The lead story in The New York Times this morning, titled “New York State Votes to Double Charter Schools,” describes a legislative victory for charter school advocates last night in the State Assembly and Senate. The bill will increase the number of charter schools across the state to about 460.

Passage of the bill was crucial if the State is to receive about $700 billion in federal grants under a program known as Race to the Top. The state’s eligibility for the program will also be assisted by a separate bill tying teachers’ salaries to their students’ performance on standardized tests.

Surprisingly, the State legislature avoided its useful dysfunctional results and may help to avoid thousands of teacher layoffs should the grant money be received. In fact, they passed the bill just in the nick of time since the deadline to apply for the federal grant is this Tuesday.

Mayor Bloomberg, who also supports an increase in charter schools, also won a hard-fought victory. And so in the end did students, who will benefit from these institutions, publicly financed but privately run.

Of course, the teachers in charter schools are generally not unionized, thus giving them more flexibility to pursue innovative strategies not commonly used in other public schools. And that seems to be the sole reason they are opposed by teachers’ unions. I’m one of the strongest union supporters around and applaud the entire history of unions in our nation, but, at some point, too much of a good thing is just that. And that is the story of teacher unions’ opposition to this bill.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Paterson’s Ethic Breach is Turned Over to Prosecutors.” It describes an additional violation by the Governor, this time regarding free Yankees World Series tickets. Though seemingly a minor misdemeanor, it was compounded by evident perjury regarding the matter.

The Governor’s problems boggle the mind. They seem to come from every angle. When he first assumed the Governorship, after Spitzer’s patronizing a prostitute, he admitted to some additional infidelities but was widely praised for his openness. That openness seems to have vanished as the Governor has closeted himself in private offices since the scandal broke.

The Paterson pattern goes beyond his own actions and extends to his aides. The chief of the State Police has resigned, and two other aides have been accused of improprities.

What is to be done? It seems the calls for resignation will increase and soon become inevitable. One wonders if criminal prosecution looms as well.

Will more new scandals come to light? Maybe, only the Governor knows for sure. But every investigative reporter in the state is focusing on him now like a  laser beam. I do feel a little sorry for the Governor, though. He never asked for this post and has tried valiantly to execute the duties of the office.

The lead story in The New York Times this morning is titled, “Inquiry is Told of Paterson’s Bid to Quiet Accuser.” It provides evidence of a more expansion pattern by Governor Paterson, his associates and staff in the burgeoning domestic abuse scandal paralyzing his administration.

The scandal occurred when Sherr-una Booker accused one of Mr. Paterson’s top aides of throwing her against a bureau last Halloween, then stripping and choking her. She received temporary orders of protection regarding the matter, then failed to show up in court to make the order of protection permanent.

Apparently, that failure to show up may have been influenced by inappropriate contacts by the head of the State Police, two aides to the Governor, and a phone call by the Governor himself. One of the aides, Deneane Brown, was allegedly told by the Governor to “make this go away.” Meanwhile, in a new development, the head of the State Police resigned after being implicated in the scandal.

It seems like the Governor’s resignation is inevitable. I can’t imagine him being cleared in the current investigation by the Attorney General; in fact, new allegations surface by the day. The Governor has canceled public meetings, and everyone who does meet with him on a political basis is careful to say that “his resignation never came up.” When they all say that, you know the exact opposite occurred.

How often have we seem otherwise competent politicians go down in flames because of serious misdeeds? It is indeed a tragedy that politicians who could do a lot of good for the working people end up on the sideline. Governor Paterson’s actions, if true, are a tragedy for all New Yorkers as well as the powerless victims of his actions.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Paterson is Said to Have Directed Calls to Accuser.” It describes a widening of the charges against the Governor in the domestic violence case against a key aide, David W. Johnson.

The scandal had previously involved the use of the State Police and a direct call from the Governor prior to the woman failing to appear in Court. It now also involves contacts by two other aides, one of whom was unable to reach her.

This all suggests a more concerted campaign by the Governor to get the woman to drop the charges. And the involvement of such a powerful man, meddling in a domestic violence case, does suggest the Governor should seriously consider resigning.

I don’t understand how top officials such as the Governor could engage in such actions. Surely, they understand how much they are under a microscope while in high office. But Governor Paterson, and Governor Spitzer before him, engaged in questionable activities, if not downright illegal acts, while in the most powerful office in the state.

You would think that at that point in their political career, they would learn that discretion is the better part of valor. At least for the length of their terms serving the people, they should engage in some elemental restraint.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Under Fire, Paterson Quits Governor’s Race.” It describes Paterson’s decision not to run for reelection and the implications for Democrats.

Paterson withdrew amid a furor about his involvement with a domestic violence court case against one of his close aides, including a phone call to possibly influence the woman involved. The story is still developing as prominent Democrats are beginning to call for his resignation.

The withdrawal especially impacts Attorney General Andrew Cuomo who has long been rumored to be preparing a primary challenge against Governor Paterson. It may not come at the best time for Mr. Cuomo as he will now be forced to become more directly involved in the race and take specific positions. So far, though, Mr. Cuomo continues to insist on a focus on state government instead of politics.

Meanwhile, Rick Lazio, the current Republican frontrunner, is continuing direct attacks against Mr. Cuomo, and these attacks will soon require a response from Mr. Cuomo himself.

Frankly, Governor Paterson lost my support after the way he treated Caroline Kennedy who would have been a superb U.S. senator. His back and forth regarding the appointment had the effecting of stringing Caroline Kennedy along and then, in effect, throwing her under the bus. During the process, Governor Paterson alienated major Democratic constituencies throughout the state.

