Joint Legislative Public Hearing on 2017-2018 Executive Budget Proposal: Topic "Public Protection" - Testimonies

February 1, 2017

PDF icon

Hearing Event Notice:

Archived Video:



 2  -----------------------------------------------------


 4             In the Matter of the
          2017-2018 EXECUTIVE BUDGET ON
 5              PUBLIC PROTECTION 
 6  -----------------------------------------------------

 7                           Hearing Room B
                             Legislative Office Building
 8                           Albany, New York
 9                           January 31, 2017
                             9:38 a.m.

12           Senator Catharine M. Young
             Chair, Senate Finance Committee
             Assemblyman Herman D. Farrell, Jr.
14           Chair, Assembly Ways & Means Committee

16           Senator Liz Krueger 
             Senate Finance Committee (RM)
             Assemblyman Robert Oaks
18           Assembly Ways & Means Committee (RM)
19           Senator Diane Savino
             Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee
20           Vice Chair, Senate Codes Committee
21           Senator John J. Bonacic
             Chair, Senate Committee on Judiciary
             Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein
23           Chair, Assembly Committee on Judiciary


 1  2017-2018 Executive Budget
    Public Protection
 2  1-31-17
 3  PRESENT:  (Continued)
 4           Senator Patrick M. Gallivan
             Chair, Senate Committee on Crime Victims,
 5            Crime and Correction
 6           Assemblyman Joseph Lentol
             Chair, Assembly Committee on Codes
             Senator Thomas D. Croci
 8           Chair, Senate Committee on Veterans, 
              Homeland Security and Military Affairs
             Assemblyman David I. Weprin 
10           Chair, Assembly Committee on Correction
11           Assemblyman Michael Cusick
12           Senator Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr.
13           Assemblyman Phil Steck
14           Assemblyman Michael Montesano
15           Senator James N. Tedisco
16           Assemblyman Al Graf
17           Senator Velmanette Montgomery
18           Assemblyman Joseph M. Giglio
19           Senator Martin Golden
20           Assemblywoman Crystal Peoples-Stokes
21           Senator Brad Hoylman
22           Assemblywoman Earlene Hooper
23           Senator Jamaal Bailey
24           Assemblywoman Jo Anne Simon


 1  2017-2018 Executive Budget
    Public Protection
 2  1-31-17
 3  PRESENT:  (Continued)
 4           Senator Daniel Squadron
 5           Assemblyman John T. McDonald III
 6           Senator Gustavo Rivera 
 7           Assemblywoman Diana C. Richardson
 8           Senator Leroy Comrie
 9           Assemblywoman Patricia Fahy
10           Senator John DeFrancisco
11           Assemblywoman Latrice M. Walker
12           Senator Todd Kaminsky
13           Assemblywoman David Buchwald
14           Assemblyman Billy Jones
17                   LIST OF SPEAKERS
18                                     STATEMENT  QUESTIONS
19  Honorable Lawrence K. Marks
    Chief Administrative Judge 
20  NYS Office of Court
     Administration                         10        18                  
    John P. Melville
22  Commissioner 
    NYS Division of Homeland Security
23   and Emergency Services               109       116


 1  2017-2018 Executive Budget
    Public Protection
 2  1-30-17
 3                   LIST OF SPEAKERS, Cont. 
 4                                     STATEMENT  QUESTIONS
 5  Michael C. Green
    Executive Deputy Commissioner
 6  NYS Division of Criminal 
     Justice Services                     180        184
    Anthony J. Annucci 
 8  Acting Commissioner 
    NYS Department of Corrections
 9   and Community Supervision            277        284
10  George Beach
11  NYS Division of State Police          353        360
12  William J. Leahy
13  New York State Office of
     Indigent Legal Services              400        413
    Margaret Miller
15  NYS Chief Information Officer
    Director, NYS Office of 
16   Information Technology Services      451        459
17  Robert H. Tembeckjian
    Administrator and Counsel
18  New York State Commission on 
     Judicial Conduct                     494        500
    Thomas H. Mungeer
20  President
    New York State Troopers PBA           508        512
    Christopher M. Quick
22  President
    NYS Police Investigators Assn.        524        531        


 1  2017-2018 Executive Budget
    Public Protection
 2  1-30-17
 3                   LIST OF SPEAKERS, Cont. 
 4                                     STATEMENT  QUESTIONS
 5  Patrick Cullen
 6  NYS Supreme Court Officers Assn.       533      543  
 7  Billy Imandt
 8  Court Officers Benevolent
     Assn. of Nassau County                548      553
    William Dobbins
10  President
    Suffolk County Court
11   Employees Association                 555
12  Michael B. Powers 
13  NYS Correctional Officers &
     Police Benevolent Assn.               563      568
    Jonathan E. Gradess
15  Executive Director
    Art Cody
16  Deputy Director, Veterans
     Defense Program
17  NYS Defenders Association              589      599
18  Connie Neal
    Executive Director
19  NYS Coalition Against
     Domestic Violence                     601





 1  2017-2018 Executive Budget
    Public Protection
 2  1-30-17
 3                   LIST OF SPEAKERS, Cont. 
 4                                     STATEMENT  QUESTIONS
 5  Victor Antonio Perez
 6  Penny Howanski
 7  Steve Drake
    Statewide Labor 
 8   Management Chair
    Nikki Brate
 9  Vice President
    NYS Public Employees 
10   Federation (PEF)                     610      625
11  Grant Cowles
    Senior Policy & Advocacy
12   Associate for Youth Justice
    Citizens' Committee for
13   Children                             634      
14  Blair Horner
    Executive Director
15  New York Public Interest 
     Research Group (NYPIRG)              640
    Karen L. Murtagh
17  Executive Director
    Thomas Curran
18  Board Member
    Prisoners' Legal Services
19   of New York                          646      654
20  Charlotte Carter
    Executive Director
21  NYS Dispute Resolution Assn.
22  Sarah Rudgers-Tysz 
    Executive Director 
23  Mediation Matters                     661


 1  2017-2018 Executive Budget
    Public Protection
 2  1-31-17
 3                   LIST OF SPEAKERS, Cont. 
 4                                     STATEMENT  QUESTIONS
 5  Terry O'Neill
 6  The Constantine Institute              667
 7  Elena Sassower
 8  Center for Judicial 
     Accountability                        671
















 1                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Good morning.  I'm 

 2          Senator Catharine Young.  I'm chair of the 

 3          Senate Finance Committee.  

 4                 And I am joined today by several of my 

 5          colleagues.  We have Vice Chair Senator Diane 

 6          Savino, Senator John Bonacic, Senator Patrick 

 7          Gallivan, Senator James Tedisco, Senator Joe 

 8          Addabbo, Senator Brad Hoylman, Senator 

 9          Gustavo Rivera, Senator Leroy Comrie.  And 

10          did I miss somebody?  Senator Jamaal Bailey, 

11          my apologies.  

12                 And we're also joined by the Assembly 

13          today.  Would you like to announce your 

14          members?  

15                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Yes, I would.  

16                 We are joined by Assemblyman Joe 

17          Lentol, Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein, 

18          Assemblyman Phil Steck, and Assemblyman 

19          Michael Cusick.

20                 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS:  And we're also 

21          joined today by Assemblyman Joe Giglio, 

22          Assemblyman Mike Montesano, and Assemblyman 

23          Al Graf.

24                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you very 


 1          much.  

 2                 Pursuant to the State Constitution and 

 3          Legislative Law, the fiscal committees of the 

 4          State Legislature are authorized to hold 

 5          hearings on the Executive Budget proposal.  

 6          Today's hearings will be limited to a 

 7          discussion of the Governor's recommendations 

 8          as they relate to public protection.  

 9                 Following each presentation, there 

10          will be some time allowed for questions from 

11          the chairs of the fiscal committees and other 

12          legislators.

13                 So first up, I'd like to welcome the 

14          Honorable Lawrence K. Marks, chief 

15          administrative judge of the Office of Court 

16          Administration.  He will be followed by John 

17          Melville, commissioner of the Division of 

18          Homeland Security and Emergency Services; 

19          Mr. Michael C. Green, executive deputy 

20          commissioner of the Division of Criminal 

21          Justice Services; Mr. Anthony Annucci, acting 

22          commissioner of the Department of Corrections 

23          and Community Supervision; Mr. George Beach, 

24          superintendent of the Division of 


 1          State Police; Ms. Margaret Miller, chief 

 2          information officer of the New York State 

 3          Information Technology Services; and 

 4          Mr. William Leahy, director of the Office of 

 5          Indigent Legal Services.  And then we look 

 6          forward to further testimony after that.  It 

 7          is going to be a lengthy day.

 8                 So first, Chief Administrative Judge, 

 9          we are so happy to have you here today, and 

10          we look forward to your testimony.


12          thank you.  And good morning, Chairpersons 

13          Young and Farrell, and good morning to the 

14          other distinguished members of today's panel.  

15                 On behalf of Chief Judge Janet DiFiore 

16          and the entire New York State court system, 

17          thank you for the opportunity to speak with 

18          you today about the Unified Court System's 

19          budget request.  

20                 If I may, I'd like to offer some brief 

21          remarks in support of our budget request, and 

22          then of course I'd be happy to answer any 

23          questions you may have.

24                 I'd like to present my remarks in two 


 1          parts.  First I will highlight for you the 

 2          key features of our budget request, and 

 3          second, I will briefly address the Chief 

 4          Judge's top priority, what we are calling the 

 5          Excellence Initiative, a comprehensive 

 6          statewide effort to achieve operational and 

 7          decisional excellence in everything we do in 

 8          the Judiciary.  

 9                 By presenting my remarks in this 

10          manner, I believe you will understand better 

11          how the two are related, how our budget 

12          request supports and promotes the goals of 

13          the Excellence Initiative.  So first, our 

14          budget request.  

15                 Our proposed budget is fairly 

16          straightforward.  We are seeking a 2 percent 

17          increase in our operating budget.  That 

18          represents a $42.7 million increase over our 

19          current-year operating budget.  The 2 percent 

20          increase is consistent with the benchmark set 

21          by the Governor, and although it is a modest 

22          increase, it will allow us to continue to 

23          replace employees when they leave the court 

24          system.  For the most part, we were not able 


 1          to do that in the years when our budget was 

 2          cut or kept flat.  But as has been true for 

 3          the last several years, our budget will 

 4          enable us to replace employees when they 

 5          leave as well as fill a number of additional 

 6          vacancies.  

 7                 Our goal, under this proposed budget, 

 8          is to increase our staffing by approximately 

 9          200 positions over the current level.  The 

10          focus of that hiring will be on courtroom 

11          titles -- court clerks, court officers, court 

12          reporters, court interpreters, and 

13          back-office staff that support the work done 

14          in the courtrooms.  

15                 The proposed budget will also allow us 

16          to begin to restore support for a number of 

17          programs that were cut five to six years ago. 

18          For example, we will expand evening hours in 

19          Small Claims Court in New York City, which 

20          will reduce delays in calendaring those cases 

21          and provide greater convenience for 

22          litigants; we will increase funding across 

23          the state for community dispute resolution 

24          centers, which recruit, train and supervise 


 1          volunteers who provide low-cost mediation and 

 2          alternative dispute resolution services in 

 3          court matters, for people who are unable to 

 4          pay for these services; we will increase 

 5          funding for the CASA program, which operates 

 6          statewide to recruit, train and supervise 

 7          volunteers appointed by the Family Court to 

 8          advocate for abused, neglected or at-risk 

 9          children.  And we will also increase funding 

10          for the Justice Court Assistance program, 

11          which has played an important role in 

12          improving the operations of the more than 

13          1,200 town and village courts across the 

14          state.  

15                 In addition to the 2 percent increase 

16          we are seeking in our operating budget, we 

17          are seeking a modest capital appropriation of 

18          $15 million.  This money would be used to 

19          support and build the court system's 

20          infrastructure -- in particular, our 

21          technology and our public safety 

22          infrastructure, which have suffered in recent 

23          years.  The proposed capital appropriation 

24          would be used for a number of important 


 1          projects, such as upgrading and modernizing 

 2          the court system's statewide computer 

 3          network, which connects every courthouse and 

 4          court office in the state and which, without 

 5          essential upgrading, will be reaching the end 

 6          of its expected life; for purchasing a case 

 7          management system for the state's town and 

 8          village courts -- and the privately owned 

 9          case management system, currently used by 

10          over 95 percent of the justice courts, is 

11          about to be sold, so purchase of the system 

12          by the Judiciary will ensure continuity and 

13          security for the justice Courts as well as 

14          save local governments significant annual 

15          licensing fees; for replacing outdated 

16          courthouse metal detectors and other security 

17          screening devices reaching the end of their 

18          useful life; and for replacing bullet-proof 

19          vests worn by our court officers, which are 

20          also reaching the end of their effectiveness.  

21                 So those are the key features of our 

22          budget request.  Next I'd just like to offer 

23          a few words about the Chief Judge's 

24          Excellence Initiative.


 1                 The primary focus of this effort has 

 2          been on court fundamentals, the Judiciary's 

 3          core mission to fairly and promptly 

 4          adjudicate each of the millions of cases 

 5          filed in our courts every year.  Over the 

 6          past year, and continuing this year, we have 

 7          been working closely with our administrative 

 8          judges and local court administrators across 

 9          the state, and with the bar, prosecutor's 

10          offices, and other partners and stakeholders 

11          in the justice community.  We've undertaken 

12          an extensive examination into the causes of 

13          backlogs, bottlenecks and delays.  

14                 Based on this self-examination, we 

15          have designed and implemented changes such as 

16          restructuring how courts process cases, 

17          redeploying judges and court personnel.  And 

18          increasing trial capacity -- all tailored to 

19          the needs and circumstances of individual 

20          courts and jurisdictions.

21                 The Chief Judge will be addressing 

22          this in greater detail in her State of the 

23          Judiciary address later this month.  But I 

24          can report to you that we have made real 


 1          progress over the past year.  Case backlogs 

 2          and delays have been reduced in courts 

 3          throughout the state at all levels.  However, 

 4          we have a lot more work to do in trying to 

 5          change a culture in the justice community 

 6          that frankly has been far too tolerant than 

 7          it should be of delays and inefficiency.  

 8                 And although there is much we can do 

 9          to address this problem that will not cost 

10          additional money, there is no question that 

11          approval of our budget request and the money 

12          it will provide to hire additional people and 

13          to bolster our infrastructure will enable us 

14          to do more over the next year to build on the 

15          progress we have made.

16                 Finally, I want to briefly address 

17          access to justice.  Other than the Excellence 

18          Initiative, if I had to identify a second top 

19          priority in the court system right now, it 

20          would be improving access to justice.  We are 

21          committed to continuing to expand access to 

22          justice for the hundreds of thousands of 

23          people who come into our courts each year 

24          without the assistance of a lawyer.  We are 


 1          addressing this enormous problem, which we 

 2          call the "justice gap," on multiple fronts.  

 3          We are encouraging the bar to perform more 

 4          pro bono work, we are urging law schools to 

 5          utilize law students to attack the problem, 

 6          we are even exploring how nonattorneys, 

 7          within the bounds of the law, can help.  And 

 8          we have used our own funding in the Judiciary 

 9          Budget to award monetary grants to legal 

10          service providers so they can hire additional 

11          lawyers to represent people who can't afford 

12          a lawyer.

13                 Thanks to the support we've received 

14          from the Legislature, funding for civil legal 

15          services in our budget reached $100 million 

16          in this fiscal year, a goal that was set a 

17          number of years ago.  We are continuing that 

18          amount in this budget request.  But because 

19          the goal has now been met -- and by the way, 

20          that's not nearly enough money to provide a 

21          lawyer for everyone who can't afford one.  

22          But because the goal has now been met, we are 

23          not now seeking additional money in this 

24          proposed budget for civil legal services.


 1                 So those are the key points I wanted 

 2          to emphasize for you this morning.  Thank you 

 3          very much for listening, and I'd be happy to 

 4          answer any questions you may have.  

 5                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you very 

 6          much, Judge.  And we appreciate you coming in 

 7          and giving that testimony.  

 8                 I know that our chair of the Senate 

 9          Judiciary Committee, Senator John Bonacic, 

10          has some questions, and then I'll follow up.

11                 SENATOR BONACIC:  Judge Marks, how are 

12          you doing?  


14          doing well, thank you.

15                 SENATOR BONACIC:  Okay, I just have a 

16          few questions.  But before I do, I've been 

17          fortunate to have a good partner in Judiciary 

18          in the Assembly with Helene Weinstein, and I 

19          continue to look forward to work with her to 

20          resolve the judicial issues that come before 

21          us.  Helene.

22                 You know, I'm glad to see that, you 

23          know, you're not putting more money into the 

24          civil legal services and instead you're 


 1          making a priority of investing in the 

 2          efficiency of the courts throughout the state 

 3          and trying to improve your capital projects.  

 4          I think now you're getting your priorities a 

 5          little better.

 6                 So when I looked at your budget, you 

 7          talked of, number one, you would have more 

 8          money for community dispute resolutions, but 

 9          you don't say how much.  Do you know now how 

10          much you'd be investing in that program?  


12          Well, what we want to do, if our budget is 

13          approved, that will provide us extra money 

14          for that program, the Community Dispute 

15          Resolution Centers, along with some of the 

16          other programs that I mentioned in my 

17          remarks.  

18                 And before we decide how much 

19          additional money we can spend on that, we 

20          want to do an evaluation and see how the 

21          additional money can best be spent so that it 

22          will increase services -- in that particular 

23          respect, with community dispute resolution, 

24          how we can increase services with the CASA 


 1          program -- and do an evaluation, once our 

 2          budget is approved, and then decide, you 

 3          know, where to spend the additional money and 

 4          which individual programs would get the 

 5          additional money.

 6                 But, you know, roughly -- we hope to 

 7          have roughly a million dollars in this 

 8          proposed budget that we can set aside to 

 9          provide additional money to the CDRC, the 

10          program you mentioned, as well as the CASA 

11          program and some of the other programs where 

12          we'd like to begin to restore the funding 

13          that was cut five, six years ago.

14                 SENATOR BONACIC:  Okay.  As you know, 

15          both the dispute resolution program and CASA 

16          I think are close to my heart, I think 

17          they're important.  They're important because 

18          if you can resolve disputes without letting 

19          the dispute continue into the court system, 

20          that's a good thing.  So I would encourage 

21          you, when you look at that, to beef up those 

22          two programs as much as you can.

23                 Now, when you talk about -- and I 

24          thought this was wonderful -- you're adding 


 1          200 more positions throughout the court 

 2          system, how are you going to allocate those?  

 3          Where are they going to go?  Do you have a 

 4          formula?  I assume it's tied into caseload, 

 5          probably, for those counties, but --


 7          It's tied to caseload.  It's tied to 

 8          backlogs.  You know, security is obviously 

 9          always a top priority, and we can't 

10          compromise on public safety in the 

11          courthouses.  But the focus -- I can't sit 

12          here today and tell you exactly where we need 

13          additional personnel.  I mean frankly, we 

14          need additional personnel pretty much 

15          everywhere in the state.  

16                 But we will -- you know, if we're 

17          fortunate enough to get this proposed budget 

18          approved and signed into law, we'll do a very 

19          quick analysis of where the needs are 

20          greatest and allocate personnel to those 

21          locations.  But the focus will be, as I 

22          mentioned before, on the courtroom needs, the 

23          court clerks, court officers, interpreters, 

24          court reporters and the like.


 1                 SENATOR BONACIC:  I think that's all 

 2          good.  But I would ask you to assume that 

 3          your Judiciary Budget would be approved, 

 4          since you're at the 2 percent cap, excluding 

 5          fringe benefits.  I'd like to have -- if you 

 6          could get me a memo on how you're going to 

 7          allocate those resources throughout the 

 8          state.  I think it's important for the 

 9          members to know that upstate is getting its 

10          fair share proportionately to the 

11          metropolitan area, always keeping in mind 

12          where the heavy load is is where you have to 

13          invest.  Okay?  

14                 And I would make the same suggestion 

15          for capital funding, if that's something you 

16          could do.


18          We're happy to consult with you on this and, 

19          you know, keep you abreast of where we feel 

20          our personnel needs are the greatest and 

21          where we would allocate additional personnel, 

22          you know, at the point where we're able to do 

23          that.

24                 SENATOR BONACIC:  Okay.


 1                 And last but not least -- this is just 

 2          more for my enlightenment -- when we put, 

 3          what is it, over $800 million in civil legal 

 4          services, that would include landlord-tenant, 

 5          it would include divorces, it would include 

 6          bankruptcy, it would include collection 

 7          items, the whole gamut of anything that's 

 8          deemed to be civil.  Would I be correct?


10          pretty much runs the gamut, with the focus on 

11          what we call the essentials of life, where 

12          someone's home may be at risk, either in a 

13          rental apartment or a home that's in 

14          foreclosure.  Victims of domestic violence 

15          have benefited from this money, veterans have 

16          benefited from the civil legal services money 

17          that we distribute, senior citizens.  

18                 But the answer to your question is it 

19          pretty much runs the gamut of all types of 

20          civil cases where people come into our courts 

21          without a lawyer because they can't afford 

22          one.

23                 SENATOR BONACIC:  You mentioned 

24          domestic violence.  But wouldn't be that in 


 1          the criminal arena rather than the civil 

 2          arena?  


 4          would be more in the Family Court arena.

 5                 Critical criminal court, the -- as you 

 6          know, there's a -- defendants have a 

 7          constitutional right to a lawyer if they 

 8          can't afford one.  There's no corollary right 

 9          on the civil side.  So this is money that 

10          goes to people who have cases in civil courts 

11          and to some extent in the Family Court as 

12          well.

13                 SENATOR BONACIC:  Okay.  If you had a 

14          bottomless pit of money, where would you like 

15          that civil services budget to be to meet what 

16          you perceive is the demand of people that are 

17          not represented by an attorney in all of 

18          these civil actions?  Do you have a number or 

19          a goal?  I know you've been trying to bump it 

20          up every year.  And I'm not saying it's not a 

21          worthy goal.  I always thought it would be a 

22          better priority to put it -- make the courts 

23          more efficient.  

24                 So -- but do you have in your mind 


 1          what your goal would have been?  I'm just 

 2          curious.


 4          Well, let me just say it's not -- it's not -- 

 5          whatever that number is, it's not a number 

 6          that we could ever reach in the court 

 7          system's budget.  

 8                 For example, despite this additional 

 9          expenditure of money that, you know, we've 

10          added to our budget over the last five, six 

11          years -- and we're not adding, as you pointed 

12          out, additional money in this proposed budget 

13          for civil legal services.  But we've studied 

14          the difference that's made in the legal 

15          representation of people with civil matters 

16          who otherwise wouldn't have lawyers but for 

17          this money.  

18                 And in 2011, if we go back to 2011, 

19          that's when we started to issue grants to 

20          legal services providers, giving them money 

21          from the Judiciary Budget.  Approximately 

22          20 percent of people with civil matters in 

23          the civil courts of the state, approximately 

24          20 percent had attorneys statewide.


 1                 Today -- and it's not easy to measure 

 2          this, and these are rough estimates, but 

 3          today, six years later, with the expenditure 

 4          of the $100 million in our budget -- along 

 5          with other money that's available.  The City 

 6          of New York has provided money for tenants 

 7          facing eviction, so there's been additional 

 8          money.  There's been some federal money that 

 9          goes to civil legal service providers in 

10          New York.  

11                 But the percentage of people, as best 

12          we can measure it, who are represented by 

13          lawyers in civil courts in the state is about 

14          33 percent.  So we've gone from 20 percent to 

15          33 percent.  That means two-thirds of the 

16          people in the state are still unrepresented 

17          by lawyers in civil cases.  

18                 On the other hand, it's a very 

19          significant increase in hundreds of thousands 

20          of additional people now have lawyers because 

21          of the money that we've given out in our 

22          budget.

23                 So to answer your question how much 

24          money would it require if it were -- like the 


 1          criminal courts were -- everyone charged with 

 2          a crime in the criminal courts has a lawyer, 

 3          how much money would that cost?  It's hard to 

 4          say.  But it would be hundreds of millions of 

 5          dollars, without question.

 6                 SENATOR BONACIC:  And you would 

 7          provide this service whether it's an illegal 

 8          immigrant or a legal citizen, that you don't 

 9          distinguish in providing these civil services 

10          to -- if there are illegals in the city who 

11          want to take advantage -- you know, need a 

12          defense, you don't make a distinction?


14          haven't made a distinction in that regard.  

15          That's up to the legal service provider, 

16          which people walk in -- which ones they 

17          decide to represent and which ones they 

18          don't.

19                 SENATOR BONACIC:  Okay.  So basically 

20          illegals also would be entitled to these 

21          attorneys for civil matters.


23          the discretion of the legal service provider.

24                 SENATOR BONACIC:  And my last 


 1          question, do you have a sense of how many are 

 2          legal and how many illegal would be --


 4          don't.  I don't.

 5                 SENATOR BONACIC:  Okay.  Thank you, 

 6          Your Honor.


 8          Thank you.

 9                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, Judge.  

10                 Thank you, Senator Bonacic.

11                 I did -- oh, I'm sorry.  It's the 

12          Assembly's turn, isn't it?

13                 (Laughter.)

14                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Yes, it is.

15                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  I'm sorry.  I'm 

16          champing at the bit here.

17                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Yes, I'll get you 

18          there as quickly as possible.

19                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Chairman Farrell, 

20          please go ahead.

21                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  We've been joined 

22          by Assemblywoman Peoples-Stokes, 

23          Assemblywoman Diana Richardson, and 

24          Assemblyman McDonald.  


 1                 And first to ask questions on our side 

 2          is Helene Weinstein.

 3                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  Thank you, 

 4          Mr. Chairman.  

 5                 And Judge Marks, I look forward to 

 6          this year working with you and my Senate 

 7          counterpart, John Bonacic, again this year as 

 8          we try and improve justice for all 

 9          New Yorkers.

10                 Just following up a little bit on some 

11          of the questions that the Senator was asking 

12          about civil legal services, as you say in 

13          your remarks, this year the request is flat 

14          and that it's the continuation of last year's 

15          request of the $100 million.  Could you talk 

16          a little bit about what happens to the court 

17          system when there are unrepresented litigants 

18          and how having representation in fact helps 

19          both the court system and the resolution of 

20          the litigants' issues?


22          Well, it does help the court system.  It not 

23          only helps people without lawyers, but it's 

24          very beneficial to the court system.  And I 


 1          can speak firsthand about this, because I sit 

 2          in the Supreme Court in New York City, and 

 3          when individuals are involved in cases and 

 4          they're unrepresented by a lawyer, it makes 

 5          it very difficult for the court -- remember, 

 6          the judge can't give legal advice to 

 7          litigants, that's not appropriate and raises 

 8          ethical issues for the judge.

 9                 So it's very difficult and burdensome 

10          on the court, the judge, the court staff, 

11          when people come into court unrepresented by 

12          lawyers.  And in Supreme Court, it's probably 

13          less of a problem; you have a greater 

14          percentage of people with lawyers who come 

15          into Supreme Court.  But in many of the other 

16          courts -- Housing Court, lower civil court, 

17          Family Court -- you have thousands and 

18          thousands of litigants who don't have legal 

19          representation.  

20                 And it makes it that much more 

21          difficult for the court to adjudicate the 

22          case.  It can slow things down, it can lead 

23          to backlogs.  It's inconsistent with all the 

24          things that we're trying to address and 


 1          improve on in the court system right now 

 2          under the Chief Judge's initiative.  

 3                 So in our view it's not only a humane 

 4          exercise to provide lawyers to people who 

 5          can't afford them, but it's in the interest 

 6          of the court system, our own interest in 

 7          trying to alleviate backlogs and delays and 

 8          inefficiencies in how we adjudicate cases.

 9                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  Thank you.  

10          And over the past few years, there's been 

11          increased interest in trying to assist 

12          homeowners facing foreclosure.  We've 

13          instituted mandatory settlement conferences.  

14          And do you have the numbers or a sense of how 

15          many homeowners are represented in 

16          foreclosure settlement conferences, and 

17          specifically in that setting, the difference 

18          of a lawyer versus an unrepresented 

19          homeowner?  


21          Yeah, it's -- foreclosures is an area where 

22          we've made really great progress, maybe 

23          better than in other areas.  If you go back 

24          to 2011, there were roughly a third -- 32, 


 1          33 percent -- of the homeowners were 

 2          represented by counsel in the settlement 

 3          conferences in foreclosure cases.  And today 

 4          it's about 62 percent are represented by 

 5          counsel in the settlement conferences.

 6                 Now, in foreclosures you do have 

 7          people who come in with their own lawyers, 

 8          who can afford to hire lawyers.  So the 

 9          62 percent who come in with lawyers, that's 

10          not all people who have been provided a 

11          lawyer free of charge through a legal service 

12          provider.  But there's no question that our 

13          legal services program has very, very 

14          significantly increased the number of people, 

15          homeowners in foreclosure cases who now have 

16          a lawyer to represent them.

17                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  And moving 

18          away from the legal services provisions, do 

19          you have any initial thoughts on how the 

20          remote access temporary order of protection 

21          project is going?  I know I was there for the 

22          launch in the fall.  Has it been operating?  

23          Are there any kinks?  Has it been helping 

24          victims of domestic violence?  



 2          Yeah, this is a program that -- pursuant to 

 3          legislation passed by the Legislature in the 

 4          past year or so -- allows for someone seeking 

 5          an order of protection in Family Court, who 

 6          may or most likely has been a victim of 

 7          domestic violence and is seeking an order of 

 8          protection from the court, to avoid the 

 9          necessity of going to court if going to court 

10          would present a risk of danger to the victim 

11          of domestic violence, or is inconvenient or 

12          difficult logistically to get to court 

13          physically.  

14                 So pursuant to the legislation, we've 

15          set up -- we started a pilot project in 

16          seven, eight counties in the state, in the 

17          City and around the state, where a person 

18          seeking an order of protection can go to a 

19          social service center or a family justice 

20          center and then file the petition for an 

21          order of protection electronically, and then 

22          appear by video through Skype and interact 

23          with the judge and make the request for an 

24          order of protection.  And then the judge, in 


 1          the courtroom, can then issue and sign the 

 2          order of protection.

 3                 So it's a great idea.  It addresses, 

 4          you know, what had been a problem of victims 

 5          of domestic violence of being fearful of 

 6          going to court to get an order of protection 

 7          or being incapable of getting there 

 8          physically.  And as I said, we're piloting 

 9          this now in seven or eight counties around 

10          the state, and so far so good.  And, you 

11          know, we're very optimistic that this will be 

12          a successful program, at which point we'll 

13          expand it everywhere in the state.

