1 1 BEFORE THE NEW YORK STATE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE FACTS AND 2 CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE CONVICTION OF SENATOR HIRAM MONSERRATE 3 4 ------------------------------------------------- 5 Meeting Held in Executive Session 6 ------------------------------------------------- 7 Room 124 The Capitol 8 Albany, NY 9 January 11, 2010 4:44 p.m. 10 11 PRESIDING: 12 Senator Eric Schneiderman Chair, Senate Select Committee 13 PRESENT: 14 Senator Andrew J. Lanza 15 Senator Diane Savino 16 Senator James S. Alesi 17 Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins 18 Senator Catharine M. Young 19 Senator John Flanagan 20 Senator Toby Stavisky 21 Minority Counsel David Lewis 22 Special Counsel Lee M. Cortes, Jr. 23 Special Counsel Erica M. Gersowitz 24 2 1 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Ladies and 2 gentlemen, we're convening once again the 3 select committee. Hopefully this will be 4 our last meeting. And I appreciate 5 everyone's patience. 6 We've had questions raised by various 7 members of the committee about legal and 8 factual issues, and we continue to adjust 9 the report and to conduct inquiries and do 10 research. I think we're very close to a 11 final product at this point. 12 I do want to emphasize, because there 13 has been some discussion of this, that we 14 really have taken extraordinary steps, 15 unprecedented steps to ensure the integrity 16 of this process and the fairest possible 17 process for this hearing. We are, as we've 18 stated repeatedly, maintaining a complete 19 transcript and record of these proceedings, 20 so there will be nothing secret about these 21 proceedings. 22 We have agreed to hold the evidentiary 23 parts of our meetings in executive session, 24 as the ethics committees do and as ethics 3 1 committees across the state do -- across the 2 country do, really. 3 This will be the most transparent 4 ethics review process that's ever taken 5 place in New York. So I just wanted to note 6 that for the record. 7 And I appreciate everyone's patience 8 and everyone's diligence. This has been a 9 very thorough piece of work. But once 10 again, one hopefully final time, pursuant to 11 the Public Officers Law Section 105, I am 12 going to move that the select committee go 13 into an executive session to conduct the 14 evidentiary portion of the meeting. 15 All in favor. 16 (Response of "Aye.") 17 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Opposed? 18 (No response.) 19 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: So we will 20 give a moment for the press to leave and we 21 will go into executive session. And only 22 the staff members designated by members and 23 the members of the committee will remain. 24 (Pause.) 4 1 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: So we're back 2 down, I believe, to designated staff and 3 members of the committee. 4 And at this time counsel is passing out 5 what I believe to be, as far as I'm 6 concerned, the final draft of the report. 7 This incorporates comments that have been 8 made by all the members of the committee, 9 work that has been done by our counsel in 10 cooperation with David Lewis, the counsel 11 for the minority, who have been working 12 together on this. 13 And this copy was sent to the members' 14 offices earlier. Yesterday you received a 15 red-lined version in your offices which 16 identified the specific new entries. And we 17 have copies of the red-line version here 18 also if anyone would like to look at that. 19 The two significant entries that we've 20 identified and that we want to talk about 21 today are the entries related to the 22 interviews of Mr. Nieves and Mr. Castro. 23 So I'm hopeful that we will discuss the 24 finalization of the report later in this 5 1 meeting. But before we do that, I think it 2 would be a good idea for us to hear a report 3 from counsel on these two interviews, since 4 it was requested that we speak to these two 5 gentlemen. 6 I think that it is important to keep in 7 mind that our mandate is to look into the 8 facts and circumstances surrounding 9 Senator Monserrate's conviction, and the 10 activities of these two gentlemen may 11 provide -- may pose many questions and 12 provide areas of further inquiry. 13 I think as far as we're concerned and 14 as far as our report is concerned, I don't 15 know that the interviews added much. It 16 certainly didn't change my point of view on 17 our findings of fact. 18 But with that, can I turn things over 19 to -- Lee, are you going to -- 20 MR. CORTES: Yes. 21 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Mr. Cortes is 22 going to brief us on the two interviews. 23 MR. CORTES: Good afternoon, 24 Senators. 6 1 SENATOR STAVISKY: What page is that? 2 SENATOR SAVINO: What pages in the 3 report? 4 MR. CORTES: Senator, you can turn to 5 first page 18, footnote 21. 6 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Now, he's 7 talking about the two areas that have been 8 changed. 9 And would you prefer red-lined 10 editions? Would that be helpful to the 11 members of the committee? Because we have 12 those. Why don't we give out -- 13 SENATOR SAVINO: I have my original 14 draft. 15 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: You have your 16 red-line? Okay. 17 SENATOR STAVISKY: I don't. May I 18 have -- 19 MR. LEWIS: Actually, it's probably 20 easier to read the non-red-lined, because 21 the prior version just said that we expected 22 to speak with them. And this is actually 23 the data that -- 24 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, that's 7 1 correct. 2 MR. LEWIS: Sorry, Lee. 3 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Mr. Cortes? 4 MR. CORTES: So the first substantive 5 change is page 18, footnote 21. And these 6 relate to the two interviews that took place 7 this Saturday, Mr. Michael Nieves and 8 Mr. Luis Castro, who we interviewed pursuant 9 to the select committee's direction. 10 I'm going to brief you on Mr. Nieves' 11 interview and Ms. Gersowitz, my colleague, 12 will brief you on Mr. Castro's interview, as 13 she conducted that interview. 14 Brief background on Mr. Nieves. He was 15 employed by the New York City Council from 16 1998 until last week, when he resigned, I 17 believe. 18 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: According to 19 Mr. Nieves. 20 MR. CORTES: According to Mr. Nieves. 21 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: I just want 22 to make it clear that this all just 23 according to Mr. Nieves. I'm not sure that 24 any of these facts -- let's not assume 8 1 that -- counsel is not attesting to the 2 accuracy of the facts, let's put it that 3 way. 4 MR. CORTES: That's correct. This is 5 just -- my summary is based completely and 6 entirely on the responses that Mr. Nieves 7 gave to my questions during the interview. 8 He has acted as both a political 9 consultant, paid and unpaid, he has done 10 political consulting for Senator Monserrate 11 in the past, beginning with Senator 12 Monserrate's candidacy for district leader 13 in the late 1990s. He attested that he had 14 never been paid, either directly or 15 indirectly by Senator Monserrate, for any of 16 his services. 