Joint Legislative Public Hearing on 2016-2017 Executive Budget Proposal: Topic "Public Protection" - Testimonies
February 10, 2016
-
COMMITTEE:
- Finance
Hearing Notice Event:
http://www.nysenate.gov/calendar/public-hearings/february-04-2016/joint-legislative-public-hearing-2016-2017-executive
Archived Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Cll9Do9eBW8
Hearing Event Transcipt:
1
1 BEFORE THE NEW YORK STATE SENATE FINANCE
AND ASSEMBLY WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEES
2 -----------------------------------------------------
3 JOINT LEGISLATIVE HEARING
4 In the Matter of the
2016-2017 EXECUTIVE BUDGET ON
5 PUBLIC PROTECTION
6 -----------------------------------------------------
7 Hearing Room B
Legislative Office Building
8 Albany, New York
9 February 4, 2016
9:40 a.m.
10
11 PRESIDING:
12 Senator Catharine M. Young
Chair, Senate Finance Committee
13
Assemblyman Herman D. Farrell, Jr.
14 Chair, Assembly Ways & Means Committee
15 PRESENT:
16 Senator Liz Krueger
Senate Finance Committee (RM)
17
Assemblyman Robert Oaks
18 Assembly Ways & Means Committee (RM)
19 Senator John J. Bonacic
Chair, Senate Committee on Judiciary
20
Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein
21 Chair, Assembly Committee on Judiciary
22 Senator Patrick M. Gallivan
Chair, Senate Committee on Crime Victims,
23 Crime and Correction
24
2
1 2016-2017 Executive Budget
Public Protection
2 2-4-16
3 PRESENT: (Continued)
4
5 Senator Michael F. Nozzolio
Chair, Senate Committee on Codes
6
Assemblyman Joseph Lentol
7 Chair, Assembly Committee on Codes
8 Senator Thomas D. Croci
Chair, Senate Committee on Veterans,
9 Homeland Security and Military Affairs
10 Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell
Chair, Assembly Committee on Correction
11
Senator Frederick J. Akshar II
12
Assemblyman Michael Montesano
13
Senator Diane Savino
14
Assemblyman Al Graf
15
Assemblywoman Janet L. Duprey
16
Senator Rich Funke
17
Assemblyman J. Gary Pretlow
18
Senator Velmanette Montgomery
19
Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson
20
Assemblyman Joseph M. Giglio
21
Senator Martin Golden
22
Senator Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr.
23
Assemblywoman Crystal Peoples-Stokes
24
3
1 2016-2017 Executive Budget
Public Protection
2 2-4-16
3 PRESENT: (Continued)
4
5 Senator Daniel Squadron
6 Assemblyman John T. McDonald III
7 Assemblyman Joseph S. Saladino
8 Senator Gustavo Rivera
9 Assemblywoman Diana C. Richardson
10 Senator Leroy Comrie
11 Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis
12 Senator Phil M. Boyle
13 Assemblywoman Patricia Fahy
14 Assemblyman John T. McDonald III
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
4
1 2016-2017 Executive Budget
Public Protection
2 2-4-16
3 LIST OF SPEAKERS
4 STATEMENT QUESTIONS
5 Honorable Lawrence K. Marks
Chief Administrative Judge
6 NYS Office of Court
Administration 9 20
7
John P. Melville
8 Commissioner
NYS Division of Homeland Security
9 and Emergency Services 106 113
10 Michael C. Green
Executive Deputy Commissioner
11 NYS Division of Criminal
Justice Services 180 186
12
Anthony J. Annucci
13 Acting Commissioner
NYS Department of Corrections
14 and Community Supervision 257 264
15 Joseph D'Amico
Superintendent
16 NYS Division of State Police 361 370
17 Margaret Miller
NYS Chief Information Officer
18 Director, NYS Office of
Information Technology Services 422 430
19
William J. Leahy
20 Director
NYS Office of Indigent
21 Legal Services 465 474
22 Robert H. Tembeckjian
Administrator and Counsel
23 New York State Commission on
Judicial Conduct 483 488
24
5
1 2016-2017 Executive Budget
Public Protection
2 2-4-16
3 LIST OF SPEAKERS, Cont.
4 STATEMENT QUESTIONS
5 Thomas H. Mungeer
President
6 New York State Troopers PBA 492 495
7 Christopher M. Quick
President
8 New York State Police
Investigators Association 497 502
9
Michael B. Powers
10 President
NYS Correctional Officers &
11 Police Benevolent Assn. 504 511
12 Patrick J. Lynch
New York City Patrolmen's
13 Benevolent Association 524 530
14 Steve Drake
NYSDOCCS
15 Paul Rigby
NYSDOCCS
16 Nikki Brate
Vice President
17 NYS Public Employees
Federation (PEF) 561 579
18
19 Jonathan E. Gradess
Executive Director
20 Art Cody
Legal Director, Veterans
21 Defense Programs
NYS Defenders Association 611
22
Mark Williams
23 President-Elect
Chief Defenders Association
24 of New York State 620 625
6
1 2016-2017 Executive Budget
Public Protection
2 2-4-16
3 LIST OF SPEAKERS, Cont.
4 STATEMENT QUESTIONS
5 Patrick Cullen
President
6 New York State Supreme Court
Officers Association 634
7
Pamela Browne
8 President
New York State County
9 Clerks Association 643
10 Billy Imandt
President
11 Court Officers Benevolent
Assn. of Nassau County 651
12
William Dobbins
13 President
Suffolk County Court
14 Employees Association 664
15 Colonel Jack Ozer
New York Wing of the
16 Civil Air Patrol 672
17 Charlotte Carter
Executive Director
18 NYS Dispute Resolution Assn.
-and-
19 Julie Loesch
Director
20 Center for Resolution and
Justice
21 Child & Family Services 676
22 Connie Neal
Executive Director
23 NYS Coalition Against
Domestic Violence 681 688
24
7
1 2016-2017 Executive Budget
Public Protection
2 2-4-16
3 LIST OF SPEAKERS, Cont.
4 STATEMENT QUESTIONS
5 Soffiyah Elijah
Executive Director
6 Correctional Association
of New York 690 696
7
Karen L. Murtagh
8 Executive Director
Thomas Curran
9 Board Member
Prisoners' Legal Services
10 of New York 700
11 Page Pierce
Executive Director
12 Families Together in NYS 707
13 Terry O'Neill
Director
14 The Constantine Institute 714
15 Anne Erickson
President and CEO
16 Empire Justice Center 720
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
8
1 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Good morning.
2 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Good morning.
3 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Could we have some
4 order, please.
5 Welcome to the Joint Legislative
6 Budget Hearing on Public Protection. I'm
7 Senator Catharine Young, chair of the Senate
8 Finance Committee.
9 Pursuant to the State Constitution and
10 Legislative Law, the fiscal committees of the
11 State Legislature are authorized to hold
12 hearings on the Executive Budget proposal.
13 Today's hearing will be limited to a
14 discussion on the Governor's proposed budget
15 for public protection.
16 Following each presentation, there
17 will be some time allowed for questions from
18 the chairs of the fiscal committees and other
19 legislators.
20 I would like to welcome Judge Lawrence
21 K. Marks, chief administrative judge of the
22 Office of Court Administration; John P.
23 Melville, executive deputy commissioner of
24 the Division of Homeland Security and
9
1 Emergency Services; Michael C. Green,
2 executive deputy commissioner of the Division
3 of Criminal Justice Services; Anthony J.
4 Annucci, acting commissioner of the
5 Department of Corrections and Community
6 Supervision; Joseph A. D'Amico,
7 Superintendent of the Division of State
8 Police; and Margaret Miller, director and
9 chief information officer of the Office of
10 Information Technology Services.
11 At this time I would like to begin
12 with testimony of Judge Lawrence K. Marks,
13 chief administrative judge of the Office of
14 Court Administration.
15 Welcome, and good morning.
16 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
17 Good morning. Good morning. Thank you.
18 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Before we begin,
19 though, Assemblyman Farrell, who keeps me in
20 line, reminded me that we need to introduce
21 our members. So if you'd hold on one second.
22 I'd like to introduce Senator Liz
23 Krueger, who is ranking member of the Senate
24 Finance Committee; Senator Michael Nozzolio,
10
1 who is chair of the Senate Codes Committee;
2 Senator Patrick Gallivan, who is chair of the
3 Crime and Corrections Committee; Senator Fred
4 Akshar; Senator Rich Funke; Senator Joe
5 Addabbo; Senator John Bonacic; Senator Diane
6 Savino; and Senator Marty Golden.
7 Assemblyman?
8 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: We've been joined
9 by Assemblywoman -- and chair -- Weinstein,
10 Assemblyman Lentol, Assemblyman O'Donnell,
11 and Assemblywoman Peoples-Stokes.
12 We also have Mr. Oaks, who will give
13 us his names.
14 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS: Thank you,
15 Chairman.
16 We've been joined also by Assemblyman
17 Giglio, Assemblyman Montesano, Assemblyman
18 Graf, and Assemblywoman Malliotakis.
19 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Good morning.
20 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Good morning.
21 So, Judge, we do welcome you once
22 again, and we're ready for your testimony.
23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
24 Okay, thank you very much. I'm Lawrence
11
1 Marks. I'm the chief administrative judge of
2 the courts. And thank you so much for the
3 opportunity to speak to you today about the
4 Unified Court System's budget request. And
5 I'd just like to take 10 minutes, if I may,
6 to lay out the key issues in our budget
7 request. And then of course I'd be happy to
8 answer any questions that you may have.
9 But just before I do that, I'd like to
10 make note of our new chief judge, Janet
11 DiFiore, just confirmed by the Senate two
12 weeks ago. Everyone in the court system is
13 excited about Judge DiFiore assuming the
14 leadership of the Judiciary. The Governor
15 certainly made a terrific decision in
16 nominating her. And on behalf of her and the
17 entire court system, I want to say that we
18 very much look forward to continuing to work
19 closely and cooperatively with the
20 Legislature in the coming years.
21 So turning to our budget request, I
22 would start by providing some brief context.
23 In fiscal year 2009-2010, the General Fund
24 state operations portion of the court
12
1 system's budget was approximately
2 $1.78 billion. Today, six years later, that
3 amount is approximately $1.85 billion, an
4 increase of only $64 million, or 3.5 percent,
5 which averages out to about six-tenths of
6 1 percent of an increase each year over that
7 six-year period.
8 Yet during that same period of time,
9 the Judiciary has absorbed nearly
10 $400 million in higher costs. These higher
11 costs include mandated employee salary
12 increases, increased contractual expenses,
13 funding for indigent criminal defense to meet
14 statutory caseload standards, and funding for
15 civil legal services.
16 And because our budget is
17 overwhelmingly -- roughly 90 percent --
18 salaries and fringe benefits, we've managed
19 to do this -- that is, absorb increased costs
20 that have been far higher than the very
21 minimal increases in our budget
22 allocations -- we've been able to do this
23 primarily by decreasing our employment
24 levels. Indeed, the number of nonjudicial
13
1 employees in the court system has decreased
2 by about 2,000 since 2009, which is a 12
3 percent reduction in our workforce. That
4 means we have fewer court officers, fewer
5 court clerks, court reporters, court
6 interpreters, court attorneys, back-office
7 staff, and so on.
8 And although we've worked tirelessly
9 to try to minimize the impact of this through
10 innovation and streamlining -- and in our
11 budget submission we highlight steps we've
12 taken in that regard -- those efforts have
13 been only partially successful. Without
14 question, we, and more importantly the
15 public, are still suffering consequences from
16 our reduced staffing levels. These
17 consequences include delays on some days in
18 opening courtroom parts, delays in entering
19 judgments in the clerk's offices, lines to
20 get into courthouses, lines in the clerk's
21 offices, just to name a few of these
22 consequences.
23 So given that context, this year we
24 are asking for an increase in our budget.
14
1 And while you've helped us with additional
2 budgetary support in the last two years, this
3 year our situation is a little more
4 complicated. And I want to take a moment to
5 explain that to you.
6 As I think you know, under the State
7 Constitution the Judiciary is required to
8 submit its proposed budget to the Governor on
9 the December 1st preceding the upcoming
10 fiscal year. But this year, as we were
11 preparing our budget request, and when we
12 submitted it to the Governor on December 1,
13 the commission on Legislative, Judicial and
14 Executive Compensation had not yet issued its
15 findings and determinations with regard to
16 judicial salary increases.
17 Under the statute creating the Salary
18 Commission, the commission's findings and
19 determinations as to judicial salaries were
20 not due until the end of December. So by the
21 time we were required by law to submit our
22 proposed budget to the Governor, we had no
23 idea what the Salary Commission would be
24 doing with regard to judicial salaries. We
15
1 were certainly hopeful that the commission
2 would be voting for a judicial salary
3 increase, but we had no idea what the salary
4 levels would be, and therefore we had no idea
5 how much they would cost.
6 Consequently, what we did was note in
7 our budget request that we were awaiting the
8 Salary Commission's determinations and that
9 we might well be seeking additional funding
10 to pay for judicial salary increases,
11 depending on what the Salary Commission ended
12 up doing.
13 As it happened, later that month in
14 December, the Salary Commission issued its
15 report, which called for phased-in salary
16 increases for New York judges, using the
17 Federal District Court judge salary as a
18 benchmark, and providing for the largest
19 portion of the phase-in to take effect this
20 April 1st.
21 Now, I'm not planning on going into
22 the details of the Salary Commission's
23 findings now in my prepared remarks, but I'll
24 certainly answer any questions that you may
16
1 have about that this morning. What I will,
2 say, however, is that we are extremely
3 pleased with what the commission did, and I
4 would note that its findings and
5 determinations were fully supported by the
6 Legislature's two representatives on the
7 commission.
8 By using the federal salary as the
9 benchmark, the Commission followed the
10 precedent that was set by the last commission
11 in 2011, which in turn was the precedent the
12 Legislature itself had used throughout much
13 of the history of judicial salaries before
14 the commission process was enacted. Indeed,
15 this commission has finally and essentially
16 resolved what has been a decades-long,
17 haphazard, inadequate and frankly unfair
18 process for setting judicial salaries.
19 So we're extremely grateful for the
20 commission's findings, and for the support of
21 the Legislature's representatives on the
22 commission, and through them, we are
23 extremely grateful to you for those findings.
24 The problem, though -- and this is the
17
1 main issue I want to talk to you about and
2 highlight for you this morning -- is that the
3 cost of the first year of the phase-in of the
4 judicial salary increase, beginning on
5 April 1st of this year, is $27 million.
6 That's a cost we were not able to budget for
7 when we submitted our proposed budget to the
8 Governor on December 1st, for the reasons
9 that I've explained. Our budget request
10 submitted on December 1st sought a 2.4
11 percent increase in our General Funds
12 operating budget, which is an increase of
13 $44.4 million. An increase is necessary
14 because we are again facing significant cost
15 increases, which include mandatory salary
16 increases for court employees, increases in
17 contractual obligations, such as our
18 contracts with local governments to provide
19 courthouse security in certain portions of
20 the state, annualization of the cost of the
21 five Family Court judgeships that the
22 Legislature created effective January 1,
23 2016, and additional funding for civil legal
24 services.
18
1 But because of the additional cost of
2 judicial salary increases, a cost we could
3 not estimate when we submitted our budget
4 request on December 1st, we now must seek
5 additional funding to meet that cost. What
6 we are proposing to you, and what we are
7 respectfully urging you to support, is an
8 additional $19.6 million to help pay for this
9 increased cost. We are proposing that we
10 apply the four-tenths of 1 percent part of
11 the 2.4 percent increase we requested in our
12 December 1 submission -- and the four-tenths
13 of 1 percent part of that is about $7.4
14 million. We're proposing applying that
15 toward the cost of the judicial salary
16 increase, and then we also proposing that the
17 Legislature add to our budget the remaining
18 $19.6 million of the full cost. That would
19 pay for the cost of judicial salary increases
20 in the upcoming fiscal year, and it would
21 leave the courts with an increase of
22 2 percent -- which is the Governor's target,
23 as we know -- or $37 million in our operating
24 budget to cover our increased expenses,
19
1 including the mandated court employee salary
2 increases, increased contractual expenses,
3 and additional funding for civil legal
4 services.
5 We firmly believe that what we are
6 seeking is fair and reasonable. The newly
7 arising cost of the judicial salary increase
8 has resulted from a statutory process that
9 was designed to inject fairness, objectivity,
10 and transparency into the method for
11 determining judicial salaries. That
12 statutory process worked, and the Salary
13 Commission's determinations were fully
14 supported by the Legislature's two
15 representatives on the commission.
16 We respectfully submit that the fair
17 thing to do now is to provide the funding to
18 implement those results. Without that
19 funding, it will be increasingly difficult to
20 replace employees when they leave the court
21 system, further decreasing our employment
22 level and resulting in the consequences that
23 will entail. With that funding, the
24 Judiciary will be able to furnish the quality
20
1 of service that we need to provide to the
2 people of this state, a quality of service
3 that we all agree the public fully deserves.
4 Thank you very much, and I'd be happy
5 to answer any questions.
6 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you, Chief
7 Administrative Judge Marks.
8 We have been joined by Senator Gustavo
9 Rivera.
10 And our first speaker will be Senator
11 John Bonacic, who is chair of the Senate
12 Judiciary Committee.
13 SENATOR BONACIC: Good morning,
14 Your Honor.
15 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
16 Good morning.
17 SENATOR BONACIC: It's good to see
18 you.
19 Before I ask you some questions, I
20 just would like to say that I always enjoy
21 working with my counterpart, Helene
22 Weinstein, who chairs the Judiciary in the
23 Assembly. We've been having discussions how
24 to work through this Judiciary Budget to try
21
1 to be fair to all concerned.
2 Your budget, I think, for court
3 administration is between 2.8 and 2.9
4 billion; would I be correct?
5 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
6 That's correct.
7 SENATOR BONACIC: Okay. Now, we have
8 a concern, what we see happening in the court
9 system. As you pointed out, a lack of
10 staffing, shorter hours.
11 We now see the Hurrell-Harring case,
12 which basically stated that there's not
13 enough district attorneys for first
14 appearance for defendants in criminal
15 actions. So for five counties that brought a
16 lawsuit, monies were given to those five
17 counties. So there's a need for more monies
18 for criminal representation for mainly
19 upstate. That's another developing future
20 cost on the court system.
21 As, you know, you explained, it
22 appears to me that the priorities are to take
23 care of the judicial salaries, which we're
24 all supportive of. We think the judges are
22
1 deserving of raises. You're struggling with
2 the 2 percent cap, how to live with all of
3 this, with a judicial court system with
4 access to justice that is deteriorating
5 rather than getting stronger.
6 So when I look at your budget, one of
7 the priorities, in addition to the raises, is
8 civil services. Now, that item has jumped
9 from $70 million to $85 million this year.
10 So that's free legal services for civilian
11 actions. Civil service; right? As opposed
12 to criminal.
13 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
14 Civil cases.
15 SENATOR BONACIC: Right. So
16 middle-class families have to pay for legal
17 fees, but there's a movement to have the poor
18 have free legal services. I just point that
19 out.
20 I think for this year, that's a wrong
21 priority. I think that part of the budget
22 should be no gain, because last year they got
23 a $15 million bump, they're up to $70 million
24 now for free legal services for civil
23
1 actions. And you now want to take it to 85.
2 There's $15 million. If you kept that level,
3 you would help reach your other priorities of
4 making the court system stronger and/or
5 helping to support the raises. So I throw
6 that out to you.
7 I haven't asked you a question yet. I
8 have not asked you a question.
9 (Laughter.)
10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I'm
11 waiting for the question.
12 SENATOR BONACIC: Right. But things
13 like CASA and the dispute resolution, I think
14 these are very worthwhile services. A lot of
15 them are on a volunteer basis. They help
16 children and families in preventive action
17 before it even gets to the courts. They help
18 relieve court congestion.
19 We did the divorce law amendments this
20 past year; that's supposed to clean up
21 94 percent of matrimonial actions with court
22 congestion. So we're trying.
23 So I would say to you that those two
24 volunteer programs are very helpful. You
24
1 should look to see what you can do there.
2 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: And
3 we are continuing, proposing to continue the
4 funding for those programs in this budget.
5 SENATOR BONACIC: So now I'm going to
6 come to the $64,000 -- more than the $64,000
7 question.
8 If the Governor is insisting on the
9 2 percent cap, have you given any thought to
10 how you're going to reconcile making the
11 court stronger, doing the judicial raises,
12 and what has to be saved and what has to be
13 cut?
14 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
15 Well, so you're asking if we don't get
16 additional money and we had to stay within
17 the 2 percent, how would we cope with that?
18 SENATOR BONACIC: Which the Governor's
19 kind of indicating that's where he wants to
20 go. I'm not speaking for the Governor, but I
21 just --
22 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: No,
23 if you read his commentary on our budget
24 submission, that is what he said, that's
25
1 right.
2 SENATOR BONACIC: Yes.
3 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: So
4 I'll answer that. But let me -- if I could,
5 let me just respond to your comments about
6 civil legal services.
7 SENATOR BONACIC: Could you speak into
8 the mic a little?
9 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
10 Sure. I was saying if -- and I'll answer
11 your question, but if I may just initially,
12 if I could respond to your question about --
13 SENATOR BONACIC: Sure.
14 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: --
15 your comments about civil legal services.
16 Look, this is a critically important
17 program. I mean, everyone here on this
18 panel, every member of the Legislature should
19 really support money for civil legal
20 services.
21 Our program, money goes to every
22 single county in the state, all 62 counties.
23 This is not a New York City program, it's not
24 an upstate program, it's a statewide program.
26
1 And every legislative district in this state
2 has -- every one of you has constituents that
3 benefit from this money. You know, as you
4 all know, there's a legal right in a criminal
5 case, if you can't afford an attorney, one
6 will be provided for you free of charge.
7 There's no such right, generally speaking, in
8 civil cases.
9 And this is money that goes to provide
10 lawyers, again, in every county in this
11 state -- people who are facing potential
12 eviction, people who are facing potential
13 foreclosure, victims of domestic violence in
14 Family Court proceedings, veterans seeking
15 disability payments. This is money that is
16 very well spent. There have been studies
17 done by economists that have concluded that
18 for every dollar spent on civil legal
19 services, government can save as much as $6.
20 And that's because if someone is evicted or
21 their house is foreclosed on or they don't
22 receive federal benefits, that leads to
23 further problems and further costs imposed on
24 government. This is a critically important
27
1 program that I really can't emphasize enough
2 that everyone here should really be
3 supporting.
4 And this last $15 million that we're
5 seeking in this budget is the last
6 installment in a plan that was announced five
7 years ago, five, six years ago, where each
8 year -- and by the way, each year in years
9 that were fiscally much weaker than this
10 particular year, where the state economy is
11 relatively strong now -- the Legislature
12 provided money for each of the last four or
13 five years. And this would be the last
14 installment that would get us to
15 $100 million, which will meet the goal that
16 we set for funding civil legal services.
17 So again, I really can't emphasize
18 enough how this is a program that benefits
19 people throughout the state in all
20 62 counties. And I would urge that you
21 support the additional funding that we're
22 seeking for civil legal services.
23 Having said that, in the doomsday
24 scenario where we don't get any additional
28
1 money -- and this is to answer your question,
2 Senator Bonacic, what would we do. Well, you
3 know, we don't have a lot of choices in the
4 Judiciary budget, since we're roughly
5 90 percent salaries and fringe benefits. We
6 don't have a capital budget, we don't have --
7 other than civil legal services, we don't
8 have a whole lot of programs that we could
9 cut. We're primarily people, and that's what
10 makes up the vast percentage of our budget.
11 So if we had to absorb the full cost
12 of this judicial salary increase, the
13 $27 million, you know, we would have to look
14 at attrition, not replacing people when they
15 leave the court system. Which is how we
16 managed far more difficult budgets going back
17 to 2011, where we sustained a massive budget
18 cut that year which resulted in layoffs that
19 year because the budget cut was so extreme.
20 And that was followed by two years of flat
21 budgets. And the way we managed that --
22 because every year our costs go up, they
23 don't go down. Costs go up.
24 So the way we managed that those years
29
1 was through attrition. When people left, we
2 didn't replace them. We had a strict hiring
3 freeze. So if we were not successful in
4 getting this additional money, we would
5 inevitably have to look at attrition, not
6 replacing people when they leave, and we
7 would have to look at the civil legal
8 services money as well, as you've suggested.
9 SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you.
10 My only point is the Legislature has
11 been supportive of monies for civil legal
12 services. But times change. And it's a
13 question of priorities this year. And we're
14 suggesting to you that maybe judicial
15 salaries are more important than that area.
16 But I would certainly never like to hear you
17 say that you're going to cut more personnel
18 from the Judiciary Budget for the
19 administration of the courts, which are now
20 not up to par where they should be, in terms
21 of the hours, the staffing. That would be
22 really not a good thing to do.
23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I
24 agree with you. We would be loath to do
30
1 that. We're 2,000 employees fewer, as I
2 mentioned in my remarks, than we were in
3 2009. And that absolutely has consequences
4 on the operation of the courts. And the last
5 few years we have finally been able to kind
6 of get our heads above water and replace
7 people when they leave and maybe even
8 slightly increase our employment level.
9 But again, it's the last thing we
10 would want to do, is to go back to the
11 scenario of a few years ago where we were
12 bleeding people and, you know, when they left
13 that we couldn't replace them.
14 Please don't misunderstand me. I'm
15 not suggesting that we would favor further
16 reducing our employment level. It's the last
17 thing we would want to do. But in the end,
18 because our budget is overwhelmingly, you
19 know, 90 percent salaries and fringe
20 benefits, when we don't have sufficient
21 money, that's really where we look. And we
22 have no choice.
23 SENATOR BONACIC: My only last comment
24 is I believe that there's $15 million there
31
1 in civil services that you should not give
2 this year to make sure that the judges get
3 their raises, which we all think they're
4 entitled to.
5 And I thank you very much, Your Honor,
6 for coming today.
7 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
8 Thank you.
9 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you, Senator
10 Bonacic.
11 We've been joined by senator Thomas
12 Croci, chair of the Veterans, Homeland
13 Security, and Military Affairs Committee, and
14 also Senator Leroy Comrie.
15 Chairman Farrell.
16 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Yes. Mr. Oaks.
17 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS: Yes, we've been
18 also been joined by Assemblyman Saladino.
19 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Next to question,
20 Chairperson Weinstein.
21 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN: Thank you,
22 Mr. Chairman.
23 Judge Marks, it's a pleasure to see
24 you here today. And as Senator Bonacic said,
32
1 we work closely together. But in relation to
2 the civil legal services, it's a point where
3 we diverge in terms of this increase.
4 And I just wanted to continue that
5 discussion a little bit more. I looked at
6 the task force, permanent commission's last
7 report, and I just want to make sure that I
8 read correctly that, based on the
9 commission's finding, that New York State
10 realized $260 million in taxpayer savings in
11 the form of reduced emergency shelter costs
12 alone as a result of legal services.
13 So that was one of their findings?
14 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
15 That's correct.
16 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN: And that the
17 overall -- the finding that the overall
18 investment in civil legal services has
19 resulted in an overall economic benefit to
20 New York State of $2.4 billion through 2014?
21 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
22 Yeah, that's -- I think that's correct. And
23 that goes to the point that I made a moment
24 ago that investing in civil legal services in
33
1 the end can save state and local government,
2 you know, significant amounts of money.
3 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN: So if we
4 were to cut out of the Judiciary Budget the
5 $15 million for civil legal services and
6 dedicate it to a different purpose, as my
7 colleague suggests, it would actually cost
8 New York State money in this next year going
9 forward?
10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
11 Yes. There have been studies by economists
12 that have suggested that, that if -- that
13 expenditures on civil legal services is
14 cost-effective.
15 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN: And could
16 you just maybe go into a tiny bit more detail
17 as to how the funding that's in the Judiciary
18 Budget for civil legal services is allocated
19 around the state, and perhaps restate some of
20 the services, the kinds of populations that
21 benefit from civil legal services?
22 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
23 Yeah, the money is divided up based on a
24 formula, 200 percent -- each county's
34
1 population that's less than 200 percent of
2 the federal poverty level -- the formula is
3 based on that. So it's equally divided to
4 the state's 62 counties based on that
5 formula.
6 And the money goes to really kind of
7 the essentials of life. People who find
8 themselves in court without a lawyer, or who
9 would otherwise find themselves in court
10 without a lawyer -- in landlord-tenant
11 proceedings, so facing eviction; in
12 foreclosure proceedings, where people are
13 facing the potential loss of their home.
14 Victims of domestic violence in family
15 offense proceedings in the Family Court
16 receive lawyers under this program.
17 I mentioned veterans are a significant
18 component of the people who benefit from
19 these services. Veterans who may be facing
20 eviction, facing foreclosure, seeking
21 disability benefits.
22 And so those are some of the examples
23 of the types of people who benefit from this
24 program in every county in the state.
35
1 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN: And I was
2 just wondering, from the court's perspective,
3 how do unrepresented litigants impact the
4 functioning of the courts, people who come in
5 without an attorney?
6 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
7 It's -- actually, I can speak personally for
8 this, because I sit -- in addition to my
9 administrative responsibilities, I sit in
10 Supreme Court. And I can tell you, from the
11 court's perspective and the judge's
12 perspective, when someone comes in without a
13 lawyer, it's just a -- it's a night-and-day
14 situation.
15 You know, it's very difficult for the
16 judge because judges ethically can't advise
17 litigants on the law. The court staff can't
18 do that. You know, people are basically on
19 their own. It's not an equal playing field,
20 obviously, when that happens. It's not -- I
21 mean, my own view, which I know is shared by
22 the new chief judge, is that a justice system
23 just doesn't make sense when you have
24 hundreds of thousands of people coming into
36
1 court without a lawyer, their opponents often
2 represented by lawyers. It's just -- it's
3 not a justice system, you know, that we could
4 all be proud of, you know, when that's as
5 serious a problem as it has been in New York.
6 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN: And beyond
7 just the impact on the individual litigant
8 who's unrepresented, does it also impact the
9 courts? Are there additional delays? You
10 mentioned the court staff that are asked
11 questions. Does it actually increase costs
12 to the court system and use up resources that
13 would not be needed if those litigants were
14 represented?
15 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
16 Yeah. I mean, I would say that cases in
17 which litigants are self-represented become
18 more labor-intensive for the court -- for the
19 judge, for the judge's staff, for the clerk's
20 office, for the court personnel.
21 So yes, I would agree with that very
22 much.
23 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN: And to go to
24 the defense side, I know and I agree with my
37
1 colleague that there is a need for increased
2 services for indigent defendants,
3 particularly in first appearances that go
4 beyond the Hurrell decision. And I
5 understand that the Indigent Legal Services
6 Board has asked for increased resources to be
7 able to address those needs. And I think
8 that that is something obviously that
9 personally I would support, and I think other
10 members also.
11 Can I just -- I just want to ask you a
12 question about the staffing. You mentioned
13 that there's been a reduction of 2,000
14 nonjudicial employees, and I think you
15 mentioned it was 12 percent; is that correct?
16 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
17 Since 2009, that was the high level mark for
18 us, we have 2,000 fewer employees since that
19 year.
20 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN: And I
21 probably should know the answer, but perhaps
22 do you know how that compares to state
23 agencies?
24 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: The
38
1 executive branch?
2 For us, it's a 12 percent decrease in
3 the court system, the roughly 2,000 fewer
4 employees. In the executive branch,
5 depending on how you define the executive
6 branch -- but if you include CUNY and SUNY,
7 the executive branch employment level since
8 2009 has dropped between 8 and 8.5 percent.
9 So our employment level has declined
10 more than the executive branch.
11 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN: Thank you.
12 Thank you on that. And I think for the
13 moment that's all the questions,
14 Mr. Chairman.
15 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you very
16 much.
17 Our next speaker is Senator Michael
18 Nozzolio, who is chair of the Codes
19 Committee.
20 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you,
21 Chairwoman Young.
22 Good morning, Judge Marks.
23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
24 Good morning.
39
1 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: We're used to
2 seeing Judge Prudenti in that chair. I don't
3 see much of a resemblance --
4 (Laughter.)
5 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: -- at least in
6 outward appearances. But she certainly --
7 there's big shoes to fill, and I wish you all
8 the luck in this endeavor.
9 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
10 Thank you.
11 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I want to follow up
12 on the questioning that's already occurred.
13 Senator Bonacic and I have discussed this
14 issue a number of times over the last few
15 weeks.
16 One of the things about Judge Prudenti
17 is that she always looked for creative ways
18 to solve problems, that in large part because
19 of the creativity she exhibited, the CASA
20 program was revived when budgetary axes had
21 to fall. And Senator Bonacic, myself and
22 others worked very closely with her to
23 restore that program.
24 I share your admiration for civil
40
1 legal services. I think it's a great
2 program. I probably, in the course of my
3 service, have had many more requests for
4 legal assistance through the Assembly and
5 Senate offices that I served in than you as a
6 judge would have ever had. Literally
7 hundreds of people have asked.
8 We supported, I have supported,
9 through special grants, civil legal services
10 in the Finger Lakes region. I understand its
11 importance. However, Senator Bonacic, I
12 think, stated it very clearly. We believe
13 we're your partner in the Legislature as we
14 try to tackle these budget challenges. The
15 Judicial Pay Commission was a commission
16 established by the Legislature because we
17 believed there was a need to have judicial
18 salaries increased. And we look to be a
19 partner with you in the court system in
20 meeting the obligations established by the
21 commission. That's public policy. We need
22 to do that.
23 At the same token, a major increase in
24 the budget from one year to the next,
41
1 21 percent, for albeit a very noble program,
2 just is not appropriate for this period of
3 time. And that we look to see you develop
4 the creativity that we know you are likely to
5 have in solving this problem.
6 And certainly we understand the time
7 frame, we understand the budgetary
8 restrictions. I think logically, though, to
9 say it saves money for the state -- yes, it
10 does, but if that was the case, then we
11 should raise civil legal services to
12 $100 million, we should increase the budget
13 by 75 percent, 100 percent. Because if we're
14 going to have such a great savings, obviously
15 more would be helpful.
16 But that's not the reality. And it's
17 not a dollar-for-dollar savings.
18 I want to hear from you, in your
19 capacity as leader of the court system, what
20 types of creative solutions are here. Judge
21 Lippman spent a lot of time discussing pro
22 bono work, established requirements for pro
23 bono services for attorneys to be admitted,
24 for attorneys to continue in other services.
42
1 To achieve the objectives that this
2 body shares in supporting legal services,
3 yes, an increase could be appropriate. Yes,
4 we need to be partners with you on the salary
5 increases that judges are receiving. But
6 what are you doing to make civil legal
7 services more effective, efficient and
8 cost-effective for the taxpayer?
9 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
10 Well, I think your points are well taken,
11 particularly about Judge Prudenti, who was
12 very creative, and had to be, when she served
13 as chief administrative judge through some
14 very difficult years.
15 And hopefully things have gotten
16 better. But, you know, I understand
17 necessity can be the mother of invention.
18 And when you're really pressed, you're forced
19 to be creative. And I can promise you that
20 I'll do that as well. I mean, I'll continue
21 that trend.
22 But, you know, in the end we -- our
23 budget situation has been so challenging, you
24 know, for so many years at this point. I
43
1 mean, we started back in 2011 with a
2 $170 million budget cut. That was followed
3 by a flat budget the following year. And of
4 course a flat budget is really a negative
5 budget because costs go up, they don't go
6 down.
7 The year after that was another flat
8 budget. And the last two years we've
9 received, you know, very modest increases in
10 the range of 2 percent -- which we greatly
11 appreciate, and I'm not being ungrateful
12 about that in the least, don't misunderstand
13 me. But at some point where costs have been
14 going up and up and up, which is what they
15 do, you can be creative only so much. And,
16 you know, you run out of ideas at some point.
17 So I can't sit here today and tell you
18 about all the creative ideas that are in my
19 head as to how we'll deal with this if we
20 don't get additional money, because I'm very
21 much hoping that we get additional money.
22 I'm hoping that we can get your support about
23 that.
24 But in the end, frankly, if we don't,
44
1 we'll have to prepare for that eventuality
2 because that's certainly a possibility. And,
3 you know, we will find a way to manage this
4 in one way or the other. The courts will
5 remain open. I'm not suggesting in any way
6 at all that we won't continue to keep
7 courthouses open and we won't be providing
8 justice to the people of this state. But
9 we're going to have to be very, very
10 creative, I agree with you.
11 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: And again, we are
12 not trying to shirk the responsibilities of
13 the Legislature one bit. We believe strongly
14 that the issues of judicial salary increases
15 have to be met, can't totally be absorbed
16 within the traditional court budget, judicial
17 budget.
18 But we look to these other
19 expenditures as -- so expect you'll have
20 advocates to help in that endeavor, but we
21 want you to also find ways to help the
22 taxpayers who are paying for these bills, to
23 find creative ways to stretch, to cut, and to
24 provide the services in less costly ways.
45
1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: And
2 I appreciate that. And I agree with you.
3 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you.
4 And thank you, Madam Chairman.
5 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you, Senator.
6 But we've been joined by Senator Phil
7 Boyle and Senator Daniel Squadron.
8 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Mr. Montesano.
9 ASSEMBLYMAN MONTESANO: Thank you,
10 Mr. Chairman.
11 Good morning, Judge.
12 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
13 Good morning.
14 ASSEMBLYMAN MONTESANO: Judge, in your
15 response to the different questions, and in
16 comments you made, you know, what I'm
17 concerned about is -- and I'll address the
18 indigent legal services in a moment, for the
19 civil part.
20 But, you know, as a practicing
21 attorney, I get into the courts quite a bit
22 in Nassau County, and I can't begin to tell
23 you the decimation of our court system in
24 Nassau County over the last several years.
46
1 In our surrogate's court alone, we lost
2 approximately 35 operational staff, which
3 resulted in limited cashier hours, limited
4 record room access. And some of those things
5 have cured a little bit down the line.
6 In our Supreme Court, many parts are
7 down on a daily basis because there's no
8 court officers or clerks to staff them. So
9 while we give this free indigent legal
10 services in the civil parts, it's all well
11 and good when the litigant comes in with the
12 free attorney, but there's no courtroom to
13 appear in.
14 We have one clerk covering three
15 parts. So they run from one courtroom to the
16 next, or they're handling three calendars at
17 the same time.
18 So when you indicated that a lot of
19 these costs that OCA is incurring over the
20 last several years has to do with personnel
21 and salaries, when many of the -- and I'm not
22 going to put myself in the middle of the
23 contract negotiations. But many of those
24 unions that you're talking about, the court
47
1 officers and clerks specifically, they've
2 gotten zero contracts over the last several
3 years. So I don't understand where there's
4 an increase in salaries, because they haven't
5 gotten anything.
6 So -- yet there's a $15 million bump
7 in the free civil legal services. So I'd
8 like to get an idea from you what's driven
9 that uptick --
10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I'm
11 sorry, which what?
12 ASSEMBLYMAN MONTESANO: What is
13 driving the uptick in the civil legal
14 services to warrant another $15 million?
15 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
16 Well, just -- we don't have a contract with
17 the Nassau court employees union, that's
18 correct. Unfortunately, we don't. We would
19 like to have a contract with them. We have
20 12 labor unions in the court system, and at
21 the moment we have contracts with eight of
22 the 12.
23 So with respect to the employees in
24 those unions, they've received salary
48
1 increases, modest salary increases over the
2 last couple of years. And that's the reason
3 for our increasing salary costs. It's the --
4 we have contracts with two-thirds of our
5 unions, but not in Nassau, unfortunately.
6 And hopefully we will reach agreement with
7 them shortly.
8 But the -- yes, you know, what you're
9 describing in the courts in Nassau, there
10 have been consequences of our reduced
11 staffing levels. And I'm sure you've
12 accurately described some of those, you know,
13 based on your firsthand experience.
14 And, you know, that's my concern, is
15 that we -- and I think there have been
16 improvements over the last year or two. And
17 I very much want to be able to continue that
18 trend and be able to improve from year to
19 year. Which is why I'm very much arguing
20 for, asking you and pleading with you to
21 provide this additional money that I firmly
22 believe we need to continue improvement and
23 to mitigate some of the problems that you're
24 describing in the courts in Nassau County,
49
1 for example.
2 ASSEMBLYMAN MONTESANO: And, Judge,
3 just to go in a different direction for a
4 second.
5 The bail system, I know that a process
6 has been instituted -- I think it started in
7 the city -- that when bail is set on a
8 defendant, it can go to another judge of the
9 same court who's going to review the judge's
10 bail. Now, it just seems odd to me that a
11 judge of the same jurisdiction and the same
12 court is acting as an appellate review of a
13 judge's bail.
