Sampson Dubbed "Conference Leader"

Let's have none of this silly stuff (4.00 / 2)

Smith is out and Sampson is in.  Case closed, guys.  None of this fake title nonsense.

---

by: BingChester @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 19:54:33 PM UTC

It's a legal thing... (0.00 / 0)

Something about Smith's name being on the lawsuit, and also about his being elected majority leader for two years.

---

by: JohnS @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 22:40:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Skelos's move (4.00 / 1)

It seems to me that Dean Skelos now has to reach across the aisle, or he risks looking like the obstructionist.

Espada jumping ship is nothing new, and he won't be around much longer (a year and a half at the outside).  Meanwhile, there are several seats that could also switch from red to blue, especially if Skelos is perceived as the guy who is stopping things from getting done.

Of course, it all depends on how Sampson moves, or tries to move, forward on reform.  For all Malcolm Smith may have made enemies, he did try to change the way things are done.  If Sampson at least tries to continue the reforms, then Skelos and the Republicans will be in a bad position.  If they go along, they'll merely be going along, but if they refuse, they'll be the ones at fault whenever anything gets screwed up.

Who would have thought that Hiram Monserrate would be the one to make this situation happen?  

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 20:03:51 PM UTC

I'm not all that convinced (4.00 / 1)

that Smith tried to change the way things were done...

---

by: Jrathman @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 20:23:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Smith and reform (4.00 / 1)

Let's review a few things:

One of the first reforms Smith initiated was equalizing the funds available for Senators' staffs, rather than giving the majority party three times as much money.  (Of course, the Dems, particularly the high-ranking Dems, got the better offices, but still...)

Second, he convened a bipartisan reform panel, and hired a major reform advocate and activist as its top staffer.

I have also been following the workings of the Elections committee (Joseph Addabbo, chair); they have been doing great work, and were all set to bring a number of major election reforms to the floor of the Senate when the insanity got in the way.

Yes, Smith was pushing for serious reform in several directions.  These things don't get done overnight, and perhaps he was pushing too fast for some people's comfort, but when you compare what he did in his short tenure with what had been done over the past 80 years, it's mind-boggling.

---

by: Dan Jacoby @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 20:56:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Add on top of that (0.00 / 0)

the fact that Smith empowered Daniel Squadron to work on a variety of rules reforms, which were slated for passage next year (since he's still working on them).  I think it's extremely unfair to claim Smith stood in the way of reform.

The more I read about this, the more it sounds like a pissing match.  Republicans were mad because the Senate Secretary was bossing them around and they were getting shafted on member items.  In other words, they didn't like their status in the minority.

---

by: BingChester @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 21:39:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm guessing this is really for legal purposes (0.00 / 0)

Since it's Smith vs. Espada, it's probably not wise to change horses in the legal midstream.

In the meantime they need a story, and Smith's continuing involvement.

Maybe there's more to it, but it definitely seems odd.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall at the leaders' meeting in a bit...

---

by: simonstl @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 20:05:38 PM UTC

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

Smith might get his name on top for the legal wrangling, but he's lost the faith of the conference.

Pres Pro Tem will be Malcolm Smith if we win in court and Sampson will be minority leader if we lose.

---

by: Amherst Guy @ Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 20:53:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]