17 Following the December 19, 2008, 18 incident where Ms. Giraldo was injured, Mr. 19 Nieves served as a spokesman for Senator 20 Monserrate. He's known him since the late 21 1990s, and when Senator Monserrate was on 22 the New York City Council, Mr. Nieves was 23 assigned to work with him. 24 Going to the December 19th incident, 9 1 Mr. Nieves was contacted by Senator 2 Monserrate's staff on the morning of 3 December 19, 2008, and notified of Senator 4 Monserrate's arrest and the fact that he 5 needed an attorney. And it was Mr. Nieves 6 who arranged for his attorney. 7 Mr. Nieves and Senator Monserrate's 8 attorney were at dinner awaiting Senator 9 Monserrate's arraignment when Mr. Nieves was 10 contacted by Mr. Edward Irizzary, who is now 11 counsel to the Consumer Protection Committee 12 chaired by Senator Monserrate. 13 When Mr. Irizzary presented himself to 14 Mr. Nieves, he stated that he'd been in 15 contact -- 16 SENATOR SAVINO: Excuse me. 17 That's -- so that's three people. 18 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: That's a 19 third person now. 20 SENATOR SAVINO: We were only aware 21 of two people, we only had knowledge that 22 there were two people involved that could 23 potentially be connected to Senator 24 Monserrate. Now we know it's three. 10 1 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: Enter 2 Irizzary. 3 MR. CORTES: Yes. Correct. 4 When Mr. Irizzary presented himself to 5 Mr. Nieves, he said that he had been in 6 contact with Ms. Giraldo following her 7 interviews by the district attorney and the 8 New York City Police Department, and that it 9 was Ms. Giraldo's intention to address the 10 media and make a statement regarding the 11 events that had taken place earlier that 12 morning. 13 At that point Mr. Irizzary drove 14 Mr. Nieves to Austin Street and Continental 15 Avenue, where Ms. Giraldo was waiting in a 16 minivan we believe that was owned by her 17 cousin Jasmina Rojas, who accompanied her to 18 the party on the night of December 18th that 19 we have described to you previously. 20 Waiting in the minivan was Ms. Rojas, 21 her son, Javier Kaza, and Ms. Giraldo. 22 Mr. Irizzary and Mr. Nieves entered the 23 minivan along with Mr. Castro, who had been 24 either -- who had just arrived at the same 11 1 time or had been waiting at the location. 2 So in the minivan was Ms. Giraldo, Mr. 3 Irizzary, Mr. Nieves, Mr. Castro, Jasmina 4 Rojas, and Javier Kaza. 5 SENATOR SAVINO: Can I ask a 6 question? 7 MR. CORTES: Sure. 8 SENATOR SAVINO: Why did they pick 9 71st and Continental Avenue? 10 MR. CORTES: Didn't explain why that 11 location was picked. 12 MR. LEWIS: I think you've got to 13 wait until you hear what Mr. Castro said. 14 SENATOR SAVINO: Because that's right 15 around the corner from central booking. 16 SENATOR STAVISKY: Down the block. 17 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Why don't we 18 let them run through both, because there are 19 also inconsistencies between the two of 20 them. So let's just get both stories out on 21 the table. 22 MR. CORTES: Mr. Nieves said that all 23 the occupants of the car speak Spanish and 24 that the conversation that took place was 12 1 conducted in Spanish. 2 Ms. Giraldo told her story to 3 Mr. Irizzary and Mr. Nieves, and the two of 4 them decided that it would be -- that her 5 story was helpful and that she should 6 memorialize it in an affidavit. 7 Mr. Nieves is a licensed notary in 8 Queens County, Kings County, and possibly 9 Manhattan, he wasn't -- he didn't recall if 10 he was -- and he has been a notary for 11 approximately 20 years. 12 The actual written statement was 13 written, handwritten by Mr. Irizzary in 14 English. But according to Mr. Nieves, he is 15 not a native Spanish speaker. 16 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Mr. Irizzary. 17 MR. CORTES: Mr. Irizzary is not a 18 native Spanish speaker. 19 Mr. Nieves described the content of the 20 affidavit as "lawyer words" -- not 21 Ms. Giraldo's precise words, but reflective 22 of her story. And following the completion 23 of the affidavit, Mr. Nieves swore 24 Ms. Giraldo and Ms. Giraldo then signed the 13 1 statement. 2 After it was completed, Mr. Nieves said 3 that he took the signed statement and 4 brought it to Senator Monserrate's attorney. 5 That's how the statement was completed. 6 And then the only other area that we -- 7 SENATOR STAVISKY: May I ask a 8 question about that? 9 MR. CORTES: Of course. 10 SENATOR STAVISKY: Did she understand 11 what she was signing? 12 MR. CORTES: Senator, she -- 13 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Or more 14 properly, what did Mr. Nieves communicate 15 about that? Because we don't know. 16 SENATOR STAVISKY: That was my 17 question. 18 MR. CORTES: How Mr. Nieves 19 communicated that it was created was 20 Mr. Irizzary wrote it in English. There's 21 conflict between what Mr. Irizzary said and 22 what Mr. Castro said, which we'll get to 23 momentarily. 24 Mr. Nieves said that Mr. Irizzary wrote 14 1 the statement in English and then read the 2 statement to Ms. Giraldo in English, 3 explaining particular phrases that she 4 didn't understand, or that she would say 5 that "I don't understand" and then he would 6 repeat that phrase in Spanish. 7 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: That's 8 Mr. Nieves' version of how that took place. 9 MR. CORTES: Correct. Correct. And 10 then she signed the statement. 11 The only additional part of the Nieves 12 interview is that regarding the November 16, 13 2009, Daily News article regarding the 14 security provided for Ms. Giraldo, Mr. 15 Nieves is attributed as a source in that 16 article, and he confirmed that he did in 17 fact give those statements. 18 MR. LEWIS: He is also -- he's not a 19 lawyer, but as a notary he's required to 20 keep a book recording when and where he 21 takes a notarized statement. When asked 22 about his book -- 23 MR. CORTES: He said he no longer -- 24 he stopped keeping it several years ago. So 15 1 he has no other reflection of taking this 2 statement. 3 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: So why don't 4 we hear the report on the Castro interview, 5 and then we can discuss how they fit 6 together, if at all. 7 MS. GERSOWITZ: So we conducted an 8 interview -- 9 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Oh, excuse 10 me, Erica. 11 Let me just say -- I'm sorry, I should 12 have noted this for the record before. All 13 of the members of the committee are here, 14 with the exception of Senator Ruth 15 Hassell-Thompson, who had another 16 appointment. I spoke to her before the 17 meeting and had a discussion about her views 18 on the issues that are going to come up. 19 Her counsel, Jerry Savage, is here, and we 20 will follow up with her when the meeting is 21 over. 22 Thank you. I'm sorry. 23 MS. GERSOWITZ: So we conducted an 24 interview of Luis Castro, who as you recall 16 1 was the subject of the Daily News article, 2 which is why it came to all of your 3 attention. 4 And in that article Mr. Nieves was 5 attributed with noting that he escorted 6 Ms. Giraldo to the courthouse on the day 7 that she testified. Although I don't think 8 the article specifically said it was only on 9 the day that she testified, but based on 10 what we learned from Mr. Castro, he claims 11 to have only escorted her on that one day. 12 So we went over his background, his 13 relationship with Senator Monserrate. 14 Apparently he's known Senator Monserrate 15 since his birth, they're old family friends. 