14 Legally, how did that come about?
15 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: Let
16 me explain it to you. It's just in New York
17 City, by the way, not in your district.
18 There's a review -- if it's requested
19 by the defendant or the defense counsel,
20 there's a review, not to a judge of the same
21 jurisdiction, but to a judge in the Supreme
22 Court. And this is for misdemeanor cases
23 only, only the low-level offense. And it's
24 perfectly authorized under the law. It's --
50
1 Section 530.30 of the Criminal Procedure Law,
2 if you take a look at it, gives the Supreme
3 Court the authority, upon an application by
4 the defendant, to review bail that was set by
5 the lower court judge. So it was based on
6 that statutory authority.
7 ASSEMBLYMAN MONTESANO: Thank you,
8 Judge.
9 And just a last follow-up on my
10 question before, can you give us just a quick
11 overview of the justification for the
12 $15 million increase on the indigent legal
13 fund? What's driven that uptick and that
14 cost over the last year?
15 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: The
16 justification for it is it's the last
17 installment of a five-, six-year plan to
18 reach $100 million for civil legal services
19 in this state. Which, by the way, doesn't
20 solve the problem of the justice gap. There
21 will still be multitudes of people who do not
22 have lawyers and won't have lawyers. But
23 because of this money, for example, in this
24 fiscal year there will be over 450,000 people
51
1 who have lawyers because of the money that
2 we're providing.
3 And this would be the very last
4 installment that will fulfill the goal that
5 was set five, six years ago to reach
6 $100 million for civil legal services.
7 And we were able to add money to it in
8 more difficult budget years, more difficult
9 fiscal years than this year. So we feel that
10 it's very important, it benefits hundreds of
11 thousands of people who need help throughout
12 the state. It levels the playing field in
13 the courts, and we feel it's very important.
14 And that's why we're urging the Legislature
15 to provide that funding.
16 ASSEMBLYMAN MONTESANO: Thank you,
17 Judge. Thank you, Chairman.
18 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you,
19 Assemblyman.
20 Our next speaker is Senator Diane
21 Savino.
22 SENATOR SAVINO: Thank you, Senator
23 Young.
24 Good morning, Judge Marks.
52
1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
2 Good morning.
3 SENATOR SAVINO: I'm happy to see in
4 your testimony that you guys are actually
5 asking for more money. If you recall, at
6 Judge DiFiore's nomination and her
7 confirmation on the Senate floor, I mentioned
8 the fact that she's inheriting a court system
9 that is overburdened in many ways and has
10 suffered from a shortage of resources. In
11 fact, Sunday's New York Times detailed the
12 long slog through the court system that it
13 took one particular young man who was
14 injured, and it took several months for cases
15 to move that should have taken much less
16 time. So we know that our courts are
17 overburdened.
18 But I have a question. I know you've
19 had several collective bargaining units in
20 the court system. Are all of them now
21 settled? Have you settled all their
22 contracts?
23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: No.
24 I was saying before we have 12 unions in the
53
1 court system. We have contracts with eight
2 of the 12, and we're eager to reach agreement
3 with the remaining four.
4 SENATOR SAVINO: Do you feel that the
5 proposed budget by the Governor is sufficient
6 to meet the financial settlements of those
7 contracts?
8 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: It
9 would be very difficult.
10 SENATOR SAVINO: It would be very
11 difficult.
12 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
13 Yes. Yes.
14 SENATOR SAVINO: And in addition,
15 there was a lawsuit brought against the
16 courts by the Court Officers Association that
17 triggered a hiring mandate. From what I
18 understand, there was supposed to be 350
19 court officers hired; 150 have been actually
20 accomplished, and there's another 200
21 outstanding. Is there sufficient money in
22 your budget to meet that additional hiring?
23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
24 Well, court officers -- you know, we're down,
54
1 as I was saying before, 12 percent in our
2 workforce since 2009. We have -- court
3 officers have been hit less hard. At least
4 when you look at it today, statewide we're
5 about 6.2 percent fewer court officers than
6 we were in 2009, which is proportionally less
7 than some of the other titles. And in
8 fact -- because, look, public safety, you
9 know, in the courts, there's really nothing
10 more important than that.
11 SENATOR SAVINO: No doubt.
12 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
13 People who work in the courts, people who
14 come into the courts have to be secure and
15 safe. And we would never compromise that.
16 In fact, we're starting a court
17 officer class in our academy, which when we
18 hire court officers, they have to go through
19 the academy, obviously. There's a class of I
20 think it's 150 recruits starting later this
21 month. Once they are deployed in the courts
22 when they graduates from the academy, you
23 know, later this year, we'll be down to maybe
24 only 3 percent or so less -- 3 percent fewer
55
1 court officers than we had in 2009.
2 So frankly, I'm less concerned about
3 the number of court officers. Although it's
4 not perfect, and we do need more court
5 officers, particularly in some parts of the
6 state. But I think we're in better shape
7 with regard to court officers than we are
8 with some of the other titles.
9 SENATOR SAVINO: I'm glad to see you
10 feel that way. But again, there's certainly
11 a shortage of court officers, court clerks,
12 court stenographers, and basically
13 courtrooms.
14 I spoke previously about the problem
15 we have in Richmond County. You know, the
16 state created a separate judicial district
17 for Staten Island, Richmond County, in 2007.
18 To date, we have yet to receive the seven
19 judges that we're entitled to. We owe three
20 to Brooklyn. You know, we're entitled to 10
21 judges for the County of Richmond. We don't
22 have them. We have a brand-new courthouse
23 that we outgrew already.
24 And this is not your problem. I'm
56
1 just saying this to make the point that while
2 the discussion today seems to be between
3 civil legal services and judges' salaries, I
4 think it goes beyond that. We still have a
5 court system that is overburdened,
6 under-resourced, regardless of how we decide
7 whether you should get civil legal services
8 or whether judges should get a raise.
9 By the way, I think we should do both.
10 But I think we also need to increase funding
11 to the court system because we're not able
12 to, in my opinion, deliver what Judge DeFiore
13 says is most important to her, the speedy and
14 efficient administration of justice.
15 So I would just hope that while we
16 continue to listen to you today, people take
17 into consideration it shouldn't be just civil
18 legal services versus judges' salaries, it's
19 how do we appropriately fund a court system
20 so that we can meet that mandate of speedy
21 and efficient administration of justice.
22 Thank you, Judge Marks.
23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
24 Thank you.
57
1 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Assemblyman Lentol,
2 Chairman Lentol.
3 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Thank you,
4 Mr. Chairman.
5 And congratulations, Mr. Marks, for
6 your ascendency to this very good position --
7 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
8 Thank you.
9 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: -- chief
10 administrative judge.
11 I guess I'm a little bit torn, because
12 I know that having appeared in court and
13 knowing judges like I do -- and even
14 legislators like I do -- that none of us
15 would like to see a wounded warrior not have
16 a lawyer in court at the expense of my not
17 getting a raise or a judge not getting a
18 raise. I would not like to see a homeless
19 person who lost his home because of a bank
20 who foreclosed on him illegally.
21 And so I guess that I believe that, as
22 Diane Savino said, that we surely have to do
23 both. But I certainly wouldn't advocate for
24 taking money away from legal services and
58
1 putting additional people out on the
2 streets -- and, since we're going to be in
3 Afghanistan for a while, not having legal
4 representation for the veterans of the United
5 States of America.
6 Actually, I wanted to ask you about
7 raising the age of criminal responsibility,
8 because the chief judge, as you know, has
9 created an adolescent diversion court part in
10 the adult criminal court in nine counties
11 dedicated exclusively to handling cases of
12 16-and-17-year-olds. And since the Governor
13 has again talked about this in his State of
14 the State, and it's in his budget, might you
15 provide us with an update on the status and
16 operation of these new adolescent diversion
17 court parts?
18 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
19 Well, they're continuing. This was a program
20 that was started by the prior chief judge,
21 Judge Lippman, at the same time that he
22 called for statutory reform, the Legislature
23 raising the age of criminal responsibility.
24 Which I think, as we all know, we're one of
59
1 only two states in the country that sets the
2 age of criminal responsibility at 16.
3 And so the adolescent diversion court
4 parts were a complement to the legislative
5 proposal. The legislation is the ultimate
6 solution.
7 But in the meantime, these are court
8 parts that were set up -- I think we have 11
9 of them now throughout the state. They have
10 been successful. They're set up in
11 cooperation with the district attorneys in
12 those jurisdictions, who have been
13 supportive. They're a limited solution to
14 the problem, I think it's fair to describe it
15 that way. They're mostly dealing with
16 misdemeanors. I think a few may deal with
17 some -- a modest number of nonviolent
18 felonies. But they've been certainly
19 successful. We're continuing them. There's
20 been evaluations done, scholarly evaluations
21 of the results of the adolescent diversion
22 parts, and they've been shown to reduce
23 recidivism for the 16-and-17-year-olds
24 participating in the program.
60
1 So it's been a successful program, but
2 it's somewhat of a limited program. And we
3 feel and certainly the new chief judge feels
4 that way, that the ultimate solution is to
5 statutorily raise the age of criminal
6 responsibility in New York.
7 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Now, both the
8 Assembly and the Executive proposals talk
9 about a large amount of cases being shifted
10 from the criminal part to the Family Court.
11 And since we're talking about the lack of
12 resources for all the court system, I'm
13 wondering if you believe the necessary
14 resources are available to implement that.
15 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
16 Yeah, the -- we've taken the position we
17 could accommodate the -- there would be more
18 cases in Family Court. So there wouldn't be
19 more cases overall in the court system, there
20 would be a shift of some cases that are now
21 in the criminal courts to the Family Court.
22 And Family Court certainly has challenges --
23 I'm not going to suggest otherwise -- but
24 Family Court does have 25 new judges. Thanks
61
1 to the support of the Legislature, we have 25
2 additional judges in Family Court around the
3 state.
4 So the other thing is when Judge
5 Lippman --
6 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Has that helped,
7 the 25 additional Family Court judges?
8 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
9 Absolutely. Yeah, it absolutely helps. We
10 are very happy that the Legislature approved
11 that two years ago.
12 But the number of 16-and-17-year-olds
13 who have been arrested, that number has
14 plummeted over the last half dozen years or
15 so. It's a fraction of what it once was.
16 So there might be a need for some
17 additional resources in Family Court, but my
18 sense is that it would not be draconian. So
19 it would be a problem that we would cope
20 with. And if the legislation passed, I think
21 under all the proposals -- I know this about
22 the Governor's proposal -- the effective date
23 would not be for, you know, a year and a half
24 down the road, so there would be time to
62
1 prepare for it. There might be some modest
2 additional expense in costs for the court,
3 but we feel -- and, you know, we've thought
4 about this a great deal over recent years --
5 that we would be able to handle that. And --
6 it would be a good problem to have, in other
7 words. You know, we view it that way.
8 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Thank you very
9 much.
10 SENATOR KRUEGER: Next is Senator Ruth
11 Hassell-Thompson, ranker on Judiciary. We're
12 going to make a chair trade.
13 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank you,
14 Madam Chair.
15 Good morning, Judge.
16 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
17 Good morning.
18 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I just have
19 a couple of questions. I understand that
20 most of the questions that I had wanted to
21 pose have already been asked of you, so I
22 won't be redundant.
23 But I would like to just ask, are you
24 committed to the bail reform process that was
63
1 begun by Chief Judge Lippman last year? And
2 how soon do you think, if you're committed,
3 that that would roll out?
4 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
5 Well, the bail reform process has mostly been
6 put in place. The new Chief Judge supports
7 it. We're going to continue that. We feel
8 that there are a number of people who are not
9 a threat to anyone -- you know, people who
10 don't have a history of violence, who are
11 detained pending the outcome of the
12 disposition of their case simply because they
13 can't afford to make bail.
14 There are a lot of alternatives that
15 we feel that judges could be using to avoid
16 that situation. We're trying to encourage
17 judges -- in the end, it's a judge's
18 decision, an individual judge's discretion on
19 whether to set bail or not and how much. But
20 we are trying to be supportive of judges and
21 to provide them with sufficient resources and
22 alternative resources so that people -- look,
23 some people, you know, should be detained who
24 clearly are a threat to society, a threat of
64
1 committing further violence, but many people
2 are not. And they're sitting in jail
3 awaiting the disposition of their case simply
4 because they don't have the means to make
5 bail, and that's a problem that we're trying
6 address.
7 There's also a statutory solution
8 which has been proposed, and I think we'll
9 pursue that as well. And I think that the
10 new Chief Judge will want to pursue that as
11 well.
12 But this is a problem that we're
13 committed to addressing and committed to
14 trying to resolve it as best we can.
15 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: What have
16 been some of the barriers to getting it
17 resolved?
18 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
19 Statutorily? The proposal that we sent to
20 the Legislature a couple of years ago would
21 address, number one, the fact that in
22 New York -- and it's almost kind of
23 completely upside down, if you think about
24 it. In New York, judges are not permitted to
65
1 take risk to public safety into account when
2 they make a bail determination, which doesn't
3 seem to make any sense. We're one of only a
4 few states that prohibits judges from taking
5 that into account.
6 Judges should be able to take that
7 into account, so that if there is someone
8 with a real propensity for violence before
9 them, that that should be a factor that the
10 judge should consider in setting bail.
11 But on the other hand, we feel that
12 where someone does not present a risk of
13 violence and does not present a risk of
14 failing to return to court if they're
15 released, that there should be a presumption
16 of release without bail.
17 So it sort of addresses two kind of
18 different but in some ways related problems
19 that we feel, you know, the Legislature
20 should take a careful look at. And both of
21 those problems could be resolved, we feel, in
22 the bill that we presented to the
23 Legislature.
24 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I'm
66
1 confused. I'm confused because if you're
2 saying the bail happens before the case goes
3 to trial, there still is a presumption of
4 innocence. So where -- the argument that
5 you're raising confuses me tremendously.
6 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
7 Well, look, there are people who have a
8 history of interaction with the criminal
9 justice system, have had prior cases and have
10 a history of having been released pending the
11 disposition of their case and not returning
12 to court. And bench warrants get issued.
13 And, you know, that's a real problem for the
14 courts, it's a real problem for society when
15 people have a criminal charge against them --
16 presumed innocent, you're absolutely
17 correct -- but have a history of not
18 returning to court when they've had a
19 criminal case.
20 So bail, we feel, in those instances
21 is entirely appropriate, when there's a
22 history of not returning to court when they
23 should be doing that.
24 We also feel -- and this is the law in
67
1 the vast majority of states in the country --
2 that in making a bail determination a judge
3 should be able to take into account whether
4 the person before them is a violent person
5 and may, if released, commit a further act of
6 violence. To us, that seems like a very
7 commonsense approach and an approach that
8 should be reflected in the bail statutes in
9 New York.
10 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank you.
11 Just to go back for a minute to the
12 explanation that you were giving on the
13 implementation of Raise the Age. Answer for
14 me again, how many new parts and attorneys
15 will OCA need in order to fully implement --
16 I know you have -- you know, the
17 implementation is not going to occur in '16.
18 But we're also looking at you absorbing a
19 tremendous deficit this year in terms of the
20 new judges that have come on, and judge
21 raises and a lot of other issues. I would
22 not like to see any of these issues become a
23 barrier to us implementing this program as we
24 move out.
68
1 So what would the numbers mean given
2 the financial straits that you find OCA in at
3 this moment?
4 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
5 Frankly, I don't think we would need
6 additional resources to accommodate a
7 statutory raise of the age of criminal
8 responsibility. I think we could accommodate
9 the -- again, it wouldn't create more cases
10 in the court system, it would move certain
11 cases from one court to another court.
12 So, you know, we have flexibility in
13 reassigning judges from one court to another
14 court. We have flexibility in reassigning
15 court staff -- the court officers, court
16 clerks and the like -- from one court to
17 another court.
18 If you combine that with the 25
19 additional Family Court judgeships that we
20 have now and the fact that the rest of
21 16-and-17-year-olds, you know, are much lower
22 than they were a few years ago, we feel that
23 we could accommodate this change -- which,
24 again, would not be more cases, it would be
69
1 moving cases from one court to another. We
2 feel we can accommodate that with what we
3 have.
4 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Is it not
5 true that when you took the last budget cut
6 that you lost close to 2,000 employees across
7 the spectrum? So I'm --
8 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
9 Yes. But we're dealing with -- it's the same
10 number of cases. Raise the Age doesn't
11 necessarily reduce the number of cases,
12 although it can. It could lead to more
13 diversion of cases out of the courts and 16-
14 and 17-year-olds going into programs. You
15 know, rather than having their cases go
16 through the court system.
17 But we're not expanding the number of
18 cases, we're merely moving them from one
19 court to another. We feel a court that --
20 cases can be better served and can be better
21 handled in the Family Court than in the
22 criminal courts. So given that and given our
23 flexibility to move judges around and our
24 flexibility to move court employees around,
70
1 since this wouldn't be more cases for the
2 court system, it would be the same number of
3 cases or maybe even fewer cases, that we
4 could accommodate them.
5 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay, my
6 time is going to run out. But I guess the
7 crux of the question for me is we've given
8 you 20 new judges, but do you have the court
9 support staff for those 20 judges in the
10 numbers given the cuts that you've taken?
11 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
12 Yes.
13 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: And I think
14 that's the basis of my question, because
15 these are Family Court judges.
16 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: We
17 have sufficient staff for the new Family
18 Court judges, yes, we do.
19 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank you,
20 Judge.
21 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
22 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Thank you.
23 Next, Assemblyman Graf.
24 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: Hi, Judge, how are
71
1 you?
2 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
3 Good morning.
4 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: Now, you have one
5 program where at arraignments everyone gets
6 assigned an attorney. Right? And even if
7 the person is making $200,000, $300,000 -- or
8 no matter what he makes, right, they get
9 assigned an attorney at arraignment. How
10 much is that costing us?
11 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
12 People making $200,000, $300,000 a year are
13 getting attorneys at arraignments? I can't
14 tell you that that's never happened, but I
15 can honestly say I don't believe that's a
16 major problem in the court system.
17 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: Well, that's what
18 happening. In Suffolk County they have
19 assigned attorneys, okay, that sit in the
20 courtroom. And if somebody doesn't have an
21 attorney, and it doesn't matter what they
22 make, for arraignment they're getting an
23 attorney.
24 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: :
72
1 Yeah, I think that attorneys staff the
2 arraignment parts in places like Suffolk
3 County. And, you know, the courts are under
4 a very strict mandate from the Court of
5 Appeals that people have to be arraigned
6 within 24 hours of their arrest. So if
7 someone is arrested, is brought by the police
8 to the courthouse, is brought to the
9 courtroom to be arraigned and there's a
10 lawyer assigned to that arraignment part,
11 yes, that could happen, that somebody who
12 otherwise could afford a lawyer would have
13 the services of that lawyer for the very
14 brief arraignment proceeding.
15 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: Well, they have --
16 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: But
17 they would not receive a free lawyer for the
18 pendency of the case.
19 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: If I can, Judge.
20 You have Legal Aid assigned to the courtroom,
21 but there are income requirements. All
22 right? So anyone that doesn't meet the
23 income requirement in Suffolk County, right,
24 who cannot be assigned Legal Aid is being
73
1 assigned almost like an 18-B attorney. All
2 right? Even if they're making $200,000 a
3 year, if they're being arraigned.
4 That money -- and I'm looking -- could
5 be better used, all right, to staff court
6 personnel. Because let me explain what's
7 happening. It takes me, in Suffolk County in
8 district court, up to three and a half years
9 to get a hearing. I just did a trial on a
10 misdemeanor. It took me five years, five
11 years, to get a jury trial.
12 And what's happening is we've come to
13 a point where we've cut the court staff so
14 much in an attempt to save money that it's
15 actually costing us money.
16 So what's happening in Suffolk
17 County -- and I don't know about the rest of
18 the state, because that's mainly where I
19 practice -- is if somebody has to be taken
20 into custody, the entire courtroom shuts
21 down. That slows down the entire process,
22 right, and leads to court congestion.
23 There are times where they have to
24 bring a person from custody up to the
74
1 courtroom. That takes forever, because they
2 have limited personnel to bring that person
3 to the courtroom. There have been times in
4 Suffolk County where you have an individual
5 who's in custody and it's so hard to get that
6 person into the courtroom that where there
7 would have been disposition in the case and
8 that person would have been released that
9 day, they wind up getting adjourned for two
10 weeks, so they spend more time in custody.
11 So what I'm saying to you -- you know,
12 and I'm just looking at all the things that
13 you've been forced to do because of budget
14 constraints. And I'm not picking -- I'm
15 saying we need more money for court officers,
16 we need more money for court clerks, because
17 we're at a crisis point where the safety of
18 the personnel in the courtroom are in
19 jeopardy. The safety of the people appearing
20 in the court is now in jeopardy because of
21 the lack of court officers. The
22 courtrooms are not functioning properly
23 because of the lack of personnel.
24 And I mean you have gotten creative,
75
1 and I'm not blaming the judges and I'm not
2 blaming the administration, I'm blaming us
3 for not looking at the problems here and
4 identifying these problems and making sure
5 that we're not stepping over a dollar to pick
6 up a dime, which is what I think we're doing
7 here.
8 You've seen the slowdowns in the
9 courtroom. You know, you watch the
10 calendars. So, I mean, do you agree with the
11 fact that we've gotten to the point where
12 it's actually costing us money because it's
13 slowing down the process?
14 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
15 Yeah. No, I think there are delays in cases
16 throughout the court system.
17 But I have to tell you, if it's taking
18 five years to get a misdemeanor trial in
19 Suffolk County, that is absolutely
20 unconscionable. And I will -- I can promise
21 you I will look into that today, this
22 afternoon, because that's -- that's
23 unconscionable in a --
24 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: Judge, half the
76
1 other problem, if you want to relieve the
2 congestion, is the 30.30 statute doesn't
3 exist in New York State. Okay? Because all
4 we get is it's always court time, it's always
5 court time. That's nonsense. They're
6 denying clients' rights to a speedy trial.
7 And I look at the appellate decisions,
8 and never, never is there a decision on
9 30.30, for the most part. So it's like --
10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: The
11 30.30 is -- I agree with you, it's a
12 misnomer. It's never been an effective
13 speedy trial statute. It is not effective in
14 moving cases to trial. I agree with you
15 completely on that.
16 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: Well, year after
17 year I keep saying that we have to do
18 something with this. You know, it's
19 nonsense, when I sit there -- and I've been
20 in front of judges and I'm ready for trial,
21 I'm ready for a hearing, and the judge goes,
22 "Well, we can't do a trial today." I say,
23 "Well, send me to another courtroom." Okay?
24 And I get court time. And then if I do an
77
1 appeal, it's never decided on 30.30.
2 So basically we're ignoring the
3 Constitution in the State of New York, and
4 that's causing court congestion.
5 So, I mean, I have a lot of problems
6 with what's going on in our courtrooms,
7 especially with the staffing requirements.
8 All right? And I do think that we're
9 stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime
10 here, and by not funding especially
11 correction officers and clerks and everything
12 else, right, it's actually costing us money.
13 The last thing is the recording
14 devices that we have for transcripts, it's
15 not the same as a person that is actually
16 taking it down, a court reporter. Because
17 when we get that back, there's nothing but
18 errors and everything else in the time
19 period.
20 So I would say, you know, we need to
21 fund court personnel. If you really want to
22 save money, we need to hire more court
23 personnel.
24 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I
78
1 agree with you.
2 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Thank you.
3 Senator.
4 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you. Our
5 next speaker is Senator Dan Squadron.
6 SENATOR SQUADRON: Thank you very
7 much, Madam Chair, and the committee. It's
8 good timing, and I want to pick up right
9 where Assemblymember Graf left off, with I
10 think you referred to it as the nonexistent
11 30.30 statute. In fact, we might be better
12 off with none than with this.
13 The current 30.30 statute was written
14 in order to keep the federal government from
15 coming into New York State in the early '70s,
16 signed by Governor Rockefeller, in
17 contradiction to a report from the court on
18 how to actually fix our speedy trial statute,
19 at a time when court congestion wasn't as bad
20 as it is today.
21 I appreciate your testimony. I
22 understand that the Commission on Judicial
23 Pay ties your hands a little bit. But I do
24 want to say when we have the kind of delay
79
1 and backup that we see, when we have the kind
2 of violation of the accused's constitutional
3 rights, the kind of cost and pain suffered by
4 victims from the sort of court delay that we
5 have, I really urge -- and I've done the same
6 thing to the incoming chief judge -- an
7 aggressive look at a crisis of court delay, a
8 crisis of constitutional rights to a speedy
9 trial being absolutely ignored in New York
10 State. In fact, the statute to protect them
11 is used to damage them.
12 In my home borough of Brooklyn, we're
13 up 26 percent on court delays in 2015. In
14 2013 in New York City, 594 days citywide mean
15 age at disposition. Five hundred ninety-four
16 is almost two years. It's 732 days in the
17 Bronx. In 2012, 55 percent of felony cases
18 in New York City were pending for more than
19 six months. That is a crisis.
20 In fact, the Advisory Committee on
21 Criminal Law and procedure gave a report to
22 you last year that said most would agree --
23 as you have already, which I really
24 appreciate -- that 30.30 has been largely
80
1 unsuccessful in moving criminal trials in an
2 expeditious fashion.
3 It also says the problem is more than
4 just a lack of sufficient judicial resources.
5 It also involves a willingness to go to
6 trial.
7 You said, in response to Senator
8 Hassell-Thompson, that people are sitting in
9 jail because they can't make bail. I would
10 amend that. They're sitting in jail because
11 they can't make bail and because of the kind
12 of court delays we have.
13 I carry a bill to fix this named for
14 Kalief Browder, who spent more than a
15 thousand days in jail before having his case
16 dismissed. Tragically, he committed suicide
17 last year.
18 What's the solution? How are we going
19 to do it together this year?
20 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
21 Well, I think the -- these are all real
22 problems that you've discussed, and the
23 solution is -- and I think the new chief
24 judge is very interested in this problem, and
81
1 I think you'll be hearing more from her
2 shortly about this. But I think she wants to
3 address and focus her attention on this.
4 And this has to be a priority. It
5 will be a priority. But I think the ultimate
6 solution -- you know, the criminal justice
7 system has many components and obviously the
8 court system is a central component within
9 the criminal justice system. But to
10 eliminate some of these problems, address
11 these delays, streamline the process, we have
12 to work together with the other components of
13 the criminal justice system. There's a lot
14 that we can do ourselves, that the judiciary
15 can do, but we can't do it all. And we need
16 to work with law enforcement, with the
17 defense bar, with the institutional criminal
18 defense providers, with probation
19 departments. I mean, we need to work
20 together with all the components of the
21 criminal justice system to solve these
22 problems. That's the only way to do it.
23 SENATOR SQUADRON: And just explain to
24 me the role of the court system and then the
82
1 role of the other partners you just
2 described.
3 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
4 It's -- we have a major role, maybe the
5 critical role in --
6 SENATOR SQUADRON: And what is that
7 role? Just sort of more specifically.
8 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
9 Well, in the end, it's the judge that can
10 move the case to trial. I mean, the parties
11 have to be ready, but if there's delay or
12 lack of readiness, if there are excuses, in
13 the end it's the judge that has to ensure
14 that there's a quick resolution and an
15 expeditious resolution of the case.
16 So first and foremost and ultimately,
17 the responsibility is with the court system
18 and with judges.
19 SENATOR SQUADRON: Let me just ask
20 this question directly. If court congestion
21 didn't stop the clock, wouldn't that move
22 trials a lot more quickly?
23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: If
24 court congestion --
83
1 SENATOR SQUADRON: If court congestion
2 wasn't a reason to stop the speedy trial
3 clock, wouldn't that move trials much more
4 quickly?
5 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
6 Absolutely.
7 SENATOR SQUADRON: Is that something
8 you support?
9 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: Is
10 that what?
11 SENATOR SQUADRON: Something you
12 support --
13 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: Oh,
14 sure.
15 SENATOR SQUADRON: -- allowing the
16 clock to run for the entire time between
17 trial or hearing dates even if it's court
18 congestion that's leading to the delay?
19 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: You
20 mean if court congestion is the reason for
21 the delay --
22 SENATOR SQUADRON: The prosecutor asks
23 for a week and gets a date three weeks hence.
24 Is that seven days or is that 21 days?
84
1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
2 Under the speedy trial statute?
3 SENATOR SQUADRON: Currently it's
4 seven. If it were 21, I think that would be
5 the beginning of solving this problem. I'm
6 asking, is that something that the courts --
7 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
8 Look, a more effective speedy trial statute
9 could make a great contribution to
10 eliminating delays in criminal cases, no
11 question.
12 SENATOR SQUADRON: So it sounds like
13 you also agree that we don't need more money
14 before we talk about fixing speedy trial --
15 we should fix 30.30 and then next year we'll
16 talk about the money that we need to make
17 that work. Is that the right order of
18 operations?
19 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I
20 think there are a lot of things we can do
21 without more money.
22 SENATOR SQUADRON: Thank you very
23 much. I really appreciate it.
24 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
85
1 Thank you.
2 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: We have been joined
3 by Senator Velmanette Montgomery.
4 Assembly?
5 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS: We've also been
6 joined by Assemblywoman Duprey.
7 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Any questions on
8 this side? Oh. Danny O'Donnell.
9 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: Well, it's
10 been a rough morning for me, Judge.
11 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
12 It's part of the job.
13 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: Senator
14 Nozzolio suggested $100 million for legal
15 services; I almost passed out. And I agree
16 with Al Graf, so that's really quite a
17 morning for me.
18 (Laughter.)
19 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: I had chosen
20 not to speak, because I would like to go home
21 sometime in my lifetime today, so -- but
22 there's a couple of things I want to raise.
23 One is I want to say that I
24 100 percent agree with Senator Squadron. And
86
1 just so you know, I was a full-time public
2 defender from 1987 to 1995. And at the
3 beginning of that time, if a DA came into the
4 courtroom and said, "Your Honor, my key
5 witness is in Florida, and I'll be ready
6 tomorrow," and the case was adjourned for a
7 month, the judge charged that whole month to
8 the people on the running of the clock.
9 So now there's an absolute
10 manipulation of that, where they say "But
11 I'll be ready tomorrow," and then they
12 adjourn the case for two months and only
13 charge one day to the people. With all due
14 respect, sir, that's the judge's fault. The
15 judge doesn't have to do that. The judge
16 could say "Well, you're not ready today,
17 you're not ready."
18 And in the time that I worked there,
19 it went from when you could expect some
20 attempt to try a case within the speedy trial
21 limits to a point where it could never ever
22 happen. Which leads me to my statement about
23 bail.
24 We have too many people in jail
87
1 awaiting trial on bail. So isn't it true a
2 judge is allowed to take into consideration,
3 in setting the bail, the nature of the crime?
4 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
5 Yes.
6 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: Aren't they
7 allowed to take into consideration the facts
8 that they're aware of about the crime?
9 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
10 Yes.
11 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: Aren't they
12 allowed to take into effect any history of
13 coming or not coming to court?
14 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
15 Absolutely.
16 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: Aren't they
17 allowed to take into effect family ties,
18 community ties and other things determined by
19 the criminal justice system?
20 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
21 You've read the statute recently, I guess.
22 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: No, I haven't,
23 I'm just pretty smart about this.
24 So my question for you is, how many
88
1 people are you aware of that have been
2 accused of murder who have never been accused
3 before who get released on bail?
4 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I
5 couldn't say on that --
6 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: I would like
7 someone -- one of the minions that work for
8 you -- to tell me what the answer to that
9 question is. Because the answer, in my
10 opinion, is almost nobody -- except if you're
11 white and rich, but that's not your fault.
12 Almost no one.
13 So if in fact almost no one is
14 released when they're charged with murder,
15 then what that means is in effect the system
16 is taking into account what the risk might be
17 to society to let them out, and we don't need
18 to change the bail statute to give more
19 people reasons to keep more people in jail.
20 We need to change the bail statute so
21 that we're not having people sit in places
22 like Rikers island for years -- years --
23 before they can assert their constitutional
24 right to the presumption of innocence.
89
1 And I think the judiciary needs to
2 take a better role and look at this and not
3 advocate for changing it to make the bail
4 statute even harder on people who don't have
5 resources.
6 Thank you, sir.
7 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
8 Thank you.
9 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Thank you.
10 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.
11 Senator Liz Krueger.
12 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. I also
13 wasn't planning to ask too many questions
14 because so many of us are here today.
15 But just going back to civil legal
16 services, even though there has been the
17 growth in money available, can you tell me
18 how many people have to go to a court
19 situation without an attorney in the civil
20 system?
21 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
22 It's still about -- although there's been
23 great improvement with that problem, there's
24 still a great majority of the people in civil
90
1 cases who can't afford a lawyer, still don't
2 have a lawyer. It's as much as 70 percent.
3 SENATOR KRUEGER: And someone gave me
4 the number that we were at 2.3 million cases
5 without attorneys, and we're down to
6 1.8 million. Does that seem a realistic
7 number to you of the number of people who
8 don't have attorneys for civil cases?
9 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I
10 know -- it's very difficult to kind of
11 document this. But I think that sounds
12 correct, if I recall. I know that the
13 estimates are that over the last five, six
14 years, the percentage of people in civil
15 cases who can't afford an attorney who have
16 an attorney has gone from 20 percent to
17 30 percent, which is actually a 50 percent
18 increase, if my math is correct.
19 But obviously that still leaves the
20 great majority of people without a lawyer.
21 So it's -- it's an ongoing problem. This
22 additional money has made, you know, an
23 enormous difference in the lives of the
24 people who do have lawyers because of it, and
91
1 it's hundreds of thousands of cases a year
2 where people now have lawyers because of this
3 money. But it's a gargantuan problem, no
4 question.
5 SENATOR KRUEGER: I certainly -- I
6 represent a part of Manhattan Island, and I
7 certainly can verify that the difficulty in
8 finding somebody -- representation in endless
9 numbers of civil cases for disproportionately
10 the elderly, the disabled, tenants -- and
11 again, the biggest issue I see in the
12 problems here are that in a civil case where
13 it's not you versus the government, it's you
14 against someone, the someone else always has
15 an attorney. And so the unfairness of going
16 through the court process to me seems fairly
17 extreme.
18 So, you know, for the record, we can't
19 support reducing funding for civil legal
20 services. We have to continue our commitment
21 that was a multiyear commitment to expanding
22 funds for civil legal services.
23 Thank you.
24 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
92
1 Thank you.
2 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you, Senator.
3 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Assemblywoman
4 Peoples-Stokes.
5 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank
6 you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
7 Judge, I appreciated hearing all your
8 comments today, and I actually appreciated
9 hearing the questions and responses from my
10 colleagues. But I just have one really quick
11 point I want to raise, and hopefully you're
12 able to give me that number today. And, if
13 not, I can look forward to receiving it soon.
14 What is the total number of staff on
15 the Office of Court Administration? And what
16 is the total number of counsel on civil legal
17 services? And what are the diversity numbers
18 there?
19 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I'm
20 sorry, I don't have that with me. But I'll
21 absolutely get you those numbers. We have
22 them. And we'll get them to you.
23 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES: The
24 numbers and the diversity.
93
1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
2 Yes.
3 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank
4 you, sir.
5 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.
6 Senator Marty Golden.
7 SENATOR GOLDEN: Thank you very much,
8 Madam Chair.
9 I have to believe judges should have
10 the discretion to set bail and the ability of
11 the defendant to return to court and also set
12 the risk assessment of the violence. And I
13 think you're doing an outstanding job. And I
14 do believe that we have to help you correct
15 the imbalance in the system in putting more
16 dollars made available so we can have more
17 judges and more employees to be able to move
18 these cases through the system.
19 Real quick question. I'm also the
20 chair of the Public Employees, and I had them
21 up in my office about a month ago. And I
22 thought I heard 14 percent they're down, and
23 that's different from the number that you've
24 given.
94
1 The court officers across the State of
2 New York are 14 percent off from where they
3 were in 2009?
4 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
5 That -- could you repeat that? I'm sorry.
6 SENATOR GOLDEN: The number of court
7 officers presently are down 14 percent from
8 the number in 2009 that I have.
9 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
10 It's 6 percent. But depending on who came to
11 you, they might have been talking about a
12 particular court or type of court.
13 SENATOR GOLDEN: That was statewide.
14 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
15 Statewide it's 6 percent. I'll show you the
16 numbers.
17 SENATOR GOLDEN: If you could get
18 those numbers for me, I'd appreciate it.
19 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I
20 will.
21 SENATOR GOLDEN: Thank you,
22 Your Honor.
23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
24 Thank you.
95
1 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you, Senator.
2 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: That's it.
3 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Okay. Senator
4 Velmanette Montgomery.
5 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you, Madam
6 Chair.
7 Judge, good morning.
8 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
9 Good morning.
10 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I just have one
11 question that I would like to ask. You are
12 familiar with the Center for Court
13 Innovation?
14 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
15 Yes.
16 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: And one of the
17 issues or one of the sort of experimental, if
18 you will, I guess we can say, courts that
19 they have come up with and have been actually
20 put into action by -- under the auspices of
21 Chief Justices Kaye and Lippman, and I hope
22 that we're looking to make that a permanent
23 and central part of our court system, and
24 that is the youth courts.
96
1 So I'm not -- I'm not -- I don't
2 understand and I don't know how you view
3 that. It has worked so beautifully in one of
4 the community courts in my district. And all
5 of the information that I have in those areas
6 other than the Red Hook Youth Court, which is
7 in my district, have really benefited young
8 people extremely well.
9 It's also an opportunity to teach
10 young people how the system works, to give
11 them an opportunity to develop some skill and
12 some understanding of the system because they
13 play the roles of all of the different
14 components of the court. And so it keeps
15 young people out of the system, but it also
16 acts as an extremely important leadership
17 development program.
18 So I'm wondering what you think about
19 it and if we can look forward to continuing
20 to support that court and make it more
21 central to what we do as it relates to young
22 people in our state.
23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
24 Yeah, the youth courts are terrific. And,
97
1 you know, we have them in Brooklyn, we have
2 them in places all over the state. They're
3 supported by defense attorneys offices where
4 we have them. And, you know, they're a
5 terrific idea. You find them in other states
6 around the country, not just New York. And
7 we're totally committed to continuing to
8 support them.
9 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
10 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you, Senator.
11 Senator Michael Nozzolio.
12 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you again,
13 Madam Chair.
14 Judge, coming to the issue of bail,
15 that Judge Lippman drafted a bill but because
16 Judge Lippman is not a member of the
17 Legislature, I as chair of the Codes
18 Committee, as a professional courtesy,
19 introduced his legislation. It's been
20 pending before the Codes Committee for a
21 number of months.
22 And I'd like to have your reaction to
23 a comment made that says the reform of the
24 so-called broken jail system, Judge Lippman's
98
1 bill, insults judges, overlooks that bail
2 review is available presently, fails to
3 provide a complete record of bail release
4 decisions, and intrudes on the judiciary's
5 independence.
6 Now, that's not by a member of the
7 Legislature, that's by a co-Supreme Court
8 judge, Judge McLaughlin in the City of
9 New York, who indicated that these provisions
10 would establish what he called a two-tier
11 system of justice where you'd see an
12 automatic judicial review triggered when a
13 defendant is unable to make bail.
14 Now, that means, to me, that we'd have
15 50,000 appeals automatically. And you were
16 talking about clogging the system earlier,
17 the demands on the budget. Certainly I know
18 those have to be weighed. We're seeking
19 justice here. But from a logistical
20 standpoint -- and I think it would be very
21 fair for you to be able to comment publicly
22 on Judge McLaughlin's public opposition to
23 the legislation.
24 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
99
1 Well, I have to say I strongly disagree with
2 that assessment of that program. Fifty
3 thousand cases, it's just -- that's just not
4 true.
5 It's a misdemeanor program. It takes
6 advantage of an existing statutory provision
7 in the law which gives a Supreme Court judge
8 de novo review -- authority, on the
9 application of a defendant, to conduct a de
10 novo review, a full review of a lower court's
11 bail ruling.
12 We've simply set up a part in Supreme
13 Court to allow for that, if the defendant
14 makes an application, to have the case
15 calendared in the Supreme Court part. It's
16 not a lot of cases. It's limited to
17 low-level cases. It's not insulting to
18 judges at all. Judges -- you know, judges --
19 bail is set in the arraignment parts where
20 the volume is enormous. There's strict
21 constitutional and statutory time limits on
22 how quickly cases have to be arraigned.
23 In the arraignment part, it quickly
24 follows the arrest. The defense lawyer
100
1 doesn't really know much about the defendant
2 at that point. The prosecutor doesn't know
3 much about the defendant. The judge
4 certainly doesn't know much about the
5 defendant. And the process that was put in
6 place is merely to give an option to the
7 defendant to make an application later on to
8 a Supreme Court judge where there will be
9 more time to evaluate the case, there will be
10 more information at that point.
11 And there's nothing insulting to
12 judges about this at all. It's a fairer
13 process that's been put in place that's
14 entirely consistent with what the law now
15 authorizes.
