Last night was this month's Independent Neighborhood Democrats (IND) meeting. For the record, as of last night I am now a member of IND's executive board. Despite my rather rocky relationship with the IND executive board during 2006, they have welcomed me warmly. I will write in some detail about the main event of last night's meeting, a great talk by former Congresswoman from Brooklyn, Liz Holtzman, about impeaching Bush, later. But first I want to give a slightly different viewpoint on the Di Napoli brouhaha than has been presented here. Now I don't really disagree with the assessment of my fellow Daily Gothamers about the dysfunction of our state legislature or the fact that Di Napoli was not the best choice and that Shelly Silver needs a good slap across the face or kick in the behind. But there is another side of it other than Spitzer's side. And my own Assemblywoman, Joan Millman, gave us that Assembly viewpoint last night. Joan Millman is a good, solid reformer. And I think no one is happier than her that Spitzer is our Governor. But she described Spitzer's behavior regarding the Comptroller situation as being heavy handed and the Assembly's actions as being a rebellion against a heavy handed insult. Assemblywoman Millman described Spitzers declaration that no one from the legislature would be considered qualified for the job as being an arbitrary slap in the face to the legislature. Her view of the original agreement with Spitzer was that five names would be chosen by the panel of former Comptrollers and that people from the legislature were welcome to throw their names into the ring. She did not have the same impression as Shelly Silver that it was agreed on that a legislator would necessarily BE one of the five names chosen, but she did think that plenty of legislators had qualifications and should be considered. The process was apparantly bizzare. The three-person panel of former Comptrollers, from her observation, didn't ask questions, leaving it to the Assembly to ask questions despite the fact that it was the panel that would choose the five names. Joan didn't suggest this, but I wondered if that was an indication that the panel had an idea ahead of time who was going to be picked. Spitzer's declaration that no one from the legislature would make the cut was taken as an insult. Now, Joan is the first person who will admit that the legislature has huge problems and I am sure she would agree that many in the legislature are NOT qualified. But she named a few names she thought should have been considered and gave good reasons why she thought they would be qualified. Then only three names were handed to the legislature and one of those names was viewed as being too close a friend to Spitzer to adequately oversee his peformance as governor. She felt that one name out of the three was inappropriate but felt the other two names were excellent choices. But she felt that to exclude any legislators while including the name of a Spitzer buddy (I won't use the word crony because I think Spizter is better than that, but...) and right after Spitzer named a legislator (State Senator Balboni) to Homeland Security was a deliberate and unnecessary slap at the legislature. I apply the term pissing contest, she did not. Despite her dislike of parts of the process, Joan was one of the handful of legislators who stuck to the panel's list and voted for New York City Finance Commissioner Martha Stark for comptroller. But, as a direct return-piss in the contest (my words, NOT Joan's!!) the legislature overwhelmingly voted for one of their own, Thomas DiNapoli. I should note that State Senator Marty Connor, another IND regular though one I have not been as fond of as I have of Joan, also voted for Martha Stark, taking the high road. I will add, though, that Connor apparantly had some interest in the job himself. I am less comfortable with that that Joan was. Joan has some confidence in DiNapoli, at least in public. She didn't give him a glowing after the fact endorsement, and of course didn't vote for him. But she outlined what she saw as his qualifications and pointed out that they aren't much different than the qualifications of, for example, Hevesi before he became NYC Comptroller. Her main points were: give him a chance; all eyes are on him so he better perform; and we can judge him in about 4 years and decide if we want to keep him. I am not as forgiving as Joan is. I think although Spizter may indeed have overstepped his authority, the legislature in the end wasn't reasonable either. Perhaps, given the proverbial dysfunction of Albany, we really NEED a comptroller who is not close to the legislature...OR for that matter to Mr. Spitzer either. Unproductive pissing contest all around I say and I add to the Daily Gotham disgust at the legislature my own disgust at Spitzer. Joan finished with the hope that the Spitzer-Legislature pissing contest (my words, not hers!!) is now over because they all have a huge back log of things to get done now that obstructionist Pataki is out of the picture. I see problems ahead as Spitzer, Silver and Bruno all posture like sumo wrestlers to intimidate the others, but Spitzer has the popular support, the legislature really is dysfunctional, and Silver and Bruno are both slime as far as I am concerned. But if sumo-posturing and pissing contests can be put aside, and Bruno forced to be reasonable, I think Joan's wish of getting stuff done is quite attainable. Personally I'd prefer Joan Millman were in charge of the Assembly. Things would be far more civilized and reasonable if she was.