16 They continue to be in close contact and 17 have been in close contact throughout the 18 course of their relationship, which has been 19 both professional and personal. 20 In 2001, Mr. Castro volunteered with 21 Senator Monserrate's City Council campaign, 22 and he volunteered by introducing him to 23 various members of the community. He 24 described himself as somewhat of a community 17 1 organizer. 2 And in 2002, he was hired by 3 Senator Monserrate as a community liaison 4 when Senator Monserrate was a City Council 5 member. So that was the first time that he 6 was officially employed by Senator 7 Monserrate and was actually paid a salary. 8 The work that he did on his campaign in 9 terms of helping organize was all unpaid 10 work. 11 In 2007-2009 he worked on other 12 political campaigns, and then in 13 September 2009 he took a month off. And it 14 was in early October 2009 that he was 15 offered the position as the special 16 assistant to the Consumer Protection 17 Committee, which is what was raised in the 18 Daily News article. 19 So he's got a long history with 20 Senator Monserrate. He currently works 21 rather closely with him. And he reports to 22 Ed Irizzary, who's counsel to the Consumer 23 Protection Committee, who we just discussed. 24 And he also has a relationship, as he 18 1 described it, separate and apart from his 2 relationship with Senator Monserrate with 3 Karla Giraldo. He explained that he's known 4 her family for over 20 years. He was 5 introduced to her approximately three to 6 four years ago by her cousin, Jasmina Rojas, 7 who as you recall testified at the trial. 8 And that he has known Jasmina Rojas and her 9 husband for a long time, as they're involved 10 with the Spanish-language newspaper El 11 Resumen. 12 He has served as both a friend and, as 13 he described it, a spiritual advisor to 14 Ms. Giraldo and to her family. He's never 15 had a professional relationship with 16 Ms. Giraldo, nor has he ever been 17 compensated by her for any reason. 18 SENATOR SAVINO: Excuse me, did you 19 say spiritual advisor? 20 MS. GERSOWITZ: Yes. He described 21 himself as her pastor or her spiritual 22 advisor. He is -- according to him, he's an 23 ordained minister. 24 SENATOR SAVINO: Do we have a picture 19 1 of this guy? 2 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: I don't know. 3 I don't think we have a picture of him. 4 SENATOR SAVINO: When you're done, 5 I'll tell you why I would like to see it. 6 Or at least I need to see him. 7 Go ahead, I'm sorry. 8 MS. GERSOWITZ: He claims that he 9 spent very little time with Ms. Giraldo and 10 Senator Monserrate together as a couple, 11 though he clearly has relationships with 12 both of them. He said on no more than two 13 occasions has he spent time with them as a 14 couple. 15 So we discussed the notarized statement 16 with him because he was part of that 17 process, though it's not clear from the 18 statement itself. And he described the 19 events that led up to his participation in 20 the creation of this statement. And he said 21 on December 19th, at approximately 6:30 or 22 7:00 p.m., Ms. Giraldo called him and asked 23 him to come meet her in Forest Hills. 24 He was aware at that time that 20 1 Senator Monserrate had been arrested. When 2 he first learned about Senator Monserrate's 3 arrest, he did not know that the woman who 4 was alleged to have been injured was 5 Karla Giraldo. 6 He receives this call at approximately 7 6:30 or 7:00. Ms. Giraldo asks him to come 8 meet her in Forest Hills at the location 9 that was described earlier, and he agrees to 10 do that. 11 He goes and meets her, and she explains 12 to him that she's very upset about the way 13 that she's been treated. She was very 14 agitated about the way the district attorney 15 had treated her and was particularly focused 16 on her treatment by the district attorney. 17 She explained that she wanted to make a 18 statement, although Mr. Castro was not 19 entirely clear as to what type of statement 20 she wanted to make, whether it was a press 21 statement, a statement to help with 22 Senator Monserrate, or exactly what type of 23 statement it was. But she did want to make 24 a statement, and she wanted an attorney to 21 1 come help her make that statement. 2 As a result, Mr. Castro decided to call 3 Edward Irizzary, who was an attorney that 4 he'd known for approximately eight years. 5 He said he knew him from his work in the 6 community, as he has an office -- I believe 7 it's in Forest Hills, though I'm not 8 positive about that, but it's certainly in 9 Queens. 10 So he called Mr. Irizzary. He said he 11 did not consider the fact that Mr. Irizzary 12 had a relationship with Senator Monserrate, 13 which he knew that Mr. Irizzary did have a 14 relationship with Senator Monserrate. He 15 called him and he asked him to come to meet 16 them in the van. All of that's consistent 17 with what Lee just described. 18 A short while later, Mr. Irizzary came 19 with Mike Nieves. When Mr. Castro called 20 Mr. Irizzary, he didn't know that he was 21 going to bring Mike Nieves, but he appeared 22 with Mike Nieves. There was very little 23 discussion beforehand. They didn't 24 establish an attorney-client relationship 22 1 between Ms. Giraldo and Mr. Irizzary. And 2 they pretty soon after got to work on the 3 actual statement. 4 Now, Mr. Castro's description of the 5 way that this statement was created is a bit 6 different than the description that Mr. 7 Nieves gave. The way he described the 8 process, Ms. Giraldo said each line in 9 Spanish and then Mr. Irizzary wrote that 10 down in English and then he read the English 11 sentence back in Spanish to Ms. Giraldo. 12 And if there were any issues that came up in 13 terms of whether he had represented what she 14 told him, she raised those issues. We asked 15 about what some of those issues were; he 16 didn't recall any of them in particular. 17 After the statement was finished, 18 Ms. Giraldo signed the statement, Mr. Nieves 19 notarized the statement, and they left soon 20 after that. There was no discussion about 21 what was going to be done with the 22 statement. Mr. Castro was not aware of what 23 the follow-up was going to be. He said he 24 never spoke about the statement with 23 1 Ms. Giraldo, nor did he speak about the 2 statement with Senator Monserrate after that 3 point. 4 So that was all of the information that 5 he provided us about the creation of that 6 statement. We then -- are there any 7 questions so far? 8 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Why don't you 9 just finish the last bit. The last bit's 10 short. 11 MS. GERSOWITZ: So the last part, of 12 course, is the -- as you all know, there was 13 the Daily News article about the fact that 14 he accompanied Ms. Giraldo to court. We 15 asked him about that. He explained that he 16 did that as -- really as a personal favor. 17 She called him up a few days before she was 18 scheduled to testify, which was 19 September 30, 2009, and asked him to 20 accompany her. 21 Because he had concerns about all of 22 the press that were going to be there, he 23 called a few other individuals who 24 Ms. Giraldo also knew and invited them to 24 1 come along as well. He said he was never 2 compensated for that service, and he never 3 spoke with Senator Monserrate about 4 providing that. Nor did he receive any sort 5 of compensation from Senator Monserrate for 6 accompanying Ms. Giraldo on that day. 7 He said her motivation in asking him to 8 come with her was in part as her pastor or a 9 spiritual advisor and also as a friend. 