From The Sidelines, Senate’s Old Lions Reflect
Alums say some disaster was inevitable, though maybe not quite like what finally came
Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:53:00
They thought they had seen it all.
But as the coup in the State Senate and all that has followed unfolds, former members of the chamber say they have watched with a mixture of sadness and bemusement. And more than a little surprise.
“Now you’re lifting up the rock and you’re seeing all the little uglies that come scrambling out from a chamber that was never taken seriously from a political perspective,” said one former Republican senator.
For many former senators, even their vast amounts of institutional knowledge and experience in Albany’s back-room dealing had not prepared them for this.
“Every time Albany hits a new low, and everybody says they’ve hit absolute bottom, they find a new low to reach,” said former Sen. Franz Leichter (D-Manhattan).
Leichter suggested that his Democratic colleagues may have brought the coup upon themselves by not following through on many of their promises to reform the chamber once they wrested control away from Republicans.
“The Democrats, by failing to move strongly on reform and equalize services and staffing in the Legislature, I think they really opened themselves up to [Sen. Pedro Espada, Jr.] having a good excuse to go over to the Republicans,” said Leichter, who once held Sen. Eric Schneiderman’s Upper West Side seat and used it to push for never-realized reform measures.
Leichter, who was in the Assembly before moving on to the Senate, said voters might take their frustration out on the Democrats in next year’s elections, even if the Republicans are largely to blame.
The precedent was 1965, when the Democrats, in their one year in control of the chamber, got caught in a months-long leadership battle that gridlocked Albany. They were booted out of office the next year.
“They made such a mess of it, couldn’t agree on a majority leader and so on, that the next year the voters voted them out,” Leichter said, adding that when the Democrats took over this year, “I said unless they did things differently by putting forward a real strong reform program, and clear policy differences from the Republicans, they might find themselves again having a problem.”
But what disturbs the Senate alumni the most is the surreal, carnival-like atmosphere that has gripped the Capitol, which even through scandal—such as the resignation of former Gov. Eliot Spitzer—had managed to preserve its staid decorum.
“I have been in and around the Senate since 1985,” said former State Sen. Michael Balboni (R-Nassau), who left in 2007. “And in all that time, and what I heard before I got there, nothing has ever approached this.”
Several said they would consider resigning if they were still there.
“I couldn’t exist with this. I would have to leave,” said Seymour Lachman (D-Staten Island), who held Sen. Diane Savino’s seat until 2005. “I wouldn’t be able to do anything.”
Lachman said it did not take long for him to get over his initial astonishment. He had envisioned some sort of meltdown on the horizon, he said, though on a much smaller scale.
“This is much farther than I ever thought they would ever go,” he said.
Former Sen. Mary Lou Rath (R-Erie), who retired earlier this year, said it was the Senate’s stifling rules and imperious leaders that ultimately triggered the breakdown. She added that the new rules Republicans have tried to implement, which divide resources more evenly and empower individual senators to bring bills to the floor, should help ease some of the pressure and make a power-sharing agreement at least tolerable.
“I think functioning under those rules for a while would give everyone a comfort level,” she said. “Right now, everyone’s hot.”
Rath said she was surprised that the Republicans’ new majority had crumbled so quickly—in less than a week—and was bewildered by State Sen. Hiram Monserrate’s (D-Queens) sudden turnabout.
“He appears to be so new in Albany,” she said. “You would have thought that he would have known the kind of pressure he was going to have gotten, even though he was new to Albany. And I don’t know what to make of that.”
Lachman, though, suggested the answer was simple: The two defectors will side with whichever conference offers them more.
Knowing Albany as he does, Lachman said, that would be the least surprising element of the leadership saga.
“It’s just a lust for power and a lust for money,” he said of his old colleagues. “Some of them have changed in the last four years. Some of them have changed for the worse, not for the better.”
But as the coup in the State Senate and all that has followed unfolds, former members of the chamber say they have watched with a mixture of sadness and bemusement. And more than a little surprise.
“Now you’re lifting up the rock and you’re seeing all the little uglies that come scrambling out from a chamber that was never taken seriously from a political perspective,” said one former Republican senator.
For many former senators, even their vast amounts of institutional knowledge and experience in Albany’s back-room dealing had not prepared them for this.
“Every time Albany hits a new low, and everybody says they’ve hit absolute bottom, they find a new low to reach,” said former Sen. Franz Leichter (D-Manhattan).
Leichter suggested that his Democratic colleagues may have brought the coup upon themselves by not following through on many of their promises to reform the chamber once they wrested control away from Republicans.
“The Democrats, by failing to move strongly on reform and equalize services and staffing in the Legislature, I think they really opened themselves up to [Sen. Pedro Espada, Jr.] having a good excuse to go over to the Republicans,” said Leichter, who once held Sen. Eric Schneiderman’s Upper West Side seat and used it to push for never-realized reform measures.
Leichter, who was in the Assembly before moving on to the Senate, said voters might take their frustration out on the Democrats in next year’s elections, even if the Republicans are largely to blame.
The precedent was 1965, when the Democrats, in their one year in control of the chamber, got caught in a months-long leadership battle that gridlocked Albany. They were booted out of office the next year.
“They made such a mess of it, couldn’t agree on a majority leader and so on, that the next year the voters voted them out,” Leichter said, adding that when the Democrats took over this year, “I said unless they did things differently by putting forward a real strong reform program, and clear policy differences from the Republicans, they might find themselves again having a problem.”
But what disturbs the Senate alumni the most is the surreal, carnival-like atmosphere that has gripped the Capitol, which even through scandal—such as the resignation of former Gov. Eliot Spitzer—had managed to preserve its staid decorum.
“I have been in and around the Senate since 1985,” said former State Sen. Michael Balboni (R-Nassau), who left in 2007. “And in all that time, and what I heard before I got there, nothing has ever approached this.”
Several said they would consider resigning if they were still there.
“I couldn’t exist with this. I would have to leave,” said Seymour Lachman (D-Staten Island), who held Sen. Diane Savino’s seat until 2005. “I wouldn’t be able to do anything.”
Lachman said it did not take long for him to get over his initial astonishment. He had envisioned some sort of meltdown on the horizon, he said, though on a much smaller scale.
“This is much farther than I ever thought they would ever go,” he said.
Former Sen. Mary Lou Rath (R-Erie), who retired earlier this year, said it was the Senate’s stifling rules and imperious leaders that ultimately triggered the breakdown. She added that the new rules Republicans have tried to implement, which divide resources more evenly and empower individual senators to bring bills to the floor, should help ease some of the pressure and make a power-sharing agreement at least tolerable.
“I think functioning under those rules for a while would give everyone a comfort level,” she said. “Right now, everyone’s hot.”
Rath said she was surprised that the Republicans’ new majority had crumbled so quickly—in less than a week—and was bewildered by State Sen. Hiram Monserrate’s (D-Queens) sudden turnabout.
“He appears to be so new in Albany,” she said. “You would have thought that he would have known the kind of pressure he was going to have gotten, even though he was new to Albany. And I don’t know what to make of that.”
Lachman, though, suggested the answer was simple: The two defectors will side with whichever conference offers them more.
Knowing Albany as he does, Lachman said, that would be the least surprising element of the leadership saga.
“It’s just a lust for power and a lust for money,” he said of his old colleagues. “Some of them have changed in the last four years. Some of them have changed for the worse, not for the better.”
