By NYS Senate standards, the GOP schmuck who wandered through the Senate chamber to get coffee was doing a day's work

"It was never about power, but about empowerment -- of 62 members."

-- "Gang of One" freshman Sen. Pedro Espada Jr. (seen

above during yesterday's negotiations in the Capitol), at a

press conference after rejoining the New York State

Senate's Democratic "majority" -- as majority leader!!!

"It was quite bad enough when Eliot Spitzer was unable to keep his pants on, but that was at least a personal failing and not related to government. You guys, however, just pretty much produced a signed letter to every independent, moderate Republican, and a lot of rank and file Democrats, attesting to the fact that you intend to be just as rancidly dysfunctional as the Republicans were."

-- Adama D. Brown, site administrator of GLOWDemocrats.com

("a joint project of the Genesee, Livingston, Orleans,

and Wyoming County Demoratic committees"),

in "An open letter to my fellow Democrats"

by Ken

So, the 31-day "coalition" -- comprising the 30 New York State Senate Republicans plus Bronx "Democrat" Pedro Espada Jr. -- is no more.

Not much of a coalition, you say? Thirty Republicans plus one Democrat -- and the Democrat a fellow who must wonder every morning when he wakes up if today is the day he'll be indicted for one of the numerous swatches of shady dealing he's under investigation for. And, for that matter, a coalition that produced nothing more durable than a stalemate, 31-31, with the remainder of the new Senate "majority" created in the November election.

Credit the "coalition" leader, now-once-again Minority Leader Dean Skelos of Nassau County, with commanding enough knowledge of Senate procedure -- the Republicans' 70-year hold on the Senate was previously broken only by a brief interlude in 1965 -- to stage the famous June 8 coup, with a lot of prodding by failed gubernatorial candidate and zillionaire busybody Tom "The Golem" Golisano, that overturned the Democratic "majority," with the connivance a Gang of Two renegade Democrats (slimmed down from the briefly famous Gang of Three and Gang of Four).

That GOP parliamentary savvy was good enough to swing control to the "coalition" long enough to wrest control from the Democrats and surely enough that even when the other renegade "Democrat," Queens Sen. Hiram Monserrate (if you're keeping score, he's the one who's already under indictment, for allegedly beating up his girlfriend, with the alleged involvement of a broken bottle), returned to the fold, creating the 31-31 standoff, it was impossible for the Democratic "majority" to undo any of the stuff the "coalition" majority had done without striking some kind of deal, like the one they did yesterday, which included making Senator Espada the majority leader!

Now, normally the Senate majority leader is the person who runs the joint, but that doesn't appear quite what's envisioned in this grand "compromise." It's clear that the troubled tenure of Queens Sen. Malcolm Smith is over. Smith had been chosen as leader by the new "Democratic" majority but never really controlled the caucus, and in the wake of the "coalition" coup had already been replaced as "conference leader" by Brooklyn Sen. John Sampson (below).

I am assuming that under yesterday's deal it's "conference leader" Sampson who will be running the Democratic show, even though Malcolm Smith is to have the title of Senate "president," at least for some unspecified time. You have to figure that Senator Espada is scheduled to receive at least some of the money that would normally flow to the Senate majority leader -- and all available evidence indicates that money is very important to the senator -- but you have to assume that that's about the extent of what the reestablished Democratic "majority" plans to do for him.

There were still glitches, but as the AP reported, eventually the Senate got back to business:

While the stalemate was over, at first the standstill wasn't. Republicans decided to slow the voting process because they were furious Democrats didn't include Senate rules reforms on the agenda. Senate Republican Leader Dean Skelos, of Long Island, said the GOP objected to the Democrats' plan to pass pork barrel spending — also known as member items, money that lawmakers can take back to their districts for pet projects.

After an hour of closed-door discussion, member items were removed from the agenda and both sides developed the framework for a rules reform agreement. Both will likely be taken up next week. Both sides said the rules changes will give individual senators more power to move bills out of committees and to the floor for a vote, among other reforms.

Most of the bills passed late Thursday and early Friday were for local taxes that would keep local governments funded and running.

For more than a month, the Senate's paralysis stalled action on mayoral control of New York City's schools, taxing authority in some municipalities and economic development programs.

[Gov. David] Paterson estimated that the state's municipalities lost as much as $150 million during the conflict — most of it missed sales tax revenue — including $60 million in New York City.

A LOCAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY ACTIVIST VOICES
WHAT A LOT OF NYS DEMS ARE THINKING

This "open letter" by Adama D. Brown, site administrator of GLOWDemocrats.com, "a joint project of the Genesee, Livingston, Orleans, and Wyoming County Demoratic committees, was also posted on The Albany Project:

An open letter to my fellow Democrats.
Thursday, July 9, 2009

I've been trying for the past some odd hours to figure out something to say about the developments in the State Senate today. I could recite the basic facts: Pedro Espada has returned to the Democratic conference in the State Senate, where he'll be made Majority Leader in return for insuring a quorum.

