REPORT OF the New York State Senate Select Committee to Investigate the Facts and Circumstances Surrounding the Conviction of Hiram Monserrate on October 15, 2009:
The Select Committee concludes and believes that sanctions against Senators should only be imposed in cases of serious misconduct. Expulsion should be considered only in the most egregious circumstances. Having considered the available evidence and evaluated the facts relating to the conduct that provided the basis for Senator Monserrate’s conviction, the Select Committee finds that this case is serious enough to warrant a severe sanction. In doing so, we are mindful that ultimately, the voters of Senator Monserrate’s district, where he plans to run for re-election, will decide whether or not he is returned to office…
…The Select Committee finds that the nature and seriousness of Senator Monserrate’s conduct, as demonstrated by the surveillance video and the other unrebutted evidence outlined in this Report, showed a reckless disregard for Ms. Giraldo’s well-being and for the severity of her injury. We therefore find, that under the particular facts and circumstances presented here, Senator Monserrate’s misconduct dereithut amages the integrity and the reputation of the New York State Senate and demonstrates a lack of fitness to serve in this body.
The Select Committee notes that its determinations are based on the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding Senator Monserrate’s overall conduct, not on the fact of his misdemeanor conviction. The Committee has determined that Senator Monserrate’s conduct in this case presents particular factors that support the imposition of the sanctions set forth above. Specifically, the Select Committee gave substantial weight to the following factors:
First, Senator Monserrate’s assault on Ms. Giraldo was a crime of domestic violence, and therefore in direct contravention of New York’s well-established “zero-tolerance” policy in such matters…
Second, …the Select Committee finds that Ms. Giraldo and Senator Monserrate’s statements about the events of December 18 and 19, 2008 are not credible.
Third,…Senator Monserrate has failed to accept responsibility for his misconduct, or to cooperate in any way with the work of the Select Committee.
I express no opinion on the topic of whether the New York State Senate had the power to remove Hiram Monserrate from the rolls of its membership. But, even if it has such power, I think there are serious questions about the methodology used by the Senate in dealing with this case. And even if one concedes both the power and the methodology, I think it there is nothing wrong with questioning whether the result achieved was the correct one.
As such, I think there was nothing inherently dishonorable about having voted against the Monserrate expulsion.
That being said, I have yet to hear anyone of the Senators who voted against the expulsion offer up an honorable explanation for doing so, even though there are so many available.
Let us start with Senator Eric Adams of Brooklyn.
As reported by Liz Benjamin, Adams explained his vote against expulsion by saying he just wanted to hang Adams from a different tree, specifically, an alternative expulsion resolution sponsored by Democratic Conference Leader John Sampson, that gave Monserrate time to appeal his conviction.
"I was a strong proponent of this second resolution: it would have expelled Senator Monserrate had he lost his appeals, and I supported this expulsion,..However, Senator Foley’s resolution [for immediate expulsion] was introduced first, and its passage rendered moot Senator Sampson’s resolution…My vote against Senator Foley’s resolution should not be construed as one in opposition to expulsion,..Rather, it was a good faith attempt to avoid a judicial merry-go-round, with its interim injunctions and lawsuits…How foolish would we appear were the courts to overturn Senator Monserrate’s conviction after we had already expelled him!…Last, and just as important: To suggest that my vote denigrates women is wrong-headed, and while I understand fully the sincere emotions attached to this matter, I reject as ill-considered, if not reckless, any suggestion that my respect for the rights of women is deficient. I decry all domestic violence behavior; to condone violence against women would violate all standards of decency, run counter to my commitment to end domestic violence, and violate my core values!"
So, Eric Adams would have us believe that the was so shocked by Monserrate’s conduct that he supported expelling Monserrate from the Senate. The record tells a somewhat different story.
As has been reported, even after the release of the violent video of Monserrate and Giraldo in the hallway of their building, Adams, in a gesture of solidarity with Monserrate, who he’d previously described as a victim of a police conspiracy, sat and watched the trial together with Ruben Diaz, and was even there to support Monserrate at the verdict, well after that video had been shown to the jury.
In addition to begging the question how this all squares with Adams’ purported concern for victims of domestic violence, it raises a more fundamental question about Adams’ sincerity.
Adams sat through the trial, rooting for Monserrate’s acquittal, even after seeing all the evidence, but now says that the same evidence justifies Monserrate’s exclusion.