16 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Nonetheless, Judge
17 McLaughlin felt pretty insulted by this. And
18 I -- certainly opinion differs. And that
19 we'll look to you for further explanation of
20 this from your vantage as a judge
21 experienced.
22 It seems as though, just on its
23 surface, that any defense counsel would be
24 tiptoeing around malpractice if they didn't
101
1 seek an automatic appeal under this
2 provision. And to me, that begs the question
3 in the real world, wouldn't they be doubly
4 encouraged to pursue extrajudicial review?
5 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
6 Well, that's an interesting point.
7 But, you know, this is in place now.
8 It's not -- it's been implemented. And the
9 experience of the last couple of months since
10 it was implemented is completely to the
11 contrary. There have been very few
12 applications made to the Supreme Court judge.
13 Actually, surprisingly few.
14 So it hasn't opened the floodgates.
15 Any suggestion that it would, that hasn't
16 turned out to be the case at all.
17 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you for your
18 insights.
19 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
20 Sure.
21 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you, Madam
22 Chair.
23 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you, Senator.
24 Senator Tom Croci.
102
1 SENATOR CROCI: Thank you, Madam
2 Chair.
3 Thank you, Judge, for your appearance
4 here today.
5 I represent the Third Senate District,
6 which includes the Central Islip Court
7 Complex on Long Island, which as you know is
8 collocated with a federal courthouse as well.
9 Some of my concerns come out of a
10 recent visit there where there is long lines
11 outside of the courthouse. In light of
12 what's happened in San Bernardino and other
13 places, it comes to our attention that having
14 long lines of civilians standing outside of
15 federal buildings, state, county, town
16 government buildings, is probably not a good
17 idea.
18 Recognizing that some of the staffing
19 levels the court officers are contending with
20 lead to some of these long lines, and also
21 recognizing that on Long Island our law
22 enforcement has stepped up their approaches
23 to combating the heroin and opioid epidemic
24 on Long Island, we're seeing more individuals
103
1 who are incarcerated for those crimes and who
2 are going through the court system.
3 So I have two concerns. One is the
4 lines and the security situation that it
5 presents. And then two is inside the
6 courthouse, we've had instances where rival
7 drug gangs are actually having altercations,
8 and the staffing levels, it seems to me,
9 we're spreading them pretty thin.
10 So I was wondering if you could
11 address that in your remarks. Thank you.
12 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
13 Well, I mean it's a good point that you
14 raise. You know, lines outside the
15 courthouse aren't good because, as you say,
16 they can create public safety concerns.
17 But it's also unfair to the people who
18 have to wait on line. Weather can be
19 inclement, and we don't want people waiting
20 in lines to get into courthouses. It can be
21 a problem. You know, I recognize that.
22 And it again goes back to staffing
23 shortages and, you know, not enough court
24 officers in the lobbies at the magnetometers,
104
1 you know, moving people through the screening
2 and, you know, getting them through that so
3 they can go up to attend to their court
4 business. So, I mean, it's a problem. We
5 have to do a better job to avoid lines, I
6 agree with that.
7 The -- what was the second issue?
8 SENATOR CROCI: Talking about actually
9 responding within the courthouse when you
10 have individuals who are involved in
11 drug-related offenses.
12 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: We
13 do have a process in place that we are -- our
14 court officers in our public safety
15 department try to be aware of when a case
16 comes in, if there's some gang connection.
17 And when we know about that -- and, you know,
18 often we do know that, if not always, but
19 usually we will know that -- that there's
20 some gang connection to a particular case, we
21 will deploy more officers where they need to
22 be deployed when that case is called in the
23 courthouse.
24 So it's something we are aware of and
105
1 have tried to address.
2 SENATOR CROCI: And one follow-up.
3 Are court officers instructed in the use and
4 administration of Narcan?
5 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I'm
6 sorry?
7 SENATOR CROCI: I said, are court
8 officers instructed in the administration of
9 Narcan, the anti-heroin overdose drug?
10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I
11 believe so, but I'll to check that for you.
12 I'm not sure.
13 SENATOR CROCI: Thank you.
14 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
15 Thank you.
16 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.
17 Thank you very much for your testimony
18 today.
19 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
20 Thank you.
21 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: We truly appreciate
22 it. Look forward to continuing to work with
23 you. So thank you.
24 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:
106
1 Thanks so much.
2 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Thank you.
3 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Our next speaker is
4 Commissioner John P. Melville, commissioner,
5 New York State Division of Homeland Security.
6 (Pause.)
7 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: If we could have
8 some order, please. We need to get underway.
9 We have a long, long list of speakers.
10 Welcome, Commissioner.
11 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Thank you,
12 Senator.
13 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Proceed.
14 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Thank you.
15 Good morning. Thank you, Chairwoman
16 Young, Chairman Farrell, and distinguished
17 members of the Joint Committee. I am John
18 Melville, commissioner of the Division of
19 Homeland Security and Emergency Services.
20 I appreciate the opportunity to
21 discuss with you today some of the good work
22 of the agency over the past year as well as a
23 few of the highlights of Governor Cuomo's
24 public safety budget.
107
1 The division is charged with an
2 enormous responsibility, which includes an
3 all-hazards prevention, preparedness,
4 response and recovery mission. The
5 Governor's budget provides the resources
6 needed to accomplish our mission and protect
7 public safety. Total appropriations are
8 $1.5 billion, up $583 million over last year.
9 Six hundred million dollars is added in the
10 event of future disaster. A reduction of
11 $3.2 million in one-time appropriations for
12 citizen preparedness, reduced need for
13 capital financing in the amount of
14 $15 million, and the addition of $1.3 million
15 for an expanded counterterrorism program, all
16 contribute to the change.
17 Unfortunately, this past year our
18 nation witnessed an increase in the number of
19 terrorist attacks and plots -- three here in
20 New York alone. The most recent example was
21 the New Year's Eve Rochester arrest, which
22 ultimately proved to be an intelligence and
23 operational success.
24 In December, Governor Cuomo stated
108
1 that the threat of terrorism is a "new
2 normal" for Americans. Unfortunately, I have
3 to agree.
4 Let me discuss some of the efforts we
5 are undertaking to ensure the safety of
6 New Yorkers from Montauk to Buffalo. This
7 past year, the Governor launched the "See
8 Something, Send Something" mobile application
9 so that people can report suspicious
10 activities. To date, it has been downloaded
11 over 40,000 times.
12 In addition to community-level
13 awareness, we have to arm our first
14 responders with the intelligence information
15 they need to keep pace with emerging
16 terrorism trends. The Governor outlined a
17 plan to consolidate the division's
18 intelligence and analysis function into the
19 New York State Police to continue their work
20 at the New York State Intelligence Center,
21 which serves all law enforcement and public
22 safety agencies throughout the state. This
23 will allow the division, as a primary
24 consumer of the intelligence, to focus on key
109
1 preparedness activities, and will be used to
2 inform our decision-making in the areas of
3 grant funding, the homeland security strategy
4 and target hardening.
5 Ultimately, the collective goal is to
6 provide quick and actionable intelligence to
7 our local law enforcement and public safety
8 partners who, along with vigilant private
9 citizens, truly are the first line of
10 defense.
11 The Governor also proposes
12 $1.3 million in funding to drastically
13 increase the number of vulnerability
14 assessments -- or, as we term them, "Red Team
15 exercises" -- the division will execute
16 across the state.
17 In conjunction with Operation
18 Safeguard activities and our "See Something"
19 campaigns, we want to increase the state's
20 collective detection capacity of tactics that
21 may be used by terrorists in preoperational
22 planning.
23 The division's Red Team will then
24 test, through a series of adversary-based
110
1 assessments, to determine the success of the
2 preparedness strategy. As a target-rich
3 state, New York continues to rely on federal
4 homeland security funding.
5 In 2015, New York State received over
6 $262 million from the Homeland Security Grant
7 Program, which has been used in communities
8 throughout the state to prevent, protect and
9 prepare for terrorism and other catastrophic
10 events.
11 The division continues to advance the
12 state's preparedness posture for all hazards,
13 including natural disasters. Last August,
14 the Governor announced a new incident
15 management system called "NY Responds" to
16 establish a uniform electronic system to be
17 used throughout the state and by all
18 counties. We completed the first phase of
19 the transition in December, with a full
20 implementation expected to be completed this
21 year.
22 We also continue our recovery work,
23 which includes the reimbursement of over
24 $5 billion to New York communities for Sandy,
111
1 Irene and Lee rebuilding and resiliency
2 projects.
3 Last year the Governor announced the
4 first-in-the-nation College of Emergency
5 Preparedness, Homeland Security and
6 Cybersecurity at the University at Albany.
7 To date, 159 students have enrolled in the
8 college's minor program and, by fall of this
9 year, the major program should be available
10 as an official offering.
11 The college also leverages the network
12 of resources of the State Preparedness
13 Training Center in Oriskany for
14 out-of-classroom, hands-on training. The
15 SPTC is quickly being recognized as a
16 world-class facility.
17 The U.S. Departments of Defense and
18 Justice chose the SPTC to host the annual
19 Raven's Challenge, which is an
20 interoperability exercise to test the
21 capabilities of bomb squads and military
22 explosive ordnance disposal units. It was
23 such a success that, this May, New York will
24 once again host the Raven's Challenge at the
112
1 SPTC.
2 Moving to citizen preparedness
3 training, in conjunction with the National
4 Guard, the Red Cross and together with our
5 partners in the Legislature, we have been
6 able to train over 95,000 new people.
7 Last year the Governor announced that
8 the Office of Fire Prevention and Control
9 would be deploying 19 trailers equipped with
10 firefighting foam to local fire departments
11 and county hazmat teams. Prepositioning this
12 equipment ensures the state is well-prepared
13 to confront fires caused by crude oil and
14 other highly flammable substances.
15 Finally, the division's Office of
16 Interoperable and Emergency Communications is
17 modifying its approach to the state's
18 interoperable communications grant
19 distribution strategy. This year there will
20 be two separate programs: One will include a
21 formula-based distribution, and the second
22 includes a targeted distribution of
23 $20 million towards statewide
24 interoperability.
113
1 While not possible to cover all the
2 great work of the division during my
3 testimony today, I hope that I have provided
4 you with an idea of the priorities for the
5 Division of Homeland Security and Emergency
6 Services into the next fiscal year. These
7 include strengthening response integration
8 and coordination, intelligence-driven target
9 hardening, training, and thoughtful
10 investments of state grants to bolster the
11 state's preparedness and response posture.
12 I appreciate the opportunity to be
13 here and appear before you today, and I am
14 pleased to answer any questions you may have.
15 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you,
16 Commissioner, for that testimony. Protecting
17 our communities and our citizens is job one
18 for New York State government, and there's an
19 intense interest in what you have to say
20 today by the Senate.
21 At this time I would like to introduce
22 our chair of the Homeland Security, Veterans
23 and Military Affairs Committee, and that's
24 Senator Tom Croci.
114
1 SENATOR CROCI: Thank you, Madam
2 Chair.
3 And thank you, Commissioner, for your
4 appearance today. It's been a great
5 privilege to have the opportunity to work
6 with you and the staff over the past year.
7 One of the things I'd like to
8 compliment you on is your investment in the
9 prevention and preparedness for the State of
10 New York. I think that was best seen in he
11 recent blizzard that we had downstate.
12 Pre-staging of assets certainly saved a lot
13 of time in responding when the storm finally
14 stopped, and I think that it's partly due or
15 in large part the amount of snow that was
16 able to be moved was because of that
17 investment in prevention and preparedness.
18 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Thank you,
19 sir.
20 SENATOR CROCI: I listened with
21 interest to your testimony, and of course
22 we've had conversations about some of the
23 proposals in the budget. In talking about
24 the Article VII language in Part D of the
115
1 ELFA budget bill, you mentioned in your
2 testimony that the transfer of certain
3 assets, human assets in this case, would
4 focus on key preparedness activities, will be
5 used to inform our decision-making in certain
6 areas.
7 So I'm wondering, with respect to that
8 transfer of personnel to State Police, what
9 if any counterterrorism functions does the
10 Division of Homeland Security retain in that
11 transfer?
12 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Thank you,
13 Senator. We propose to transfer 10 people,
14 or 10 positions, from our intel and analysis
15 section in the Division of Homeland Security
16 and Emergency Services to the State Police.
17 That transfer sounds a little more
18 ominous than it really is. In actuality,
19 those people will probably be sitting in the
20 same seats they sit in now. They work at the
21 New York State Intelligence Center with the
22 State Police. They are supervised not only
23 by us, but by the State Police. And what we
24 plan to do is just streamline the chain of
116
1 command with the analysts so the information
2 can get right to the people that it needs to
3 right away.
4 I need it; I still will get it. But I
5 am not operational as the State Police are.
6 They get that information right out to the
7 people on the ground that need it first. I
8 will still get it.
9 As far as maintaining duties with
10 respect to the Office of Counterterrorism, we
11 have a critical infrastructure team that
12 we're very proud of. They do inspections all
13 around the state, some legislated, some not.
14 We are proposing a significant increase in
15 our Red Team exercises that we will be
16 conducting throughout all the
17 counterterrorism zones in New York State,
18 which there are 16 of them.
19 We have our training center at
20 Oriskany, which we run. It's first responder
21 training for not only police but fire, EMS,
22 emergency managers, and it's very
23 counterterrorism-based.
24 So in actuality, our core mission will
117
1 remain the same, Senator. We will still be
2 receiving that intelligence information. I
3 still will remain the homeland security
4 advisor to the Governor. I will report to
5 the legislature. And I am still the point of
6 contact for the Department of Homeland
7 Security of the federal government.
8 SENATOR CROCI: So you mentioned that
9 you'll still receive the information
10 regardless of where these analysts are
11 positioned and where they're sitting. That's
12 not clear statutorily in the budget. I guess
13 we would have to statutorily amend the
14 article in order so that you receive that
15 information? Because otherwise how would
16 that information flow from the State Police
17 now up to you?
18 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Well, the
19 analysts will actually physically be
20 supervised by the State Police in this
21 proposal.
22 I will still be a consumer of that
23 intelligence information. As a matter of
24 fact, we recently took on a director in the
118
1 Office of Counterterrorism in the Division of
2 Homeland Security and Emergency Services.
3 His name is Mike Cerretto. He's very
4 qualified, well respected, a 30-year member
5 of law enforcement. And he is actually still
6 a member of the New York State Police even
7 though he has been detailed to the Division
8 of Homeland Security and Emergency Services
9 and in actuality works for us now. So Mike's
10 still being -- Director Cerretto's still
11 being a member of the New York State Police
12 will ensure that we receive that information,
13 as I have no doubt.
14 SENATOR CROCI: So hypothetically we
15 have a new -- someday we have a new
16 commissioner, we have a new director and
17 another governor, maybe a Republican
18 governor, so the relationships will change.
19 How do we ensure that that information flow
20 remains the same regardless of those
21 relationships?
22 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Well, the
23 analysts will be at the NYSIC, working for
24 the New York State Police. The NYSIC is the
119
1 fusion center for all of New York, all of our
2 law enforcement partners. It's federally
3 funded, and the mandate to the New York State
4 Police, who runs the NYSIC, is to share that
5 information with everybody.
6 I fortunately have the unique
7 distinction of having worked in the New York
8 State Police for 32 years before I became the
9 commissioner in the Division of Homeland
10 Security. I have the utmost respect and
11 confidence, I know how the organization
12 works, and its main goal, main mission, main
13 function is to push that intel out to the
14 people that need it. It will not be
15 stovepiped.
16 SENATOR CROCI: But there's nothing
17 that's going to be in statute to ensure that.
18 It's because we have great relationships,
19 very qualified individuals in yourself and
20 your new director, no doubt about that. But
21 there's no formal pipeline that's laid out in
22 statute. Is that your understanding?
23 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: I believe,
24 Senator, that the fact that it is New York
120
1 State's fusion center, funded by the
2 Department of Homeland Security, they are
3 mandated to share that information with
4 everyone.
5 SENATOR CROCI: Okay. Obviously
6 you've had a very distinguished career. And
7 again, it's been a great privilege to work
8 with you and get to know you personally.
9 In your professional opinion -- and
10 you better than anyone personally dealt with
11 the attacks of September 11th, as did so many
12 in this room and so many in our state -- do
13 you believe that we're doing everything we
14 can as New Yorkers, as the State of New York,
15 to protect us, to protect our residents?
16 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: I do, Senator.
17 Unfortunately, the threat remains to New York
18 State. New York State is certainly a target.
19 I believe we certainly put our resources into
20 every effort that we can to keep New Yorkers
21 safe. That is our main function, is
22 emergency preparedness, training, response
23 coordination, recovery. I think that we have
24 what we need to do that, and we do do it.
121
1 And we do it very well.
2 SENATOR CROCI: So one concern, in
3 looking at the proposal, is that information
4 flow, and to ensure that not only the
5 individuals charged with the counterterrorism
6 mission in the state in the executive branch,
7 at the higher levels, who are advising the
8 Governor on these matters, are receiving the
9 latest and the best intelligence and the most
10 timely intelligence that they possibly can.
11 The National Security Act and the way
12 the National Security Councils have been set
13 up is there just for that reason, so that the
14 decisionmakers, the policymakers are
15 receiving that information on which to make
16 good legislative decisions and good executive
17 actions. So I'm looking forward to working
18 with staff and finding a way that we can
19 accomplish this and ensure that regardless of
20 who sits in our chairs -- my chair, your
21 chair, or your very experienced and diligent
22 staff -- we want to make sure that that
23 information flow happens regardless of
24 personality, regardless of relationship. The
122
1 process piece I think is something we need to
2 continue to work on.
3 And with regard to your training
4 center, I think I've mentioned that one of
5 the key lessons from the 9/11 Commission
6 report, and certainly something we've learned
7 locally in the wake of Superstorm Sandy and
8 recent weather events, is that we should
9 train the way we fight. So on the ground in
10 response and recovery operations,
11 preparedness as well, we should train at the
12 local level the first responders who actually
13 will be responding to those disasters,
14 whether it's New York City or Buffalo or
15 Suffolk and Nassau counties.
16 While it's great that we have these
17 statewide investments in the training
18 centers, I hope we can work with the
19 Executive and with your department to make
20 sure that we're pushing some of that training
21 and those training dollars down to the local
22 level -- to the cities, to the counties --
23 who are asking us for that, to bring fire,
24 law enforcement, police, your first
123
1 responders, your ambulance companies, bring
2 them together for realistic training at the
3 local level, because in the event of a
4 catastrophic attack or weather event, they're
5 going to be responding together.
6 And going back to that personality
7 issue, it's great that those personalities
8 know each other before they're responding, as
9 I'm sure you could attest to in your
10 distinguished career. I think it's very
11 important, and I hope to work with the staff
12 and your division to ensure that that occurs.
13 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: I look forward
14 to that, Senator.
15 SENATOR KRUEGER: Assembly, thank you.
16 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Thank you.
17 Assemblywoman Peoples-Stokes.
18 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank
19 you, Mr. Chairman.
20 And thank you, Mr. Melville, for your
21 testimony this morning. I would join my
22 other colleagues who have already expressed
23 how the number-one issue for everyone who
24 lives and represents this government is that
124
1 our citizens must be safe. And we do realize
2 that we live in a difficult time. And so
3 your due diligence to make sure that we are
4 safe is very much appreciated.
5 I did want to just really comment on
6 the citizen preparedness. I have had a few
7 of them in the district, and they've been
8 located in different places and different
9 citizens have attended it, and they have very
10 much appreciated that. So while, you know,
11 our first responders are highly skilled and
12 trained, I think it's also important to --
13 for the average citizen to understand what
14 should you do in case of some disaster. So
15 thank you for that.
16 I understand from looking at the
17 budget that there's $14 million in additional
18 dollars for counterterrorism in New York City
19 by the State Police, and an additional
20 $23 million by the National Guard for
21 New York City. And so I guess my question is
22 clearly New York City, having been targeted
23 before, and the seat of finance is in our
24 state -- and quite frankly, the seats of
125
1 finance in the world should be protected.
2 But I'm just wondering how far will, you
3 know, these dollars be able to go to protect
4 other parts of the state? I did hear your
5 comments about Rochester. And as you know,
6 I'm located very close to that, so we were
7 paying attention to that issue. But we are a
8 state that borders Canada, 15 minutes if
9 you're in Buffalo, and closer in some other
10 places.
11 And so I wondered could you speak a
12 little bit about why all those dollars are
13 being designated -- excess dollars are being
14 designated to New York City?
15 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Sure,
16 Assemblywoman. Thank you for your comments
17 about the citizen preparedness; we're very
18 proud of that training effort.
19 We fund -- we, being the Division of
20 Homeland Security and Emergency Services,
21 fund every county in the state through our
22 State Homeland Security Grant program. We
23 also fund different areas across the state
24 through our targeted grant programs and other
126
1 grants that we administer. There's also a
2 UASI federal grant that a lot of money goes
3 to New York City, Long Island, Westchester.
4 That is a decision that is made by the
5 federal government with respect to where
6 UASI -- it stands for Urban Area Security
7 Initiative -- where they are. We don't
8 decide that, the federal government does.
9 I believe -- and I really can't speak
10 to the National Guard budget items or the
11 State Police. But I would suspect that that
12 money is probably going to be used to
13 continue the Governor's initiative of putting
14 troopers and National Guard soldiers in the
15 very important transportation hubs in and
16 around New York City, whether it be Grand
17 Central, Penn Station or those types of --
18 but that's -- probably that can be better
19 answered by either the superintendent or
20 General Murphy.
21 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES: Okay.
22 Well, I was very excited about the
23 announcement of the cybersecurity curriculum
24 at UAlbany. And I note from your comments
127
1 that there are some 159 students that have
2 availed themselves of that opportunity. That
3 might seem like a large number now, but it's
4 really not, particularly with the increasing
5 rates of people being hurt, average citizens
6 being hurt by people abusing the internet.
7 Not to withstand what could happen from a
8 violent perspective, but from a consumer
9 perspective, it's a huge issue.
10 And so is there any thought by your
11 agency -- or I guess I can also ask this
12 question of Nancy Zimpher from SUNY as well,
13 and CUNY -- if there's any thought about
14 expanding this curriculum to other colleges
15 and universities throughout the state.
16 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: I can't answer
17 that, Assemblywoman. I don't know. I can
18 tell you that the college originally was
19 hoping for 50 students to sign up for the
20 minor; they got 159. The major will
21 hopefully be available this fall.
22 We're excited at the Division of
23 Homeland Security and Emergency Services
24 about the college because it will prepare
128
1 professionals that we can utilize in our
2 field. We're looking forward to that.
3 We're also excited about it because
4 the SPTC, the training center in Oriskany,
5 will be the out-of-classroom training spot
6 for the students who attend the State
7 University of New York at Albany College of
8 Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness
9 and Cybersecurity. So we're happy to
10 showcase that, and we hope the students find
11 that that is a world-class facility.
12 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES: Thank
13 you.
14 I recently had the opportunity to
15 speak to some veterans in the state of
16 Florida who -- where they've established a
17 program specifically to train veterans in
18 cybersecurity. So I'd like to connect with
19 you real soon, perhaps late next week, and
20 have an additional conversation about that
21 end of it. Thank you.
22 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Perfect.
23 Thank you, Assemblywoman.
24 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Thank you.
129
1 Senator?
2 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.
3 Next, Senator Joe Addabbo, ranker on
4 the committee.
5 SENATOR ADDABBO: Thank you, Madam
6 Chair, and thank you, Commissioner, for being
7 here today.
8 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Thank you.
9 SENATOR ADDABBO: And let me echo the
10 sentiments of my colleagues: The daunting
11 task of protecting the roughly 20 million
12 people in New York State, I want to again
13 thank you very much for your efforts on that
14 of the division.
15 I think the critical movement of the
16 services to New York State Police is a major
17 move, certainly for, again, protection of our
18 people. I'd like to know the further
19 details, if I may. I need to convince, as we
20 all do, our constituency that this is a more
21 efficient move for the protection of our
22 people.
23 Briefly, how do we convince our
24 residents that this is a more efficient move
130
1 as we look to secure, again, the people of
2 our state?
3 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Sure, Senator.
4 And, you know, I've been in this position for
5 a little over a year and have had the
6 opportunity to look at the agency as a whole
7 and all the different missions that we were
8 charged with. And the counterterrorism
9 mission is certainly at the forefront of all
10 of those.
11 So we constantly evaluate how we do
12 things and why we do things and, you know,
13 can we do them better. And during the course
14 of this past year I've had several
15 conversations with members of my staff as
16 well as the State Police, and eventually Ray
17 Kelly, the former commissioner in New York
18 City, who was asked by the Governor to review
19 the counterterrorism efforts of all the state
20 agencies. After that year of review, my
21 discussions with the superintendent and other
22 public safety partners, and Commissioner
23 Kelly, we all agreed that we thought that
24 this was a smart move.
131
1 What it really does is just defines
2 the line of communication and the chain of
3 command a little bit clearer. As I said,
4 those people work in the NYSIC. They're very
5 talented, I'm very proud of them. They're
6 literally probably not going to change their
7 seat at their desk, it's just that the line
8 of authority will be right to the
9 State Police, it will get to the people that
10 need that information instantaneously.
11 I use that information to pass out to
12 constituents across the state, but I don't
13 need that actionable intelligence as fast as
14 they do. I can set the state homeland
15 security strategy the next day, depending on
16 the intel; they need it right then and there
17 to push out. And that's really the reason,
18 it's just to try and streamline the chain of
19 command and make things work better, faster,
20 safer for the public.
21 SENATOR ADDABBO: We've seen obviously
22 the importance of information-gathering.
23 Rochester you mentioned earlier as well in
24 your testimony. So getting that information
132
1 quicker certainly makes it more efficient.
2 And I look forward to working with you and
3 furthering obviously this critical change.
4 But that being said, with the change
5 going, with services to the New York State
6 Police, the terror alert system, the New York
7 State Police will then have the authority to
8 use the terror alert system? It would be
9 under their jurisdiction at that point?
10 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Well, we're
11 not giving up any authority in the Division
12 of Homeland Security and Emergency Services.
13 As I said, Senator, I remain the state
14 homeland security advisor, the point of
15 contact from the federal government and to
16 the Governor and to the Legislature. So that
17 will -- inasmuch as it does now, it will
18 remain with us.
19 SENATOR ADDABBO: So basically there
20 is some sense of shared responsibilities
21 here.
22 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Yes. We still
23 are maintaining our core mission, which is --
24 much of that is counterterrorism. This is
133
1 just a small piece, albeit a very important
2 piece of it.
3 SENATOR ADDABBO: The restoration of
4 $600 million to now get the total to
5 $1.2 billion for disaster assistance locally,
6 can we talk about possibly how the plan is to
7 spend that money?
8 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: That money,
9 Senator, the $600 million, is just an
10 appropriation. It gives us the authority to
11 spend that if we have to. That's really to
12 be used for future disasters. Hopefully we
13 don't have to spend it, but it's there in
14 case we need to.
15 SENATOR ADDABBO: I would be remiss if
16 I didn't say thank you. A third of my
17 district was affected by Sandy. You know,
18 the areas of Howard Beach, Broad Channel,
19 Rockaway. I still have roughly over 4,000
20 people still on the road to recovery three
21 years after the storm. So again, I want to
22 say thank you.
23 There has been, again, monies for
24 Sandy. Can you detail or explain those
134
1 additional monies for Sandy recovery?
2 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Sure. We have
3 funneled more than $5 billion in recovery
4 money to the victims of Superstorm Sandy,
5 Irene and Lee. We've also funneled
6 approximately $1.4 billion through these what
7 we call HMGP grants, which are Hazard
8 Mitigation Grant Programs.
9 The Hazard Mitigation Grant program
10 money that has been used in your district,
11 Senator, has basically been used for big
12 projects that would benefit whole
13 communities. The individual homeowner would
14 not really be covered through us under that.
15 That would be under a different funding
16 stream, a HUD funding stream, CDBG money that
17 comes under a different -- the Office of
18 Storm Recovery. So if those people in your
19 district are struggling, we'd be happy to
20 talk about that and to help them in any way
21 we can, but we don't really control that
22 funding.
23 SENATOR ADDABBO: No, and again, I
24 understand. I just want to thank the efforts
135
1 of all those associated with New York Rising,
2 and working with HUD and their requirements.
3 But -- and certainly helping not only my
4 constituents, but those throughout the state
5 who are still, again, recovering from
6 Superstorm Sandy.
7 And lastly, you had mentioned in your
8 testimony the "See Something" app, 40,000
9 downloads. Can you just walk us through the
10 process of somebody downloading that app and
11 the information that you may receive and how
12 it goes forward after that?
13 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Sure. Happy
14 to. It's a free app. Any cellphone, you
15 Google it, you'll find it, you can download
16 it.
17 And what it allows you to do is take a
18 picture of whatever you might term
19 suspicious. You can add a text to it and
20 send it along, or you can just send the
21 picture. And what it does is it goes to the
22 New York State Intelligence Center, where it
23 is then reviewed and evaluated by members at
24 the center, and it is pushed out to -- the
136
1 way we handle -- or the way the State Police
2 in the NYSIC now, it's pushed out to the
3 Joint Terrorism Task Force in the particular
4 area that it might have been sent from. They
5 have the right of first refusal per se. And
6 if they don't feel it's appropriate for them
7 to adopt the case, it will go to a local
8 police department.
9 It can be geotagged so even if you
10 don't include a text, we can tell, normally,
11 where it comes from.
12 SENATOR ADDABBO: I was going to say,
13 those who give the information, is it
14 confidential information on their end?
15 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: It is.
16 SENATOR ADDABBO: It is, okay.
17 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: I believe that
18 the State Police and the people at the NYSIC
19 reserve the right to try and contact them if
20 they need to, but they don't have to.
21 SENATOR ADDABBO: Commissioner, once
22 again, thank you very much for your efforts.
23 And of course through our good chair, Senator
24 Croci, I look forward to working with you as
137
1 well.
2 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Thank you,
3 Senator.
4 SENATOR KRUEGER: Assembly?
5 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Thank you very
6 much.
7 Assemblyman Lentol.
8 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Good morning,
9 Commissioner.
10 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Good morning,
11 sir.
12 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: And thank you for
13 your service.
14 I just was wondering, while you were
15 testifying -- maybe I'm behind the times, but
16 I remember after 9/11 how much we were
17 shortchanged by the federal government in the
18 resources that New York City as well as New
19 York State deserved because we were the
20 primary target of terrorism.
21 So I have two questions leading from
22 that. Is that still true? And does your
23 agency have an advocacy function in
24 Washington to make sure that we get the
138
1 resources from them that we deserve for this
2 problem?
3 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Well, I can
4 tell you that we are always advocating for
5 more money from the federal government. And
6 I believe that the Governor's office has that
7 issue handled for the most part. We do not
8 really lobby Washington for that. But we
9 deal with FEMA and the Department of Homeland
10 Security all the time.
11 We receive, in New York State,
12 probably 30 percent or in the area of
13 30 percent of the UASI money that's
14 distributed throughout the country, and I
15 would say 18 percent or so of the State
16 Homeland Security Grant Program. Is that
17 enough? I don't know if we could ever have
18 enough. But we certainly do great things
19 with that amount of money that we do get from
20 the federal government.
21 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: As far as
22 disaster preparedness goes, I remember, even
23 though it wasn't my district, but in some
24 places upstate during Irene and Lee, there
139
1 were people who were flooded out and who died
2 as a result of not being able to be rescued.
3 And I wonder, since then, if we've developed
4 a better, for lack of a better word, roadmap
5 to be able to go by boat, by helicopter or
6 any other means in order to rescue people who
7 may in the future need to be rescued from a
8 storm like Sandy, Lee or Irene.
9 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Unfortunately,
10 Assemblyman, we do learn from the tragedies,
11 and we react to them. We change our training
12 structure and our tactics all the time based
13 on the intelligence that we've received and
14 the events that have occurred in New York
15 State and around the world. We have targeted
16 tech rescue grants, we call them now, that go
17 to fire departments. We have swift water
18 rescue programs that we train on.
19 So we're well aware of that. Our
20 first responders and our Office of Fire
21 Prevention and Control teach many, many, many
22 courses around the state in just that type of
23 circumstance.
24 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Thank you, sir.
140
1 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Thank you.
2 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.
3 Our next speaker is Senator Michael
4 Nozzolio.
5 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you,
6 Chairwoman.
7 Good afternoon, I guess it is now.
8 Good afternoon, Commissioner Melville.
9 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Good
10 afternoon, Senator.
11 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Kudos to you and
12 the division for taking charge, working with
13 the Governor, under his direction, in
14 managing the emergency preparedness of our
15 state. The reaction in storm management,
16 communication, ensuring safety is improving
17 with every instance of those kinds of
18 challenges, and I thank you and your division
19 for that effort.
20 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Thank you,
21 Senator.
22 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I would like to
23 focus, however, on some issues that are not
24 so seen, they're unseen, but personally could
141
1 be extremely devastating to individuals,
2 taxpayers, constituents of this state -- and
3 that's the issue of security, and
4 specifically cybersecurity.
5 That your division's experiences with
6 cybersecurity -- and with all admiration for
7 encouraging student participation in
8 education, tell us beyond that, what is the
9 division doing to beef up our cybersecurity
10 efforts?
11 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Well, the
12 analysts that we have now, Senator, are
13 collocated at the NYSIC with the Multistate
14 Information Sharing and Analysis Center,
15 which is the federal government's
16 cybersecurity watchdog, if you will. They
17 also work with the state --
18 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Is that in
19 Rensselaer? Where is that located?
20 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Yes, it is.
21 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Rensselaer?
22 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Yeah. That's
23 collocated with our New York State
24 Intelligence Center. And the State Police
142
1 also are collocated there with their
2 cybersecurity investigative teams.
3 Probably in 2013, the Division of
4 Homeland Security and Emergency Services --
5 cybersecurity was taken away as one of our
6 core functions, and removed to the ITS, along
7 with our funding and personnel.
8 We don't have a main role in
9 cybersecurity. We're well aware of it, we
10 use it in terms of intel passing all the
11 time. We have a critical infrastructure unit
12 that goes all around the state and is
13 legislated in some respects to do certain
14 types of critical infrastructure, in others
15 not. But they take a cybersecurity component
16 with them from ITS to do the cybersecurity
17 inspections of, say, pipelines or energy
18 transmission facilities, things of that
19 nature.
20 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: This expands on
21 Senator Croci's comments, that you were
22 finding the Division of Homeland Security not
23 having direct reportable information by law
24 and channel, that is strengthened by law,
143
1 that provides that security function. And
2 I'll be probing this with those
3 representatives of Office of Information
4 Technology later today and others.
5 That you'd have to be totally immune
6 from what's going on if we didn't recognize
7 this. Last year alone, we've seen cyber
8 attacks on the Internal Revenue Service, the
9 Office of Personnel Management, even the
10 Joint Chiefs of Staff. And if that's the
11 case, isn't the New York State Department of
12 Taxation and Finance going to be next? We've
13 seen a major security breach in the largest
14 repository of health and financial data
15 probably in this state, in the data breach
16 that occurred with Excellus last year.
17 So I am wondering what type of
18 commitment do we have to help, first, guard
19 our public sector-held information and,
20 secondly, encourage and assist those private
21 companies in doing business in New York to
22 protect the data of its citizens.
23 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Senator, we're
24 well aware of the cybersecurity threat. We
144
1 at the Division of Homeland Security and
2 Emergency Services view our role in
3 cybersecurity as an intelligence-driven role,
4 passing information along about schemes,
5 attacks, issues.
6 We also have the role of responding to
7 an emergency that would occur as a result of
8 a cyber attack. So it would not necessarily
9 be the attack itself, but the issues that
10 follow after that attack. And that's really
11 what we would be functioning or at least
12 focusing on with our Office of Emergency
13 Management.
14 I think that the state is
15 well-prepared with their Multistate ISAC, the
16 NYSIC, and the State Police and the other
17 efforts across the state from ITS, to deal
18 with those types of investigations. It's
19 just not what we do per se.
20 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: And I understand
21 that, Commissioner. I'm not suggesting that
22 you be an investigatory or law enforcement
23 operation. That's not your role, it's not
24 something I would even suggest.
145
1 However, just as you are involved in
2 storm preparedness, just as you are involved
3 in other disaster preparedness, why are we
4 not having you involved -- and I ask that
5 question because I think it's something the
6 Legislature ultimately has to deal with,
7 along with the Governor -- why aren't we
8 involved, Homeland Security involved in
9 issues of cybersecurity protection? Ensuring
10 that someone is overseeing, with security in
11 mind, the vast data systems that are being
12 held by state government? That's what I
13 believe we need to address.
14 And certainly your -- after the fact
15 is too late. The horse is out of the barn,
16 it's too late a question for you to be
17 involved. Then it's a question for law
18 enforcement.
19 But what should be done proactively by
20 the Division of Homeland Security to protect
21 the data of New Yorkers?
22 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: I believe we
23 are doing what we need to do now, Senator.
24 We react to issues that may or may not be
146
1 created by a cyber breach. We have analysts
2 that work with the State Police in close
3 coordination with the Multistate ISAC Center.
4 So we are there to push information out that
5 we receive about cybersecurity issues to our
6 partners, to the public, to the private
7 sector. So I believe our role is being
8 fulfilled at this point.
9 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, from a
10 statutory standpoint that is, I'm sure,
11 accurate. But shouldn't the role be to
12 protect in the first place? Shouldn't the
13 role be -- not as a law enforcement
14 enterprise and a, again, closing the barn
15 door after the horse ran away -- shouldn't it
16 be more to make sure the barn door is locked
17 and not tampered with and having the
18 appropriate security to ensure that
19 particularly the data is protected?
20 And that I think is -- let me ask you
21 this. Who is in charge of the state to
22 protect the data of its citizens, that's
23 entrusted with the state?
24 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: I would say
147
1 the ITS, the State ITS, as well as the State
2 Police and their partners at the NYSIC.
3 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Commissioner, thank
4 you. We'll certainly be probing that issue.
5 And it may be something that our chair of the
6 homeland security, Commander Croci, is going
7 to be dealing with in the months ahead. So I
8 appreciate your candor and your forthcoming
9 comments. Thank you.
10 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Thank you,
11 Senator.
12 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you, Senator.
13 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Assemblyman Ortiz.
14 ASSEMBLYMAN ORTIZ: Good morning,
15 Commissioner.
16 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: How are you,
17 sir?
18 ASSEMBLYMAN ORTIZ: I am doing well.
19 I have a few questions, very quick, if
20 I can put on my glasses.
21 My first question is, what is the
22 working relationship that you have with the
23 ICE and Homeland Security at the federal
24 government?
148
1 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: The federal
2 Homeland Security?
3 ASSEMBLYMAN ORTIZ: No, yours. What
4 is the relationship between your Homeland
5 Security and the federal Homeland Security?
6 Do you guys talk to each other often? And
7 how often?
8 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: We do talk to
9 each other often. I would say more through
10 email communication, but I do have
11 conversations with people in Washington. I
12 am the homeland security advisor for the
13 Governor, so I am the point for contact for
14 certain things with the Department of
15 Homeland Security.
16 ASSEMBLYMAN ORTIZ: Okay. So right to
17 my second question, so you are familiarized
18 with the Obama deportations approach
19 throughout the country; correct?
20 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: The what? I'm
21 sorry.
22 ASSEMBLYMAN ORTIZ: The Obama
23 deportation, the President of the United
24 States has said we -- you know, he has given
149
1 ICE the green light to go through state by
2 state to deport folks after January 2014.
3 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Okay.
4 ASSEMBLYMAN ORTIZ: Are you
5 familiarized with that?
6 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Somewhat.
7 ASSEMBLYMAN ORTIZ: Okay. So my third
8 question goes along the lines of if you are
9 somewhat familiarized with it, I represent
10 the areas of Sunset Park in Brooklyn. I have
11 a lot of undocumented immigrants who live in
12 my district. And what we've been getting in
13 my office is that there has been some folks
14 from ICE, some local enforcements, who has
15 been knocking on their doors and going
16 through the churches and looking for folks
17 who are not legally in this country.
18 Are you familiarized with this?
19 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: No, I'm not,
20 Assemblyman. And really that has -- that
21 issue, albeit a very important issue, has
22 really no place in the Division of Homeland
23 Security and Emergency Services at a state
24 level. That's a federal program and a
150
1 federal issue. We don't have anything to do
2 with that.
3 ASSEMBLYMAN ORTIZ: So you have not
4 anything to do -- despite the fact that you
5 have a relationship with the Homeland
6 Security/ICE agency at the federal
7 government?
8 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: My
9 relationship with the Homeland Security
10 people at the federal level really has to do
11 with our grant funding, what we get from
12 them, what we spent it on, how we spend it,
13 what we target. It really has nothing to do
14 with immigration issues.
