They generate controversy whenever light shines upon them: millions of taxpayer dollars often derided as pork that legislators distribute in their districts.

But as New York state enters the second year in recent memory without any funding for “member items,” the more-generous name afforded the allocations by their backers, some not-for-profit groups that have benefited from the items in the past are lamenting their absence, and legislators who doled them out are pushing to restore them.

“We don’t get any other funding from the state, so it’s really the only state money we get,” said Brad Shear, executive director of the Mohawk & Hudson River Humane Society. “If it’s not there, our ongoing expenses would become higher, and we’ve got to look other places.”

Shear was awarded $7,500 for the Humane Society’s Menands shelter by Assemblyman Bob Reilly, D-Colonie, in 2009. Lawmakers included $170 million of member items in the budget that year, with $85 million each distributed by members of the Senate and Assembly.

The money was used to upgrade to a central heating and air system, which Shear said reduced utility bills by 25 percent. Other grants upgraded kennels to reduce contact between animals, and in turn, stem the spread of disease.

This year, Gov. Andrew Cuomo put forward his $132.9 billion executive budget without including any allotment for member items. Jeffrey Gordon, a spokesman for the Division of the Budget, said Cuomo believes “given the current fiscal crisis, this was not a priority.” It’s fairly common for a governor to propose a budget without the allotment; often, legislative leaders add the money during back-and-forth discussions over the spending plan.

A budget must be adopted by April 1. The state faces a $10 billion deficit.

Lawmakers added the spending last year, only to see the items vetoed by Gov. David Paterson. Cuomo’s proposed budget would make an $85 million deposit in the member item fund to pay out obligations still lingering from 2009, but projects funding will be gone by mid-September.

That’s good, say some conservative critics of government spending. They attacked the self-boosting way some grants are awarded, the discretion legislators are given to pick funding recipients and unequal distributions between legislators based on party and tenure of service.

“If they serve a useful and essential purpose, at a time like this especially, they should be part of the regular budget of the agency in the program area concerned,” said E.J. McMahon, director of the Empire Center for Public Policy, a conservative think tank. “You didn’t get it from Joe Bruno, you got it from the taxpayers of New York state. They’re all like Bill Gates, like they have their own private, philanthropic foundations.”

Legislators like Reilly defended their grant-making, arguing they have a better sense of their constituents’ needs than agency bureaucrats.

“If the state agencies can do that, which we indirectly give them the money to support … we pass the money to do that and empower them to make those grants. How much better to let us directly make grants,” he said.

But problems have arisen because not all legislators are perfectly pure of heart. The most egregious recent offender was Pedro Espada Jr., who as a senator unsuccessfully sought over $1 million for a nonprofit group headquartered at the health clinic he ran. Espada has pleaded not guilty to criminal charges that he looted the clinic for his personal gain.

Sen. Roy McDonald, R-Saratoga, has misgivings about the system — but he’s hardly one to say no to funding for the voters who elect him. “I would prefer not to have any member items, but if you’re going to have member items, then I can’t shortchange my community,” he said. “It puts a lot of stress on the legislator to determine who gets the money and who doesn’t. I don’t want to be King Solomon.”

Read article here