14                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  Thank you.  

15                 And could you just expand, lastly, on 

16          how the purchase of the case management 

17          system will -- for the town and village 

18          courts will save those localities funds not 

19          only this year but going forward?  


21          Well, the town and village courts -- you 

22          know, we have 1200 town and village courts 

23          across the state.  We have a lot of town and 

24          village courts.  And they're -- for those of 


 1          you not familiar with this, they're the only 

 2          courts in the state that are not 

 3          state-financed.  They're locally financed.  

 4                 And -- but the state court system, 

 5          where it can, we've tried to help the town 

 6          and village courts with resources as best we 

 7          can, and we have given them grants over the 

 8          years and tried to support them as best we 

 9          can, because they're not always adequately 

10          financed by their local municipalities.  

11                 And every town and village court has a 

12          case management system, an automated case 

13          management system, which you need to run the 

14          court.  That's all the data is entered, the 

15          calendars, the list of cases is generated by 

16          the case management system.  Orders can be 

17          printed out.  And it's sort of how courts in 

18          modern times function, through automated case 

19          management systems.

20                 And the current case management system 

21          that's used by over 95 percent of the state's 

22          town and village courts is privately owned.  

23          And it was created and it's owned by a guy 

24          who's up in the Rochester area who was a 


 1          former town judge himself and worked in the 

 2          computer business and created this very 

 3          effective and useful case management system 

 4          that has now been picked up by, as I said, 

 5          over 95 percent of the town and village 

 6          courts.  

 7                 But they have to pay for it.  There's 

 8          an initial cost to purchase it, and there's 

 9          an annual subscription fee that every town 

10          and village has to pay.

11                 And that's been fine all along, but 

12          he's now retiring and he's going to sell his 

13          product.  And so we, in this capital 

14          appropriation that we're seeking in our 

15          budget request, we would use a portion of 

16          that to purchase this case management system 

17          from this gentleman who's retiring, and we 

18          would then provide it -- well, that would 

19          serve several purposes.  One, if it sold to 

20          someone else, whoever sells it might not have 

21          the best interests of the town and village 

22          courts in mind and the system could become 

23          less useful, less effective for the courts.  

24          If we purchase it, that won't happen.


 1                 And secondly, we would purchase it and 

 2          we wouldn't charge, of course we wouldn't 

 3          charge the village and town courts a fee.  So 

 4          the municipalities would get this product for 

 5          free.  

 6                 So it's something we very much want to 

 7          do.  Not surprisingly, the State Magistrates 

 8          Association is very supportive of this 

 9          effort.  And if we get the money in our 

10          budget to do that, you know, we fully plan to 

11          go ahead and purchase the case management 

12          system.

13                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  Great.  

14          Thank you so much, Judge.  Look forward to 

15          continuing to work with you as the session 

16          goes on.


18          Thank you.

19                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.  We've 

20          been joined by Earlene Hooper and Jo Anne 

21          Sayam -- Simone -- Simon -- I'll speak 

22          English soon -- as Assemblypeople.

23                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  We've been joined 

24          by Senator Tom Croci.  


 1                 So, Judge, thank you so much for your 

 2          answers so far.  And just following up on 

 3          what the Assemblywoman was asking about with 

 4          the local courts -- and we had a good 

 5          discussion yesterday about this issue.  Just 

 6          one real quick question.  Would there be an 

 7          ongoing cost to the state after the 

 8          $4.5 million was used to buy the system?  Are 

 9          there other costs that we should anticipate 

10          in the future?


12          It's really a one-time cost to purchase the 

13          product.  And over time, it may require 

14          periodic upgrades, but we would do that 

15          internally with our own technology people.  

16          So essentially it's a one-time cost.

17                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.

18                 You talked about the cuts that were 

19          sustained five or six years ago, and I agree 

20          with you that those cuts need to be restored.  

21          And one of the proposals that you're talking 

22          about is increasing hours for Small Claims 

23          Court.  And that's strictly New York City; 

24          correct?  



 2          It's strictly New York City where we've had 

 3          the biggest problem.  Because of delays in 

 4          calendaring the cases, it can take months and 

 5          months when somebody files a small claim in 

 6          New York City.  It can take -- because of the 

 7          enormous backlog, because we had to cut back 

 8          the evening hours during the week, a very 

 9          substantial backlog has grown.  

10                 So the point I mentioned, the focus is 

11          just on New York City, but -- my 

12          understanding is that the problem is most 

13          acute in New York City, but we could look 

14          elsewhere around the state if this is a --

15                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Do you know what -- 

16          yeah, Judge, do you know what the cost would 

17          be to do what you're proposing?  Do you know 

18          how much more it would cost to have those 

19          evening hours?


21          sorry, I should know that.  I don't have that 

22          number off the top of my head, but I can get 

23          it for you.

24                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  It would be really 


 1          helpful.  If you could get it to the 

 2          Legislature, that would be good.


 4          Sure.

 5                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  And are you looking 

 6          at any other courts to expand into evening 

 7          hours?


 9          at the moment.  Evening hours are costly 

10          because -- you know, since we do have 

11          challenges with staffing and, you know, we do 

12          have fewer personnel than ideally we would 

13          like and that we had at one time, evening 

14          operations are paid through overtime.  And 

15          overtime is expensive.  

16                 And, you know, we've tried to contain 

17          overtime costs in recent years, and we've 

18          been fairly successful in doing that.  But 

19          just, for example, the Small Claims Court 

20          expansion in New York City, that would be 

21          paid through overtime.  

22                 And by the way, it just occurred to 

23          me -- I'm recalling now -- and I'll check 

24          this -- but the cost is in the neighborhood 


 1          of $3 million, $3.5 million to partially 

 2          restore the evening hours of Small Claims 

 3          Court in New York City.  I believe it's about 

 4          $3 million, $3.5 million.  Which is all 

 5          overtime.  You know, that's the problem and 

 6          that's the challenge, it's overtime costs.

 7                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.

 8                 The Governor has included the Raise 

 9          the Age proposal in his budget, and I was 

10          wondering how that would impact the 

11          judiciary.


13          Well, we -- I should say we're supportive of 

14          the raising the age of criminal 

15          responsibility.  As I think everybody knows, 

16          we're one of only two states in the country 

17          that sets the age of criminal responsibility 

18          at 16.  

19                 And we've been very involved in this.  

20          The prior chief judge introduced legislation 

21          a number of years ago to Raise the Age in 

22          New York.  The Governor, as I think you all 

23          know, established a commission -- 

24          coincidentally I was a member of that 


 1          commission prior to my being chief 

 2          administrative judge, and the chief judge was 

 3          a member of that commission when she was the 

 4          Westchester County district attorney.  So we 

 5          have a very keen interest in this proposal.  

 6                 And in terms of the impact it would 

 7          have on the courts, basically the cases 

 8          involving 16- and 17-year-olds would be 

 9          handled in the Family Court, at least most of 

10          the cases.  The most violent felony cases 

11          would remain in the adult courts, although it 

12          would be treated in separate court parts in 

13          the adult courts.  But most of the cases, the 

14          great percentage of the cases would be 

15          handled in Family Court, just as cases are 

16          for youth under 16 now and just as they are, 

17          as I said, in 48 states around the country; 

18          the 16- and 17-year-old cases, except for the 

19          most violent, would be handled in Family 

20          Court.

21                 So that would create some additional 

22          burdens on Family Court.  But we -- I can 

23          tell you this very confidently, that's a 

24          problem that we're happy to take on.  It 


 1          would not -- let me put it this way.  It 

 2          wouldn't create an increased number of cases 

 3          in the court system.  It's the same number of 

 4          cases, it's just moving cases from one part 

 5          of the court system to the other, from the 

 6          adult criminal courts to the Family Court.  

 7                 So we could accommodate that.  You 

 8          know, it would require some planning.  And 

 9          every bill that I've seen would have like, 

10          you know, a very advanced effective date, so 

11          there would be full opportunity to plan for 

12          this.  But we can move resources from one 

13          court to another court.  We did get, thanks 

14          to the Legislature, a couple of years ago we 

15          did get 25 new Family Court judgeships, which 

16          would be very helpful.  

17                 The arrests -- we followed this very 

18          carefully.  Arrests of 16- and 17-year-olds 

19          over the last seven, eight years have 

20          plummeted.  They're a fraction of what they 

21          used to be.  And there are a variety of 

22          reasons for that.  But the caseload involving 

23          16- and 17-year-olds is much less than it 

24          once was.  


 1                 And in Family Court, there are more 

 2          opportunities for diversion of cases, so that 

 3          the cases never actually end up in court.  So 

 4          that also would reduce the number of cases 

 5          that would end up in Family Court that are 

 6          not there now.

 7                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Right.  And, you 

 8          know, Judge, I would say, though, there are 

 9          still some crimes on the list that I have 

10          deep concerns about, things like criminally 

11          negligent homicide, vehicular manslaughter, 

12          aggravated sexual abuse.  I think we need to 

13          look at the list as to what would qualify 

14          under Youth Court.  Because if anybody is 

15          violent, I don't think that they should 

16          qualify for the Raise the Age proposal.

17                 But you talk about the additional 

18          Family Court judges, and we worked very hard 

19          to get those in place.  As you know, 

20          Chautauqua County, for example, was able to 

21          get one.

22                 But do you see any money included in 

23          your budget proposal that would be used 

24          toward Raise the Age?  



 2          don't think we would be seeking additional 

 3          money for Raise the Age legislation.

 4                 But, you know, let me say it would 

 5          require, if it were -- for Raise the Age to 

 6          be successful, it would require additional 

 7          state money for programs and services.  

 8          Because, you know, Family Court relies 

 9          heavily on programs and services, more so 

10          than the adult courts, for obvious reasons.  

11          And Raise the Age would certainly have a 

12          price tag, and that would primarily be for 

13          programs and services.

14                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Okay.  Do you 

15          anticipate additional judges being needed?


17          Yes.  Yeah.

18                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Do you have a 

19          ballpark figure?


21          don't, because we'd have to know the issue 

22          you raised -- you know, which crimes.  And 

23          that would need to be negotiated, which 

24          crimes would go to Family Court, which would 


 1          stay in the adult courts.  That would impact 

 2          the volume of cases.  And we would need 

 3          additional judicial resources.  

 4                 But remember, if cases are moving from 

 5          criminal court to Family Court, that reduces 

 6          the burden on the criminal courts, increases 

 7          the burden on the Family Courts, and we can 

 8          shift judges from court to court.  So that's 

 9          one example of how we would accommodate a 

10          change in the law.

11                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Okay.  Thank you.

12                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.  

13                 Assemblyman Joe Lentol.

14                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  Thank you, 

15          Mr. Chairman.  

16                 Good morning, Judge.


18          Good morning.

19                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  And thank you for 

20          coming before us today.  And thank you for 

21          the work that you've been doing since you've 

22          been appointed.  I'm really appreciative of 

23          the hard work that you've put in as the chief 

24          administrative judge.


 1                 Is this working, this microphone?  

 2          Okay.  

 3                 So I was going to ask you a lot of 

 4          questions about Raise the Age, and I'm not, 

 5          because Senator Young asked you a lot of 

 6          questions.  But I know that there's been a 

 7          great deal of talk around the Capitol in the 

 8          aftermath of last session about caseloads in 

 9          the criminal matters involving those counties 

10          that are non-Hurrell-Harring counties.  And 

11          I'm not going to ask you about that either, 

12          because I wanted to ask you about the impact 

13          that civil legal service money provided by 

14          the judiciary -- I guess it's about $100 

15          million last year -- has done, or what impact 

16          it's had on civil caseloads in the court 

17          system.


19          Well, it's had a very positive impact.  And 

20          not to say that there still aren't, you know, 

21          many, many people who come into the civil 

22          courts without a lawyer.  But the money that 

23          the Legislature has authorized and that we've 

24          given out in grants to some 70 to 75 civil 


 1          legal service providers across the state -- 

 2          that's money that, by the way, goes to every 

 3          one of the state's 62 counties -- it's had an 

 4          enormous impact on people's lives.  All kinds 

 5          of people -- poor people, working people who 

 6          can't afford a lawyer, veterans, senior 

 7          citizens, victims of domestic violence, 

 8          really across the board.  It's had a dramatic 

 9          impact on the lives of thousands and 

10          thousands of people.  

11                 But -- I can't sit here today and tell 

12          you that it's solved the problem of the 

13          justice gap in this state, but it's been a 

14          major step forward, a major progress for the 

15          state, and an achievement that everyone in 

16          this room can take pride in and take credit 

17          for.

18                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  Can you tell us 

19          which cases are -- needs are unmet right now?  

20          I mean, I know we've met a lot of needs in 

21          the community out there for civil legal 

22          services, but who has not been served?


24          There's still -- a majority of people in 


 1          eviction proceedings still don't have an 

 2          attorney.  A substantial number of people 

 3          facing foreclosure don't have an attorney.  A 

 4          very substantial number of people who are 

 5          being sued over consumer debt default don't 

 6          have an attorney.  You know, and there are 

 7          other examples of that.  Those are kind of 

 8          the three top examples that come to mind.

 9                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  Thank you.

10                 I was very interested in the questions 

11          asked by Senator Young about Raise the Age.  

12          And I know in my heart that there's little 

13          appetite in some places in the Legislature 

14          for violent felony offenders or people who 

15          are not low-level nonviolent offenders, that 

16          we ought to maybe do that first.  And I 

17          understand the reason for it.  But isn't it 

18          appropriate -- or do you think that it's 

19          those offenders who are violent that need the 

20          services of the Family Court more than those 

21          who we are putting in the Family Court for 

22          purposes of prosecution?  We're putting in 

23          the nonviolent offenders, who may not 

24          necessarily need the services that the 


 1          Family Court -- probation services as well as 

 2          any technical services that could be provided 

 3          in the Family Court that are not provided 

 4          anywhere now.


 6          Well, one could make that argument.  And I 

 7          know there are political considerations that 

 8          impact this.  

 9                 But I would say it depends on the 

10          individual.  I mean, you could have an 

11          individual charged with a very serious crime 

12          who could benefit greatly from more of a 

13          Family Court approach to the case in programs 

14          and services.  And you could have someone 

15          charged with a lesser offense who might not 

16          be a good candidate for programs and 

17          services.  

18                 So I guess it's somewhat arbitrary to 

19          sort of draw the line and say, you know, this 

20          category of offenses would go to Family Court 

21          and this category of offenses would stay in 

22          the criminal courts.  But, you know, when 

23          you're legislating, sometimes, you know, the 

24          lines have to be drawn and sometimes they can 


 1          be arbitrary.  

 2                 But my answer to your question would 

 3          be it depends on the individual and who the 

 4          individual is.  And the problems and the 

 5          needs of the individual are probably more 

 6          important than the particular crime that's 

 7          being charged in the case.

 8                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  I mean, I haven't 

 9          looked at all of the states and how they 

10          treat violent felony offenders, the ones that 

11          have raised the age of criminal 

12          responsibility.  But I'm pretty sure that 

13          most of them take into account that these are 

14          violent felons in some way, shape or form,  

15          but want to provide them services and get 

16          them those services in the Family Court.  And 

17          if they need punishment, there's also 

18          punishment that's available in the juvenile 

19          court as well.


21          Yeah, and let me just say, not to -- I don't 

22          mean to denigrate the criminal courts in any 

23          way, because there are programs available and 

24          services available to judges and offenders in 


 1          criminal court cases as well.  But the 

 2          orientation in the criminal courts is very 

 3          different from Family Court.  Family Court is 

 4          all about addressing the needs of -- the best 

 5          needs and the best interests of the youth in 

 6          the case before the judge.  And that's what 

 7          Family Court has been all about.  That's 

 8          Family Court's orientation.  

 9                 And there are programs available, you 

10          know, for offenders in the criminal courts, 

11          but it's not the primary focus.  And it's a 

12          different orientation in the criminal courts 

13          than what you have in Family Court.

14                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  Thank you, Judge.

15                 Next.  

16                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, 

17          Assemblyman.

18                 Our next speaker is -- oh, where did 

19          he go?  Okay.  We'll go to Brad Hoylman.

20                 SENATOR HOYLMAN:  Thank you.  Nice to 

21          see you, Judge.  Thank you for being here.  

22          It's interesting to see another branch of 

23          government have to go to another and seek 

24          funding.


 1                 You mentioned the essentials of life 

 2          in terms of our civil litigation system, and 

 3          I find it kind of shocking that we have to 

 4          keep the essentials of life at a 2 percent 

 5          cap every budget.

 6                 But in terms of that $100 million -- 

 7          and I think this question was asked maybe in 

 8          a different way -- and your statement that 

 9          it's not nearly enough to provide a lawyer 

10          for everyone who can't afford one, what is 

11          that figure, in your estimation?  


13          Yeah, I think Senator Bonacic asked me that 

14          question.  And I don't have that number here 

15          with me today.  It's an enormous amount of 

16          money, unfortunately.

17                 SENATOR HOYLMAN:  Don't you think, 

18          sir -- and the reason I ask it again --


20          It's not an amount that I could ever see 

21          being met through the Judiciary's budget.  

22          And let me just say it's unusual -- I mean, I 

23          go to conferences of my counterparts in 

24          states around the country, and there's no 


 1          other state doing what we're doing here in 

 2          New York.  That's why I think that everyone 

 3          here, you know, can take a lot of credit for 

 4          the fact that we have that much money in the 

 5          Judiciary Budget given to civil legal service 

 6          providers so they can hire attorneys to 

 7          represent people who can't afford an 

 8          attorney.

 9                 SENATOR HOYLMAN:  At the same time, if 

10          I can interject --


12          it's unusual that that money is in the 

13          Judiciary Budget.  You don't find that in 

14          many other states in the country.  You 

15          certainly don't find the amount that we have 

16          in our budget in any other state in the 

17          country at this point.

18                 So I don't -- whatever that number 

19          is -- and I can't tell you what that number 

20          is.  I can tell you it's an enormous amount 

21          of money.  And it's not an amount that I 

22          could envision ever being met in the 

23          Judiciary Budget alone.

24                 SENATOR HOYLMAN:  Well, in New York 


 1          City Housing Court, 70 percent of low-income 

 2          tenants go without lawyers.  Do you have any 

 3          understanding of what the outcomes are for 

 4          those litigants who go unrepresented in 

 5          Housing Court?  Have you analyzed what the 

 6          outcomes are for those individuals who do not 

 7          have lawyers and have to face the bench 

 8          pro se without any knowledge of the law, 

 9          without any legal understanding, and without, 

10          frankly, the wherewithal or resources to 

11          defend themselves against a landlord who may 

12          have multiple attorneys at his or her 

13          disposal?


15          Well, it's daunting, to say the least.  And 

16          the playing field is far from level.  

17                 And it's self-evident that someone who 

18          goes into court, in Housing court or 

19          anywhere, for that matter, without a lawyer 

20          is at an extraordinary disadvantage going up 

21          against an adversary who's represented by a 

22          lawyer.  I mean, that's self-evident.

23                 SENATOR HOYLMAN:  Do you not think 

24          it's part of your responsibility to put a 


 1          dollar figure on what it would be to provide 

 2          our fellow citizens legal representation, or 

 3          at the very least analyze those cases where 

 4          individuals, when it comes to the essentials 

 5          of life, are unrepresented and determine what 

 6          the outcomes of those cases were?


 8          There has been some research done on that.  I 

 9          can tell you, interestingly, there was a 

10          recent study I saw that addressed the 

11          efficacy of nonlawyers.  

12                 We have a program that we implemented 

13          a couple of years ago where we use 

14          nonlawyers -- community college students, for 

15          example -- who assist unrepresented people in 

16          housing court in the lower civil court in 

17          New York City.  These are nonlawyers.  They 

18          can't advise people on the law, but they can 

19          help them fill out forms, they can try to 

20          answer questions for them without crossing 

21          the line of advising them in the law, which 

22          they can't do.  They provide moral support 

23          for people who don't have lawyers.  

24                 And there was a recent study that 


 1          looked at the outcome of those cases where 

 2          these nonlawyers were being used, and the 

 3          results were more favorable.  I can get you 

 4          that report.

 5                 SENATOR HOYLMAN:  I'll just share with 

 6          you that in my Senate district there is a 

 7          crisis, and particularly housing cases, where 

 8          rapacious landlords are using the legal 

 9          system to harass tenants and attempt to evict 

10          them -- and in many if not most instances, 

11          they are successful.

12                 Tenants call my office seeking 

13          guidance.  We try to send them to, you know, 

14          the appropriate legal services agency.  They 

15          are more often than not unable to help them, 

16          due to their caseload.  And we're not seeking 

17          any more funds to address this problem.  Nor, 

18          it seems to me, do we have a real 

19          understanding of how deep of a problem it is.


21          Well, we know it's a deep problem.  And --

22                 SENATOR HOYLMAN:  But we can't put a 

23          figure on it.  And we don't even know the 

24          number of individuals who are going 


 1          unrepresented.


 3          Well, we -- I can go back and try to get more 

 4          information for you on this.  I don't know 

 5          that there's complete information on those 

 6          questions, but there's more information out 

 7          there, and I can try to get that for you.  

 8                 But we know it's an enormous problem.  

 9          And I think what we've tried to do in the 

10          New York State court system -- it is 

11          unprecedented.  I can tell you there's no 

12          other court system in the country that's 

13          taken the steps that we've taken in our own 

14          budget with support from the Legislature.  

15          It's unprecedented.  

16                 But as I said, I can't sit here today 

17          and tell you that, you know, we've solved the 

18          problem.  We haven't.  There's a long, long 

19          way to go before that problem is solved.

20                 SENATOR HOYLMAN:  Well, I do 

21          appreciate your service.  I think you should 

22          be asking more of us, candidly.  And I look 

23          forward to devising strategies to help you do 

24          that.


 1                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.


 3          Thank you.

 4                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, Senator.

 5                 We've been joined by Senator Todd 

 6          Kaminsky.

 7                 And Chairman?

 8                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Assemblyman Graft 

 9          {sic}.

10                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Judge, how are you?  


12          Good morning, how are you?  

13                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  We had 

14          conversations last year, and I know that you 

15          left and that you made a lot of changes down 

16          in the court as far as the backlog, because 

17          as we talked about, there was a 3Ω-year time 

18          period for us to get a hearing, and it took 

19          me five years to get a trial on a 

20          misdemeanor.  

21                 And I know you went to the judges and 

22          you talked about standards and goals, but one 

23          of the biggest problems we have is your lack 

24          of staff and your lack of staffing.  So, I 


 1          mean, we're talking about hiring more judges 

 2          here, all right?  But we can hire judges -- 

 3          if you don't have the staff to staff the 

 4          courtrooms, if you don't have the staff that 

 5          does the stuff in the back, the people that 

 6          keep the trains moving and everything else, 

 7          we're still stuck in neutral.  It's kind of 

 8          like having a brand-new car but no engine.  

 9                 So when we're looking at staffing, how 

10          much are you down from five years ago, six 

11          years ago, staffwise?  You're telling me 

12          you're going to hire 200.  How many are we 

13          down, 1,000?  


15          at the worst point in -- I believe it was 

16          2013 -- to compare 2013 to 2009, when I think 

17          our -- 2009-2010, when our employment level 

18          hit its highest point probably ever, and 

19          2013, where we hit our lowest point since the 

20          budget challenges going back to 2011.  In 

21          2013, we were down approximately 2,000 

22          employees.  Today we are down approximately 

23          1,700 employees from where we were in 

24          2009-2010.  


 1                 So if our budget is approved, then our 

 2          goal is to hire -- to be able to continue to 

 3          replace people when they leave and not suffer 

 4          any worse attrition.  But also, in addition 

 5          to that, to add 200 more employees over the 

 6          next fiscal year.  Then we would be down to 

 7          about 1,500 fewer employees statewide from 

 8          where we were in 2009-2010.  

 9                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  And you would agree 

10          that's causing big delays, because if I go 

11          into Nassau County or I go into Suffolk 

12          County and I look at the logjam -- so for 

13          instance, we have all of these houses that 

14          are in foreclosure.  They have a whole room 

15          filled with cases that have been there three, 

16          four, five years.  But they don't have the 

17          employees.  All they're waiting for is a 

18          summary judgement, and they don't have the 

19          employees to process it.  

20                 So wouldn't you agree, by not hiring 

21          these employees that we so badly need, we're 

22          slowing down the processes in the court, and 

23          we're actually costing ourselves money in the 

24          long run?  



 2          Look, I think you're stating this as well as 

 3          I could.  And I know you practice in the 

 4          courts, so you see this firsthand, and I 

 5          respect what you're saying.  

 6                 But let me say we can do a lot even 

 7          without more money, and we have over the past 

 8          year.  And the foreclosure backlog is down 

 9          significantly, but it's still a very 

10          formidable backlog in Suffolk County -- 

11          which, by the way, has the most foreclosure 

12          cases of any county in the state.  

13                 But having said that, we absolutely 

14          could use more employees.  We can use -- 

15                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Yeah, I'm not 

16          beating you up here, Judge.  


18          no, no, we're in agreement on this.  

19                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Yeah.  I'm trying 

20          to communicate with my colleagues.  


22          Yeah.  

23                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  I'm trying to 

24          communicate with the Governor, okay?  That 


 1          he's stepping over a dollar to pick up a 

 2          dime.  Because it's actually costing us money 

 3          by not pushing these cases and not having the 

 4          employees to do these cases.  

 5                 You know, there's an old saying, 

 6          justice delayed is justice denied, and I 

 7          think that is what we're doing.  I have a 

 8          limited amount of time, but I think we have 

 9          to ask that they bring the staffing level up, 

10          because we're at a point now where the courts 

11          are struggling.  

12                 The last thing, because they're 

13          limiting my time here, is the Raise the Age.  

14          And I want to make one point perfectly clear.  

15          We keep talking about the rights of the 

16          defendant and how we want to help the 

17          defendant and, you know, we want to coddle 

18          them.  Nobody's talking about the victim 

19          here.  

20                 Nobody's talking about if I have a 

21          4-year-old child that's molested by a kid one 

22          day short of his 18th birthday, he can wind 

23          up in Family Court, adjudicated in 

24          Family Court, and he wouldn't have to submit 


 1          DNA, and he wouldn't have to turn around and 

 2          be on the sex offender registry list.  

 3                 So some of these crimes are horrific.  

 4          And as I'm reading this bill, the way it's 

 5          written, if somebody was to go out and murder 

 6          a police officer, they would be able -- it 

 7          goes to the court, and there is a mechanism 

 8          to put it in Family Court.  It may never 

 9          happen, but it's in the bill.  

10                 So I mean, I think the bill is 

11          horrific.  I think we don't take into 

12          consideration the victim, right?  And the 

13          bottom line, it's a touchy-feely approach, 

14          but it's -- there's a lot more to it.  And I 

15          think this bill is poorly drafted, poorly 

16          written, and I think the Governor should back 

17          off here a little bit.  Because what they 

18          call Raise the Age, I call the Gang 

19          Recruitment Act.  

20                 So any comments on that?  


22          Well, just the only comment -- obviously, I 

23          don't agree with you completely in what you 

24          said.  But the case you cited, that horrific 


 1          case, I think under the Governor's bill I 

 2          believe it could go to Family Court.  It 

 3          would start out in the criminal courts and 

 4          could go to Family Court, but the district 

 5          attorney would have to agree to that, I 

 6          believe, as the bill is drafted.  

 7                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Well, there's a 

 8          clause in the bill, later on, where it says 

 9          that the defendant can move for the court to 

10          move it into Family Court.  And the way it's 

11          drafted, we're taking the DA's consent out of 

12          it, okay?  Where all of a sudden, if there's 

13          a motion from the defendant, the court can 

14          decide to move it to Family Court, which cuts 

15          the DAs out of it.  

16                 There's nothing in there saying that 

17          if the DA says no at that point, right, that 

18          the motion has to be denied.  But we give the 

19          opportunity for the defendant to make a 

20          motion to move it to Family Court.  

21                 Drafting is very important when you're 

22          writing a bill.  You know, you may have a 

23          concept of what you want to do, all right, 

24          but the language has got to be in there, and 


 1          it has got to be clear.  And in this case, 

 2          it's anything but.  

 3                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.  

 4                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you very 

 5          much.  

 6                 Our next speaker is Senator Pat 

 7          Gallivan.  

 8                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Thank you, 

 9          Chairwoman.  

10                 Good morning, Judge.  


12          Good morning.  

13                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  I'd like to ask a 

14          couple of questions about the raise in the 

15          age of criminal responsibility as well.  

16                 But going back to your earlier 

17          testimony, I think you mentioned or testified 

18          to the fact that the caseload of 16- and 

19          17-year-olds entering the criminal courts is 

20          significantly down.  Do you know what those 

21          numbers are?  The numbers that typically we 

22          have access to lag a little bit behind.  So 

23          I'm just curious what are those numbers.  



 1          Those numbers are available.  

 2                 I know that in recent years the number 

 3          of arrests of 16- and 17-year-olds in this 

 4          state -- and this is a trend across the 

 5          country, not just New York -- are down 

 6          dramatically.  And I'll have to get that for 

 7          you.  

 8                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Okay, if you could, 

 9          please.  


11          Sure.  

12                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  And we can follow 

13          up.  

14                 The other thing, right along those 

15          lines, do you know, approximately, what is 

16          the percentage of -- the 16- and 17-year-olds 

17          in the criminal courts, what percentage is 

18          that of the total caseload, approximately?  


20          It's --  I don't know, I'll have to -- those 

21          numbers are available as well.  It's a fairly 

22          low percentage, but I don't want to speak off 

23          the top of my head.  But we'll definitely get 

24          you those numbers.  


 1                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  All right, if you 

 2          could follow up on those, we would appreciate 

 3          that.  


 5          Sure.  

 6                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  If I understand 

 7          correctly, that the Governor has not included 

 8          any additional funding regarding the 

 9          judiciary for this fiscal year for his Raise 

10          the Age proposal.  But what I'm interested 

11          in -- the reason I'm interested in those 

12          numbers is talking about -- if the proposal 

13          was to go forward the way that it is, and you 

14          have testified about -- it would be the same 

15          number, approximate same number of cases, 

16          just shifted to another case -- the local 

17          criminal courts still have a caseload to 

18          handle.  

19                 And what I'm trying to get at is, 

20          without comment on agreeing or disagreeing 

21          with the proposal, is how can we accurately 

22          look at and determine what the cost might be?  

23          Because if it's only a small percentage of 

24          the caseload, those criminal court judges 


 1          have to stay behind to handle the rest of it.  

 2                 But nonetheless, if you could get us 

 3          those numbers, we'd appreciate it.  


