News Copy, New York

Monserrate Expulsion From New York State Senate Upheld: It All Took Too Long

Defiant to the end.

Short of killing someone, Hiram Monserrate proved that violence against women is not enough to be immediately removed from the State legislature.

Gothamist reported that a federal judge rejected former state Sen. Hiram Monserrate's attempt to block his expulsion, clearing the way for a March 16 special election to decide who will hold his now-vacant seat.

There are reports that Monserrate could turn out running for his seat again in the special election

Daily News columnist Errol Lewis complained that Albany as become too much of a school for scandal -- wasting valuable time.

The neglected "To Do" list for the State legislature, even tipped to the left, is enough to leave the kindest critics wondering what the Democrats are doing with so much control of both the Assembly and State Senate.

The New York Law Journal summarized the decision:

The Queens Democrat was expelled "only after a specially-formed committee investigated his actions and an overwhelming majority of the Senate authorized expulsion," Judge Pauley said, adding that similar processes "have long existed in deliberative bodies at all levels of government."

The Village Voice had a timeline on the domestic violence case against State Senator Hiram Monserrate, rationalizing that Governor David Paterson was motivated by an investigation by the New York Times of his own aide David Johnson.

By the way, the Times finally dropped the other shoe -- following a story on Johnson early this week -- with a story on Paterson's "performance" that still has people asking, "Is that it?  Is that it?"

As Campaign Nears, Paterson Is Seen as Increasingly Remote

Meanwhile, The Buffalo News noted that there still isn't a comprehensive ethics legislation being passed by these "deliberative" bodies.

With Bernard Kerik sentenced today to four years in prison and Joe Bruno being formally sentenced in six weeks, Republicans will have their own ethics cloud to shake.  

Eliot Spitzer Takes Hard Shots At Gillibrand And Cuomo: Defends David Paterson

Former New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer was on "Good Day, New York" this morning and wasn't shy about discussing his fellow Democrats running statewide.

Spitzer defended Paterson, particularly on his experience in the State legislature and the difficulties presently running any state.

Spitzer dared Andrew Cuomo to speak up on the issues and said Gillibrand needed to stand up for what she believed in.

The New York Daily News focused on Spitzer's comments about Cuomo.

"If he’s going to run for governor, which is, it’s his right to do, of course, then he should answer the hard questions. How would his budget differ? How would he get the bills through the Legislature relating to ethics relating to the reform we need in New York State? In other words, answer the hard questions. Where would his program differ from the existing governor’s?"

On Gillibrand, the former governor noted that the appointed U.S. Senator had changed her positions on some fundamental issues.

"You believe something or you don't and what we need in politics right now are people who know what they believe and stand up and are forceful on that ...," explained Spitzer. "I don't like politicians who vaccilate, who change positions, whose views on fundamental issues are so maleable that they are told, 'if you want this job, change your position.'"

Spitzer wouldn't be specific on what issues, though it's no mystery that there have been plenty Gillibrand has shifted on since she was appointed.  He wouldn't specify who might be telling Gillibrand what to do, though that was an obvious nameless punch at former U.S. Senator Al D'Amato.

New York Appellate Court Rules Un-Elected Governor Can't Appoint Lieutenant: Ravitch Out

New York State Governor David Paterson was dealt another political setback this afternoon when a State Appellate court ruled that he did not have the legal authority to appoint his potential successor.

If this could be called a political setback or just another day in Albany.

This legal wrangling over who is in charge started when Paterson did not have control over who might be his successor out of the State Legislature.  State Senator Pedro Espada then appeared poised to be allowed into the line of succession in New York's un-elected Executive Chamber, due to a Republican coup that apparently failed -- and had left then State Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith next in line to be governor.

But Smith is now once again Democratic Senate President Pro Tempore and Espada is now back with his fellow Democrats -- and can someone tell me what was accomplished by all this legal battling?

The Marx Brothers never had it so good.  I used to think it was presumptuous to speculate that Joe Bruno might somehow become the next governor of New York State.  Imagine what would happen if BOTH Paterson and Smith were felled at once by a political scandal, suddenly forced to resign -- and leaving some unsuspecting State lawmaker summoned to preside over the worst state fiscal default in the history of the United States.

Why would Richard Ravitch want the job? 

Bloomberg reported that a four-judge panel of the Second Judicial Department Appellate Division in Brooklyn unanimously affirmed a Nassau Country Supreme Court trial judge’s preliminary injunction barring Paterson appointee Richard Ravitch from taking office.

When you consider that New York's Comptroller is also appointed, joined by Connecticut's governor also being appointed -- and New Jersey's governor was not too long ago appointed, in addition to New York's newest U.S. Senator also being appointed by an appointed governor, I would humbly suggest that the tri-state area needs more than one special election.

Or some changes in the state laws.

Ascension by appointment ... the New York way ... Also called the accidental governor.

The Gotham Gazette reported the judges explaining that the move was illegal because “no provision of the Constitution or of any statute provides for the filling of the vacancy in the office of lieutenant governor other than by election.”

And the exchange of power in the New York's State Senate has been courtesy of an election?

New York Schools Get Reprive From Governor: But 2009-2010 Will Now Be Worse

The Journal News blog Politics on the Hudson outlined Governor Paterson's decision to drop mid-year cuts in school aid.

“I acknowledge that your costs are rising, but I believe all levels of government must reduce spending,” Paterson’s letter to school boards and superintendents said. “This year, I have reduced state agency spending by more than 10 percent. In this unprecedented fiscal crisis, school districts, like all levels of government, will have to take a similar approach and find ways to reduce costs and improve the efficiency of their operations on behalf of taxpayers.”

But will they?

Here in the sleepy suburbs of Westchester County, from my perspective in Eastchester, neither school districts nor school parents will opt to cut the school budgets with any depth.

The concepts of increasing class size, freezing teacher's salaries and applying austerity-like measures won't happen without a fight.  Variations of at least one of those three approaches will be resisted -- but 2009 might also be the year many local school budgets are defeated.  People want the services.  They don't want to pay for them.

This former member of the Blind Brook School Board, Monroe Haas, targets the procedure for teacher negotiations.

"Negotiations are the reason for union existence. School boards have limited terms. Union leadership remains constant and forever. School boards have negotiations as just one issue and therefore are never as prepared as their union counterpart. The present procedure places districts in competition with each other. Unions reach out to their fellow unions while school boards generally negotiate in a vacuum."

All it takes is one school district with a high contract and the rest follow.

The Buffalo News reported that school aid funding is set to rise 8.8 percent, or $1.9 billion, next year.  Paterson called that a number "we simply cannot afford.”

Watching how anti-climatic November 18 turned out to be, I can't imagine December 15 will be much better.  All talk and no action.