Meanwhile, in an alternate universe that could return

by: simonstl

Fri Jul 10, 2009 at 22:41:05 PM EDT

This New York Times story mentions another possible deal that would have looked very different:

Separately, the faction of seven white Democrats, led by Senator Jeffrey D. Klein of the Bronx, that had sought the power-sharing deal with the Republicans is especially uneasy with Mr. Espada, who faces investigations related to nonprofit health clinics he runs, his campaign finance practices and whether his primary residence is in the Bronx. Any arrangement they reached with Republicans would probably have pushed Mr. Espada aside.

Faced with that possibility, Mr. Espada returned to the Democrats in exchange for a job whose power beyond its title is difficult to discern.

The Times tells the story as racial polarization, perhaps reasonably. At the same time, though, I'm wondering who those seven Senators were and what they were discussing with which Republicans. Partly, it's because I wonder if this looked at all like the reform caucus I wrote about earlier (or not), and partly it's because I suspect that Dean Skelos is right about one thing:

Within a few months, maybe six months, there is going to be so much discord within that conference that we're going to be running the Senate, all right?

Maybe the current deal will hold until the 2010 elections, or at least through budget season. It seems unlikely to me, though.

A relevance caucus?

by: simonstl

Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 12:06:19 PM EDT

I wrote earlier about the nebulous prospects for a reform caucus among Senate Democrats. While the number of Democrats I'd include is disappointingly small, the challenge on the Republican side is even greater.

Almost all of the Republicans in the Senate were there in the Bruno years, when sticking together was the Republicans' way of keeping control. Many of the Republicans are also pretty old, which likely spares them the concern of decades trapped in the powerlessness of the Assembly Minority.

Given the demographic disaster they face, it's hard for me to believe that Republicans are going to be able to hold on to power in the long term even if this coup holds up - and even if, say, they lured over a few Democrats from the more fractured Democratic caucus.

In that future, it seems like the best path for Republican Senators' self-interest is to reduce the importance of party and leadership. Shifting the Senate to a model where individual Senators matter, rather than just a few, promises not only democracy for New York State but also a reason for Republicans to have some hope for the future. (And party-switching seems unlikely, not to mention not that productive.)

Tomorrow

by: simonstl

Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 20:03:57 PM EDT

The stage is set for collision tomorrow. The Republicans have called a session for 2:00pm tomorrow, I guess so that they can ramble about the special session the Governor has called for 3:00pm.

The Republicans had another session today, but it doesn't sound like they could do much, at least according to Albany Citizen 1's reporting.

Any thoughts on what'll happen? Will the Governor seriously send the State Police out to bring in Senators and force a quorum in the Senate chamber? Will anything actually come of that quorum, if it does?

It's been awfully quiet around here the last few days. Are we all just waiting to see what happens? Or is the Senate just not that interesting?

Update: Or maybe Pedro Espada will just come back. Seems unlikely, but so have a lot of things.

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.

Senate heading home

by: simonstl

Fri Jun 19, 2009 at 12:12:35 PM EDT

Well, they may still be getting paid, but at least they shouldn't be collecting per-diems: the State Senate is heading home.

Democrats and Republicans are back in their home districts until Monday, which is scheduled to be the last day of the regular session this year.

Leaders are staying around for talks, maybe, and then court next week.

Update: Maybe Paterson will summon them back.

Decentralizing Senate power

by: simonstl

Sun Jun 14, 2009 at 09:30:04 AM EDT

Negotiators are busy this weekend, trying to line up legislators so that one or the other party will have a majority. There's a real prospect of 31-31, which most commentators have argued would be terrible, but the basic problem is that both sides really really want the greatly enhanced power that comes from being the majority party.

That desire is what's brought us to a legislative leadership (in both parties) intent on buying two of our less reputable freshman legislators at any cost. Bring them in, and you have the magic 32-30.

There are other options, though. While it may be hard for those who came up through the Bruno years to imagine, it's possible for legislatures to operate with less concentrated power in the hands of the leadership. I know that may also disappoint Democrats who were looking for payback after years of Republican stomping - hence things like the 10-1 ratio of member items - but the concentration of power in the majority party is the root cause of the coup and resulting chaos.

Imagine a Senate in which the leadership's task was facilitating legislation rather than deciding on it. Where the Rules Committee set and enforced rules rather than determining - with the majority leadership - which legislation was allowed to go to the floor. In which coalitions of legislators from both parties could pass legislation, needing only a majority of legislators, not the consent of the majority party.

I know, it's hard to imagine that in New York of all places. We haven't done business like that in a long time. At the same time, there's more to these ideas than an abstract call for reform. Functioning legislatures can deal with the challenges of a closely divided house. The temptation to "take my toys and go home" is greatly reduced when there's a conversation going on, a conversation open to all legislators and even the public.