10 MR. LEWIS: Just a couple of other 11 things. First, Nieves and Castro's 12 versions, the story in the Daily News and 13 those statements don't match. Because while 14 Nieves said "yes, I said that," and he 15 appeared to have had a conversation -- 16 claims to have had a conversation with 17 Castro about it, I checked with him and 18 Castro said that Nieves did it on his own 19 and never checked with him, that Castro 20 claimed to have complained to Senator 21 Monserrate about it and Monserrate just 22 said, "Well, it's the press, there's nothing 23 you can do with it." 24 How'd I do? 25 1 The other, I think -- I'm sorry, I lost 2 my train of thought. The other Castro 3 remark was about being hired and the date he 4 said he was engaged, his conversation with 5 Senator Monserrate about being hired in 6 early November -- 7 MS. GERSOWITZ: Early October. 8 MR. LEWIS: I'm sorry, early October, 9 and the timing of that, we thought you 10 should know about. 11 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Keep in mind 12 that while he started on the payroll on the 13 19th, the verdict was four days before that. 14 MR. LEWIS: And he was contacted 15 prior to that date -- 16 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: According to 17 him. 18 MR. LEWIS: -- according to him, and 19 offered the job. 20 SENATOR SAVINO: Did he work for him 21 in the City Council? Yes, he did. 22 MS. GERSOWITZ: Yes, he did, as a 23 community liaison. 24 SENATOR SAVINO: When did he leave 26 1 the City Council? 2 MS. GERSOWITZ: Approximately 2007. 3 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Quite a while 4 before. 5 SENATOR FLANAGAN: Who is "he"? I 6 just want to make it clear. 7 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Mr. Castro. 8 Mr. Castro. Thank you. 9 MR. LEWIS: Nieves left the Council 10 as recently as last week. 11 SENATOR SAVINO: Right. He was on 12 central -- 13 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: He was on the 14 central staff. 15 MR. LEWIS: But as of last week he 16 isn't. 17 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: That's what 18 he says, yes. 19 SENATOR SAVINO: I mean, I guess we 20 could find out. 21 Did anybody ask either of them why 22 Ms. Giraldo didn't simply write the 23 affidavit in Spanish? 24 MR. LEWIS: No. But according to 27 1 Castro, she insisted that they meet in the 2 van. 3 MS. GERSOWITZ: She did insist. And 4 Mr. Castro suggested -- 5 MR. LEWIS: She didn't want to go to 6 a restaurant or -- 7 SENATOR STAVISKY: Why did they meet 8 in the van? 9 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: I'm sorry, 10 again, just keep in mind all we know is what 11 Mr. Nieves said and what Mr. Castro said. 12 We do not know what happened, we don't know 13 what Ms. Giraldo did or why anyone did 14 anything. 15 So we have two somewhat inconsistent 16 versions of the story, and neither of them 17 purported to know why the meeting was in the 18 van. In fact, Castro wanted to go to -- 19 MS. GERSOWITZ: Mr. Castro suggested 20 going to a restaurant, going somewhere else. 21 But according to Mr. Castro, she insisted 22 that she wanted to do this in the van. 23 SENATOR SAVINO: And at the time he 24 was not working for Senator Monserrate but 28 1 he did have this personal relationship with 2 him. 3 MR. LEWIS: Who is "he"? 4 SENATOR SAVINO: Castro. 5 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Mr. Castro, 6 correct. 7 MR. LEWIS: According to him. 8 SENATOR SAVINO: And the reason I 9 asked about what he looks like is in 10 November of 2008, before this incident 11 happened but after Election Day, many of us 12 were down in Puerto Rico for the Somos El 13 Futuro conference, and he had with him a 14 gentleman who I don't remember -- 15 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Who is "he"? 16 SENATOR SAVINO: Senator Monserrate 17 had with him a companion. I don't remember 18 the gentleman's name, although he presented 19 himself to everyone as his spiritual advisor 20 whose responsibility was to handle negative 21 energy that surrounds the Senator. Now, 22 this is before the incident with 23 Ms. Giraldo. 24 He was a very strange individual, and 29 1 he at great lengths discussed about what his 2 role in Senator Monserrate's life was, was 3 to manage negative energy, particularly with 4 the press. It was one of the most bizarre 5 encounters I've ever had with anybody, and 6 that's why I'm curious to see whether it's 7 the same person. 8 MS. GERSOWITZ: I can tell you that 9 we asked whether Mr. Castro acted as a 10 spiritual advisor to Senator Monserrate, and 11 he said that he did not. 12 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: He does have 13 a website that we'll get the information. 14 Of course you can look at him and see if 15 this is -- 16 SENATOR STAVISKY: Is he an ordained 17 minister? 18 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: He says he 19 is. 20 MS. GERSOWITZ: He claims to be. 21 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: So just let 22 me note -- Senator Flanagan. 23 SENATOR FLANAGAN: I have a couple of 24 questions. I didn't catch your name. 30 1 MR. CORTES: Lee Cortes, from 2 Kaye Scholer. 3 SENATOR FLANAGAN: Mr. Cortes, okay. 4 You referenced Senator Monserrate getting an 5 attorney. 6 MR. CORTES: Yes. 7 SENATOR FLANAGAN: It sounded like 8 somebody was tasked with that 9 responsibility. 10 MR. CORTES: Mr. Nieves, yes. 11 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: According to 12 Mr. Nieves. 13 MR. CORTES: According to Mr. Nieves, 14 on the morning of December 19th, at 15 approximately 7:00 a.m., he was contacted by 16 members of Senator Monserrate's staff. He 17 has specifically identified Wayne Mahlke as 18 the individual who contacted him. And he 19 relayed to him that Senator Monserrate had 20 been in touch with Mr. Mahlke and that he 21 had requested that an attorney come to the 22 precinct where he was. 23 Mr. Mahlke then contacted Mr. Nieves, 24 and Mr. Nieves contacted the attorney for 31 1 Senator Monserrate. The attorney's name is 2 James Cullen, whom Mr. Nieves has had a long 3 relationship with and who in fact 4 accompanied him to the interview that I took 5 of him on this Saturday. 6 So Mr. Nieves was the individual that 7 Mr. Mahlke turned to to retain an attorney. 8 Which he did. 9 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Again, 10 according to Mr. Nieves. 11 MR. CORTES: All according to 12 Mr. Nieves. 13 SENATOR FLANAGAN: Okay. So 14 Mr. Nieves, his attorney is Mr. Cullen? 15 MR. CORTES: That's who represented 16 him at the interview. I did not question 17 him regarding the extent of his 18 attorney-client relationship with 19 Mr. Cullen. 20 SENATOR FLANAGAN: I know this is 21 seemingly off-base, but did Mr. Nieves hire 22 Mr. Cullen to represent Senator Monserrate? 23 Or when did Mr. Tacopina come in? 24 MR. LEWIS: Tacopina is the third 32 1 lawyer engaged. There's an intermediate law 2 firm that produced the signed, notarized 3 statement to the DA. I forget the name of 4 it. 5 SENATOR FLANAGAN: Again, just as a 6 follow-up on -- I want to follow up some of 7 the questions about the English and the 8 Spanish. 9 There's a reference that Mr. Irizzary 10 is an attorney but is not a native Spanish 11 speaker. 