 5          Absolutely.  

 6                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  We do have a 

 7          hearing on that issue next week.  If you're 

 8          able to get it to us this week, it'd be 

 9          great, and we'd appreciate it.  


11          Sure, yeah.  We'll do that.  

12                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Thank you.  

13                 Thank you, Chairwoman.  

14                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you very 

15          much.  

16                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.  

17                 We've been -- with us is Assemblyman 

18          Weprin and Assemblyman Giglio.  

19                 Next to testify is Crystal 

20          Peoples-Stokes.  

21                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Thank 

22          you, Mr. Chairman.  

23                 And thank you very much, I appreciate 

24          all you shared with us today -- I've been 


 1          here for a minute.  

 2                 I do want to ask for just a little 

 3          more clarification on how the statewide 

 4          implementation of Hurrell-Harring will impact 

 5          local counties, counties outside of New York 

 6          City, and outside of the ones that were 

 7          covered in the case.  


 9          Well, Hurrell-Harring -- in terms of 

10          Hurrell-Harring, if expanded statewide, it 

11          would be a very positive thing, in our view, 

12          because it would set some of the caseloads of 

13          public defenders in some places around the 

14          state.  

15                 Not in New York City, by the way; we 

16          have caseload limits on the number of cases 

17          that individual public defenders can handle 

18          in New York City.  

19                 But outside of New York City, there 

20          are no such limits and there clearly -- there 

21          are individual public defenders that are 

22          handling way too many cases.  That's bad for 

23          their clients, it's bad for the court system 

24          because it can lead to delays and too many 


 1          adjournments, and trials getting adjourned 

 2          indefinitely.  

 3                 So if that -- that's one of the terms 

 4          of the Hurrell-Harring settlement.  If that 

 5          were expanded statewide, that would be a very 

 6          positive thing, from our perspective, in the 

 7          court system.  

 8                 Another term of the Hurrell-Harring 

 9          settlement was to ensure that defendants are 

10          represented by counsel at arraignment, and 

11          that's been a problem that's plagued the 

12          court system, particularly in the town and 

13          village courts, which arraign -- do the first 

14          arraignment of anyone charged with a crime 

15          outside of cities in our state.  

16                 So that's a lot of arraignments, 

17          including not just misdemeanor arraignments 

18          but felony arraignments.  If the crime is 

19          charged -- it's taking place outside of a 

20          city, then the arraignment takes place in a 

21          town or village court.  

22                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  So is 

23          that a part of the justice gap that you speak 

24          of?  



 2          Yeah, absolutely.  Yeah, yeah, and that 

 3          violates the Constitution.  That's why the 

 4          case was settled, because people have a right 

 5          under the federal Constitution to a lawyer to 

 6          represent them, including at the first 

 7          appearance, which is the arraignment, which 

 8          can be a very important appearance in the 

 9          case.  Bail decisions are being made.  

10                 And that was one of the terms of the 

11          Hurrell-Harring settlement.  So obviously 

12          that would be advantageous to everyone if 

13          that were applied throughout the state.  

14                 And along with the other terms of the 

15          settlements, it would be a very positive 

16          development if those improvements could be 

17          made not just in the five counties that were 

18          involved in the lawsuit, but in the remaining 

19          counties of the state.  


21          would you -- well, I agree, and I'm glad 

22          that -- being from Erie County, it's clearly 

23          something that we're very interested in 

24          there.  


 1                 But would you say that the Governor's 

 2          proposed budget around this topic closes the 

 3          justice gap, or does it get us closer to 

 4          closing it?  


 6          sorry, is it -- what about the justice gap?  

 7                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  The 

 8          justice gap.  Does the proposed budget get us 

 9          closer to closing that gap, or does it close 

10          it?  


12          does not close it.  

13                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Could 

14          they?  


16          hopefully gets us closer, but as I said 

17          before, there's a long way to go.  

18                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Okay.  

19          Thank you, sir.  

20                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

21                 Senator Jamaal Bailey.  

22                 SENATOR BAILEY:  Thank you, Madam 

23          Chair.  

24                 Judge Marks, thank you for coming 


 1          today.  My question is concerning -- also 

 2          along the lines of Member People-Stokes, 

 3          about the access to justice.  And I truly 

 4          commend you for that and your commitment to 

 5          pro bono work.  However, as a former student 

 6          at a public interest law school, sometimes 

 7          it's difficult for these law students to 

 8          appropriately attack these problems.  

 9                 Does OCA have any consideration for 

10          assisting students with bar preparation?  


12          Actually, we do have a program, it's 

13          interesting that you mention that.  It's 

14          called the Legal Education Opportunity 

15          program.  It's funded by the Legislature.  I 

16          don't know if you're aware of that.  And 

17          students who have been admitted to law 

18          school, students from economically 

19          disadvantaged backgrounds, can apply to 

20          attend a program at our Judicial Institute, 

21          the Court Assistance Judicial Institute in 

22          Albany.  And there are law professors and 

23          instructors there who spend six weeks in the 

24          summer before the students will start law 


 1          school to prepare them for law school.  

 2                 And it's a terrific program.  It's not 

 3          a large program; I think it's limited to 

 4          maybe 20-25 students.  But it's funded by the 

 5          Legislature, and it's a very good program.  

 6                 SENATOR BAILEY:  Sure.  And one 

 7          follow-up question.  You mentioned that 

 8          you're urging law schools to utilize law 

 9          students to attack the problem.  Is there any 

10          support in funding for law school clinics?  

11          Because law school clinics, especially 

12          third-year clinics that have a good amount of 

13          experience, practical experience, and they're 

14          ready to assist clients -- I was going to say 

15          constituents -- clients.  Especially in this 

16          day and age, you have immigration clinics who 

17          may need extra assistance.  

18                 What exact financial considerations do 

19          you have for this problem?  


21          Well, yeah, law schools can be a great 

22          resource in providing assistance to people 

23          who don't have attorneys.  You know, the law 

24          students will do that and are authorized to 


 1          do that under practice orders issued by the 

 2          appellate divisions around the state.  And 

 3          they're supervised by lawyers, law 

 4          professors, and we actually -- in the money 

 5          in our budget, we do fund a few law school 

 6          civil legal service programs around the 

 7          state, and they were not the sole source of 

 8          that funding.  They get funding from 

 9          elsewhere.  The law schools themselves 

10          provide funding for these clinics.  And 

11          they're a great resource, and they've done a 

12          lot to help the problem.  

13                 SENATOR BAILEY:  All right.  Thank 

14          you, Judge Marks.  

15                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

16                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.  

17                 Assemblyman Montesano.  

18                 ASSEMBLYMAN MONTESANO:  Thank you, 

19          Mr. Chairman.  

20                 Judge, just a couple of points to 

21          cover, and I'm sorry, I'm going to revisit 

22          one of them again.  You talk about asking for 

23          about 200 positions in this budget, and they 

24          would consist of court clerks, I believe, 


 1          court officers, you know, backroom 

 2          operations.  Now -- and that's for the entire 

 3          state, am I correct?  


 5          Yes.  

 6                 ASSEMBLYMAN MONTESANO:  Okay.  And not 

 7          to be greedy, but I would think on 

 8          Long Island and Nassau and Suffolk we could 

 9          absorb the 200 positions very quickly at this 

10          juncture, considering the numbers that we 

11          have a deficit in.  

12                 And I'm not suggesting that be the 

13          case, but isn't it more realistic that OCA 

14          would ask for more positions at this point?  

15          I mean, we have such a dire reduction of 

16          personnel due to promotions, and they leave 

17          the county to take another position due in a 

18          promotional exam, they leave for retirement 

19          or illness, whatever the case, and those 

20          positions haven't even been filled.  

21                 I mean, I know in our Surrogate's 

22          Court we're 30-plus positions down as we sit 

23          here today, and that's just one court in the 

24          county.  And Suffolk has the same issues 


 1          there too, because the cases have increased 

 2          dramatically and the nature of the cases in 

 3          the criminal courts have become so 

 4          substantial that it results in controversy in 

 5          the courtrooms between media and families 

 6          clashing and so on and so forth 

 7                 So why is OCA so reluctant to ask for 

 8          more positions -- you know, for funding for 

 9          more positions when the need is so dire?  


11          Well, because we're trying to be pragmatic 

12          and realistic.  But, you know, we could 

13          benefit from even more money than we're 

14          asking, but we're trying to -- we're being 

15          very pragmatic and realistic in what we're 

16          asking for.  

17                 I mean, we're limiting the request for 

18          the increase in our operating budget to 

19          2 percent, and we didn't just kind of pick 

20          that percentage out of thin air.  I mean, I 

21          think we're all familiar with that benchmark 

22          that's been set in this state for a number of 

23          years now.  

24                 So we're really doing the best we can, 


 1          we're trying to be pragmatic and realistic in 

 2          our budget request.  There is some additional 

 3          money we're seeking, which I described in 

 4          terms of a capital appropriation, so that 

 5          will be very helpful.  

 6                 But look, I'm not suggesting that we 

 7          can get back to where we have to be 

 8          overnight.  I think in the last years we've 

 9          made slow but steady progress, and if our 

10          budget is approved, this coming fiscal year 

11          will be another step in that direction.  And 

12          it's going to take us, I'm sure, a number of 

13          years to get back to where we were.  

14                 And by the way, I don't think we ever 

15          have to get back to the employment level that 

16          I mentioned, where we were in 2009-2010.  I 

17          think we -- out of necessity, we've made 

18          ourselves more efficient and kind of leaner 

19          and meaner, if you will.  

20                 But we do need to hire back additional 

21          people, you know, I agree with you completely 

22          about that.  And that's what we're trying to 

23          do steadily -- not in one fell swoop, but 

24          steadily each year.  


 1                 ASSEMBLYMAN MONTESANO:  Just -- so my 

 2          time is limited.  I have a two-part question 

 3          for you.  

 4                 Would the $100 million that's been 

 5          spent, you know, giving grants to these 

 6          not-for-profits to provide indigent civil 

 7          legal services -- is there any accountability 

 8          to these not-for-profits?  Do they have to 

 9          account back to OCA as to how they're 

10          spending this money, how they're allocating 

11          the money?  

12                 Because I'm just getting feedback, at 

13          least from Nassau County, especially over at 

14          Family Court, that people are not being 

15          provided services by some of these 

16          organizations.  

17                 So is there any accountability, or is 

18          this money just given out?  


20          no, absolutely -- 

21                 ASSEMBLYMAN MONTESANO:  And the second 

22          part, just so you can incorporate it, is -- 

23          you indicated before that this is a landmark 

24          type of situation, where in this state the 


 1          Court Administration budget provides for 

 2          this.  Would you -- what would your opinion 

 3          be if the state took over this task and it 

 4          funded or gave grants to not-for-profit 

 5          organizations, instead of the Office of Court 

 6          Administration doing it?  


 8          me answer the second question first, if I 

 9          may.  

10                 I think the state should add money and 

11          do that in other areas, in other -- you know, 

12          above and beyond the Judiciary Budget.  I 

13          would urge that the money that we have in our 

14          budget -- and we've reached the goal that was 

15          set five, six years ago -- that it remain in 

16          our budget, because I can assure you and 

17          everyone here that we will protect that money 

18          if it's in our budget.  

19                 You know, we'll advocate for the 

20          money, we're closer to this than maybe 

21          anyone.  I mean, we see this in our 

22          courtrooms every day, the consequences of 

23          hundreds of thousands of people coming into 

24          courts without a lawyer and what that means 


 1          for the quality of justice in this state.  So 

 2          I think we need more money for civil legal 

 3          services, and I think that's something the 

 4          Legislature should consider.  

 5                 But I have to say, I would be opposed 

 6          to the money in our budget being transferred 

 7          to another budget, because I would be worried 

 8          that wherever it is transferred, it wouldn't 

 9          be as protected and as secure and watched as 

10          carefully as we are with respect to the money 

11          that we have in our budget.  

12                 And to answer your first question, 

13          absolutely.  We have very extensive oversight 

14          of these grants that we give out.  We have a 

15          unit within the Office of Court 

16          Administration that oversees these grants and 

17          receives reports and audits programs and is 

18          on top of and ensures that the money that 

19          we're giving out -- which is real money, it's 

20          a substantial amount of money, it's the 

21          public's money, and we do carefully -- and we 

22          expect accountability from the recipients of 

23          these grants in terms of how they're spending 

24          the money.  


 1                 And just the example you raised where 

 2          people are saying they're being turned away, 

 3          unfortunately I'm not surprised to hear that.  

 4          Because, you know, it's not the amount of 

 5          money -- it's not -- as we talked about 

 6          before, it's not enough to solve the whole 

 7          problem.  It's a substantial step in the 

 8          right direction.  But unfortunately, even 

 9          with the money that we give out in grants to 

10          legal service providers, the providers can't 

11          represent everyone who walks in their doors.  

12                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.  

13                 ASSEMBLYMAN MONTESANO:  Thank you, 

14          Judge.  


16          Thank you.  

17                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

18                 Senator Croci.  

19                 SENATOR CROCI:  Thank you, Madam 

20          Chair.  

21                 Thank you, Judge, for your appearance 

22          here today.  

23                 A couple of questions.  In your 

24          testimony you mentioned that the caseloads 


 1          for 16- and 17-year-olds have decreased.  Is 

 2          there a metric to suggest why that is, or is 

 3          there anecdotal evidence in your mind that 

 4          you've seen to suggest why that is?  


 6          Well, I think that crime, at least violent 

 7          crime, has gone down year after year in 

 8          New York.  And I think that's a national 

 9          trend, although there are exceptions to that, 

10          you know, which we read about in the papers.  

11          And some jurisdictions in the country, 

12          Chicago and elsewhere, I'm sure you've read 

13          the stories about violent crime waves in some 

14          other jurisdictions.  

15                 Fortunately, we haven't seen that in 

16          New York.  I mean, there's still crime, 

17          obviously, there's still violent crime, but 

18          in jurisdictions throughout the state, you 

19          know, fortunately crime has dropped, 

20          particularly violent crime.  

21                 And I think you see that in the 

22          decline in arrests of 16- and 17-year-olds.  

23          Is that a trend that will sustain itself over 

24          the coming years?  Let's hope so, but who 


 1          knows.  You know, crime historically can ebb 

 2          and flow.  So I think it's just -- that 

 3          reflects overall crime trends in this state, 

 4          in many parts of the state at least.  

 5                 And in addition to that, I don't 

 6          know -- I mean, it would be a question for 

 7          police departments, for law enforcement.  Are 

 8          they -- have policies changed with regard to 

 9          young people, 16- and 17-year-olds?  Are they 

10          consciously not arresting people, as many 16- 

11          and 17-year-olds as they once did?  Is that a 

12          change in policy, or is that a subtle 

13          transition within law enforcement agencies, 

14          perhaps -- I mean, I can't tell you that for 

15          sure.  But that may explain part of that as 

16          well.  

17                 SENATOR CROCI:  Interesting.  In your 

18          testimony and as we discuss the Raise the Age 

19          debate, there is a nexus now between this 

20          part of the budget and, in my mind, the ELFA 

21          bill in the Executive's Budget, that 

22          beginning on 1 January, 2019, the 

23          superintendent of a school would be required to 

24          refer students under the age of 17, 16- and 


 1          17-year-olds who violate the Gun-Free Schools 

 2          Act -- that is bringing a weapon to campus -- 

 3          refer them for a juvenile delinquency 

 4          proceeding rather than charging them as an 

 5          adult.  

 6                 Does this suggest that -- does it in 

 7          your mind suggest that a 17-year-old who 

 8          brought a weapon to school, a gun, would not 

 9          be held criminally responsible?  


11          not familiar with that proposed legislation, 

12          but as you described it, it sounds like a 

13          partial approach to raising the age of 

14          criminal responsibility in New York, as you 

15          described it.  

16                 But I haven't seen it, I would have to 

17          take a look at it.  You know -- 

18                 SENATOR CROCI:  Well, my -- 


20          know, there are other categories of offenses 

21          that you could -- you might argue -- if it 

22          were going to be done piecemeal, and I'm not 

23          suggesting that it should, but if you were 

24          raising the age of criminal responsibility 


 1          piecemeal, step by step, you could -- there's 

 2          a multitude of opinions on how to do that, 

 3          you know, which types of offenses you would 

 4          start with.  

 5                 Personally, if it were up to me, would 

 6          I start with that group?  Maybe not, but -- 

 7          and I would have to know more about it.  

 8                 SENATOR CROCI:  Well, that's what's 

 9          being proposed in the budget.  

10                 So if there's no criminal charge, and 

11          it's considered to be a juvenile delinquency 

12          proceeding, then parents would never know in 

13          that school district if there was someone who 

14          came to school with a gun, because there'd be 

15          no criminal charge.  

16                 And years later, if that individual 

17          then went and applied for college, there 

18          would be no way or no requirement for that 

19          individual to indicate on their college 

20          application that they were ever charged.  So 

21          there could be campuses that have individuals 

22          who brought a gun to school in New York State 

23          when they were 16 or 17, and that would never 

24          be known to a graduate institution.  


 1                 Is that an accurate reading, in your 

 2          opinion?  


 4          Again, I'd have to read the bill.  

 5                 But, you know, that may be a potential 

 6          problem of that proposal that you pointed 

 7          out.  

 8                 In terms of parent notification, if I 

 9          understand this, that the 17-year-old would 

10          be charged as a juvenile delinquent in 

11          Family Court -- 

12                 SENATOR CROCI:  Right.  


14          rather than as a criminal defendant in an 

15          adult criminal court, the parent or guardian 

16          would absolutely know that.  

17                 SENATOR CROCI:  Right.  But the 

18          school, the other parents in the school might 

19          not know that.  


21          Maybe not.  

22                 SENATOR CROCI:  Because it's a 

23          juvenile delinquency proceeding.  



 1          Yeah.  

 2                 SENATOR CROCI:  So this is a concern, 

 3          certainly, because I'm told that much of this 

 4          act -- and the SAFE Act, indeed, was designed 

 5          to protect our young people, our most 

 6          vulnerable population, students in schools, 

 7          and this seems to be the exact opposite of 

 8          that.  And long term, I would think the 

 9          academic institutions, both public and 

10          private, would like to know.  

11                 So this is something that's 

12          concerning.  I welcome any comments, you 

13          know, in writing or otherwise as to your 

14          opinion and the judiciary's opinion on this 

15          matter, and I think we'll be raising it in 

16          future sessions here.  

17                 Thank you, Madam Chair.  And thank 

18          you, Judge, for your appearance here today.  

19                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  


21          Thank you.  

22                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, Senator.  

23                 We also have Senator Comrie who had 

24          some questions.  


 1                 SENATOR COMRIE:  Yes, thank you, 

 2          Madam Chair.  

 3                 Thank you, Judge Marks, for being here 

 4          this morning.  

 5                 In your testimony you spoke about a 

 6          lot of things, but you didn't mention 

 7          anything that the Office of Court 

 8          Administration is doing to deal with the 

 9          backlog of foreclosure cases.  

10                 I represent Southeast Queens, which 

11          has one of the highest foreclosure issues in 

12          the country, and I'm concerned about the 

13          issues of foreclosure and the fact that we 

14          have many cases that are still being stuck in 

15          the courts.  

16                 And when the clients oftentimes go 

17          back for the second or third hearing, which 

18          takes a while -- the cases on the plaintiff's 

19          side, or the bank's side, they continue to 

20          lose the paperwork or change the attorney, 

21          and the case gets stuck.  And in the 

22          meantime, these constituents are being 

23          harassed and put into a situation where they 

24          don't know where first base is anymore, 


 1          because they can't get the case heard, they 

 2          can't get the adjudication verified.  

 3                 Can you give me some idea on what 

 4          OCA's doing to address that backlog?  


 6          Well, one of the problems is in the -- this 

 7          is the legislatively mandated settlement 

 8          conference phase that you have to have in 

 9          every homeowner foreclosure case.  Which is a 

10          good idea, by the way, to mandate a 

11          settlement process before the case can 

12          proceed further towards foreclosure.  

13                 And one of the problems at the outset 

14          of the settlement conference process, which I 

15          think was mandated by legislation going back 

16          to -- starting in 2009, was that too many of 

17          the homeowners were showing up without legal 

18          assistance, without a lawyer.  And we talked 

19          about that earlier, what a great disadvantage 

20          that is, the playing field is unlevel.  

21                 So thanks to money in the Judiciary 

22          Budget for civil legal services and other 

23          money available in other programs, close to 

24          two-thirds of homeowners are now represented 


 1          by counsel in the settlement conference 

 2          process.  And that can make all the 

 3          difference in the world.  But that still 

 4          leaves a lot of cases where they're not 

 5          represented.  

 6                 And look, the foreclosures have been 

 7          an enormous challenge for the court system 

 8          since the foreclosure crisis began.  The 

 9          number of cases has been gargantuan, and we 

10          have tried to devote as much resources as we 

11          can to the foreclosure process, the 

12          settlement conferences in the post-settlement 

13          conference.  And fortunately I can tell you 

14          that foreclosures -- I think we're seeing the 

15          light at the end of the tunnel, because 

16          foreclosure filings last year declined by 

17          20 percent.  So I think we're seeing kind of 

18          a -- finally a diminution in the foreclosure 

19          crisis.  

20                 So it's never, unfortunately, going to 

21          be a perfect system, particularly where you 

22          still have many homeowners appearing in court 

23          without a lawyer -- although, as I said, 

24          many, many more are appearing with a lawyer.  


 1          But I think the combination of more 

 2          homeowners appearing with a lawyer in court 

 3          and a decline in the number of new 

 4          foreclosure cases, I think things are 

 5          improving and will continue to improve in the 

 6          coming year.  

 7                 SENATOR COMRIE:  I would hope so.  I 

 8          would hope that there would also be some 

 9          focus on the fact that a lot of the banks are 

10          still not meeting their obligations when they 

11          come to the hearings, so the cases die or the 

12          cases get pushed back.  

13                 And they have a lot of homeowners, as 

14          I said, that are stuck in the beginning 

15          because they can't get to first base.  

16                 So I would hope that the court system 

17          would work to, you know, follow through and 

18          punish these banks that are deliberately 

19          playing games with the system and 

20          deliberately not moving the cases forward so 

21          that they can harass the homeowners on the 

22          back end.  And I hope we can work together to 

23          resolve that as well.  



 1          Your point is well taken.  

 2                 SENATOR COMRIE:  Thank you.  And 

 3          this -- on the $15 million for capital, is 

 4          there any of that capital going to fix the 

 5          courts in Queens that are pretty old and need 

 6          some rehab and some TLC?  


 8          Well, the capital appropriation is for 

 9          technology, not for the buildings themselves.  

10                 I think you may know that it's a 

11          state-financed court system in New York, but 

12          when the state took over the financing of the 

13          court system -- it used to be locally 

14          financed, but in the mid-'70s the state took 

15          over the financing of the court system but 

16          didn't take over the financing of everything.  

17                 The town and village courts upstate 

18          were left to be financed by local governments 

19          and courthouses around the state.  

20          Courthouses where state court proceedings 

21          take place, those courthouses are not owned 

22          by the state, they're owned and maintained by 

23          local governments.  

24                 So in Queens, the courthouses in 


 1          Queens are New York City buildings, they're 

 2          not state-owned and -maintained buildings.  

 3          And I have to say, over the years it's been a 

 4          constant struggle to get localities -- and 

 5          there's been a lot of progress, and we've had 

 6          good relationships with the City of New York, 

 7          and there have been new courthouses built 

 8          over the years, there have been courthouses 

 9          renovated.  

10                 But there's still problems in some of 

11          the buildings.  They're deficient in many 

12          ways.  They're not large enough, they're 

13          not -- they haven't been modernized to meet 

14          the needs of a modern court system, and 

15          sometimes they're not always maintained at 

16          the level they should be maintained in.  It 

17          is a constant struggle.  And, you know, it's 

18          something that we devote a lot of time and 

19          attention to.  And for the most part I think 

20          we succeed, but not always.  

21                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, Judge.  

22                 SENATOR COMRIE:  Thank you.  I know my 

23          time is up, but if you could just detail us 

24          those issues so maybe we can work together 


 1          with the city and look at it as a statewide 

 2          project to upgrade the facilities, because 

 3          not having modern facilities inhibits the 

 4          speed of the court to get things done.  


 6          agree with you completely.  

 7                 SENATOR COMRIE:  Thank you.  

 8                 Thank you, Madam Chair.  

 9                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, Senator.  

10                 Senator Savino.  

11                 SENATOR SAVINO:  Thank you, Senator 

12          Young.  

13                 Thank you, Judge Marks.  I'm actually 

14          going to pick up where Senator Comrie left 

15          off.  And while I definitely understand the 

16          challenges that OCA has with dealing with the 

17          local government, particularly New York 

18          City -- and DCAS controls the properties -- 

19          access to justice, as you know, begins with 

20          the doorway that you walk through.  

21                 In Staten Island we finally, after 

22          several years, were able to open up a 

23          brand-new courthouse and, as you know, five 

24          minutes after the door opened, we had 


 1          outgrown that courthouse.  Part of the plan 

 2          for the replacement of the Staten Island 

 3          courts was to consolidate the Family Court 

 4          into the Supreme Court at 18 Richmond 

 5          Terrace, and in the Criminal Court, which was 

 6          at Targee Street, there was a desire on the 

 7          part of most of the elected officials to keep 

 8          that building open and operational.  

 9                 Unfortunately, that building is 

10          closed, and moving everything now to the new 

11          courthouse is creating some backlogs there.  

12          But now we're even told that the plan that 

13          was to move our Family Court, which is -- we 

14          are the only borough that has not gotten a 

15          new Family Court, out of all of the five 

16          boroughs -- but that dilapidated building, 

17          which essentially consists of two 

18          courthouses, you know -- 


20          Yeah.  

21                 SENATOR SAVINO:  -- you know the 

22          conditions that litigants and families and 

23          attorneys and -- it's just awful.  

24                 That plan to move them to 18 Richmond 


 1          Terrace is now not going to happen.  So we 

 2          have a real concern.  And while, again, you 

 3          don't build the buildings and you don't 

 4          control the properties, it would be very 

 5          helpful to us if OCA would make the case that 

 6          you're not able to administer justice 

 7          appropriately to the citizens of 

 8          Richmond County because of the City of 

 9          New York's failure to recognize that the 

10          property that they own, they are not 

11          maintaining correctly, and they're not 

12          planning for it.  To allow a sitting 

13          courthouse to just close the doors and rot, 

14          in my opinion, is negligent to the people of 

15          the City of New York, and we need you and OCA 

16          to step up and say that that's just the wrong 

17          way to go about it.  

18                 So we're hoping that you will join us 

19          in our demand that the city revisit this 

20          decision to close Targee Street and shut off 

21          what should be a viable courthouse for the 

22          delivery of justice to the people of 

23          Richmond County.  So I'm hoping I can count 

24          on you for that.  



 2          can count on us.  

 3                 You could make the argument that the 

 4          Family Court situation in Staten Island is 

 5          the number-one facilities priority that we 

 6          have in the court system in the city today.  

 7                 There's a city architect, an architect 

 8          that the city has retained.  We're expecting 

 9          to see some proposals coming from this 

10          architect very shortly, and the community 

11          will absolutely be involved in the decision 

12          making process.  I promise you that I will 

13          work closely with you and will be a strong 

14          advocate for coming up with a plan that makes 

15          the most sense for Staten Island.  

16                 SENATOR SAVINO:  And I'm not going to 

17          belabor too much the Raise the Age issue, 

18          because we are going to have a hearing on it 

19          next week, so it will be totally examined by 

20          the Senate.  

21                 But one of the questions that comes up 

22          from time to time is if we transfer these 

23          cases to Family Court, that Family Court 

24          judges are not equipped to handle cases 


 1          around that.  And I try and remind people 

 2          that Family Court judges now deal with, you 

 3          know, young people who are juvenile 

 4          delinquents, who would be prosecuted for some 

 5          of these things if they were just over the 

 6          age of 16.  

 7                 Can you talk about some of the types 

 8          of cases that Family Court judges do deal 

 9          with, with juvenile delinquent cases?  


11          Well, Family Court deals with a whole range 

12          of crime, from the least significant 

13          misdemeanor to in some instances the most 

14          serious violent felony.  And there's 

15          concurrent jurisdiction with the criminal 

16          courts, the adult courts, with the most 

17          serious homicide and the most serious felony 

18          cases, but they handle some of those cases 

19          themselves.  

20                 Family Court judges are equipped to 

21          handle the whole gamut of crimes and the 

22          range of criminal offenses that we have in 

23          our penal laws in New York.  

24                 SENATOR SAVINO:  Thank you for that.  


 1                 And finally, in 2015 and in 2016, the 

 2          Senate and the Assembly passed unanimously a 

 3          piece of legislation that would extend 

 4          three-quarter disability benefits to court 

 5          officers if they were injured on the job in 

 6          defense of a judge or lawyers in the 

 7          courtroom.  

 8                 Currently, as you know, if they are 

 9          injured on the job -- if a chandelier falls 

10          on their head, right -- they're entitled to a 

11          three-quarter disability benefit.  But they 

12          weren't if they were defending, you know, a 

13          judge or an attorney or a litigant in the 

14          court.  So we felt we should extend that 

15          benefit to them, passing it unanimously in 

16          both houses two years in a row.  

17                 The Governor vetoed it twice, and his 

18          reasoning was that being injured on the job 

19          in protection of a judge or an attorney or a 

20          litigant is an inherent risk of their job and 

21          therefore they shouldn't be extended this 

22          protection.  Obviously, the Legislature 

23          disagrees, we're prepared to take it up 

24          again.  


 1                 And I'm just curious -- do you think, 

 2          you know, as the chief administrative judge, 

 3          if this is something that we should correct 

 4          for these officers?  


 6          Well, we -- 

 7                 SENATOR SAVINO:  The same way we do 

 8          for corrections officers or police officers 

 9          or anyone else.  


11          Personally -- 

12                 SENATOR SAVINO:  And I understand the 

13          position you're in, but what do you think?  


15          Personally, I can see the argument for that.  

16                 Institutionally, we have not opposed 

17          that.  We've -- formally, in a letter to the 

18          Governor's counsel, we have taken no 

19          objection to the signing of the bill.  

20                 So as I said, personally you could 

21          probably convince me there's great merit to 

22          that proposal.  Institutionally, we've taken 

23          no position and -- we've expressed no 

24          objection, which is actually a little bit 


 1          stronger than taking no position.  

 2                 SENATOR SAVINO:  Right.  


 4          the end, I don't know.  If we had 

 5          affirmatively supported it, would that have 

 6          made a difference?  I don't know.  That's 

 7          something we can think about, though.  