I might give Adams the benefit of the doubt, and allow that he was persuaded by the additional evidence in the Senate Report, if it was not crystal clear from Adams’ statements that he either has not read the report, or is choosing to blithely ignore its contents.
“How foolish would we appear” says Adams, “were the courts to overturn Senator Monserrate’s conviction after we had already expelled him!…”
Well that argument might have some cogence, if it were not so clear that what motivated the Special Committee was not Monserrate’s conviction, but his behavior, including his repugnant, but not criminal, act of letting Ms. Giraldo bleed out of an open wound for 40 minutes rather than to call an ambulance or take her to any hospital where he might be recognized. .
As the report itself states:
The Select Committee notes that its determinations are based on the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding Senator Monserrate’s overall conduct, not on the fact of his misdemeanor conviction.
Anyone reading the Committee Report would understand that its recommendations would have been the same even if Monserrate had been convicted of nothing. Moreover, the mere fact of a misdemeanor conviction for a crime other than one committed would have not necessarily yielded the same recommendation.
Unlike some of his colleagues, Adams is not a stupid man (although he is sometimes a deluded one)–either he did not read the report, or he is willfully ignoring its contents and purposefully distorting them.
Plus, Adams creates nonsense from whole clothe; take his aasertion "Rather, it was a good faith attempt to avoid a judicial merry-go-round, with its interim injunctions and lawsuits"
Does anyone really believe that if Monserrate's misdemeanor conviction is upheld on appeal, he would cease his efforts to prevent his expulsion?
What abject nonsense.
None of Monserrate's legal arguments against expulsion are predicated upon his guilt or lack thereof. Monserrate's guilt (or lack of it) of a misdemeanor was not only irrelevant to the political case for his expulsion, it is also irrelevant to the legal case against it. Lawsuits are coming regardless; injunctions may or may not come, but not because of the ultimate resolution of the misdemeanor.
In addition, the position advocated by Adams ignores some of the very concerns (some of them legitimate) he’s raised previously.
ARGUMENT: The voters should decide:
In my previous articles, I’ve acknowledged that is a serious argument, on paper, for the technical reason that it is a very serious thing for the Senate to substitute its will for that of the voters in Monserrate’s district.
However, I’ve also pointed out that, thanks to the manipulations of at least three different political parties, no election featuring any opposing candidates, even paper ones, actually took place in Monserrate’s district.
But, let us concede the point arguendo.
If the important thing is the will of the voters, then expelling Monserrate later is just as bad as expelling him now. By supporting the Sampson alternative, Adams proves that he does not believe his own argument.
As I’ve pointed out before, expelling Monserrate does not take away the right of these voters to choose their own Senator — it restores to those voters that right.
Though I have long favored its abolition, I now implore the Independence Party to perform a public service and give Monserrate a line on the ballot in this election; since Monserrate pal Carl Kruger carries the party’s Vice Chair on his payroll and Monserrate pal Espada still maintains ties to the Newman/Fulani wing of the party, there is surely motivation for all concerned. I also ask that either the Dems or the WFP leave a line blank and give Montserrate a fair fight.
I can‘t wait.
My greatest concerns about the voters of the 13th SD is that expulsion not deny them of any representation at all during the budget process.
While this was a purported concern of some of those who opposed expulsion, it should be noted that the one now exacerbating that problem is Monserrate, whose efforts to prevent such an election may work to delay it.
ARGUMENT: It is unclear whether the State Senate has the legal right under the state constitution to expel Monserrate.
Again, a legitimate argument.
However, by supporting the Sampson resolution, Adams proves that he does not believe it at all. If the Senate lacks the power to expel Monserrate, it lacks the power to expel Monserrate. Before, after, or during his appeal.
Unlike Eric Adams, Ruben Diaz clearly seems to believe most of the nonsense he’s spewed about the Monserrate case, although it is frightening that he could possibly believe it all.
“It is true that we have to condemn and reject Hiram Monserrate’s actions in the strongest way.”
Then why, why, why did you sit together as a rooting section with Eric Adams during Monserrate’s trial? If Monserrate’s actions deserved to be condemned and rejected, why did you show up in support of him at the verdict?