12 MR. CORTES: According to Mr. Nieves, 13 he is not a native Spanish speaker. And I 14 asked him if he knew whether Mr. Irizzary 15 could either read or write in Spanish, and 16 he said he didn't know. He said he could 17 speak Spanish, but he didn't know if he was 18 a native Spanish speaker. 19 SENATOR SAVINO: But he didn't know. 20 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Mr. Nieves 21 did not know. 22 SENATOR SAVINO: He did not know if 23 Mr. Irizzary was a native Spanish speaker. 24 Not that he wasn't, but he didn't know if he 33 1 was. 2 MR. CORTES: Correct. Correct. 3 SENATOR ALESI: But Irizzary then 4 repeated back to Ms. Giraldo -- 5 MR. CORTES: Well, I'm sorry -- I'm 6 sorry, let me take that back. I believe he 7 said he wasn't. 8 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: According to 9 Nieves. 10 SENATOR ALESI: He was not a native 11 speaker. 12 MR. CORTES: Yes, he is not a native 13 speaker. According to Nieves, his belief 14 was that he was not a native Spanish 15 speaker. My apologies. 16 SENATOR ALESI: But if I recall 17 correctly, she spoke to him in Spanish, he 18 wrote it in English, and then he reiterated 19 back to her in Spanish what he had written? 20 SENATOR SAVINO: That's what Castro 21 says. 22 MR. CORTES: That's what Castro said. 23 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Nieves says 24 it was more casual than that. That she made 34 1 the statement, then he wrote it up and they 2 explained parts to her. 3 But let me just note that this is 4 something that we -- the inquiry was 5 requested, and we followed up on it. For 6 the purposes of this report, which is really 7 supposed to be investigating the facts and 8 circumstances surrounding the conviction, 9 the issues raised by Mr. Castro and Mr. 10 Nieves are really just relevant to our 11 determinations as to the credibility of 12 Senator Monserrate and Ms. Giraldo and his 13 acceptance of responsibility. 14 So the actual changes in the report -- 15 and these are the only two significant 16 changes that were made since the last 17 round -- are on page 18, the footnote that 18 was identified earlier, footnote 21, and 19 then on page 29, where we have the 20 paragraph -- again, this was requested at an 21 earlier meeting -- about how the select 22 committee was also troubled by the fact 23 that -- and I guess we should make it three 24 individuals, based on Senator Savino's 35 1 observation. 2 MS. GERSOWITZ: There is a reference 3 to Mr. Irizzary that's in the text 4 associated with -- 5 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes. It's no 6 longer two. 7 SENATOR ALESI: I think there was 8 another concern that I had expressed, and 9 that was the possibility that maybe the 10 affidavit or statements in the affidavit had 11 been coerced or coordinated. 12 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Well, I think 13 what we have here is the information from 14 these two individuals. And frankly, you 15 know, I think that the statements are 16 somewhat inconsistent, but what we have here 17 is a pretty -- to me, a pretty clear picture 18 that, you know, there were a group of people 19 who were connected to Senator Monserrate 20 sitting in a van later in the same day as 21 the incident, late in the day on 22 December 19th, obtaining a statement from 23 Ms. Giraldo that was notarized that 24 essentially framed her involvement for the 36 1 rest of the proceeding. 2 So we know that's how the notarized 3 statement was produced, and that's really 4 the focus of this inquiry. Because several 5 members of the committee were concerned 6 about the validity of it. And hopefully as 7 you review the two entries on page 29 and on 8 page 18, that these will fairly frame out 9 and articulate our concerns. 10 SENATOR LANZA: And the point of the 11 authenticity, timing, and whether or not 12 there was coercion with respect to that 13 affidavit is made more difficult by virtue 14 of the fact that, as everyone knows, 15 Ms. Giraldo declined appearing before the 16 committee. 17 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: And it should 18 also be noted that Mr. Castro cancelled 19 meetings with our counsel on -- was it three 20 occasions? 21 MR. CORTES: Three occasions. 22 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: So it was not 23 so easy to get ahold of these gentlemen. 24 But I think that given the fact that 37 1 we're, in my view, into something that is a 2 little bit far afield from the point of our 3 inquiry, I don't know that we should pursue 4 this any further. 5 Also, I would note that for the 6 purposes of our inquiry this doesn't change 7 anything, in my view, ultimately, in my view 8 of the situation or the recommendations. I 9 don't know if that's true of anyone else 10 here. 11 SENATOR STAVISKY: May I point out 12 one other -- or perhaps ask one other 13 question. 14 It took him approximately two weeks to 15 fax that notarized statement to the Queens 16 district attorney's office. It was obtained 17 on December 19th and faxed, I think, on 18 January 3rd. 19 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: That's true. 20 So I guess before we go to the final 21 discussion relating to recommendations, is 22 everyone satisfied with the report up until 23 the recommendation section, with these 24 two -- these additions? There were several 38 1 other minor edits really having to do with 2 grammar and some other correction of 3 language. Mr. Lewis and our counsel worked 4 together on this. Several members of the 5 committee phoned in suggestions for edits or 6 spotted typos. 7 But is this portion relating to 8 Mr. Castro and Mr. Nieves now acceptable to 9 the members of the committee? 10 SENATOR SAVINO: Yes. 11 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: Yes. 12 SENATOR LANZA: Well, it's acceptable 13 to the degree that I think we've done and 14 exhausted that which we could do. 15 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: I don't mean 16 the underlying conduct is acceptable, I just 17 mean as far as our draft. 18 And Mr. Savage is here on behalf of 19 Senator Hassell-Thompson. Will you confirm 20 with me that those two entries, the two 21 entries relating to Mr. Nieves and Mr. 22 Castro, are acceptable to the Senator? 23 MR. SAVAGE: Yes, Senator. 24 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you. 39 1 As far as I'm aware, then, based on the 2 discussions we've had -- Senator Lanza has 3 had with his colleagues and I've had with 4 mine -- I believe that everything else in 5 the report has been agreed to by all members 6 of the committee, with the exception of the 7 question that arose today relating to the 8 third paragraph in the recommendation 9 section. 10 SENATOR LANZA: Page 53. 11 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: On page 53. 12 The draft that was distributed after 13 our December 29th meeting incorporating a 14 suggestion made originally by Senator 15 Stavisky stated, at the end of this 16 paragraph: "The committee recommends that 17 the full Senate convene to consider, debate 18 and vote on a resolution for expulsion as 19 soon as reasonably possible. If that 20 resolution fails to pass, the Senate should 21 consider, debate and vote on a resolution 22 for censure with the revocation of 23 privileges." 24 And Senator Lanza has now got a 40 1 suggestion to modify that sentence. And 2 that's a request that he made earlier today. 