This should be a good-news story about women and their leadership clout in Massachusetts politics. Instead, it’s an awkward one about two women squabbling over what passes for power — the much-diminished job of Senate president.

To those not paying attention — in other words, most people not on Beacon Hill — here’s a recap of what has been happening in the state Senate: In December, Stanley C. Rosenberg stepped down as Senate president amid allegations that his husband had committed sexual assault. The Senate then chose Senator Harriette L. Chandler as the acting president. After several senators failed to cobble together enough votes for the permanent position, the Senate voted in February to keep Chandler as president until January and remove “acting’’ from her title. Then, in March, Senator Karen E. Spilka announced she had the votes to be the next president. However, Chandler, whose nameplate quickly went up outside the entrance to the sprawling Senate president’s office, wasn’t ready to walk away.

With that, colleagues who initially embraced Chandler as a rock of stability started to view her as an obstacle to transition. She’s 80, so at first the nudging was gentle. No one wanted it to look like age-ism. But the pressure on her to leave is now playing out in public. Men might have settled this with a heart-to-heart stroll around the Hooker statue. Instead, Chandler and Spilka are fighting over the timing of a baton pass like bargain-hunters battling over a markdown at Filene’s Basement.

If Spilka really has the votes nailed down, what’s the rush? The argument for letting her take over as soon as possible is supposedly tied to the budget process. She oversees it now as the chair of the powerful Senate Ways and Means committee. Once the Senate passes its budget, its leader will negotiate with the House, which also passes its own budget. That should be someone who has the full power of the office. But isn’t that what the Senate decided to give Chandler back in February? Besides her pledge to leave in January, there were no conditions set for Chandler’s ascension to Senate president. Spilka could easily do her job at Ways and Means and help Chandler work a budget deal with the House. That would be a welcome display of unity and grace.

There’s some talk of “chaos’’ in the Senate. But criminal justice reform is moving forward. The Senate passed a civics education requirement and housing bond bill. “The legislative output on Beacon Hill has never been that great, but it’s hard to see how the Senate is doing any worse than the House, which isn’t grappling with any leadership issues,’’ writes Bruce Mohl in Commonwealth magazine.

The Spilka-Chandler spat distorts that business-as-usual picture. Why anyone is even fighting over the job is a mystery. Even senators are bailing from an institution that seems disconnected from the power grid. While Chandler and Spilka have been arguing over a transition date, three female senators are leaving for other jobs and two others have announced they won’t seek reelection, according to the State House News Service.

Because of fallout from the Rosenberg scandal, the irrelevance quotient may seem higher on the Senate side, but the House also lacks energy. Under House Speaker Robert DeLeo, it’s mostly about silencing internal critics while cozying up to Republican Governor Charlie Baker. By the numbers, Democrats control the legislative branch. Where are the voices speaking up for more investment in public higher education and public transportation? Where’s the outrage over the disgraceful actions of the Massachusetts State Police during Baker’s tenure?

There’s a difference between bitter partisanship and standing up for core values and principles. Maybe the next Senate president will understand it and lead that charge. In the meantime, patience is a virtue and, in its own way, a sign of strength.

Spilka should show some.

Joan Vennochi can be reached at vennochi@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @Joan_Vennochi.