"…They form a committee to go after the Hispanic one, to get even. Ladies and gentlemen, go ahead and get even – enjoy it,"
Diaz’s sentence is self contradictory. He makes a point, echoed by more articulate (but not necessarily more sane) voices like Henry Stern and myself, that Every Senator, regardless of party, had political reason to extract revenge against Monserrate, a man who would not stay rented, instead bouncing around like a perpetual Mexican jumping bean. It had to drive even his fellow Amigos crazy.
But, that being sufficient motivation, why would anyone care that Hiram Monserrate was a Latino? .
Finally, Diaz’s insinuation (which may be too mild a word) that the membership of the Senate decided this matter for political reasons would resonate with more sincerity if he himself were not railing so publicly about the failure of Democratic Conference Leader John Sampson to enforce behind closed doors the decision that Diaz would have preferred.
"John Sampson doesn't have the leadership. John Sampson got defeated. He cannot produce. We don't have a leader. We don't have a leader. We don't have a leader. I don't know what's going to happen."
Clearly, what Diaz wanted was not justice, but enforcement by the heavy hand of leadership. Diaz’s response to the vote is a revival of his periodic elusive threats to vote with the Republicans:
"I don't have to think. I don't have to switch parties. I'll do what I have to do."
If Diaz’s colleagues who voted for expulsion were motivated by base political concerns, Diaz’s statements prove that they surely were not alone.
After all, what could possibly be more basely political than sitting at a trail rooting for the acquittal of someone whose actions you felt were worthy of condemnation and rejection?
Diaz’s written statement, obviously written by someone somewhat more conversant with the English language, also takes the opportunity to bring up the embarrassment that is Senate President Pro Tempore Malcolm Smith:
1) “Is it not also shameful for the Senate to have a president that is being accused of being involved in a very shaky deal whereby he used his powers to get a multi-million dollar contract for his friends?”
2) I again ask myself, “Is it not also shameful for the Senate body to have a president being accused of raising money for the needy people affected by Hurricane Katrina and the money never reached the people for whom it was intended?”
It might be a good time to note the difference; the rumors about Smith are, from a Senate perspective, perhaps more serious than the charges against Monserrate, as they directly pertain to the duties of his office.
But, despite the politically motivated efforts of some Republicans, Monserrate was afforded the courtesy of the resolution of the investigation and prosecution of those charges efore any Senate action, so that any Senate investigation would not be conducted before his right against self-incrimination remained a stumbling block to his full participation.
On that basis, Smith is not yet a ripe matter for Senate review.
Diaz may yet be able to legitimately call his colleagues hypocrites on the matter of Malcolm Smith, but the day he is able to do so has not yet arrived.
Diaz also brings up the matter of Marty Markowitz:
"I ask myself, “How come when Senator Marty Markowitz declared himself guilty of a misdemeanor for money-laundering, he was received as a hero by a member of this chamber and the Senate Democrats in turn supported him in his campaign to became Brooklyn Borough President? Weren’t Markowitz’s actions shameful for this body? How come there was never a committee formed to investigate him and expel him from the Senate? Are we selective in what is shameful for this body?”
Of course, there were only about three members of the Senate’ s Democratic Conference serving at that time, and probably not many more of the Republicans, so I‘m not sure the Senators in the room can really be held personally accountable. In fact, it happened so long ago, that I suspect Diaz learned about it from me.
But, in the same article, I also argued that the Senate was not politically bound by its own lax precedents.
A big part of the campaign which helped the Senate Dems achieve their long sought after majority status, and thereby got Diaz his committee chairmanship, was a call for a change in the Senate’s ethical climate. Though the Sen Dems actual efforts at reform have been disappointing, it is clear that the Sen Dems ran on the platform that the old rules would be re-examined and subjected to change.
The fact that the then Republican controlled Senate turned a blind eye to the misdemeanors of Markowitz (and perhaps others) should not bind a Democratically controlled Senate which has ostensibly and ostentatiously committed itself to change.
It should not even cause them to restrict the sanction of expulsion to crimes, when there exists surely non-criminal but unethical conduct which rises to a level justifying such sanction.
Ruben Diaz seems to believe that the only proper response to a history of a too lax ethical climate is its continuation into perpetuity; but there really is an alternative.
Surely, an ordained minister should be aware that there are other options besides hell.
More equivocal was Buffalo’s Antoine Thompson.