 8                 SENATOR SAVINO:  I think there was a 

 9          concern that it might be a very costly 

10          benefit.  But the truth is it happens so 

11          rarely, it might be two or three cases in a 

12          10-year period of time.  It just seems like 

13          it's the right and just thing to do.  

14                 And, you know, this Legislature rarely 

15          acts unanimously, so to have done so two 

16          years in a row sends a signal.  So we would 

17          appreciate if we can get your support on this 

18          effort as we move it again.  

19                 So thank you, Judge Marks.  


21          You're welcome.  

22                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, Senator.  

23                 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS:  Assemblyman Steck.  

24                 ASSEMBLYMAN STECK:  Thank you.  


 1                 Judge, I apologize, I had to leave -- 

 2                 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS:  Mic?  

 3                 ASSEMBLYMAN STECK:  Oh, the mic.  

 4                 Okay.  So I have three topics that I'd 

 5          like to address.  I've been listening to your 

 6          testimony, and there are obviously quite a 

 7          lot of needs in the court system, but I was 

 8          wondering whether there's a maldistribution 

 9          of existing resources within the court 

10          system.  

11                 One of the judges in the Third 

12          Judicial District gave me some statistics 

13          which show that, on average, there are about 

14          650 new filings per year in Supreme Court in 

15          the Third Judicial District -- this is 

16          statistics from OCA -- and 15 trials per 

17          year, on average.  So clearly, at least in 

18          our judicial district, it's not like the 

19          system is overwhelmed with trial-type work.  

20                 So what do those statistics say to you 

21          about where the resources should be going?  


23          Well, it's very difficult to answer that 

24          question out of context and in isolation.  


 1          There may well be areas of the state that 

 2          are -- well, I would say most areas of the 

 3          state could use more resources, and some 

 4          could use more resources more than other 

 5          parts of the state could use more resources.  

 6          But pretty much everywhere, we could use more 

 7          resources.  

 8                 But the numbers you mentioned -- 

 9                 ASSEMBLYMAN STECK:  I think we could 

10          use more resources too, I think.  That's kind 

11          of beside the point.  


13          no.  If the pie is what it is, you want to be 

14          able to slice it up fairly and equitably.  So 

15          I agree with you on that.  

16                 And it's not a simple thing.  It's 

17          hard to take judges in Buffalo and put them 

18          in the Bronx.  And actually, we've done that 

19          on occasion, but it's not an easy thing to 

20          do.  It's actually costly, because you have 

21          to then put them up in a hotel and pay for 

22          their travel expenses and so on.  And, you 

23          know -- 

24                 ASSEMBLYMAN STECK:  Of course, we have 


 1          judges of the Court of Claims who are sitting 

 2          down -- whose chambers are down in the 

 3          New York City metropolitan area who are 

 4          coming up to Albany to decide cases in the 

 5          Third Judicial District.  It would not appear 

 6          that the emergency that created that system 

 7          would still exist, based on the statistics I 

 8          just cited.  


10          Well, the number of trials -- and I'd have to 

11          take a look at that, it sounds -- that sounds 

12          off.  

13                 But let's assume, for the sake of 

14          argument, that's accurate.  Trials aren't 

15          necessarily the most valid indicator of the 

16          workload of a court, a judicial jurisdiction.  

17          What judges that handle civil cases in 

18          Supreme Courts spend most of their time doing 

19          is deciding motions.  It's a very 

20          motion-intensive court.  I can speak to that 

21          firsthand, from my experience sitting on 

22          civil cases in the Supreme Court.  

23                 But trials -- there are fewer trials 

24          than there used to be.  I mean, that's a 


 1          phenomenon we see in New York in both civil 

 2          and criminal cases, and it's a phenomenon 

 3          that you see in courts around the country, 

 4          and there are a lot of reasons for that, one 

 5          of which is inadequate court system 

 6          resources, no question.  That's a problem 

 7          we've had here in New York, and it's a 

 8          problem that I know that court systems around 

 9          the country have struggled with.  

10                 But there are other reasons why trials 

11          have dropped, the number of trials have 

12          dropped.  Dispositions haven't dropped, but 

13          we've seen a trend in recent years where the 

14          percentage, the breakdown between cases being 

15          resolved by settlement and cases being 

16          resolved by trial has changed, with more 

17          cases being resolved by settlement and fewer 

18          cases being resolved by trial.  

19                 And it's a complicated question as to 

20          why that's happening.  A lot of that has to 

21          do with the dynamics and the economics of law 

22          practice today, where in certain types of 

23          cases it's very difficult for the lawyers to 

24          take a case to trial.  It's expensive and 


 1          difficult for lawyers and their clients to 

 2          take a case to trial.  That's had a lot to do 

 3          with it.  

 4                 But the bottom line is there's no 

 5          question, and I could not sit here and tell 

 6          you today that there is a perfect 

 7          distribution of judges and nonjudicial 

 8          personnel and other resources, that there's a 

 9          perfect distribution of those resources 

10          everywhere in the state.  But I can tell you 

11          it's something that we look at, we spend a 

12          lot of time looking at, we work with 

13          administrative judges around the state and we 

14          try as best we can to distribute judges and 

15          nonjudicial resources as fairly as we can to 

16          meet the needs of individual courts and 

17          jurisdictions.  

18                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Okay.  Thank you.  

19          Thank you very much.  

20                 I think that concludes, Judge, all of 

21          the speakers today.  So again, sincerely, 

22          thank you so much for your patience, for your 

23          thorough answers, and we look forward to 

24          working with you in the future.  



 2          Okay.  Thank you very much.  

 3                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, Judge.  

 4                 Our next speaker is Commissioner John 

 5          P. Melville from the New York State Division 

 6          of Homeland Security and Emergency Services.  

 7                 We'd like to keep things moving along.  

 8          Could I have some order in the house, please?  

 9          We have a very lengthy agenda today, a lot of 

10          speakers, a lot of interest in the topics at 

11          hand.  

12                 So welcome, Commissioner.  We're glad 

13          to have you here.  

14                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Thank you, 

15          Senator.  

16                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  But could everyone 

17          please take their seats?  Okay, thank you.  

18                 Please proceed.  

19                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Thank you, 

20          Senator.  

21                 Good morning.  Thank you, Chairwoman 

22          Young, Chairwoman Savino -- who I see stepped 

23          out, Chairman Farrell stepped out -- and 

24          distinguished members of the Joint Committee.  


 1          I am John Melville, commissioner of the 

 2          Division of Homeland Security and Emergency 

 3          Services.  I appreciate the opportunity to 

 4          discuss with you today some of the great work 

 5          of the agency over the past year as well as a 

 6          few of the highlights of Governor Cuomo's 

 7          public safety budget.  

 8                 The division is charged with an 

 9          enormous responsibility which includes an 

10          all-hazards prevention, preparedness, 

11          response and recovery mission.  The 

12          Governor's budget provides the resources 

13          needed to accomplish our mission and protect 

14          public safety.  Total appropriations are 

15          $1.6 billion, up $58 million over last year.  

16          The increases include $1.3 million to support 

17          a new Cyber Incident Response Team, 

18          $3 million to provide transportation security 

19          training to civilian employees at airports; 

20          $500,000 to support swift-water training at 

21          the State Preparedness Training Center, and 

22          $3 million in capital financing for health 

23          and safety improvements and preservation of 

24          Montour Falls and the State Preparedness 


 1          Training Center.  Taken together, these 

 2          proposals will strengthen our all-hazards 

 3          approach to prevention, preparedness, 

 4          response and recovery.  

 5                 A key recommendation in the Governor's 

 6          fiscal year 2018 budget is the proposed 

 7          Cyber Incident Response Team, which will 

 8          serve as a resource to local governments, 

 9          public authorities and non-executive agencies 

10          in better protecting their information 

11          technology assets, critical operating 

12          systems, and data from cyberattacks, malware 

13          and ransomware.  The team will conduct 

14          vulnerability assessments, network scans, and 

15          reviews of cybersecurity policies to ensure 

16          local governments and state entities have the 

17          appropriate plans, procedures, and 

18          cyber infrastructure in place.  

19                 This initiative will include a single 

20          number to call to report cyber incidents, 

21          streamlining response efforts.  The team will 

22          be supported by members including the 

23          National Guard, the State Police, and the 

24          Office of Information Technology Services.  


 1                 The division's focus on preparedness 

 2          and response training will be greatly 

 3          enhanced through the proposed transportation 

 4          security and swift-water training initiatives 

 5          in the Governor's Executive Budget.  

 6                 The response to mistaken reports of 

 7          active shooters in several terminals at John 

 8          F. Kennedy Airport this past summer resulted 

 9          in panic and the self-evacuation of thousands 

10          of travelers and employees.  The Governor, as 

11          a result of recommendations outlined by a 

12          joint state and federal multi-agency team 

13          reviewing the incident, ordered the division 

14          to develop a new mandatory training to 

15          civilian airport workers to provide them with 

16          the skills necessary to assist passengers 

17          during emergencies and with the skills for 

18          increased awareness and the identification of 

19          and reporting of suspicious activities 

20          related to terrorism.  As proposed in the 

21          Governor's Executive Budget, the division 

22          will provide this critical, full-day training 

23          to civilian airport workers across the State.  

24                 The State Preparedness Training 


 1          Center, or SPTC, is a state-of-the-art 

 2          multidisciplinary facility in Oneida County 

 3          that supports training to over 16,000 state, 

 4          local, and federal emergency first responders 

 5          on an annual basis.  The swift-water rescue 

 6          simulator is slated to be completed by spring 

 7          of 2018, and the Executive Budget includes 

 8          resources to support this one-of-a-kind 

 9          training for swift-water rescue missions.  

10          Staff will be brought on in the fourth 

11          quarter of the 2018 fiscal year, enabling 

12          training to first responders as soon as the 

13          facility is complete.  

14                 In the upcoming budget year, the 

15          division will provide regionally focused 

16          active-shooter scenario courses at the SPTC.  

17          The key objective of this course is to 

18          integrate emergency medical services into 

19          law enforcement's response to an active 

20          shooter situation.  The new regional model 

21          requires the law enforcement and EMS 

22          participants to be from the same city or 

23          county departments, so the techniques and the 

24          concepts learned can be better leveraged in 


 1          emergencies.  

 2                 Finally, at the Governor's direction, 

 3          the division will work with the New York 

 4          State Emergency Management Association to 

 5          develop an accreditation program for local 

 6          emergency management offices in the upcoming 

 7          budget year.  It will be the first state-led 

 8          initiative in the nation designed 

 9          specifically for local emergency management 

10          offices, leading advancements in emergency 

11          management and the protection of the people 

12          of this state.  

13                 These Executive Budget recommendations 

14          build upon the work of the division over the 

15          past year.  

16                 In 2016, the Governor directed the 

17          division to increase the number of Red Team 

18          exercises across the state to determine if 

19          businesses detected and promptly reported 

20          unannounced suspicious activity.  This past 

21          year, the division significantly increased 

22          the number of Red Team exercises, evaluating 

23          and enhancing the state's overall 

24          counter-terrorism posture.  Through the end 


 1          of December, Red Team exercises had been 

 2          conducted in all of the 16 counterterrorism 

 3          zones, across over 600 locations and 

 4          businesses, in conjunction with over 100 

 5          law enforcement agencies.  

 6                 As a target-rich state, New York 

 7          continues to rely on federal Homeland 

 8          Security funding.  In 2016, New York State 

 9          received over $262 million from the Homeland 

10          Security Grant Program, which has been used 

11          in communities throughout the state to 

12          prevent, protect and prepare for terrorism 

13          and other catastrophic events.  

14                 I'd like to quickly touch upon a few 

15          ongoing initiatives.  

16                 Launched in 2015, NY Responds is a 

17          single, unified online electronic 

18          comprehensive incident management system.  

19          This transformative approach to disaster 

20          management connects every county across 

21          New York State with the State Emergency 

22          Operations Center.  

23                 The Governor's vision related to 

24          public safety and emergency preparedness 


 1          education is rapidly becoming a reality 

 2          through the College of Emergency 

 3          Preparedness, Homeland Security, and 

 4          Cybersecurity at UAlbany.  I am happy to 

 5          report that the college's major, which began 

 6          being offered in the fall semester, now has 

 7          300 declared students.  Another 350 students 

 8          have declared the minor.  The enthusiasm for 

 9          the program has far exceeded expectations.  

10                 With respect to citizen preparedness 

11          training, in conjunction with the National 

12          Guard, the Red Cross, and our partners in the 

13          Legislature, we have been able to train over 

14          140,000 residents.  

15                 I appreciate the opportunity to appear 

16          before you today, and am pleased to answer 

17          any questions you may have.  

18                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, 

19          Commissioner Melville.  And certainly you 

20          have one of the most important duties in the 

21          state, and that's to keep our citizens safe.  

22          So I appreciate everything that you do.  

23                 We'll start out with questions from 

24          Senator Tom Croci, who is chair of the 


 1          Homeland Security Committee in the State 

 2          Senate.  

 3                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Thank you, 

 4          Senator.  

 5                 SENATOR CROCI:  Thank you, Chairwoman.  

 6                 Commissioner Melville, thank you again 

 7          for your appearance here today.  

 8                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Thanks.  

 9                 SENATOR CROCI:  I want to start off by 

10          saying what a pleasure it's been to work with 

11          you in the last few years, getting to know 

12          you and getting an opportunity to see the 

13          kind of talent that you have on your staff.  

14          I know that many of them are here today.  So 

15          it's been a great pleasure, and I appreciate 

16          the increasing openness with information.  

17                 And I also want to thank you for your 

18          continued service to the state.  It's not a 

19          time for the faint of heart in the law 

20          enforcement, intelligence, or emergency 

21          management professions, and your willingness 

22          to remain in public service at this time is 

23          certainly something that the people of 

24          New York should be very grateful for.  So 


 1          thank you for your service.  

 2                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Thank you, 

 3          Senator.  

 4                 SENATOR CROCI:  With that said, some 

 5          of the questions I'll be asking today are 

 6          directed at the budget, specifically, and at 

 7          the Executive.  So I don't want you to 

 8          misinterpret our concerns as something that 

 9          you're not executing well, because from my 

10          estimation, you and your team are doing a 

11          tremendous job.  

12                 I've looked at this several times now, 

13          and to me this a political document.  I've 

14          done three budgets in this Senate, and I can 

15          tell you that it's decreasingly a process by 

16          which we are determining what's best for the 

17          various regions in the state, and it becomes 

18          more of a political document.  And the way it 

19          was rolled out this year is evidence of that.  

20                 So I'm increasingly skeptical of some 

21          of the different -- some of the language that 

22          we see in the current budget.  Hopefully this 

23          process, the legislative process which we do 

24          in the light of day, is going to be something 


 1          that creates a budget where the Assembly and 

 2          the Senate and the Executive can come 

 3          together and create a truly governmental 

 4          document.  

 5                 I'm looking at certain sections, and 

 6          I'm noticing that the budget calls for 

 7          $475 million in funding for county public 

 8          interoperability efforts.  This is something 

 9          that those of us who have seen the effects of 

10          both September 11th, Superstorm Sandy, and 

11          the problems that they had in the 2015 prison 

12          break at Clinton Correctional Facility are 

13          very familiar with -- the hampered 

14          communications, the interoperability 

15          problems.  

16                 Can you provide just an update on the 

17          progress that the department's made in the 

18          interoperability of communications between 

19          state and local authorities?  

20                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Sure, Senator.  

21          I'd be happy to.  

22                 Interoperability is a hard process in 

23          New York State.  I think we've made great 

24          strides in the last six years through the 


 1          appropriation.  Through the Office of 

 2          Emergency Communications, we have provided 

 3          over $440 million to the counties to become 

 4          interoperable.  Interoperable doesn't really 

 5          mean that someone in Long Island can talk to 

 6          someone in Buffalo, it means that a fire 

 7          chief from Long Island who happens to go to 

 8          Buffalo can talk with the police in Buffalo 

 9          and the EMS from Syracuse, all together in 

10          the same spot.  

11                 We are close.  This year's budget 

12          provides for another $75 million into 

13          interoperability.  Ten million of that is for 

14          a PSAT program, 45 million of that is a 

15          targeted -- excuse me, a formula grant, which 

16          all counties receive based on their volume of 

17          911 calls, their area, and their population.  

18                 And an important distinction, I think, 

19          this year is that $20 million of that 75 is 

20          going to be targeted at the areas around the 

21          state that still do not have 

22          interoperability.  In the past it had been a 

23          competitive grant that we put out and 

24          counties competed for and won, rightfully so, 


 1          but we have chosen this year to try and close 

 2          the loop on this interoperability by using 

 3          this $20 million to target those areas of the 

 4          state that still need help.  I may be 

 5          optimistic, but I am hoping by the end of 

 6          2017 we can declare New York State to be 

 7          interoperable.  

 8                 SENATOR CROCI:  Thank you.  And we 

 9          look forward to supporting you in any way.  

10                 Do I still have additional questions?  

11          Very good.  

12                 So, Commissioner, two years ago the 

13          Governor transferred out, much to the 

14          disappointment and objection of the 

15          Legislature -- or, anyway, our committee and 

16          the majority in the Senate -- transferred 

17          responsibility of cybersecurity out of your 

18          department and all over to the Office of 

19          Information Technology.  I regret that 

20          decision; I think at the time I said that 

21          that would probably have to be revisited 

22          because it didn't fit with the best practices 

23          federally.  

24                 And I didn't think we'd be back again 


 1          talking about it so soon, but the Governor 

 2          wants to propose a new Cyber Incident 

 3          Response Team, now back in your department as 

 4          opposed to the Office of Information 

 5          Technology.  What would be the benefits of 

 6          this consolidation?  

 7                 And if it's being proposed now back in 

 8          your department, why isn't this going to go 

 9          to the Office of Information Technology 

10          Services?  Why is he reversing course at this 

11          point?  

12                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  There is 

13          $1.3 million in the budget to fund this 

14          Cyber Incident Response Team.  It is 

15          conceptual at this point.  We plan on hiring 

16          eight people to work underneath the Office of 

17          Counterterrorism within the Division of 

18          Homeland Security Emergency Services.  

19                 I see the Cyber Incident Response Team 

20          targeting a different audience in New York 

21          State.  Its main mission will be to assist 

22          local governments, public authorities, and 

23          the hospital that gets struck by ransomware.  

24          The ITS function with respect to 


 1          cybersecurity is really designed to protect 

 2          the state's infrastructure in the executive 

 3          agencies of the state.  

 4                 So the Cyber Incident Response Team 

 5          will be another resource to New Yorkers, to 

 6          local governments, to villages, towns, and 

 7          small cities that don't have the benefit of 

 8          ITS response.  I think conceptually it's a 

 9          really good idea.  There's certainly a niche 

10          for it.  And I think it will be successful 

11          and very busy.  

12                 SENATOR CROCI:  Well, I would concur.  

13          I'm just wondering why it wasn't proposed 

14          three years ago, as opposed to this year, and 

15          why now we're retransferring these 

16          responsibilities, at least partially, back to 

17          your department, if the Governor's initial 

18          thought to move it to OITS, to Technology 

19          Services, was the right move.  

20                 So I'm skeptical that you shouldn't 

21          have the responsibility of cybersecurity for 

22          the state under one hat and one rubric, 

23          because it makes the most sense and it's in, 

24          I believe, alignment with best federal 


 1          practices.  But I'm just concerned that right 

 2          now we -- you know, it's like a little kids' 

 3          soccer game, we're just kicking the ball all 

 4          over and trying to figure out -- no strategy, 

 5          no vision.  

 6                 And hopefully we can work together in 

 7          this budget cycle to ensure that we know in 

 8          the State of New York who has overall 

 9          responsibility for cybersecurity -- and, if 

10          it's going to be broken out into pieces, that 

11          that is also evident within the budget.  

12                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Another part 

13          of the cyber that DHSES has, Senator, and I 

14          know that you're aware of this, is that we 

15          have critical infrastructure assessment teams 

16          that go throughout the state and assess our 

17          critical infrastructure.  And we have added 

18          also a six-member cyber component to those 

19          teams, so -- 

20                 SENATOR CROCI:  Under DHSES?  

21                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Under DHSES, 

22          under the Office of Counterterrorism.  ITS 

23          used to assist our critical infrastructure 

24          team with that.  We thought it was 


 1          appropriate that we handle those duties 

 2          ourselves, and we have six very-well- 

 3          qualified cybersecurity experts that work 

 4          within our critical infrastructure assessment 

 5          team now and accompany them and make that 

 6          cyber a part of their assessment.  

 7                 SENATOR CROCI:  One additional 

 8          question, Madam Chair.  

 9                 Commissioner, last year the Governor 

10          also transferred the intelligence and 

11          analysis unit out of your department to the 

12          State Police.  Can you describe to me what if 

13          any effect the transfers had on intelligence 

14          reports in the state, and your reporting 

15          responsibilities?  

16                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Essentially, 

17          it's had no impact.  The analysts that were 

18          transferred, for the most part, that were 

19          members of the Division of Homeland Security 

20          and Emergency Services are sitting in the 

21          same exact seats that they sat in when they 

22          were in our agency.  They're located at the 

23          NYSEOC with the State Police.  

24                 The information flow has been 


 1          seamless.  We have set up liaisons that work 

 2          with the NYSEOC and report to us through our 

 3          office of the director of the Office of 

 4          Counterterrorism.  

 5                 They were wonderful employees, I was 

 6          sorry to see them go to the State Police, but 

 7          in actuality I thought it was the right move, 

 8          because they need the information first.  We 

 9          get it almost simultaneously.  

10                 I still am the Homeland Security 

11          advisor, I still report and brief you, 

12          Senator, and the other committees.  So I 

13          don't really see that it's made any 

14          difference to us.  And in fact, it's an 

15          improvement, in the sense that the responders 

16          who need that information most rapidly get it 

17          first.  

18                 SENATOR CROCI:  And is the Governor 

19          receiving this intelligence on a regular 

20          basis?  

21                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Yes, he is.  

22                 SENATOR CROCI:  Okay.  And is he 

23          requesting this information on a regular 

24          basis?  


 1                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Yes.  I'm in 

 2          constant contact with his office and the 

 3          chamber with respect to any significant 

 4          incidents that occur in the state and, 

 5          realistically, worldwide.  

 6                 SENATOR CROCI:  Including threat 

 7          reporting?  

 8                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I'm sorry, 

 9          Senator?  

10                 SENATOR CROCI:  Including threat 

11          reporting?  

12                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Yes.  

13                 SENATOR CROCI:  The Executive is being 

14          made aware of that?  

15                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Yes, he is.  

16                 SENATOR CROCI:  And the last question 

17          I had was overall, now we've been doing this 

18          for -- sitting across from each other for 

19          three years, I have seen the steady 

20          progression of intelligence flow to the 

21          Legislature, including Senator Addabbo and I 

22          both receiving the briefing.  

23                 Are we -- going back over three years 

24          now, are we better prepared, are we as 


 1          prepared, or are we less prepared to prevent 

 2          and then be prepared to deal with a potential 

 3          terrorist attack in the State of New York?  

 4                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I would 

 5          absolutely say that we are better prepared.  

 6          We constantly evaluate the threat picture, 

 7          posture, landscape, throughout the state and 

 8          the world.  We adjust our priorities 

 9          accordingly.  I think we direct our 

10          Homeland Security funds in the right 

11          direction.  I see how they're used, I see the 

12          results.  

13                 The world is a changing place and a 

14          dangerous place, and we can never say we can 

15          certainly guarantee that we can prevent 

16          another terrorist attack.  I would almost say 

17          that there's a guarantee that we can't.  But 

18          as far as preparation goes, there's really 

19          not a lot more that I can see, from my 

20          perspective, that we could be doing.  

21                 SENATOR CROCI:  Well, I appreciate 

22          that.  Coming from you, that should make 

23          New Yorkers feel comfortable.  

24                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  


 1                 SENATOR CROCI:  And I want to thank 

 2          the chairwoman for the time.  

 3                 Thank you, Commissioner.  

 4                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Thank you, 

 5          Senator.  

 6                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

 7                 We've been joined by Senator John 

 8          DeFrancisco and Senator Velmanette 

 9          Montgomery.  

10                 Chairman?  

11                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Yes.  Next, Crystal 

12          People-Stokes, chair of the Government 

13          Operations Committee, to question.  

14                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Thank 

15          you, Mr. Chairman.  

16                 And thank you, Commissioner.  It's 

17          nice to see you again so soon.  

18                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Same here, 

19          Assemblywoman.  

20                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  I -- 

21          just in response to the Senator's last 

22          question, I feel completely confident that we 

23          are more safe in New York State than we've 

24          been in a very long time.  So I want to thank 


 1          you and your entire team for making that 

 2          possible.  

 3                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Thank you.  

 4                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  I think 

 5          my first question is going to be around your 

 6          comments and your testimony regarding the 

 7          amount of dollars that we have received from 

 8          the federal government for the purposes of 

 9          homeland security.  And you said that was 

10          $262 million.  

11                 And I don't know if that's been 

12          announced yet or not, how much we will 

13          receive for the 2017 year, but I wonder if 

14          there will be any negative impacts to the 

15          most recent executive order from the 

16          President regarding immigration and 

17          immigrants.  

18                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Well, it has 

19          not been announced yet.  We are hoping that, 

20          at worst, our funding remains the same.  

21                 With respect to the executive orders 

22          that the President has recently issued, we 

23          are studying them.  Smarter people than me 

24          are trying to figure out how that may affect 


 1          our funding.  I am hopeful that it has no 

 2          impact on us.  

 3                 There is a clause within the executive 

 4          order that calls for law enforcement to be 

 5          excluded from any effect that the executive 

 6          order might have, but at this point it's 

 7          really too soon to tell.  Too soon to tell, 

 8          really, in both ways.  There's a continuing 

 9          resolution, I guess, in Congress, so funds 

10          had not been appropriated for this coming 

11          budget year anyway.  And then the executive 

12          order came out.  So on both fronts, I'm 

13          optimistic that our funds will not be 

14          affected in a negative way.  

15                 I'm certainly confident that we use 

16          the money wisely.  New York is a target-rich 

17          state, as we all know, and I think it would 

18          be -- personally, I think it would be 

19          irresponsible to affect the funding.  

20                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Thank 

21          you.  We certainly are a target-rich state, 

22          and as such, I'm really just glad to hear 

23          that you're at least doing some preliminary 

24          look at how you could, you know, make sure 


 1          that we speak to the new administration in a 

 2          way that they understand that we can't afford 

 3          to have cuts in an area like homeland 

 4          security.  So thank you very much for that.  

 5                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Thank you.  

 6                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  On the 

 7          issue of cybersecurity, I mean, there are 

 8          many people I think across this country and 

 9          in the state as well, particularly in the 

10          business community, who are really kind of 

11          looking at spyware and all those sorts of 

12          things as a new white-collar crime.  And that 

13          there are literally people sitting in offices 

14          not far from folks who they're stealing their 

15          whole server opportunities and asking them 

16          for money, and they're getting it.  

17                 What sort of strategies do you -- are 

18          we going to have to deal with that issue?  

19          Because it's real, and it's not only 

20          impacting, you know, businesses and banks but 

21          schools and hospitals, et cetera.  And, you 

22          know, I think that there's a responsibility 

23          for us as government to figure out a way, how 

24          do we protect our citizens who want to use 


 1          the internet to do their business?  

 2                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I couldn't 

 3          agree with you more, Assemblywoman.  I think 

 4          that's what this Cyber Incident Response Team 

 5          that we've proposed in the budget will be 

 6          targeting.  It will be targeting local 

 7          government and it will be targeting schools, 

 8          it will be targeting hospitals.  And there is 

 9          an outreach component to it that we envision, 

10          that they will go and talk about best 

11          practices, talk about cyberhygiene, talk about 

12          things that those institutions and local 

13          governments can do to protect themselves from 

14          attacks, cyberattacks.  

15                 Another component of that team will be 

16          to respond and to assess what the issue is.  

17          I don't know if we will have people that will 

18          actually fix those types of problems once 

19          they occur, but I think we'll be able to 

20          direct those entities to the resources that 

21          they need to help themselves.  


23          did have a chance to meet some of your 

24          cybersecurity experts.  They're very well 


 1          informed gentlemen.  So I'm wondering if they 

 2          would develop a strategy that -- one that 

 3          works for schools, one that works for banks, 

 4          one that works for a private business?  Or 

 5          would there be strategy that everybody would 

 6          necessarily follow?  

 7                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I think it 

 8          would be more across the board, a 

 9          best-practices type of strategy.  The 

10          simplest things:  Don't leave your computer 

11          on, have two-factor authentication, don't 

12          give out certain information, don't open 

13          certain emails if you don't know -- that's 

14          the kind of outreach effort that's kind of 

15          basic, but believe it or not, there's a lot 

16          of people out there that really don't follow 

17          them.  So I think there's certainly a niche 

18          for this type of training for the general 

19          public.  

20                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Okay, 

21          thank you on that.  

22                 On the whole issue of providing 

23          security around airports, can you talk a 

24          little bit more about how that will be 


 1          provided?  And would it just be for airports 

 2          in New York City, or would it be for 

 3          airports, say, near the Canadian border, like 

 4          Buffalo?  

 5                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Sure.  We've 

 6          piloted this security training now -- I think 

 7          we've given it three times.  It has been at 

 8          JFK so far.  But the proposal is to train all 

 9          civilian airport workers throughout the state 

10          at every airport.  Our best guesstimate -- 

11                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  So that 

12          TSA workers -- 

13                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Excuse me?  


15          workers?  

16                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Not TSA --

17                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Not 

18          TSA.  

19                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  -- but your -- 

20          the person who works at the baggage check, 

21          the person who works in Cinnabon, at Hudson 

22          News, at -- anybody who works in an airport, 

23          any civilian employee, will get this training 

24          so they know what to do in a situation, or 


 1          they know what they should do in a situation 

 2          where, like what happened at JFK, when panic 

 3          results from an incident that, really, it 

 4          shouldn't.  

 5                 Our best guesstimate is that there's 

 6          probably 50,000 of these civilian workers 

 7          throughout the state that we would have to 

 8          train.  The course is an eight-hour course 

 9          given by the proposal members of our staff.  

10          And we would start out slow, I think 275 

11          trainings the first year and gradually 

12          increase to maybe 32,000 the second year and 

13          hopefully 50,000 by the third year.  

14                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Okay, 

15          and that's not including the other 

16          preparedness training.  The preparedness 

17          training is just for citizens, is that right?  

18                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Yes.  Totally 

19          different training.  That preparedness 

20          training is given in partnership with the 

21          National Guard, it's given all over the state 

22          to civilians who sign up for it, and it's 

23          really how to prepare yourself and respond 

24          and be ready for any type of an emergency.  


