Full Circle: An Open Letter to Senator Marty Golden

Dear State Senator Marty Golden:

I am nearly positive that your Brooklyn constituents appreciate the strong moral stance you have taken regarding your colleague, Senator Hiram Monserrate. You are undeniably correct that it's ridiculous for Senator Monserrate to compare himself to Civil Rights workers, or to Jesus.

As everyone reading this most likely knows by now, then-Senator Elect Monserrate and his girlfriend had an incident at his apartment late in 2008. Assault charges were filed against him. While he was acquitted of felony assault charges resulting from the incident itself, he was convicted on misdemeanor assault charges resulting from the aftermath, wherein he was seen on security cameras literally dragging her to the hospital.

Many were shocked by Senator Monserrate's conduct. Based on this incident, and other factors, in this article I have outlined my own case for Senator Monserrate's resignation from the Senate, but regrettably Senator Monserrate hasn't listened to me, thus forcing that institution into a peculiar dilemma.

There is a movement afoot to expel Senator Monserrate from the Senate. Senator Golden, your strong statement indicates that you are at the forefront of this movement. I am certain that your constituents are, justly, proud of your strong, inviolable moral stance in seeking to expel Senator Monserrate.

However, the closer I look at you, Senator Golden, the more I wonder about what appears to be certain nuances in your moral outlook. Perhaps your constituents will have questions too.

For example, they might have questions about allegations made in this March 2009 Village Voice article that you employed a $65,000 a year Research Assistant while he was facing assault charges. Strange. The fact that this Research Assistant was the son of your Republican colleague, Senator Owen Johnson of Long Island, is, I am sure, unrelated to his employment. (Interestingly, the SeeThroughNY.net database still shows an “Owen Johnson” employed as a “Research Assistant” by the Senate for just under $50,000 a year, as of August 2009, but it doesn't specify what office Mr. Johnson works for.)

Perhaps the difference is that Hiram Monserrate is a Senator, whereas Senator Johnson's son is, despite his family name, still just a Research Assistant? It's possible that's the distinction. If so, though, it begs the question: Why support undoing an election to take a moral stand and yet refuse to take one simply by firing your Research Assistant?

I don't know the particulars of Mr. Johnson's case, of course, other than the brief mention in the Village Voice article. He was accused, that article states, of assaulting his “roommate.” The alleged victim, thus, was likely male. Is that the distinction, Senator? If so, though the sentiment is noble, isn't it a little outmoded, even inappropriate?

As stated, I don't know the particulars of Mr. Johnson's case. It could be that those particulars are the source of the distinction. Regrettably, I can't address those.

If it turns out that Mr. Johnson wasn't convicted, whereas Senator Monserrate was, perhaps that's the distinction? No, it can't be that, because you were an early-comer to the crusade against Senator Monserrate, a fact which your recent statement proudly references. Before Senator Monserrate was convicted, you attempted to prevent him from “being seated” in the Senate. ("Being seated," basically, is technical parliamentary jargon for fulfilling the office, literally sitting in the Senate Chamber.)

Which brings me to another point I'd suggest your constituents have a right to question. After Senator Monserrate was seated after all, you, Senator Golden, actually dropped your campaign against him for awhile, and even shook his hand. The Times Union's website has a picture. It's obvious from the picture that you both knew there was a camera there. You're both smiling at it.

A few months after that, you and Senator Monserrate actually joined forces to challenge Senator Malcolm Smith's leadership of the Senate. Perhaps predictably, Senator Monserrate chickened out on the coup, after only a week, leaving the State Senate paralyzed at 31 to 31, for weeks. Eventually, of course, Senator Pedro Espada, the other Democratic partner in the coup attempt, returned to the Democratic fold as well, and life at the State Senate, such as it is, went on as “normal.”

To review, first you tried to undo Senator Monserrate's election, prior to his conviction, while employing a Research Assistant who had also faced assault charges (and who happened to be the son of a fellow Senator). Then, you appeared to change your mind, first shaking Senator Monserrate's hand publicly, and then joining him in an attempt to basically undo the results of 2008 State Senate elections in their entirety. After he chickened out of that effort, some months later, here you are again, Senator Golden, calling to undo your colleague's election.

Your position has come full circle.

There is, I might suggest, nothing wrong with a little pragmatism or flexibility, or even a lot of it. Except, of course, when you first take a strong, seemingly-inviolable moral stance that appears to exclude taking actions that you are, as a pragmatist, more than willing to take. Further, even on a practical level, what does it say about your judgment that you were willing to rely upon the political support Senator Monserrate for something as major as a floor fight in the New York State Senate?

Could it be, Senator Golden, that you simply support anything with money, prestige, and patronage attached? Could it be that you are more than willing to undo an election or work with the person whose election you wish to undo, all dependent upon your needs of the moment? Could it be that your strong moral stance is something less than it appears to be? Could it be that you are simply a pragmatist, and a relatively poor one at that?

I wonder if your constituents will consider these issues this Autumn. I have read that you have an opponent.

Perhaps he'll ask.

Sincerely,
The Albany Exile