....June 25, 11:00 AM
 
 
 
Writing The Epitaths Of The 62 NYS Senators

By MICHAEL SCHENKLER

My weekly column writing is usually preceded by considerable mental exercise to select a topic and then an equal amount of head time mentally drafting, redrafting, spinning and twisting until I sit down at the keyboard and begin writing.

Not so this week.

The topic selected itself. The pathetic show taking place in Albany – or not taking place at all – is the ultimate self-commentary on the nation’s most dysfunctional or rather now non-functional legislature; and when the circus comes to town, it demands the spotlight.

We have witnessed in the past two-plus weeks, years of pathetic performance turn into non-performance; years of power struggles turn into a power void; years of “to the victor goes the spoils,” become “if you can’t be victorious just spoil it.”

I could go on.

The disgusting performance by the New York State Senate is not the fault of one or two leaders or one or two members. We could and do condemn Dean Skelos, John Sampson, our friend Malcolm Smith for failing to take the opportunity, when presented, to reform the body that has languished for years to serve members and party rather than state and people. We condemn morally bankrupt Pedro Espada Jr and Hiram Monserrate for taking the body from abysmal into the abyss.

But most of all, we condemn each and every one of the 62 New York State Senators who by their inaction allow, permit, encourage and cause the worst two-plus weeks of performance of the worst legislative body in the nation. It’s time to check the thesaurus for words usable to describe the group of people we’ve elected to office in Albany.

Remind me, remind this paper, remind yourselves in the Primary in September 2010 and the General election that follows next November, not one single member of the New York State Senate deserve your vote. Not one of them ever deserves to be elected to public office.

Any one of the 62 Senators could stand up and shout out their own disgust with the body they are members of. Any one of them could cross the aisle to allow the vote on a handful of absolutely critical bills needed to avoid crisis in our state. Any one of them could give the ultimatum to their leader that we are in session today or my support goes elsewhere. Any one on either side of the aisle could bring change.

Any one of the 62 State Senators could change the course of the present day failure. But party loyalty, the system of fear, reward and punishment that has so hobbled Albany for decades, has brought silence to the lips of the members of the New York State Senate.

Their sad colleagues in the New York State Assembly are also woefully quiet in a time that bold leadership is required.

Sadly, our accidental Governor has slipped further into the incapable-to-lead category. For those like Charlie Rangel who continue to play the race card to demand his re-election, performance, not color, will decide. And all the posturing in the world will not get David Paterson past a vote of the people.

We have only heard of one small voice from the State Senate, that of Manhattan State Senator Liz Kruger who sent a taxpayer-funded letter to 30,000 homes in her upper east side district which said in part:

“The last two weeks in Albany have taught me that no matter how dysfunctional I thought this place was, it really was possible for it to get worse.”

“I strongly believe that the attempted coup had nothing to do with reform and was simply a blatant power grab by the Republican party and a couple of disaffected Democrats.”

“Of course, this is Albany, so the Democrats have much to be ashamed of, too. They broke their campaign promises to operate the Senate in a more open and democratic fashion. Instead, they used their narrow majority to vindictively punish Republican senators….”

My friend Gary Levi called me and said we need a commission of the former governors – George Pataki, Mario Cuomo, Hugh Carey (he left out Eliot Spitzer) to be called to Albany to fix the system and solve the problem. Perhaps, I suggested, Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr. could do the trick.

Times columnist Clyde Haberman snidely suggested doing away with the Senate and having a unicameral legislature – like Nebraska. Many have just given up and are waiting for the corrupt and inept 62 to get their orders from leadership and continue to continue to do business as it has been done in our State. Others are hoping for an activist court to lock them all up or order them to session.

Me, I’ve had it.

The performance during the period of the past two weeks plus will remain as the first lines on the resumes of the 62 members and the first lines of each of their political epitaphs which we hope to write soon.

MSchenkler@QueensTribune.com

Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.

 
 
Senate Shut Down All Week; Will Courts Take On Clowns?

