On December 19, 2009, then State Senator-Elect Hiram Montserrat (Amigo-Hell) was arrested and charged with assault.
Three days later, State Senator Marty Golden introduced a Resolution asking Monserrate not to file the papers allowing him to assume his seat until the charges against him were resolved.
Golden could not, at that juncture, ask Monserrate to resign, as, except for his City Council seat, which he was already vacating, Monserrate had nothing to resign from.
There is little doubt that if Monserrate was already a Senator, Golden would have asked that he resign, or recuse himself from his duties, since Golden’s resolution was a de facto call for, depending on how one interprets it, either one or the other. .
It only took three days for Golden to act. At the time, Monserrate had yet to be indicted.
In response, I called Golden’s resolution and a similar call by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer “an attempt to reap political hay, ” as well as “self-serving and self-interested political grandstanding.”
Of course, Golden was not merely thinking of his own personal interests, but those of the entire Senate Republican Conference, as well as the interests of his politically transgendered buddies, Carl Kruger (who helped elect Golden, and whose staff was then interconnected with Golden’s through two married members of the Garson Crime Syndicate: “Yussel Numbnuts” and “Doreen the Blockbuster” ) and Pedro Espada (to whose non-existent “campaign committee” Golden had contributed).
At the time, Golden said "the last thing the people of the city and state of New York want to see is someone sitting in the Senate who is accused of committing such a serious crime.”
Back then, I remember telling a fellow blogger “I don't recall Marty Golden asking for measures similar to those he was demanding for Monserrate, back when Republican Senator Guy Velella was under indictment.” Shortly thereafter Liz Benjamin published this item.
As Benjamin notes, during Golden’s first term as Senator, his colleague, Senator Velella had not merely been arrested, but also indicted, in connection with “a cash for contracts bribery scheme.” Velella subsequently took a guilty plea.
As Benjamin notes, Golden also did not make such a call after the 2006 indictment of Senate
Democrat Efrain Gonzalez for using money from taxpayer-funded member items, meant for public purposes, for his own personal benefit. Of course, back then, control of the State Senate did not lie in the balance, and Gonzalez himself was among the Senate Democrats most willing to do business with the Republicans.
I’ll add that Golden also made no such call concerning DINO Assemblyman Tony Seminario, a big supporter of recently defeated Republican Senator Serf Maltese (who Golden was assigned to in the Republican Conference’s buddy system–Golden was seen on election day leaving tins of cookies, labeled “Complements of Senator Serf Maltese,” on the tables where voters were required to sign in, thereby giving the electorate a last minute subliminal message otherwise prohibited by statute).
Benjamin asked Golden what the difference was between the cases of Monserrate, Velella and Gonzalez that merited Monserrate being treated differently than the other two. Golden responded incoherently:
"Corruption is not tolerable; bribery is not tolerable…If you're guilty and you commit acts of bribery and corruption, you should go to jail. Someone should have put a bill forward then…Those are different crimes. Are they equally bad or worse? Not worse, but bad. This is a physical, violent, B felony. It's totally different. I'm moving against this because this is an act I believe is intolerable, and sends a signal across the state"
But Golden had it exactly backwards.
One recuses one’s self when one’s participation creates a conflict of interest or the appearance of an impropriety. Thus, it would at least be arguable that officials under indictment for corruption related to the duties of their offices should recuse themselves from participation in the affairs of their legislative bodies.
But, Monserrate had not yet been charged with any crime relating to the duties of his office (those did not come until he left the Senate involuntarily, and even then concerned his activities at the Council).
So, a call for recusal, except perhaps as it related to provisions of the Penal Law concerning Assault, made no sense whatsoever, except perhaps as a way to generate himself cheap publicity.
As I think I‘ve made clear, I don’t think Elected or Party officials should be calling upon elected officials charged with crimes to resign. I have an aversion to joining everyone else in playing “Johnny-on-a-pony” and treating those who are down as a piñata.
Perhaps it’s my contrarian personality, but I yield to no one in my respect for the presumption of innocence.
Yes, I can hardly disagree that the standards the justice system maintains concerning the burden of proof for criminal liability may not necessarily be the same as each individual voter’s standards for fitness to hold public office.
