Better Than Another Committee, Make Some Baseline Standards

Ruben Diaz, Sr. is right: observers and members of the State Senate have been hypocritical in calling for the expulsion of Hiram Monserrate after years of blithely dismissing the bad behavior of other colleagues, including Monserrate’s predecessor, John Sabini.

And yet, the hypocrisy of Monserrate’s colleagues does not absolve him of wrongdoing. He has been exonerated of several more serious charges, but found guilty of others. The judicial system has delivered an explicit verdict.

The public wrangling over Monserrate’s fate demonstrates the need for a clearly articulated set of standards that governs the behavior of elected officials and determines whether or not they are qualified to serve. If such a system had already been in place at the time of the verdict, Monserrate’s fate would not be in doubt.

Instead, the leaders of the State Senate have convened a panel to consider whether Monserrate’s indiscretion is sufficient cause for his removal. The members of the panel, and the conference leader, John Sampson, have not said what sort of standard of behavior the panel will use to judge Monserrate. Neither have they articulated a timeline or outlined the mechanics of the process.

Notably, Sampson and the panel’s chairman, Eric Schneiderman, have not ruled out re-examining the evidence in Monserrate’s case and re-interviewing key witnesses, such as Monserrate’s girlfriend. Such a spectacle would easily be susceptible to backroom dealing and likely distract the Senate for weeks.

It is not the place of the New York State Senate to re-litigate the charges against Monserrate or reopen the case against him. New Yorkers have already witnessed the painful and lurid details of the trial as it wended its way through the court. They should not be subjected to them again.

Instead, the Senate panel should spend its time designing a uniform code of conduct, so that when future members of the Legislature commit crimes or otherwise exercise poor judgment, it will not be up to their colleagues to decide arbitrarily whether they should go.

The panel may decide that felonies are grounds for expulsion, but misdemeanors are not. It may decide that certain classes of misdemeanor are unacceptable, while others are tolerable. It may decide that certain lawful acts are nonetheless offensive and should be grounds for dismissal, as is the case in most other professions.

Those questions are for the Senate to decide, and now is the time to do so.

Rules governing the behavior of members now exist only in limited form, and only because they are expedient, not comprehensive. Had Monserrate been guilty of a felony, for example, he would have been forced automatically to vacate his seat. The question of whether he should be forced to do so after being convicted of a misdemeanor should similarly have been decided long ago.

The Legislature needs clear rules about what is acceptable behavior by its members and what is not. Any action that violates those rules should be grounds for immediate and automatic expulsion. No extraneous panel. No drawn-out inquisition. No onrush of public statements by senators who must consider their re-election prospects.  

Because the current guidelines are unclear, members of the Legislature decide who gets to serve with them on a reactionary, case-by-case basis. As a result, political considerations and personal relationships guide the proceedings as much as ethical principle.

There has been a broad consensus among Republicans and Democrats alike that Monserrate should resign or be removed from office. It is a fair question to ask: Would the outcry be so unanimous if Monserrate did not represent an area of Queens that was all but certain to elect a Democrat in a special election? What if he were a marginal Democrat representing an upstate, conservative district? Would so many of his colleagues clamor for his dismissal?

The Monserrate question has now clearly come to dominate the Senate’s attention, and may well turn into another circus akin to the coup that paralyzed state government earlier this year. Even some members of the Senate fear as much.

They fear that the Senate’s lengthy agenda, which includes a $3 billion budget deficit and the debate over gay marriage, will be hijacked once again by yet another internal struggle. Experience suggests they may be right.

The Monserrate incident is emblematic of a Senate that lurches from one crisis to the next, more obsessed with procedural matters and intramural politicking than serving the 19 million New Yorkers its members represent.

The lament for a better and more responsive Albany is a common one. Often these laments come bereft of specific measures for how to fix a clearly broken state government. But the leadership in the Senate can at least take a meager first step by declaring firmly and comprehensively the ethical standards its members must meet.