15 ASSEMBLYMAN ORTIZ: Okay. And you
16 just stated that you serve as an advisor to
17 the Governor to ICE, to Homeland Security;
18 correct?
19 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: I am the
20 advisor to the Governor for homeland security
21 issues here in New York State.
22 ASSEMBLYMAN ORTIZ: Well, let me just
23 recommend a couple of things. I think that
24 we do have a lot of serious issues regarding
151
1 law enforcement. And I know the -- I
2 addressed this issue to the superintendent
3 last year about folks in the law enforcement
4 stopping individuals, Hispanic individuals in
5 Buffalo, in the Western Hemisphere {sic} and
6 then that came to Long Island as well.
7 I think that if you are the advisor to
8 ICE and you work for our Governor, my advice
9 will be probably to try to have a more
10 preactive action plan, that these families
11 will not have fear, these families will not
12 have fear as they have bring their children
13 to the hospital, their children to the
14 schools. Right now in my district we have
15 seen a decrease of kids going to school as a
16 result of this initiative.
17 So if you are the advisor, I would
18 recommend that you take that message back to
19 those folks that you're speaking to, either
20 via email -- on behalf of the people that we
21 represent in our own community.
22 And thank you for the job that you
23 continue to do in serving us in the state.
24 Thank you.
152
1 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Thank you,
2 Assemblyman, and I would love to have a
3 dialogue with you about that at some point.
4 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.
5 Senator Marty Golden.
6 SENATOR GOLDEN: Thank you, Madam
7 Chair.
8 And thank you for your service.
9 You're doing an outstanding job.
10 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Thank you,
11 Senator.
12 SENATOR GOLDEN: I don't want to beat
13 a dead horse, but -- I know we went over
14 this, seven -- two downstate, five upstate,
15 and we probably beat it to death. But just
16 in my family, my son went down with the viral
17 last weekend, I went down with the viral on
18 Wednesday and Thursday, my wife went down
19 with the viral on Friday, Saturday, and
20 Sunday. When the wife goes down, the whole
21 house gets shut down. All right? So we went
22 down, it was different.
23 You got seven people, two downstate
24 and five upstate. How do we -- if there's
153
1 any type of sickness, vacations, how is that
2 manned? How does that work?
3 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: You're
4 referring to the intelligence analysts,
5 Senator?
6 SENATOR GOLDEN: Yes.
7 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Yeah, we have
8 seven presently. There's 10 actually being
9 proposed to be transferred. We have three
10 openings that we haven't been filled yet, and
11 we probably -- we're waiting till this
12 transfer occurs and they go to the State
13 Police.
14 But each one of those analysts is
15 cross-trained in different types of
16 counterterrorism, and they have different
17 expertises, although some are experts more so
18 in one field than the other. So if one is
19 out, another covers. But for the most part,
20 that's never been an issue for us.
21 SENATOR GOLDEN: What was a little
22 shock for me last week is when the Port
23 Authority -- not the Port Authority, but the
24 ILA went out on strike and ports were shut
154
1 down in Jersey and in New York. Anybody
2 having some idea that that was going to
3 happen obviously would have had some
4 advantage.
5 How did -- were we informed of that?
6 Did we know about that? And how do we stay
7 in touch with our ports, and how are we
8 dealing with our maritime.
9 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: The
10 longshoremen issue that was last week? Yeah,
11 I was made aware of it after it happened,
12 actually, and was made aware of it when it
13 ended. But it wasn't really a -- I would say
14 a counterterrorism issue per se. So even
15 though our analysts track all open-source
16 intel about all different things, the ports
17 being one of those areas, I don't think we
18 received any previous Intel that this was
19 coming.
20 SENATOR GOLDEN: But we are in touch
21 with maritime? If there's a ship coming in,
22 we have problems with the ship, or a cruise
23 ship or a tanker?
24 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: We have
155
1 analysts that brief monthly at the ports who
2 are very familiar with shipping industries
3 and the Coast Guard and all the partners that
4 certainly are involved in various ports
5 around the state.
6 SENATOR GOLDEN: Thank you.
7 The Superstorm Sandy -- which again,
8 you did an outstanding job -- but again,
9 we're in our fourth year and there are still
10 thousands of people that are still not in
11 their homes and still waiting to get their
12 homes razed, and there's still a whole lot
13 that has to be done and hardening of our
14 arteries. And you've explained to us and
15 expressed to us how to fund it and gotten
16 money out from the federal government and
17 from the state government into the city and
18 state and Long Island. Is there anything
19 that's not -- are there any obstacles in your
20 way of not getting that money out? Is there
21 anything that's not giving you the
22 opportunity to let that money flow more
23 freely?
24 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: I would have
156
1 to say no, Senator. We had over 12,000
2 contracts for public assistance -- repairing
3 bridges and tunnels and roadways and things
4 like that -- and we're current on all 12,000.
5 The issue with some of those funding
6 problems is the work has to be done first.
7 The municipality has to pay for the work.
8 Once that municipality pays, we reimburse
9 through the federal government. So it's
10 not -- we just can't give the money up-front
11 and say okay, go do your project. It has to
12 be done, the work has to be completed, it has
13 to be inspected, it has to be paid, and then
14 we reimburse.
15 And we are current on all those
16 contracts. We don't have any outstanding
17 bills as far as I know.
18 SENATOR GOLDEN: So you're working
19 closely with the Army Corps of Engineers and
20 in certain areas where we need dredging to be
21 able to get our police boats, our fire boats
22 in and out of -- and get them operable when
23 needed, you're on top of all of that?
24 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: I believe so,
157
1 Senator. That's probably those HMGP grants
2 that aren't really targeted at individuals or
3 communities. They're large-scale projects.
4 For example, they're -- one of the projects
5 is bridge scour projects for 106 bridges
6 across the state. There's projects like that
7 that HMGP money goes for that just take a
8 long time to complete. And we pay as the
9 bills come in. So, you know, those 12,000
10 contracts that we have open, we are current
11 on, but they just take a long time to get to
12 the end.
13 SENATOR GOLDEN: I have a town hall
14 coming up in Garrison Beach, Manhattan Beach
15 and Sheepshead Bay in the Brooklyn area in
16 the City of New York. I may ask somebody
17 from your office to attend. It's coming up
18 on March 1st, March 2nd. So if I can get
19 somebody to attend, I would appreciate it.
20 Because I'm going to have both -- not only
21 the homes and the people that are affected by
22 Build It Back and by other streams of funds
23 that are being made available for the
24 building and rebuilding of these homes, but
158
1 also they're going to have people there from
2 the hardening of the arteries in and around
3 those areas, to make sure that that water
4 doesn't come in and hit them again.
5 So if you can, I'd appreciate somebody
6 from your office at that, if I can. I'll
7 send a memo to your office.
8 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: We'll
9 certainly look forward to that, Senator.
10 SENATOR GOLDEN: The settlement funds,
11 are you guys getting any of the settlement
12 funds that the -- coming in from the Attorney
13 General and other areas? Is Homeland
14 Security getting any of that at all?
15 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Settlement
16 funds? I'm not familiar with that.
17 SENATOR GOLDEN: Settlement funds from
18 the different settlements that the Attorney
19 General has made or others have made with
20 financial institutions of wrongdoing, where
21 we see billions of dollars coming into the
22 State of New York. Are you getting any of
23 those funds coming into your organization?
24 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Those funds
159
1 don't get channeled through us.
2 SENATOR GOLDEN: They don't get
3 channeled at all. Last question, or last
4 series of questions.
5 The interoperability, how long is this
6 going to take? I know that it's a tough
7 question, but I've still got the Port
8 Authority in one area and I still got NYPD in
9 another area. And we know the 9/11 was
10 Port Authority. So we want to make sure
11 we're on top of that in the city, and for the
12 state. If you can -- I know it's a leap
13 here, but if you can give us some timeline as
14 to when this interoperability is going to be
15 in effect across the State of New York or,
16 more so, when it's going to be effective with
17 Port Authority and NYPD, I would greatly
18 appreciate it.
19 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Hey, I
20 understand the issue, Senator. And I'm no
21 radio geek, so that's a hard thing for me to
22 say. I asked the same question when I came
23 to the agency: How long is this going to
24 take? We keep throwing money, money, money
160
1 at this. You know, $228 million, I think, to
2 the counties to get this done.
3 It's a hard problem. You'll probably
4 hear from the superintendent later this
5 afternoon about the issues maybe they had in
6 Dannemora with radio interoperability. And
7 we sent people up there to assist with that.
8 We're close. We're throwing another
9 $75 million at this problem this year to the
10 counties to take care of this.
11 We're trying to fill gaps now. We're
12 almost there. I would say our goal is to be
13 interoperable statewide by the end of 2017.
14 But New York's a big state, it's got a lot of
15 topography issues, a lot of -- it's just a
16 hard issue to finish. But we're almost
17 there.
18 SENATOR GOLDEN: My time is up. If
19 you could let me know when Port Authority --
20 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Yes, it is.
21 SENATOR GOLDEN: -- NYPD is going to.
22 If you can get a memo to my office on Port
23 Authority and NYPD. I would appreciate it.
24 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: We will do
161
1 that, Senator.
2 SENATOR GOLDEN: Thank you very much.
3 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you, Senator
4 Golden.
5 SENATOR GOLDEN: You're quite welcome,
6 Madam Chair.
7 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Assembly?
8 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS: I think we're done.
9 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Senator Bonacic.
10 SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you,
11 Commissioner. I think you're doing a
12 terrific job since you've taken on this
13 responsibility.
14 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Thank you,
15 Senator.
16 SENATOR BONACIC: Especially
17 outstanding when it comes to natural
18 disasters -- floods, fire, Sandy. And
19 dealing with us, as Senator Golden said.
20 But I want to talk about terrorism.
21 Terrorism has now moved up to maybe the top
22 two things that are on Americans' minds, that
23 we want to be safe in America. And I myself,
24 a little upset when I hear the Governor say
162
1 that terrorist attacks on America is the new
2 normal. If we're the greatest country in the
3 world, we should never have the mindset of
4 terrorist attacks on the homeland being
5 normal. It's a crisis. Okay?
6 And I know you don't walk on water,
7 and I know many of these things that are
8 happening are beyond your control. But my
9 view of this -- and I'm not a dramatist -- I
10 think there is a clear and present danger to
11 New York and America. New York especially
12 has the biggest bull's-eye of all the states
13 in America. And how we handle the Syrian
14 crisis, with refugees, how we handle
15 deportation for visas that have expired, how
16 we handle our borders, how we handle
17 immigration issues -- when are we going to
18 stop gutting the military? -- all of these
19 factors are happening, challenges, because of
20 a failure of leadership in Washington.
21 So I wanted just to say that. And I
22 know that may not be within your province.
23 But Senator Croci, Senator Nozzolio and I
24 have talked about -- at length about this
163
1 cybersecurity. Now, we've seen a pattern
2 over the last few years. We see the Chinese
3 hacking our military secrets. We see them
4 hacking the IRS. We see them hacking Hillary
5 Clinton's personal server that has national
6 security issues.
7 So I just think -- and this has gone
8 on for a while. I think they're sleeping at
9 the switch, some of these people in
10 Washington. There's a loss of confidence, in
11 my mind. This is only me speaking.
12 So I would suggest to you, if it's
13 within your power in working with the
14 Governor, to come up with a budget on how we
15 can do more cybersecurity in the State of
16 New York, to give you more resources so you
17 don't have to depend on what other
18 bureaucracies and what other people are
19 doing, because I see us as having the biggest
20 bull's-eye in New York.
21 So if it's within your power, I would
22 certainly be supportive of more money for
23 homeland security -- on cybersecurity,
24 in-house, under your leadership and whatever
164
1 agencies you need to make us the best that we
2 can be.
3 And for the law enforcement that we
4 have in New York and in this country, I think
5 they have the most challenges in the world
6 and they're doing the best job that they can
7 with all that's facing them. And we're so
8 grateful for the work that they do.
9 Thank you, Commissioner.
10 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: I agree.
11 Thank you, Senator.
12 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you very
13 much, Senator Bonacic.
14 Our next speaker is Senator Squadron.
15 SENATOR SQUADRON: Thank you very
16 much, Madam Chair.
17 Thank you, Commissioner, for the work
18 you do and the testimony you're providing.
19 So as we look at a growing mandate,
20 for the reasons we've heard and so many
21 others, speak just briefly to something I've
22 worked with the department on going back many
23 years, to the coordination especially with
24 New York City -- which as we know is a
165
1 central target, has been centrally impacted
2 by Sandy and other severe emergencies, and
3 has in its NYPD one of the great
4 counterterrorism programs in the nation, and
5 in its own Office of Emergency Management a
6 very, very sophisticated emergency response
7 system. How is that coordination with the
8 City of New York going?
9 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Excellent.
10 SENATOR SQUADRON: Great. So that's
11 true vis-a-vis NYPD?
12 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Yes, it is. I
13 meet with Chief Waters regularly, the chief
14 of counterterrorism. Superintendent D'Amico
15 of the State Police and I are good friends,
16 we converse often about those types of
17 issues. And the cooperation between the
18 Office of Emergency Management in New York
19 City, the Police Department, and us is
20 outstanding.
21 SENATOR SQUADRON: Great. And the
22 office of Fire Protection and the FDNY?
23 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Perfect.
24 SENATOR SQUADRON: Excellent. I
166
1 passed a bill a number of years ago that
2 produced a report about some of the real
3 dangers to residents in New York City and
4 FDNY due to the fact that state buildings,
5 buildings under the state code in New York
6 City are not covered by the city building
7 code, historically did not have shared
8 building plans, which meant that tragically,
9 in my district, when FDNY went to respond to
10 a fire at 130 Liberty Street at the World
11 Trade Center site, they didn't have the same
12 plans on file they would for another
13 high-rise fire, and in that case leading to
14 truly tragic circumstances.
15 There had been a plan to embed State
16 Office of Fire Protection personnel with FDNY
17 in their emergency response so that it was
18 much easier to coordinate that information
19 up-front and make sure that we weren't
20 putting FDNY personnel at risk and were
21 ensuring the kind of safety we have in state
22 buildings in city buildings.
23 Is that program still continuing? And
24 what confidence can we have that FDNY is
167
1 going to have the same information going into
2 a building under state jurisdiction as it
3 does every other building in the city?
4 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Can you just
5 provide some context as far as a date for
6 that, Senator? Because I've only been here a
7 year, and I don't know if that goes way back
8 or --
9 SENATOR SQUADRON: Sure, of course.
10 Yeah, that report I believe came out in 2012.
11 And then through 2012 and '13 and into the
12 beginning of 2014, we worked with
13 then-Commissioner Cassano and Hauer on this
14 quite extensively.
15 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Okay. I'm
16 going to have to get back to you, if that's
17 okay, Senator. I know there was some issue
18 about state buildings in the city and it was
19 a legal issue that our legal team was looking
20 at. I don't know if it's the same issue that
21 you're referring to -- it may be. But I
22 don't have an answer for you.
23 SENATOR SQUADRON: Okay. Well, this
24 is a critically important issue. We need a
168
1 path to a solution here. And we can't, you
2 know, rely on sort of the status quo or on,
3 you know, bureaucratic attempts to hold on to
4 one role or the other.
5 The fact is building plans are
6 available to FDNY when they get an emergency
7 in every building in the city unless it's not
8 under city jurisdiction, which means all the
9 state buildings, the Port Authority
10 buildings, the buildings at the World Trade
11 Center site are not automatically shared in
12 that way.
13 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Okay.
14 SENATOR SQUADRON: Further, some of
15 the roles and the consistency between the
16 roles and the processes for how you create
17 safe buildings or fire-safe buildings are not
18 the same. And therefore, it can create
19 concerns and risks both for the users of
20 those buildings and for emergency personnel
21 who are responding.
22 This is something that has to be
23 better coordinated than it has been in the
24 past. We started that process, and it sounds
169
1 like -- and thank you for your sort of
2 straightforwardness in this answer -- it's
3 not clear that process has been completed in
4 a way that's sufficient. So I would love a
5 report on where that is and why it is that we
6 can have more comfort now than a half-decade
7 ago when tragic consequences ensued and
8 firefighters lost their lives at 130 Liberty
9 Street related to this issue.
10 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Yeah, don't
11 misunderstand me, Senator; I don't know if
12 that issue has been resolved. I do know that
13 we have a wonderful working relationship
14 between our Office of Fire Prevention and
15 Control and the FDNY. I would assume that if
16 it was some critical issue, as you described,
17 I would be aware of it. I really haven't
18 heard -- I know there was an issue about
19 building inspections or something --
20 SENATOR SQUADRON: Exactly.
21 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: -- but it
22 hadn't risen to the level of really a
23 critical problem that I certainly would hope
24 that I would be aware of.
170
1 So it may be solved, it may be done,
2 but I guarantee I'll get back to you.
3 SENATOR SQUADRON: I mean, one of the
4 issues is this long-standing problem folks
5 have gotten used to -- which doesn't mean
6 it's not a problem but sometimes it doesn't
7 rise to the level of an alarm bell being
8 rung. It's smoldering as opposed to sort of,
9 you know, really burning out of control right
10 now. But let's stop it while it's
11 smoldering.
12 So I'll look forward to some feedback
13 and follow-up on where we are with that issue
14 over the next couple of weeks. Thank you so
15 much.
16 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: As do I.
17 Thank you.
18 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you very
19 much. Senator Krueger.
20 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you very much.
21 And thank you for your excellent work.
22 A number of my colleagues were
23 discussing their support for even more money
24 for your agency. My question actually is,
171
1 your agency is receiving $600 million
2 additional in federal revenue this year
3 compared to last year. So last year you had
4 $653,774,000 in federal special revenue; this
5 year it increases by $600 million.
6 Where is all this money going in the
7 current budget?
8 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: That
9 $600 million increase in Aid to Localities,
10 Senator, is really just an appropriation, in
11 case we need to pass federal funds through
12 for a future disaster, that we have the
13 ability and the appropriation to do that.
14 We don't have any plans to use that
15 money. I hope we don't.
16 SENATOR KRUEGER: So it's a cash
17 infusion from the feds or a line of credit,
18 that if something happens, we can make
19 requests for certain categories of things?
20 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: The latter, is
21 my understanding.
22 SENATOR KRUEGER: Okay. Can you talk
23 a little bit about how you used last year's
24 $653 million, or is that also still just a
172
1 line of credit that we drew down some of but
2 not all of?
3 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: That is
4 correct. And this is just increasing that
5 $600 million in case we need to use it.
6 SENATOR KRUEGER: Did we use any of
7 that $653 million from the fiscal year that's
8 closing?
9 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: We did not
10 have a federally declared disaster in all of
11 2015. I'm taking credit for that. But --
12 (Laughter.)
13 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: So I'm going
14 to say no, Senator. But as much as I'm not a
15 radio geek, I'm really not a budget person
16 either. But I -- that's my understanding.
17 SENATOR KRUEGER: And do you know, is
18 there a specific set of language somewhere,
19 and perhaps that you could get us, that
20 explains under what circumstances we can draw
21 that money down?
22 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Certainly.
23 SENATOR KRUEGER: I would appreciate
24 that.
173
1 And do you have any understanding of
2 whether, if we don't spend it by some date,
3 do we not have access to it?
4 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: I think it
5 just gets -- my understanding -- and again,
6 take it from where it's coming from -- is
7 that it would have to be reappropriated next
8 year. But I'm not sure.
9 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you very much.
10 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you,
11 Commissioner. By the way, good work on not
12 tapping that fund, so keep it up.
13 I want to just quickly ask, to follow
14 up on Senator Krueger's question, so
15 generally that fund would be used, for
16 example, for FEMA disasters or some kind of
17 terrorism attack, is that basically it?
18 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: If we had a
19 flood, if we had a hurricane, if we had a
20 tornado, that type of disaster, we would be
21 able to appropriate those funds. Because the
22 Legislature had said it was okay to do that.
23 And that money would come to us
24 through FEMA or DHS.
174
1 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Correct. Thank
2 you.
3 Our final speaker, to wrap up, is
4 Senator Croci.
5 SENATOR CROCI: Well, thank you, Madam
6 Chair, for the opportunity to ask a couple of
7 follow-up questions, Commissioner. And I
8 appreciate your patience here today with us.
9 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: My pleasure.
10 SENATOR CROCI: We touched on a little
11 about the Governor's statement about a "new
12 normal." My colleague brought that out. And
13 I think Commissioner Kelly, Ray Kelly, is one
14 of those individuals who helped redefine what
15 our actions needed to be, particularly in
16 New York City, in the wake of the attacks in
17 the early '90s on Lower Manhattan, but also
18 specifically after September 11th and the
19 kind of counterterrorism unit and capability
20 that the NYPD built.
21 So I'm very interested in having the
22 opportunity, perhaps the Legislature to see
23 that report. Given his expertise and his
24 national recognition, it would be very
175
1 interesting to see that.
2 But I am curious -- you have a direct
3 one-on-one relationship with the head of
4 counterterrorism at the NYPD. And I'm just
5 curious, why we would take away statutory
6 language that puts you in charge of
7 counterterrorism in the State of New York by
8 taking that title away, along with bodies, if
9 you are the individual who has relationships
10 in counterterrorism. That's a question that
11 I had, if you had any follow-up answer.
12 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Sure. I don't
13 view this transfer of the analysts from my
14 division to the Division of State Police as
15 anything more than getting them in line to
16 streamline their intel to the people who need
17 it first, and then we'll get it.
18 I don't think that I will not be
19 considered a counterterrorism person anymore.
20 I mean, I'll still have those relationships,
21 I'll still have different functions with
22 respect to counterterrorism in the Division
23 of Homeland Security and Emergency Services,
24 just not the intel and analysis report.
176
1 SENATOR CROCI: So why take that
2 statutory responsibility away from you, then,
3 counterterrorism, by changing that language
4 in the statute as proposed here?
5 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Are you
6 referring to the analysts?
7 SENATOR CROCI: Well, but it also --
8 there's a deletion of the term
9 "counterterrorism." So I was just wondering
10 if that's something that you had a thought
11 on.
12 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: My impression,
13 Senator, is that it's just the analysts
14 moving over and that all other
15 counterterrorism responsibilities lie with
16 the Division of Homeland Security and
17 Emergency Services, the ones that we have
18 now.
19 I remain, again, the homeland security
20 advisor to the Governor and the contact for
21 the Department of Homeland Security in
22 Washington. And I really don't think it's
23 going to change anything other than make it a
24 little clearer for the analysts to get their
177
1 information to the people that need it first,
2 and then we'll get it. And so will everybody
3 else.
4 SENATOR CROCI: Touching on what
5 Senator Nozzolio mentioned about the transfer
6 of cybersecurity responsibilities to ITS and
7 then, two years later now, a proposal to take
8 counterterrorism and certain bodies out of
9 that pool, I think it's a conversation that
10 we'll have to continue to have. I'm
11 concerned at the deemphasis of it because I
12 believe at the executive level, the lessons
13 of 9/11 and the "new normal" have suggested
14 that we need to continually augment that and
15 we need to continually highlight that from
16 the executive level. And that I would want
17 any executive, but particularly the Governor
18 of this state and his staff, to be getting
19 the most timely and accurate intelligence
20 possible so that good decisions could be made
21 and good policies could be passed to protect
22 New Yorkers.
23 My last statement was just that I
24 really -- I do believe that you have, in the
178
1 year, been able to work well with the
2 Legislature. These are very complicated
3 issues. I share my colleagues' concerns that
4 we're out of time with regard to attacks.
5 And if Paris and San Bernardino and going
6 back to the attacks in the Boston Marathon
7 and others, if that isn't indicative of
8 what's coming -- it's an inevitability that I
9 hate to concede, and I'm sure every New
10 Yorker hates to concede. But I believe that
11 there are things we can do, there are
12 prevention preparedness moves that we can
13 make in the State of New York, legislative
14 and others.
15 It does take us out of our normal
16 comfort zone, and that's the new normal, that
17 we have to take actions we ordinarily
18 wouldn't as a Legislature, and look at laws
19 and administrative controls for the Governor
20 and authorities that we wouldn't ordinarily.
21 So I'm concerned about what's coming
22 for us, certainly. I heed the message of the
23 director of the FBI, who has since last year
24 asked state and local governments to look at
179
1 this in a new light and to come up with
2 innovative ways to assist our federal
3 partners. And I just don't want to
4 deemphasize that in statute, I don't want to
5 deemphasize that in our administrative rules,
6 and I would hope that we could continue to
7 work together with the Governor's office to
8 make sure that we're doing everything we can
9 to protect New Yorkers. We have no higher
10 priority. We have no more solemn duties than
11 the security of our state and the residents
12 of New York.
13 So thank you, and I look forward to
14 working with you in the future.
15 Thank you, Madam Chair.
16 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you, Chairman
17 Croci.
18 Commissioner, we truly appreciate your
19 participation today and for being so patient
20 and sticking with us as we had our questions
21 asked and answered. So thank you for that.
22 And our next speaker is Executive
23 Deputy Commissioner Michael C. Green --
24 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Thank you.
180
1 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.
2 -- New York State Division of Criminal
3 Justice Services.
4 (Pause.)
5 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Could I have your
6 attention, please. Thank you.
7 Executive Deputy Commissioner Green,
8 welcome. We're glad to have you here. We
9 look forward to your testimony.
10 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Thank
11 you.
12 Good afternoon, Chairwoman Young,
13 Chairman Farrell, and distinguished members
14 of the Legislature. I'm Mike Green, head of
15 the Division of Criminal Justice Services,
16 and I appreciate you having me here today.
17 Governor Cuomo's proposed budget for
18 fiscal year 2016-2017 will allow DCJS to
19 support the criminal justice system in
20 communities across our state, expand the use
21 of evidence-based programs proven to be
22 effective and cost-efficient, and continue
23 the development of innovative programs that
24 position New York as a national leader in
181
1 effective public safety policy.
2 New York continues to experience
3 reductions in crime and prison population.
4 Reported crime reached an all-time low in
5 2014, and that year we maintained our
6 standing as the safest large state in the
7 nation. New York also has the lowest
8 imprisonment rate of any large state.
9 Statewide crime data is not yet
10 available for 2015, but preliminary trends
11 indicate that crime continued to decline last
12 year. And we will have better numbers by
13 mid-spring.
14 In addition to reintroducing
15 legislation to raise the age of criminal
16 responsibility, the Governor has proposed a
17 range of other reforms to enhance the
18 fairness and effectiveness of our criminal
19 justice system and build trust between law
20 enforcement agencies and communities.
21 In his Built to Lead agenda, Governor
22 Cuomo advocates for legislation requiring
23 recording of interrogations in serious cases,
24 and reforming identification procedures, to
182
1 bring New York in line with 49 other states
2 that allow photo-array identifications into
3 evidence at trial.
4 Law enforcement agencies have embraced
5 recording, and we have already provided
6 approximately $3 million for them to purchase
7 and install the technology. DCJS plans to
8 announce additional funding this year.
9 The Innocence Project and the District
10 Attorneys' Association support these
11 concepts; it's time they became law.
12 The Governor also is committed to
13 reforming New York's bail statute. New York
14 is one of only four states that prohibit
15 judges from considering risk to public safety
16 as a factor when setting bail. A commonsense
17 amendment will allow judges to consider that
18 risk when setting bail or allowing release
19 and permit them to use proven risk
20 assessments to aid in pre-trial release
21 decisions. Other jurisdictions have
22 successfully implemented the use of risk
23 assessments, which has resulted in fewer
24 individuals being detained pre-trial as well
183
1 as increased public safety.
2 Through the Pew-MacArthur Results
3 First Initiative, DCJS has strengthened the
4 state's community-based alternative to
5 incarceration network, funding programs that
6 are effective in reducing recidivism and
7 cost-efficient. We are training ATI
8 providers, in addition to implementing a
9 fidelity and evaluation system to ensure the
10 programs we fund are delivered as designed.
11 New York's ATI realignment work has
12 been touted by Pew-MacArthur in a recently
13 published case study as a best practice for
14 other states to follow to reduce recidivism
15 and maximize taxpayer dollars.
16 The Governor's budget invests nearly
17 $26.2 million through DCJS in programming
18 that reduces incarceration and recidivism.
19 That figure includes new funding: $1 million
20 to expand the state's County Re-Entry Task
21 Forces to include new task forces in Queens
22 and increase the capacity of existing county
23 task forces; and $1 million to create new
24 defendant screening and assessment programs
184
1 in jurisdictions outside New York City.
2 In its second year, New York's Gun
3 Involved Violence Elimination initiative, or
4 GIVE, supports the use of proven strategies
5 to reduce shootings and save lives. GIVE
6 targets the 17 counties that collectively
7 report 87 percent of the violent crime
8 outside of New York City. GIVE provides
9 police departments and their county law
10 enforcement partners $13.3 million in
11 funding, in addition to training and
12 technical assistance from national experts to
13 help implement programs proven to be
14 effective.
15 New York is unique among states in its
16 commitment to funding only evidence-based
17 work through GIVE. The initiative's emphasis
18 on procedural justice -- which focuses on
19 ensuring that interactions between law
20 enforcement and individuals are fair, and
21 that individuals who come in contact with
22 police believe they are being treated fairly
23 and respectfully -- also sets GIVE apart.
24 More than 200 law enforcement
185
1 professionals recently attended a two-day
2 symposium to help them put procedural justice
3 into action. Research shows that positive
4 police-community relations contribute to
5 safer communities.
6 To help stem the tide of gun violence
7 that continues to claim too many lives,
8 particularly those of young men of color,
9 DCJS encourages GIVE jurisdictions to
10 implement street outreach work into their
11 strategies. We've provided additional
12 funding to support street outreach in 10 GIVE
13 jurisdictions and in the Bronx. The
14 Governor's budget proposal funds GIVE and
15 street outreach work at the same level as the
16 current budget.
17 This 2016-2017 budget proposal will
18 allow DCJS to continue supporting our local
19 partners, expanding our evidence-based work,
20 and implementing initiatives designed to
21 foster fairness, respect and transparency in
22 the state's criminal justice system.
23 I thank you for the opportunity to
24 speak with you today, and I'd be happy to
186
1 take any questions you have.
2 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you,
3 Executive Deputy Commissioner Green.
4 Our first speaker is Senator Gallivan,
5 who is chair of the Senate Crime and
6 Corrections Committee.
7 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Thank you, Madam
8 Chair.
9 Good afternoon, Commissioner.
10 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Good
11 afternoon, Senator.
12 SENATOR GALLIVAN: I have questions in
13 three different areas that is outside of the
14 testimony that you just gave us. And you may
15 not or may not be aware -- and if this is not
16 your area of responsibility, if you can point
17 me in the right direction so I can follow
18 through.
19 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:
20 Certainly.
21 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Two years ago, in
22 the 2014-2015 budget, there was language in
23 that budget to provide for a statewide law
24 enforcement records management system. And
187
1 the goal, of course, was to do a number of
2 things -- to increase the ability of law
3 enforcement agencies statewide to interact
4 with each other, streamline reporting, help
5 them provide better service in the area of
6 case management, things like that.
7 What is the status of that?
8 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I am
9 aware of the issue you're speaking about, and
10 it's an issue that involves both DCJS and the
11 New York State Police. The State Police side
12 of it -- and I'm sure the superintendent can
13 address this better than I do -- is that
14 their records management system needs to be
15 updated. The technology that it's built
16 upon, as I understand it, is on the verge of
17 becoming unsupported.
18 Basically the same records management
19 system through DCJS is offered to local law
20 enforcement agencies. At one time there were
21 well over 200 local law enforcement agencies
22 that took advantage of that offer and used
23 that as their records management system.
24 Again, that same system has the same problems
188
1 as the State Police one, in that the
2 technology was becoming unsupported two years
3 ago when that proposal was put forward.
4 That proposal was subject to the
5 approval by the Legislature of a plan
6 submitted to the Legislature by the
7 Executive. The State Police and DCJS put
8 together that plan, submitted it to the
9 Legislature, we met with legislative staff
10 repeatedly. And it's my understanding that
11 to this date there is still not legislative
12 approval for that plan.
13 What's happening on the ground, in the
14 meantime, is I have local law enforcement
15 agencies calling me literally every week
16 saying, I need a new records management
17 system, do I need to go out and buy my own
18 records management system or is this ever
19 going to happen? Just last week I received
20 an outreach from the Sheriffs Association
21 asking me the same thing. So I really
22 appreciate you raising the issue. I think it
23 is an issue that needs to be addressed
24 urgently. And we're still waiting for
189
1 approval.
2 SENATOR GALLIVAN: I was aware, I
3 think it was late last session and into the
4 summer, perhaps into the fall, I was aware
5 that there was discussions that were ongoing.
6 Has there been recent discussions over the
7 past several months, to your knowledge?
8 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I have
9 not personally heard anything from the
10 Legislature. I've met, I'd say, at least
11 three or four times with staff, we've
12 answered questions in person, we've responded
13 to all the written questions that we've
14 received. So I'm not aware of any
15 unaddressed inquiries from the Legislature to
16 DCJS.
17 SENATOR GALLIVAN: How can I find out
18 where this is, the status of it?
19 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Again,
20 to the best of my understanding -- and I have
21 been following this on a weekly basis because
22 of the inquiries and the concerns I get from
23 local law enforcement -- is that we're just
24 waiting for approval from the Legislature,
190
1 that the RFP is drafted and ready to go, the
2 RFP was provided to the Legislature. The
3 plan was drafted, it was amended a number of
4 times in response to concerns that the
5 Legislature raised. The plan was provided to
6 the Legislature.
7 So, you know, everything is done,
8 ready to go, and the RFP is waiting to go out
9 the door. And the only thing we're waiting
10 on is the legislative approval.
11 SENATOR GALLIVAN: All right, thank
12 you.
13 The next question has to do -- it does
14 have to do with the Governor's budget
15 proposal this year, but more so pointing to
16 last year. So in the last fiscal year there
17 was $60 million allocated, the category was
18 for law enforcement safety equipment. But it
19 was to include vehicles for State Police and
20 then some other equipment, bulletproof vests,
21 things of that nature.
22 There was a recent news article within
23 the past three or four weeks where a
24 spokesperson for the Governor said that that
191
1 money was contingent on the Legislature
2 reaching an agreement with the Governor on
3 last year's various criminal justice
4 proposals. I was in on many of those
5 meetings; I don't recall any time that that
6 funding was contingent when we put that
7 budget forward.
8 So this year's budget essentially
9 takes that $60 million for badly needed State
10 Police cars, for badly needed equipment and
11 the other things, and reallocates it for
12 different things. I do know that there was a
13 much smaller amount allocated for equipment,
14 I think it was $4 million or something of
15 that nature. Are you able to comment on that
16 and maybe allay our concerns that the State
17 Police does not need vehicles, does not need
18 additional equipment?
19 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: First of
20 all, you would certainly have better
21 information than I in terms of what was said
22 in the negotiating sessions. I wasn't there.
23 I am well aware of the $60 million you
24 talk about. What I can tell you is that that
192
1 money was never provided to DCJS. Originally
2 there was conversation about DCJS doing an
3 RFP or solicitation for local law
4 enforcement. I know one issue related to the
5 appropriation language. The way the language
6 was drafted, it did not give DCJS the
7 authority to pass that money through on the
8 local assistance grants. I know that the
9 Executive and DCJS provided input as to
10 language that would fix that problem, and
11 it's my understanding that language never
12 made it into the bill.
13 You know, I do know that the state
14 does invest through other sources in -- you
15 know, for example, bulletproof vests and
16 other funding sources that law enforcement
17 can use. But that $60 million has never come
18 to us for distribution.
19 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Fair enough. Where
20 can you point me to get answers?
21 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Again,
22 you know, I think there were negotiations
23 between the Executive and the Legislature.
24 And I -- you know, I know one of the things
193
1 that would need to be fixed is that
2 appropriation language.
3 SENATOR GALLIVAN: All right. Thank
4 you.
5 The last question has to do with an
6 overall small item in the State Budget, but
7 very significant for some of the local law
8 enforcement agencies that enforce the
9 navigation law. The Governor's budget calls
10 for a reduction in reimbursements to those
11 specific local agencies that provide those
12 services -- some of the Finger Lakes, Lake
13 Erie, Lake Ontario, agencies like that.
14 The budget -- the reduction was from
15 50 percent to 25 percent. In the overall
16 scheme of the State Budget, $1 million is not
17 significant. But to these local agencies,
18 it's huge. Some of them have expressed to me
19 they won't have the ability to provide the
20 enforcement of the navigation on these
21 various bodies of water.
22 How can you suggest we deal with that?
23 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Again, I
24 do not believe that that is through the DCJS
194
1 budget, because I'm not familiar with that
2 and I believe I know our budget fairly well.
3 But I can certainly look into it and get you
4 information on what budget stream that is in.
5 SENATOR GALLIVAN: All right. Thank
6 you.
7 SENATOR KRUEGER: Assembly?
8 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Yes. Assemblyman
9 Joe Lentol -- Chairman Joe Lentol.
10 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Thank you,
11 Chairman, Chairman Dennis Farrell.
12 (Laughter.)
13 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: And thank you,
14 Commissioner Green, for the work that you've
15 been doing. I've been watching you, and I
16 admire all the work that you've done in this
17 job.
18 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Thank
19 you.
20 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: I just wanted to
21 digress from some of the questions that I
22 wanted to ask you because of some of your
23 testimony, and following up on what
24 Mr. Gallivan asked. And I guess the first
195
1 thing I'm going to ask is about the cloud
2 that he discussed. And we have had and we
3 have sent letters over to you regarding some
4 issues that we'd like to resolve in order for
5 us to get on board with some legislation
6 that's needed either independently or in the
7 budget. So I'm just hoping that you'll be
8 able to meet with our staff, that your staff
9 will be able to meet with our staff to clear
10 up some of those issues.
11 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I'm
12 sorry, I missed -- you said with regard to
13 what issue?
14 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: With the cloud.
15 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I guess
16 I -- when you say cloud, I really don't know
17 what you're talking about. The issue is a
18 records management system --
19 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Yes.
20 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: -- it's
21 not a cloud.
22 So, you know, we have met every single
23 time we've been asked to meet; we've reached
24 out and asked for meetings. To my knowledge,
196
1 we've answered every single inquiry.
2 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Okay.
3 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: And I
4 will make myself available at any time going
5 forward to meet with you, your staff, or
6 anyone else from the Legislature with regard
7 to the records management system.
8 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Thank you.
9 That's all I can ask.
10 And secondly, I'm very perplexed by
11 the Governor's commitment to reforming the
12 bail statute. Because the mayor of the City
13 of New York as well -- it's not only the
14 Governor -- have proposed issues like the
15 Governor is proposing with respect to public
16 safety being required and having a statutory
17 change in order to include public safety in
18 bail reform.
19 At the same time, trying to implement
20 a program to allow people to get out, rather
21 than -- on bail, as opposed to having them
22 languish for two or three years and then
23 committing suicide like what happened in the
24 case in the Bronx.
197
1 And so I don't want to ask a long
2 question, but I know historically that -- and
3 I don't know if you were here to hear
4 Mr. O'Donnell's questions earlier --
5 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Yes, I
6 heard the questions.
7 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: -- about bail
8 reform and how we know that judges take into
9 account all of the things involving public
10 safety when they set bail.
11 So my most important concern is that
12 this will prevent the judges from letting
13 anybody out if they have a new component
14 that's added to the statute regarding risk
15 assessment or public safety. Because I don't
16 know, some of the judges that I've seen
17 aren't brave, and they might take the
18 position, well, the Legislature just passed a
19 statute that we have to take public safety in
20 mind, so why should I let anybody out who
21 comes before me? That's my question.
22 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I think
23 that's a very good question. You know, and I
24 know you've spent a great deal of time both
198
1 in and dealing with the criminal justice
2 system, as has Assemblyman O'Donnell.
3 And I think that sometimes your first
4 instinct is to say, well, if you let judges
5 consider that type of risk, we're going to
6 hold more people. You know, and certainly I
7 can admit that when I first heard the issue,
8 that was one of the things that crossed my
9 mind.
10 But I'm a firm believer in
11 evidence-based work. I think that we
12 constantly need to look at our system and see
13 how can we make it better. I think we need
14 to look at what's happening in other parts of
15 the country in terms of new practices that
16 have been studied and shown results, and see
17 what we can learn from them. And this is one
18 of the areas where I think we can learn.
19 If you look at, for example, some of
20 the work the Arnold Foundation has done where
21 you allow judges to consider that risk and at
22 the same time you provide a framework -- so
23 right now, assuming what Assemblyman
24 O'Donnell said is true -- and I certainly
199
1 can't tell what's going on in the mind of
2 judges, but, you know, I have to say that I
3 think the inference that he asked people to
4 draw is reasonable -- then you have judges
5 right now with no guidance, no legislative
6 authority, considering that risk.
