When legislative leaders rolled out their compromise ethics bill on Jan. 13, three of the state’s leading good-government leaders took to the podium, offering the legislation their blessings.

But it was their ally not in attendance at the Capitol press conference, Susan Lerner of Common Cause, who attracted most of the media attention.

Following the press conference, Lerner put out a statement blasting the Legislature’s efforts and, implicitly, the rationale for supporting the bill put forth by her good-government colleagues, Dick Dadey of Citizens Union, Barbara Bartoletti of the League of Women Voters and Blair Horner of the New York Public Interest Research Group.

“The argument that this is the best that can be achieved in the current political climate is a sad statement of the inability of the Legislature to distinguish between small steps and the sweeping reform the situation requires,” Lerner’s statement said.

In follow-up interviews that day, Lerner’s good-government counterparts expressed confusion at Lerner’s stance, especially since she had supported very similar ethics proposals in the past.

Maybe the Joe Bruno trial had made Common Cause’s board take a harder line on ethics reform, Horner theorized.

Or maybe, because Lerner is based in New York City and less frequently speaks with state lawmakers, she had an unrealistic sense of what can be achieved, Horner said.

“NYPIRG had a much better sense of where it would end up,” said Horner, noting that he personally had spoken to upwards of 100 lawmakers about the ethics bill.

Dadey, meanwhile, pointed to possible differences in philosophy between his organization and Common Cause. Instead of Legislature’s bill, Lerner supports a more sweeping ethics bill introduced by Gov. David Paterson, which Dadey has blasted as “dead on arrival” because legislators and good-government groups were not consulted.

“Citizens Union tries to be solution-oriented in addressing issues—and when we have an opportunity to enact reform, we do it,” Dadey said.

Whatever the cause, the split highlights the longstanding nuanced differences between the good-government groups that occasionally put their ideas and organizations in competition.

Generally, they do work together. Days before the beginning of each legislative session, the four principals met to discuss their ambitious agenda for the year. As the session goes on, they keep in frequent contact, trying to remain on the same page when pursuing this agenda.

Yet their organizations also serve very different memberships.

In its Albany agenda, Citizens Union, a 113-year-old New York City-based organization, is primarily concerned with state issues as they affect the city. Common Cause, whose state leadership also works out of New York City, is part of a 50-state national organization that helps set the group’s agenda and priorities, and is seen as being more actively involved in the state chapter’s affairs than the others.

NYPIRG’s board is made up of college students, and Horner, who has been lobbying lawmakers in Albany before many of the board members were born, is seen as having greater sway in shaping the group’s stances than some of his other good-government colleagues. Meanwhile, League of Women Voters is a national organization that runs its operation out of Albany, and whose national organization is less intrusive than Common Cause’s, according to Bartoletti.

There have been other disagreements in the past between the groups. Dadey, along with a number of taxpayer groups, did not support Proposition 1 in 2005, which would have shifted some budgetary powers from the governor to the Legislature. The other good-government groups, which are regarded by many as having a less business-friendly bent, supported the measure.

The closest allies on most issues, generally, are thought to be Horner and Bartoletti, who often seem joined at the hip in the halls of the Capitol.

The groups also have different spheres of influence, especially when it comes to who is quoted in various newspapers. Dadey, for instance, is frequently quoted in New York City newspapers when the four appear together at press conferences. Reporters from elsewhere around the state tend to quote the rest.

But for whatever differences they do have, the four leaders are united in rejecting Paterson’s declaration during his State of the State address that he would “bring oversight to so-called good-government groups that hide their donors behind walls of sanctimony.”

The good-government groups offered several theories about the governor’s motivation for the unexpected slight: anger over Horner’s criticism when Paterson accepted free World Series tickets from the Yankees, or perhaps resentment from an ethics complaint filed over the leak of personal information about Caroline Kennedy.

More generally, the good-government groups believe Paterson was simply trying to use the bully pulpit to stifle dissent.

“I thought it was disgusting,” said Lerner. “I wish we had the kind of power that he said we do.”

As they go forward this year, the good-government groups are hoping to present a unified front on other major issues coming down the pike, with priorities being campaign finance reform, getting the proposed NY-SPAN off the ground and redistricting reform.

With an upcoming election, and anti-incumbent sentiment at historic highs, members of the good-government coalition say this crisis would be a terrible thing to waste. They hope to be on the same page going forward.

“Like in a marriage, we bring our own strengths and weaknesses,” Bartoletti said. “Do we always agree? No. Do we love one another? Absolutely.”