SILVER SOFTENS DRUG LAW STANCE

Albany Assembly speaker has opened door ever so slightly to revision of
tough Rockefeller-era penalties, Democrats say

Under fire from his Assembly membership, Speaker Sheldon Silver is backing
away from an apparent stand against reforming the state's Rockefeller Drug
Laws, officials said Wednesday.

Silver said at a closed-door meeting of his Democratic conference earlier
this week that he was opposed only to Gov. George Pataki's proposal -- which
links reform of the tough laws to the elimination of parole for all felons.
But according to several legislators at the meeting, Silver refused to say
how far he would agree to scale back the drug laws -- or if he would at all.

That appears to be a turnaround from Silver's position a week ago, when his
spokeswoman said the Assembly leadership worried its members would appear
"soft on crime" in the November 2000 election if they voted for reforms this
year.

"The speaker's statement was terse to the point of saying, `We're not doing
the governor's Rockefeller Drug Law reforms,' but I wanted to know if he
could clarify the broader point," said Assemblyman Alexander "Pete" Grannis,
D- Manhattan, who questioned Silver at the meeting of the Democratic
conference Monday. "He would only say we're not doing the governor's bill. .
. . If by that answer, we aren't going to engage in any way, at any level,
on reform of the bill, I don't know. We're not talking about the issue. I
don't know where we are."

Silver's spokeswoman, Patricia Lynch, refused to comment on the meeting but
said that a story last week in The New York Times on the governor's reform
proposals was "absolutely accurate." The article reported that the Assembly
leadership "appears unwilling to support other such efforts this year."

Assembly Democrats, who have for years pushed reforms to the Rockefeller
laws, were infuriated. Under the laws, enacted in 1973, a person with no
prior record and no history of violence who is convicted of a single sale of
two ounces or possession of four ounces of a narcotic, faces a mandatory
minimum sentence of 15 years to life. No other state has such a tough law,
nor does the federal government.

Lawmakers and advocates had hoped that 1999 -- an off-election year -- would
be ripe for reform, and were encouraged when Pataki and Chief Judge Judith
S. Kaye both called for change in the measures. Moreover, they assumed that
if any legislative body would balk at reforms, it would be the
Republican-controlled Senate, which has long taken a conservative stance on
curbing crime.

Still, Silver's short explanation of his views at the conference meeting
gave some Assembly members a glimmer of hope that reforms would be at least
discussed this year.

"I think the door is still open -- albeit faintly," said Assemblyman
Jeffrion Aubry, D-Queens, who is author of a bill that would repeal the
prison sentences imposed under the Rockefeller laws. "What is needed to
build consensus is an appropriate bill, if mine is not. We will work toward
that."

Few Assembly Democrats disagree with Silver's position that Pataki's
proposal does not go far enough in reforming the Rockefeller laws to justify
liminating parole for all felony offenders. Pataki's plan would allow
appeals courts to cut minimum prison terms by a third for first-time drug
transporters, or "mules," and expose drug kingpins to a mandatory
15-year-to-life term.

In exchange, however, the governor would demand "determinate sentencing" --
specific prison terms for specific felonies. That's widely regarded as too
tough of a measure to be a fair trade.

But Pataki's reform proposal -- the first to offer major changes by a
governor since the laws were enacted -- also is considered by many lawmakers
to be an opening stake for future negotiations. It "at least had the
potential for starting a dialogue," Grannis said.

How far Pataki would be willing to compromise is unclear. "Certainly he's
shown that he's willing to work with responsible individuals who have
sensible ideas to reforming criminal justice" issues, said Pataki spokesman
Patrick McCarthy.

Polls indicate that only about a third of voters statewide would consider
their lawmakers "soft on drugs" if prison terms are scaled back. But one
advocate warned Wednesday that voters would react more negatively to their
elected officials if no action is taken to reform the Rockefeller laws.

"No one has really stood up to the speaker and said, `We believe this should
be done this session, and we should put a proposal forward,' " said Terri
Derikart, spokeswoman for the New York chapter of Families Against Mandatory
Minimums. "The family members I spoke to (about Silver's refusal to take up
reforms) were extremely disappointed, disillusioned and depressed. They were
outraged, and said they'd be calling their assemblyman."

Grannis agreed.

"Lots of people in many parts of the state think this is an important issue
for us to get involved in, and are not at all fearful of us doing the right
thing as being construed that we are `soft on crime,' " he said. "If we feel
constrained to do it in an off (election) year, and won't do it in an
election year, my guess is that it's doomed."