, decide which bills get advanced. There is little, if any, debate, and unanimous votes are the rule, not the exception.

Committee chairs, the report argues, need to have authority over their own staffs and budgets so that they will not be entirely beholden to their respective house's leaders.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who has held his post since many of his colleagues were teenagers, was, not surprisingly, critical of the report, arguing that plenty of substantive reforms have already come to fruition.

Senate Democrats, who now hold a slim majority, are said to be more open to rules reform that will make the legislative process more inclusive.

Some legislative rule changes did take place following the Brennan Center's 2006 report, but a new study saying the process “remains broken” means it's time for lawmakers to take another look at what their critics are saying and make some significant changes in the openness and the process of state government.