3 And maybe you could read the 4 alternative version, Senator. 5 SENATOR LANZA: Yeah. Just to bring 6 you to that -- the paragraph beginning with 7 "accordingly," the suggestion is that -- is 8 that the second sentence? The second 9 sentence, beginning with "the committee 10 recommends," that it should be changed to 11 read as follows: "The committee recommends 12 that the full Senate convene to consider, 13 debate and vote on both resolutions as soon 14 as reasonably possible." And then to strike 15 the final sentence in that paragraph. 16 SENATOR SAVINO: Why? 17 SENATOR LANZA: I think -- you know, 18 the fact is is that each member here, 19 probably by now more than anyone else, 20 because we have been part of this process to 21 investigate all the evidence surrounding 22 these events and the arrest -- and I'm not 23 going to speak for anyone -- but, you know, 24 may have reached opinions with respect to 41 1 what you are going to do on the Senate 2 floor. 3 I think the charge for this committee 4 has been -- and I think we've remained true 5 to that -- is to conduct a thorough 6 investigation and then report to the Senate 7 our recommendation. I think the 8 recommendation here and the consensus is is 9 that there's a recommendation for sanction 10 and that the possibilities are expulsion or 11 censure. 12 And there's a concern that this 13 language, while I think technically not -- 14 technically does not -- I think, you know, a 15 reasonable reading of it would not be, I 16 think, interpreted as us recommending which 17 one the body should take, I think that a 18 casual reading of it would do so and in fact 19 might be interpreted as this committee 20 actually recommending that the vote on the 21 floor be for expulsion. 22 And so I think the change that I've 23 suggested would, you know, avoid that from 24 happening. 42 1 MR. LEWIS: Can I make just one 2 suggestion in thinking about this. 3 Under none of our rules have we ever 4 had a committee been given permission or 5 allowed to dictate the order of business on 6 the floor. We're now for the first time 7 doing something that we don't do. And the 8 reason we don't do that is that even under 9 whatever traditions we have, the leaders 10 decide the calendar. If we had a different 11 method of doing it, even under our current 12 rules we don't control as a committee what 13 happens on the floor. We can make a 14 recommendation, we can set out whatever we 15 do. But this goes further than the scope 16 that a committee should be doing. That's 17 the first level. 18 The second level is that many of the 19 changes that we've done have taken out 20 anything that could be read to be a 21 recommendation of censure as opposed to 22 expulsion or expulsion rather than censure. 23 We've tried very carefully so that both the 24 perception and the text have that balance, 43 1 so that when it comes to -- whatever comes 2 to the floor, this committee report is as 3 objective on its face and in its intention 4 as anybody could possibly produce, leaving 5 all of you free to vote however you want 6 once you vote as members. 7 So the two theories, when we looked at 8 this closely today, was, first, you should 9 not commit to an order of business, because 10 you don't have the power. And, second, the 11 order of business will be determined by 12 events. If the leaders decide to put one in 13 favor of the other, the committee's 14 recommendation won't matter. 15 And rather than have a situation in 16 which the leaders may do something the 17 committee has not recommended, or put the 18 leaders in the position where they have to 19 reject what the committee has done on that 20 level or in some way create a problem, the 21 best thing to do is that we're silent on it 22 and let the process work out. 23 SENATOR LANZA: Let me just as say as 24 to the -- with respect to the order of 44 1 things, Senator Stavisky raised the point 2 first in our last meeting. And it is by 3 virtue of the sheer logic of the way this 4 would proceed is that, you know, if there 5 are two resolutions, that expulsion would 6 come first. 7 But I think the overriding point for 8 the language change here is that there seems 9 to be a recommendation by this committee -- 10 as presently written, perhaps -- that we are 11 recommending one over the other. And I 12 don't think that has been the intent of this 13 committee. 14 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Well, let me 15 just make a -- 16 SENATOR LANZA: And so -- I'm sorry, 17 Mr. Chairman. 18 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Go ahead. 19 SENATOR LANZA: And so whether or not 20 we speak to the order of things, the sheer 21 logic and mechanics of the way this would 22 have to unfold would dictate that the one 23 would come before the other. 24 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: I just want 45 1 to make a note that obviously all we're 2 doing is issuing a report and making 3 recommendations. That's what our resolution 4 told us to do. 5 The leaders don't have to adopt our 6 recommendations. The rest of the Senate 7 doesn't have to adopt our recommendations. 8 Our mandate is to make recommendations, and 9 hopefully all of the work we put into this 10 report will convince people that our 11 recommendations should be taken seriously. 12 I guess the concern that some of us 13 have is we want to make it -- look, this is 14 an effort, again, to have consensus. And I 15 think everyone has worked very hard for us 16 to achieve a bipartisan consensus on that, 17 and I really do appreciate that effort. 18 There are some members of the committee 19 who feel very strongly that a motion for 20 expulsion must be brought to the floor. And 21 I think that the language you've proposed 22 saying that both resolutions should be voted 23 on as soon as possible indicates that that's 24 the case. 46 1 I think that one of the concerns that 2 was raised is if we in fact do vote on both 3 resolutions and they both pass, which is 4 possible, you end up having one resolution 5 saying Senator Monserrate remains a Senator 6 without being stripped of his committee 7 privileges and other privileges as we've 8 defined it, and then a second resolution 9 saying Senator Monserrate is not to remain 10 as a Senator. So essentially we have two 11 conflicting resolutions that produce -- if 12 you did not vote on expulsion first, that's 13 a possibility. 14 I think that that is one concern. And 15 this is really structured the way you would 16 structure a charge to a jury. That, you 17 know, you consider murder and if you acquit 18 on murder, that only then do you need to 19 consider manslaughter. This is -- anyway, 20 that's the logic. 21 And I personally think Senator 22 Stavisky's point was well taken. And it 23 does ensure that the resolutions will come 24 to the floor, but provides some additional 47 1 guidance. 2 I understand Mr. Lewis's point; the 3 leaders have the power to disregard all our 4 recommendations. So we're not imposing on 5 their authority, we're just making a 6 suggestion. 7 SENATOR LANZA: Senator, I think you 8 make a good point. 9 First, let me say I don't think there's 10 a disagreement here with respect to the 11 order of things. I think Senator Stavisky's 12 point is a valid point. 