 1          Not related to an airport.  

 2                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Okay.  

 3          Well, I do appreciate your response to the 

 4          questions, and I thank you for your diligence 

 5          in keeping us safe.  

 6                 And I have to tell you I'm very 

 7          excited about the number of students who are 

 8          accessing the opportunity to be trained in 

 9          cybersecurity at UAlbany.  And I don't know 

10          how many of those students are necessarily 

11          veterans, but I do think that it would be a 

12          great idea if we would do a special outreach 

13          to veterans to encourage them to participate 

14          in these sorts of services, because I think 

15          often they don't necessarily find their niche 

16          when they get home, and this could very well 

17          be their niche.  It works well in Florida, 

18          and I believe it could work well in New York 

19          State as well.  

20                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I agree.  


22          thank you again, Commissioner.  

23                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Thank you, 

24          Assemblywoman.  


 1                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.  

 2                 Senator?  

 3                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

 4                 Commissioner, I'm glad to hear you 

 5          talk about interoperable communications.  And 

 6          could you tell us where the areas are that 

 7          you would focus on this year to finally get 

 8          the communications system in place?  

 9                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I wish I 

10          could, Senator.  There are certain pockets 

11          throughout the state that still are not 

12          interoperable.  There's a lot of consortiums 

13          throughout the state that are.  I personally 

14          don't know where those areas are; I think 

15          they're out west, and I think they're in the 

16          North Country.  

17                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Probably west of my 

18          area.  

19                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Yeah.  And I 

20          just don't want to misinform you, but I 

21          certainly have people that know that 

22          information, and I can get that right to you.  

23                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  If you could get 

24          that to the Legislature, I think we all would 


 1          be very interested in taking a look at it 

 2          just so we fully understand.  And then, when 

 3          we come back here again next year, we'll be 

 4          able to hopefully celebrate the fact that all 

 5          of those areas are covered.  So I appreciate 

 6          that.  

 7                 I'm so happy to hear that the Governor 

 8          is proposing cybersecurity additional 

 9          measures, and I think that's sorely needed.  

10          Unfortunately, in my estimation, the answers 

11          that we got last year from the IT department 

12          were unsatisfactory and raised a lot of 

13          concerns among our colleagues, because there 

14          didn't seem to be a basic understanding of 

15          certain security issues.  So I'm very happy 

16          to actually see that in the Governor's 

17          proposal.  

18                 You talked about the proposal, but 

19          could you expand on it a little bit more as 

20          to how this will work?  Because I think you 

21          talk about interagency cooperation and the 

22          fact that you're going to get everybody on 

23          the same page; I think that needs to happen.  

24          But how high is the cybersecurity threat to 


 1          New Yorkers?  

 2                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I think it's 

 3          high.  You know, it's the days we live in.  I 

 4          mean, it can be anything from your home 

 5          personal computer to the ransomware that 

 6          certain entities throughout the state have 

 7          received and paid, because their systems 

 8          become locked up and they don't have access 

 9          to their information and their only way to 

10          get it is to pay the ransom.  

11                 The Cyber Incident Response Team, as 

12          it is envisioned, will start locally in terms 

13          of best practices from anywhere, from 

14          households -- but I really see it targeted at 

15          local governments, public authorities, 

16          agencies that are in dire need of that type 

17          of education and a number to call when they 

18          have an issue.  

19                 If a village in upstate New York has 

20          an issue with some type of cybersecurity, 

21          they really don't get a lot of response from 

22          the FBI if they call as to how to fix it.  It 

23          might not be a crime, even.  

24                 But those are the types of things, and 


 1          if we get that, if this team gets it and it 

 2          is a crime -- you know, we're not the police, 

 3          we're not the FBI, we're not DHS, we're not 

 4          going to do those investigations, but we will 

 5          steer those people in the right direction.  

 6          So I think it's really, the way I envision 

 7          it, a resource to help those who really don't 

 8          have that type of support now.  Whether 

 9          that's -- 

10                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  What about private 

11          entities?  For example, we have a big problem 

12          in the state where a major health insurance 

13          plan had its records breached over the past 

14          year or two, and everyone's information was 

15          exposed because of that fact.  

16                 So would this be a resource not only 

17          for local governments and citizens but also 

18          for companies and that sort of thing?  

19          Because when a company's security is 

20          breached, it impacts so many residents across 

21          the state and it can have very, very 

22          consequential and devastating impacts.  

23                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I agree.  And 

24          we have discussed that, Senator.  But this 


 1          team is proposed to be eight people to start, 

 2          and I don't think we can be everything to 

 3          everyone.  So those private entities and 

 4          corporations or even local governments, it's 

 5          really incumbent upon them to secure their 

 6          own systems.  But a lot of them don't.  

 7                 There's a lot of private institutions 

 8          that have wonderful cybersecurity, much 

 9          better than we could probably talk to them 

10          about.  But at least initially, I would say 

11          that private entities would not be included 

12          in this.  It's eight people, and I wouldn't 

13          want to take on more than we were able to 

14          handle.  I'd like to be able to get this team 

15          up and running and do things right and not be 

16          overwhelmed at the start.  

17                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you very 

18          much, Commissioner.  

19                 Now I want to switch to 

20          counterterrorism.  And obviously there's a 

21          proposal by the Governor regarding the 

22          Red Teams and so on, but what's the breakdown 

23          of activity by the Red Teams of upstate 

24          versus downstate now?  You gave some helpful 


 1          information in your presentation about, I 

 2          believe, 600 locations had exercises over the 

 3          past year, is that correct?  

 4                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Yes.  

 5                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Okay.  So what is 

 6          the breakdown, though?  

 7                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  The state is 

 8          broken up into 16 counterterrorism zones 

 9          geographically.  Some zones might be three or 

10          four counties, some might be two.  

11                 What our office did was go to the 

12          leadership in every one of those 

13          counterterrorism zones, meet with them, 

14          discuss what their threat posture was in 

15          their particular area, and come up with a 

16          plan to decide what to target.  

17                 So maybe out in Western New York we 

18          targeted colleges, mass gatherings, Walmarts, 

19          stores like that.  And when I say "targeted," 

20          we would go in and we'd go into a Walmart and 

21          try to buy five pressure cookers and some 

22          ball bearings and duct tape and see if people 

23          would get raised up about that and call their 

24          police.  And then we would see what the 


 1          police response was to the call from Walmart.  

 2                 So as far as a breakdown, we have all 

 3          that information.  It's pretty equal across 

 4          the state.  Some counterterrorism zone 

 5          leadership may have been more welcoming than 

 6          others, but they all like the idea, they all 

 7          participated.  But I would say it's pretty 

 8          equal across the state where we conducted and 

 9          how many exercises.  

10                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Commissioner, you 

11          raised some very interesting scenarios.  When 

12          you went into Walmart, for example, are you 

13          seeing that people did raise a red flag?  Or 

14          is there more work to do as far as ensuring 

15          that people are up to speed, they have that 

16          education and that thought in mind that this 

17          may be a suspicious activity?  So I'm just 

18          curious about what results you actually 

19          found.  

20                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  They were 

21          mixed, and I'll preface -- just say that 

22          before we went into that Walmart or any 

23          facility that we went to, we did outreach 

24          prior to -- talked about what to look for, 


 1          what suspicious activity is, how do you 

 2          report it, who do you report it to -- and 

 3          then we let it lay for a while.  

 4                 So any of these places that we went to 

 5          had been visited before, and many of them 

 6          reported very well, some did not.  The end 

 7          result was we got some very favorable 

 8          feedback, but there's more work to do and 

 9          more places to look into.  

10                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  With 

11          the Cyber Incident Response Team, how do you 

12          see that coordination going forward with the 

13          Red Teams?  Is there going to be some 

14          communication?  

15                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I don't see 

16          that really connecting with the Red Teams, 

17          Senator.  I mean, they're both going to come 

18          under our Office of Counterterrorism.  We 

19          have the cyber component attached to our 

20          critical infrastructure assessment teams that 

21          could cross maybe a little bit more with the 

22          Red Teams, but I don't really see the 

23          Cyber Incident Response -- it's an outreach, 

24          first, to educate and then to respond to see 


 1          what problems are and then to see if we can 

 2          help people recover, but not really along the 

 3          same lines as our Red Teams operate.  

 4                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  I'm glad to see 

 5          that you're taking action in regards to the 

 6          Transportation Security Training program and 

 7          the false-alarm incident that occurred at JFK 

 8          last August.  But we're looking at more 

 9          training, we're looking at more resources.  

10          But basically, what did you learn from that 

11          day?  

12                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Personally, I 

13          learned that people are on edge in a lot of 

14          situations, especially around transportation 

15          facilities at times.  I don't -- 

16                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Justifiably so, 

17          correct?  

18                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I don't think 

19          it has been absolutely confirmed, but what 

20          really triggered that incident was the -- 

21          Usain Bolt had won the gold medal, and there 

22          were a lot of people watching, and a big 

23          commotion ensued after he won.  And people 

24          thought somehow that that -- there was an 


 1          active shooter, and that's what started it.  

 2          And people panicked, and people started 

 3          running.  

 4                 So this team that was put together to 

 5          review the incident, they came up with a 

 6          number of different recommendations as a 

 7          result of what happened at JFK that day.  And 

 8          I think the bottom line is we need to better 

 9          communicate with people faster in these types 

10          of facilities.  We need to have a more 

11          cohesive public safety entity.  

12                 In JFK, every terminal is like a 

13          separate airport, so even though the 

14          Port Authority police really are the police 

15          on -- each terminal has their own security.  

16          One terminal can't talk to the other 

17          terminal, one terminal doesn't really know 

18          what the other -- in the worst-case scenario.  

19                 So we learned a lot of lessons from 

20          that.  And JFK may be an aberration just 

21          because of its size, but -- so we're working 

22          on it.  We've had a lot of meetings with the 

23          Port Authority, with TSA, with our partners 

24          in public safety, and I think we're moving 


 1          towards better reaction to an incident like 

 2          that.  

 3                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  And finally, I'd 

 4          like to ask, how would you characterize the 

 5          communication between the federal, the state, 

 6          and the local authorities in regards to 

 7          counterterrorism and all the issues that you 

 8          work on?  

 9                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I would have 

10          to say it's excellent.  I've been in public 

11          safety for a long time, and I've seen the 

12          trends, and I don't think it's ever been 

13          better.  I can pick up the phone and call the 

14          head of the JTTF in New York City, and he 

15          doesn't hesitate to talk to me and give me 

16          information.  

17                 It's gotten so much better, Senator, 

18          and I think we're all on the same page.  And 

19          we realize we have to be if we're going to 

20          succeed.  

21                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  Thank 

22          you for that.  

23                 We've been joined by Senator Marty 

24          Golden.  


 1                 Chairman Farrell?  

 2                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.  

 3                 Assemblyman Montesano.  We'll try 

 4          again.  Assemblyman Buchwald.  

 5                 ASSEMBLYMAN BUCHWALD:  Thank you very 

 6          much, Mr. Chairman.  

 7                 And thank you, Commissioner, for your 

 8          service and for the work you and your 

 9          division do.  

10                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Thanks.  

11                 ASSEMBLYMAN BUCHWALD:  My question is 

12          simply about one particular project that your 

13          division oversees, which is the Spectra AIM 

14          Pipeline risk assessment, which as I 

15          understand it is being done by an outside 

16          architectural engineering firm.  The cost is 

17          approximately $250,000, and their assessment 

18          was at least set to be completed by 

19          December 31st of this past year.  

20                 I'm wondering if you could enlighten 

21          us as to the state of completion of that 

22          assessment, and whether either us as 

23          legislators or members of the public should 

24          expect access to that assessment in the 


 1          not-too-distant future, since obviously it 

 2          concerns public safety.  

 3                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  The report I'm 

 4          familiar with, the report -- it has not been 

 5          finalized.  I have not read it.  

 6                 I know there were some delays in 

 7          starting the report only because we had to 

 8          find a firm that didn't have some type of a 

 9          conflict of interest.  OGS did that, went to 

10          contract with them.  I think the report is in 

11          its final stages, Assemblyman, but I have not 

12          seen it yet.  I look forward to seeing it 

13          also.  

14                 ASSEMBLYMAN BUCHWALD:  Do you have a 

15          sense as to what the process will be when it 

16          is completed?  The contract, which -- it was 

17          originally set for, I believe, an August or 

18          September date, was then modified and 

19          expanded with a December 31, 2016, completion 

20          date.  

21                 But in any case, when the assessment 

22          is complete and obviously you and your 

23          division have had a chance to review it, what 

24          would be the process for being able to inform 


 1          members of the public who want to understand 

 2          what this new pipeline will mean in their 

 3          neighborhoods?  

 4                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  The honest 

 5          answer to that question, Assemblyman, is I 

 6          don't know.  I don't know what the process 

 7          will be with respect to when the public gets 

 8          to see that report or how it's released.  I 

 9          don't.  

10                 ASSEMBLYMAN BUCHWALD:  Are you in a 

11          position to be able to commit to the 

12          Legislature that once that report is received 

13          that, first of all, you'll be able to tell us 

14          of the report, that it has been completed, 

15          and at that time be able to inform us as to 

16          what process you think might be appropriate?  

17                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I don't think 

18          I'm in that position to give that information 

19          at this point.  I certainly will check into 

20          it, Assemblyman.  I just really don't know.  

21                 ASSEMBLYMAN BUCHWALD:  Thank you very 

22          much, Commissioner.  

23                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Okay, sir.  

24                 ASSEMBLYMAN BUCHWALD:  Thank you, 


 1          Mr. Chair.  

 2                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

 3                 Senator Kaminsky.  

 4                 SENATOR KAMINSKY:  Hi.  Good 

 5          afternoon, Commissioner.  How are you?  

 6                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I'm fine, 

 7          thank you, Senator.  

 8                 SENATOR KAMINSKY:  Good.  

 9                 One of the communities I'm proud to 

10          represent is Island Park, and as you know, 

11          your agency is overseeing a multi-million- 

12          dollar FEMA project to deal with flooding 

13          after Hurricane Sandy.  

14                 What I'd like to let you know is that 

15          after -- now we're four years gone, the 

16          flooding in Island Park is still pretty 

17          atrocious, and what I'd like to do is show 

18          you a photograph of a school -- I don't have 

19          long enough arms to do this -- of a school 

20          that has persistent flooding where parents 

21          have literally handed their children -- this 

22          is right-side up, right? -- where parents 

23          have handed their children through the car 

24          window to the school educators there because 


 1          there's no way to pass through.  

 2                 And this was not after a hurricane.  

 3          This happens in nor'easters, of course, but 

 4          also heavy rains and tidal flooding.  And 

 5          it's gotten to a point where people are just 

 6          exasperated and don't think anyone is going 

 7          to come and help them.  

 8                 So in light of what we're seeing 

 9          there, I would just love to hear from you 

10          about the progress that you're making on 

11          this, and urge you to please devote all 

12          resources necessary towards accomplishing it, 

13          because frankly, when you drive down the 

14          street in Island Park, some wouldn't be crazy 

15          to confuse it with, you know, flooding that 

16          happens in much less developed countries, and 

17          it's a shame that we have to have this in 

18          Long Island.  

19                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I understand, 

20          Senator, and I sympathize.  There were 

21          probably almost 5,000 public assistance 

22          projects that came as a result of Hurricane 

23          Sandy, Island Park being one of them.  

24                 I know a little about most of them.  


 1          What I do know about Island Park -- I think 

 2          it's a $40 million project, and $1.8 million, 

 3          I think, has been released for the design and 

 4          the study.  March is the deadline for that to 

 5          be submitted to FEMA, and in March FEMA will 

 6          decide if that project is worthy of the 

 7          release of the rest of the $40 million.  

 8                 SENATOR KAMINSKY:  Okay.  

 9                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  So it's close, 

10          we've got a couple of months, and I'm not 

11          sure how long -- but I think it has to be to 

12          FEMA in March, and they will decide shortly 

13          thereafter.  

14                 SENATOR KAMINSKY:  Okay.  You know, 

15          your agency is also one of a number that have 

16          concurrent but overlapping, to an extent, 

17          projects in Island Park dealing with 

18          flooding.  And frankly, your local agency 

19          representatives have been very open in 

20          working with us, and I appreciate that.  I 

21          would love to have your commitment to work 

22          and help get GOSR and some of the other 

23          agencies involved to come to the community 

24          and just let people know what's going on.  


 1                 You know, they saw last week more 

 2          flooding; obviously, I showed you the picture 

 3          of this school.  They would just like to know 

 4          what's happening.  And I think more 

 5          information is certainly better than less, 

 6          and I would love for you to work with us on 

 7          that.  

 8                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Thank you, 

 9          Senator.  I appreciate it.  

10                 Our recovery staff, they take a 

11          beating sometimes because things take so 

12          long.  And a big reason for that is that in a 

13          lot of these projects, the work has to be 

14          done before FEMA will reimburse.  But our 

15          people in our recovery section, they work 

16          hard, they advocate for their constituents, 

17          they can be right there with FEMA every day, 

18          day in and day out, fighting for New Yorkers.  

19                 We've actually thought enough of that 

20          program to remove it -- it used to come under 

21          the Office of Emergency Management, but when 

22          we redesigned the Division of Homeland 

23          Security and Emergency Services, we made 

24          Recovery its own entity.  We have a deputy 


 1          commissioner who runs it, and it's really a 

 2          complicated process.  

 3                 I knew nothing about it before I came 

 4          to this agency.  I've learned a little bit; 

 5          I'm certainly no expert.  But what I do know 

 6          is they work hard and they do a good job and 

 7          they advocate for New Yorkers.  

 8                 SENATOR KAMINSKY:  Okay, well, thank 

 9          you for your responsiveness, and I agree with 

10          you.  Let's just please keep Island Park on 

11          the front burner, and let's please work to 

12          educate and inform the residents of Island 

13          Park as to the work you're doing and what's 

14          to come.  

15                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Thank you, 

16          Senator.  

17                 SENATOR KAMINSKY:  Thank you all.  

18                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, Senator.  

19                 Chairman Farrell.  

20                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.  

21                 Helene Weinstein, chair.  

22                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  Thanks, 

23          Mr. Chairman.  

24                 A quick question, Commissioner.  I 


 1          wanted to know if you could give me some 

 2          status about the Cybersecurity Advisory 

 3          Board.  I'm not sure if it's within Homeland 

 4          Security, I know it was -- I assume there's 

 5          some participation.  

 6                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I have 

 7          attended a number of meetings with the 

 8          Cybersecurity Advisory Board.  

 9                 It is not within the Division of 

10          Homeland Security and Emergency Services.  We 

11          consider it an important partner in the 

12          cybersecurity mission.  Them, the Multistate 

13          ISAC, the Center for Internet Security, the 

14          State Police, ITS kind of work together as 

15          one to try and deal with the cyber issue in 

16          New York State.  But the advisory board, 

17          although a wonderful partner, does not fall 

18          within DHSES.  

19                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  And it 

20          actively -- it's a board that actively meets?  

21                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Yes.  

22                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  Since it was 

23          established -- 

24                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Yes.  


 1                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN: -- in 2013.  

 2                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Yes, because I 

 3          go to the meetings, and I'm in awe at the 

 4          knowledge that they provide, and the 

 5          experience.  The Cybersecurity Advisory Board 

 6          has been good to us.  

 7                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  Thank you.  

 8                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Senator?  

 9                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Senator Addabbo.  

10                 SENATOR ADDABBO:  Thank you.  Thank 

11          you, Madam Chair.  

12                 And thank you, Commissioner, for your 

13          time and testimony today.  And I too want to 

14          also express my appreciation for your role in 

15          the efforts in protecting our residents 

16          throughout this state.  

17                 Before I get to a question on 

18          infrastructure, I just want to expand the 

19          conversation a little bit about the 

20          active-shooter allocation.  You mentioned in 

21          your testimony the August event that happened 

22          at JFK.  We saw how actually fatal and 

23          chaotic the situation can be January 6th in 

24          Fort Lauderdale, in Florida, in that 


 1          active-shooter situation.  

 2                 And I'm happy to see the broad 

 3          definition of what an airport worker would 

 4          be.  But can you envision that during the 

 5          course of this training, what would happen if 

 6          a structural deficiency in the airport would 

 7          be revealed -- you know, an exit problem or 

 8          some other passageway problem?  

 9                 If your training results in finding 

10          out shortcomings in the structural layout of 

11          an airport, what would happen?  Do you think 

12          that the training, the information gathered 

13          there will then result in some other change, 

14          maybe structurally, to any of the airports?  

15                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I'm not sure, 

16          Senator.  I mean, this training is going to 

17          be targeted, it's going to be classroom 

18          training, eight hours going through scenarios 

19          of how to react in an emergency situation, 

20          how to assist passengers and travellers in 

21          that situation, and also how to detect 

22          suspicious activity in an airport.  

23                 I really don't think it's going to be 

24          designed at the structural components -- it 


 1          won't be in the airport, it'll be in a 

 2          classroom.  But I'm not sure if I'm answering 

 3          your question.  

 4                 SENATOR ADDABBO:  But if an employee, 

 5          while in that class, reveals that they in the 

 6          past have had a problem with an exit or some 

 7          other situation at the airport, I'm sure the 

 8          training, although giving information to the 

 9          airport employee, can also be receptive to 

10          any common problem the employees would have 

11          in terms of safety and active-shooter 

12          situations.  True?  

13                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Absolutely.  

14                 SENATOR ADDABBO:  Okay.  

15                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  And the same 

16          in probably any classroom.  You know, the 

17          teacher can learn a lot from their students.  

18                 SENATOR ADDABBO:  Excellent.  

19                 And lastly, my main question was about 

20          protecting the infrastructure.  The budget 

21          allocation for protecting bridges and tunnels 

22          and the resources that the state would use -- 

23          troopers, State Police -- could you just 

24          briefly go into that a little bit?  


 1                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Sure.  

 2                 I know of it just because I know of 

 3          it.  It really doesn't involve the Division 

 4          of Homeland Security and Emergency Services 

 5          from a budget perspective or a personnel 

 6          perspective, but I know of it because of our 

 7          partners in the Bridge and Tunnel Authority 

 8          and the State Police and the DMNA who will be 

 9          staffing that.  

10                 I think Superintendent Beach will be 

11          testifying later today; he'll be able to give 

12          you a much better perspective as far as what 

13          resources and how they're being deployed 

14          and -- I'm aware of it, but not intimately 

15          involved in it.  

16                 SENATOR ADDABBO:  Thank you, 

17          Commissioner.  

18                 Thank you, Madam Chair.  

19                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Thank you, 

20          Senator.  

21                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, Senator.  

22                 I think that the Assembly is done, but 

23          we are not on the Senate side.  So Senator 

24          Comrie has some questions.  


 1                 SENATOR COMRIE:  Yes.  Commissioner, 

 2          good morning.  

 3                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Good morning, 

 4          Senator.  

 5                 SENATOR COMRIE:  I just wanted to ask 

 6          a question about your training.  You talked 

 7          about the JFK situation and the preparedness 

 8          that would be necessary to train -- 

 9                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Can you get the 

10          microphone a little closer to you?  

11                 SENATOR COMRIE:  Sorry.  

12                 I just wanted to know who are you 

13          training in that situation, and what kind of 

14          training are you giving them, for the 

15          personnel.  Because my understanding of the 

16          situation was that there was a rapid response 

17          and they responded as quickly as possible, 

18          but because of the overwhelming people that 

19          were just running, there was a confusion in 

20          the terminal about what actually happened.  

21                 And so I was getting -- inquiring as 

22          to who you're training for that situation, 

23          how do you see that situation evolving any 

24          differently if there's a general panic that's 


 1          happening, and how you could detail that?  

 2          Because if I was an unarmed person, I'd be 

 3          running too.  

 4                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  No, and I get 

 5          it.  And I know how it unfolds and how it can 

 6          happen and how it can snowball.  

 7                 To answer your question -- and let me 

 8          just preface my answer with this training is 

 9          by no means any indication that the police 

10          response was inadequate, or the emergency 

11          services personnel that were at the airport 

12          that day -- I think they did what they were 

13          supposed to do when they were supposed to do 

14          it.  

15                 This training is targeted at civilian 

16          employees who work in businesses within the 

17          airport, who work as ticket agents, who work 

18          in the Budget Rent-A-Car, whatever, so they 

19          know or they can better respond if in fact 

20          one of these panic-type situations occurs.  

21                 The police can't be everywhere.  

22          They're not everywhere.  The people who work 

23          there are, and at least they would be able to 

24          be told what to do in the best-case scenario 


 1          in terms of how to deal with a situation like 

 2          this.  

 3                 So it's really not targeted at 

 4          emergency personnel at all, Senator.  It's 

 5          targeted at civilian employees who really get 

 6          no training with respect to emergency 

 7          situations in airports.  Some people do that 

 8          are on the other side of security.  They get 

 9          the SITA training, whatever -- it's a 

10          two-hour block.  But this is just to 

11          reinforce best practices and how to deal with 

12          a situation and how not to exacerbate it.  

13                 SENATOR COMRIE:  Well, thank you for 

14          your response.  

15                 Has that training started?  And have 

16          you worked on a collaboration with the other 

17          entities out at the airport, both airports, 

18          to make sure that that happens, and in light 

19          of all the construction that's going on in 

20          both JFK and LaGuardia?  Is that being 

21          considered as well?  

22                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  We have worked 

23          with the TSA, the FBI, our partners at the 

24          Port Authority, and the State Police.  We 


 1          have -- and it was designed, this training 

 2          was designed in conjunction with the College 

 3          of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security 

 4          and Cybersecurity, so it was a team effort.  

 5          Everybody's aware of it, people have had 

 6          input into how it's delivered and what the 

 7          actual training is, so it -- I'm sure it will 

 8          modify as we go along, but we have rolled it 

 9          out initially and expect to continue.  

10                 SENATOR COMRIE:  Thank you.  

11                 Thank you, Madam Chair.  

12                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Thank you, 

13          Senator.  

14                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

15                 Senator Krueger.  

16                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Good morning, 

17          Commissioner, or afternoon.  I'm not sure 

18          without a clock.  

19                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Good afternoon.  

20                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Good afternoon, 

21          Commissioner.  

22                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Good 

23          afternoon, Senator.  

24                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  So your budget is 


 1          about $1.57 billion, but there's no 

 2          breakdown.  Can you tell me a little bit 

 3          about how you spend the money?  What 

 4          percentage of it is personnel, how many 

 5          personnel?  

 6                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Sure.  About 

 7          $70 million of it is for state operations.  

 8          The bulk of my budget, $1.45 billion, is Aid 

 9          to Localities.  That's all our funding from 

10          the federal government, it's really what we 

11          give out.  And we have a small capital budget 

12          that I believe is $58 million -- $3 million 

13          for the airport training, $1.3 million for 

14          the cyber response, we have the $3 million 

15          capital that's for Montour Falls and the 

16          SPTC, just for safety improvements and health 

17          and preservation, and there's a $50 million 

18          amount that is really -- it's for capital, 

19          it's for funds that had been appropriated in 

20          the interop for previous years that's just 

21          getting moved over to capital.  

22                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  So the vast majority 

23          is federal pass-through money.  And is there 

24          a master list of how that money goes out to 


 1          whom?  

 2                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I don't know 

 3          about a master list.  I mean, we certainly 

 4          account for every dollar of who gets what and 

 5          why.  

 6                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  But it's not lined 

 7          out in the budget somewhere, it's -- 

 8                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  No, because a 

 9          lot of that -- for example, Oneida County 

10          this year might get X number of dollars and 

11          next year no, depending on what their project 

12          is, depending on what funding we get.  So we 

13          really can't do that, we can't line it out 

14          until we know what we're going to get and we 

15          know what awards we give.  

16                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  But it doesn't -- it 

17          does or it doesn't include those FEMA funds 

18          as was just being discussed by my colleague 

19          around the Island Park issue?  Those are 

20          separate?  

21                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  It includes 

22          that as allocations that we can -- you know, 

23          we have the authority to allocate that money 

24          if and when we receive it.  


 1                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  So when you talked 

 2          about there being 5,000 projects based on 

 3          Hurricane Sandy, monies being paid out if 

 4          FEMA approves them is actually part of that 

 5          $1.57 billion?  

 6                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Yes.  It's the 

 7          authority to appropriate that money.  

 8                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Okay.  So can you 

 9          tell me -- so we heard of the frustrations of 

10          Island Park.  Of the 5,000 projects, how many 

11          of them have been completed, or what 

12          percentage?  

13                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  You know, I 

14          can't give you a percentage of the number 

15          that have been completed.  Many have been.  

16          We have passed out over $5 billion in the 

17          public assistance grants to localities.  I 

18          believe the allocation, or at least what FEMA 

19          originally told us, was about $14 billion.  

20          So five of 14.  

21                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  So we still have a 

22          lot -- we have a long way to go.  

23                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  We have a long 

24          way to go.  


 1                 That's why when I mentioned that 

 2          recovery section being cordoned off into its 

 3          own entity, it's -- there's a lot of work 

 4          there.  

 5                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Do you have any 

 6          concern that for so many years away from the 

 7          actual storm that the federal government 

 8          could say to us "You can't really need it any 

 9          more, it's been so many years"?  

10                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  No.  I have no 

11          concern -- 

12                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  You don't think that 

13          that's a concern.  

14                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  No.  

15                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Good.  I'm glad.  

16                 And I know that you do an enormous 

17          amount of work with many different agencies, 

18          both state agencies and local and county -- 

19          including much around counterterrorism, as 

20          there's been discussion by many of my 

21          colleagues.  How do you interact with 

22          New York's -- I'm from New York City -- from 

23          New York City's various counterterrorism 

24          efforts, and how do you interact with them 


 1          and the State Police?  Because they also get 

 2          assigned, quote, unquote, counterterrorism -- 

 3          I'm always a little confused about who's 

 4          doing what when and what the chain of command 

 5          is.  

 6                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I have an 

 7          office in New York City, I spend a lot of 

 8          time there.  I interact with the PD, the 

 9          NYPD, a lot, mostly with the chief of the 

10          Office of Counterterrorism.  

11                 And there are people that handle the 

12          money that the Office of Management and 

13          Budget -- we talk about priorities, we talk 

14          about funding.  

15                 The New York area gets a lot of money 

16          through the UASI program, and they spend it 

17          well and wisely, and they need it.  So most 

18          of my interaction with the NYPD comes around 

19          funding issues and how we can assist them.  

20                 I certainly speak with Superintendent 

21          Beach and other members of the PD with 

22          respect to counterterrorism efforts, but the 

23          agency that I'm involved with, we really have 

24          no boots on the ground.  I don't have police 


 1          officers on the street doing counterterrorism 

 2          work.  We try to funnel the money to where it 

 3          needs to go and do the -- try to allocate 

 4          it -- 

 5                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  You talked in your 

 6          testimony about the importance of police and 

 7          EMS being from the same municipality or 

 8          counties and training together, and that 

 9          makes total sense to me.  

