Here's Sen. John Bonacic announcing that rules reform will take place in the Senate as a result of today's coup.
Bonacic, who co-chaired a bipartisan Committee on Rules and Administration along with Democratic Sen. Dave Valesky (but then refused to lend his name to its finished product), called Sens. Hiram Monserrate and Pedro Espada Jr. "good men" for stepping up to the plate and making this all possible.
The new rules, as outlined via press release by Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos and passed immediately in the wake of the coup, are fairly lengthy. The full list appears after the jump. A few highlights:
- Splits the majority leader and pro tempore posts. (The latter presides in the absence of an LG, is subject to a six-year term and appoints the vice president of Urban Policy and Planning (that has been Monserrate's) and the vice chair of Rules (reportedly, this is going to be Monserrate's, too).
- The majority leader also has a six-year term, coordinates the majority conference, appoints officers and employees of the Senate, subject to the pro tempore's approval and - here's a scary one - designates persons with access to the floor.
- Eight-year terms for committee chairs and rankers.
- No proxy voting, no ayes without recommendation.
- Equitable access to Senate supplies, print and media production, administrative services, and mailing.
- Staffing will be proportional, but will never be less than 33 percent for the minority.
- Member items will be divided evenly (!)
- All procedural votes require a majority only of members present.
- Debate may exceed four hours on budget bills.
link
It's hard for me to evaluate how serious these changes are, but a few things strike out. As Liz noted, the even split of member items is a gigantic change. That would wipe out partisan inequities in pork items between the majority and the minority. The six year term limit on the Majority Leader is also huge. Such a change would limit the "Era of Bruno" concept and would probably pressure the Assembly to end the Era of Silver, lest they look like they've been left behind.
I can't help but wonder if the year in the minority did some good to the Republican caucus. It's very possible that they received the same treatment our party received all those years, and decided it wasn't much fun working in those conditions. Plus I'm sure the Republicans can read the handwriting on the wall and recognize that full Democratic control of the Senate is only a matter of time. These changes give the minority some semblance of respectability, though, again, I can't really evaluate how much.
Still, this might be very bad news for Democratic campaigns in 2010. If Republicans accomplish rules reform in a day when our caucus couldn't accomplish it in a year, what does that say about electing more Democrats to the Senate?
I sure hope I'm wrong about this.