I'd be surprised if these are the kinds of proposals being discussed this weekend by legislative and party leaders. I'm not sure that there's enough trust to implement them in any case, enough faith that this wouldn't just break down into further parliamentary maneuvering.

As our old system collapses, though, I think there's a very pragmatic case to be made for changes to the rules that allow a more flexible approach to legislating. Not because it's "reform" (though I thank the Brennan Center for having thought much of this through), but because this approach lets people who disagree about many things still accomplish work in the many specific cases where they can find agreement.

That would be a nice change.

With All Due Respect, Can We Leave God Out of This?

by: robinia

Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 11:54:51 AM EST

There's a line in the sand for me, though, that I won't cross.  Something that makes me find a candidate for leadership dangerous and unacceptable, even if we share views on policy.  I'm completely and relentlessly consistent on this issue, which both Sarah Palin and GW Bush went over the line on: any candidate who believes that God, not the people, chose him or her to lead is, IMHO, not fit to serve in office.  Claiming to hear directly from the Divine on matters of policy and political leadership subverts democracy, I think.

Now, I was entirely consistent with my own attitude about this when considering the self-imposed plight of 3 Musketeers Gangsta Ruben Diaz.  When jmcbride wrote a diary here titled Diaz -- the anti-democrat , he quoted Diaz (from Cap Con) thus:

I have not committed myself to anybody, and my position as an ordained minister and a pastor will not allow me to support any would be leader that will bring gay marriage to the Senate floor.

jmcbride added this thought:

Diaz apparently believes his unique and short lived power should allow him to control what gets to the floor for a vote.

To which I responded:

Worse than that..  
he believes that his religion should control what gets to the floor for a vote.  While power-hungry individuals are dealt with by our constitutional democracy through the means of regular elections, control of government by religious doctrine is, actually, flat-out prohibited.

I later suggested that if Diaz's ministerial/religious duties caused a conflict with his duties as a Senator, he should resign his position as Senator.  Still feel that way.  So, I was very pleased when Malcolm Smith re-thought his previous deal-making position on this issue, as per his press release:

Furthermore,  real reform cannot and should not ever include limiting the civil rights of any New Yorkers. Those issues must be part of the legislative process.

Way to support the Constitution and fulfill your oath of office, Malcolm.  Not that I expect theocrat Diaz to back down.  

But, recently Smith said something to make me worry about how well he really understands this... (on the flip).

Well, If Not Malcolm, Who?

by: robinia

Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 19:52:34 PM EST

Klein is too obvious, so, do you think anyone else has a chance?

Who's a reformer?

by: simonstl

Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 10:39:45 AM EDT

Today is Reform Day, so the State Capitol will hold a much higher proportion than usual of people interested in changing the works that go on in that building.

Legislators will doubtless be telling everyone willing to hear about their support for reform, and how they've supported it in the past. Legislators in the minority of both houses have a strong interest in reform, of course. They're the ones most damaged by the current system, and nothing to lose by publicly complaining about it.

Among the majority parties - Senate Republicans, Assembly Democrats - how can you tell who wants to do something about reforming legislative structures and who's just talking?

I offer a simple guideline, though not one those legislators may like.

Would "Speaker Brodsky" be a change?

by: simonstl

Mon Apr 09, 2007 at 17:09:27 PM EDT

The New York Sun has an article on speculation that Assemblyman Brodsky would like to be Speaker, though they don't make it sound like he's looking for a Bragman-style coup.

I like Brodsky, some days. I thought his recent op-ed was pitiful, but it sort of makes sense if he's aiming to become Speaker.

Here's a hard question, though. Would Speaker Brodsky really be that much different from Speaker Silver? Would there be opportunities (outside of Westchester) for change?

[Update] I hit post, then saw NYCO has an interesting answer already:

but honestly, if this is the choice, I’d rather see a Speaker who has too much pride than one who merely has no shame.

Wow.

Legislators - selfish reasons to support reform

by: simonstl

Sun Feb 25, 2007 at 09:23:06 AM EST

While the majority party members in each house aren't inclined to admit it, I think a dose of reform might make life in the state legislature a lot more fun for all of its participants, maybe even including the leadership. (Yes, it would take a different kind of leader.)

Why?

• Much more room to move. Legislators could build the coalitions they need to address the issues they're working on, without worrying about whether the leadership approves.

• Real work! Functioning legislative committees could hold a lot more hearings, study a lot more possibilities, and get to the bottom of things on a regular basis.

• Seniority and merit might find better rewards. In a system where the leader is trying to maintain control, being a promising new leader is a ticket to obscurity. In a legislative system that's functioning, it's a ticket to getting things accomplished.