7 I would argue that it's much better to
8 put it in legislation, establish guidelines,
9 and then allow judges to use evidence-based,
10 validated risk assessment instruments as a
11 tool -- not to replace their judgment, but as
12 a tool in addition to their judgment -- and
13 train judges and prosecutors and defense
14 lawyers on how to use those instruments. And
15 what the evidence has shown in the
16 jurisdictions that have done that is that you
17 actually end up holding fewer people, not
18 more people, and at the same time you have
19 fewer crimes committed by people who are
20 released because you're making better
21 decisions as a system as to who to release.
22 And, you know, to your point about
23 judges being concerned or not wanting to take
24 a risk, if you have valid risk assessment
200
1 instruments, in some cases that may give the
2 judge the cover that the judge feels he or
3 she needs to make that decision and release
4 somebody who doesn't pose a public safety
5 risk and could safely be released.
6 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Just to let you
7 know that I'm kind of a student of history,
8 because my father had been here before I was,
9 and he was here during the 1965 revision of
10 the State Penal Law, when the Republican
11 Party controlled both houses of the
12 Legislature and the Governor was a
13 Republican.
14 And at that time, the Penal Law was
15 amended by a sentencing commission, I guess,
16 or a -- I'm sorry, a law revision commission
17 that was basically headed by Mr. Bartlett,
18 Assemblyman Bartlett, who was a Republican
19 member -- I guess from Ms. Duprey's district,
20 I'm not sure, upstate New York.
21 And that commission recommended, after
22 a long arduous discussion about the issue of
23 preventative detention, that we should leave
24 it out of the Penal Law, we should put in
201
1 provisions to allow judges to make the
2 assessment based on the risk factors that
3 Mr. O'Donnell mentioned earlier about it, so
4 that a judge's hands wouldn't be tied by a
5 preventative detention statute that would
6 require them to set high bail in most every
7 case.
8 I just wanted to point that out to
9 you, because that was done in 1965 when the
10 Penal Law was revised. So ...
11 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: From the
12 question, it sounds like you have an
13 advantage and may be a little bit older than
14 I am --
15 (Laughter.)
16 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Just a little
17 bit.
18 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: But, you
19 know, I think that that's a good point, that
20 we should learn from history. But I think we
21 also have to learn from the experiences. And
22 I'm not sure that the science behind risk
23 assessment that exists today existed back
24 then when they were making that decision.
202
1 And again, if you look to
2 jurisdictions that have implemented this and
3 implemented it properly, the result is fewer
4 people being held.
5 And back to your initial statement,
6 this proposal is being put forth by the
7 Governor because of his belief that if we
8 make better decisions and we use the science
9 that's available, we can hold fewer people
10 and make the state safer.
11 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: I want to move
12 on, but I should also point out, which I
13 forgot to mention, that at the time in 1965
14 we had a crime rate that was much worse than
15 today, when that decision was made.
16 But let me move on to the independent
17 monitor. Because we talked about this last
18 year when you were here, and I don't want to
19 ask a whole host of questions. But it's hard
20 for me to understand whether this was a
21 mistake to be put back in the budget or not.
22 Because since the Governor issued an
23 executive order to allow the Attorney General
24 to act as a special prosecutor -- and an
203
1 independent monitor would have no resources
2 at all within which to work, and the Attorney
3 General would have a multitude of resources
4 to handle these cases -- why are we asking
5 again for an independent monitor and why not
6 let the Attorney General handle these cases
7 as a special prosecutor?
8 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: To
9 address your first point, it is not a mistake
10 that it was put back in. I think -- at least
11 from my position, I think the Governor made
12 clear last year that he believed that the
13 best option was the legislative option that
14 he put forward.
15 As I know you're well aware, there are
16 many very important considerations to be
17 balanced here. One of those is that every
18 county has an elected district attorney that
19 the people of that county elected to handle
20 cases like this and make decisions like this
21 in their county.
22 And a countervailing consideration is
23 public confidence in the criminal justice
24 system, which we know is critical, you know,
204
1 for a number of different reasons. One of
2 which is studies show that when public
3 confidence in the criminal justice system
4 erodes, one of the things that can follow is
5 lawlessness and higher crime rates.
6 So in balancing those things, the
7 Governor put forth a proposal that would not
8 automatically take away the district
9 attorney's ability to handle cases but would
10 put a provision in place when the district
11 attorney either did not go to the grand jury
12 within a reasonable time on the case or the
13 grand jury issued no bill, to have an
14 independent monitor come in, review the facts
15 of the case, review the grand jury
16 proceedings and make a report to the
17 Governor, so when the Governor exercised his
18 or her powers in terms of whether or not to
19 appoint a special prosecutor, it would be
20 made based on solid information about the
21 facts and circumstances of that particular
22 case. And if the Governor felt that there
23 was an injustice or that there was new
24 evidence, the Governor could appoint a
205
1 special prosecutor.
2 And I don't agree with your assessment
3 that there would be no resources, because I
4 think that it is envisioned under their
5 proposal that both the independent monitor
6 and, if necessary, the special prosecutor
7 would have the resources necessary.
8 Now, last year the Governor made clear
9 that that was his preference, but that if it
10 didn't pass, he felt something had to be
11 done. And when nothing was passed, he felt
12 something needed to be done, he signed the
13 executive order.
14 We're obviously in a different
15 position this year. You know, now there's an
16 executive order in place. But that doesn't
17 change the fact that the Executive feels that
18 the best path forward is a path that creates
19 that balance between those two very important
20 considerations. And I believe that that is
21 the reason why this legislation is put back
22 in again in the Governor's Article VII
23 budget.
24 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: I listened very
206
1 carefully to the Governor at his State of the
2 State message, and I thought I heard him
3 say -- and maybe I'm mistaken, because you
4 said I'm getting older; my hearing may be
5 getting bad. But I thought the Governor said
6 that he was asking for not an independent
7 monitor but passage of the Keith Wright bill
8 to make permanent a grand jury -- I'm sorry,
9 a special prosecutor in the Attorney
10 General's office to prosecute these cases and
11 investigate whether or not an additional
12 prosecution is necessary.
13 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I was
14 sitting much farther back than you were, so I
15 might not have heard right either. But my
16 comments are based on the language of the
17 Article VII bill that was submitted. And I
18 believe what I have just indicated in my
19 comments is consistent with the language
20 that's in that Article VII bill.
21 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Okay.
22 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: You're at zero now.
23 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: I'm at zero, so
24 I'll turn my time over to the next speaker.
207
1 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.
2 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Thank you very
3 much.
4 SENATOR KRUEGER: Our next speaker is
5 Senator Mike Nozzolio.
6 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you very
7 much.
8 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Good
9 afternoon.
10 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. DCJS
11 Commissioner, former district attorney and
12 good friend. How are you, Mike?
13 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Good,
14 thank you.
15 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Senator Funke and
16 Senator Akshar may be talking about other
17 issues regarding parole, and I want to put
18 you on notice in this forum that we are very
19 concerned with -- by we, those of us in the
20 Senate -- as we review the budget, in terms
21 of the allocation of resources for parole. I
22 know that's not directly within your purview,
23 but certainly we will be probing that with
24 Acting Commissioner Annucci and others.
208
1 But I wanted you to know that that's a
2 big concern of ours, and particularly in
3 Western New York. The supervision and the
4 problems we've had with the caseload of
5 parole officers as well as the results of
6 very tragic incidents occurring in your
7 hometown over the last few years regarding
8 those who are out on parole and committing
9 very violent crimes soon after their
10 discharge. So putting you on notice of that,
11 Mike.
12 Again in your region, but this is --
13 we're finding this happening throughout the
14 state, is the scourge of heroin. It's a
15 scourge, it's a deeply rooted problem that is
16 no longer isolated in the inner cities but
17 expanding well into the suburbs and rural
18 areas.
19 Just as an aside, the sheriff of
20 Seneca County had a forum late last fall, and
21 it was discussed how those traveling from the
22 Central Finger Lakes, going to Rochester and
23 Syracuse to buy their supplies, and then
24 coming home, a round trip of 80 to 100 miles
209
1 and actually distributing, as dealers of
2 heroin, and having a market in the Central
3 Finger Lakes, which never existed before.
4 But you travel the Thruway, we travel
5 the Thruway. Just think of those who are
6 high on heroin going back and forth to their
7 places of obtaining supplies and being high
8 on the road -- in fact, inebriated, under the
9 influence. And that just is nonetheless a
10 very disturbing situation.
11 What is DCJS doing, your agency, to
12 stem the heroin epidemic and to address the
13 heroin epidemic in our state?
14 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: That's a
15 very good question. You know, and I
16 certainly agree with you that heroin is a
17 very serious problem. One thing I'd say to
18 preface my remarks, as you noted, I was a
19 prosecutor, I spent 25 years in the DA's
20 office, the last eight years as the DA. And
21 I can't tell you how many wiretap
22 applications I signed on drug cases, how many
23 search warrants, you know, how many thousands
24 of drug dealers were prosecuted and, you
210
1 know, God knows how many pounds of heroin and
2 coke and whatever else. And none of it made
3 the drug problem go away.
4 So, you know, when we think about this
5 problem, I think we need to think about it
6 from more than just a law enforcement
7 perspective. You know, if all we do is
8 figure out how to arrest people and how to
9 confiscate drugs, we're on a never-ending
10 treadmill and we'll just keep doing that with
11 no change.
12 So, you know, a huge part of the
13 equation has to be on the treatment side.
14 And I, in my remarks, briefly talked about
15 how we are bringing evidence-based practices
16 to the support of the funding that we do, to
17 make sure that the money that we provide to
18 Alternative to Incarceration programs -- so
19 when people come into the criminal justice
20 system, need help and get referred to help,
21 the help that they're getting is effective
22 help that's done by agencies that are running
23 in a way that is designed to make sure that
24 they get effective treatment and don't keep
211
1 cycling through the system. So that's one
2 area that we're working in.
3 We've also been very active in terms
4 of Naloxone, working with a number of other
5 state agencies. We've been engaged in a
6 program for about two years now to train and
7 provide law enforcement officers across the
8 state with Naloxone. So far, over 8,000
9 officers have been trained as part of that
10 program, including about 2,500 trainers under
11 the Train the Trainer model. They've
12 administered Naloxone about a thousand times.
13 Over 900 of those 1,000 administrations have
14 resulted in saves.
15 In addition, we've provided funding
16 and do provide funding to the special
17 narcotics prosecutor, to district attorney's
18 offices across the state, some of which is
19 used for the prosecution of drug cases. And
20 then through our work with crime analysis
21 centers, we provide resources to local law
22 enforcement on the crime analysis side to
23 help fight this. So those are some of our
24 efforts. I'd be happy if you want to follow
212
1 up.
2 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Is there any area
3 of the state that is doing better than -- is
4 establishing better successes than maybe
5 other areas of the state?
6 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I travel
7 the entire state from, you know, the North
8 Country to Buffalo to Long Island and
9 everywhere in between. And I -- you know, I
10 consistently hear that this is an issue. I
11 couldn't point to one area and say they've
12 got it figured out.
13 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Well, please --
14 there are many -- in our conference and all
15 across the Legislature, they're deeply
16 concerned about this issue. And your
17 suggestions and guidance in the future will
18 be very helpful as we try to appropriately
19 provide legislative solutions.
20 And I must say the task force that a
21 number of members have served on, the Heroin
22 Task Force, has not just relied on the
23 traditional law enforcement measures. We
24 agree with you that treatment is paramount to
213
1 ever finalizing and reducing the demand.
2 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I
3 certainly share your concern, appreciate it,
4 and would look forward to working with you on
5 this very important issue. And I also wanted
6 to thank you for your service as a Senator,
7 too.
8 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you, Madam
9 Chair.
10 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you, Senator.
11 Assembly?
12 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Assemblyman Graft
13 {sic}.
14 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: Thank you, Denny.
15 You can leave off the T, though.
16 (Laughter.)
17 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: I'll take it off if
18 I find it.
19 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: Okay, a few
20 questions. Going back to the police vests.
21 Now, the report that I read was that, you
22 know, we had money allocated to upgrade vests
23 for police officers. And the Governor didn't
24 get his whole package, and he basically took
214
1 his ball and went home. And he gave the
2 money to the DOT. That's the report that I
3 had. Right?
4 So I don't know if the plows need
5 Kevlar, that the snowmen are shooting at
6 them, but I don't appreciate the Governor
7 sitting there and playing politics with the
8 lives of hardworking police officers. And
9 now I look at this reform package that the
10 Governor has, and he's just jumping on the
11 anti-cop bandwagon again.
12 As far as special counsel, now, you
13 know the grand jury proceedings have been
14 secret, and there's a reason that they're
15 secret, for -- you know, from the inception.
16 And I'm reading through this stuff. And if
17 I'm not mistaken -- and you can correct me if
18 I'm wrong -- most of this stuff here says
19 they're allowing the DA to turn over a report
20 if they don't indict. Is that correct? It
21 allows them to.
22 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:
23 Basically the provision would allow the
24 district attorney to either do a report or
215
1 write a letter to make information available
2 to the public explaining why the case
3 resulted the way it did.
4 And I can tell you, you know, I first
5 of all spent my entire career trying to
6 support law enforcement, and I strongly
7 disagree with your characterization. But
8 secondly, I personally have been in a
9 position where I have presented high-profile
10 cases to the grand jury where police shot
11 somebody -- and shot and killed somebody, in
12 circumstances -- and I felt like my hands
13 were unduly tied in those circumstances,
14 where I had to go out and tell the public,
15 this is what happened, and by law I'm not
16 allowed to tell you one additional word.
17 You know, I don't think anyone wants
18 to disclose names of witnesses that testified
19 or other information that would compromise
20 anybody. But to give the public just a basic
21 level of information so that there can be
22 some understanding. If the case gets
23 no-billed and the determination was that a
24 police officer was justified in doing what he
216
1 or she did, then I think it's only fair not
2 only to the public but to the police officer
3 that the community have some understanding of
4 why that happened so that they don't have
5 this notion in their head that there was some
6 kind of fix that happened and it was a bad
7 result.
8 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: You know, we have
9 duly elected DAs, and that's their job to
10 make this decision whether they're going to
11 indict or not. And this just looks to me,
12 for political purposes, all right, to be able
13 to get another bite at the apple when it
14 comes to police officers. That's --
15 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:
16 Actually, it does not. This does not give
17 anybody another bite at the apple. This does
18 not in any way, shape or form change the law.
19 Right now, under existing law if a
20 case goes to a grand jury and the grand jury
21 no-bills, there's a provision in the law that
22 allows the district attorney or any other
23 prosecutor who's duly appointed to go to a
24 judge in that jurisdiction and seek
217
1 permission to get that case re-presented to a
2 grand jury based on either new evidence or
3 some flaw with the posterior proceeding.
4 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: But you're removing
5 that.
6 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: That
7 same rule would continue to apply. There is
8 no new bite at the apple. This simply goes
9 to who it is that will be carrying out that
10 function. Will it be the district attorney,
11 or will it be a special prosecutor? But it
12 does not create --
13 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: But wait a minute,
14 wait a minute, wait a minute --
15 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: -- a
16 second bite.
17 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: Wait a minute.
18 Now, if the special prosecutor does not like
19 the way that the DA presented the case to the
20 grand jury, right, the special prosecutor can
21 bring the case again; correct?
22 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: No.
23 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: That's the way I
24 read it.
218
1 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: First of
2 all, "does not like" is not the standard in
3 the bill. There has to be a substantial flaw
4 with what happened, or there has to be new
5 evidence.
6 And secondly, the law right now
7 requires anybody who wants to go back into a
8 grand jury after there's been a no-bill to
9 get permission from a judge. And under this
10 proposal, it simply says that there would be
11 a special prosecutor, not the DA. But it
12 does nothing to change that existing section
13 of law.
14 And that special prosecutor would
15 still have to go back in front of a judge and
16 show the judge that there was cause under the
17 existing standard to go back into grand jury
18 before he or she could do so.
19 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: Okay. And -- so
20 the way I'm reading this, a lot of this
21 allows the DA, the DA may -- correct? He
22 doesn't have to give a statement. He doesn't
23 have to write a letter.
24 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Correct.
219
1 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: He doesn't have to
2 go out there.
3 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: But if
4 the DA, like me in that situation I was in,
5 felt that it's important that the public
6 understand at a basic level what happened, it
7 gives them the ability to do that.
8 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: Okay.
9 Now, is part of this the video cameras
10 for the police officers too? Is that what
11 he's looking at, with the ones that they
12 wear?
13 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Yes,
14 that is one of the items that the Governor
15 has put forward -- not as a budget bill, but
16 in his State of the State, the Build to Lead
17 agenda book.
18 And frankly, my recollection is that
19 two years ago in his State of State, it was
20 something he talked about. I know there was
21 legislation last year that both the District
22 Attorneys Association and the Innocence
23 Project had signed off on that I believe
24 passed the Senate. And that same framework
220
1 is the framework that the Governor is
2 proposing.
3 You know, A, we're the only state in
4 the country that doesn't allow photo-array
5 identifications into evidence at trial. And
6 all of the research on this issue suggests
7 that if it's done properly, your best
8 identification is the one that's done first
9 and soonest in time to the crime, which
10 almost always is a photo-array
11 identification. And yet we keep that best
12 identification from the jury.
13 So that was half of the package. The
14 other half of the package is video recording
15 of interrogations in serious cases. And
16 again, you know, the MPTC has adopted
17 policies regarding it. Almost every major
18 police department in the state is recording.
19 You know, I can tell you, as someone
20 who tried cases, the last case I tried was a
21 case where two police officers were shot and
22 one of my best pieces of evidence was
23 3Ω hours of a recorded interview with the
24 person who was convicted of attempting to
221
1 murder those police officers.
2 You know, it's something that I think
3 almost everyone who's up on these issues in
4 law enforcement agrees we should be doing.
5 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: Yeah, I'm talking
6 about the body cams. Is that part of these
7 proposals?
8 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: No, I
9 don't believe there's legislation with regard
10 to body cameras.
11 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: Okay. Thank you.
12 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.
13 Senator Squadron.
14 SENATOR SQUADRON: Thank you very
15 much.
16 I've got a lot to cover here. I don't
17 know if you were here earlier when we had
18 that extensive conversation about speedy
19 trial or the absolute lack of speedy trials
20 in New York State.
21 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I was
22 listening to all of it.
23 SENATOR SQUADRON: I appreciate it.
24 What if any data does DCJS keep on the period
222
1 from arraignment to disposition or trial
2 delays in general?
3 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I don't
4 have it with me, but I do believe we have
5 county-by-county data on time from
6 arraignment to disposition.
7 SENATOR SQUADRON: County by county.
8 Also related to charge levels -- felony, A
9 and B misdemeanors -- to sort of track the
10 ready for trial statute?
11 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I'd have
12 to check and see how far it's broken down.
13 But I can certainly find out and get back to
14 you on that.
15 SENATOR SQUADRON: Great. And then
16 sort of taking off the data hat and putting
17 on the policy hat, what do you think DCJS can
18 do to help solve this crisis?
19 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I think
20 that it's mainly an issue within OCA. You
21 know, our role -- you know, we provide
22 support, provide funding to prosecutors. We
23 provide a very small amount of aid to
24 defense. It's mainly the Office of Indigent
223
1 Legal Services that does that.
2 So I think our role is minor. I do
3 agree with you that it's a very important
4 issue. You know, when we talk about things
5 like the number of people being held in
6 jails, you know, one part of it is who's
7 going to jail, but another part of it is how
8 long are they in jail. And certainly on the
9 pretrial side it's a huge issue.
10 So, you know, I'd be happy to follow
11 up on the data piece and certainly be willing
12 to work with you, OCA, and anyone else on
13 what I think is a very important issue.
14 SENATOR SQUADRON: Great. Thank you
15 very much. We'd really like to see trends
16 especially. I mean, you know, it's something
17 that the five boroughs of New York City know
18 a lot about. We heard about it from the
19 Long Island perspective as well.
20 Speaking of reporting, the Governor
21 proposes the sort of expanded reporting for
22 summonses, et cetera, similar to last year's
23 proposal, as I understand it. Is that fair
24 to say?
224
1 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Yes.
2 Basically right now we get fingerprintable
3 offenses and we can do all kinds of reports
4 or data with regard to fingerprintable
5 offenses. This would give us information
6 with regard to non-fingerprintable offenses.
7 SENATOR SQUADRON: Great. And last
8 year we covered that it would be sort of part
9 of a unified database with the
10 fingerprintable offenses so there would be
11 ways to sort of cut it to include
12 fingerprintable and non-fingerprintable
13 offenses in terms of how it was sort of
14 stored and analyzed.
15 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Yeah, I
16 don't want to say unified. I don't know in
17 terms of the logistics. I don't think they
18 would be combined.
19 But certainly our intention would be
20 to be able to provide the same level of data
21 with regard to those offenses that we provide
22 you now with regard to the fingerprintable
23 ones.
24 SENATOR SQUADRON: Great. And
225
1 Assemblymember Lentol and I carry a bill that
2 would do this.
3 Let me just kind of speed around here
4 for a second. Which of these factors either
5 would be authorized or required to be
6 included in the information? Obviously,
7 offenses and violations are included; right?
8 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Yes,
9 like harassment, disorderly conduct.
10 SENATOR SQUADRON: Demographics on an
11 individual's charge, race, ethnicity,
12 et cetera?
13 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Yes.
14 SENATOR SQUADRON: Whether the summons
15 or appearance ticket contained a custodial
16 arrest or not?
17 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I don't
18 know if the proposal is that specific. And
19 I'd have to check. But there may be language
20 in there that indicates that it is subject to
21 regulation by the commissioner of DCJS in
22 terms of how it gets reported.
23 SENATOR SQUADRON: Disposition?
24 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: No, I
226
1 don't believe it's disposition, because it's
2 coming -- the requirement is for the police
3 department. So I don't believe they would
4 have the disposition information.
5 SENATOR SQUADRON: And therefore not
6 sentence, either, right? Neither disposition
7 nor sentence.
8 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: No, that
9 would have to be information that would come
10 from OCA.
11 SENATOR SQUADRON: Great. And then of
12 course that could be aggregated countywide,
13 statewide, any -- regionally, et cetera?
14 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:
15 Absolutely.
16 SENATOR SQUADRON: Okay. That's
17 important. And hopefully this year we can
18 get that over the top, since knowing what
19 we're talking -- you said fact-based a number
20 of times; I couldn't agree more.
21 Speaking of which, let's talk about
22 the Arnold Foundation briefly that you
23 referenced earlier. How do you ensure that
24 sort of algorithm that goes into the
227
1 predictive score that the Arnold Foundation
2 throws out is sufficiently transparent?
3 Sure, it's showing preliminarily to do a
4 better job of having fewer people held on
5 bail and arguably or potentially lowering
6 violent crimes or violent actions among those
7 who are out in that period. But for each
8 individual case, how do we know that there's
9 a relationship between what that individual
10 has actually done in the past and the
11 likelihood that they'll be given the capacity
12 to get out on bail?
13 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I guess
14 two points I'd make.
15 First, I indicated that we believe
16 that this should be given to judges as a
17 tool. I don't think you can ever replace the
18 judgment of a judge with a tool. But I think
19 the more tools you can give a judge to help
20 them exercise that discretion so -- you know,
21 there may be a case where the risk instrument
22 says one thing but a judge, you know, given
23 his or her experience, says I can safely
24 release this person regardless of what --
228
1 because there's some factor that didn't get
2 put in here.
3 Secondly, as to the algorithm, we in
4 other settings have taken algorithms that
5 have been developed, used our research staff
6 and our DCJS data and improved on them to
7 make them New York-specific, to be as
8 tailored as they can to, you know, our
9 particular circumstances here in New York.
10 And I certainly would anticipate that
11 we do that. And I think it's got to be a
12 very transparent process. I think that in
13 creating that, you know, we need to make sure
14 everyone understands what we're doing.
15 And then the last thing I would say is
16 I mentioned training. You can't just put an
17 instrument out, throw it out there and say,
18 use it. I think it's important, if you're
19 going to do this and do it right and expect
20 to get the results that we truly do lower
21 jail populations and increase public safety,
22 everyone needs to be trained. So the judges,
23 the lawyers on both sides using this know
24 what the algorithm is, know how we came up
229
1 with it, know what it means, you know, know
2 how to use it.
3 And I think if you do all those
4 things, the evidence shows that you do get to
5 a point where you can drive down the jail
6 population and at the same time make the
7 state safer.
8 SENATOR SQUADRON: I would strongly
9 urge that anytime we're talking about these,
10 whether as part of a change in the
11 methodology as proposed by the Governor or
12 not, that we are a lot more careful about
13 telling the judges and requiring the judges
14 consider what it really means, what the
15 underlying factors are that go into that risk
16 assessment, not just -- you know, it's very
17 appealing to simplify everything and every
18 human being to a score. That actually is not
19 how the criminal justice system works. It's
20 the reason we have the criminal justice
21 system we have.
22 And to implement a score absent a
23 whole lot of requirements for due diligence
24 and understanding by the judge is likely to
230
1 cause constitutional among other problems.
2 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I
3 couldn't agree with you more.
4 SENATOR SQUADRON: Briefly, I believe
5 just a final issue on transparency. We did
6 talk about body cams before briefly. Does
7 DCJS have an opinion or a willingness to be
8 part of the solution on how we make body cam
9 footage available to the public while still
10 protecting individual privacy rights?
11 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: We
12 certainly have spent time with the issue of
13 body cameras. Specifically the issue was
14 considered by the Municipal Police Training
15 Council. We're the staff arm for that
16 council. We did a lot of research over the
17 period of about a year. The council recently
18 adopted a model policy with regard to the use
19 of body cameras which does touch on some of
20 those issues but certainly I don't think is
21 the end of the discussion.
22 But yes, you know, I think body
23 cameras clearly have a place. And I think
24 that there are a lot of issues that go along
231
1 with them that are very important issues that
2 need to be hashed out. So we'd be happy to
3 be involved.
4 SENATOR SQUADRON: They have the
5 potential to really help both law enforcement
6 and civilians who are in contact with law
7 enforcement. Frankly, I would like to see
8 some funding in here to help us devise a
9 system and a storage capacity for how that
10 becomes public and when it becomes public.
11 Because absent that, the truth is that's
12 going to hold up any kind of expansion of
13 body cameras, which I think there's
14 increasingly a consensus is something we need
15 to do. We're not going to be able to do it
16 without funding sort of the back end data
17 question. That's not an additional question
18 when it comes to this new technology, it's a
19 core question about whether the technology
20 can move forward.
21 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: No,
22 that's the cost. The cost of the cameras
23 up-front is almost nonexistent compared to
24 the data shortage and management cost.
232
1 SENATOR SQUADRON: And "management"
2 being the key word there, even more than
3 storage, probably, if the curve continues on
4 storage.
5 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Yeah, if
6 you never need it, it's easy to store it.
7 SENATOR SQUADRON: Finally, the
8 special counsel was proposed. I asked a
9 question last year, there was a little
10 ambiguity on it. It's been a year, the
11 special counsel proposal seems similar to
12 last year's, so maybe there's more clarity
13 this year.
14 The Governor appoints a special
15 counsel to consider whether to recommend an
16 independent prosecutor is appointed. That
17 special counsel has the capacity to access
18 the grand jury findings and transcripts, all
19 of the information related to the grand jury
20 proceeding.
21 Is the special counsel able to share
22 that information with the Executive or not?
23 And if not, is the special counsel able to
24 make a recommendation other than yea or nay
233
1 to justify or explain why the recommendation
2 is what it is?
3 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: The way
4 I read and understand the proposal, the
5 special counsel would have the ability to
6 share as much information as necessary in the
7 context of making a recommendation to the
8 Governor.
9 I don't believe that a reasonable
10 reading of this bill or a reasonable
11 interpretation would say that the special
12 counsel is limited to walking into the
13 Governor's office and saying yes or no and I
14 can't answer any other questions.
15 SENATOR SQUADRON: And would the
16 Governor be allowed to share that information
17 in announcing to the public his or her
18 decision, or would the Governor be under the
19 same limitations on sharing information that
20 emanates from a grand jury proceeding as
21 everyone else is?
22 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I don't
23 read the bill in a way that would allow for
24 additional disclosure of that information
234
1 beyond from the special counsel to the
2 Governor.
3 SENATOR SQUADRON: Doesn't that take
4 the black box of the grand jury room, extend
5 it into the Executive, and then stop it right
6 there, so that from the perspective of the
7 public and policymakers and law enforcement
8 in general, they're left with the same black
9 box, just one where a different branch of
10 government has also the ability to come out
11 and tell us no more than we've heard before,
12 which is just yes or no?
13 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: If that
14 were the end of the day, you know, you could
15 make that argument, I think. But first of
16 all, you're balancing or trying to balance
17 some very important policy considerations
18 here, and grand jury secrecy is one.
19 And secondly, if the Governor,
20 following a recommendation from the special
21 counsel, appoints a special prosecutor, you
22 know, I would argue that it's not the
23 Governor's position at that point to be
24 making public statements about the case
235
1 before the special prosecutor has a chance to
2 do his or her work. I think that the
3 appropriate course of action at that time
4 would be not to disclose anything further
5 until the special prosecutor has had an
6 opportunity to do their job.
7 SENATOR SQUADRON: Look, it's both --
8 it's those two competing conclusions that
9 lead to such concerns about this. You're
10 probably right about that, but what does that
11 say about the overall proposal? I think
12 that's something that we still need to really
13 consider.
14 Thank you.
15 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Thank
16 you.
17 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.
18 Assembly.
19 CHAIRMAN FARRELL: Thank you.
20 Assemblyman O'Donnell.
21 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: Thank you very
22 much.
23 Once again, I agree with Mr. Graf.
24 Okay? So I will take some medication when I
236
1 get home --
2 (Laughter.)
3 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: -- to make
4 sure I arrive tomorrow in the same state I
5 arrived yesterday.
6 But I believe in the secrecy of the
7 grand jury. And I believe that it serves a
8 very important function. And mostly what I
9 believe, that it's outrageous to suggest that
10 because a defendant happens to be a member of
11 law enforcement that her or his rights are
12 less than all the other people who are
13 defendants in a grand jury.
14 So having said that, I don't believe
15 we should be opening them up. I don't
16 believe we should be giving the names of
17 witnesses. And I don't believe we should be
18 giving out what the nature of the testimony
19 is.
20 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I guess
21 that's --
22 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: However --
23 there's a however -- what a DA charges to the
24 grand jury is different. You and your
237
1 cohorts who are DAs are elected, they owe an
2 obligation to their citizenry.
3 So to that end, I have a bill that
4 would allow any citizen to request from a DA
5 what did you charge that grand jury in this
6 case. Because in the cases where we've had
7 these problems where there's been great
8 public outcry, I fear that the DA is not
9 charging the grand jury in a way that many of
10 their constituents would have wanted them to
11 do.
12 And so just like my votes are public,
13 just like my speech here will probably be put
14 up by one of the people in this room a little
15 while from now, the actions of DAs should be
16 subject to the same scrutiny.
17 So do you think it would be
18 appropriate to require that DAs be required
19 to release what charges they gave to a grand
20 jury in cases where the public wants to know?
21 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: First of
22 all, I think I differ with you in terms of
23 your characterization of the proposal. I
24 don't think it subjects police to a different
238
1 standard. Right now the Governor --
2 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: No, sir, I
3 wasn't saying that was in the proposal, I was
4 saying that was my opinion.
5 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I'd
6 appreciate the opportunity to respond.
7 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: Okay.
8 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Right
9 now the Governor has the power to appoint a
10 special prosecutor. I remember the death
11 penalty case in the Bronx where Governor
12 Pataki exercised that power, and frankly the
13 ability to review that power is very limited.
14 And right now the information that the
15 Governor has at his or her disposal when
16 making that very important decision is very
17 limited.
18 What this proposal does is not give
19 the Governor any additional powers in terms
20 of appointing a special prosecutor in cases
21 involving police, because frankly he can do
22 that already. What it does is give the
23 Governor a mechanism to get information other
24 than what's reported in the press, but real,
239
1 accurate information about the case so the
2 Governor can make an informed decision about
3 whether or not it furthers good public policy
4 to appoint a special prosecutor in that
5 particular case.
6 In terms of your point about release
7 of the instructions to the grand jury, I
8 certainly think that that's an important
9 issue that should be discussed in the context
10 of any legislation in this area.
11 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: Well, I wrote
12 the bill, so I'd like to get, you know, my
13 name on that. That would be good. Okay?
14 I'd like to now talk a little bit
15 about photo arrays. You had mentioned it in
16 your testimony that most places use photo
17 arrays.
18 In my experience, one of the problems
19 with photo arrays is the pictures that are in
20 them. So how does someone get to have their
21 picture in a photo array? Well, chances are
22 that's because they've been arrested before,
23 and that's the picture that's there.
24 Then you have the problem with what
240
1 the picture looks like. Now what we know
2 from just reading the paper, when famous
3 celebrities who are really drop-dead
4 gorgeous, they get paid millions of dollars
5 because of how good-looking they are, when
6 they get arrested, they look like they went
7 to hell in a handbasket. Right? So even
8 among the most gorgeous creatures in America,
9 their arrest photos, they look guilty as can
10 be.
11 So isn't there some inherent risk in
12 putting in front of a jury a picture of a
13 criminal defendant in their worst possible
14 moment, looking the worst they could possibly
15 look, and creating a -- and trampling on the
16 presumption of innocence by putting such an
17 image in front of them?
18 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I guess
19 the first thing I'd say is that the Innocence
20 Project has been strenuously advocating for
21 this, to me and publicly, for some period of
22 time. And I can't believe that the Innocence
23 Project would advocate for this if they felt
24 that it was trampling on people's rights.
241
1 And secondly, you know, in this day
2 and age -- you know, there was a time where I
3 think it would be reasonable to say if you
4 have a photo, it must be an arrest photo. If
5 I want a photo of someone in this day and
6 age, I go on the internet -- you know, and I
7 don't know how to do it as well as, you know,
8 so many --
9 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: Your
10 grandkids. Yes, I understand.
11 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: -- other
12 people could, but you pull up a Facebook
13 photo, you pull up any other photo. You
14 know, so I think that the idea that the
15 public perception that you have a photo, it
16 must be an arrest photo may have been true 40
17 years ago. If I asked my kids today, I don't
18 think their first instinct would be you got
19 it from an arrest, I think their first
20 instinct would be you got it off the
21 internet.
22 So, you know, I think things are
23 changing. And I think that all of those
24 things are important considerations, but at
242
1 the end of the day, when the Innocence
2 Project is advocating for me saying this is
3 the best way to ensure against wrongful
4 identifications that lead to wrongful
5 convictions, and this is what you should
6 do -- and I think the last thing I'll say is
7 they do that with a caveat, that the photo
8 arrays have to be assembled and put together
9 properly and the procedure has to be
10 conducted properly before it's a good idea to
11 let a jury see it. So it's not just that any
12 photo array should go in and a jury should
13 see it; we should have guidelines and
14 standards about how the arrays have to be put
15 together and about how the procedures have to
16 be done. And if and only if you meet those
17 standards, then we should allow a jury to
18 hear them.
19 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: I wouldn't
20 dream of questioning Mr. Scheck or
21 Mr. Neufeld and their commitment to
22 innocence. And in fact, Mr. Scheck once
23 tracked me down and congratulated me on my
24 skills at cross-examination during one of
243
1 these hearings, so I consider that a high
2 mark.
3 But most of the defender organizations
4 in the state do oppose this idea. And I
5 guess this is one of those cases where the
6 devil will always be in the details.
7 The third point I'd like to raise has
8 to do with these verified instruments that
9 you want to talk about. You know, we have
10 some experience in putting verified
11 instruments out there. Where do we do that
12 legislatively? We did that before the Parole
13 Board. The Parole Board is currently
14 required to use a verified instrument in
15 determining release rates. And you know what
16 happens? They ignore it. They ignore it,
17 sir. We made them use them, they've used
18 them, they look at them and say despite the
19 fact that this instrument says X, I'm going
20 to keep you in prison for two more years
21 because I think that's the right thing to do.
22 So in the end, any instrument, no
23 matter how good it is, is only as useful as
24 the person who's using its ability to use it
244
1 correctly. And so from my own personal --
2 I'm not speaking for the panel -- from my own
3 personal perspective, I would be unwilling to
4 do that anywhere else in the state until you
5 can talk to the people who work in the Parole
6 Board to get them to do the job that we
7 mandated that they do, which is take into
8 account the information on that very
9 instrument.
10 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I
11 certainly can't speak for the Parole Board,
12 but I agree with your point that the
13 instruments are only as good as the use that
14 the people who need to use them make of them.
15 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: Thank you very
16 much.
17 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Thank
18 you.
19 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you,
20 Assemblyman.
21 Our next speaker is Senator Ruth
22 Hassell-Thompson.
23 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank you,
24 Madam Chair.
245
1 Good afternoon, Mr. Green.
2 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Good
3 afternoon.
4 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I'd like to
5 explore some of the stuff we've been talking
6 about, but my time is going to be very
7 limited. So let's flip the switch a little
8 and go to the GIVE initiative that you talk
9 about and certainly that's in the budget.
10 We understand that the GIVE initiative
11 is a replacement for Operation Impact, for
12 the most part. But you don't discuss the
13 specificity of what these outreach programs
14 are. Would you identify SNUG as perhaps
15 being one of those, or that type of model?
16 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:
17 Absolutely.
18 GIVE did replace Impact, you're right.
19 Whereas Impact allowed a wider focus, GIVE
20 focuses on shootings and homicides, and GIVE
21 identifies four strategies that law
22 enforcement can receive training and
23 technical assistance on and that we'll fund.
24 That's focused deterrence, hotspot policing,
246
1 crime prevention through environmental
2 design, and street outreach work.
3 So street outreach work is
4 specifically one of those four strategies
5 that we will support, that we do support and
6 we provide training on.
7 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay, then
8 I may be confused, then. You're saying that
9 the street outreach that's a part of GIVE is
10 not SNUG.
11 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: No. As
12 part of GIVE, one of the requirements of GIVE
13 is that all of the efforts that are funded by
14 the state to get at shootings and homicides
15 be aligned, so that we shouldn't have a GIVE
16 initiative over here designed to reduce
17 shootings and homicides and a SNUG initiative
18 over here designed to do the same thing, but
19 no coordination between the two.
20 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay.
21 Okay, good.
22 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: You
23 know, and that's not to say we don't
24 recognize that in a good street outreach
247
1 program, you know, there are pieces of it
2 that can't be aligned with the police.
3 For example, when your outreach
4 workers are out on the street, it's very
5 important that people do not view them as an
6 arm of the police. But by the same token,
7 they both have the exact same goals. There's
8 information they both have at a higher level
9 that's very useful to both of them. So there
10 has to be at least some level of coordination
11 between those efforts.
12 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: How
13 successful do you believe that the
14 outreach -- it's been a year. And how
15 successful do you think, number one, the
16 outreach overall has been? And number two,
17 its coordination with SNUG in terms of
18 reducing crime in your hotspots?
19 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: We're
20 actually heading into our third year, I
21 believe, with the street outreach work. And
22 I think that it is a huge asset. I think
23 it's something we all should be very proud
24 of. You know, certainly the Legislature for
248
1 providing the funding.
2 We've provided a structure, we have a
3 statewide coordinator for the street outreach
4 programs across the state. He visits every
5 program at least once a month. He
6 communicates with them regularly. In
7 addition, we have a training director now, so
8 we train every program manager, every
9 supervisor, every outreach worker.
10 If you look at the jurisdictions
11 across the state, you know, some are more
12 advanced than others, they have different
13 strengths. But, you know, there are
14 instances in one jurisdiction where the
15 police were having a spike in homicides and
16 they reached out to the street outreach
17 program, who on at least two separate
18 occasions helped them get a handle on what
19 was going on and really quashed the violence.
20 You know, there are stories from
21 around the state where in different ways
22 those street outreach programs have really
23 helped control shootings, so -- and the other
24 thing I'd say is I'm not aware of any other
249
1 state that has a statewide street outreach
2 network that's organized and coordinated the
3 way ours is.
4 So, you know, I think it's a huge tool
5 in the toolbox and would certainly advocate
6 that at a bare minimum we continue it.
7 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: We've used
8 the Chicago Ceasefire model and some other
9 models. Do you see us moving toward creating
10 a New York model?
11 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Yes.
12 You know, as with everything that I
13 do, I like to look at everything that's out
14 there, try and understand what the strong
15 points are of all of the different
16 approaches, and then take the strong points
17 of all of them and put them into what I think
18 is the best approach.
19 And, you know, certainly there are a
20 lot of really good ideas in the Ceasefire
21 Chicago Cure Violence model. But, for
22 example, Teny Gross, out of the Institute for
23 Nonviolence, has been doing this work since
24 the mid-nineties and has a lot of good ideas
250
1 as well, and has done a lot of good work.
2 And his ideas aren't necessarily the same as
3 all of the Cure Violence ones out of Chicago.