13 And perhaps to address your point, the 14 point you've just made is that we decouple 15 the both in the suggested revision from the 16 vote, but retain it with respect to the 17 consideration and perhaps debate. So that 18 it's clear that we're not precluding or that 19 we're not requiring a vote on both. Because 20 if there is a vote on one, you'd never get 21 to the second vote, I think what is you're 22 saying. 23 But what we're saying is that we want 24 language that does not give the perception 48 1 to the body that we are recommending a vote 2 on one over the other. 3 SENATOR SAVINO: But we are. 4 SENATOR LANZA: No, we're not. 5 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: No, I think 6 we're just recommending an order. 7 SENATOR LANZA: We're recommending 8 that there be a sanction. We are not 9 recommending -- at least I'm not 10 recommending that the members of the body in 11 this report should vote for expulsion or 12 should vote for sanction. 13 SENATOR SAVINO: So that we're 14 recommending that it should be considered by 15 the full body. Based upon our findings and 16 all of the evidence that we've examined, 17 that this infraction rises to the level that 18 should be considered for expulsion and/or 19 censure. 20 We're not leaving the door open for 21 anything else, we're not saying reprimand 22 or -- you know, we're clearly stating we 23 think that this could warrant the ultimate 24 penalty and, failing that, this should be 49 1 the next thing that the Senate considers. 2 We're not saying, you know, take no 3 action. We're deliberately saying -- now, I 4 understand what David also says with respect 5 to the fact that the committees never direct 6 what goes on on the floor. And even if we 7 were to put in here that you take up one 8 resolution before the other, we're still not 9 directing what happens on the floor, because 10 it's ultimately up to the leaders as to 11 whether or not they're going to accept our 12 report with our recommendations and act on 13 it. 14 All we're doing, I think, is we're 15 saying we believe that this action should be 16 taken. We don't have the ultimate authority 17 to make it happen. But I think in terms of 18 order and, you know, to prevent some level 19 of chaos on the floor of the Senate, I think 20 we should lay out what we think makes the 21 most sense, recognizing that we can't 22 control the final outcome anyway. 23 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Does anyone 24 else want to weigh in before we -- 50 1 SENATOR FLANAGAN: I'm going to join 2 my comments to those of Senator Lanza. And 3 I'm going to use the recent events since our 4 last meeting as a reason why I think the 5 language should be more neutral. 6 This is clearly, in my opinion, going 7 to create a perception problem. And all we 8 have to do -- nobody wants to talk about it, 9 but the reality is when we had our last 10 meeting, before we even left the building, 11 all the news media had the entire report. 12 I'm still personally seething over what 13 happened, because it was reprehensible. 14 Whoever was involved in that, frankly, if we 15 find out, they should be fired or expelled, 16 frankly, if it's one of the members. 17 My point is that all we need to do is 18 look at what happened with that version of 19 the report. There was a tremendous amount 20 of hyperbole that was associated with what 21 was not even a final report. There were 22 predeterminations made, there were 23 aspersions cast, there were all kinds of 24 innuendo and other things coming out of 51 1 something that had not been properly 2 finalized. 3 I firmly believe that we are sending a 4 message that we are listing a preferred 5 course of action. I know how I feel; I'm 6 not going to speak for any of the other 7 members. But I really do think if we say 8 that the order should be a vote on 9 expulsion, then a vote on censure, what 10 we're going to read as soon as this report 11 comes out is "Committee recommends 12 expulsion." 13 And I don't care who the member is; the 14 reality is we're dealing with a very touchy 15 situation. I think we need to tread very 16 lightly and professionally. And we can do 17 so by suggesting -- probably the most 18 important thing we can do is suggest that 19 action be taken swiftly and immediately. 20 SENATOR LANZA: And if I could 21 just -- I know Senator Stavisky -- but as I 22 stated earlier, a technical reading, a true 23 reading of this does not -- would not 24 suggest the bias. But a casual reading, I 52 1 believe, would. And I think we have to 2 assume the casual reading and assume those 3 who would try to twist this in a way that we 4 do not intend. 5 And the suggested language, though, I 6 think would avoid the ability for those to 7 twist this and for that perception without 8 changing at all, really, the true meaning of 9 what we're saying here. We're still saying 10 both. 11 SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes, I wanted to 12 perhaps make a suggestion, then. 13 If you left the language intact but 14 added the sentence that "we are not 15 recommending one penalty over another, but 16 simply the order of consideration" -- 17 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Would that 18 make it better? 19 SENATOR STAVISKY: -- would that 20 remedy some of the objections? If we 21 specifically state we are not recommending 22 one penalty over another but simply the 23 order of presentation. 24 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: I'm 53 1 comfortable with that. 2 MR. LEWIS: Once you recommend the 3 process that way, even though you're saying 4 you're not, you are. 5 SENATOR STAVISKY: They do this all 6 the time in the court, which is why I 7 thought of it. The courts deal with the 8 most serious offense first, and then they 9 proceed to the less serious. 10 MR. LEWIS: But juries are instructed 11 on how to do that. We're not going to be 12 able to correct things in that fashion. 13 SENATOR LANZA: I'm tempted by that, 14 Senator, I think, if we added a final 15 sentence that said in no way is this 16 committee recommending one over another. 17 But, you know, your analogy gives me a 18 different -- leads me to a different 19 decision. It's kind of like the 20 objection -- you know, if someone makes an 21 objectionable statement before a jury and 22 then the objection is upheld and they're 23 told to forget what was said, but of course 24 that's impossible. 54 1 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: You've never 2 made any of those, have you? 3 SENATOR LANZA: Yeah, no. Never. 4 SENATOR STAVISKY: No, because you're 5 ethical lawyers. 6 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Let me raise 7 a more fundamental point that I think is 8 underlying part of this discussion, and 9 that's that I think there is a concern among 10 some members who feel strongly that they 11 want to ensure that a vote on expulsion does 12 in fact get to the floor. 13 And I think, cutting through it, I 14 think that is one of the concerns with the 15 language, that this not be presented in a 16 way where there's any perception that the 17 committee is not going to recommend that a 18 vote on expulsion take place. 