10                 You weren't referencing New York City.  

11          That already happens for us in New York City, 

12          is that correct?  

13                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  That happens, 

14          and we train people from New York City at the 

15          SPTC.  What I was really getting to in a 

16          nutshell, Senator, is we have these courses, 

17          one is called the A2S2 course, it's really -- 

18          it's our premier course.  It's about 

19          active-shooter scenarios, prolonged 

20          active-shooter scenarios where, for example, 

21          back in Mumbai in 2008 you did -- it could go 

22          for a long time.  And previously in those 

23          types of situations, EMS was pretty much held 

24          off on the side:  You can't come in until 


 1          this thing is over with and the police have 

 2          resolved it.  

 3                 What we're trying to do is change that 

 4          model with this course where, if we have 

 5          those types of prolonged active-shooter 

 6          situations, which unfortunately they happen, 

 7          we can integrate EMS into what they call 

 8          "warm zones," where the police will control 

 9          the situation to a certain extent, but we can 

10          bring EMS in to get wounded out and 

11          eventually save lives.  

12                 The part that I was referring to in 

13          the testimony about from the same county -- 

14          we've run this course, and there's 60 people 

15          at a time that take the course.  In the past, 

16          we could have, between fire, EMS, and 

17          police -- in the past they could have been 

18          from 60 different agencies, the way we were 

19          running them.  

20                 We think that it's a better design to 

21          have them from the same agency or the same 

22          county, because if you have one of these 

23          incidents in your area, you're not getting 

24          one person from six counties away to come.  


 1          We need to train together to respond to it.  

 2          So even if, say, a police department in a 

 3          town can't send 30 people, we're going to 

 4          take people from the surrounding towns and 

 5          the sheriff's department and the State Police 

 6          in that area that will likely respond to an 

 7          incident like that and train them in this 

 8          scenario of, you know, active shooter.  

 9                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  And a final quick 

10          question, I see the clock is out.  

11                 It's actually in the State Police 

12          budget, not in your budget, but it's for 

13          counterterrorism and it's to put State Police 

14          into New York City.  Why?  

15                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I believe that 

16          the State Police are already in New York City 

17          in the transportation facilities at Penn 

18          Station and Grand Central.  The Governor has 

19          put them on bridges and tunnels.  He's trying 

20          to beef up the counterterrorism efforts in 

21          New York City and is using the State Police 

22          to do so.  I think his thought process is 

23          they're the State Police, and New York City 

24          is part of New York State.  


 1                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Well, I certainly 

 2          know New York City is part of New York State.  

 3                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I don't mean 

 4          it that way.  It's just -- 

 5                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  I know, I know.  

 6                 And, you know, it's $50 million out of 

 7          the budget, and I suspect my colleagues from 

 8          some of the other -- I believe you described 

 9          16 counterterrorism zones, so I'm assuming 

10          New York City is one zone?  

11                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Yes.  

12                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  So I would assume 

13          that people from the other 15 zones might 

14          think more State Police support in their 

15          zones would be important.  

16                 And I keep asking this question at 

17          home, and nobody gives me an answer about why 

18          we think it actually is valuable to us in 

19          New York City to have this additional police 

20          presence which are then not a coordinated 

21          part of NYPD, FDNY, EMS, and Office of 

22          Emergency Management.  

23                 From an efficiency perspective, 

24          personally I would like to see the 


 1          State Police and that money go to other areas 

 2          that I think are begging for them, and I 

 3          don't think my city is.  So it's more a -- my 

 4          opinion, not asking you necessarily for 

 5          yours.  

 6                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Yeah, I get 

 7          it.  And I appreciate the comments.  And 

 8          again, I don't want to speak for 

 9          Superintendent Beach, but that's my 

10          understanding of it.  I really don't -- you 

11          know, our agency has not been involved, 

12          although I am aware of it.  

13                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Thank you.  

14                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, Senator.  

15                 Senator Squadron.  

16                 SENATOR SQUADRON:  Thank you very 

17          much.  

18                 Thank you, Commissioner, nice to see 

19          you.  

20                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Hi, Senator.  

21          How are you?  

22                 SENATOR SQUADRON:  Good.  

23                 Briefly, very briefly, with your 

24          predecessor and FDNY we had worked on trying 


 1          to better coordinate state buildings in 

 2          New York City not under the New York City 

 3          building code, including with an actual embed 

 4          in FDNY, to make it easier to make sure that 

 5          firefighters are fully safe and have all the 

 6          information they need when they go into state 

 7          buildings or buildings under state oversight.  

 8          Does that program continue?

 9                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I couldn't 

10          hear the --

11                 SENATOR SQUADRON:  Does that program 

12          continue?  Is there -- how does that 

13          coordination look, briefly?  

14                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  The 

15          coordination level is excellent.  I mean, we 

16          have some outstanding issues that are still 

17          being litigated, I believe, between who's 

18          responsible for state-owned buildings in the 

19          city, whether -- is it FDNY or is it our 

20          OFPC?  

21                 The boots on the ground get along just 

22          fine.  They talk, they invite each other to 

23          any inspection, they share information.  But 

24          I think that that whole issue is still being 


 1          litigated.

 2                 SENATOR SQUADRON:  Are there any state 

 3          officials at FDNY headquarters to help 

 4          coordinate when there are major events, (A)? 

 5          And (B), have all the building plans of state 

 6          buildings been shared with FDNY?  

 7                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  I believe so, 

 8          yes.

 9                 SENATOR SQUADRON:  Great.  It would be 

10          great to confirm that, because that was an 

11          initiative we started three and a half, four 

12          years ago. 

13                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Yeah, we spoke 

14          about it last year --

15                 SENATOR SQUADRON:  Yeah.

16                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  -- we did, and 

17          I checked.  I was unaware of it last year, 

18          and you educated me.  I went back and looked, 

19          and as far as I know, we've handled 

20          everything except the litigation.

21                 SENATOR SQUADRON:  Great.  Good.  

22          That's great news.  And that makes our first 

23          responders a whole lot more safe, which I 

24          know is a priority for both of us.


 1                 The other issue is you've heard about 

 2          a small community in Long Island; I represent 

 3          a small community at the southern tip of 

 4          another island, Manhattan, off Lower 

 5          Manhattan.  And I've been working very 

 6          closely with your team and the Governor's 

 7          office and GOSR and HCR on this.  So I want 

 8          to say thank you for this and just make sure 

 9          that it continues to be a top priority that 

10          the state also participates, either through 

11          federal funds, like the hazard mitigation 

12          funds, or otherwise, in securing lower 

13          Manhattan from the next Sandy or flood event.  

14                 It is in many ways the economic engine 

15          of the entire state.  It's also a place where 

16          50,000 to 75,000 people live.  And today we 

17          are no more protected on the coast of Lower 

18          Manhattan than we were the day before Sandy 

19          hit.  

20                 I really appreciated the partnership 

21          with folks, and transparency from folks at 

22          your agency.  I just want to thank you for 

23          that, retrospectively and prospectively, and 

24          make sure that your commitment to make sure 


 1          we do have state participation in building 

 2          that flood barrier continues.

 3                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  You can be 

 4          assured of that, Senator.  I know that we 

 5          have spoken to you about the seawall project, 

 6          and we might even be meeting soon about it 

 7          again.  It's a priority.  The people that 

 8          really need to know about it and know the 

 9          ins-and-outs of that are on it, and as well 

10          as you are, I know.  So you can rest assured 

11          that we will be cooperating with you all the 

12          way.

13                 SENATOR SQUADRON:  Great.  And I do 

14          want to thank your team for your partnership 

15          on that.  Thank you as well, Commissioner.  

16                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, 

17          Commissioner.  

18                 That concludes our speakers for the 

19          day, so we want to let you off the hook.  And 

20          thank you very much again for joining us, and 

21          looking forward to working with you in the 

22          future.

23                 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE:  Thank you, 

24          Senator.  Thank you, Senator.  I didn't mean 


 1          anything by that.

 2                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Our next speaker is 

 3          Executive Deputy Commissioner Michael C. 

 4          Green, New York State Division of Criminal 

 5          Justice Services.

 6                 Welcome, Deputy Commissioner Green.  

 7          It's great to see you again.

 8                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Good to 

 9          see you.  Thank you.

10                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Can I have some 

11          order in the house, please.

12                 Okay, let's begin. 

13                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Good 

14          afternoon, Chairwoman Young, members of the 

15          panel.  I'm Mike Green, head of the State 

16          Division of Criminal Justice Services.  Thank 

17          you for inviting me to appear before you 

18          today.  

19                 Governor Cuomo's proposed budget for 

20          fiscal year 2017-2018 will allow DCJS to 

21          continue to support the criminal justice 

22          system in communities across the state, 

23          support evidence-based programs proven to be 

24          effective and cost-efficient, and develop 


 1          innovative programs that position New York as 

 2          a national leader in effective public safety 

 3          policy.  

 4                 New York continues to experience 

 5          reductions in crime and the prison 

 6          population.  Reported crime reached an 

 7          all-time low in 2015, and we maintain our 

 8          standing as the safest large state in the 

 9          nation.  New York also has the lowest 

10          imprisonment rate of any large state.  

11                 In addition to reintroducing 

12          legislation to raise the age of criminal 

13          responsibility, Governor Cuomo has proposed a 

14          wide range of other reforms to enhance the 

15          fairness and effectiveness of our criminal 

16          justice system and build trust between law 

17          enforcement agencies and communities.  

18                 The Governor is committed to reforming 

19          New York's bail statute.  New York is one of 

20          only four states prohibiting judges from 

21          considering risk to public safety as a factor 

22          when setting bail.  A commonsense amendment 

23          will allow judges to consider that risk when 

24          setting bail or allowing release, and permit 


 1          them to use proven risk assessments to aid in 

 2          pre-trial release decisions.  This will not 

 3          only enhance public safety but also minimize 

 4          the impact of financial status in making 

 5          detention and release decisions.  

 6                 All citizens accused of a crime are 

 7          guaranteed the right to a speedy trial.  

 8          Despite legal and constitutional protections, 

 9          many defendants are currently held in custody 

10          for long periods or, when not in custody, 

11          cases often languish for months or years 

12          before disposition, causing disruption to 

13          defendants and victims alike.  

14                 This year, the Governor will advance 

15          legislation to reduce unnecessary delays and 

16          adjournments in criminal court proceedings.  

17                 Governor Cuomo has advanced 

18          legislation to reform identification 

19          procedures and requiring video recording of 

20          interrogations in serious cases.  The 

21          evidence-based reforms to identification 

22          procedures will bring New York in line with 

23          49 other states that allow properly conducted 

24          photo array identifications to be brought 


 1          into evidence at trial.  Law enforcement 

 2          agencies across the state have embraced video 

 3          recording of interrogations, and DCJS has 

 4          provided more than $3.5 million to local 

 5          agencies to purchase and install the 

 6          recording technology.  The Innocence Project, 

 7          the New York State Bar Association, and the 

 8          District Attorneys' Association support these 

 9          concepts; it's time they became law.  

10                 The Governor has introduced a 

11          sentencing reform proposal to modernize 

12          sentencing laws by eliminating indeterminate 

13          sentences for nonviolent felonies in favor of 

14          determinate sentences, as we have done for 

15          violent felonies, sex felonies and drug 

16          felonies.  It also calls for the elimination 

17          of mandatory prison sentences for second D 

18          and E felons where a judge finds a prison 

19          sentence would be unduly harsh.  

20                 DCJS currently funds and administers 

21          11 street outreach, or SNUG, programs across 

22          the state.  The Governor's budget proposal 

23          increases funding for street outreach work to 

24          nearly $5 million, an increase of 


 1          $1.5 million when compared to last year.  

 2          Street outreach work is an evidence-based 

 3          strategy proven to be an important part of a 

 4          comprehensive effort to address shootings and 

 5          homicides.  

 6                 This 2017-2018 budget proposal will 

 7          allow DCJS to continue supporting our local 

 8          partners.  Our evidence-based initiatives are 

 9          designed to promote fairness, respect and 

10          transparency in the state's criminal justice 

11          system.  But our highest priority is public 

12          safety.  We are confident that with your 

13          continued support, we will continue the 

14          historic reductions in crime we have 

15          achieved, while continuing to reduce the 

16          number of individuals who enter the criminal 

17          justice system.  

18                 Thank you for the opportunity to speak 

19          with you today.  I'm prepared to take your 

20          questions.

21                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, Deputy 

22          Commissioner.  

23                 Our first speaker would be Senator 

24          Patrick Gallivan, who chairs the Crime and 


 1          Corrections Committee in the Senate.

 2                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Thank you, Madam 

 3          Chair.  

 4                 Good afternoon now, Commissioner.

 5                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Good 

 6          afternoon, Senator.

 7                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  I'd like to briefly 

 8          touch on three areas of your testimony, and 

 9          I'll take them right in the order that you 

10          had testified to.

11                 You had testified about reforming the 

12          bail and reducing pretrial detention.  But 

13          specifically, there's a proposal to establish 

14          a bail reform risk assessment tool.  Can you 

15          talk about that?

16                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Part of 

17          the bail reform that the Governor has 

18          discussed is the fact that we are one of four 

19          states that do not allow judges to consider 

20          the concept of the risk that someone proposes 

21          when they stand in front of the judge and the 

22          judge is supposed to make a release decision.

23                 So 46 other states and the federal 

24          government allow the judges to consider that.  


 1          We don't.  

 2                 In connection with that consideration, 

 3          many states -- and the Arnold Foundation has 

 4          done some very good work here -- use risk 

 5          assessment tools that give judges objective 

 6          feedback when they're making those decisions.  

 7          The Arnold tool in particular -- which has 

 8          been used, I think, very effectively, some of 

 9          the initial studies indicate -- looks at the 

10          risk that someone will commit a crime if 

11          they're released, looks at the likelihood 

12          that that person will return to court, and 

13          also looks at the risk that that person will 

14          commit a violent felony.

15                 The most effective risk-assessment 

16          tools in terms of use are ones that are 

17          generated automatically.  If you think about 

18          it, we have about 500,000 arraignments a 

19          year, criminal court arraignments that take 

20          place across the state.  You know, to have a 

21          risk assessment in the hands of every judge 

22          prior to the time they do arraignment, that's 

23          the only practical way to do it.  

24                 So the idea would be to use the good 


 1          work that the Arnold Foundation has done, to 

 2          work with the partners that would be involved 

 3          in this process across the state, and develop 

 4          a New York-specific instrument.  You know, at 

 5          least in my mind, the instrument would be 

 6          one -- all the data points in the Arnold 

 7          instrument are information contained within a 

 8          criminal history database.  And so the 

 9          concept would be right now we get a 

10          fingerprint in, that fingerprint triggers us 

11          sending a criminal history back to the 

12          arraigning court.  There's no reason we 

13          couldn't use that fingerprint to trigger a 

14          risk assessment instrument to be created with 

15          the information from the database, have that 

16          sent back at the same time.

17                 So the budget appropriation is to work 

18          with, you know, whether it's the Arnold 

19          Foundation or others, work with the 

20          stakeholders in the state, develop a risk 

21          assessment instrument so that if we get the 

22          reform we need to the bail statute and we 

23          allow our judges to consider, among other 

24          things, the risk that someone poses, they'll 


 1          have a validated risk-assessment instrument 

 2          to use in connection with that.

 3                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Would the 

 4          Governor's proposal require its use or simply 

 5          provide it as an additional tool?

 6                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  The 

 7          existing budget contains an appropriation for 

 8          DCJS to develop that risk-assessment tool.  

 9          The language of the proposal has not been put 

10          forward yet.  And certainly I would 

11          anticipate that's something that we'd want to 

12          work with all of you on.

13                 In my mind, you know, you at least -- 

14          you know, I don't think you would ever want 

15          to have the result driven strictly off of 

16          that.  Judges always need to be able to use 

17          their experience and their expertise.

18                 On the other hand, I think it makes 

19          sense to at least require a judge to review 

20          and consider the information in the risk 

21          assessment.

22                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Thank you.  

23                 We'll move on to the next part of your 

24          testimony.  You talked about ensuring the 


 1          right to a speedy trial.  I know that the 

 2          Governor has called to do something about 

 3          this.  We've seen some news accounts.  But I 

 4          haven't seen any data that points to this 

 5          being a problem.  

 6                 Now, we do have anecdotal information 

 7          out there about some specific cases that 

 8          clearly went on too long.  My question is, do 

 9          you have data that's available to support the 

10          proposal --

11                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I don't 

12          have it in front of me, but just yesterday I 

13          was reviewing data that was published in news 

14          reports looking at the average length of time 

15          it takes to get a felony case to disposition 

16          in New York City.  And again, I don't have it 

17          at my fingertips, but it was bordering on I 

18          believe two years -- this is average time -- 

19          two years in the Bronx, I think it was 15 

20          months in Manhattan, and the others were some 

21          time in between there.

22                 But if you think about the average 

23          time is two years, in some cases they're 

24          being resolved quickly by pleas.  That means 


 1          the cases on the other hand are going from 

 2          three to five years before people get their 

 3          cases disposed.  And this data was in 

 4          connection with a newspaper article about a 

 5          young man who at 17 years old was arrested, 

 6          bail was set, he couldn't afford the bail, he 

 7          sat in Rikers.  He sat in Rikers for five 

 8          years --

 9                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  I am familiar with 

10          that case.

11                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  -- until 

12          his case was dismissed.  

13                 So to me, whether you have one person 

14          or a thousand people, if that one person was 

15          my son, one case, for me, is too many.  We 

16          shouldn't have people sitting for five years 

17          waiting for their case to go to trial, being 

18          held on bail.

19                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Understood.  Let's 

20          just move just a touch past that.  

21                 The data that you have, where you have 

22          that two-year wait, does that indicate what 

23          caused the wait?  I mean, was it -- was the 

24          delay on the part of the people of the State 


 1          of New York, or was it because of defense 

 2          motions?  All I'm asking, can you provide 

 3          that data to us, what you have?  I know 

 4          you're not going to able to recite all of 

 5          it --

 6                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Sure.  

 7          DCJS puts out felony case processing reports.  

 8          They're published as part of our open data.  

 9          But I can certainly get you that information.  

10                 But you're right, it doesn't -- you 

11          know, that's data that just looks at how much 

12          time.  It doesn't drill into each case.  And 

13          I think we both know from our experience that 

14          all of those things you listed in various 

15          cases cause delay.  And I think the idea 

16          here, at least from our perspective, is not 

17          to point the finger at anyone and say it's 

18          your fault, but to say how can we bring 

19          everybody together and come up with a 

20          solution.  Whoever's fault it is, whatever 

21          the reasons are, you know, we've got to be 

22          better than this.

23                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Well, my reason to 

24          want the data to look at it is to see is 


 1          there a problem and try to identify what the 

 2          problem is.  

 3                 Certainly there's some individual 

 4          cases that you can highlight that are 

 5          problematic.  But is it systemic.  And that's 

 6          why I'm asking for the data.  So if you can 

 7          provide it -- 

 8                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  We'll 

 9          get you the data.

10                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  -- appreciate that.

11                 The final area has to do with your 

12          testimony regarding the video recording of 

13          interrogations and identification procedures.  

14          You testified about the Innocence Project, 

15          State Bar Association, DAs Association 

16          supporting the concept of making some of 

17          these changes.  And I am familiar with some 

18          of those discussions that went on.

19                 My understanding, if I recall 

20          correctly, they were close and agreed -- all 

21          parties had agreed to some legislation.  And 

22          I think some of the police groups as well --

23                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  You 

24          passed that, the Senate passed the 


 1          legislation I believe two years ago.

 2                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Yeah.  My 

 3          understanding now is -- you make mention of 

 4          the Innocence Project, and I've been told 

 5          that they essentially backed away from an 

 6          agreement.  Do you know if that's true or not 

 7          true?

 8                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  In 

 9          conversations that my office has had with 

10          them in the last month or two, I do not 

11          believe they backed away from it.  I believe 

12          they still support it.  I've talked to the 

13          chiefs, who supported it.  I've talked to the 

14          sheriffs, who supported it, the DAs, who 

15          supported it.  So I think there's agreement 

16          on these concepts.

17                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  And finally, along 

18          the same topic lines, with the notion that 

19          DCJS will create a protocol for the police 

20          departments to administrator the blind 

21          identification, it's potentially cumbersome 

22          for the smaller departments.  Have you taken 

23          that into consideration?  And how will you 

24          deal with that?  


 1                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  

 2          Actually, we worked with the Municipal Police 

 3          Training Council.  And Sheriff Spike from 

 4          Yates County is the chair of that, so I think 

 5          certainly he clearly brings that smaller 

 6          department perspective to the discussion.  

 7                 And the Municipal Police Training 

 8          Council about a year ago actually came out 

 9          with a model policy that I think -- you know, 

10          and we got input from the Innocence Project 

11          in developing that model policy, we tried to 

12          bring all the stakeholders together.  So I 

13          think the blueprint for that protocol is 

14          already there.  

15                 And I actually think that this 

16          proposal will help the smaller departments, 

17          because right now they do a photo array and 

18          that cannot get into evidence at trial.  If 

19          they want something that can get into 

20          evidence at trial, they actually have to do a 

21          lineup.  And for a small department to try 

22          and pull together a lineup, as you know, is 

23          almost impossible.  

24                 This legislation will give them a way 


 1          to conduct a photo-array identification 

 2          procedure, which they have the ability to do, 

 3          in a way that will allow the results of that 

 4          to be admissible at trial.

 5                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Thank you, 

 6          Commissioner.

 7                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Thank 

 8          you, Senator, and appreciate the assistance.

 9                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  And we will of 

10          course follow up.

11                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Thank 

12          you.  

13                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

14                 Chairman Lentol.

15                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  Thank you, 

16          Senator.  

17                 Thank you, Commissioner Green.  I'm 

18          sorry I stepped out and missed your comments, 

19          but I read them, and I'm glad you presented 

20          short remarks.

21                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  It's 

22          good to see you again too.

23                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  The microphone is 

24          on.  Can you hear me now?


 1                 In any event, Commissioner, as you 

 2          know, New York ranks second in the nation in 

 3          the number of persons exonerated of crimes 

 4          for which they have been wrongfully 

 5          convicted.  And studies have shown that false 

 6          confessions and eyewitness misidentifications 

 7          are among the leading cause of that.

 8                 So two reforms that really have proven 

 9          effective are recording of interrogations, 

10          which I'm glad that you've put in the budget, 

11          that the Governor has put in the budget, and 

12          the modernization of eyewitness 

13          identification procedures that incorporate 

14          advances in eyewitness memory science.

15                 So in any event, as you may know, the 

16          Innocence Project -- although the Innocence 

17          Project is in support of this proposal, we 

18          have received strong opposition from certain 

19          aspects of the language in the bill from many 

20          in the defense community.  Therefore, my 

21          question really is simply this.  Is the 

22          Executive willing to be flexible in 

23          discussing this proposal with us, the details 

24          of this proposal, in order to address those 


 1          concerns that we and others have expressed?

 2                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I 

 3          believe that the Executive would always be 

 4          willing to listen and certainly welcome any 

 5          input or feedback as to these proposals.  

 6                 I think the thing to keep in mind, 

 7          though, you know, my experience is anytime 

 8          you put a proposal out, there's such a broad 

 9          spectrum of constituencies that -- you know, 

10          I've heard a lot of feedback from one end, 

11          you know, indicating it goes too far.  I hear 

12          feedback from the other end indicating it 

13          doesn't go far enough.  

14                 And for me, the reality is we need to 

15          do something here.  We can't continue to be 

16          the only state in the country that doesn't 

17          allow what the science says is the best 

18          identification to be heard by a jury.  But 

19          instead we let someone walk into court a year 

20          and a half, two, three, four years later and 

21          pick out the person at the defense table and 

22          say that's the person who did it.  

23                 You know, so I hear what you're 

24          saying.  And yes, I think it's great that we 


 1          talk about it.  But at the end of the day, I 

 2          think this is the year that we really need to 

 3          get something done.

 4                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  And I agree.  And 

 5          the people want us to do something, and I 

 6          understand that.  And I've been around long 

 7          enough that what happens is we don't know 

 8          whether or not if we do something that really 

 9          doesn't go far enough, whether that's the end 

10          or whether it's good to take it and hope that 

11          you got your foot in the door and you can get 

12          more later.  And so you always have to 

13          wrestle with that proposition when it comes 

14          to legislation.

15                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  You 

16          know, I know these are issues that you've 

17          been focused on for some time and certainly 

18          appreciate your concern.

19                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  Thank you.  

20                 And I'm a little concerned about the 

21          pretrial detention and reform proposal, 

22          simply because I've read a lot about these 

23          risk-assessment certificates or whatever we 

24          call them.  I remember when we went to the 


 1          Sentencing Commission together, we talked a 

 2          lot about risk assessments.  And I saw 

 3          articles that said that these were racially 

 4          problematic, that they were discriminatory, 

 5          and I wondered if you could comment on that.

 6                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I guess 

 7          two things -- well, three.  One, I think it's 

 8          a very valid concern.  

 9                 Secondly, I think if you are going to 

10          use any risk-assessment instrument, it would 

11          need to be validated, and part of that 

12          validation would have to be taking that 

13          instrument and running it against a 

14          historical segment of cases from the DCJS 

15          criminal history database and the OCA 

16          information with regard to bail, to look at 

17          what impact that instrument would have had in 

18          those cases and also to look at racial 

19          disparity issues.  

20                 And the last thing I'll say is, you 

21          know, while I'm aware of some of the studies 

22          with other instruments that you referred to, 

23          I've also read literature from scientists who 

24          have studied this issue who will tell you 


 1          that the greatest racial disparity comes from 

 2          unbridled discretion.  And that when you have 

 3          unbridled discretion in decisionmakers, you 

 4          get your greatest racial disparity.

 5                 So I think there is a very valid 

 6          argument from the science that if you have an 

 7          objective, validated risk-assessment 

 8          instrument that is validated for racial 

 9          disparity issues, you will reduce racial 

10          disparity.

11                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  Okay.  Now, some 

12          of my colleagues in Brooklyn who received 

13          SNUG funding last year were put into an RFP 

14          process, the way I understand it, or there 

15          was an RFP process regarding SNUG funding?  

16                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  No, 

17          we -- last year there was a -- and the exact 

18          amount escapes me right now, but I think it 

19          was roughly a million dollars added -- 

20          actually, there was $600,000 that went to 

21          Brooklyn, there was $300,000 that went to 

22          Manhattan, $300,000 that went to Queens, and 

23          $150,000 that went to Staten Island.  

24                 That money was added by the 


 1          Legislature last year that went to New York 

 2          City.  And we did not do an RFP, we gave that 

 3          money to the New York City Department of 

 4          Health.  And the reason is the New York City 

 5          Department of Health is already running 

 6          street outreach programs in those boroughs, 

 7          and we did not feel it was appropriate to 

 8          have competing street outreach programs.

 9                 So the Bronx, there's $600,000 that 

10          goes to Jacobi, and that was a program that 

11          was DCJS-supported.  But then there was this 

12          additional pot of money that went to the 

13          boroughs, and that was not by RFP.  We gave 

14          the money to the New York City Department of 

15          Health for them to use to augment their 

16          existing programs, because we didn't want to 

17          have competing programs.

18                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  So if I 

19          understand you correctly -- well, let me not 

20          try to understand you correctly.  Are we in 

21          Brooklyn going to get SNUG money this year?  

22                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  From 

23          last year's budget, there was $600,000 for 

24          Brooklyn.  And it's my understanding that 


 1          right now we're in the process of finalizing 

 2          the contract with the New York City 

 3          Department of Health for that money to go to 

 4          them.

 5                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  Okay.  How much 

 6          time do I have?  

 7                 Lastly, you know, we in the Assembly 

 8          have a long history of supporting 

 9          Alternatives to incarceration, and they've 

10          been really critical for the state's success 

11          in reducing crime, reducing the prison 

12          population, and saving taxpayers many 

13          millions of dollars.  Unfortunately, the DCJS 

14          budget includes across-the-board cuts.  And 

15          how will you ensure that these programs can 

16          continue to operate and provide the vital 

17          services that criminal justice systems depend 

18          on to reduce recidivism and improve reentry 

19          outcomes?  

20                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Again, I 

21          appreciate the question.  The budget does 

22          include across-the-board cuts to many of our 

23          local assistance programs of about 

24          5.5 percent, and the ATI -- many of the ATI 


 1          funding streams fall into that.

 2                 I'm very proud of the work together 

 3          that we've done in this area.  You know, 

 4          we've increased the funding year after year 

 5          for these programs.  I think we're at about 

 6          $25 million now.  The Pew Foundation just 

 7          recently put out a report recognizing the 

 8          fact that New York is the only state in the 

 9          country where more than half of our criminal 

10          justice ATI funds go to support 

11          evidence-based programs that are proven to be 

12          effective in getting results for the 

13          population.  

14                 So I think we do great work here.  I 

15          think that the funding has increased 

16          tremendously over the past five or six years.  

17          Not only has it increased, but with your help 

18          we've established a dedicated consistent 

19          funding stream which never existed before.  

20          In the past, these programs were founded, you 

21          know, at one point through ARRA funding and 

22          through other streams that weren't dedicated 

23          or established funds.  

24                 So I think financially we're in a much 


 1          better position than we were before.  You 

 2          know, certainly the cut is not ideal.  But in 

 3          this budget climate, I think it was a 

 4          relatively small cut.  And we will look at 

 5          the programs, we'll look at the data, and 

 6          we'll try to administer those cuts in a way 

 7          that minimizes the harm that they would do.  

 8                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  Thank you.  

 9                 My office has recently received a lot 

10          of complaints from constituents throughout 

11          the state about how long it takes for them to 

12          get a copy of their own criminal histories 

13          from your division.  Many individuals who 

14          have had prior arrests or convictions will 

15          request their own criminal record to ensure 

16          that it is accurate, and they will often make 

17          requests before applying for employment.  

18          However, we have heard that it takes almost 

19          three months or more for these requests to be 

20          fulfilled.  Is it true that it takes that 

21          long?  And if so, how can it be remedied?  

22                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I don't 

23          believe it does.  And I can tell we 

24          recently -- the largest unit in my office was 


 1          the unit that dealt with fingerprints and 

 2          criminal histories.  We recently split that 

 3          unit in half and split the recordkeeping 

 4          function out.  We're very focused on the 

 5          accuracy of our records.  I think we do a 

 6          better job than anyone else in the country, 

 7          but we're very focused on continuing to 

 8          improve it.  