But the raw facts lack a real feeling for the depth and breadth of this Faustian pact's unseemly qualities.

For having "won" this tussle that has been going on a year and a day, this seems an awful lot like losing. We're now saddled with a Senate majority leader who I would not trust with a shiny nickel. A man who has, quite probably, committed a federal felony or two just since he got into office.

I'm particularly apalled--even given my low opinion of them before--with the rest of the Democrats in the State Senate. Yes, I know they're my fellow party members, and as a loyal partisan I should follow Reagan's rule and not speak ill.

My response to that isn't suitable for a family friendly forum such as this.

Believe me, I've done the party loyalty thing. This goes so far beyond the acceptable boundries of that that it's pathetic. And the Democrats who went along with this deal either know it, or should. Not only have you thrown out pretty much all hope of having a substantive reform agenda passed; You've also just set Democratic party-building in greater New York State back probably, I don't know, five years or so?

Please do remember that there are some of us out here who are still trying to build operations and win elections. Most of you may have forgotten what it's like to run competitive races, or to actually deal with more than token input by the public. The rest of us haven't. We're still out here working our butts off, preparing for future races and trying to inject some fresh life into this state's government. This sort of political ipecac syrup does not help us in the least.

It was quite bad enough when Eliot Spitzer was unable to keep his pants on, but that was at least a personal failing and not related to government. You guys, however, just pretty much produced a signed letter to every independent, moderate Republican, and a lot of rank and file Democrats, attesting to the fact that you intend to be just as rancidly dysfunctional as the Republicans were.

Why then, the public will ask us, should we bother voting for Democrats when they deliver the same thing on the state level? And we're going to have a hard time answering them. If you intend to try and keep the State Senate majority, then you need to do something different than what you're doing right now. Because behavior like this is politically radioactive.

WHICH STILL LEAVES THE FATE OF THE NEW LIEUT. GOV. -- AND THE LAWSUIT OVER THE GOP COFFEE GUY

Still to be resolved, as far as I know, is the fate of newly appointed Lieut. Gov. Richard Ravitch, named Wednesday by Gov. David Paterson to fill the vacancy created way back when he, as the elected lieutenant governor, replaced the man who picked him as his running mate, resigned Gov. Eliot Spitzer. Ravitch was hastily sworn in Wednesday night in an effort to beat the Republicans' certain move for a temporary restraining order against the appointment, on the technical ground that the governor has no authority to make such an appointment. Neither the state constitution nor state law makes provision for replacing a lieutenant governor, or for otherwise breaking ties in the Senate, which you'll recall with singular foresight has an even number of members, all but assuring that eventually such a situation would arise.

Ravitch, a long-time public-private servant who's probably best known for his 1979-83 tenure as chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which operates the New York City subways and buses as well as the Long Island and Metro-North commuter railroads and a bunch of other NYC metro-area transportation facilities, had already indicated that he would serve without salary, and had no intention of running for the position in the next election.

According to Newsday's Reid Epstein and William Murphy, "Ravitch, 76, signed the oath of office at 8:40 p.m. Wednesday and it was accepted and filed by the secretary of state at 11 p.m., less than two hours before" a Long Island judge issued the TRO, which was vacated yesterday by an appeals judge shortly after Senator Espada's latest change of heart. After the injunction was lifted, a lawyer for the governor, Kathleen Sullivan, said, "He is now the lieutenant governor. He's been the lieutenant governor." At least until the case works its way up through the Appellate Division to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, as seems certain to happen.

The governor's theory in stretching some statutory language to the breaking point in order to make the appointment was presumably that a new lieutenant governor would be able to break the permanent 31-31 tie in the Senate. Left unclear, however, is how this would have gotten around the problem of a quorum. One thing that's clear under NYS law is that the Senate needs 32 senators officially present in order to conduct business, which is why neither side in the 31-day deadlock has been able to convene the body.

With the exception, that is, of that giddy day, June 30, when the Democrats claimed they had a quorum. An unnamed Republican senator, apparently wandering through the Senate chamber to get coffee, was claimed by the Dems to have been recorded "present," constituting the elusive quorum. Actually, the Dems claim that the mystery senator was recorded as voting "yes" on the eight bills they proceeded to pass.

On Monday, upstate Sen. Darrel Aubertine filed a suit against the state Assembly, seeking to force the lower house to accept the eight bills as "passed," saying, These bills must be delivered to the governor. Further delay by the Assembly puts jobs, our school districts, and the state's taxpayers at risk," even though the governor has already indicated that he disagrees and won't sign the bills.

I guess the courts are going to have their say on this too. I hope the lucky judge pauses to consider that that lone GOP coffee hound came closer to doing Senate business than any of his colleagues managed to do in the last 31 days. That should count for something, especially in the crazy world of New York State government.

#