Paterson blinks

Remember tough-as-nails Gov. Paterson, who said he was so fed up with do-nothing state senators that he was cancelling their Fourth of July holiday and locking them inside the Senate Chamber until they end the leadership stalemate that has paralyzed Albany government for four weeks?

"The decision rendered by Judge Teresi confirms what we have believed all along: that each senator who is in violation of the order to come to the Senate session has violated his or her oath of office that they swore to under the Constitution."

"I now have an official court document whereby if there are any further violations, we will act on it."

So why is Paterson handing out holiday passes to Democrat Senators who merely have to ask for them?

First, it was Darrel Aubertine, the North Country Seantor who left town Thursday for a critical "constituent meeting"--the details of which his staff won't disclose to local reporters.

Aubertine told WWNY-TV that he would be back in Albany Friday.

He wasn't.

Only this time, he was joined by two other Democrats, Long Island's Brian X. Foley and Brooklyn's Kevin Parker.

The photo below shows the empty seats where the three are supposed to be sitting for Friday's court-ordered session.


Paterson's office told reporters he was OK with Aubertine's absence. Did he also approve the other two absences?

Isn't that contrary to his blustery warning about siccing the State Police after Senators who violate their sworn oath under the Constitution? (Read the court order here.)

Or is this another example of the stark difference between Paterson's political rhetoric and reality?

"I think the court was very clear on this. He told the parties to get into session and to convene, ready to do the peoples business. He said that these parties should do the right thing or that the public could rightly conclude that they put self interest above public interest."

Whose interests are Sens. Aubertine, Foley and Parker putting first?

Stachowski: I'll earn my pay reading 'computer mail'

Bill Stachowski bristles at the suggestion that Senators should be docked pay for the four-week-long, Democrat-led lockdown that has brought Albany to a standstill.

Pressed on what he's doing while the Senate standoff continues--including this holiday weekend when Gov. Paterson has ordered all Senators into the Chamber for another of his seemingly futile "special sessions--the Western NY Senator insists he's earning his pay:

"I'll go on my computer and read all the computer mail that I've got, and if there's anything else I have to read, I'll catch up on."

See the video of Stachowski shrugging off any suggestion that he doesn't know how to keep busy during a political stalemate.

Where's Darrel?

North Country Sen. Darrel Aubertine appears to have mastered the ability to bilocate.

On Thursday, he was officially in Albany, marked "present" during the court-ordered special session of the stalemated state Senate.

But the photo above of Aubertine's empty seat paints a vastly different picture.

And his spokesman confirms that Aubertine wasn't anywhere near Albany but, rather, back in his home district three hours away attending to "business."

That might create a legal problem for Aubertine, who, like all 62 members of the Senate, is under a court order to meet jointly in the extraordinary sessions called by Gov. Paterson in an effort to end the four-week-old Senate stalemate.

Failing to do so, according to the judge in the case, would show that Senators are "rude, inconsiderate and egotistical.

Aubertine's aide said he had "permission" from ex-Senate Leader Malcolm Smith to skip the session.

But did he ask the Governor, the judge, or the taxpayers who have paid $5 million so far to fund the Senate while Democrats remain in no-work mode?

Some Senate Democrats saw it coming

During the 2008 election, Republicans repeatedly warned of the consequences of one-party rule in Albany.

They said that Albany ruled exclusively by downstate Democrats would result in higher taxes, increased spending and the adoption of a radical agenda that was out of sync with the needs and values of Upstate families and communities.

They also warned that Senate Democrats, in particular, were not ready for the added responsibility and that, instead of change and improved government, New Yorkers could anticipate even deeper gridlock and dysfunction.

Turns out that Republicans weren’t alone in those concerns.

Consider these words from key Senate Democrat—including the now-deposed Democrat Leader, Malcolm Smith—raising doubts about their own readiness to assume power.

"Malcolm likes to go around saying, 'We'd really like the opportunity to be in charge. And if we don't get it right, we might not be in charge for long,'" said WNY Democrat Bill Stachowski in a Sept. 12 interview with The Capitol.

And Liz Krueger, who recently ‘fessed up on the Democrats’ failures in a letter she sent to 30,000 constituents last month, must have had a crystal ball when she told City Hall just days before the election, “I am not particularly interested in chaos within the Senate Democrats when they take the majority. I really don’t want to look back …and say, ‘Wow, just like a textbook, we blew it again.’”

Well said, Senators. It’s too bad you didn’t heed your own warnings.

Effective? You decide!

It revisionist history time at the state Capitol again.

After a three-week boycott during which Democrats refused even to step foot inside the Senate Chamber and permit action on any legislation, they're now trying to pin the blame on Republicans for the failure of key bills to win passage.

Among them, a bill to renew an expiring power subsidy program for businesses, and dozens of bills that continue sales tax rates in local counties across the state.

The Democrats say the bills are "non-controversial," and they're calling on Republicans to join with them to pass 80 or so measures under some system of rotating leaders, where each party would control the chamber for a period of time.

North Country Sen. Darrel Aubertine has proposed his own, hot-sheets version of this plan, where leaders would switch seats as often as once an hour, potentially creating a bizarre spectacle, indeed.

But the expiration of these laws is no surprise--they each are regularly renewed every two years or so--and everyone agrees on the need to do so.

So it begs the question: why did Democrats, who controlled the Senate for 5-1/2 months, wait until now to bring them up?

Maybe it's because the Senate wasn't exactly setting records for productivity under Democrat control.

From January to June 8, the day Democrats were deposed by a Republican-led coalition, the Senate passed just 243 bills--an average of about four bills for every session day.

By comparison, the relatively smooth-running Assembly passed three times that number.

How does that stack up with prior years, when the Senate was under GOP control?

During the same time period, January to June 8, the Senate passed 869 and 1019 bills in 2008 and 2007, respectively.

The failure to act on key legislation--along with their emphasis on a radical legislative agenda over bread-and-butter bills like those now at the center of the "crisis"--were all undeniable factors in their loss of power.

That's not how the Democrats are spinning it, for sure, but it's true, nonetheless.