On Legislative Staff

In a recent piece on Senator Leibell's ethical issues, I briefly mentioned Senator Leibell's staff. I wondered aloud if maybe one of Senator Leibell's problems was that he lacked staff with either the guts or the authority, or both, to tell him that what he was doing was both wrong, and stupid, and would harm all of them. (This of course assumes his staff had any idea what he was doing, and simply “knew better” than to call him on it. It might be the case, of course, that they had no idea at all.)

I was criticized for these remarks; I was accused of blaming Senator Leibell's problems on his staff. But I was doing no such thing.

Well, then was I saying that it was staff's responsibility to police the actions of the boss? Again, no, I wasn't. The responsibility for all legislators' actions, and all of a legislature's or legislative conference's actions as a collective body, falls on the legislators themselves.

What I was doing, however, was highlighting the important and oft-overlooked role of legislative staff. As a legislator, a good staff can, if you let them, save you from yourself, at least temporarily. (In the long run, of course, no one can save anyone from themselves. But staff can help in the short term.) Staff should be good enough, trusted enough, and have enough integrity to tell you that what you're doing is wrong, whether it's an unjustifiable policy choice, or an unethical or even an illegal action. Political trust between legislator and staff is important, yes. (Note, though, that political trust is not the same as political agreement.) But, at the end of the day, competence, intelligence, and guts are all more important than is political trust.

I should imagine that for a legislator one of the most tempting things in the world is to hire staff that will just stroke your ego, reenforce your ideology and your preconception, and find smart-sounding ways to simply confirm what you say. This is an understandable temptation that should be avoided.

It's incumbent upon legislators, individually for their offices and collectively for the house or conference, to build a good staff. To seek out people who know what they are doing, have integrity, and are unafraid. As the legislator, ultimately the decisions are yours, and staff should respect that. But the staff also shouldn't be afraid to tell you to your face, behind closed doors of course, that what you're doing is wrong. Whether it's a bad policy, or an unethical (or illegal) action. If you discourage staff from performing that critical function, or even worse if you initially hire staff who isn't inclined to perform it, you have done yourself, your constituency, your conference, your chamber, and your state a disservice.

Sadly, I have no impression that the New York State Legislature (I speak especially of the State Senate, which seems to make the news a lot more often) agrees with me. If they have the tough, smart, capable staff I envision, they keep it well-hidden, and seem to rarely or never listen to it. Bad policy and lack of ethics don't always, or even mostly, go hand-in-hand, but there are important linkages. Staff is one of those linkages.

I don't know for sure, of course, that Senator Leibell's staff didn't try to talk to him. Ditto for Senator Espada, Senator Bruno, Assembly Member Seminerio, or any of the others who have faced problems. It might be that in all these cases, staff tried to warn legislator, and legislator didn't listen. Or staff might have not known at all. (With Bruno at least, thanks to his trial, there's a record at least of what people say or claim went on, so someday perhaps I will obtain that record and see for myself. With the others, though, we may never know for sure.)

But with all the problems New York's state legislators have had of late, one wonders if part of it is that they are hiring folks who kiss up and kick down, John Bolton style, rather than the people they should be hiring. And indeed, there's actually some specific reasons to think that hiring bad staff might be part of the New York State Legislature's problem, at least as far as the Senate is concerned.

Our first example comes to us from the Senate Democrats. Under Democratic rule, the State Senate hired former disc jockey Christopher Sealey as “Director of Creative Services” (huh?), at a 2009 pay rate of about $92,000 a year. Published reports indicate that even he was surprised by his hire. Luckily, he's ended his State service entirely, and he can go back to being a disc jockey. I have no idea what he did for the Senate and I don't think he did either.