 9                 What I'd ask you to do is if you have 

10          complaints like that, please send them 

11          directly to me and I will make sure we 

12          address them, because it shouldn't take that 

13          much time to get a record.

14                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  Thank you.  My 

15          time is up, so I'll call on Assemblywoman -- 

16          the Senate goes, I'm sorry.

17                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Right, Senate goes.  

18                 So thank you, Deputy Commissioner.  

19          And I had a few follow-up questions.  

20                 The Executive proposes a $21 million 

21          reduction in various criminal justice 

22          programs, and you started to address that 

23          with Assemblyman Lentol.  And I share his 

24          concerns about these reductions.  And I'm not 


 1          sure I heard the rationale behind making 

 2          these changes, because these are very 

 3          important programs that a lot of New Yorkers 

 4          need to be safe.

 5                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  In terms 

 6          of the rationale, I'm not sure I'm the best 

 7          person to answer that from an overall 

 8          New York State budget perspective.  You know, 

 9          I know there has been conversation about the 

10          difficult budget year and about challenges on 

11          the revenue side.

12                 You know, from the criminal justice 

13          perspective, the largest cuts are basically 

14          5.5 percent cuts.  Several programs were 

15          spared those cuts.  You know, so in a number 

16          of our program areas in a very difficult 

17          budget year, we were able to stay flat.  

18          Other programs, like the SNUG program, we 

19          actually had a $1.5 million increase in 

20          funding for street outreach work this year in 

21          the budget.  And then in some other areas, as 

22          you indicated, there were relatively small 

23          cuts, about 5.5 percent.  I think the largest 

24          cut was the cut with regard to the 


 1          Westchester policing funding.

 2                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  I was just going to 

 3          ask you about that.

 4                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  You 

 5          know, and that cut, if you look at the 

 6          history of that money, that money was put 

 7          into the budget in either the '94 or '95 

 8          budget, and it was the result of an agreement 

 9          to eliminate tolls on certain roads in 

10          Westchester.  And in exchange for eliminating 

11          the tolls, it's my understanding there was a 

12          commitment that there would be decreasing 

13          funding from that year through the 2000-2001 

14          budget year, and the money would end in the 

15          2000-2001 budget year.

16                 In spite of that, this 

17          appropriation -- with the exception of one 

18          year when Governor Paterson vetoed it, I 

19          believe -- has been carried either by the 

20          Executive or the Legislature year after year.  

21          So we're now about 15 years past the date 

22          that funding was supposed to sunset, and 

23          we're still carrying it.  There's no county 

24          in the state where we provide this type of 


 1          money for that, and the justification for it 

 2          has long since passed.  

 3                 So again, if you look at the pot of 

 4          money available for criminal justice work, 

 5          you know, and say should we use it to 

 6          continue to fund something that was supposed 

 7          to expire 15 years ago or should we use it to 

 8          give to probation departments and district 

 9          attorneys and ATI programs -- you know, I 

10          think the decision that's made in this budget 

11          to put it toward ATI programs and probation 

12          departments and police departments and 

13          prosecutors was the right decision.

14                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  I'm 

15          asking these questions on behalf of my 

16          colleague Senator Terrence Murphy, who 

17          represents Westchester County, and he's 

18          chairing an Investigations hearing right now, 

19          so he regrets that he could not be here.  

20                 But it's a $2.3 million cut for this 

21          county policing program.  So who will assume 

22          the costs of the patrol, and will it be the 

23          State Police?  

24                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I 


 1          believe that the roads will be patrolled in 

 2          the same way every other road in Westchester 

 3          is patrolled.  And yes, the State Police 

 4          patrol some of the roads, and I believe they 

 5          will continue.  I think it would probably be 

 6          more appropriate to ask the superintendent 

 7          that, for a definitive answer.  You know, and 

 8          I believe as they do with the other roads in 

 9          Westchester, the police in Westchester will 

10          patrol as well.

11                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

12                 One area of concern that we all care 

13          about is the Rape Crisis Centers funding.  

14          And the Executive maintains a million dollars 

15          in the Department of Health and $2.8 million 

16          in the Office of Victim Services.  However, 

17          the division's funding for Rape Crisis 

18          Centers is reduced from $2.7 million to 

19          $2.5 million, which is a $147,000 decrease 

20          from this past year's level.  So what is the 

21          rationale behind that reduction?

22                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  When the 

23          funding is given out, the three pots of money 

24          are actually combined.  And the money from 


 1          the Office of Victim Services this year will 

 2          more than make up for that funding.  So at 

 3          the end of the day, we actually are going to 

 4          have -- even though there's a relatively 

 5          small cut, as you indicated, in the DCJS 

 6          portion of the money, when you look at the 

 7          pot that's made up from the three agencies, 

 8          when it actually comes time to administer 

 9          that money, we will have more money in that 

10          fund to administrator than we had last year 

11          because the OVS share is increasing.

12                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Has the funding 

13          allocation of $2.7 million been awarded from 

14          this past year?  Has that money gone out?

15                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I 

16          believe it has, yes.

17                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Okay, we'll check 

18          on that.

19                 The Executive Budget includes funding 

20          for two new items, and one is $300,000 for 

21          the development and creation of a bail reform 

22          risk assessment tool, and $100,000 for 

23          research and development to ensure a 

24          citizen's right to a speedy trial, as we 


 1          discussed previously.  However, the Executive 

 2          Budget does not include any language to go 

 3          along with that.  

 4                 So can you provide us with the details 

 5          on the funding and how the agency plans to 

 6          administer it?

 7                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Yes.  

 8          The $300,000 was part of the conversation I 

 9          was having with Senator Gallivan, and that is 

10          specifically for the purpose of developing a 

11          risk-assessment instrument.  

12                 The risk-assessment instruments look 

13          at the risk of reoffending, among other 

14          things; also the risk of returning to court, 

15          the risk of reoffending with a violent 

16          felony.

17                 Before they can actually be used, 

18          there obviously needs to be a change to our 

19          statutory language to allow our judges to 

20          consider that risk.

21                 So the idea is that, you know, the 

22          Executive, the Legislature, obviously 

23          relevant stakeholders, need to weigh in.  And 

24          the Executive is going to introduce a bill 


 1          with language, but we want to get input from 

 2          relevant stakeholders before we come out with 

 3          that language.

 4                 The same in the speedy trial areas.  

 5          We discussed, you know, this isn't to point 

 6          the finger at anybody.  There's a lot of 

 7          different people involved in the system.  The 

 8          delay comes from a lot of different places.  

 9          And the $100,000 appropriation is for DCJS 

10          and the Office of Court Administration to 

11          work together to bring all of the 

12          stakeholders together and come up with both 

13          legislative solutions and administrative 

14          solutions.  

15                 So there will be legislation 

16          forthcoming, but we want to work with all of 

17          the relevant stakeholders to make sure that 

18          that legislation reflects the true challenges 

19          that exist and has, you know, real solutions.

20                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  We're firm 

21          believers in getting stakeholder input.  And 

22          it makes sense to get this information from 

23          people on the front lines who have to deal 

24          with this every day.  But the question is on 


 1          the timing.  So we have the clock ticking, we 

 2          have a budget that is due on April 1st.  And 

 3          I'm glad that you're going to convene 

 4          stakeholders, but what is the time schedule 

 5          for that?  Because it would be helpful to 

 6          have that proposed legislation, what the 

 7          details are, prior to the budget being passed 

 8          so if there are any changes that need to be 

 9          made to the funding amount or to the 

10          language, the Legislature would have the 

11          opportunity to do so in the appropriate time 

12          period.

13                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I think 

14          that's the reason they were not put in the 

15          budget as Article VII bills.  Rather, the 

16          intention is to introduce them as program 

17          bills later.  Because I think given the short 

18          time frame, I don't think it's reasonable to 

19          say that, you know, in the next four weeks 

20          that can be done.

21                 So I think the idea is that by doing 

22          it as a program bill, there will be more time 

23          to do that, do it in a more thoughtful way.  

24          And if need be, whether it's the bail piece 


 1          or whether it's the speedy trial piece, 

 2          effective dates could be put into those bills 

 3          so that if there are funding issues, they can 

 4          be addressed in subsequent budget years.

 5                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you for that.  

 6                 Would we see a program bill before the 

 7          end of session?

 8                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  That's 

 9          our goal, yes.

10                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  It's your goal, but 

11          do you think that you can tell us today that 

12          we will see one?  

13                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I'm not 

14          great at predicting the future, but certainly 

15          our goal is that, and we're going to work 

16          toward it.

17                 You know, as you know, in any process 

18          where you engage, as I talked about, the 

19          spectrum of stakeholders that we have in the 

20          criminal justice system, and trying to make 

21          sure that you get input and build 

22          consensus -- you know, we'll work at it and 

23          we'll do it as quickly as possible in a way 

24          that we think will produce the best result 


 1          possible.  And we're certainly aiming to get 

 2          a program bill before the end of session.

 3                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you very 

 4          much, Deputy Commissioner.  And I know that 

 5          the Legislature in general feels that it's 

 6          helpful to have the information beforehand 

 7          rather than having these open-ended questions 

 8          or pools of money out there that are 

 9          undefined.  So the more that you can do to 

10          give us that information, the better.

11                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Thank 

12          you.

13                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

14                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Next, Crystal 

15          Peoples-Stokes.

16                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Thank 

17          you so much, sir, for being here today.  

18                 Just a couple of questions.  I 

19          listened to Mr. Lentol mention that we are 

20          one of the states in the country that has the 

21          highest rates of incarcerating people who 

22          weren't guilty.  That's astounding for the 

23          Empire State.  So it's impressive that the 

24          Governor has put in his proposed budget some 


 1          things to deal with that.  

 2                 And so I'm wondering, how did you 

 3          decide on which crimes would be videoed and 

 4          which would not be videoed?

 5                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  First of 

 6          all, just to correct that, I believe what he 

 7          said is that we've had more exonerations.  I 

 8          don't know that it necessary follows that we 

 9          have incarcerated people who aren't guilty.  

10          We may just be better at rooting those cases 

11          out than others as well.  So I think it's an 

12          important distinction.

13                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Okay, 

14          I'll take that.

15                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  But 

16          secondly, the crimes in this bill that would 

17          be covered, it would cover murders, it would 

18          cover -- basically A felonies that are not 

19          drug crimes.  So things like murder and 

20          kidnapping that are A felonies.  

21                 It would cover B violent felonies that 

22          fall under Article 125 or 130.  So things 

23          like manslaughter in the first degree, rape 

24          in the first degree.  


 1                 And then there's two crimes under 

 2          Section 130.90, sex crimes.  But again, 

 3          they're serious -- B violent felony or above.  

 4          I think those ones actually may be A 

 5          felonies.

 6                 So it's the type of crimes that 

 7          traditionally people who get convicted get 

 8          sentenced to long period of times in prison.  

 9          They're the type of cases where we've had the 

10          exonerations come from.  And I think that 

11          group of cases came from a lot of discussion 

12          and compromise that took place both I think 

13          on the Justice Task Force, the Sentencing 

14          Commission, and in discussions between the 

15          Innocence Project, district attorneys, trying 

16          to balance practical concerns that police 

17          departments had about their ability to do it 

18          with fairness concerns about the need to do 

19          it.

20                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Okay, I 

21          think I heard it mentioned a few times here, 

22          and I am pretty sure it's in the Governor's 

23          budget, that there are going to be some 

24          across-the-board reductions in criminal 


 1          justice programs, with the exclusion of SNUG; 

 2          is that right?

 3                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  SNUG 

 4          actually got a $1.5 million increase in the 

 5          proposed budget.

 6                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Okay, 

 7          so SNUG added.  

 8                 For those programs that are going to 

 9          be cut, is there any recommendations for what 

10          could they be replaced with?

11                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  There's 

12          no -- other than the Westchester policing 

13          program, there's no funding stream that's cut 

14          completely.  Generally the cuts are about 

15          5.5 percent.  And you know, we will look at 

16          the data, we'll look at the programs, and 

17          we'll try and make the cuts in those areas in 

18          a way that will have the smallest possible 

19          impact.  But there's no programs that would 

20          be eliminated.

21                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Okay.  

22          As it relates to SNUG, there is a SNUG 

23          initiative in Buffalo.  I have to say and, 

24          you know, commend the administration because 


 1          it works very well.  Their staff lines were 

 2          reclassified by the State Insurance Fund.  

 3          Are you familiar with that issue?  

 4                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Yes.  

 5          I'm very familiar with the program.  I 

 6          actually visited the program in July and 

 7          spent time with all the outreach workers.  

 8          And you know, they do phenomenal work.  I'm 

 9          aware of the issue that you had.  I forwarded 

10          it to the deputy secretary's office so they 

11          could make the Governor's office aware of it.


13          perhaps, then, you were able to help them 

14          figure out how to get reclassified again back 

15          to their original classification.  Because as 

16          you know, the new classification is literally 

17          costing them $45,000, which they don't have 

18          resources to provide for that.  They have 

19          resources to provide the services to the 

20          community.  So --

21                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  

22          Unfortunately, the insurance questions are 

23          far outside my area of expertise.  I think 

24          I'm fairly good with criminal justice, but 


 1          when to comes to insurance -- you know, 

 2          obviously that classification issue that 

 3          they're going through is something that is 

 4          outside my area of control.  So I did forward 

 5          it to the deputy secretary's office, you 

 6          know, and I know they're looking into it.

 7                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Fair 

 8          enough.  But could you tell me if the other 

 9          SNUG programs throughout the state have their 

10          employees classified as detectives even 

11          though they're mentors?

12                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  This is 

13          the only program that I'm aware of that's had 

14          that issue.

15                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Thank 

16          you.  I think that's it, sir.  Thank you very 

17          much.

18                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Thank 

19          you.  

20                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

21                 Senator Comrie.

22                 SENATOR COMRIE:  Thank you, Madam 

23          Chair.  

24                 I wanted to follow up on the SNUG 


 1          program.  Last year we got Queens back in the 

 2          budget for $300,000 for SNUG, but I haven't 

 3          gotten any information from your office on 

 4          where that went to.  I heard in your previous 

 5          testimony that it all went to the New York 

 6          City Department of Health for each borough, 

 7          but I haven't gotten any outreach from any 

 8          groups in Queens or how it was used.  

 9                 I would like to get some details on 

10          it.  And I would also -- I have outreached to 

11          your office about two of the original 

12          programs that were in SNUG and had a 

13          successful run in SNUG but they were now 

14          deemed noncompliant.  And I really wanted to 

15          be able to sit with someone from your office 

16          to try to figure that out.  To my chagrin, 

17          that hasn't happened.  So I would hope that I 

18          get a promise from you today that your office 

19          can sit down with my office so that I can at 

20          least find out why these groups can't get to 

21          be compliant and, number two, where is this 

22          money being spent in Queens now?

23                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  We'd be 

24          happy to sit down with you.  I'll make sure 


 1          someone arranges that.

 2                 In terms of the money, as I indicated, 

 3          the Department of Health is running a street 

 4          outreach program in Queens right now.  We do 

 5          not want to be in a situation where we have 

 6          competing street outreach programs.  When you 

 7          have a shooting and you've got two different 

 8          groups of street outreach workers, you know, 

 9          racing to respond and compete with each other 

10          for those cases, I think it's a very 

11          dangerous model and a very inefficient model.  

12                 So for that reason, where the 

13          Department of Health had established 

14          programs, we made the decision to give the 

15          funding to the Department of Health for them 

16          to use to support the existing street 

17          outreach programs they have.  And that's 

18          what's happening in Queens.  We're in the 

19          process of negotiating a contract with them 

20          now.  But we'd be happy to meet with you on 

21          it.

22                 SENATOR COMRIE:  With all due respect, 

23          Commissioner, I don't have any visual of that 

24          happening in Queens at all.  I don't know 


 1          what programs they may and may not be 

 2          running.  I appreciate the noncompete idea 

 3          that you have, but on the ground I don't see 

 4          any evidence of it.  So I would really like 

 5          to know what programs are being done.  

 6                 Also, you know, to work, try to get 

 7          programs that are locally based that have 

 8          some expertise and are actually in the -- 

 9          that started the program, I think it's only 

10          appropriate that we give them an opportunity 

11          to find out what they could do better, so 

12          that they could qualify to at least do 

13          training for the programs for the new people 

14          that are coming in from the Department of 

15          Health, because there are no existing 

16          programs in the community that I know that 

17          they're working with.  

18                 So I would hope that that can get 

19          resolved quickly so that at least I can 

20          inform my community of what programs are 

21          being utilized in Queens.

22                 Secondly, also, the Governor announced 

23          a $10 million fund to do reentry services 

24          throughout New York.  But there's no county 


 1          reentry task force program in Queens.  Could 

 2          you explain to me why there's not one in 

 3          Queens and there's one in every other borough 

 4          but not the Governor's home borough?  

 5                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  

 6          Actually, there is a reentry task force in 

 7          Queens.  With the money in last year's 

 8          budget, a -- there's 19 around the state, 

 9          there was 19 around the state.  And with the 

10          money in last year's budget that was added, a 

11          20th task force was started in Queens.  So 

12          that's in the process of being stood up.  

13                 And again, you know, we'd be happy to 

14          meet with you and give the information on the 

15          task force as well.

16                 SENATOR COMRIE:  Okay.  Because I 

17          pulled some information on a list of 

18          available task forces in Queens, and it's not 

19          on the list, so --

20                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  It's the 

21          newest one.

22                 SENATOR COMRIE:  Well, I'd like to 

23          know where that is also and how I could link 

24          up from them and how I can actually have some 


 1          people that want to be on the task force as 

 2          board members to participate as well.  

 3                 Have those boards been put together 

 4          yet?

 5                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I don't 

 6          know exactly where they are in terms of 

 7          putting the board together, but I know 

 8          they've had, you know, at least preliminary 

 9          meetings with the task force.  And as I said, 

10          we can follow up and I'll get you information 

11          on who's involved.  I know the district 

12          attorney's office is involved, I know there's 

13          others involved.  And we'll get you that 

14          information.

15                 SENATOR COMRIE:  Okay.  I have people 

16          that would like to volunteer to serve in a 

17          volunteer capacity to try to be helpful as 

18          well.  

19                 As you may know, the precincts that 

20          are in my district are some of the highest 

21          gun violence precincts in the borough -- in 

22          the city, actually.  And I really want to 

23          make sure that we can do everything, working 

24          together, to make that happen.  


 1                 And not knowing of any groups that are 

 2          working on SNUG, even when we allocated and 

 3          pushed to get that extra $300,000 in the 

 4          budget, concerns me.  So I would really like 

 5          to work with your office in a cooperative way 

 6          to make sure that that's taken care of and 

 7          those monies and resources are being spent in 

 8          a way that can be helpful.

 9                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  We will 

10          definitely reach out to you.  Thank you.

11                 SENATOR COMRIE:  Thank you.  

12                 Thank you, Madam Chair.

13                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

14                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Assemblyman Graf.

15                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Hi, how are you?

16                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Good.  

17          How are you?  

18                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Good.

19                 Couple of questions.  When we're 

20          looking at speedy trial, okay, what we had, 

21          we had the administrative judge come before 

22          us, and they're looking at hiring 200 new 

23          employees, court officers and court 

24          personnel.  And what we're being told from 


 1          three years ago, they're down 1700.  So 

 2          what's happening is the congestion in the 

 3          court, right, and the lack of court personnel 

 4          are making it where the court is actually 

 5          closing down because they can't get prisoners 

 6          to come up, right, or else they'll only have 

 7          one court officer in the courtroom and it's 

 8          unsafe, they have to close down.  And if you 

 9          look in the back, the paperwork, it's so 

10          piled up because they don't have the clerks 

11          to prepare it.

12                 So one of the biggest things with 

13          30/30 that we run into with speedy trial is, 

14          you know, court time, court congestion.  

15          Right?  And they don't have the employees in 

16          order to speed this up.

17                 So one of the things I'd ask is that 

18          when you go back to the Governor, you say, 

19          Look, we're at a point right now where we're 

20          stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime.  

21          Right?  The process is getting so slowed down 

22          right now, right, that it's actually costing 

23          us more money than it would if we hired the 

24          appropriate number of people.


 1                 So that's one thing, especially if you 

 2          want to deal with the issues of right to a 

 3          speedy trial, that has to be dealt with right 

 4          now.  We've cut court staff to the bone.  So, 

 5          I mean, that's one thing you have to look at.  

 6          And if you don't fix that, you're not going 

 7          to fix this.  All right?  

 8                 The other thing is you said we haven't 

 9          cut any programs.  However, according to the 

10          information that I have, right, there's 

11          elimination of local criminal justice 

12          programs.  And one would be that we're 

13          eliminating the crime control and prevention 

14          programs by $2.8 million.  Then we have the 

15          defendant screening services locally by 

16          $1 million that we used to fund.  Domestic 

17          violence programs locally, we're cutting 

18          $1.6 million.  And payments to counties for 

19          costs associated with legal assistance for 

20          indigent parolees, we're cutting that by 

21          $600,000.  

22                 So we may not have cut, on the state 

23          level, programs we're doing, but we're 

24          cutting funding from local programs.  Is that 


 1          true?  

 2                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I'd have 

 3          to see the list you're referring to.  It 

 4          sounds like you may be referring to items 

 5          that were legislative adds in previous years.

 6                 What I was referring to is programs 

 7          that were funded under the Executive Budget 

 8          from last year, DCJS-funded programs.  The 

 9          only one of those that I'm aware of that's 

10          being eliminated is the Westchester Special 

11          Police funds.  The rest of them -- you know, 

12          SNUG increased, many of them were held 

13          harmless, some of them had a roughly 

14          5.5 percent decrease.  

15                 But I'm not aware of any of the 

16          Executive-funded programs being cut out.

17                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  If you could check 

18          on that.  We could check with our Ways and 

19          Means, they'll give you a list.  Okay?  

20                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Okay, we 

21          will.

22                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  And the last thing 

23          is I keep hearing something about the 

24          Governor with the bail.  And whether this is 


 1          true or not, you can clarify it for me.  I'm 

 2          being told that the Governor wants the 

 3          counties to put up pots of money so that they 

 4          can pay bail for certain people.  Is that 

 5          true?

 6                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  No, I 

 7          have not heard any proposal from the 

 8          Executive.  I think I believe you're 

 9          referring to a concept similar to something 

10          done in the Bronx with the Bronx defender, 

11          where there's basically a community fund, as 

12          I understand it, to post bail in some cases.

13                 I have not heard of any conversation 

14          about an Executive proposal along those 

15          lines.

16                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Okay.  All right, 

17          thank you very much.

18                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Thank 

19          you.

20                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

21                 Senator Croci.

22                 SENATOR CROCI:  Thank you, Madam 

23          Chair.  

24                 Thank you, Commissioner, for your 


 1          appearance here today.  

 2                 I was struck by one of the phrases you 

 3          used in your testimony.  It regarded a 

 4          different subject, certainly, but you said 

 5          unbridled discretion in decision-making, 

 6          which for many of us here certainly describes 

 7          this document, the Executive Budget.  

 8                 But I'm looking at a specific section 

 9          of the budget in which the Governor seeks to 

10          require that a 16- or 17-year-old who brings 

11          a gun to school, in violation of the Gun-Free 

12          Schools Act, his own act, would be 

13          mandatorily referred to a juvenile 

14          proceeding.  Meaning parents, teachers, other 

15          children, students in that school, would not 

16          know that that individual ever brought a 

17          weapon to school.

18                 Can you tell me whether or not you 

19          believe that this is the right message to 

20          send?  And whether or not 16- or 17-year-olds 

21          who bring a weapon to school should be held 

22          to a juvenile proceeding, which would then 

23          prevent the public from knowing?

24                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I don't 


 1          read that the same way you do.  While that 

 2          certainly, as I read it, provides a reporting 

 3          mechanism, I don't read anything in that that 

 4          gives that person immunity from prosecution 

 5          or prevents them from being prosecuted.  

 6                 If a 16- or 17-year-old, under current 

 7          law, possesses a gun, if it's a functional 

 8          operational gun, you know, at a minimum it 

 9          would be a misdemeanor.  If it's a loaded 

10          gun, it would be a felony.  If it's on school 

11          grounds, it may be an elevated crime.  

12                 You know, so whether it's under 

13          existing law or whether it's under Raise the 

14          Age, I don't see anything in there that 

15          immunizes or insulates that person from 

16          prosecution in adult court or, under the 

17          Raise the Age proposal, in a special youth 

18          part of adult court.

19                 So yes, you know, there's a provision 

20          that that person be referred to Family Court 

21          that you've referred to, but I don't read 

22          that as divesting the police or prosecutors 

23          or the courts of any other jurisdiction that 

24          they have by law.


 1                 SENATOR CROCI:  Well, my reading of 

 2          the Article VII language in the LFA section 

 3          directs a superintendent of the school -- 

 4          he's now required to refer students under the 

 5          age of 17 who violate the Gun-Free Schools 

 6          Act, for a juvenile delinquency proceeding.  

 7                 Which not only denies that local 

 8          public school in New York or private school 

 9          in New York, but also in future years, if 

10          that individual were to go off to college -- 

11          and we've seen enough gun violence at our 

12          colleges, the college would have no way of 

13          knowing because now this individual is not 

14          required to put that on their college 

15          application.

16                 So this is what happens when budgets 

17          are created in the dark of night in this town 

18          and contradict their own stated policy goals.  

19          I don't understand, if a superintendent is 

20          directed to institute a juvenile proceeding 

21          instead of a criminal proceeding with law 

22          enforcement, how on earth the public is going 

23          to know that there was someone in the school 

24          who had a weapon and how that is consistent 


 1          with providing safe schools.

 2                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Yes, 

 3          there's a lot of assumptions in your 

 4          question, the first of which I don't agree 

 5          with.  

 6                 There's nothing that prevents that 

 7          person from being prosecuted under existing 

 8          laws.  Even if they're prosecuted under 

 9          existing laws, though, if they're a 16- or 

10          17-year-old right now, there's youthful 

11          offender provisions that may well prevent 

12          that information from being disclosed anyhow.  

13          So you're assuming that it would get out but 

14          for that provision, which I also think is not 

15          a good assumption.

16                 So, you know, I'm not reading that 

17          provision the same way you do.  I don't see 

18          that it divests the courts of the power that 

19          they currently have to prosecute a 16- or 

20          17-year-old.  But even with those powers, the 

21          assumption you're making that any results of 

22          that prosecution would then be public and be 

23          available to schools in the future, for 

24          example, I don't think is supported by 


 1          current reality.

 2                 SENATOR CROCI:  Well, I disagree with 

 3          your reading of it, certainly.  But from a 

 4          superintendent's perspective or an educator's 

 5          perspective who is confronted with this 

 6          situation at 8 o'clock in the morning on a 

 7          school day, and then instead of calling 911, 

 8          which is what would be their normal response, 

 9          they now have to institute a juvenile 

10          proceeding instead of calling law enforcement 

11          to come and respond to it.

12                 Juvenile proceedings, according to the 

13          last witness -- two witnesses ago, Judge 

14          Marks, would in most cases not be required to 

15          be made public.  And that individual, when 

16          they reach the age of 18 and applied for 

17          college, wouldn't then have to indicate it on 

18          a college application.

19                 So I don't know if --

20                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Wouldn't 

21          that be the same result you get as a 16- or 

22          17-year-old now as a youthful offender?

23                 SENATOR CROCI:  -- there's some 

24          alternate reality that I'm living in when I 


 1          read it.

 2                 I'm sorry, sir, I didn't hear you 

 3          because I was --

 4                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Wouldn't 

 5          that be the same result you get right now 

 6          with a 16- or 17-year-old who gets charged in 

 7          adult court, gets adjudicated a youthful 

 8          offender?  Aren't you in the exact same spot?  

 9                 SENATOR CROCI:  Well, you're taking 

10          the discretion out of the local 

11          administrator, the person who knows the 

12          families of the individuals who go to that 

13          school, and you're directing them one way or 

14          the other.  And I thought what we wanted to 

15          do in education is give our educators and the 

16          people who take care of our kids every day 

17          that option.

18                 I just think that this is misguided 

19          and, if nothing else, in flat contradiction 

20          to the Governor's own stated goals.  So I 

21          just -- I guess you don't agree.

22                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I don't.

23                 SENATOR CROCI:  Okay.  Very good.  

24          Thank you.


 1                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.

 2                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Assemblyman Weprin.

 3                 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN:  Thank you, 

 4          Mr. Chairman.

 5                 Commissioner Green, I'm a little 

 6          confused about part of your testimony.  Under 

 7          the sentencing reform part, you talk about 

 8          determinate sentencing for nonviolent 

 9          offenses.  But when determinate sentences 

10          were created for violent felons, the result 

11          ended up being that inmates stayed in prison, 

12          on an average, two years longer.  And upstate 

13          judges tend to hand down longer sentences 

14          than downstate judges.

15                 I'm not clear what the intent is 

16          behind proposing determinate sentencing for 

17          nonviolent felons.  That's the first part of 

18          the question.  And the second part is, is 

19          there going to be any attempt to make 

20          sentencing more uniform statewide to deal 

21          with the upstate/downstate situation?

22                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  First of 

23          all, you know, while you may be right for 

24          some of the violent felonies, if you look at 


 1          sentencing practice and prison populations, 

 2          starting in 1995 we as a state made the 

 3          decision to start moving away from 

 4          indeterminate sentencing and toward 

 5          determinate.  First it was the violent 

 6          felonies, then certain sex felonies.  

 7          Ultimately, the decision was made, you know, 

 8          in the 2000s to take drug crimes and move 

 9          those to determinate.  

10                 And at the same time, our prison 

11          population has gone from about a peak of I 

12          think 72,000, or over 72,000 in 1999 down to 

13          about 52,000 today.  So we've moved from 

14          indeterminate to determinate in every other 

15          area, and our prison population has declined, 

16          you know, remarkably, I think.  We have the 

17          lowest imprisonment rate of any large state 

18          in the country.  

19                 But if you look at why move this -- 

20          you know, basically there's two groups left 

21          that have indeterminate sentences, your Class 

22          A felonies -- your murders, your kidnapping 

23          1st, and then these nonviolent felonies -- 

24          you know, burg 3rd is a large part of them, 


 1          forgery, grand larceny.  

 2                 Why move those to determinate 

 3          sentencing?  I think there's a number of 

 4          reasons why.  I think the first is that if 

 5          you look at indeterminate sentencing and you 

 6          take your worst offenders, someone who gets 2 

 7          1/3 to 7 for a burg 3rd, and they commit 

 8          every infraction they can in prison and they 

 9          get held for the full term -- so this is, you 

10          know, your worst offenders -- gets held to 

11          seven years, get released at the end of seven 

12          years with no supervision whatsoever -- so 

13          the worst offender, who arguably needs 

14          supervision more than anybody when they're 

15          released is being dropped out the door under 

16          this current scheme.  