Revelations are still developing about Governor Paterson’s misconduct, and new facts will most certainly come to light.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Paterson Weighs Race as Top Aide Quits in Protest.” The article involves a rapidly developing news story accusing the State Police and Governor Paterson of illegally interfering with a woman who had accused one of the Governor’s top aides with domestic abuse.

The aide, David Johnson, was accused by the woman of choking and partially stripping her and had received orders of protection from the courts in the past. This time, the State Police called her, and then the Governor, the day before she was due in court. She then declined to go.

As all these particulars came to light, the Governor’s top criminal justice advisor, Denise O’Donnell, resigned in protest, and the Governor said he was considering whether or not to go forward with his race for reelection.

And I thought it was just the State Assembly and State Senate that were dysfunctional. Only in New York State (well, maybe Illinois, too) could something like this occur. These developments make Elliot Spitzer look like a boy scout.

And there was another bizarre development, too. Governor Paterson asked Andrew Cuomo, the current Attorney General and his likely primary opponent, to investigate the matter.

Well, though I’m rather stunned by this whole matter, I think, at least, Mr. Cuomo should recuse himself from the investigation and appoint a special prosecutor. Meanwhile, there’s a deafening silence from the state legislators.

More to come.

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “Top Judge Sets Liberal Course for New York.” It describes the appointment of Jonathan Lippman to New York State’s highest court, the New York Court of Appeals, and the effect he has had on the majority of conservative members.

Appointed by Governor Patterson, Lippman has maneuvered his fellow judges to create a series of 4-3 decisions in favor of the environment, injured workers and many other liberal positions. He does this by picking up one conservative member from the so-called majority based on a careful analysis of what makes them tick, the issues dear to their hearts.

This approach contrasts greatly with the former Chief Judge, Judith Kaye, who prized her ability to get unanimous decisions. Mr. Lippman’s retort is that she sacrificed bold decisions in order to achieve that unanimity.

Well, it appears like Governor Patterson has finally done something right. Judge Lippman was primarily an administrator before he assumed his current role, and there were not a lot of decisions to review prior to the appointment. His ability to maneuver is far more typical of a politician than an administrator.

In addition, according to the article, rulings by the New York Court of Appeals carry a lot of influence around the nation.

Now, if only President Obama could operate in a similar manner.

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Aggressive Push in White House in States’ Races.” It describes a hands-on political strategy by President Obama and his strategist, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, in intervening in State political campaigns, most recently their request for New York State Governor, David Paterson, to forego a reelection bid.

The article also notes other White House interventions, such as the Senate race in Pennsylvania where they are supporting Senator Arlen Spector in a primary, and another endorsement in a Democratic primary for Senator of Colorado. The New York State intervention, however, is noteworthy because it involves a Governor’s race and the candidate they are trying to beat is Rudy Guiliani, a potential opponent in 2012.

In my opinion, the intervention was most definitely mishandled. Sure, this sort of thing goes on in politics all the time, but it is rare for it to be displayed in the front pages of The New York Times. The timing, just before a visit by President Obama to New York State, was particularly inauspicious. In fact, if the situation was just left alone to play out by natural causes, Andrew Cuomo would have easily defeated Governor Paterson in a primary and gained strength in the effort. Now, the results of any primary will just look like the result of the stereotypical “smoke-filled room.”

So, yes, the intervention by the White House is not surprising or shocking. The poor execution by its operatives most definitely is.

The lead story in today’s New York Times is titled, “Albany Impasse Ends as Defector Rejoins Caucus.” The story describes the re-defection (defection back?) of Democratic State Senator Pedro Espada, Jr. His original betrayal of the Democrats had directly led to an inability to form a quorum and the paralysis of the State Senate for more than a month.

He returned to the Democratic fold only because the Democrats and the Republicans were on the verge of finalizing a power-sharing arrangement that would have marginalized him. On another front, Governor Patterson had appointed a new Lieutenant Governor, Richard Ravitch, in an act of dubious constitutionality, to accomplish the same goal.

In my opinion, any student of state politics, and New York in particular, knows that our legislature has long been one of the most dysfunctional and corrupt in the nation. While there are many noble and knowledgeable elected officials — Richard Brodsky of Westchester comes to mind — their effectiveness is limited by the “three people in a room” syndrome. That is, the Governor, head of the Assembly, and head of the State Senate, meet together and finalize legislation with no amendments or sometimes even participation from any other elected official.

One can only hope that the recent debacle will lead to some real reform.

Sunday’s lead article in The New York Times was titled, “Deal is Reached to Raise Taxes on Top Earners.” It described a deal between “leaders” of the New York legislature to raise taxes on wealthy New Yorkers.

The first thing any veteran of New York State government will note about this article is the reference to “leaders.” Our state government is famous for being one of the most corrupt in the nation, and matters typically get decided by “three people in a room:” the Governor, the head of the State Assembly, and the head of the State Senate.

This year, there’s a slight modification: the Democrats now control the State Senate (albeit by two votes) as well as the State Assembly. This has allowed the implementation of legislation favorable to the average working citizen, and the above is no exception.

Some people have decried the move to increase taxes on the wealthiest New Yorkers as “soaking the rich.” However, it should be noted that the new tax on earners of $500,000 or more is 8.97 percent, the same as New Jersey’s highest rate.

Governor Paterson did well to accede to this legislation, especially in light of the size of the budget gap we’re now facing. Previously, the highest tax rate was applied to those making $40,000 or more a year, so there was definitely room to create additional brackets.