4 So what we've tried to do is really
5 work with Teny and understand his program and
6 his thoughts, work with Cure Violence and
7 understand theirs. And yes, at the end of
8 the day I do envision us taking all of those
9 ideas and putting them into what we think is
10 the best model.
11 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank you.
12 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you, Senator.
13 Our next speaker -- well, I'm sorry. Do we
14 have anyone from the Assembly?
15 Okay, our next speaker is Senator
16 Velmanette Montgomery.
17 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you, Madam
18 Chairwoman.
19 Good afternoon. It's finally
20 afternoon.
21 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Good
22 afternoon.
23 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I just wanted to
24 ask you about the -- I guess two areas. One
251
1 is the reentry issue, and the other one is
2 juvenile justice.
3 On reentry, I'm looking at the
4 proposed budget for this time which reflects
5 the Governor's -- some of the Governor's
6 primary concerns, one of them being the whole
7 question of reentry. And I know that the
8 Governor has been working on that for some
9 time, and I really appreciate the fact that
10 this has become a primary concern.
11 I am, however -- I don't understand
12 why it is that at the same time that we are
13 concerned about reentry, there's
14 $12.8 million in reductions or eliminations,
15 proposed eliminations of programs that are
16 basically community-based, many of them
17 specifically related to providing support
18 services to people reentering the community.
19 And so I have a big question as to --
20 obviously, many of these are legislative
21 adds. However, I would like to hear from you
22 how you, from your perspective, will be
23 ensuring that we continue some of those very
24 critical services. Because when people
252
1 return to community, when they return home,
2 they look for people like me to find out
3 where they can get some help immediately.
4 They need housing, they are looking for
5 employment, they need services that help them
6 repair or access necessary papers that they
7 -- or other information that they would need.
8 So where will those services fit into
9 your budget as proposed?
10 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: And I
11 can't speak to the legislative adds. It's my
12 understanding that those are things that will
13 be discussed as you go forward with the
14 budget negotiations.
15 But in terms of the Governor's budget,
16 there is no reduction in the DCJS budget with
17 regard to any of our reentry or Alternative
18 to Incarceration funding streams. And in
19 fact, there's a $2 million increase.
20 There's a $1 million increase -- the
21 prior budget was just over $3 million for
22 19 reentry task forces around the state.
23 This year in the Governor's proposed budget
24 it gives us another million dollars. That
253
1 will allow us to, assuming -- or if it is
2 approved, start a 20th reentry task force in
3 Queens, which obviously, given the volume of
4 cases, is in need of a task force, but also
5 strengthen all of the task forces across the
6 state.
7 And then, secondly, there's an
8 additional million-dollar add with regard to
9 the Alternative to Incarceration programs
10 that would allow us to help develop screening
11 and assessment programs to make sure that the
12 people coming into the criminal justice
13 system at a very early point in time are
14 screened and assessed so that their needs are
15 understood by those making decisions --
16 defense attorneys, judges, prosecutors -- and
17 at the same time they understand what the
18 needs are, they understand the inventory of
19 programs available in that area so that
20 people can get matched to the right programs
21 and we have the best chance of breaking that
22 cycle of recidivism.
23 So as to the programs or as to the
24 funding streams for DCJS in the Governor's
254
1 proposed budget, none of them were cut and in
2 fact they were increased by $2 million.
3 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right. I
4 just -- when I look at this list and I see
5 programs like Exodus Transitional Community
6 Center and Fortune Society and Community
7 Service Society and those programs -- so
8 obviously they will be coming to the
9 Legislature to say we need funding. And
10 these are, relatively speaking, small
11 amounts -- $100,000, $200,000, and so forth.
12 However, the fact of the matter is
13 each of those programs -- and if you put all
14 of that together, we then begin to have a
15 real network of reentry organizations, and
16 each one is important and related to our
17 success. The task forces, all due respect, I
18 appreciate the work that they do, but they're
19 not on the ground providing actual services.
20 And so that's what I feel is missing, and I
21 certainly hope that together we're going to
22 ensure that the programs that need support
23 will receive it.
24 And I would like to, in order for me
255
1 to see where the programs -- some of them
2 certainly in my district, but in the city in
3 particular -- where they fit into your
4 framework, I would really appreciate having a
5 list of those, because I don't know exactly
6 where they all are at this point.
7 The second question -- and I'm out of
8 time, unfortunately -- but I have a real
9 interest in the juvenile justice work that
10 you're doing and where you are with that,
11 especially as it relates to Alternative to
12 Incarceration programs.
13 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I
14 just -- I know you're out of time. I'll
15 briefly say the Governor's budget does put
16 $26.2 million through DCJS into those
17 on-the-ground programs you're talking about.
18 I don't have the list with me. We'll
19 certainly get it to you.
20 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
21 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: But just
22 for example, Fortune gets a sizable amount of
23 money --
24 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Fortune Society?
256
1 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Fortune
2 Society, for their employment-based work,
3 working with people who are reentering, on
4 employment services.
5 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: And there are
6 several others that you will let me know
7 where they stand as well?
8 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Yes.
9 We'll provide you a list of our funded
10 programs.
11 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you very
12 much.
13 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Thank
14 you.
15 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you, Senator.
16 That closes our discussion. So I want
17 to thank you very much, Executive Deputy
18 Commissioner Green. It's good to see you
19 again. And thank you for your testimony
20 today.
21 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Thank
22 you, Senator. Appreciate the time.
23 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Great. Our next
24 speaker is Acting Commissioner Anthony
257
1 Annucci, New York State Department of
2 Corrections and Community Supervision.
3 Thank you very much. Could I have
4 some order, please.
5 Welcome, Acting Commissioner Annucci.
6 We're very glad to have you here today. I'm
7 sure that the members, between the Senate and
8 the Assembly, will have a lot of questions,
9 and we look forward to your testimony. And
10 at this time, you may begin.
11 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Thank
12 you.
13 Good afternoon, Chairwoman Young,
14 Chairman Farrell, and other distinguished
15 chairs and members of the Legislature. I am
16 Anthony J. Annucci, acting commissioner of
17 the Department of Corrections and Community
18 Supervision. It is my honor to discuss some
19 of the highlights of Governor Cuomo's
20 Executive Budget plan.
21 The Governor's policies are moving
22 corrections in the right direction. Last
23 year New York State's inmate population
24 continued to decline, and there are now over
258
1 20,000 fewer inmates than there were in 1999.
2 Still, New York State continues to be the
3 safest large state with the lowest
4 incarceration rate.
5 To continue this trend of reduced
6 incarcerations coupled with increased public
7 safety, the department's proposed Executive
8 Budget contains a number of important new
9 initiatives. These include groundbreaking
10 special housing unit reforms; the increased
11 use of technology and updated policies to
12 better supervise and secure our facilities;
13 and several reentry initiatives designed to
14 further reduce recidivism by upgrading
15 educational opportunities and vocational
16 training.
17 Within our $310 million capital
18 budget, we are also moving forward with plans
19 to transform Hudson into a hybrid youth
20 facility for 16-and-17-year-olds. Despite
21 the reduction in inmate population, the
22 Executive Budget does not recommend any
23 prison closures this year.
24 Prison discipline is vital to the
259
1 safety of correction officers and inmates
2 alike. We will undertake historical reforms
3 in our approach to solitary confinement which
4 will modernize prison discipline. These
5 reforms will improve conditions within our
6 segregation units and revise our disciplinary
7 guidelines, while preserving safety and
8 security. As we did for the seriously
9 mentally ill, we will develop specialized
10 programs to safely provide out-of-cell
11 programming and treatment to inmates.
12 Inmate reentry programming, including
13 education and vocational training, is a vital
14 part of the reform process. DOCCS will
15 continue its expansion of college programming
16 through $7.5 million in funding from the
17 Manhattan district attorney's office. This
18 expansion will not cost taxpayer dollars.
19 College programming has been shown to
20 significantly lower recidivism and increase
21 the likelihood of a successful transition
22 back into society. It also creates positive
23 role models for other inmates to follow,
24 ultimately leading to safer prisons.
260
1 Further, in an effort to increase the
2 issuance of high school diplomas, we will
3 hire psychologists to diagnose adult inmates
4 with learning disabilities, and update our
5 Thinking for a Change program with a new
6 version issued by the National Institute of
7 Corrections, or NIC. In an effort to
8 modernize vocational training, we will also
9 upgrade several vocational print shops and
10 expand our computer vocational shops to
11 include computer coding.
12 The department is focused on creating
13 the safest environment possible. In
14 partnership with the unions, we will continue
15 to develop strategies to reduce violence
16 within prisons and to conduct security
17 staffing reviews as outlined in the fiscal
18 year 2014-2015 budget. Last year we hired
19 103 correction officers.
20 Also, we have either begun or will
21 pursue technological enhancements, training
22 improvements, and policy changes that will
23 enhance overall safety and security within
24 DOCCS facilities. These initiatives include
261
1 installation of fixed cameras, the deployment
2 of thermal imaging and heartbeat detection
3 devices, the installation of the rounds
4 tracker system, the procurement of portable
5 metal detectors, and the piloted use of body
6 cameras to be worn by staff. The department
7 will also be refining training in the areas
8 of use of force and interpersonal
9 communications to provide our staff with
10 additional avenues to deescalate situations,
11 before force becomes necessary.
12 In the upcoming year, we will also be
13 pursuing many policy changes such as a new
14 rule designation for synthetic marijuana, the
15 expanded use of K-9 units, the elimination of
16 metal containers from our commissaries, the
17 use of secure vendors for packages, the
18 piloting of pepper spray, and enhancement of
19 tool control practices.
20 Our internal investigations unit has
21 been completely overhauled and is now called
22 the Office of Special Investigations, or OSI.
23 A new chief and a new director of operations
24 have been appointed. The chief now reports
262
1 directly to me, and we meet regularly. The
2 new leaders are both attorneys with
3 significant law enforcement backgrounds.
4 Under their leadership, a number of new
5 initiatives have been implemented to foster
6 an atmosphere of ethical behavior and
7 thorough investigations.
8 OSI has also bolstered its ranks with
9 highly qualified investigators and analysts
10 with decades of experience from outside law
11 enforcement agencies.
12 Most importantly, DOCCS will be
13 working with our federal partners to
14 establish best practices. In 2015, the NIC
15 conducted comprehensive security audits at
16 several facilities, and in 2016 they will
17 audit several more. The NIC will also review
18 our training academy, and train selected
19 staff members on how to conduct security
20 audits.
21 To build upon these best practices,
22 DOCCS will be instituting a process for
23 unannounced security audits and risk
24 assessments in line with NIC's suggestions.
263
1 DOCCS is also responsible for
2 approximately 36,000 parolees. In 2014, we
3 issued a recidivism report showing that just
4 nine percent of ex-offenders released in 2010
5 were sent back to prison within three years,
6 based upon a new felony conviction. This
7 figure was the lowest since 1985. And for
8 those released in 2011, the figure has been
9 lowered further to 8.6 percent. We are
10 making an impact.
11 Despite this positive trend, we know
12 there is still work to do. we have undertaken
13 an enhanced supervision project in
14 Monroe County that focuses on our
15 highest-risk parolees with GPS monitors and a
16 lower caseload ratio. We also launched
17 combined operations, involving Community
18 Supervision and our Office of Special
19 Investigations, to apprehend parole violators
20 in careful coordination with our federal,
21 state and local Law enforcement partners.
22 We also implemented last year's law
23 ensuring next-day reporting, and we arranged
24 for inmates to be released from facilities in
264
1 closer proximity to their home communities.
2 Opioid abuse is a serious concern when
3 it comes to recently released inmates. To
4 address this, DOCCS has started an opioid
5 overdose prevention program, in collaboration
6 with DOH and the Harm Reduction Coalition.
7 We now issue Naloxone kits -- the opioid
8 antidote -- to inmates scheduled for release,
9 and provide training on how to use it. To
10 help prevent relapse, DOCCS will also be
11 using Vivitrol paired with traditional drug
12 treatment counseling.
13 In conclusion, there again will be
14 many challenges and expectations for DOCCS
15 and the thousands of hardworking employees
16 who perform their responsibilities in an
17 exemplary manner, often under dangerous and
18 difficult circumstances. The Governor's
19 proposed budget will place DOCCS in an
20 advantageous position to fulfill these
21 expectations.
22 Thank you, and I will be happy to
23 answer any questions.
24 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you very
265
1 much.
2 Our first speaker is Senator Mike
3 Nozzolio.
4 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you, Madam
5 Chair.
6 Good afternoon, Acting Commissioner.
7 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Good
8 afternoon, Senator.
9 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Another year of
10 acting, Anthony.
11 But you've had a hard year. All
12 kidding aside, it's been a very, very
13 difficult year for the department, for the
14 people who work in the department. And I
15 want to probe just a couple of things
16 regarding what was so costly an effort last
17 year.
18 The cost of the prison break from
19 Clinton, what does the department estimate
20 those costs to be?
21 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: $12.7
22 million for the escape.
23 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Now, are these
24 exclusively personnel costs, or how do you
266
1 estimate those elements?
2 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Mostly
3 those expenses were related to overtime for
4 staff involved in the pursuit. Some
5 ancillary services like food and things of
6 that nature, lodging. But mostly the
7 overtime.
8 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: That those costs
9 are exclusively for the department --
10 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yes.
11 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: -- not inclusive of
12 costs that coordinating agencies,
13 particularly the New York State Police, had
14 to engage in; is that correct?
15 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Those
16 were just DOCCS's expenses.
17 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Our estimates have
18 the total cost on or about $23 million to
19 $25 million. Does that sound about right to
20 you?
21 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I really
22 can't speculate on those other costs,
23 Senator.
24 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Tell us what kinds
267
1 of things has the department had to
2 reevaluate since that prison break?
3 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: There
4 are many steps that we have taken to bolster
5 security. I've had conversations with
6 every one of my superintendents, in
7 particular my maximum security
8 superintendents. We've issued a number of
9 memoranda to reinforce basic security
10 protocols, basic frisk practices, ensuring
11 that superintendents understand their
12 responsibility to oversee all three shifts,
13 to be there at unannounced times, to ensure
14 that security supervisors are making rounds.
15 We are also investing in a lot of new
16 equipment to better enable our security staff
17 to perform their responsibilities. We have
18 the thermal imaging devices, we have portable
19 metal detectors. We are enforcing a lot more
20 frisking of staff periodically. Going
21 forward with our training, we have the Games
22 Inmates Play video so that that will be shown
23 to every employee, and they can understand
24 the dangers involved with becoming too
268
1 familiar with inmates.
2 There are many, many things that we've
3 done, Senator. I can provide you a full
4 list. I don't want to take up too much time.
5 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I think that broad
6 outline is important, it's important that you
7 provide it to our members of the Public
8 Protection Budget Subcommittee, especially
9 Senator Gallivan, as chair of the Crime and
10 Corrections Committee.
11 And I'm not going to ask you any more
12 questions about those issues; that's, I
13 think, certainly a topic Senator Gallivan
14 wants to pursue.
15 There is one area that I'd like to ask
16 you about, and that's the employee Joyce
17 Mitchell. Obviously you're familiar with who
18 that is, one of the linchpins in the ability
19 for the prisoners to escape. Do you know
20 what her title was?
21 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I think
22 it was industrial training specialist,
23 something along those lines.
24 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: It's my
269
1 understanding that it's something to that
2 effect, industrial training, in the prison
3 tailor shop, as a prison tailor shop
4 instructor. Her salary, we looked it up, is
5 $57,697 a year.
6 Did Joyce Mitchell have any advisory
7 capacity to the Department of Corrections in
8 any way, any management or reporting beyond
9 management within the correctional facility?
10 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Senator,
11 before I go further, I cannot comment on
12 anything that is the subject of a pending
13 investigation.
14 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: The inspector
15 general -- I know Senator Gallivan has asked
16 a number of these questions, and we've gotten
17 the same answer so far, Commissioner. Do you
18 have any idea how long that investigation
19 will take and when a report will be issued?
20 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I cannot
21 answer that.
22 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Here's my -- let me
23 just ask you, then, not about Joyce Mitchell
24 but about your other industrial training
270
1 supervisors across the correctional system.
2 Do any of your industrial training
3 supervisors have policymaking
4 responsibilities within the Department of
5 Corrections?
6 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I have
7 met with my industrial training
8 superintendents. The Corcraft industry
9 aspect of our operations is very important.
10 Inmates are meaningfully employed, they learn
11 a skill, they provide an important service
12 for our customers throughout the state. And
13 I am hopeful of continuing that and upgrading
14 it in many ways.
15 They can occasionally sit in on
16 executive staff meetings at the facility
17 level, because everybody is important. And
18 they certainly should listen to all the
19 security concerns and other
20 cross-disciplinary issues. But I don't think
21 they have formal policy roles as you define
22 it, if I understand your question correctly.
23 But they certainly -- every one of my
24 staff -- and I hammer this to the
271
1 superintendents: Your primary
2 responsibility, among other things, is you
3 have to know your jail. You have to walk and
4 talk with everybody. Every employee is
5 important in this agency. Everyone might
6 have possible suggestions for you as to how
7 to better improve operations for everybody's
8 safety and security. So that is fundamental
9 to me, that they have to make those kinds of
10 rounds regularly.
11 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: And that's
12 exemplary. I know you've always listened to
13 us. We're hopeful that you continue to
14 listen to all the correctional employees with
15 their suggestions and their input.
16 But I guess in the hypothetical, it's
17 safe to say that normally the industrial
18 training supervisor doesn't have policymaking
19 responsibilities within the correctional
20 system. Is that safe to say?
21 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I
22 believe that's safe to say, if I understand
23 your question.
24 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: And yet
272
1 potentially, if an industrial training
2 supervisor was involved -- again, in the
3 hypothetical -- directly involved with
4 criminality regarding a prison escape which
5 cost the taxpayers of this state at least
6 $12 million from the Department of
7 Corrections, and our estimates are another
8 $11 million to $13 million for the Department
9 of State Police, as well as other federal
10 costs to the FBI -- that one industrial
11 training supervisor could have cost the
12 taxpayers of this state at least $25 million.
13 And that employee of the State of
14 New York and the taxpayers of this state has
15 had absolutely no policy implications, or
16 extremely limited policy implications within
17 her -- within their position of
18 responsibility. I think that's the point
19 that glares to me, Commissioner, that the
20 impact of wrongdoing within state employment,
21 entrusted to the taxpayers through state
22 employment, can have enormous financial
23 implications. Not to mention the havoc that
24 it created within your department in trying
273
1 to deal with these issues, and that you're
2 going to continue to deal with these issues.
3 I know Senator Gallivan is awaiting
4 the inspector general's report, certainly
5 other members of the Corrections Committee as
6 well as the Codes Committee are waiting for
7 that report, and we hope that we'll have the
8 opportunity to sit down with you as you
9 continue to make improvements in the
10 correctional system on a day-to-day basis.
11 So thank you for your dialogue, and I
12 appreciate the important responsibilities
13 that you have.
14 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Thank
15 you, Senator, especially for all your years
16 of service to our agency. We will miss you.
17 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you,
18 Commissioner.
19 SENATOR KRUEGER: Assembly?
20 ASSEMBLYMAN McDONALD: Thank you. Our
21 next speaker is Assemblymember O'Donnell.
22 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: Good
23 afternoon. It's very nice to see you again.
24 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Good
274
1 afternoon.
2 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: I was watching
3 TV last night; I got to watch Mr. Sweat's
4 sentencing time, and he was sentenced to
5 $80,000 of restitution. Which I thought was
6 an odd number, given the number you just gave
7 us, $12 million. And of course when you pay
8 your inmates $1.25 an hour, I don't think
9 you're going to get back that $80,000 anytime
10 soon.
11 But I also assume you don't have a
12 budget line for escapes, right? So where did
13 the $12 million come from?
14 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: The
15 Division of the Budget provided the money for
16 us.
17 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: So did you
18 call somebody up and say "We need $12 million
19 for overtime?" Is that what -- like that?
20 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: They
21 found a funding source for us.
22 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: They're very
23 good like that. Funny how that is.
24 Let me talk about this new Office of
275
1 Special Investigations, which used to be the
2 inspector general's office, is that correct?
3 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yes.
4 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: You know, the
5 other day I went out and bought some new
6 jeans and they were called skinny jeans. But
7 that doesn't mean I'm skinny. You know what
8 I mean?
9 So I wonder if by changing the name
10 from one entity to another is enough to
11 effectuate real change. I just heard you
12 answering some of the Senator's questions. I
13 don't want you to divulge anything you know
14 about the inspector general and when and if
15 her report will be coming out, nor about what
16 it says. But internally, your own inspector
17 general's office had a report against
18 Ms. Mitchell that they found lacking in
19 veracity or whatever you want to say, and
20 dismissed that.
21 Isn't that of great concern to you,
22 that the entity that is in charge,
23 investigating internally, ignored the fact
24 that this inappropriate relationship was
276
1 going on? I mean, I'm not suggesting that
2 you would have guessed that would have led to
3 a $12 million overtime charge for an escape.
4 But doesn't that give you concern?
5 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I cannot
6 comment on something that's the subject of a
7 pending investigation.
8 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: Well, then
9 let's talk about the budget. You have 125
10 investigators. Can you tell me what is the
11 budget of the Office of Special
12 Investigation?
13 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I can
14 get that information for you. I don't know
15 the exact amount.
16 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: We did a
17 hearing last year, the end of last year,
18 where you unfortunately couldn't come -- we
19 missed you, Tony -- to look at the question
20 of how do other places in the country and in
21 the world deal with this problem. Right? So
22 we have this very high-profile escape that
23 cost us possibly up to $25 million, people's
24 lives were upended. And seemingly, the
277
1 mechanisms that you had to provide oversight
2 within your system failed.
3 And what we learned was that in
4 something like 42 other states, they have a
5 separate office of an ombudsman. In Canada,
6 in England and in Wales, they all have their
7 own outside agency specifically for the
8 purpose of conducting investigations inside
9 the prison system. What do you think of
10 that?
11 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well,
12 Assemblyman, we have a lot of outside
13 entities that have access to our prisons
14 right now. The State Commission of
15 Correction can visit at will, any member of
16 the Legislature can visit at will, together
17 with any number of their aides. We've
18 entertained requests where aides can come by
19 themselves. Any district attorney can visit.
20 We have outside entities like PAMI that come
21 and do investigations with respect to their
22 clients. We have the Justice Center that
23 comes in. The Justice Department can come
24 in, and U.S. Attorneys in connection with any
278
1 pending investigation.
2 We know the Correctional Association
3 comes in, they do their site visits, they
4 come in with as many as eight to 12 people.
5 We accord them privileged correspondence
6 rights so that any inmate that writes to
7 them, it goes out sealed, it comes in sealed,
8 it's not read by staff.
9 So there are a lot of entities now
10 that presently have access.
11 I'd like to for a moment talk briefly
12 about how we have reformulated significantly
13 our OSI office. First, there's an attorney
14 at the top now. That wasn't the case. He
15 has an extensive law enforcement background.
16 He brought in another attorney with an
17 extensive law enforcement background. They
18 have since made significant efforts to link
19 with the U.S. Attorneys, with the FBI, with
20 all local district attorneys. They bring
21 cases to them. They've also brought in many
22 other outside investigators.
23 So we have new energy from the outside
24 mixing in with experienced people. You have
279
1 to understand how jails operate in order to
2 conduct a proper investigation. They have
3 changed how they process cases, they have a
4 new initiative where they're going to do an
5 analysis of an entire facility and they're
6 going to speak to every employee and get
7 feedback from inmates so that we can get
8 better results on our investigations.
9 There's a lot of things that they are
10 doing that I am very hopeful about, including
11 now they directly report to me, and I meet
12 with them regularly to go over where they've
13 gone. So I think we are moving in the right
14 direction in this area.
15 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: Well, I
16 appreciate your point of view. I just want
17 to share with you that we are the outlier
18 here in New York in how we do this. Those
19 left-wing places like Indiana do it
20 differently, and we had great information and
21 testimony that was provided all day, both
22 from those ombudspersons and what they do.
23 And then we also had family members
24 who were not here -- family members of
280
1 inmates do not complain about the treatment
2 by the corrections officers. In fact, most
3 of them were complaining about their
4 treatment by other inmates -- but by their
5 inability to get information from somebody
6 until they found me.
7 And so I think the time has come for
8 New York to say is this the right way to do
9 this, is there another way to run this
10 railroad, and we'll be taking that up under
11 consideration.
12 In this year's budget you have
13 requested $3.1 billion, which was up from
14 last year's $2.9 billion, an increase of
15 8.02 percent -- despite the fact that the
16 prison population went from 53,000 to 51,000.
17 Can you address that?
18 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well,
19 there are increased costs related to health
20 services, $120 million alone just for
21 medications. We are spending more money to
22 implement the new SHU settlement, which is
23 groundbreaking. There's a lot of rehab that
24 has to be done, there will be new staff added
281
1 for that.
2 There are other initiatives related to
3 reentry that are important for the Governor,
4 and they make a lot of sense, related to
5 upgrading our vocational programming, our
6 Thinking for a Change. So there's a lot of
7 initiatives there, as well as for the youth
8 initiative with respect to the Hudson
9 Correctional Facility. There are additional
10 staff added there. And a lot for the capital
11 projects that we have to undertake to make
12 that happen.
13 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: Thank you for
14 bringing that up. I'd like to address that
15 issue. I, as you well know, have been to 27
16 prison visits in my capacity as chair of the
17 Corrections Committee, and I have been to
18 Hudson and Coxsackie twice.
19 And so my first question for you is
20 given the small number of prisoners that you
21 have who are 16 and 17, why are you not
22 putting them all together? So why are you
23 keeping a small cadre of them at Coxsackie
24 and still yet also building a second -- not
282
1 building, renovating, whatever you call that,
2 the Hudson? So are you removing all the
3 adults from the Hudson?
4 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:
5 Eventually, yes. Right now what we
6 implemented was a housing arrangement where
7 16- and 17-year-olds are either placed at
8 Woodbourne, at Greene, or at Coxsackie if
9 they require maximum security placement.
10 Going forward, the plan is for all 16-
11 and 17-year-olds to be removed to Hudson,
12 with the exception of those that still
13 require maximum security placement.
14 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: I was at
15 Greene when they began the process of the
16 renovation of Greene to allow for 16- and
17 17-year-olds. That was to be in PREA
18 compliance. So why the change? Like why did
19 you originally come up with the idea we're
20 going to put the medium security
21 PREA-compliant units in different places?
22 And then why did you decide now, no, they all
23 have to be in the same place?
24 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: This is
283
1 the next logical step. The Governor is
2 really committed to removing 16- and
3 17-year-olds from adult prisons globally, the
4 Raise the Age initiative. We're tied with
5 North Carolina in last place, so to speak.
6 It would be a lot easier for us as a system
7 if every person walking through our door was
8 at least 18 or over.
9 The PREA requirements require us to
10 separate, by sight and sound, all 16- or
11 17-year-olds. And to do that effectively, we
12 looked at the existing services at the time.
13 And it made sense to use Woodbourne because
14 it had some cells, it made sense to use
15 Greene, and it made sense to use Coxsackie
16 for those that would require maximum security
17 placement.
18 Now this initiative is the next step,
19 because it's going to completely remove them
20 from the adult prisons. But Hudson will
21 still remain as a correctional facility.
22 So it is our hope that you do raise
23 the age, because the other thing is this.
24 With any 17-year-old right now on our system,
284
1 if they come in just two months shy of their
2 birthday, they have to go into one of these
3 facilities where we currently cohort them,
4 either Woodbourne, Coxsackie, and, in future,
5 Hudson. But once they turn 18, we have to
6 immediately uplift them and move them to a
7 general confinement facility.
8 So the Raise the Age initiative will
9 allow the Office of Children and Family
10 Services to hold on to them, to continue in
11 their program, to decide when the appropriate
12 time is to transfer them to us as adults,
13 either at 21 or possibly later. That, I
14 think, is the best possible solution going
15 forward for everyone.
16 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: But back to
17 the problem at hand with segregating out the
18 maximum security prisoners into Coxsackie.
19 As I spoke to you beforehand, when I went
20 there relatively recently, they were one
21 unhappy group of people who -- not because
22 they were in prison, but they felt that they
23 were almost in solitary, that they were being
24 punished. And they kept on saying to me and
285
1 the other people there, Why did you do this
2 to us?
3 So what do you intend to do at Hudson
4 to prevent that from being repeated for the
5 medium-security 16- and 17-year-olds that
6 you're putting into that facility?
7 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well,
8 the numbers will be much more significant.
9 And they'll be out and they'll be
10 participating in the general-confinement
11 program, they'll have free rein of the
12 facility because we don't have to worry about
13 any separation by sight or sound. There will
14 be no one 18 or over at that facility.
15 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: Well, one last
16 question, thank you.
17 When I originally toured Hudson you
18 were a little upset with me because I went to
19 the crappy dorm, or I went to the one place
20 that was really like crumbling down. It was
21 really decrepit.
22 Are you intending to put those 16- and
23 17-year-olds into that crappy dorm? I don't
24 know what the word would be. But you know
286
1 what I'm talking about, right? So like
2 literally there were rooms that eight inmates
3 slept, you know, in beds next to one another
4 in a room that was probably built for four.
5 Is that where you're putting these
6 kids?
7 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: We are
8 upgrading. We're spending a lot of money to
9 upgrade the place to make it suitable for
10 children.
11 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: And there will
12 still be adults on the work release side of
13 the prison?
14 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yes.
15 That is outside the secure perimeter. So the
16 temporary release, industrial training
17 program, will still continue to operate in
18 that building.
19 ASSEMBLYMAN O'DONNELL: Okay. I just
20 want to take an opportunity to thank you for
21 how responsive you have been to me and my
22 staff and for answering all the letters that
23 I take the time to write. Thank you very
24 much.
287
1 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Thank
2 you, Assemblyman.
3 ASSEMBLYMAN McDONALD: Thank you.
4 Senate?
5 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you very
6 much. Our next speaker is Senator Patrick
7 Gallivan, chair of Crime and Corrections.
8 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Thank you, Madam
9 Chair.
10 Commissioner, good afternoon.
11 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Good
12 afternoon, Senator.
13 SENATOR GALLIVAN: I can't help but
14 add to the comments of Senator Nozzolio. You
15 have had a very challenging year, and we
16 understand that.
17 I also understand that the inspector
18 general report is still pending, there's
19 pending investigations related to the escape
20 and looking into it. And I think -- I'd like
21 you to understand how frustrating it is for
22 us. We've got a responsibility, an oversight
23 responsibility, starting with the
24 Constitution, the various laws, the rules of
288
1 the Senate. And I'll get into some of the
2 safety and security issues.
3 But when we see overdoses, when we see
4 assaults on staff, when we see assaults on
5 inmates, when we see drugs in facilities and
6 so on -- I mean, there's a very real
7 frustration when, as chair of the Crime and
8 Corrections Committee, people say: What are
9 you doing about it? And how are you trying
10 to address it?
11 And I've tried to be very respectful
12 of the investigations that are going on, to
13 not impede on any of them. But there will
14 have to come a time when they're out that
15 we'll have to have a more extensive public
16 airing of the events leading up to that.
17 But nonetheless, I hope you understand
18 that handicaps us right at this point,
19 especially when we're considering a package
20 that's spending $3 billion, 3 billion
21 taxpayer dollars.
22 So safety and security. That is --
23 it's evident throughout your testimony, very
24 appropriately so. And since my time in this
289
1 chair and yours in that chair, I know that
2 that is something that you've talked about
3 each time that you're before us, and pretty
4 much every time you and I have a
5 conversation.
6 And I want to point to just a couple
7 of different things. I have a letter that
8 you wrote to all the inmates back in April of
9 2015 -- which I commend you for taking a very
10 responsible action while at the same time
11 admitting failures of the system and warning
12 them about the dangers of synthetic
13 marijuana. And we really should rightly be
14 concerned about that.
15 I've got some data regarding
16 contraband in facilities that has continued
17 to increase each of the last four years, last
18 year being the highest total ever.
19 Inmate-on-staff assaults, same thing, have
20 continued to increase each of the last three
21 or four years, highest total ever.
22 Inmate-on-inmate assaults, same thing.
23 So no matter how we look at it, we've
24 got problems and concerns. And it doesn't
290
1 matter if you are there defending the
2 correction officer or some family member very
3 concerned about their brother, sister,
4 whomever it might be in a correctional
5 facility. Your foremost obligation is to
6 provide for the safety, security, humane
7 constitutional treatment inside those
8 facilities.
9 So of course it begs the question,
10 what are we doing about all this? We're
11 going in the wrong direction each of the last
12 three or four years.
13 But having said that, I know your
14 testimony started to address that. So the
15 security staffing reviews that we took on two
16 years ago, can you tell me where they -- and
17 I know you briefly mentioned them. But can
18 you tell me where you are along that process?
19 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: We've
20 completed the next -- I think it's 18 audits.
21 We've shared that information with the two
22 unions -- NYSCOPBA, Council 82. We're
23 awaiting their feedback. And then we'll send
24 the final set of recommendations to the
291
1 Division of the Budget.
2 SENATOR GALLIVAN: When did you
3 anticipate the review of the entire system
4 will be completed, of all the facilities?
5 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: The
6 third year will be next year.
7 SENATOR GALLIVAN: And partly in
8 response, I'm assuming, to some of the things
9 that have taken place as you're doing your
10 internal review of the escape at Clinton, as
11 well as the security staffing reviews, your
12 testimony talked about the technological
13 enhancements, training improvements, policy
14 changes -- begun some things, are going to
15 begin some others.
16 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Mm-hmm.
17 SENATOR GALLIVAN: It can't come soon
18 enough. I think you agree with that. But
19 how far along are we with these things, and
20 how can we accelerate it so these -- which
21 you can't see, but obviously the chart that
22 goes up --
23 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yes.
24 SENATOR GALLIVAN: -- starts going in
292
1 the other direction?
2 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Right.
3 The first thing is that we have made
4 arrangements to change our rules, our
5 disciplinary rules, so that K2, or synthetic
6 marijuana, is defined as a drug for purposes
7 of our disciplinary system.
8 That required a formal change in a
9 rule and then serving it on every inmate. So
10 I think the date where it officially will
11 take effect is the next couple of weeks or
12 few weeks. So that will enhance our ability
13 to discipline appropriately the individuals
14 that engage in that.
15 The next thing that we've done is
16 we've sent out notices to advise the vendors
17 that supply products to our commissaries that
18 we will no longer be able to accept canned
19 goods. There are too many instances where
20 can lids are being used for weaponry. And
21 we've talked to other systems, we're one of
22 the few states that's in this area that still
23 does that sort of thing.
24 So we're confident that we can supply
293
1 other products that are packaged in ways so
2 that ultimately we will be removing can lids
3 from our commissaries.
4 And we will make similar steps, you
5 know, when you buy from secure vendors. So
6 that's the next change. We're going to allow
7 inmates to buy only from secure vendors that
8 we've identified. Because this would
9 prevent -- assuming no one is compromised by
10 the secure vendors we select, and they will
11 have to prove to us their track record --
12 that purchasing goods from the outside and
13 coming into the facilities, A, will not have
14 can lids and, B, hopefully will no longer
15 have drugs secreted --
16 SENATOR GALLIVAN: If I can just stay
17 right along the commissaries, I had -- I know
18 this has been talked about for years. I had
19 a meeting with the deputy secretary for
20 public safety several months ago, and he
21 talked about an RFP either being prepared or
22 going out for -- for a central commissary, I
23 think?
24 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yes.
294
1 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Is that still a
2 plan?
3 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: The
4 commissary RFP is still out there. But
5 meanwhile, for the existing vendors, we want
6 to implement this now. That will also be
7 part of the long-range RFP for the winning
8 bidder there, but right now we want to make
9 this change.
10 SENATOR GALLIVAN: All right, let's --
11 there will be much more to follow, I mean,
12 with all the specific items, about trying to
13 prevent contraband from coming into
14 facilities, trying to stop the various
15 assaults on staff or inmates. So I know
16 we'll have many more discussions.
17 If I may just talk very briefly -- you
18 talked briefly about it as well in your
19 testimony -- inmate discipline, the whole
20 process. I know you had the settlement, you
21 had the SHU lawsuit. Some things were
22 prompted by that. And you've talked about
23 the revamping of an inmate discipline system
24 in your testimony.
295
1 Some of the concerns that people have
2 come to me with from various facilities
3 across the state is that inmate discipline
4 has gone in the wrong direction and there's a
5 feeling that that has contributed to the
6 increase in assaults, be it on inmates or
7 staff. Can you comment on that?
8 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: We
9 continue to study and meet with our unions to
10 get feedback.
11 Certainly, as we know -- we spoke
12 about this maybe a year ago or two years
13 ago -- the demographics of our population
14 have changed. Many years ago we had 24,000
15 drug offenders, mostly low-level drug
16 offenders. And now, disproportionately, we
17 have more violent felony offenders in our
18 system, I think maybe 64 percent. We have
19 9,500, 9,600 inmates that are serving
20 sentences with maximums of life terms.
21 So those are changing demographics.
22 That may be one of the reasons that we're
23 seeing the uptick in assaults.
24 No assault is good. The majority of
296
1 assaults that do happen -- and as I
2 explained, our definition of what constitutes
3 an assault is much lower than what's in the
4 Penal Law. It does not require physical
5 injury. I throw this cup of water, I don't
6 cause you injury, but it's an assault, it's
7 a --
8 SENATOR GALLIVAN: No, I understand
9 that. And just if I may -- sorry to
10 interrupt -- we can call it anything, but
11 there should never be a time that an inmate
12 puts his hands on another inmate or an inmate
13 puts his hands on a correction officer.
14 So I appreciate the semantics of it,
15 but I think we're on the same page with that.
16 I mean it's the order within a facility
17 that's of concern.
18 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Mm-hmm.
19 And I think, moving to the reforms that we've
20 implemented or are planning to implement with
21 the changes, we see that as very analogous to
22 what we've done with the seriously mentally
23 ill. And we planned that out, we spent the
24 right amount of money, we developed programs
297
1 like the RMHU at Marcy, the one at Five
2 Points, where we can safely bring inmates who
3 were otherwise very problematic out of their
4 cells to receive programming and treatment
5 using secure "Re-Start" chairs.
6 So we envision that this will help
7 safety, because we're going to do the
8 step-down program at one of our facilities, a
9 couple of other step-down to the communities.
10 We're going to change -- we have this
11 elaborate CCP program that we're planning.
12 We have a whole array of options, similar to
13 what we did with the seriously mentally ill.
14 And I think staff for the most part,
15 unless I'm wrong, will tell you that they see
16 what we've done with the seriously mentally
17 ill in those programs at Marcy as working.
18 And we're effectively changing behavior,
19 which is our ultimate goal. We want to
20 change behavior by difficult inmates.
21 We see that going the same way
22 ultimately -- it will take some time, we have
23 to be patient. When we bring everything
24 online, we think we'll have a safer system
298
1 for everybody.
2 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Commissioner, thank
3 you. I would love to go on, but the chair is
4 going to turn my microphone off because my
5 time's up. Thank you very much.
6 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you, Senator.
7 ASSEMBLYMAN McDONALD: Thank you.
8 Our next speaker is Assemblymember
9 Duprey.
10 ASSEMBLYWOMAN DUPREY: Good afternoon,
11 Commissioner.
12 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Good
13 afternoon, Assemblywoman.
14 ASSEMBLYWOMAN DUPREY: Before I start,
15 I would really be remiss -- several people
16 have already spoken about the event that
17 happened in my district in June, and I want
18 to extend my thanks to you personally,
19 Commissioner, to your administrative staff
20 for your tremendous cooperation during the
21 most difficult 23 days that I think probably
22 the Department of Corrections, certainly
23 anyone in my district, has ever had to
24 endure.
299
1 We're glad it didn't go on any longer.
2 I might have asked all of you to register to
3 vote, so -- but I know you were all there,
4 and you were there a lot and for a long time,
5 and your support was greatly appreciated.
6 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Thank
7 you, Assemblywoman.
8 ASSEMBLYWOMAN DUPREY: And continues
9 to be.
10 A couple of the Senators mentioned the
11 IG report, and I can tell you that there's no
12 one waiting for it more than I am in the
13 State Legislature, as well as several hundred
14 of my constituents. And I know,
15 Commissioner, that we share our concern on
16 safety issues. Certainly there are -- and
17 again, there's been some talk about the
18 assaults. The media seems to want to
19 certainly talk a lot about the inmates, the
20 assaults on inmates. And none of us condone
21 those. I've also seen way too many assaults
22 on our correction officers.
23 And could you just again -- and I hate
24 to ask you to repeat, but so that I'm clear
300
1 on what your recent initiatives are to
2 enhance the safety of our correction officers
3 in these facilities.