For our second example, we go to the Senate Republicans. Who could forget the bizarre E-Mail from Senator Dean Skelos' aide, Thomas Dunham, to then Senate employee Edward Lurie, which was sent in late 2008 and hit the news in early 2009, wherein Dunham blatantly plotted to use Senate research staff for electoral purposes? To do such a thing at all was bad enough, but Dunham also put it in E-Mail, apparently not aware that E-Mails sometimes get leaked. It was, thus, not enough for Dunham to do something wrong; he had to also do it stupidly. Despite this, Dunham continued to work for the Senate Republicans during their two-year stint in the minority, and in 2009, according to SeeThroughNY.net, he made $150,000 working for the Senate Minority. (Almost double what the Senate Democrats' disc jockey made.) One wonders how much he'll make in the Senate Majority.

For our third example we return to the Senate Democrats, and highlight the hiring of Senator Pedro Espada's son for a six-figure job, from which he was quickly removed after the hiring broke as a scandal, part of a small series of Senate Democratic hiring scandals.

Sadly, I have no impression these hires were atypical for the Senate. Any good people they may have hired have quite likely been simply drowned under the weight of the bad ones. It came as no surprise to me to read that the Senate Democrats had exceeded their staff budget by a considerable amount. It actually wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that the Senate Republicans had done it too, but I've read nothing that says so.

Political Scientist Alan Rosenthal once wrote that legislative staffing is an important element in building the capacity of state legislatures. A more-prepared staff means a more-prepared legislature. Political Scientist Michael Malbin has argued that at the federal level, legislative staff (which of course at the federal level means Congressional staff) has become so important to the legislative process that it endangers the principle of representation.

After two years, a little more, really, of the least competent State Legislature that I am aware of (the Senate casting a terrifying shadow over the State Assembly), I think New Yorkers are probably ready for a legislative staff that endangers the principle of representation, if such also means a Legislature that is run well and enacts policies that have at least the semblance of being thought out.

Now, let's be clear: None of this is staff's fault. The legislators' actions are ultimately the legislators' responsibility, and that includes building up staff.

I have to wonder, though if anyone told the Legislators any different. Did anyone drag Vincent Leibell aside and say, “please don't do this?” Did anyone tell Eric Schneiderman, “this millionaires' tax....what you're saying on floor of the Senate greatly exaggerates its potential?” Even if staff didn't know about Leibell's lack of ethics they surely knew of Schneiderman's wild exaggerations on the Senate Floor. Did they say anything? Were they even allowed to?

Or of the State Legislature, especially the Senate, has simply been hiring people who will help keep up the bubble?

If so, that's the wrong approach. It hurts the effort to make public policy that there's at least a good argument for. And, it hurts the effort to change the bizarre culture of Albany, which it seems only gets worse with increasingly strict ethics reforms. There are two aspects of Albany's corrupt culture that are within the State Legislators' direct control: Their own behavior, and who they hire to watch their backs. Someone can't watch your back when he's afraid he'll get fired for yelling in your ear. Or if he lacks the capacity to recognize a threat when one appaers.

In many ways, the key to good legislative staffing is to resist the temptation to stuff your ranks with political loyalists, cronies, and those to whom you owe favors. (Or, those whose families you owe favors to.) Currently, one could be forgiven for suspecting that staffing at the New York State Legislature is little more than a patronage mill. There are a few internship programs (for undergraduate students) or fellowship programs (for graduate students), in both chambers, that attempt to draw individuals with actual qualifications into both houses of the Legislature. But these are small in scale compared to the problem itself.

If ethics and good policy (or at least justifiable policy) aren't enough too make the Legislature think twice about who it hires, then consider this.

Competition was an important buzz word in Andrew Cuomo's 2011 State of the State message. Based on what I have seen and heard at the capital, the Legislature's staff, especially the Senate (both Conferences), is simply unprepared to compete with Andrew Cuomo. They will need smart, tough, educated, prepared people in order to remain relevant over the next few years.

Gubernatorial behavior, Legislators, is not within your power to control. Your capacity to respond to it, however, is. Good staff is your sword and your shield.