At the time of writing, just one of these Minority Chairmanships, of four that we know of that were being floated, is still in-play (Senator Maziarz, to chair the Standing Committee on Energy).
In a piece posted on the Albany Times Union's Website, Senator Skelos had this to say:
Senator Sampson, as the Democrats' new leader, believes that offering committee chairmanships to a few minority senators will change all that {the negative impact of one-party rule}. While well intentioned, his offer rings hollow.
Hollow. A very interesting word to use.
Elsewhere, Leader Skelos said:
“Senator Sampson’s proposal to appoint new chairs should be considered along with these other recommendations, by the bipartisan committee, before any action is taken," Skelos said.
"Our conference strongly believes that additional reforms must be made in a comprehensive way and not in a piecemeal fashion."
"We fought hard for the reforms that were enacted in July," Skelos continued. "We will continue to push for internal reforms, as well as other governmental reforms to make this Legislature and our government more responsive to the people’s needs."
And Senator Bonacic, in the same article, said something very similar:
"Chairmanships are positive. However, as the Majority repeatedly has said, real reform is not about titles. In fact, titles can sometimes mask dysfunction, since they create a presumption of bi-partisanship, when one may not truly exist. Chairmanships do not equate to reform."
The above quotes point to one of two stated reasons for the refusal: “Good government.” Reform of the Senate must be “real,” and committee chairmanships are a “hollow” half-measure. Another reason, however, was pointed to by Skelos spokesperson John McCardle, in the same article linked to above.
"Members would love to be chairs again," McArdle said. "But I think they all understand as a conference that there needs to be a sense that we're all in this together."
"(Skelos) has spoken to all of them {the Republican Senators}. He's not speaking for anyone, but everyone agrees a comprehensive solution is better than something done individually."
Party unity. Really, this is all the Senate Republicans have going for them, all they can offer, all they bring to the table.
Citing the “good government” reasons described above is, I believe, at best disingenuous of Leader Skelos. Anyone who knows anything about how legislatures operate, be it the U.S. Congress or the New York State Legislature or the Senate of Ancient Rome, knows that the committee system, by whatever name it is known, is critical to the operation of a legislative chamber. The idea of a committee system is simply to spare every lawmaker having to read every bill. On non-major issues, you can often simply trust your colleague who chairs the relevant committee.
Further, one of several insights reached by Political Scientist Joseph M. Bessette in his book The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy and American National Government is that true deliberation over public policy, at least in the U.S. Congress, tends to take place mostly at the committee level and below, mostly outside the public eye. (I should note that this statement is at best an oversimplification of the insights achieved by Bessette's in his complex and insightful work.)
Exactly how critical committees are in the legislative process depends of course on the legislative body and the particular policy at stake. And, of course, the ultimate say over what comes up for a vote, and usually what passes, is up to the leader of the chamber. No amount of “reform” can change the basic fact of majority rule in pretty much any legislature that is recognizable as such.
Under these real world conditions, minority committee chairmanships fit pretty much any reasonable definition of “real” reform. Committee chairmanships represent a real impact on policy outcomes, both directly (through influencing what bills can be considered by the whole Senate) and indirectly (by placing the Republican Senators in the most logical place for policy deliberation, where their ideas can be heard and matter).
Senator Skelos calls this “hollow.” A realistic chance for real, tangible influence is “hollow.” But what else is it that legislatures are supposed to do, if not legislate?
Democratic Conference Leader John Sampson's argument in favor of such an arrangement, also posted on the Albany Times Union's Website, is infinitely more convincing than is Senator Skelos's argument against it, if only because Sampson's argument recognizes that legislatures primarily exist to legislate.
Now, {wrote Leader Sampson} through the offering of bipartisan appointments to committee chairmanships, the Republican minority conference will enjoy an unprecedented level of involvement in the legislative process. Their constituents, as well as the entire state will realize a Senate more representative of all New Yorkers.
When the Republicans held the Majority in the State Senate, and they offered a single Democratic Senator a committee chairmanship (Senator Carl Kruger, Social Services), the Republicans hailed the move as unprecedented and bipartisan. If one Chairmanship was supposed to be good enough for the Democrats back then, why is more than one not good enough for the Republicans now?
Based on what I have seen, and based on Senator Skelos's own words cited above, I believe the answer is that legislation is not Leader Skelos's goal.
And thus we return to party unity. Leader Skelos appears to see unity not as a means to an end (as a tool to be used to influence policy), but as an end by itself. All he and his Republicans have going for them is party unity, or at least the appearance thereof. To run even a minor risk of losing unity, even if it is for the sake of doing the business that legislatures are supposed to do in the first place, is unacceptable politically to the Republicans.
I also cannot help but wonder if what Leader Skelos is really after is a higher central staff allocation. This presents him with a potentially large patronage base, and could allow him to increase his influence in New York State's shattered, increasingly irrelevant Republican Party. Central staff is nice. The Republicans, at least initially, were denied even the allocation that they granted to the Democrats, the Minority Conference staff budget having gone down from $7 million a year to $3 million a year, according to this New York Times article.
Senator Skelos's desire for more staff is certainly understandable. But, staff allocation should not be seen as an end. Nor should party unity. Both should be seen as different means to an end: Influence over policy. A Committee Chairmanship, or two or three or four, is another such means. It is most definitely not "hollow."
Whether or not a deal that involves Minority Chairmanships is ever reached, Leader Skelos has already tipped his hand. Based on his own statements, he appears to see the central activity of legislatures, enacting and influencing legislation, as “hollow.” This does not speak well for what he might do with the staff allocation he wants if he ever gets it.