4 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well,
5 among the other things that we're spending
6 some money on for new equipment are these
7 portable medical detectors that we are
8 issuing in maximum security facilities to
9 start with. They are much better than the
10 fixed areas, because the inmates know where
11 the metal detector equipment is now. These
12 we can put and move about and therefore
13 effectively conduct metal detection searches
14 on inmates, which is one of the things that
15 we think will help significantly.
16 I mentioned the intention to get rid
17 of the cans, the intention to get secure
18 vendors. Because being the only way that
19 goods can come in, this will mean changes in
20 our package rooms, because we're one of the
21 few states that continues to allow packages
22 from anyone. And with new technology, people
23 can disguise, in seemingly a can of
24 vegetables from the store, anything.
301
1 We have great security staff that
2 review these, and they're terrific sometimes
3 at finding them. But no matter how diligent
4 they are, things get in. Scalpel blades get
5 in. All those things present a safety threat
6 to our staff and to other inmates.
7 And we continue to regularly meet with
8 our partners in the unions to hear what their
9 suggestions are. And we're looking at things
10 also to deescalate situations. We want to
11 introduce pepper spray into the department to
12 see how that works. That may be a way of
13 safely defusing a situation. A lot of other
14 jurisdictions use that.
15 We have deescalation training. We're
16 sharing that with the unions now, we're
17 rewriting our policies, we're going to get
18 their feedback before putting anything out.
19 But we recognize that everybody's in this
20 together. Nobody has the single answer to
21 every problem. The only answer is that
22 everything requires either hard work or a lot
23 of hard work. But we're willing to do it
24 together and get the job done.
302
1 ASSEMBLYWOMAN DUPREY: Thank you.
2 And I also want to address something
3 that is, I think, difficult. I'm sure it's
4 difficult for the department, difficult for
5 me. But we recently had a very well
6 respected sergeant in one of my correctional
7 facilities who committed suicide. He left
8 behind a loving family and certainly
9 coworkers in shock. It's one more example of
10 the incredible stress that our correctional
11 officers face every day.
12 About six years ago a retired
13 corrections lieutenant who's a personal
14 friend of mine came to my office in
15 Plattsburgh, and he actually broke down,
16 talking about the flashbacks, the depression
17 that he went through soon after his
18 retirement. Coincidentally, that same day I
19 was having lunch with a couple of
20 psychologists who started talking to me about
21 their wanting to work more with veterans.
22 And I asked them to start working with our
23 correction officers.
24 They've done that. I introduced the
303
1 two of them. They've had great success with
2 PTSD programs. I think we need to be very
3 open that our correction officers --
4 certainly some who are currently working, but
5 those who retire -- are facing PTSD the same
6 as our veterans are. We have now in the
7 North Country, in the Plattsburgh area,
8 trained local licensed mental health
9 counselors. They recently held a seminar.
10 Commissioner, I know you're trying to
11 reach out to those in need in my district,
12 but I'm also concerned -- and I believe we've
13 done that pretty well -- I'm concerned about
14 correction officers across the state. And
15 can you just tell us about what the
16 department is doing to address the stress
17 that these officers are facing? And I worry
18 about their stress, the stress of their
19 families.
20 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Sure.
21 And I commend the gentleman that started that
22 program. I read the article on it, I think
23 it was very impressive. I think people don't
24 realize the nature of the job -- mostly for
304
1 correction officers with stress, but for all
2 staff working inside correctional facility,
3 what they face every day. And they
4 internalize it a lot, and that can build up
5 over time.
6 Two years ago I was concerned about
7 the uptick in suicides among our staff, so I
8 put out a notice to all staff. We had worked
9 to give out some materials to our EAP
10 coordinators, resources to refer people to.
11 The notice I created was with help from my
12 assistant commissioner in charge of mental
13 health services, where we basically explained
14 depression is something that can affect
15 anybody. And when you reach that state where
16 you think the only solution to your problem,
17 you're so depressed you think the only
18 solution to your problem is to take your
19 life, it's a very unfortunate circumstance.
20 There are countless individuals alive
21 today who were at that stage but got help in
22 time, and now they're leading healthy and
23 productive lives.
24 So in my notice two years ago I urged
305
1 that, you know, if you see a fellow worker
2 that's at risk, take advantage of these
3 materials. They have resources in the
4 community.
5 Now, more recently, we are working
6 with our partners in NYSCOPBA and the
7 Governor's Office of Employee Relations. We
8 are using joint labor-management funding.
9 They've selected a vendor who's going to roll
10 out a training program to our union stewards
11 and EAP coordinators on how to prevent
12 suicide.
13 Suicide is a terrible tragedy, and we
14 owe it to the hardworking men and women, both
15 inside our institutions and in the
16 communities, to do everything possible to get
17 them help before these tragedies reach
18 fruition.
19 ASSEMBLYWOMAN DUPREY: Thank you. I
20 know my time is up, but thank you for that
21 answer. It's certainly something that none
22 of us want to continue to deal with.
23 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Thank
24 you.
306
1 ASSEMBLYWOMAN DUPREY: Thank you, sir.
2 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you very
3 much. Our next speaker is Senator Funke.
4 SENATOR FUNKE: Thank you, Madam
5 Chairwoman.
6 Commissioner, thank you for the
7 challenging work that you do.
8 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Thank
9 you. Good afternoon.
10 SENATOR FUNKE: I'd like to talk to
11 you about parole today and what's going on in
12 my particular district, Monroe and Ontario
13 counties. Thomas Johnson, III, was a parolee
14 who murdered Rochester police officer Daryl
15 Pierson. Johnny Blackshell Jr., another
16 parolee accused of killing three people
17 outside the Boys & Girls Club in Rochester.
18 David Alligood, another parolee accused of
19 shooting up a bar in Gates and killing one,
20 injuring six others. Michael Carruthers,
21 released on parole and only hours later raped
22 a 14-year-old girl. The list goes on.
23 People in my community believe that if
24 the parole system is not broken, it is
307
1 severely cracked. We have 30 program
2 officers in Rochester responsible for 1200
3 parolees in Rochester metro, with three cars.
4 They tell me the cars have about 150,000
5 miles on them, too.
6 Have parole issues become lost in
7 DOCCS since the two have been merged
8 together? Because it sure seems like it to
9 me. How can we better ensure the public
10 safety, the safety of our community, the
11 safety of these parole officers as well? How
12 can we better have parolees reporting when
13 they're supposed to report? And what's being
14 done to address those issues, please?
15 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Senator,
16 your points are very well taken. And the
17 community supervision aspect of this agency
18 is extremely important.
19 When the Governor merged these two
20 agencies, his vision was that there should be
21 a seamless transition between when a person
22 enters the front door of a correctional
23 facility, throughout their incarceration, and
24 then released into the community to continue
308
1 with the services. And at that time, even
2 though I had many, many years of experience
3 and work with the Division of Parole, I
4 really learned firsthand the tough job that
5 parole officers do.
6 It's tough enough dealing with some of
7 the convicted felons behind the walls, where
8 you know they don't have access to guns. But
9 in the community when you're doing a home
10 visit and you don't know if he's on drugs,
11 you don't know if there's a gun in the room.
12 And our parole officers are very
13 professional, very well trained.
14 What is going on in Rochester has
15 caused us great concern. And we've rolled
16 out several important initiatives that we
17 think are making difference.
18 First and foremost, before someone is
19 released to the Rochester area, we have a
20 screening process so that if they are
21 identified as what we call a high-risk
22 parolee, through our risk and needs
23 assessment, we first arrange for that person
24 to get closer to a facility so that they're
309
1 not traveling a long distance. We then put
2 GPS bracelets on them at the correctional
3 facility. We then transport them to the
4 field office for their official report, so
5 that there's no break in the release, so that
6 they're not in the community before they
7 officially understand, yes, I'm a parolee,
8 I'm still serving the sentence, I'm subject
9 to jurisdiction.
10 We make sure that we have the right
11 individuals on the right supervision level.
12 And we work with our local law enforcement
13 partners. Recently we joined forces with our
14 BSS unit, our OSI unit, to conduct an
15 initiative whereby we would round up
16 absconders in the Rochester area. I forget
17 the raw number that we ended up with, but by
18 all accounts it was successful. Local law
19 enforcement welcomed the cooperative
20 initiative.
21 We just recently did one in New York
22 City that went over very, very well, and the
23 police commissioner acknowledged us in that
24 effort. So we envision continuing to do
310
1 things along those lines.
2 The vehicle issue you mentioned has me
3 greatly concerned. We've been working on a
4 business plan, which I was informed today has
5 been approved by OGS. So instead of the
6 existing ratio -- and I can get the exact
7 ratio. I have it in my notes somewhere that
8 we'll be moving to. But over a three-year
9 period we are going to acquire a lot more
10 vehicles that are going to be going to
11 community supervision. The first year has
12 been approved, so we will be, I think,
13 spending about $800,000. I think the number
14 is like 37 or 38 more vehicles for use by
15 parole officers so they can do their
16 responsibilities.
17 SENATOR FUNKE: One quick question.
18 Assemblyman Peter Lawrence and the police
19 chiefs in Monroe County have suggested
20 expanding the database within police agencies
21 on parolees, so that if it should happen that
22 a parolee is stopped, a police officer could
23 make an arrest right then and there. Is that
24 something that you would support?
311
1 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well,
2 right now if we have already lodged an
3 absconding warrant, that's on a system that
4 anybody can acknowledge and any police
5 officer in the state can take someone into
6 custody based upon the fact that they're a
7 parole absconder.
8 SENATOR FUNKE: Thank you, sir.
9 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.
10 ASSEMBLYMAN McDONALD: Our next
11 speaker is Assemblymember Lentol.
12 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Hello,
13 Commissioner.
14 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Hi,
15 Assemblyman.
16 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: First of all, I
17 don't want to give you too much praise, but I
18 have a great deal of affection as well as
19 respect for your knowledge, not only of
20 corrections but also of the sentencing law
21 which we studied together -- which I studied
22 and you knew. And I learned a great deal
23 from you when we served on the Sentencing
24 Commission together.
312
1 But I too want to talk about parole,
2 but a different aspect of parole, which is
3 the Parole Board. And I looked at some of
4 the proposals that the Governor has
5 propounded in order to open up parole to the
6 public regarding having people come into
7 watch parole or video of the live interview,
8 of the interaction between the Parole Board
9 and the inmates.
10 And my question is when I looked at
11 this proposal, it looks like a Sunshine Law.
12 But then after reading it or understanding
13 it, it sounds likes it's designed to keep
14 people in prison. Because I don't know how
15 an inmate in the prison would be forthcoming
16 or the Parole Board folks would be able to
17 ask appropriate questions given the fact that
18 they know they're on tape.
19 And furthermore, if the public heard
20 the details of the crime, the Parole Board
21 may be unwilling to release anybody, because
22 they'd be afraid to.
23 So I'm just wondering how and why we
24 have this proposal in the budget.
313
1 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well, I
2 think what the Governor was responding to was
3 the concern by a lot of individuals in the
4 community who get frustrated at repeated
5 denials of parole. And they want to make
6 sure that the Parole Board is weighing all of
7 the appropriate factors that they're
8 obligated to weigh under the law.
9 She's not here today, but I have the
10 utmost respect for Chairwoman Stanford.
11 She's a terrific individual, she's provided
12 great leadership to the board. In my
13 conversations with all the individual parole
14 commissioners, they want to do the right
15 thing. They really do. They want to weigh
16 the entire record that an inmate has done.
17 No inmate can go back in time and change the
18 original crime. That's fixed as is. But
19 they want to be judged on what they've done
20 over the course of their incarceration.
21 So we certainly -- my job, and this
22 was part of the merger, is to make sure they
23 have all the resources they need to do their
24 job. But their decision making still has to
314
1 be independent from me. The decisions of the
2 ALJs have to be independent.
3 One of the things that we're exploring
4 is potentially using outside lawyers in some
5 role to assist the inmate with the
6 preparation of his packet. The Governor
7 reached out, and there are a number of
8 lawyers who are willing to come forward as
9 the Pardon Initiative and the Clemency
10 Initiative. And I had several staff members
11 participate in a webinar to train them so
12 that they could understand all of the
13 different documents that are part of our
14 documentation -- what the commitment means,
15 what program participation means, what a
16 disciplinary record means.
17 Some of these lawyers who might be
18 taking on inmates for clemency applications
19 might also be tapped for responsibilities
20 along this line, to potentially help an
21 inmate prepare his package and appear before
22 the Parole Board.
23 So there's a lot to be discussed,
24 there's a lot to be considered. It's not a
315
1 black-and-white issue, it's not easy to get
2 people into our correctional facilities. A
3 lot of the Parole Board hearings are done by
4 televideo, so it could be possible that
5 somebody could be at a remote site and listen
6 to what's going on.
7 We certainly support transparency, but
8 we also want to be fair to everybody.
9 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: And isn't it also
10 true that in parole hearings there are
11 certain facts that never come to light,
12 either in video or at the Parole Board,
13 because there are confidential communications
14 between the district attorney and the judge,
15 as well as others who may have their thoughts
16 not ever brought up at any of these hearings?
17 So the public would be denied knowledge of
18 why somebody was denied because of those
19 confidential communications.
20 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I am
21 reluctant to give you a hard and fast answer.
22 I know the crime victim's statement is
23 absolutely confidential. The inmate never
24 gets it. And we take extraordinary means to
316
1 make sure that that gets delivered to the
2 parole commissioners at the time of the
3 hearing; they take that into consideration.
4 I'm not sure what the practice is if a
5 district attorney writes a letter. I'm
6 tending to think that it's part of the record
7 that should be made available --
8 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: I don't think it
9 is.
10 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: -- but I
11 don't want to give you a definite answer.
12 I'd have to check with the Board of Parole.
13 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Thank you, sir.
14 SENATOR KRUEGER: Senator Ruth
15 Hassell-Thompson.
16 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank you,
17 Madam Chair.
18 Good afternoon, Commissioner.
19 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Good
20 afternoon, Senator.
21 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I know
22 there was mention made of both Hudson and
23 Coxsackie's correctional facilities, but just
24 a couple of quick follow-up questions,
317
1 really.
2 What would be the impact -- you talked
3 in your presentation about $300 million in
4 the capital budget. And some of that is
5 going to be for the renovation and the
6 reengineering of Hudson. What impact is that
7 going to have on services provided to inmates
8 that are currently at Hudson?
9 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well,
10 eventually the inmates that are currently at
11 Hudson are going to be moved to other
12 facilities.
13 The first phase of the construction
14 project is slated to be completed so that we
15 can start to move 16- and 17-year-olds there
16 by August. We want to move as quickly as
17 possible.
18 The existing inmates that are there
19 will continue to get services while we're
20 still doing the rehabilitation. Gradually
21 they will attrit out and eventually, for
22 those that remain behind, we can transfer
23 them. We have enough vacancies throughout
24 our system. So we do not envision that as
318
1 being a challenge to us.
2 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: And you
3 know I want to ask you how is that going to
4 impact Close to Home, but I'll leave that for
5 another day.
6 Tell me about Coxsackie. You know,
7 will those housing units be modified to reach
8 the goals that are in our age-appropriate
9 behavioral modification protocols?
10 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: We don't
11 have any further construction changes planned
12 for Coxsackie. These changes were already
13 made as part of the first initial settlement
14 we made with NYCLU.
15 So Coxsackie has a general confinement
16 unit, I forget the number of beds -- it's
17 either 15 or 30 -- and then a comparable
18 number if we have to segregate an inmate for
19 disciplinary reasons at Coxsackie. Coxsackie
20 will be used for 16- and 17-year-olds going
21 forward who require maximum security
22 placement.
23 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: No, that
24 I'm aware of. But how does -- looking at
319
1 Coxsackie as it current exists, is it part of
2 the developmental plan to meets the goals of
3 this new population?
4 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yes.
5 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: That's the
6 question.
7 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: It is
8 part of the goal.
9 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay. Tell
10 me a little bit about the hepatitis C crisis
11 that's in the prison population and what's
12 being done to address the rising costs and
13 the proliferation of this disease within the
14 populations?
15 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well,
16 rising costs are something we really can't
17 control. If you need treatment, we have to
18 provide it.
19 Several years ago it was triple
20 therapy, it was pegylated-interferon and
21 ribavirin and a protease inhibitor that
22 combined for the treatment. Now there are
23 new treatments. The cost could be $84,000
24 for a treatment round. It depends upon the
320
1 extent of the disease. And we have to
2 provide it. We have to offer it and we have
3 to provide it.
4 I think there's a new law that says
5 that you have to offer the test to everybody
6 between the ages of 45 and 55. So we are
7 doing that. And those that want the
8 treatment, we have to provide it to them.
9 And we also have arrangements to
10 continue the treatment in the community as
11 well, so that we hook that up -- them up as
12 well. But it is very expensive. It could
13 rise as much as up to $24 million for that
14 this year.
15 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: That rolls
16 over into my last question, because my clock
17 just seems to be ticking faster than anybody
18 else's. But the aging and the medical cost
19 for older patients, what is being done to do
20 consideration of release for this population?
21 Looking at the $16 billion additional for
22 this population, is nobody cognizant of that?
23 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Good
24 point, Senator. We're very cognizant of it.
321
1 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: No, no, no.
2 I don't mean you, but I mean people outside.
3 Because we keep talking about the rising
4 costs of everything, but these are people who
5 pose absolutely no threat to public safety,
6 and yet we are keeping them in a facility
7 that exacerbates an already bad condition,
8 and it's costing us an extra $16 billion.
9 You know, everybody wants to be a cost-saver,
10 but that's not a consideration that we're
11 making.
12 Plus it's inhumane. Let's not leave
13 that out of the equation either.
14 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Senator,
15 medical parole is an avenue that I personally
16 would like to use more. We've changed the
17 law last year to try and short-circuit the
18 cases where certain nonviolent inmates who
19 are terminally ill can avoid the Parole Board
20 appearance and instead I can make that
21 decision.
22 But the list of crimes that make you
23 eligible are very narrow. Typically like a
24 drug offense. Drug offense sentences now are
322
1 very small compared to what they used to be.
2 So typically you have to be inside for a
3 while for a terminal condition to make itself
4 known.
5 There have only been two cases so --
6 well, there's actually been three cases so
7 far. And what I have done is turn them
8 around very quickly, but unfortunately the
9 individuals died before the requisite time
10 frame within which I had to get feedback,
11 because the law requires me to do that. I
12 have to write to the judge, I write to the
13 sentencing court, the district attorney and
14 the defense lawyer, and I have to allow them
15 a period of time before I can make it
16 official.
17 But the list of crimes is very narrow.
18 I have instructed my chief medical officer --
19 because he is the one that forwards the case
20 on to me. He sends it to me by an email. I
21 try and answer him the same day. I look up
22 the case, I look up his description. If I
23 have any questions, I will ask him. But --
24 and I get a million emails, but I've told him
323
1 if he doesn't get an answer from me that day,
2 the next day, get back to me. Because I
3 don't want any delays.
4 I'm very sensitive to the humanitarian
5 aspects of this. If we can at all, if at all
6 possible, these individuals deserve to die
7 with dignity in a setting other than a
8 correctional facility.
9 But for those that do stay in our
10 facilities, we do have hospice programs
11 within our regional medical units. We've
12 trained inmates how to be hospice aides, how
13 to be the companion. Because we don't want
14 anybody to ever die alone in our system.
15 And we are looking at ways to try and
16 expedite the process. I know there's a lot
17 of frustration. People want to see a lot
18 more medical paroles. We get it. We're
19 going to be taking steps to look, how can we
20 improve things? My initial inclination is we
21 probably have to start backing up the
22 decision a little earlier so that the normal
23 process that has to be followed -- the
24 letters that have to go to the district
324
1 attorneys, et cetera, can go out earlier.
2 The challenge is the standard you have
3 to apply is that you have to be convinced
4 that the person is too sick to present a risk
5 of harm. What does that mean? If you can
6 fire a gun, are you potentially a risk?
7 So we're trying to weigh and balance
8 all those factors and accelerate the process.
9 It's not easy, but we definitely want to make
10 a lot more progress in that area.
11 SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank you,
12 Commissioner.
13 ASSEMBLYMAN McDONALD: Thank you.
14 We've been joined by Assemblymember
15 Richardson, and we will now hear from
16 Assemblymember Graf.
17 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: Hi, how you doing,
18 Commissioner? I'm going to be kind of short
19 here because it's been a long day.
20 Can you tell me the percentage of your
21 inmates that are coming into this system that
22 are opiate-addicted or have a heroin
23 addiction? Do you have a percentage number?
24 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I can't
325
1 tell you a percentage that are coming in
2 opioid-addicted. I might be able to; I know
3 that the inmates coming in with a substance
4 abuse need is very high, so at some point we
5 have to put them into some type of drug
6 treatment program.
7 But heroin is a serious concern. I
8 have had inmates die of overdoses inside the
9 institutions. We've had parolees die of
10 overdoses. So the two initiatives I
11 described we think will be helpful.
12 We have a program whereby inmates who
13 will shortly be released -- it's a program we
14 developed in partnership with the Harm
15 Reduction Coalition and the Department of
16 Health. We train them on Naloxone kits, and
17 then we offer it to them as they're leaving,
18 free of charge. And we know that there have
19 been a couple of instances where a parolee
20 has used his Naloxone kit to bring someone
21 back to life who is an apparent overdose from
22 heroin.
23 We're also the first state agency
24 that's approved by the Department of Health
326
1 for our nurses to give the injectable
2 Naloxone to any inmate or visitor, volunteer,
3 whomever, that apparently is suffering from
4 an opioid overdose.
5 So this is part of the Governor's
6 initiative. We're trying to take all
7 reasonable steps. But it is a rising
8 concern, there's no question about it, in our
9 communities.
10 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: It's becoming a big
11 problem. Would you say in your population,
12 when you're getting new inmates, this is
13 becoming a big problem with the heroin or
14 some type of addiction?
15 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: If I
16 heard your question correctly, you're asking
17 if I have a problem --
18 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: No, has this been
19 an increasing problem as far as --
20 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yes, in
21 general I would say it's been an increasing
22 problem.
23 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: All right. Now,
24 the Vivitrol that you said you're giving some
327
1 inmates, Vivitrol, once they're released, are
2 they released into a program or are they just
3 released?
4 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yeah,
5 this is a pilot program that we've started at
6 Edgecombe in conjunction with Odyssey House
7 and of course our partners at OASAS. And the
8 program is for parolees actually who have
9 relapsed on heroin. And we have this parole
10 diversion program where we can put them in
11 for 45 days at Edgecombe.
12 So while they're there, recognizing
13 that they have this problem, this addiction,
14 this drug, if they voluntarily will take it,
15 coupled with all of the counseling that we're
16 going to give them in the community, will
17 block the effects of opioid as well as the
18 euphoria from drinking alcohol.
19 So we've just started this, we've
20 mapped it all out, there's a lot of things
21 that to be lined up -- the physician that's
22 going to give the injection at Edgecombe, the
23 follow-up injection in the community if they
24 follow up accordingly, the identification
328
1 that they have to wear. We've just lined
2 this all up; we haven't yet had a test case.
3 But it is something that we are hoping, if it
4 produces positive results there, we also have
5 PD programs at Hudson and at Orleans for the
6 parole violators who have this opioid
7 relapse, come into our system, and then we
8 offer that as a means of trying to block the
9 effects and deal with their addiction.
10 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: Now, the Vivitrol,
11 are you able to buy that in bulk when you
12 bring it? Because I know it's like a
13 thousand dollars a shot.
14 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yeah, I
15 think that's being supplied by Odyssey House.
16 This is not a department expense for that.
17 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: Okay. Thank you
18 very much.
19 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.
20 Our next speaker is Senator Krueger.
21 SENATOR KRUEGER: Good afternoon.
22 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Good
23 afternoon, Senator.
24 SENATOR KRUEGER: You talked about the
329
1 mental health issues in the prisons in your
2 testimony. What's your estimate of what
3 percentage of the prisoners in DOCCS are
4 suffering from mental illness?
5 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: That
6 number keeps growing. We've crossed the
7 10,000 number. We have over 10,000 on the
8 caseload. I think it's 19 percent of our
9 population now that are on the OMH caseload.
10 SENATOR KRUEGER: And as we are
11 releasing people from DOCCS back into their
12 communities, how is the system of ensuring
13 they are processed for Medicaid before they
14 leave prison going?
15 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yeah,
16 that's a big initiative on our part to enroll
17 as many inmates as possible into the Medicaid
18 program.
19 We've prioritized which inmates we
20 should put to the front of the list, so to
21 speak -- the ones that might get an illness,
22 the elderly inmates, et cetera. I think
23 we're averaging something like 500-and-some-
24 odd registrations per month.
330
1 And another big initiative that we
2 have that came out of the Reentry Council,
3 the Governor's Reentry Council, their
4 suggestion -- and we were able to coordinate
5 this with our Department of Health
6 partners -- is that we will be able, some
7 time this year, in the not too distant
8 future, to activate the Medicaid card prior
9 to release. I think it's 30 days prior to
10 release.
11 That will help us greatly with
12 placements. It will help us with the elderly
13 inmates that we're trying to place into
14 nursing homes, where some of them want the
15 inmate on Medicaid with his card prior to
16 leaving. It will help us hook up with
17 certain services in the community. So we're
18 very hopeful about that as well.
19 SENATOR KRUEGER: I represent the East
20 Side of Manhattan, where the intake for the
21 New York City homeless shelter system for men
22 is located. And we were provided an estimate
23 recently that there are 2,000 people who come
24 out of DOCCS and their discharge plan sends
331
1 them to the Bellevue Men's Shelter entry
2 system.
3 Do you believe that's an appropriate
4 discharge plan from the New York State
5 prisons?
6 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well, we
7 can't legally hold someone past their release
8 date if they are homeless. The law requires
9 us to notify the local DSS if someone is
10 coming out of prison and requires homeless
11 shelter services. So we do that throughout
12 the 62 counties of the state.
13 We try very hard to work with the
14 parolee to know in advance his release date,
15 to ascertain if he has any relative, any
16 friend, anyone who might be willing to offer
17 them a place to stay. The reality is there
18 are significant numbers of individuals who
19 leave the prison system without a home to go
20 to.
21 We have contract beds that we use, we
22 have various programs for employment that
23 hopefully get them the money that they can
24 then secure private residences. The numbers
332
1 in New York City I think were significantly
2 affected by the loss of three-quarter
3 housing. So that amplified the numbers.
4 But the number of undomiciled
5 individuals is significant, and the
6 subpopulation of that is the number of sex
7 offenders who are covered by the Sexual
8 Assault Reform Act, which requires that any
9 residence that they get can't be within a
10 thousand feet of a school. So we will not
11 release someone to a homeless shelter who's
12 covered by that law unless the city or the
13 county tells us: We have a bed for that
14 person that's SARA-compliant.
15 What we've been doing instead is
16 relying on our authority to put these people
17 into what are called residential treatment
18 facilities. They're usually located near the
19 community. We have one, I believe it's
20 Lincoln, and we give them transitional
21 services, we pay them $10 a day to work on an
22 outside crew, and they come back and they
23 sleep at the facility until such time as we
24 do find a SARA-compliant residence. But it
333
1 is a huge, complicating problem.
2 SENATOR KRUEGER: I am familiar with
3 the sex offender issue, and in fact I think
4 the City of New York is working very hard to
5 make sure that released sex offenders are
6 going into appropriate locations. That has
7 also been an issue in my community.
8 But I will say that there seems to be
9 a pattern of release of mentally ill people
10 from prison without Medicaid kicking in
11 before they get to the city, ending up at the
12 front door of the shelter system. And I
13 propose to you that's a guarantee that those
14 people will end up right back in the prison
15 system or having some terrible trauma happen
16 in the community.
17 So I'm hoping that DOCCS can take a
18 more active review of whether a discharge
19 plan ought to be "there's no other option, so
20 we'll just drop them off at the Bellevue
21 Men's Shelter."
22 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: We try
23 very hard to avoid that. We work very
24 closely now with OMH on discharge planning.
334
1 We have identified seriously mentally ill who
2 also might be violent well in advance, when
3 they come into the system, as part of our
4 reception centers, to put them into special
5 programs. We know that ultimately they're
6 going to be released. We want to make sure
7 we give them the best opportunities to
8 succeed.
9 We're establishing new special
10 discharge ICPs for this population. One is
11 going to be at Auburn, one is at Sing Sing,
12 where we already have the core program. We
13 release them with medication, I think it's
14 either two or three weeks' worth of
15 medication that they have, with scrips to
16 refill.
17 And your point is well taken, to the
18 extent there may be some that may not have
19 been registered on Medicaid, if they've
20 fallen through the cracks, I will make sure
21 that we prioritize getting them Medicaid
22 cards as well before release, Senator.
23 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.
24 ASSEMBLYMAN McDONALD: Thank you.
335
1 Our next speaker will be
2 Assemblymember Giglio.
3 ASSEMBLYMAN GIGLIO: Good afternoon.
4 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Good
5 afternoon, Assemblyman.
6 ASSEMBLYMAN GIGLIO: I only have two
7 quick questions for you, Commissioner. And I
8 wouldn't wish the last year you've spent on
9 my worst enemy.
10 But besides that, my first question is
11 you said there are 103 new correction
12 officers. How many retired?
13 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: How many
14 of those 103 retired?
15 ASSEMBLYMAN GIGLIO: No, no. You
16 hired a new 103. How many have you lost in
17 the same period of time?
18 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I should
19 know that off the top of my head because we
20 lose a lot every two weeks. It's something
21 like 54 retire. But we keep -- the 103 are
22 added over our BFL. So we keep doing
23 training classes to try and replace the
24 attrition.
336
1 ASSEMBLYMAN GIGLIO: When you lose
2 that kind of institutional knowledge, how do
3 you make it up?
4 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: You
5 can't replace experience, there's no question
6 about that, Assemblyman. I wish our staff
7 would stay longer. It's a tough job, they're
8 eligible to retire after 25 years, that's the
9 retirement law. But they're very valuable,
10 especially because a lot of them have learned
11 how to deal with a violent situation by using
12 their wits as opposed to the normal uses of
13 force.
14 So we value very much our experienced
15 correction officers. I can't prevent anybody
16 from retiring who wants to retire. But we
17 keep replacing them with classes from the
18 training academy as quickly as we can.
19 ASSEMBLYMAN GIGLIO: In our limited
20 conversations, you've always been concerned
21 with staffing ratios and those kind of
22 things, to keep it safe and secure. And you
23 talked about that in your testimony.
24 The only other question I have now is
337
1 this Office of Special Investigations. In
2 that, you said that you hired two attorneys
3 to run it. My question is very simple.
4 There was no one within the Department of
5 Corrections that had moved up to the ranks
6 that could have filled those two roles?
7 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: There
8 was nobody within that unit that was an
9 attorney.
10 ASSEMBLYMAN GIGLIO: But you think
11 it's necessary to have an attorney then go
12 talk to the men and women on the line to tell
13 the attorneys what's wrong with the facility?
14 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I lost
15 the question.
16 ASSEMBLYMAN GIGLIO: My point is this.
17 You said during your testimony that these two
18 new hires would then, as part of their
19 duties, go talk to individual correction
20 officers about what's going on in the
21 facility. My question to you is, would we be
22 better off bringing people up through the
23 ranks and through your command staff that you
24 already have to fill these positions, instead
338
1 of asking outside lawyers to come in and ask
2 the very people you're supposed to work with
3 what's wrong with the facility?
4 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:
5 Assemblyman, I think the answer is that we
6 have the combination, the best of both
7 worlds. There are still people that have
8 risen through the ranks, and they're still
9 directors, or at least they occupy
10 supervisory roles. Those are very
11 experienced individuals. They started out as
12 correction officers.
13 But we definitely needed to bring in
14 an outside perspective, individuals that had
15 extensive experience dealing with law
16 enforcement, prior experience with district
17 attorney's offices, prior experience working
18 with the Attorney General. And they can
19 bring in the linkages they have to work with
20 the U.S. Attorney's office, to work with the
21 federal Civil Rights Bureau, with the
22 Department of Justice, to work with the
23 marshals and bring all of that to bear so
24 that we can be a much stronger office.
339
1 ASSEMBLYMAN GIGLIO: Do you think
2 that's what's going to help you when you
3 charge inmates and/or correction officers
4 with any crimes behind the walls?
5 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I think
6 it will.
7 ASSEMBLYMAN GIGLIO: Thank you very
8 much.
9 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you,
10 Assemblyman.
11 Acting Commissioner, I had a couple of
12 questions. And it's related to an issue that
13 you just discussed with Senator Krueger. And
14 I know you remember the notorious case of
15 Daniel St. Hubert, who was a paranoid
16 schizophrenic, violent in prison, was
17 released and ended up stabbing to death
18 little 6-year-old P.J. Avitto in Brooklyn;
19 his 7-year-old playmate Mikayla Capers was
20 stabbed, did survive. He was a suspect in
21 some other murders. And he had been released
22 from the state prison system.
23 As a result of that, Assemblyman
24 O'Donnell and I did a chapter together to try
340
1 to address some of the issues. And last year
2 the Legislature included in the final budget,
3 along with the Governor, a $20 million
4 expenditure I believe that you were
5 referencing when you talked about discharge
6 planning and that sort of thing.
7 And I did discuss the issue with the
8 OMH commissioner yesterday. And just as
9 background, there was $20 million in last
10 year's budget for enhanced services to reduce
11 recidivism and potential violence in the
12 community. This includes additional
13 supportive housing, assertive community
14 treatment, team services for at-risk
15 individuals discharged from prisons and
16 psychiatric centers, increased mental health
17 assessments in prison, treatment for
18 high-risk inmates, enhanced discharge
19 planning, staff training, and placement of
20 individuals in OMH facilities.
21 So I'm happy to hear you say that you
22 believe things are going better. One of the
23 issues I'd like to raise with you, however,
24 is that when I questioned the OMH
341
1 commissioner yesterday about how much of that
2 money had been utilized so far, she did say
3 $18 million out of the $20 million line item.
4 I would assume that you would think that
5 these sorts of initiatives have been
6 beneficial -- at least that's what I'm
7 gathering from your testimony today -- and
8 you would recommend that that program
9 continues. Because if there's only
10 $2 million left, I don't see anything in the
11 budget, unless I'm missing something or
12 you're aware of something, to replenish those
13 funds.
14 Could you comment on that, please?
15 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I really
16 can't comment on these specific
17 appropriations and how they're being spent
18 from OMH's side of the ledger. But I can
19 reaffirm that we are very excited about the
20 discharge planning units that are going to be
21 launched at Auburn and at Sing Sing, the
22 continued work with the core program, and the
23 continued collaboration that we do with our
24 community supervision and OMH staff,
342
1 including making sure that when someone has
2 to get to a program, we arrange many times
3 for direct transport.
4 I'm also excited about the early
5 identification of inmates when they come into
6 the system who are both seriously mentally
7 ill and could have these violent
8 proclivities.
9 So I think ultimately we will make a
10 big difference in this area.
11 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: So you would
12 obviously be supportive of such programming
13 to continue in the same format? You're
14 saying to us as a Legislature that this has
15 been beneficial in the correctional system?
16 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: It's
17 been beneficial, yes.
18 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Very beneficial in
19 reducing violence, okay. Thank you.
20 ASSEMBLYMAN McDONALD: Thank you,
21 Senator.
22 Our next speaker will be
23 Assemblymember Oaks.
24 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS: Hi, Commissioner.
343
1 Thank you.
2 I just wanted to follow up a little
3 bit. Senator Funke had talked about parole
4 issues, and he listed off a number of
5 different situations of individuals who had
6 recommitted while on parole. And I had, you
7 know, myself one of those types of situations
8 in my district, a recent parolee who broke
9 into a home, the people were away, but he
10 happened on a mother and her daughter who
11 were there to feed the cat, and they ended up
12 losing their lives in that incident and
13 whatever.
14 So all of us, I think, have some of
15 those things. And the issue of parolees
16 obviously it's an opportunity for individuals
17 to find their way back into society, but it
18 doesn't always work.
19 And I think back to Assemblyman
20 Funke's question about Assemblyman Lawrence's
21 legislation, the one thing of making
22 information -- right now police officers stop
23 individuals for whatever, to check. They can
24 tell that a person is on parole, but they
344
1 have no information about the conditions of
2 the parole. And so if the individual by
3 their activity at that moment is violating
4 the parole, they would have no way of knowing
5 that. And so then it goes through a process
6 of letting the parole officer know that
7 that's happened, and then through a process
8 of trying to figure out what happens.
9 Certainly for those who might offend
10 quickly after they've been released but may
11 have violated in some way before, his
12 proposal would try to make that information
13 available to police and also give police the
14 opportunity, empower them to do something
15 then, as opposed to having to take several
16 days or time down the down the road of
17 dealing with this.
18 And so I think the question -- I know
19 you said if the person has been an absconder
20 or had a problem, obviously they can tell,
21 they can be a help. This would be a way of
22 strengthening that. And I just go back to
23 that, of saying I welcome a comment on it
24 and/or just a willingness to work with us in
345
1 looking at it. If we can strengthen parole
2 in this way, I think it makes communities
3 safer, makes parole work better for those who
4 are going to follow the conditions of it.
5 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well, we
6 value all of the working relationships we
7 have with local law enforcement, so we're
8 always willing to share as much information
9 as possible.
10 With respect to the specific
11 legislative proposal or concept, we follow a
12 protocol where we submit any feedback,
13 thoughts, to our Governor's counsel's office.
14 But we don't independently provide comments
15 or suggestions on the substance or
16 well-thought-outness of a particular
17 proposal.
18 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS: Understood. I just
19 think it could end up making your job better
20 and easier, and have us working better
21 together. Thank you.
22 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you,
23 Assemblyman.
24 Senator Savino.
346
1 SENATOR SAVINO: Thank you, Senator
2 Young.
3 I'll be very brief because many of the
4 questions that I had have already been
5 answered.
6 But you'll recall, Commissioner, that
7 in the past we've been somewhat critical of
8 your agency's level of overtime. So backing
9 out the extra overtime that was related to
10 the prison break, can you give me a sense of
11 the level of overtime in the past year?
12 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I can
13 tell you that if we back out the overtime
14 related to Clinton -- and there was also a
15 significant expenditure related to an
16 individual that was lost in the North Country
17 for a number of days, and we were
18 participating in the search -- that our
19 process shows we were only a little over
20 where we were last year. Which is not good.
21 SENATOR SAVINO: No.
22 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: But the
23 good news is that we have started a process
24 whereby, A, I've communicated to all my
347
1 superintendents the need to justify every
2 expenditure of overtime. We've broken it
3 down by program areas, so that Facility A,
4 this is what you spent on program in this
5 quarter and this is what you spent on admin,
6 this is what you spent on security. And then
7 we have phone calls to discuss and show to
8 them whether they made progress or whether
9 they went in the wrong direction. And then
10 it's incumbent upon them to explain to us the
11 reasons why.
12 There are a lot of reasons why we have
13 overtime --
14 SENATOR SAVINO: Not to interrupt, but
15 I can predict one of them. And I don't
16 dispute for a moment that the overtime is
17 justified. I understand how hard it is to
18 run a prison system. But the problems you
19 have now are the same problems you had five
20 years ago, and your predecessors had -- it's
21 a shortage of staff. And we know that.
22 Whether it's in the civilian titles or in the
23 correction titles.
24 I know you've taken steps, though, to
348
1 increase hiring in the correctional officers
2 titles. But I'm concerned about the other
3 professional titles -- the nurses. You know,
4 thank God that one poor nurse finally
5 retired, because every year she would wind up
6 as the highest overtime earner in the state,
7 as if she was doing something wrong. As if
8 she had a choice about whether she was going
9 to stay.
10 So my concern continues to be about
11 the level of hiring so that we can
12 sufficiently staff the facilities so you
13 don't have overworked correction officers or
14 nurses or psychiatrists or social workers or
15 anybody else that's there because of the
16 level of, you know, security that is so
17 important in maintaining a prison like that.
18 So I just want to keep it on your
19 radar, we're going to continue to watch this.
20 You know, it's something that is of concern
21 to us, the level of overtime -- not because
22 you're spending money, but because you're
23 spending it because you don't have sufficient
24 staff to meet the needs of the institution.
349
1 Thank you.
2 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Okay,
3 Senator.
4 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you. I don't
5 believe there are any other Assembly
6 speakers. So Senator Montgomery.
7 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Good afternoon,
8 Commissioner.
9 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Good
10 afternoon, Senator.
11 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I will start by
12 offering thanks to you for a couple of
13 things, and then I'll make my complaints,
14 I'll register my complaints.
15 (Laughter.)
16 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So first of all I
17 want to say my last visit to Sullivan, my
18 staff and I were up there and we were -- it
19 was a very, very interesting and -- it was a
20 good experience. And I want to thank the
21 superintendent and her staff because she
22 really made it what I thought to be a very
23 worthwhile experience. So I appreciate that.
24 And I also want to thank you for the
350
1 fact that you agreed to do the advisory
2 council for the parole facility that's also
3 in my district. And that has really
4 contributed to a lot of reduction in the
5 tension that was around that facility when it
6 first opened. So I thank you for that.