Shortly, after the expulsion vote, Thompson explained in an interview why he had voted against the expulsion. Thompson said, "I did not vote yes," lamely explaining that because Monserrate is still appealing his criminal conviction, the Senate should have allowed the appeal process to be completed. He said he favored a censure vote, with an ouster effective in June, pending the outcome of the appeal.
But Thompson was recorded as voting in favor of the resolution. Senate sources said the next morning Thompson placed calls to the Senate attempting unsuccessfully to get the vote changed. Ask about these efforts, Thompson said, "I'm not sure about that, to be honest."
“To be honest,” would appear to be a novel concept.
Now Thompson sings a different song. "I misspoke because I was tired and sick.”
“Sick and tired.” Who could blame his constituents for feeling the same way?
Monserrate himself tried to give the appearance of finally seeming to accept some of the responsibility the Committee Report found so lacking.
"I therefore stand before you today to ask for your forbearance and yes, in many respects, your forgiveness…I know that my behavior has brought unwelcome discredit to this chamber, and for that again, as I earlier stated, I am sorry…Let the people come next fall if they decide that I can no longer effectively serve them. Let them be the final word on the matter of Hiram Monserrate."
"…This clearly is a much, much bigger issue than just me. This is about the process and the rule of law. I really hope that no one in this chamber ever in their life and their public service career, that they ever find themselves in a situation similar to me. That on one evening or one day something goes awry and we find ourselves at the mercy of certain colleagues with unfortunate political agendas."
Most notable here is that while Monserrate tries to convey contrition, it does not seem clear that he understands exactly what he is being contrite about. Monserrate seems most regretful about being put into this position, and less concerned about the acts which had brought him there.
Notably, Monserrate was the only Senator who actually raised the real process concerns about the expulsion proceeding, furthering the suspicion that the others who opposed his immediate expulsion really did not care much about those issues.
But Monserrate’s process objections would have been far more convincing if he had not promised to cooperate with the committee’s inquiry and then failed to do so. Monserrate seemed very distraught that the Committee failed to consider his side (though they did in voluminous detail), but he himself failed to help them to do this.
Now we come to Kevin Parker.
Like Adams, Parker cites the sacred nature of the Soviet style election which ordained Monserrate as his district’s Senator, and like Adams, Parker overemphasizes the pending appeal of the misdemeanor conviction the Committee Report specifically says it did not rely upon.
However, unlike Adams, I’m not going to presume that Parker either blew off reading the report, or is willfully distorting it. As an ex-cop, Adams had to learn some law, particularly in the criminal field. By contrast, Parker’s comments on the case have shown he’s just got no clue at all. Parker does not seem to understand that the presumption of innocence disappears upon conviction, while his view of double jeopardy would prevent the NYPD from taking disciplinary action in cases like Amodou Diallo and Sean Bell, where police whose conduct may have demonstrated incompetence have nonetheless been acquitted of overt criminality.
In fact, Parker is so clueless that he fails to understand that, by elevating the importance of the conviction, or lack thereof, he is helping to cook his own goose.
As someone who could theoretically be convicted of a misdemeanor, by plea or trial (Parker is currently under felony indictment), Parker would actually be setting a better precedent for himself by adopting an analysis in which actual conviction for a misdemeanor was irrelevant. And, such a rationale is only provided by the Report calling for immediate expulsion, and not by the Sampson compromise, which would make such a conviction dispositive.
Therefore, instead of dwelling on Parker’s substantive concerns, such that they are, I will focus upon Senator Parker’s description of his concern about violence against women:
“Historically, I have stood with women’s groups and groups fighting against domestic violence, and for women’s issues. I am a member of the Majority Task Force on Domestic Violence, and I have introduced several bills aiding victims of domestic violence, including one that provides victims of domestic violence with anonymous telephone listings, so their batterers will not be able to track them down through the telephone book.”
“That bill passed the Senate last year, and will do so again this year and hopefully become law.”
“I, too, agree with the passion of my colleagues about the need for the Senate to send a strong signal about domestic violence, and to aid the countless thousands who have been battered. Today, however, despite my commitment to end domestic violence, and despite the fact I have always stood with the women’s groups who fight for this cause, I feel I must vote to uphold the principle of due process, no matter how much I wish to stand shoulder to shoulder today with those groups, and against domestic violence, as I have always done.”
