DRUG LAW DEBATE BLOCKED

Albany -- Assembly Democrats Puzzled Over Silver's Refusal To Take Up
Rockefeller Reforms

Angry and surprised Assembly Democrats blasted their leader Thursday
after Speaker Sheldon Silver's apparent decision not to allow a vote
on reforms to the Rockefeller Drug Laws.

The legislators were reacting to news that the Assembly Democratic
majority, after at least a decade demanding changes in the harsh
sentencing mandates for drug crimes, will not take up Gov. George
Pataki's proposal to scale back the laws. Widely viewed as an opening
salvo in negotiations, they call for cutting maximum prison terms for
some drug carriers in exchange for eliminating parole for all felons.

The New York Times quoted Silver spokeswoman Patricia Lynch Thursday
saying the Assembly would not look at Pataki's proposal "at this
time'' in order to protect upstate and suburban Democrats from
appearing "soft on crime'' in an election that is 18 months away.
Silver was not quoted in the story, and neither he nor Lynch returned
repeated telephone calls.

The decision surprised rank-and-file legislators, who were mostly in
their home districts Thursday, and even caught Silver's own Albany
spokesman, Charles Carrier, off-guard. Carrier said he was not aware
of the speaker's stand on the matter until he read it in the paper.

But a number of upstate and suburban Democrats said they would not, in
fact, be hurt at the polls if the Assembly took up Rockefeller law
reforms. Moreover, they said, Assembly Democrats have never even
discussed the matter in their closed-door conferences this year.

"I do not support the speaker's position on this issue,'' said
Assembly Deputy Speaker Arthur O. Eve, D-Buffalo, a strong opponent of
the drug laws, who is second to Silver in the Assembly.

"Certainly, I am surprised, and I would hope there will be some
dialogue on it before we get back to Albany next week,'' Eve said.
"The Rockefeller Drug Laws are not good laws.''

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
possessing 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.

A Zogby International poll conducted last month indicates that only 31
percent of voters statewide would consider their lawmakers "soft on
drugs'' if prison terms are scaled back. Conversely, 65 percent of
upstate voters and 63 percent of suburban voters would not penalize
their elected officials for enacting sentencing reforms for drug
offenders, according to the poll of 700 "likely'' New York voters.

If Silver refuses to look at any reform plans, he may forge an
unlikely alliance between his Democratic members and Pataki
Republicans, several legislators said Thursday. Silver also risks
alienating New York City-based liberal advocacy groups, who have long
backed Assembly Democrats in elections.

Of the 98 Assembly Democrats, only 18 are from Long Island and the
other suburban counties surrounding New York City; and 21 are from
upstate. Fifty-nine lawmakers, including Silver, are from New York
City. Few legislators are considered at serious risk of losing their
seats.

"I guess the speaker has decided, for more political reasons than
policy or people, that he needs to put the brakes on this session,''
said Terri Derikart, a spokeswoman for the New York chapter of
Families Against Mandatory Minimums.

"It's kind of stumping me,'' she said. "It's mindboggling. It's like
legislation interruptus -- and then Shelly gets up and takes a cold
shower.''

Two reform proposals are currently being considered by the Assembly.
One calls for repealing the sentencing guidelines, and is widely
viewed as too drastic for some conservative Assembly Democrats. But
less far-reaching reforms should not be discarded, said Assemblyman
Joseph Robach of Rochester, who was elected on Democratic and
Conservative ballot lines.

"I'm encouraged the speaker is looking at this cautiously,'' Robach
said. "Drug crimes are serious . . . and to remove all of these laws
may be too quick of a jump. But to look at some ideas, such as
offering treatment, would make sense to me.''

Other Democrats suggested Silver may be trying to force Pataki to
negotiate on what Silver has touted as the Assembly's No. 1 crime
issue of the session: mandatory trigger locks on guns and a ban on
assault weapon sales. "It makes sense to do all of this in context,''
said Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, D-Westchester. "We ought not to get
wrapped up in a single part of it. Sometimes it's difficult to get the
governor to the table.''

While legislative leaders exercise virtually total control over the
flow of bills in Albany, Silver has in the past proven vulnerable to
pressure from his members. Last summer, Silver brought legislators
back to Albany in a special session to enact Jenna's Law, which
limited parole for violent felons. Though he had for months resisted
the measure, Silver changed his mind when pressured by lawmakers who
were worried that inaction would hurt them at the polls.

"There seems to be a lot of public support around the governor's
proposal'' of Rockefeller reforms, Pataki aide Patrick McCarthy said
Thursday. "And we certainly saw what result public sentiment had in
determining the outcome of Jenna's Law.''

Even Albany Assemblyman Jack McEneny, a Democrat who has stood
staunchly by Silver in the past, said he would have to side with the
governor on the matter of Rockefeller reforms.

"I agree with Mike McKeon,'' McEneny said, referring to Pataki's
spokesman, who termed Silver's turnabout as "bizarre.''

"I thought it was to the point where the Assembly and the governor
were going forward, and the hard nut to crack was the (GOP-controlled)
Senate,'' McEneny said. "I really thought we had two-thirds of the
three-legged stool. If there's been any movement, it's always come out
of the Assembly. . . . It just doesn't make an awful lot of sense.''