7 And I will just ask a couple of
8 questions, raise a couple of issues with you.
9 And in the interests of my time not running
10 out, I'll do it all together and you can
11 answer accordingly.
12 I am very pleased to see how much
13 emphasis you are placing on the whole issue
14 of offering college and looking at training
15 programs and those programs that really
16 prepare people for a successful reentry back
17 into the communities. I appreciate that.
18 The question about that -- two things.
19 One is, have we ever thought about the
20 possibility of creating sort of an
21 educational training facility where one of
22 your buildings, one of your facilities could
23 become sort of a hub, if you will, for this
24 kind of activity? I'm so impressed -- I've
351
1 been to Sullivan, obviously, there's really
2 such a great group up there -- Sing Sing,
3 eastern and the others that I have not
4 visited but I've heard of them. And I'm
5 always so impressed with the degree of
6 excitement of the men in there. And people
7 who have expressed very serious intentions of
8 coming back to their communities and giving
9 back and becoming productive citizens again.
10 So you will play a very major role in
11 that, and I certainly would like to know how
12 you're moving with that and what can we do to
13 enhance that.
14 And the second part of that is, how do
15 we align what you do inside, the kind of
16 training and the experiences that people have
17 inside, creating some sort of a certification
18 so that when they do return to the community,
19 they have something that says I have these
20 skills, and that that can be acknowledged and
21 accepted as a legitimate representation of
22 that person's experience?
23 So those are the two things that I'm
24 asking. Thank you.
352
1 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Okay,
2 Senator. First let me thank you for all the
3 efforts you expended to help with the opening
4 of the new parole office in Brooklyn. There
5 was originally a lot of controversy. I know
6 you helped us out. I know it's very well
7 accepted now.
8 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, it sure is.
9 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: In fact
10 I think we've actually proven that the crime
11 rates in that precinct have gone down --
12 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: That's right.
13 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: -- since
14 we've been there. But it couldn't have
15 worked without your assistance, and we're
16 very grateful for that.
17 I'll take your second question first.
18 We've already started to work with the
19 Department of Labor to create
20 preapprenticeship programs. We're going to
21 have our first meeting, and we're looking at
22 different voc programs that we have and we're
23 look at what's available in the community so
24 that we can start a preapprenticeship program
353
1 and then continue it in the community,
2 wherever it's selected. So we're going to
3 depend upon the DOL to give us some good
4 advice in that area.
5 And thank you for acknowledging the
6 college programming. That's another big
7 initiative. Courtesy of the Manhattan
8 district attorney's office, $7.5 million of
9 asset forfeiture money. College is very,
10 very useful, not just in terms of lowering
11 recidivism, but also as a positive role model
12 in the institutions.
13 I saw the three gentlemen that were
14 graduates of Bard with the Governor at the
15 announcement. I went over, I congratulated
16 them, and I just said "Make sure you succeed,
17 because you're carrying the torch for a lot
18 of other individuals coming after you."
19 And we know how excited the whole
20 country was when the three individuals in the
21 debate team went up and beat Harvard, which
22 was an amazing story, and they were from
23 Eastern.
24 So we're very excited about that. And
354
1 I can tell you that you've asked me have I
2 given thought to a building possibly being an
3 educational institutional.
4 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Fantastic.
5 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: The
6 answer is I've given it thought.
7 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Great.
8 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: But it's
9 too early to talk about, you know, what the
10 possibilities are. We have to do some
11 outreach with various individuals.
12 But the whole idea of an educational
13 institution, so to speak, is something that's
14 at least worthwhile pursuing and exploring to
15 see if that can be done.
16 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Great. Thank
17 you.
18 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.
19 Senator Nozzolio to close.
20 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you again.
21 Senator Montgomery, it's not unusual
22 that we disagree on subjects and that she and
23 I have had wonderful debates in the past, and
24 I'm sure we're going to have a few more this
355
1 session, that we're going to be scrutinizing
2 whether or not taxpayers' dollars are in fact
3 utilized for this purpose. I know that there
4 are -- it's the purpose of providing free
5 tuition for inmates.
6 However, Senator Montgomery and I do
7 agree on issues regarding training for
8 skilled opportunities to provide inmates in
9 their exit from prison, entry into the
10 community, to have skill sets that are
11 marketable for jobs. And that's something
12 that I don't need you to get in the middle
13 of, but it's something that we are going to
14 be scrutinizing.
15 What I do need you to focus on --
16 Senator Funke mentioned this -- it's
17 something that is outside the prison walls,
18 but relative to parole. And we talked about
19 the ratios, we talked about Western New York.
20 I think your three-point program regarding
21 analysis of high risk, moving inmates closer
22 to the facility they exited from, GPS
23 bracelets, and transferring to official
24 reporting, makes a lot of sense.
356
1 But if our parole officers don't have
2 the appropriate tools, don't have the
3 vehicles -- you said 38 more vehicles. Since
4 you made that statement, I've been trying to
5 find in the State Budget where that is.
6 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: It's not
7 in the budget. It was just approved today,
8 Senator.
9 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Just approved
10 today.
11 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: The plan
12 by OGS.
13 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Is this a -- Danny
14 O'Donnell's -- assemblyman O'Donnell's
15 comment, it's nice that we have these kinds
16 of appropriations available from time to
17 time. It would be nice if the Legislature
18 knew about it. But the fact is if you were
19 able to take those out of last fiscal year,
20 monies from the current fiscal year as
21 opposed to next fiscal year, that this was
22 approved and these are going to be
23 forthcoming by the end of March?
24 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I don't
357
1 know the schedule. I just got the news that
2 our plan, it's a three-year plan to increase
3 the vehicle totals. I think the total we
4 have now is 248. So it's 30-something --
5 don't hold me to 38, if it's 38 or 35 -- that
6 we will be able to get this year.
7 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: And why we're
8 discussing this is because we live in areas
9 in upstate New York in particular that are
10 vast in terms of geography, and that for the
11 parole officers, as it is they have
12 significantly higher ratios than ever before.
13 That we have sheets on the types of offenders
14 and the types of cases and the caseload, and
15 the ratios are anywhere from 25 to 1 to 160
16 to 1, 200 to 1, in terms of the types of
17 caseloads that individual parole officers are
18 asked to absorb.
19 And I think that in spite of your very
20 good attention to this criteria, without you
21 having more staff in the field, I just think
22 this is not going to work. You're getting
23 infrastructure, cars -- that's a good thing.
24 Thank you for that. Thank you for addressing
358
1 the issues. But the question of more
2 officers -- not just taking those with only
3 Department of Correctional Services training,
4 CO training, and moving them into -- I mean,
5 we have many great COs who became parole
6 officers. But the fact is to have them now
7 from the prison into parole officer capacity
8 without adequate training is very, very
9 concerning.
10 (Applause from audience.)
11 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Please address,
12 Commissioner, the issues going beyond the
13 foundation you set up. And again, I'm here
14 to thank you for that. But let's -- what are
15 your plans to move forward with the
16 deployment of additional personnel?
17 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well,
18 right now I know we have at least two
19 additional classes scheduled for this year
20 for parole officers, Senator.
21 We've also gotten other equipment.
22 We've gotten radios, we've gotten replacement
23 vests, we're replacing -- I believe we may
24 have already completed it -- the weaponry,
359
1 the Glock that they use. There's no question
2 that they need the appropriate equipment.
3 The ratios are driven by the risk
4 management plan that tells us whether someone
5 is a high risk or a low risk, et cetera. We
6 haven't changed that. But what I can tell
7 you is that there is the ability by the
8 parole officer to make changes, to identify
9 someone as, Listen, this guy needs to be
10 supervised at a higher level than what he
11 currently is. And so that's been recognized
12 and adopted.
13 But I can't speak to you exactly what
14 the ratios are in various parts of the state.
15 But I'll certainly go back, we'll look at it
16 and, you know, make recommendations for
17 adjustments as warranted.
18 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Your attention to
19 this is most welcome. I guess you're taking
20 an absconder as a low security risk or lower
21 security risk, because the ratios there --
22 our numbers show a 200-to-1 ratio, 200
23 parolees to one parole officer. That sex
24 offenders, 25 to 1. Now, that's not -- I
360
1 think most of the parole officers, if they
2 only had that to deal with, they would feel
3 more comfortable in their job in terms of
4 being able to manage the system.
5 But what Senator Funke mentioned,
6 those disastrous criminality that occurred in
7 Rochester by parolees, it's symptomatic of
8 the structure. And I'm not blaming you for
9 the structure, you're a career correctional
10 personnel. You came up through the ranks. I
11 appreciate the fact that you know corrections
12 and you've gotten a good job with
13 corrections.
14 But I think in terms of parole,
15 something that was thrust upon you a few
16 years ago -- we discussed it very briefly at
17 this table, if you recall, when the proposal
18 first came through, a proposal that ended up
19 being accepted. But it's a proposal that
20 still needs ironing out some important
21 wrinkles.
22 And if the public knew about these
23 ratios, I believe they would be extremely
24 concerned with public safety. And I think
361
1 that you -- if you would --
2 (Applause from audience.)
3 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: -- if you would
4 continue the work to address, let us know
5 what more resources you need to make this
6 happen. You have partners here, and I know
7 you're well-intentioned. Let's try to
8 understand that we've got to solve this
9 problem.
10 Thank you, Commissioner.
11 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:
12 Certainly, Senator. Thank you.
13 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you very
14 much. I think that concludes our speakers.
15 So again, we appreciate you being here today
16 and all of the answers that you gave.
17 Our next speaker is Superintendent
18 Joseph D'Amico, New York State Division of
19 State Police.
20 (Pause.)
21 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Good afternoon,
22 Superintendent.
23 Could I have some order, please.
24 Could we please have some order. Thank you
362
1 very much.
2 We welcome you today. I know it's
3 been a lengthy day so far, but it's always
4 difficult under Public Protection because we
5 have so many commissioners and leaders of the
6 different state agencies. And we certainly
7 are very happy to have the State Police and
8 you here today.
9 So if you'd like, we would love to
10 hear your testimony.
11 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: Good
12 afternoon. Thank you.
13 Thank you, Chairwoman Young, Chairman
14 Farrell, and distinguished members of the
15 committees for this opportunity to discuss
16 with you Governor Cuomo's budget for the
17 Division of State Police.
18 I'd like to take this opportunity to
19 thank the Legislature for its past support of
20 the State Police. Because of your support,
21 the New York State Police continues to enjoy
22 its --
23 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Can we have some
24 order, please, at the top of the room. Thank
363
1 you.
2 Sorry, Superintendent.
3 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: That's okay.
4 Because of your support, the New York
5 State Police continues to enjoy its well-
6 deserved reputation as one of the leading law
7 enforcement agencies in the nation.
8 On April 11, 1917, Governor Whitman
9 signed the Wells-Mills Bill into law,
10 establishing the State Police. As we
11 approach the agency's 100th anniversary next
12 year, our role in New York is essentially
13 unchanged to this day. The bill stated: "It
14 shall be the duty of the State Police to
15 prevent and detect crime and apprehend
16 criminals. They shall also be subject to the
17 call of the Governor and empowered to
18 cooperate with any other department of the
19 State or with local authorities."
20 And the importance of this original
21 charter is as significant now as it was back
22 then.
23 Since its inception, the State Police
24 has consistently provided public service
364
1 through its core missions, adapting mission
2 priorities constantly to societal changes,
3 and we have continually improved these
4 services. Our current mission priorities
5 include reducing the number of deaths,
6 injuries and property damage caused by motor
7 vehicle accidents through vehicle and traffic
8 enforcement and motorist education, providing
9 professional police services to communities
10 and investigative support to departments
11 around the state, engaging in emergency
12 preparedness, planning and response
13 activities and serving a crucial role in the
14 StateÃs counterterrorism efforts through our
15 collaborative work with federal, local and
16 other state agencies. Our mission and goals
17 all focus on ensuring the continued safety of
18 the people of New York State.
19 The Governor continues to dedicate
20 funding to Joint Task Force Empire Shield to
21 enhance efforts to detect and deter terrorism
22 in a time when such acts are constantly a
23 threat to the safety of New Yorkers. As a
24 result, New York remains one of the safest
365
1 large states in the nation. Using
2 intelligence-based investigative techniques
3 and targeted enforcement, state troopers have
4 been assigned to potential target locations
5 and, with local partners, provide greater
6 protection for the public through asset
7 integration strategies. This effort is being
8 permanently implemented in New York City with
9 the new assignment of 55 State Police
10 personnel dedicated solely to this mission.
11 The State Police is unique as the only
12 law enforcement agency in New York State with
13 the ability to deploy large numbers of
14 professionally trained police officers
15 anywhere in the state on short notice in
16 response to an emergency or natural disaster.
17 The State Police is also available for
18 large-scale deployments to meet an immediate
19 need for law enforcement services in any
20 community. This was clearly demonstrated
21 over 23 days this past summer, during the
22 Clinton Correctional escape in Dannemora,
23 where we deployed as many as 532 troopers and
24 200 investigators from around the state to
366
1 assist with that investigation. At its peak,
2 State Police directed 1560 personnel from 16
3 different agencies in the investigation.
4 In addition, we continue our
5 partnerships with the Office of Emergency
6 Management and the Division of Homeland
7 Security and Emergency Services, with a focus
8 on disaster preparedness and response
9 readiness.
10 Our first and foremost priority
11 continues to be the safety of the public and
12 our troopers who protect them. Toward that
13 goal, we will continue to provide our
14 troopers with the necessary equipment and
15 other resources to ensure safety as they
16 perform their duties. The Governor
17 recognizes this need after observing the
18 level of sophistication and tactics employed
19 at criminal events in the United States and
20 abroad, and has committed to new funding for
21 additional patrol rifles, rifle-resistant
22 body armor plates and ballistic helmets for
23 State Police patrols statewide.
24 Illegal drug use and its impact
367
1 continues to dominate headlines in our
2 country. Heroin availability and abuse
3 continues. State Police will continue to
4 aggressively work in partnership with local
5 police agencies to investigate drug-related
6 crimes and to arrest offenders.
7 Our troopers, as first responders,
8 continue to patrol with Naloxone, the opioid
9 reversal drug which we have administered
10 132 times in medical emergencies involving
11 overdoses. One hundred fourteen of those
12 administered Naloxone survived as a result of
13 troopers' efforts.
14 The use of social media to foster the
15 relationship between the agency and the
16 citizens we serve has been successful in
17 improving cooperation with law enforcement
18 efforts in the communities we serve. By
19 posting safety-related and crime alert
20 information on Twitter and Facebook, the
21 State Police has generated enhanced
22 investigative capabilities that have led to
23 successful case resolutions and shared
24 important public safety information.
368
1 This year will be the first full year
2 for the Sexual Assault Victims Unit that
3 arose from passage of the "Enough is Enough"
4 legislation and the GovernorÃs commitment to
5 combating sexual assault on college and
6 university campuses. Fifteen State Police
7 personnel will work statewide to ensure
8 uniformity in the handling of campus sexual
9 assault investigations, provide investigative
10 assistance and training to campus or local
11 police investigating these cases, and to
12 educate individuals and campus communities
13 regarding victims' rights and their available
14 resources.
15 Agency staffing remains an area of
16 constant executive-level discussion within
17 the State Police. We continue to request and
18 conduct academy classes so that adequate
19 staffing levels are maintained to perform our
20 core mission priorities without sacrificing
21 the response time or the safety of our
22 troopers. We will continue to look for
23 additional efficiencies through our
24 partnerships with other law enforcement
369
1 agencies throughout the state and through
2 consolidation of state government services
3 where practical and possible.
4 And as you're aware, 85 percent of the
5 appropriations made for State Police
6 operations are in support of personnel
7 service obligations, of which approximately
8 93 percent supports the salaries and overtime
9 expenses of our sworn members. The vast
10 majority of the non-personal service
11 appropriations are best characterized as
12 non-discretionary expenditures. Expenditures
13 for vehicles, equipment, facilities and
14 communications are all essential to providing
15 the tools necessary for the men and women of
16 the State Police to fulfill their law
17 enforcement missions.
18 New Yorkers have come to expect public
19 service from a stable, well-deployed and
20 adequately resourced State Police. I am
21 proud to say that New Yorkers can be
22 confident their expectations are being met.
23 It is the integrity, knowledge, dedication
24 and quality of our men and women that
370
1 distinguishes the New York State Police. I
2 am honored and privileged to be a part of
3 such a professional police agency and its
4 great traditions and to serve alongside our
5 members.
6 I thank you for your support of the
7 State Police and for this opportunity today
8 to address you.
9 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you,
10 Superintendent.
11 Our first speaker is Senator Tom
12 Croci.
13 SENATOR CROCI: Thank you,
14 Superintendent, for your appearance here
15 today. I know it's been a difficult year in
16 the United States for law enforcement. And
17 for me, who grew up in a small town, we grew
18 up thinking, you know, police were good and
19 drugs were bad. There's a lot of mixed
20 messages out there for young people today.
21 But at a time when we have incidents
22 like San Bernardino, California, and the
23 heroin epidemic that you raised, it's nice to
24 know that we have the troopers out there
371
1 watching out for us. And I commend you on
2 your leadership of that organization.
3 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: Thank you.
4 SENATOR CROCI: We have previously
5 questioned the commissioner of DHSES,
6 Commissioner Melville, who just recently
7 appeared today to talk about the Article VII
8 language in Part D of the ELFA, which seeks
9 to transfer some of the counterterrorism
10 responsibilities from that organization to
11 the State Police.
12 With respect to that specific Article
13 VII language, who in your knowledge, in your
14 mind, would be responsible for
15 counterterrorism in the state should that
16 occur?
17 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: The
18 counterterrorism initiatives and
19 responsibility is really a partnership of the
20 State Police and the Division of Homeland
21 Security and Emergency Services. We've
22 shared that since that agency was formed
23 after 9/11.
24 I heard Commissioner Melville's
372
1 testimony this morning and if I could just
2 build on the answer that he gave. You know,
3 currently the 10 analysts who are assigned
4 and employed in the Intelligence and Analysis
5 section of OCT in DHSES, the Office of
6 Counterterrorism, work at the New York State
7 Intelligence Center, in the Terrorism Center
8 and the CTC, and basically report up and are
9 managed by State Police personnel, as it's
10 happening right now.
11 So what happens is information comes,
12 whether it's by phone, email, phone app or
13 suspicious activity reporting by law
14 enforcement. The information is worked on
15 and analyzed and built and vetted by those
16 analysts, and the whole goal here is to
17 develop actionable intelligence that we could
18 then hand off to people who could react to
19 it -- whether it's State Police or Joint
20 Terrorism Task Force partners, or just alerts
21 or information that has to go out.
22 Currently the information travels up
23 almost simultaneously through DHS management,
24 DHSES management and State Police management.
373
1 So by making the change from having people
2 employed by DHSES over to the State Police
3 side functionally changes nothing. And all
4 it will allow us to do, we'll be more
5 efficient in use of those people, backing up
6 those people when people are out -- because
7 there's a criminal side and a terrorism side,
8 and they complement each other. A lot of the
9 people are interchangeable.
10 I mean, my goal -- the information
11 that travels upward for us has to be
12 operational. For DHSES it has to be to
13 develop policy, to react, to brief the
14 Executive. Both important. That's not going
15 to change.
16 SENATOR CROCI: So on initial glance,
17 that's the appearance of what's occurring
18 here. I just want to ask you a series of
19 questions, because this is what the proposed
20 language would get rid of and not replace
21 either with the State Police or DHSES.
22 So would you agree that the following
23 in 2016 is an important function for the
24 State of New York to be engaged in: To
374
1 coordinate state resources for the collection
2 and analysis of information with relation to
3 terrorist threats and terrorist activities?
4 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: Yes.
5 SENATOR CROCI: Okay. The
6 responsibility to coordinate, facilitate
7 information-sharing among state, federal
8 agencies to ensure appropriate intelligence
9 to assist in the early identification and
10 response to potential terrorist activities?
11 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: Yes, of
12 course.
13 SENATOR CROCI: The responsibility of
14 the Office of Counterterrorism to collect,
15 analyze and share information relating to
16 terrorist threats and terrorist activities
17 throughout the State of New York?
18 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: Yes.
19 SENATOR CROCI: So part of the reason
20 that I have some concern, listening to
21 Commissioner Melville, whose understanding
22 was we're simply transferring resources,
23 we're shedding the counterterrorism language
24 in the statute so DHSES no longer has
375
1 statutory responsibility. I can't find
2 anywhere in the State Police authority for
3 direct counterterrorism responsibilities.
4 And those functions that are being
5 transferred to you don't include the three
6 sections that I just read to you, which I
7 think the genesis of these statutes post-9/11
8 were to ensure that the kind of information
9 sharing, the kind of fusion that should
10 occur, and the kind of relationships that
11 need to be built up and down echelon existed.
12 So to the members of the committee and
13 to the chairperson, I just want to emphasize
14 the fact that it appears that in transferring
15 these bodies, you're also eliminating the
16 term "counterterrorism" at the statutory
17 level in the executive branch. And then to
18 an agency which is now going to have the
19 responsibility, presumably, of doing the
20 work, you don't have the statutory
21 responsibility in writing, you don't have the
22 language "counterterrorism," and you also
23 don't have a reporting requirement up and
24 down chain.
376
1 So do you see that you're going to be
2 able to perform these functions in a time of
3 crisis, understanding that you're not going
4 to have the statutory authority to do the
5 mission and that DHSES will no longer have
6 the statutory authority? So the question is,
7 who has the responsibility if there's no
8 authority?
9 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: So even
10 though the language may not be there, you
11 know, in the function of NYSIC, New York
12 State Intelligence Center, as the state's
13 recognized fusion center, those are the roles
14 of NYSIC.
15 You know, when DHS put out the
16 guidelines back in 2008 in a document called
17 "Baseline Capabilities for State and Major
18 Urban Area Fusion Centers," they talk about
19 information sharing, they talk about
20 briefings. And three of the things that come
21 along with intelligence and information
22 dissemination is to develop a dissemination
23 plan, to develop a plan for high-level
24 discussions up and down the chain, be able to
377
1 brief the state, local, tribal agencies on
2 occurring incidents. It requires sharing of
3 information with other fusion centers in
4 surrounding states. It requires reporting of
5 information to the federal government,
6 whether it's DHS or DOJ or the FBI.
7 Now, while that's not required for
8 funding, it's the way we operate. It's the
9 way the center operates. It's the function
10 of the fusion center. A number of years ago
11 we were actually acknowledged by DHS for the
12 excellent way that we do carry out activities
13 there. It's an integral part of the
14 counterterrorism program for New York State.
15 So whether the language is there or
16 the language isn't there, that's the way we
17 function. That's the way the guidelines from
18 DHS are dictated, and we follow them. And I
19 think that's what would fill the gap without
20 the statutory language.
21 SENATOR CROCI: So many of the
22 recommendations that I'm told are being
23 proposed in the Governor's budget come from a
24 review that former Commissioner Ray Kelly
378
1 did, and I think we all acknowledge that he
2 was a pioneer in some of the most innovative
3 and effective counterterrorism policies for a
4 police force that we've ever seen, which is
5 being duplicated worldwide.
6 Have you had the opportunity to read
7 this report?
8 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: I don't
9 believe that Commissioner Kelly or former
10 Commissioner Kelly has issued a report.
11 I had met with him and his staff a
12 number of months ago when they were going
13 through just a review of the state's
14 procedures. And since that time, you know,
15 I've heard it verbally, I heard it at the
16 State of the State, but I don't know that
17 there's a written report actually presented.
18 SENATOR CROCI: Because it would be
19 very interesting to know if this was fleshed
20 out in that analysis, to know whether or not
21 those three areas, which will disappear from
22 the role of New York State government -- some
23 sound pretty important. Collection and
24 analysis of information related to terrorist
379
1 threats; sharing among state and appropriate
2 intelligence partners.
3 I think that you would agree that in
4 law enforcement and the military that there
5 are those relationships, those sharing
6 relationships. But in the weeks, months and
7 years before September 11, 2001, those
8 relationships existed, yet information at the
9 FBI was stovepiped to CIA, the military
10 intelligence community, the Department of
11 State.
12 And the post-9/11 Commission made
13 recommendations that we have the kind of
14 executive focus on these issues to ensure
15 that all departments and agencies within the
16 state -- to my colleagues and to you, I don't
17 see, without explicit statutory
18 responsibility by either the State Police or
19 by DHSES -- I see seams created again. And
20 if those relationships as you currently have
21 aren't there -- new superintendent, new
22 commissioner, new governor; law enforcement
23 personnel, as you know, rotate all the
24 time -- I'm afraid we're recreating seams
380
1 that the 9/11 commission said we specifically
2 should avoid.
3 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: Well, I mean,
4 just to go back to the report by former
5 Commissioner Kelly, I'm not aware of a
6 report. I don't believe a report was issued.
7 I mean, I don't know if he has intentions on
8 addressing those issues in his report.
9 You know, I can only tell you, as kind
10 of the custodian of NYSIC and a very large
11 counterterrorism function, not only at the
12 troop level but with the federal partners,
13 you know, I'm fairly confident that the
14 information will flow. Especially between us
15 and DHSES. You know, we've always had that
16 partnership, the DHSES commissioner still
17 retains the ownership as chairman of the
18 state's Executive Committee on
19 Counterterrorism, still coordinates the
20 activity of the 16 counterterrorism zones.
21 That really hasn't changed. He's still the
22 arbiter of Homeland Security funding, and a
23 lot of that funding funds the New York State
24 Intelligence Center.
381
1 So I mean, you know, I would think
2 that if he wasn't satisfied with the
3 information that was flowing, you know, he
4 controls the funding purse strings, and there
5 would be an issue there.
6 I would just like to say, you know,
7 the law enforcement committee pre-9/11 and
8 post-9/11 are two different worlds.
9 SENATOR CROCI: Absolutely.
10 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: You know, no
11 doubt about it. The same with the military
12 and the intelligence communities.
13 You know, we shared before 9/11, but
14 since 9/11, it's so much more seamless.
15 We're open, we work together. You know, it's
16 about collaboration and cooperation. It's
17 just a whole different world in law
18 enforcement.
19 SENATOR CROCI: Well, as I -- and I
20 know I'm out of time, Madam Chair. I would
21 just close with under this construct, as I
22 read it -- and I've had a lot of very smart
23 minds look at it as well -- if you were to
24 have a liaison meeting with the JTTF and they
382
1 were to provide you information about a
2 pending attack on New York, in this construct
3 you don't have to share it with the
4 commissioner at DHSES. You would have no
5 statutory responsibility to do so. You may,
6 of course, and I know you would. But that's
7 my concern, and I think my colleagues and I
8 will have to continue to address it.
9 But I appreciate your testimony today,
10 and I'll turn it over to the chair. Thank
11 you.
12 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: Thank you,
13 Senator.
14 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.
15 ASSEMBLYMAN McDONALD: Thank you,
16 Senator. Our next speaker is Assemblymember
17 Duprey.
18 ASSEMBLYWOMAN DUPREY: Good afternoon,
19 Superintendent.
20 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: Good
21 afternoon, ma'am.
22 ASSEMBLYWOMAN DUPREY: The last time
23 that you and I saw each other was at a very
24 emotional day in my district, just hours
383
1 after the capture of Sweat. I guess more
2 than questions, I first want to extend my
3 heartfelt thanks to you as the
4 superintendent; to certainly Major Chuck
5 Guess, Troop B commander; our hometown hero,
6 Sergeant Jay Cook; and all of law
7 enforcement. Certainly our SORT teams who
8 put unbelievable hours tromping through the
9 mud and the mess of some of our North Country
10 territory, to have a successful conclusion to
11 the escape, which none of us will soon
12 forget.
13 And I want to take a moment to extend
14 personal thanks to you because I -- you know,
15 I was -- my body was down here, my heart and
16 my mind were in my district for those
17 23 days. But I was surrounded every day by
18 some of my colleagues and friends who
19 continued to say to me: Matt and Sweat are
20 long gone, we're wasting tax dollars, we
21 shouldn't have 1500 law enforcement in such a
22 small area.
23 And I thank you, on behalf of my
24 thousands of constituents who were incredibly
384
1 frightened, that you stood behind Major Guess
2 in your belief and his belief that those two
3 were still there. And certainly you were
4 proven right. And for that, I thank you,
5 because I can't imagine what my district
6 would have gone through had you pulled those
7 troops out. So thank you, sir.
8 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: Thank you.
9 And I really need to thank your
10 constituents, your communities, who were
11 tremendously supportive of law enforcement,
12 who were out there 24 hours. They helped
13 with shelter and drink, refreshments and food
14 and everything else. They were tremendously
15 supportive, they were helpful in information,
16 and it was really a good partnership between
17 law enforcement and community.
18 ASSEMBLYWOMAN DUPREY: I've never been
19 more proud to represent folks than I was
20 during that time. So thank you for that too.
21 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: Thank you.
22 ASSEMBLYWOMAN DUPREY: I do want to
23 mention the one -- and I don't want to really
24 call it a glitch, but I think it's something
385
1 that all of us up there have been advocating
2 for so long, for better cell towers. I think
3 that that certainly was an issue during the
4 escape, the lack of -- what we lacked in
5 communication through cell towers was
6 certainly made up for in the communication
7 that took place between our federal, state
8 and local law enforcement agencies.
9 But in the future, we will be looking
10 to you and others to reinforce with us, as we
11 go through the process of Adirondack Park
12 Agency approval, the need to have sufficient
13 cell tower coverage throughout that district.
14 because when they're out there, and I know
15 the SORT teams were out there all by
16 themselves with no way to communicate to
17 anybody.
18 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: That's true,
19 Assemblywoman. The lack of infrastructure
20 was a tremendous detriment -- not being able
21 to communicate, not being able to track our
22 people on the ground, whether it's through
23 cell service or through radio communications.
24 And, you know, I would say, without
386
1 naming any companies, but the cell carriers
2 were excellent in coming in with, as best as
3 they could support us, with trailered
4 equipment. But there's a tremendous void up
5 in that part of New York State.
6 ASSEMBLYWOMAN DUPREY: Yeah, now
7 they're gone, so -- we need them all the
8 time.
9 And my only other question to you,
10 sir, is -- and I hear it not all the time,
11 but fairly often, that the need to have newer
12 vehicles that so many of the troop cars --
13 you know, the vastness of that region, of
14 Troop B, is huge. That so many of the troop
15 cars are way over 100,000 miles on their
16 odometers, that they're breaking down. And,
17 you know, certainly a nightmare of mine is
18 that we will have a trooper out there alone
19 some night without cell service and with a
20 car broken down.
21 And so are you addressing that in this
22 budget and going forward?
23 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: Yes, we are.
24 I mean, we've been working that for at least
387
1 a couple of years now. It is a major
2 concern. It's one of our biggest needs in
3 the State Police, are vehicles. You know,
4 followed by people. And probably half of our
5 fleet is at 100,000 miles on the odometer.
6 So, you know, we need a tremendous
7 infusion in this year's budget to kind of
8 make a leap so that at the end of the year we
9 could -- our goal is 125,000 miles on the
10 cars. You know, I think through our
11 maintenance program, inspection program, the
12 vehicles can certainly have that kind of
13 life. There may be a year life span also,
14 like seven years, that might be appropriate
15 for a fleet.
16 But in this year's budget we do have
17 sufficient money that I expect at the end of
18 the fiscal year all of our patrol vehicles,
19 all of our investigator vehicles, and all of
20 our officer vehicles with -- that are
21 currently at 100,000 miles now will be
22 replaced. So I think we'll be in a much
23 healthier place at the end of the fiscal
24 year. We'll come back next year and look to
388
1 find the right amount to kind of maintain
2 that number so we don't fall back into that.
3 You know, for us it was a couple of
4 years of insufficient vehicle purchases,
5 problems with procurement contracts, and
6 obviously just not enough funding in the
7 budget to do adequate vehicle purchases.
8 So I think that this year we should
9 get a good place, and then we just have to
10 figure out what's the right maintenance
11 number to keep us at a good mileage.
12 ASSEMBLYWOMAN DUPREY: Thank you.
13 Thank you for your service.
14 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: Thank you.
15 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you,
16 Assemblywoman.
17 Senator Gallivan.
18 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Thank you, Madam
19 Chair.
20 Good afternoon, Superintendent. And
21 as always, thank you for your service and
22 that of the thousands of professional men and
23 women who make the State Police one of the
24 finest agencies in the country.
389
1 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: Thank you.
2 SENATOR GALLIVAN: And I'm very proud
3 to have come from the State Police, as you
4 well know. And perhaps because of that, I
5 have a special interest in the things that
6 take place and the maintenance of the
7 professionalism, and that the State Police
8 maintains that high level of service.
9 The Governor's budget, you talked
10 about it just a little bit. The Governor's
11 budget provided $40 million, some of it for
12 additional State Police personnel for
13 New York City, some National Guard for
14 permanent staffing down there as well. And
15 the reference I think in the Governor's
16 presentation had to do with homeland security
17 issues. My question has to do with, are you
18 sufficiently staffed to meet the needs of the
19 citizens of the rest of the state?
20 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: Yeah, I think
21 right now the staffing levels, we're at --
22 we're about 4750 on the sworn side, is a good
23 number. You know, a couple of dozen more,
24 I'd be much happier. I think that, you know,
390
1 we'll get back to that. We had dropped down
2 very low a couple of years ago; we've been
3 putting in consistent academy classes, and
4 we've been able to build back that number.
5 And obviously we don't want to lose it.
6 As far as the $40 million, I believe
7 that's for counterterrorism. It's to extend
8 the counterterrorism surge, if you want to
9 call it that, throughout the state -- you
10 know, beyond New York City. Last year we put
11 troopers down supporting MTA and other
12 agencies in the counterterrorism effort,
13 especially in the transportation
14 infrastructure. And this year's budget is --
15 since we now permanently assign troopers to
16 do that in New York City, it's to take that
17 money and spend it elsewhere in the state.
18 And we've done some of that already
19 after some of the terrorist attacks we've
20 seen around the world. But I would
21 anticipate you'll see additional troopers at,
22 you know, high-profile public events, whether
23 they be sporting events or parades or
24 concerts or school events, college campuses,
391
1 things like that.
2 And, you know, I think we're all aware
3 that whether it's crime, traditional crime,
4 or terrorism, increased uniform presence has
5 a profound impact on that.
6 SENATOR GALLIVAN: What is your
7 current plan for future classes? In this --
8 in the current fiscal year or the year
9 beginning April 1st.
10 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: Well, in this
11 fiscal year we plan on putting in a class in
12 March, which is the end of the fiscal year.
13 We're anticipating somewhere around 200.
14 We're anticipating a second academy class in
15 next fiscal year, which will follow.
16 And as far as the numbers, you know,
17 we'll look at attrition between now and then,
18 we'll look at the people who don't make it
19 through the academy. We'll look at new
20 needs, such as Enough is Enough and casino
21 gaming, and we'll work with Budget to come up
22 with the right number when we're ready to put
23 the class in.
24 But two classes in the next 12 months,
392
1 in 12 months, the first one being probably
2 200, somewhere around there.
3 SENATOR GALLIVAN: I'd like to
4 continue on a couple of the topics the
5 Assemblywoman had talked about. First,
6 vehicles. Last year's budget, we know -- you
7 testified about the critical needs for -- the
8 critical state of your fleet last year, as
9 did the Troopers PBA, State Police
10 Investigators Association. And your
11 testimony convinced us; we provided a
12 significant amount of money in the budget
13 for, among other things, State Police
14 vehicles and various equipment needs.
15 I am pleased to see that the Governor
16 has included some of that in this year's
17 budget that you testified to, a significantly
18 smaller amount of dollars spent on it than
19 what we allocated last year.
20 Nonetheless, though, the Governor's
21 spokesman, within the past month or so, said
22 that that $60 million that was provided last
23 year is going to be reallocated to different
24 things in this upcoming fiscal year.
393
1 Because, they said, it was contingent on
2 policy proposal acceptance of the
3 Legislature, the Governor's proposals last
4 year.
5 Many of us were at that table, as we
6 talked about that. It wasn't contingent on
7 anything. We provided the funding for it.
8 So I guess -- my question has to do
9 with your fleet, and I just want to make sure
10 that I'm hearing you okay, that you have
11 plans to address the fleet, however you came
12 up with the money in last year's budget that
13 wasn't part of the $60 million, combined with
14 monies planned for this fiscal year. So
15 you're -- do you need more funding from us
16 for your fleet?
17 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: No, I --
18 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Other than what was
19 proposed.
20 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: No, I don't
21 believe so. I mean, I've been working with
22 Budget on this.
23 The last couple of years we've spent
24 about $15 million consistently each year on
394
1 fleet. You know, we thought that probably
2 this year if we spend $20 million, we'll be
3 able to bring our mileage down and get it to
4 a healthy place. And as we get closer to
5 budget, we do our analysis and realized
6 $20 million is not going to do it. We're
7 currently looking at $30 million from Budget
8 to put into fleet purchase, which as I said
9 will have a tremendous impact and help us to
10 get almost completely healthy by the end of
11 the fiscal year, and then we just need to
12 kind of figure out the maintenance going
13 forward on how do we keep it at that level.
14 You know, as far as what you're
15 speaking about, the $60 million or what
16 conditions or terms, I --
17 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Not your area.
18 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: I wasn't part
19 of any of that discussion, so --
20 SENATOR GALLIVAN: The point that I
21 wanted to make is that we had provided money
22 that was not allocated for that purpose, and
23 I want to make sure that your fleet is being
24 taken care of.
395
1 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: Yes, it is.
2 SENATOR GALLIVAN: All right, thanks.
3 The next area is communications. Very
4 interesting, nearly 20 years ago during my
5 time with the State Police and then as Erie
6 County sheriff, I was involved in a number of
7 different committees regarding statewide
8 communication system interoperability.
9 Almost 10 years ago, the Bucky
10 Phillips escape, and the after-action report
11 identified communications problems as the
12 biggest problem, the most critical issue
13 facing us.
14 While I don't know if you've completed
15 your own internal after-action on the escape,
16 the Assemblywoman alluded to the problem.
17 There was some testimony before, we hear it
18 time and time again. Once again, if not the
19 biggest problem issue up there, one of the
20 most significant. I don't expect you
21 necessarily to have an answer or be able to
22 write the check to fix it, but my question
23 is, how do we solve this? I mean, money has
24 gotten thrown at it, at least as far as I
396
1 know, for over 20 years, and we continue to
2 have the same problem.
3 And we look at the geography of the
4 state, North Country is difficult, Southern
5 Tier is difficult, Western New York is
6 difficult. We have these dead spots across
7 the state. We have local agencies that can't
8 communicate with others, the interoperability
9 issues. How do we fix it?
10 SUPERINTENDENT D'AMICO: I mean,
11 communications obviously is a big issue. You
12 know, if you were to come back to the State
13 Police today, Senator, you could pick up a
14 radio and -- right where you left off,
15 because the technology and the way we do it
16 is old. The equipment is new, you know, and
17 it works, but it's -- you know, time has
18 changed and we haven't caught up to it.
19 Over a year ago I charged our
20 communications people with looking at the
21 State Police system, the communications
22 system, with a view on upgrading. Now
23 obviously for a lot of years we sat back
24 waiting for the SWN to come on board, which
397
1 didn't happen. So there were a lot of years
2 lost. And then there was narrowbanding from
3 the FCC, which caused us to have to regroup
4 to make deadlines.
5 But, I mean, at this time we're
6 looking probably to go forward with a
7 multiyear plan to upgrade our own
8 infrastructure to a much more modern system.
9 Whether it's digital or repeated or -- still
10 has yet to be told. We've met with vendors,
11 including Motorola, who made proposals to us
12 just to give us some ideas on where we might
13 be able to go. But, you know, at this time
14 it's still premature to say that their
15 solution is the one we like or anything like
16 that.
17 So we're still looking at it. It's
18 one of my goals that I would like to
19 accomplish in the near future.
20 As far as the communications and
21 interoperability issue, you know, I read the
22 Bucky Phillips after-action as well, and it
23 struck me that we identified it back then and
24 we had the same type of issues this time.
398
1 But the issues weren't exact. So back in
2 Bucky Phillips, we had unencrypted analog
3 transmissions that everybody listened to and
4 knew where our police were and what they were
5 doing. And in some cases they were helped,
6 and in some cases they were hindered.
7 So since that time, you know, we've
8 moved ahead, we've gone to digital and
9 encryption on some of our tactical
10 frequencies, and we get up to the northern --
11 the Adirondack region, where, you know, you
12 couldn't have been in a more difficult
13 terrain to try to support communications up
14 there. And then add to that, we bring in,
15 you know, ten partner agencies who all have
16 different radio systems and everything else.
17 And even when you were both on VHF and said,
18 Wow, this should be easy -- well, this
19 agency's encryption doesn't comport with this
20 agency'