19 We're also recommending that there is 20 another option and that there could be a 21 vote on that. In the current draft, we're 22 recommending an order. But I think that's 23 just something I would urge everyone to be 24 sensitive to, that whatever the language is 55 1 we choose, I know there are some members of 2 the committee who are not prepared to sign 3 onto the report if they believe that a vote 4 on expulsion -- that we will not be 5 recommending that a vote on expulsion take 6 place, whether by itself or in the context 7 of other votes as well. 8 I think we're going to take a short 9 break. Anyone else want to weigh in before 10 we do that? 11 SENATOR ALESI: I do want to stress 12 the fact that however this committee accepts 13 the wording that we should not exclude the 14 word "both." Because if in fact the order 15 turns out to be censure and then possibly 16 expulsion, and then obviously if we expel, 17 there's no point in doing censure unless you 18 just want to be totally vindictive. 19 But if you do censure, then it may also 20 eliminate in the political world the desire 21 on the part of some people to even bring up 22 expulsion when many of the members might 23 want an expulsion. 24 So I would simply say that we -- no 56 1 matter what we do with this language that we 2 should always have in the sentence both 3 resolutions should be presented as a 4 recommendation of the committee. 5 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Okay. Thank 6 you. Fair point. 7 So we're going to take a very, very 8 brief break. I know we have not always been 9 accurate in our prediction of the duration 10 of breaks, but this is really three or four 11 minutes. Thank you. 12 (Brief recess taken.) 13 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: So, ladies 14 and gentlemen, we're reconvening after a 15 brief break. 16 Let me just go over where we are, 17 because I do believe we're nearing the end 18 of our process as a committee. 19 I would like to make sure that we 20 confirm that all the members of the 21 committee -- and Senator Hassell-Thompson's 22 counsel is here and will confer with her and 23 then confirm -- that by the commencement of 24 business tomorrow morning, shall we say, by 57 1 10:00 a.m., confirmation that everyone is in 2 agreement on everything else in the report, 3 we're ready to sign off with the exception 4 of this one sentence that has produced this 5 conflict. 6 It seems to me, based on the 7 discussion, that there are some members who 8 feel strongly that our recommendation 9 include a recommendation that guarantees 10 that a resolution on expulsion will in fact 11 be voted on on the Senate floor. 12 And there is a concern that, as Senator 13 Flanagan and Senator Lanza pointed out, a 14 casual reading as opposed to a technical 15 reading might lead someone to say, oh, 16 you're just saying either/or, you're not 17 recommending that we ensure that a vote on 18 expulsion go to the floor. 19 And then I think on the other side some 20 members of the committee are concerned that 21 the language in the current draft appears to 22 be favoring expulsion over censure and the 23 stripping of privileges and have a concern 24 that, again, a casual reading rather than a 58 1 technical reading would give that 2 impression. 3 So given the fact that it's now almost 4 6:00 p.m., what I would like to suggest is 5 the following, if this is acceptable to 6 Senator Lanza and the rest of you. Why 7 don't we try and get a confirmation that 8 everything in the report is fine, everyone 9 is ready to sign by 10:00 a.m. tomorrow 10 morning. Please just contact Chris in my 11 office or me personally. 12 And then, in the meantime, Senator 13 Lanza and I and our counsels will try to 14 come up with maybe one or two alternative 15 versions of language to suggest to the 16 committee. If we are agreed on that 17 language, then we're prepared to just stick 18 it into the report and then we're done, as 19 far as I'm concerned. 20 Does that sound acceptable? 21 SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS: Sounds 22 good. 23 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Sorry, this 24 sort of reminds me of a goal-line stand with 59 1 a few penalties. It just seems as though 2 we're very close but we can't quite get 3 there. 4 SENATOR YOUNG: Excuse me, 5 Mr. Chairman. Should we bring with us 6 tomorrow a copy of the statute that brought 7 the original charge that this committee is 8 supposed to be doing? Because maybe that 9 would be helpful in our deliberations. 10 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Referring to 11 Legislative Law Section 3? 12 SENATOR YOUNG: Yes. 13 MR. LEWIS: The full text of it is in 14 the report. 15 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Yeah, we can 16 refer to the language of it that's in the 17 report. 18 Senator Lanza and I will confer. I'm 19 not sure about whether we're going to need 20 to convene and deliberate. We may have 21 agreement without doing that and then may 22 just be able to have a draft that is 23 circulated and signed. 24 So let us visit that issue, and then 60 1 we'll be in touch with everyone tomorrow. 2 SENATOR LANZA: That is because I 3 believe that we really have achieved 4 consensus in substance. It's a matter of 5 semantics and wording in the report at this 6 point. 7 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Okay, thank 8 you all very much. 9 Senator Flanagan. 10 SENATOR FLANAGAN: One other point. 11 I'd just like to make sure that the 12 transcripts are released simultaneously with 13 the report. 14 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Okay, that's 15 a good point. 16 How long will it take us to get written 17 transcripts in a form that can be released, 18 I guess -- not so much that we need hard 19 copies, but we need them on disks that we 20 can make available to people. 21 SENATOR FLANAGAN: Everything up 22 until this meeting is done, I believe. 23 THE REPORTER: I can't answer for the 24 previous meeting in Manhattan. I think 61 1 everything else is done. 2 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: All right, we 3 will check that also by the beginning of the 4 day tomorrow and confirm. 5 I think that's a good suggestion that 6 Senator Flanagan has made. Is it the 7 consensus of the committee that we should 8 have the full transcripts so that we can 9 release them when we release the report and 10 make it clear that this is the most open and 11 transparent committee that has ever met 12 here? 13 SENATOR LANZA: Yes. 14 SENATOR STAVISKY: And videotape or 15 surveillance tapes. 16 SENATOR SAVINO: Everything. 17 SENATOR LANZA: That is part of the 18 exhibits. 19 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: That is in 20 part of the exhibits, yes. 21 SENATOR ALESI: And at the point 22 where we deliver our recommendation, for 23 what it's worth I think we should probably 24 also proclaim the time at which this 62 1 committee no longer serves a purpose. 2 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, 3 fortunately for us, by the specific terms of 4 the resolution that created this committee, 5 once we issue our report we go out of 6 existence. 7 SENATOR STAVISKY: And hope we don't 8 come back. 9 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: They need a 10 new resolution to get us back. 11 SENATOR ALESI: It would be worth 12 stating it. 13 CHAIRMAN SCHNEIDERMAN: I think 14 that's another valid point. 15 Thank you very much. We will talk 16 tomorrow morning. And please have someone 17 get in touch with my office confirming 18 everything but this one sentence. 19 Thank you. 20 (Whereupon, at 5:58 p.m., the 21 committee meeting concluded.) 22 23 24