Henry Stern
By Henry J. Stern

As some of you may recall, we started counting days on June 8, the day the Republicans took control of the State Senate with the aid of two renegade (or enlightened) Democrats. We write late Friday (Day 12) and the next business and court day is Monday, June 22 (Day 15). The Senate had planned to adjourn for the summer that day, leaving eight days before the law providing mayoral control of the public schools, adopted in 2002, expires unless it is renewed.

There are external consequences to the Senate’s inability to convene, much less function.

It was just one week ago that we reported Tom Golisano’s profound disappointment at Malcolm Smith’s frequent conversations with his pet Blackberry while the man who helped finance the Democratic take-over of the Senate had been granted an audience to discuss matters of substance. Smith had been installed as temporary president of the Senate, 32-30, with Golisano’s financial assistance in electing Democrats. His previous choices, the Republicans, lost his support for deceiving him into believing they supported budget reductions, but such misrepresentation, as Golisano is learning, is par for the political course.

Our article was initially and unintentionally called “The Blackberry Revolution,” harkening back to the Cedar Revolution (Lebanon), the Velvet Revolution (Czech Republic), and the Orange Revolution (Ukraine). We meant to give it a more precise title, considering the twists and turns caused by the parties’ efforts to retain, or regain, power and pelf. We meant to call the article “The Blackberry Turnover;” think of it that way.

Like the courts, we gave the lawmakers some time to straighten out their situation. This they have conspicuously to do. In fact, they left Albany to go home for the weekend, which is understandable if not commendable.

Every day the Senators scrap and dawdle, what little public regard still exists for any of them is diminished. The news that they hastened to sign their own pay despite failing to transact any public business will only reinforce the low esteem in which the squabbling senators are held.

We can, however, think of four beneficial aspects of the leadership fiasco.

1) The Senate, by their inaction, corroborated all the negatives we and others declaimed about them. The removal of any interim doubt as to their efficacy may speed reform.

2) They have made the Assembly look good by comparison, moderate despotism being regarded as more desirable than total anarchy.

3) Some Senators have shown a willingness to sell each other out. This merits a reality show of its own, with them voting each other off the island.

4) Local District Attorneys have stepped up their inquiries, apparently only of the turncoats, although those derelictions have been widely known for years. The switchers are far from the only sinners in the Senate.

We also ask four tactical questions about the Senators’ roles in the ongoing unseemly fracas.

1) How, in fact, does a legislator say anything public about the subject without getting into trouble with his colleagues, peers, leaders, rivals and aspirants for his office?

2) How can attention be diverted from Senators Espada and Monserrate, the stars of the spectacle, without coming too close to the discredited duo? Senators want to shine individually, but escape the pall of their colleagues’ misconduct.

3) This provides a new test for the more avid seekers of public attention: how does one handle a situation where the underlying story is negative – protracted dereliction of duty – and yet develop a positive sound bite for yourself?

4) How can one appear to be above the fray, while at the same time influencing the outcome in his own and his party’s favor?

Our last quartet of questions looks to the future.

1) When, if ever, will public distaste for the Senate be expressed at the ballot box?

2) What will happen if the circus lasts beyond June 30, and the money for towns and for agencies runs out?

3) When, if ever, will the courts assume jurisdiction over the impasse, citing irreparable damage which would occur in time?

4) How will all this affect the 2010 legislative election? Who will be blamed for the crisis?

Keep in mind the nuclear solution: Emulate Nebraska, and become the second state with a unicameral legislature. This would be a lot cheaper, not only in terms of salaries for members and staff, but all the member items ($48.7 million this year in New York) that would not have to be spent.

In conclusion, the most poignant and painful article this week on the mess in Albany was Clyde Haberman’s column, which appeared in Monday’s Times. We strongly recommend that you read it, although it may cause some distress. Link to it at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/nyregion/16nyc.html?_r=3 and writhe.

StarQuest@NYCivic.org

Not4Publication.com by Dom Nunziato
Michael Schenkler can be reached via this contact form.