Klavino Becomes Indy Dems: Risk and Reward Scenarios for New Democratic Caucus

by: BingChester

Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 22:30:24 PM EST

In brief:
1) This is about policy, not politics
2) They're still Democrats and they believe in Democrats, they just don't believe in the way the Senate Democrats were doing business
3) They strongly support the Cuomo agenda
4) They want the Democrats to take back the caucus but they want to earn that by supporting the right policies instead of winning the political battle.

Analysis over the fold.

A Senate caucus I can cheer for?

by: simonstl

Wed Jan 05, 2011 at 10:59:06 AM EST

I'd pretty much planned to spend the next two years as I had the last two, cursing both caucuses of the New York State Senate for their general worthlessness, obsessive self-interest, and pretty complete failure to accomplish much. The only substantial improvement the Democrats made was in adding more transparency through a vastly improved web presence - but while that's important, hiring an IT staff isn't the central task of legislatures.

Today, I have a third caucus to contemplate, one I can at least start with a little more hope for. It's led by Jeff Klein, and includes (so far) Diane Savino, David Valesky, and David Carlucci.

After the utter catastrophe of the last two years, I'm happy to hear Dems say that they've had enough. I'm aware that none of our State Senators are perfect people, and doubtless we'll start hearing gripes about the circular firing squad from party regulars who can't imagine open disagreement.

Will it make a difference? A lot of that depends on Republican party discipline, which seems to hold tight. I don't think it's likely to make things much worse, though I suppose there's still some room for a worse Albany.

We'll see where this goes, but for the moment it gives me a tiny fragment of hope. Now if only something similar would happen in the Assembly... not likely.

Update: The Daily News posted the print announcement with agenda.

Looking beyond the leadership

by: simonstl

Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 10:46:05 AM EDT

Yesterday's New York Times editorial, "The Lost Arts of Albany", seems likely to draw the same kind of response from the Senate leadership as the "goo-goo" editorials they've noted when convenient and ignored when inconvenient.

The editorial takes a slightly different approach than most I've seen, though, and even takes a chance in identifying Senators of both parties they think could work through the issues:

We suggest these Democrats: Liz Krueger of Manhattan, Andrea Stewart-Cousins of Westchester County, David Valesky of Syracuse and José M. Serrano of the Bronx. Republicans should include Charles Fuschillo of Long Island, Frank Padavan of Queens, John DeFrancisco of Syracuse and Elizabeth Little of Glens Falls.

This group will not agree on issues, but they can agree to make their house work less like an autocracy.

Now they've done it, painting scarlet letters on these folks as "the people the Times thinks know better than their leadership". I'm not sure they could have made their point without doing that, but it seems like a case where naming people ensures that they won't be able to talk. But maybe...

At the same time, though, they have a good point. I think back to Liz Krueger's comments on "to the victor goes the spoils", and wonder how far down the leadership hierarchy that attitude goes. I suspect that it weakens substantially.

It's hard to imagine Senators, perhaps especially Republican Senators, breaking party ranks to talk about this. Still, it seems like a worthy prayer for a Sunday morning.

Who is the State Senate Reform Caucus?

by: simonstl

Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 17:26:02 PM EDT

I worry that it's a figment of my imagination.

I really liked Liz Krueger's letter this morning, but it left me with a big question:

Is she really the only person in there fighting against "to the victor goes the spoils"?

So far, I'm afraid she's the only person talking about it, though I'm hoping that I've just missed something in the fray.

We obviously can't listen in on the Democratic caucus' closed meetings, or those of the Republicans either, but the current break in the frantic action at the Capitol seems like a good moment to assess who's really interested in decentralizing the Senate's power structures.

Possible candidates I've heard:

Daniel Squadron

Was testing out new processes in committee; certainly ran as a reformer against Connor.

David Valesky

Certainly ran on reform, still surfaces in conversation about it.

Sorry - I know that's a short list. I'm trying to stick to people who've continued in the reform conversation since the Democrats took power, and I worry that I may even be overstating it.

Anyone want to stick up for your favorite Senator? Or knock down these folks? How about on the Republican side? Is there anyone over there cursing years of working in lockstep and pushing for a deeply changed approach?

I know, with all State Senate Republicans claiming to be reformers these days, it's a little hard to differentiate them. But are there signs that maybe some of them mean it?