Voters in districts with elected official in trouble with the law sometimes get the opportunity to judge them in a trial we call democracy, where the standard for punishment is somewhat less stringent than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But, pending disposition of the criminal charges or an election, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt would seem to be the operative standard for the removal of such an elected.
But, even if one bought Golden’s argument that his call for a presumptive recusal/resignation was appropriate in certain instances, in the absence of a conviction, it seems to me that the anathema against "someone sitting in the Senate who is accused of committing such a serious crime,” is more appropriately invoked against those whose presence casts doubt upon the integrity of the body and its dealings (say, by their taint leading to doubts about the appropriateness of every member’s budget items), rather than at those members whose disgraces (if indeed they qualify as such), however repugnant, are entirely unrelated to their duties of office.
And anyway, I don’t recall Golden asking that similar treatment be afforded to former GOP Councilman Dennis Gallagher, after Gallagher was charged with rape (after his indictment, Gallagher was removed from his committees and leadership positions, but was allowed to remain a member of the Council and was not forbidden to participate in its deliberations).
This isn’t rocket science. Surely, Golden understand that, if convicted of a felony, an elected forfeits their seat by operation of law. More importantly, unless he‘s an idiot, Golden understand that the distinction between crimes of violence and crimes of corruption cuts (perhaps the wrong choice of words) in exactly the opposite direction from the one he articulated.
Of course, at the time, perhaps something else was at play.
By law, Monserrate had until the end of next January 2009 to file his oath of office with New York’s Secretary of State. If he did not do so, his seat would have been declared vacant and a special election would have been called to fill the vacancy.
In the meantime, the Senate would have been left with 28 Democrats, 29 or 30 Republicans (pending resolution of the then unresolved Padavan-Gennaro race), with three seats in the hands Carl Kruger and his Amigos (from whom the mercurial Monserrate had temporarily departed), who were then engaged in auctioning themselves off to the highest bidder. 32 votes were needed to organize the Senate.
As it looked then, if Golden had gotten his way, the chances of the Democrats organizing the Senate would have become even more daunting, and some sort of deal which helped the Republicans maintain some or most of their power would have become that much more likely (especially when, as eventually happened, Padavan emerged victorious). But even if Golden's efforts came to nothing, he still managed to create a phony issue for use in bludgeoning his opposition (not that the Sen Dems wouldn’t on their own create even better opportunities for exploitation).
As I later noted, several months later, when, with Monserrate’s help, the Republicans nearly pulled a coup, Golden’s resolution, or an updated version of, was nowhere in sight. I bring this all up, because on March 10, State Senator Carl Kruger , who helped to elect Golden, surrendered himself to the authorities for charges involving his official duties.
As I’ve said, I do not believe elected officials should call upon people in Kruger’s situation to resign (although case by case recusals on votes, and prophylactic prohibitions on holding certain internal positions within the Senate or the Democratic Conference could well be justified).
However, as I’ve made clear, this is not Marty Golden’s position. As he said:
"the last thing the people of the city and state of New York want to see is someone sitting in the Senate who is accused of committing such a serious crime.”
“Corruption is not tolerable; bribery is not tolerable…”
Why did Golden introduce a resolution on Monserrate?
"I'm moving against this because this is an act I believe is intolerable, and sends a signal across the state"
There you have it.
If Marty Golden does not introduce a resolution concerning Carl Kruger, he will have revealed himself as a bloviating, hypocritical bag of wind.
Of course, I would oppose such a resolution (and laugh out loud if it passed; which it wouldn’t).
The blog of the pro-Golden wing of the Brooklyn GOP, “The Jig is Up Atlas” has recently gone on a campaign of attack against local Democrats who’ve refused to call upon Kruger to resign.
But “The Jig” has been silent about the one elected official in their midst who owes Kruger more than anyone else.
Marty Golden.
It took three days for Marty Golden to introduce a resolution about Hiram Monserrate.
Three days.
It is now 46 days since Carl Kruger surrendered to authorities. There has already been an indictment.
46 days.
Yet Marty Golden has not said one word.
Today I commence the Golden Clock.
Evert time I post a Gateway column, it will note the number of days Marty Golden has remained silent on Carl Kruger.
This will continue until Golden makes a statement, or publicly repudiates “The Jig is Up Atlas” or I get bored with the idea.
The Clock is ticking Marty.