It should be noted that Parker’s current indictment for assault upon a New York Post photographer, as well as other allegations (including one where he is said to have threatened violence against a member of the Senate Republican legal staff) which have not resulted in prosecution, raise the question of whether Parker’s concern about violence is restricted only to the fairer sex.
I think that assertion is unfair. It must be narrower than that.
First, during the pendency of his indictment, a female staffer accused Parker of shoving her and crushing her glasses when they fell to the ground.
Then there was his conduct last week.
In an incident no one denies, and for which Parker has since apologized, Parker is said to have charged towards State Senator Diane Savino during a meeting of the Senate Democratic Conference to discuss the potential Monserrate expulsion.
Parker is said to have taken several steps toward Savino (D-S.I.) as the two argued over Monserrate‘s expulsion.
Senator Parker apparently used the word fuck, a word not unknown to Senator Savino’s vocabulary, or necessarily offensive to her delicate sensibilities. Parker is also said to have called her a “bitch,” which may have offended her far more than would the word “fuck.”
According to one witness, Savino attempted to explain why Monserrate would be immediately expelled with Republican votes, and Parker "went a little ballistic, swearing and screaming that the Republicans have no right to dictate what goes on in our house."
In a moment fraught with irony, three opponents of immediate expulsion, Adams, Diaz, and Carl Kruger – started yelling and egging Parker on.
And I thought it would be a cold day indeed when Ruben Diaz and Carl Kruger started to complain about Republicans dictating what went on in the New York State Senate.
Maybe, their objection was to the Republicans doing so without their own personal cooperation.
Diaz’s loud objections to Republican Senators having a voice in the process does raise further questions about the sincerity of his objection to the expulsion process being a political one.
Savino then apparently told Parker to stop interrupting her, followed by the exchanged of reciprocal "Fucks yous.”
Parker is then said to have stormed at Savino.
Senate Jeffrey Klein then jumped up. Parker responded by swearing at Klein and asking, "Do you want a piece of me?"
"If that's what it takes to stop this," Klein answered, while Parker was held back by John Sampson (perhaps sparking Diaz‘s complaint about Sampson‘s leadership).
As I’ve suggested before, Parker could save himself a bit of time and the taxpayers a bit of money if he just had these words pre-printed in the boilerplate on his press release paper.
"My conduct today was reprehensible and regrettable. I apologize…"
I think it is therefore fair to conclude that Parker’s concerns is not all violence against all women, but ONLY Domestic Violence. Parker not only lacks concern over violence against women in the workplace, he seems to favor it.
Parker is actually a perfect illustration of a point I made earlier. His conduct in this instance was probably not criminal, at most rising to the level of a violation. But it was both in the course of his duties, and ethically reprehensible.
On the basis of this conduct, together with the other instances of threats of violence during the course of his legislative duties, Parker should be expelled from the State Senate, or, at the very least, censured.
Other than that, I think the most important observation to be gleaned from this series of events reflects poorly on all sides. It is the manner of the floor “debate.”
I’ve no objection to party conferences discussing matters, and sometimes ultimately resolving them. But I do think the membership of these conferences does owe the public some discussion on the floor of the reasons for its actions, even if such discussion is ultimately a form of kabuki.
Yes, I know there was a detailed report, and I know there were statements and interviews after the vote, including Antoine Thompson’s debate with himself.
But there was virtually no discussion on the floor.
Everyone on all sides seemed to agree that this was a discussion among themselves to which the public was not invited.
Diaz expressed his wish that the resolution for immediate expulsion be killed by Sampson in conference without ever being allowed to see the light of day.
The Democrats favoring immediate expulsion proved they agreed with Diaz that the public was not invited, by refusing to speak for their resolution on the floor. The Republicans, some of whom had privately express severe procedural qualms about what was to occur, expressed those qualms only behind closed doors, and then voted for the resolution unanimously, without saying a word.
The worst hypocrite was Diaz. On the inherently private party matter of who would lead the Senate, Diaz refused to accept the consensus of his colleagues and went rogue with his Amigos. But on this inherently public matter he has suddenly become the perfect party man, calling for iron fisted discipline and falling in line behind the leader.
Ruben Diaz has it ass backwards–the choice of word is on purpose.
A Senate without Monserrate is a happy result. Expulsion may even be justified.
Nonetheless, for multiple reasons, this was one more sad day for the people of New York State courtesy of its State Senate.