17                 If you go to determinate sentencing, 

18          everyone gets a determinate sentence and 

19          everyone gets a term of post-release 

20          supervision.  So if you're that same 

21          offender, you do your full determinate 

22          sentence because you don't qualify for any 

23          good time, you don't qualify for any merit 

24          time -- you serve your sentence, you still 


 1          have that period of post-release supervision 

 2          that you have to have.  

 3                 So from a public safety perspective, 

 4          this move would ensure that we have a period 

 5          of post-release supervision for everyone.

 6                 The second consideration deals with 

 7          merit time.  Right now you have someone who 

 8          gets sentenced for a burg 3rd, they get 2 to 

 9          6 or, you know, 1 1/2 to 4 1/2, whatever they 

10          get.  They go in and they want to 

11          rehabilitate themselves, and they enroll in a 

12          merit time program, they complete that merit 

13          time program, they're supposed to get credit 

14          for that.  What they get is an earlier 

15          appearance in front of the Parole Board.  And 

16          when they get denied parole by the Parole 

17          Board, they wind up getting no credit for 

18          that merit time.  

19                 If you move to a determinate scheme, 

20          that person who goes in, who wants to 

21          rehabilitate themself, who completes a merit 

22          time program, doesn't then have to go before 

23          the Parole Board to see whether or not they 

24          get credit for that; they automatically get 


 1          credit for it.

 2                 And I think another consideration has 

 3          to do with reentry.  When you talk about 

 4          reentry planning, if I get 2 1/3 to 7 and 

 5          you're trying to work with your reentry task 

 6          force and you're trying to work with the 

 7          Department of Corrections and Community 

 8          Supervision staff and you're trying to work 

 9          with the family and the community -- do I 

10          start that planning for the 2 1/3 date?  Do I 

11          start it for 5 years?  Do I start it from 7?  

12          Nobody knows.

13                 With a determinate sentence, you have 

14          a much firmer date where everyone knows this 

15          is the date we're shooting for, we need to do 

16          our reentry planning around this date, and we 

17          can be much more successful.

18                 And as a former prosecutor, I'd 

19          suggest the last reason it makes sense is 

20          trying to explain to victims -- and, frankly, 

21          trying to explain to defendants who are 

22          trying to decide whether or not to take 

23          pleas -- what 8 1/3 to 25 means, as opposed 

24          to what a 10-year sentence means.  You know, 


 1          I had victims looking at me like I had three 

 2          heads by the time I got done explaining to 

 3          them, you know, what a 2 1/3 to 7 or a 5 to 

 4          15 meant and when someone might get out and 

 5          when they might not and what all the 

 6          different variables were.

 7                 So in terms of transparency and 

 8          ability to understand the system, I think the 

 9          move also makes sense.

10                 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN:  Well, I 

11          appreciate that.  And I appreciate the credit 

12          for merit time and other things.  So I'm 

13          willing to, you know, see how it works.  But 

14          if we could get some kind of follow-up if it 

15          is enacted as to, you know, what the effect 

16          is by changing from the indeterminate 

17          sentences to the determinate sentences for 

18          nonviolent felonies.

19                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  You 

20          know, and I -- just as a kind of a high-level 

21          comment, you know, we are very proud of the 

22          fact that we're the safest large state in the 

23          country, but we're also very proud of the 

24          fact that we have the lowest imprisonment 


 1          rate of any large state.  You know, and 

 2          everything that we do is focused on trying to 

 3          continue both of those trends, not just one 

 4          or the other, but both at the same time.

 5                 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN:  Okay.  Thank you, 

 6          Commissioner.  

 7                 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 8                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.

 9                 Senator?  

10                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

11                 Senator Bailey.

12                 SENATOR BAILEY:  Thank you, Madam 

13          Chair.  

14                 Good afternoon, Deputy Commissioner 

15          Green.

16                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Good 

17          afternoon.

18                 SENATOR BAILEY:  So a couple of 

19          points.  

20                 I represent a district in the 

21          North Bronx and the City of Mount Vernon, and 

22          gun violence is an issue, to echo some of the 

23          sentiments of my colleagues concerning SNUG.  

24          And I'm happy to see that there is an 


 1          increase in that.  But are there any 

 2          additional programs being considered for 

 3          SNUG, or is it just an increase to supplement 

 4          the programs that currently exist?

 5                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  To 

 6          supplement the existing programs.  And I'm 

 7          not sure with your district, but is the 

 8          Jacobi SNUG program in your district?  

 9                 SENATOR BAILEY:  Slightly outside the 

10          confines.  But it serves a lot of the same 

11          constituency, the individuals in my district.

12                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I think 

13          that's certainly one of our flagship programs 

14          in terms of the work they do and the results 

15          they've gotten.

16                 SENATOR BAILEY:  Yes, with Jay 

17          Gooding.  A very good man.  

18                 Concerning the cuts to the Westchester 

19          Police Department, also along the same lines, 

20          in the City of Mount Vernon, we are having 

21          some issues there.  Can you tell me 

22          specifically how the City of Mount Vernon 

23          would be supplemented by the State Police or 

24          other law enforcement organizations, 


 1          considering those cuts?

 2                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I would 

 3          have to look to make sure, but I don't 

 4          believe any of that funding was for the City 

 5          of Mount Vernon.  It was for patrolling a 

 6          parkway, you know, one -- well, I think it 

 7          was two specific parkways in Westchester.  I 

 8          don't believe any of that funding was funding 

 9          that was supposed to go for patrolling the 

10          City of Mount Vernon.

11                 SENATOR BAILEY:  Okay.  And my final 

12          question, concerning video recording of 

13          interrogations.  And this is seemingly a 

14          hot-button topic.  But what would your 

15          specific role be in the interrogation 

16          process, the video interrogation process?

17                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  The bill 

18          that's proposed would require law enforcement 

19          to record, in certain crimes, the crimes that 

20          I mentioned a short time ago, serious 

21          offenses where generally long sentences are 

22          put out.  There are exceptions in there if, 

23          you know, good faith, the equipment 

24          malfunctions or something along those lines.  


 1          But generally speaking, it would be required.

 2                 What DCJS's role has been is twofold.  

 3          Working with the Municipal Police Training 

 4          Council, we've already had the council put 

 5          out model policies for law enforcement in 

 6          terms of how the videotaping should be 

 7          conducted.  And secondly, funding.  We've put 

 8          out about $3.5 million in funding so far for 

 9          police departments and DA's offices across 

10          the state.  

11                 We've actually given a grant to a 

12          police department in every one of the 

13          counties in the state, so there should be 

14          recording equipment everywhere in the state 

15          right now.  And our intention would be to 

16          continue to support law enforcement that way 

17          and make sure they have the tools they need 

18          so they can record interviews.

19                 SENATOR BAILEY:  Thank you.  Nothing 

20          further.  

21                 Thank you, Madam Chair.

22                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, Senator.

23                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Helene Weinstein, 

24          Senator -- Assemblyman -- Assemblywoman.


 1                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  Thank you.       

 2                 I just want to follow up with a 

 3          question that I guess both Senator Young and 

 4          Assemblyman Graf asked about the reduction in 

 5          the local assistance monies.  So I did hear 

 6          you say that most of those reductions 

 7          represent legislative adds that were added in 

 8          last year's budget, is that correct?  

 9                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I think 

10          there's two different issues.  

11                 One, the list that Assemblyman Graf 

12          read me, I didn't recognize those as 

13          Executive programs.  So I'll follow up with 

14          him and I'll get that list.  My sense is they 

15          might be what we refer to as legislative 

16          adds.

17                 But as to our programs, there are some 

18          5.5 percent cuts.  So for example, Aid to 

19          Prosecution has a 5.5 percent cut.  As 

20          Assemblyman Lentol pointed out, some of the 

21          ATI funding streams have a 5.5 percent cut.  

22          So there is a relatively small cut to some of 

23          our local assistance programs -- not 

24          elimination, but a small cut.


 1                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  Well, if 

 2          those programs were functioning well and 

 3          doing their job, and I think some of us would 

 4          say were at the higher levels underfunded, 

 5          won't those cuts have an impact on safety in 

 6          communities around our state?

 7                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  With, 

 8          you know, the ATI programs, for example, I 

 9          certainly believe they are functioning well.  

10          The Pew Foundation has done reports pointing 

11          to us as a national example of how you should 

12          administer the funding and support the 

13          program.  So, you know, I do think they're 

14          very effective.  I think the money is being 

15          used very wisely.  

16                 You know, the best I can tell you is 

17          that we will look at the available pot of 

18          money, we'll look at the 5.5 percent 

19          reduction and we'll try and make sure we 

20          administer it in a way that minimizes any 

21          potential harm.

22                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  Thank you.

23                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

24                 Senator DeFrancisco.


 1                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Yes, what role 

 2          if any did you play in the drafting of the 

 3          language concerning Raise the Age?

 4                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I was 

 5          not on the commission that developed the 

 6          original proposal.  I was interviewed by 

 7          commission members, I did provide them input.  

 8          You know, and I've done the same thing since 

 9          then.  You know, I've provided input to -- 

10          you know, so I haven't actually sat down and 

11          drafted any of it.  But when asked, I provide 

12          input or feedback.

13                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Did this 

14          commission continue to do business after the 

15          first Raise the Age proposal was sent up last 

16          year?  

17                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Not that 

18          I'm aware of, no.

19                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  All right, so 

20          you're just talking about the initial 

21          commission action.  Do you know generally if 

22          the bill that's being proposed this year is 

23          the same as the one that was proposed to the 

24          Legislature last year?  


 1                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  There 

 2          are some differences.  You know, I think -- I 

 3          think in terms of the implementation dates, 

 4          obviously the implementation dates have been 

 5          moved back to 2019 and 2020.  

 6                 There was feedback that was received 

 7          from a number of constituency groups, and 

 8          there were some changes made based on that 

 9          feedback.  So, for example, specific crimes.  

10          At one point aggravated criminal contempt was 

11          covered; now a part of that is covered.  If 

12          it's the part that deals with serious 

13          physical injury, then those cases would still 

14          be handled in adult court.  

15                 I believe there were some changes to 

16          the language around risk assessments, 

17          allowing parents to be present with juveniles 

18          when those risk assessments were done.

19                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Was there any -- 

20          thank you.  It will probably take too long 

21          to go --

22                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  There's 

23          others too, yeah.

24                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  No, I 


 1          understand.  But I was unclear.  

 2                 Are there changes in the procedure?  A 

 3          kid is arrested.  Where's Step 1, Step 2, 

 4          what happens with transfers of courts?  

 5          Procedurally, as far as it's administered, do 

 6          you know if there's any major changes?  

 7                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I don't 

 8          know if there's major changes.  I think the 

 9          general structure is that it would raise the 

10          age, ultimately, so 16- and 17-year-olds, 

11          with the exception of serious crimes, would 

12          go to Family Court.  

13                 Now, with the serious crimes it 

14          creates a youth part in adult court.  So it's 

15          adult court, but it's staffed by a specially 

16          trained Superior Court judge in a special 

17          youth part that would hear the serious cases 

18          with 16- and 17-year-olds.

19                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay, let's -- a 

20          16-year-old is arrested.  This bill passes, a 

21          16-year-old is arrested and he is accused of 

22          beating up his girlfriend.  Where is the 

23          first stop -- a police officer comes, arrests 

24          the individual.  And it's a felony, a felony 


 1          assault.  What does the police officer do at 

 2          that point?

 3                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Again, 

 4          it depends on the specific charge.  But if 

 5          the charge is a violent felony assault in the 

 6          second degree, that person would then be 

 7          treated as a juvenile offender, under this 

 8          bill, and the case would be heard in adult 

 9          court, Superior Court, in a youth part.

10                 The first step would be to be 

11          arraigned in a court with a judge that had 

12          been specially trained to handle those 

13          arraignments.

14                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  So in Family 

15          Court.

16                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  No, not 

17          Family Court.

18                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Since it's a 

19          violent felony, it goes to criminal court.

20                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Correct.

21                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Now, what 

22          consideration does that criminal court judge 

23          have as to whether it stays there?  

24                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  There 


 1          are new removal provisions added.  It's 

 2          Sections 722.20, subdivision 4.  And 

 3          basically the initial removal rules are the 

 4          same as they are now.  

 5                 But once a case has been indicted, 

 6          basically there's two ways that that case can 

 7          get removed, depending on the seriousness of 

 8          the case.  One requires the consent of the 

 9          district attorney, the other has to be on 

10          motion of the district attorney.  

11                 So right now, if you're a juvenile 

12          offender, you're 14 or 15 and you commit one 

13          of those crimes for which you can be charged 

14          as a juvenile offender, unless it's a -- you 

15          know, one of the most serious crimes.  So 

16          murder, rape in the first degree, those 

17          crimes require the DA's consent for removal.  

18          Other crimes do not right now for that 14-, 

19          15-year-old.  

20                 So this bill actually puts in new 

21          removal provisions in the section I cited to 

22          you, and both of them either require the DA's 

23          consent or a motion by the DA to remove.

24                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  All right.  Does 


 1          the judge -- okay.  It requires DA consent, 

 2          obviously.  Without the consent, they can't 

 3          be removed.  

 4                 If it requires a DA's motion, it's 

 5          still up to the judge whether it gets removed 

 6          to juvenile court?  

 7                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Yes, but 

 8          the DA has to make the motion.  So if the DA 

 9          is opposed to removal, it's not going to get 

10          removed.

11                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay, let me 

12          take the example that Senator Croci gave.  A 

13          gun is found on someone, and it's loaded.  

14          Okay?  Is that considered a serious offense 

15          under this bill, first of all?  

16                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  It's a 

17          violent felony offense.  So yes, it would be 

18          -- if the person is 16 or 17 years old, these 

19          provisions have kicked in, that is a violent 

20          felony offense and would subject that 

21          person -- they'd be a juvenile offender, 

22          they'd be handled in an adult court in one of 

23          these youth parts with a specially trained 

24          judge.


 1                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay.  But it 

 2          would be in juvenile court.

 3                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Well, 

 4          it's in adult court.  It's not in Family 

 5          Court.  

 6                 Right now -- people get confused with 

 7          the terms.  But under current law, if you're 

 8          a juvenile offender, that means your case is 

 9          going to adult court.  If you're a juvenile 

10          delinquent, it means your case is going to 

11          Family Court.  And I think that causes a lot 

12          of confusion.

13                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay.  So it's 

14          in adult court at this point.  And how does 

15          this fit in with the question that was raised 

16          earlier that you have to start a juvenile 

17          delinquency proceeding?

18                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  You 

19          know, that section, that's not part of the 

20          Raise the Age proposal.  And I don't read 

21          that provision to in any way take 

22          jurisdiction away from the criminal courts to 

23          prosecute somebody who is arrested for 

24          possession of a loaded gun, for example.


 1                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  So I'm a 

 2          principal, they find the gun in the kid's 

 3          hands, I'm required to file a juvenile 

 4          delinquency proceeding but the police can 

 5          arrest him and bring him to adult court?  

 6                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  

 7          Depending on the circumstances.  For example, 

 8          if it's a loaded, functional gun --

 9                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Yeah.  

10                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  -- my 

11          reading of it is yes, it does not preclude 

12          the police from doing that.

13                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  So how does a 

14          principal then bring a juvenile delinquency 

15          proceeding if the police officer is bringing 

16          them first to jail, then to adult court?

17                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  You 

18          know, practically, I'm not familiar with the 

19          juvenile proceedings.  My experience was all 

20          in Family Court.  So I don't know if I can 

21          give you a good answer to that.

22                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  All right.  So 

23          it would be dilemma, somewhat of a dilemma, 

24          for a principal to decide which way they're 


 1          going to go with this particular offense; 

 2          correct?  

 3                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  It may 

 4          be.

 5                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  All right.  So 

 6          it should be cleared up, do you think?

 7                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I 

 8          certainly will take a look at -- as I said, 

 9          that section is a little bit out of my area.  

10          I've spent a lot of time on the Raise the 

11          Age.  I know that.  I'll take a look at this 

12          and --

13                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay, one last 

14          question.  I want to stay as close to time as 

15          I can.

16                 The last question is with respect to 

17          the youthful offender status, you had 

18          mentioned you don't see it as -- it's a 

19          different situation.  Just consider this and 

20          see where I'm wrong.  If I'm a principal and 

21          I bring the juvenile delinquency proceedings, 

22          then something is going to have to happen 

23          there to remove it to a adult court, I would 

24          think, if that's where it starts, if it's a 


 1          serious enough offense.  

 2                 The difference with the youthful 

 3          offender is first you go to criminal court, 

 4          and then you have to make an application to 

 5          become held a juvenile -- in other words, the 

 6          presumption is that you're going to be 

 7          treated as an adult.  It's a benefit from 

 8          that point forward to get youthful offender 

 9          status.

10                 On the other hand, if you're 

11          automatically going to go to Family Court 

12          with a juvenile delinquency, it's a little 

13          different burden.  Does that make sense?  

14                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  It does.  

15          But again, it depends on the facts of each 

16          case.  And for example, if that gun case is a 

17          misdemeanor gun case, possession of a weapon 

18          in the fourth degree, then -- and you have no 

19          prior convictions, it's an automatic youthful 

20          offender.  

21                 So, you know, I just think in some 

22          instances your example would accurately 

23          reflect what happens, in other instances it 

24          wouldn't.  And I think they're driven by the 


 1          facts of each case.  

 2                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:   Okay, thank 

 3          you.

 4                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, Senator.

 5                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Mr. Graf.

 6                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Getting back to the 

 7          Raise the Age part here, now what happens is 

 8          if a person gets arrested -- and there's 

 9          different dates.  So at one time they just 

10          increase it to 16, and then by 2020 they 

11          increase it to 17.  But the mechanism here is 

12          if you have a youthful offender type of 

13          incident, it goes to the youth part or the 

14          youth court; correct?  

15                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Again, I 

16          think this is where the terminology comes in.  

17          Technically it's a juvenile offender, if 

18          you're a juvenile offender, which means 

19          you've committed a violent felony or one of 

20          the other serious cases, then yes, it would 

21          go to a youth part.  But that's adult court.  

22          It's not Family Court.

23                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Now, have you read 

24          the bill that the Governor has put forward?  


 1                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I've 

 2          read most of the bill, yes.

 3                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Okay.  And there's 

 4          a part there that those crimes, where it's a 

 5          serious crime and it goes -- it's called a 

 6          youth part in the bill -- the DA and the 

 7          judge can agree, even though it's a violent 

 8          felony -- and these are some horrific crimes, 

 9          when you look at it -- they can send it to 

10          Family Court, correct?  

11                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  In some 

12          instances, with the consent of the DA.  In 

13          other instances, the DA has to affirmatively 

14          move.  

15                 And then there's a list of criteria.  

16          In some instances, with the most serious 

17          cases, judges would be required to hold 

18          hearings and actually make findings before 

19          they can do it.

20                 But yes, there is a mechanism, with 

21          the consent or on motion of the DA, and with 

22          the judge agreeing that the circumstances 

23          exist that would justify sending it to 

24          Family Court, that can be done.


 1                 And I think it's important to point 

 2          out, you know, that's no different -- if you 

 3          have someone right now who's charged with 

 4          rape in the first degree or murder in the 

 5          second degree and they're 15 years old, there 

 6          are provisions that allow those cases to be 

 7          removed to Family Court right now from adult 

 8          court when they're charged as a juvenile 

 9          offender.  So it's not a new or a novel 

10          concept.

11                 So what this bill adds is the 

12          requirement that anytime a 16- or 17-year-old 

13          wants to have their case removed from adult 

14          court to Family Court, you either need the 

15          consent of the DA or it has to be on motion 

16          of the DA.

17                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Yeah, but in this 

18          case we're actually talking about if a person 

19          is one day short of their 18th birthday and 

20          commits a crime.  

21                 But there's another section, when you 

22          start reading into it, where they put in 

23          there that upon motion of the defendant, 

24          right, and they don't mention consent of the 


 1          DA.  So that can be interpreted that upon 

 2          motion of the defendant, the court, on its 

 3          own initiative, can send this to Family 

 4          Court.

 5                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  And I 

 6          just got done reading -- it's 722.20, 

 7          subdivision 4.  And, you know, given my 

 8          reading of the bill and my reading of that 

 9          provision, I don't agree -- you know, as I 

10          read it, for 16- and 17-year-olds, those 

11          provisions, to me at least, make clear that 

12          it would require either the consent of or 

13          motion of the DA to remove.  

14                 You know, but if you read it 

15          differently, I'm happy -- if you've got a 

16          particular section you think contradicts 

17          that, I'm happy to take a look at it.

18                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Yeah, I have a 

19          bunch of sections.

20                 But the thing is we have to look at, 

21          when we write a bill, the different ways it 

22          can be interpreted.  You'd agree with that?  

23                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  And I 

24          have read this and, you know, given my 


 1          reading of the bill, you know, my 

 2          understanding and my reading of it is that it 

 3          requires the DAs acquiescence in some form 

 4          before a 16- or 17-year-old can have their 

 5          case removed.

 6                 One exception would be if there's an 

 7          arrest, there's a preliminary hearing, and a 

 8          judge finds there's no evidence to support 

 9          the felony that got the case into court in 

10          the first place.  So, you know, that's a 

11          different scenario.

12                 But, you know, where the evidence 

13          supports the charge, the case can't be 

14          removed without the DA's acquiescence.

15                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  And some of the 

16          things that we're talking about here is 

17          tampering -- the things that wouldn't put it 

18          into that category is tampering with a 

19          witness, gang assault, there are various sex 

20          crimes that are in there -- that what they're 

21          going to do, they can move that right to 

22          Family Court.  I mean, there's a lot of 

23          crimes in there that we haven't -- that are 

24          serious that we haven't hit.


 1                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I 

 2          believe the crimes you just listed are crimes 

 3          that someone would be charged as a juvenile 

 4          offender for and go to the special youth 

 5          part, as opposed to Family Court.

 6                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Well, there's a 

 7          list of crimes.  So when you go in there, 

 8          they give you a list, right, and -- you go 

 9          into the law that they direct you to, you go 

10          through a list.  And basically anything 

11          that's not on that list, right, is separate 

12          from that.  

13                 So, I mean, the interpretation is that 

14          you're going to switch that to Family Court.  

15          All right?  And in some of the sex cases, 

16          what happens is if you get adjudicated in a 

17          Family Court, right -- so if it's a sex crime 

18          but it gets adjudicated in a Family Court, as 

19          opposed to a conviction, you wouldn't be 

20          subject to giving a DNA sample, and you 

21          wouldn't be subject to registering on a sex 

22          offender registry list.  Is that correct?  

23                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Yes.  If 

24          your case is adjudicated in Family Court, 


 1          those provisions don't kick in.  If you're 

 2          adjudicated a juvenile offender in adult 

 3          court and you're not given youthful offender, 

 4          they do.

 5                 So I think what this bill has tried to 

 6          do is balance, you know, trying to get better 

 7          outcomes for 16- and 17-year-olds with 

 8          protecting society from young people who 

 9          commit horrendous crimes.  And, you know, I 

10          suppose we can argue about exactly where you 

11          strike that balance, but I think the bill has 

12          been very thoughtful about trying to figure 

13          out, you know, what cases should go into each 

14          category and create a framework that even 

15          within those categories, where the judge and 

16          the DA are in agreement that someone should 

17          be treated differently, it gives a mechanism 

18          for that to happen.

19                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Right.  I mean, how 

20          I'm reading it is if I have a person that's 

21          one day short of their 18th birthday, they 

22          molest a child, it's possible for them to go 

23          into Family Court and it's possible for them 

24          to be adjudicated in Family Court.  And if 


 1          they're adjudicated in Family Court one day 

 2          short of their 18th birthday, they don't have 

 3          to register on a sex offender registry list 

 4          and they don't have to supply DNA.

 5                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  That's 

 6          if it's -- if it's a felony sex crime, then 

 7          that's only with the consent of the DA.  And 

 8          I think you elect a DA, in every single 

 9          county in the state, to stand up for your 

10          rights and to make decisions like that to 

11          protect the community.  

12                 And this bill, you know, is premised 

13          on idea that DAs do their jobs and do them 

14          well and that they'll review these cases and 

15          they won't consent to removal to Family Court 

16          unless the facts and circumstances of the 

17          case are appropriate for that.

18                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Yeah, but 

19          there's --

20                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.

21                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Okay.  Thank you.

22                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

23                 Senator Croci.

24                 SENATOR CROCI:  Commissioner, just to 


 1          follow up, because I want to make sure we're 

 2          clear on language and interpretation.  

 3                 I'm looking at the Title VII language 

 4          change that was put into the LFA bill.  And 

 5          as we get down to the subject, we're talking 

 6          about lines 20 to 34 that have the track 

 7          changes.  And it states "Provided, however, 

 8          that commencing on January 1, 2019, a 

 9          superintendent shall refer the pupil under 

10          the age of 17 who has been determined to have 

11          brought a weapon or firearm to school in 

12          violation of this subdivision, to be a 

13          presentment agency for a juvenile delinquency 

14          proceeding consistent with Article 3 of the 

15          Family Court Act, except a student who 

16          qualifies for juvenile offender status under 

17          the subdivision 42, Section 1.20 of the 

18          Criminal Procedure Law, and provided, 

19          however, further that commencing on 

20          January 1, 2020, a superintendent shall refer 

21          the pupil under the age of 18 who has been 

22          determined to have brought a weapon or 

23          firearm to school, in violation of this 

24          subdivision, to presentment agency for a 


 1          juvenile delinquency proceeding consistent 

 2          with Article 3 of the Family Court Act, 

 3          except a student who qualifies for juvenile 

 4          offender status under subdivision 42 of 

 5          Section 1.20 of the Criminal Procedure Law."

 6                 So the superintendent now has an 

 7          option taken away, based on this language.

 8                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Well, 

 9          first of all, if you're talking about a 

10          student who brings a loaded gun to school, 

11          the language you just read me that says 

12          "except as provided in the juvenile offender 

13          situation," indicates that that does not 

14          apply.  

15                 So, you know, the loaded gun scenario 

16          you referred to, the language you just read 

17          me indicates that that provision has no 

18          applicability there.

19                 If you take the rest of the 

20          situations -- you know, I hear what you're 

21          saying.  I hear the law.  But the Criminal 

22          Procedure Law also has provisions.  So let's 

23          say it's a gun, it's an unloaded functional 

24          gun.  You know, that directs the 


 1          superintendent to do something.  But the 

 2          Criminal Procedure Law and Penal Law have not 

 3          changed.  And the Penal Law still says that 

 4          possession of an unloaded gun that's 

 5          functional is an A misdemeanor.  

 6                 So, you know, I don't see anywhere in 

 7          there that says -- you know, there's no 

 8          amendment to the Penal Law to say you can't 

 9          be charged if, you know, you are in a 

10          scenario where the superintendent made an 

11          election.  

12                 So, you know, the point I was trying 

13          to make is, you know, while I hear what 

14          you're saying about a direction of the 

15          superintendent to make a referral, that 

16          doesn't take away the power of the police or 

17          anybody else to make a determination that 

18          that case, if it qualifies, should be 

19          prosecuted in adult court.  

20                 And secondly, it specifically says in 

21          serious cases -- for example, where it's a 

22          loaded gun -- that section doesn't apply.  

23          And the juvenile offender rules apply, and 

24          that person goes to court.  


 1                 SENATOR CROCI:  Right.  I didn't bring 

 2          up the loaded gun scenario.  That was Senator 

 3          DeFrancisco.  

 4                 But why do it?  Why in the first place 

 5          make the change and take away -- why is it 

 6          necessary to make the change?  

 7                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  And I 

 8          think, honestly, that's something that 

 9          has to be directed to folks in the education 

10          group.

11                 SENATOR CROCI:  Okay, very good.  I 

12          thank you again.

13                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Thank 

14          you.

15                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Senator Krueger.

16                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Hi.  It's been a 

17          while since you first testified, but I just 

18          wanted to go on record to say not everyone up 

19          here actually is opposed to the Governor's 

20          criminal justice reform package, and I'm one 

21          of them.

22                 I want to go back to the reform bill 

23          pretrial detention proposal.  So you talk 

24          about 44 other states have a different system 


 1          that decreases the number of people ending up 

 2          staying in jail while awaiting trial.

 3                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  

 4          Actually, I think it's 46.

 5                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  I'm sorry, 46?  

 6          Okay.  Sorry.  So there are only four states 

 7          that have our system.

 8                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  And the 

 9          federal government as well.

10                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Thank you.  So what 

11          are the lessons we should be learning from 

12          the 46 states that do it the way the Governor 

13          would like to do it?  

14                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I think, 

15          for me, the biggest lesson is that if you use 

16          effective risk-assessment instruments and you 

17          do it properly -- you train people on what 

18          the risk-assessment instruments can and can't 

19          do, you have a good instrument that's 

20          validated, you know, that it's set up in a 

21          way that it gets to folks in time so that 

22          they can use it in making their decisions -- 

23          I think we can make better bail decisions.  

24          You know, and "we" collectively, not pointing 


 1          the finger at anybody.  

 2                 But I think if we make better bail 

 3          decisions, the -- one of the early studies I 

 4          saw from Kentucky, with the work they did 

 5          with the Arnold Foundation, showed that they 

 6          actually held fewer people and reduced the 

 7          number of crimes that were committed by 

 8          people who had been released, through the use 

 9          of the risk-assessment instrument.

10                 So I think the challenge for us is, 

11          you know, how can we make the best possible 

12          decisions, how can we make sure that we're 

13          not holding people that we don't need to 

14          hold?  You know, if we have someone that will 

15          come back to court and that is in all 

16          likelihood not going to commit a crime, you 

17          know, should we really be holding them for 

18          any length of time, much less three years or 

19          five years?  

20                 So to me, that's the challenge, is how 

21          can we continue to get better at these 

22          decisions.  And I think, you know, allowing 

23          judges to consider the risk of dangerousness, 

24          providing risk-assessment instruments, and 


 1          then providing a structure -- and I think 

 2          another thing that we should learn from other 

 3          states is that outright release or we hold 

 4          you until your trial should not be the only 

 5          options.  

 6                 There are a lot of things in between 

 7          those two that other states are using or 

 8          starting to use effectively.  There are other 

 9          types of monitoring, you know, that can help 

10          keep control of someone, help make sure 

11          someone returns to court, short of locking 

12          you up.

13                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  So we would reduce 

14          the rate of recidivism from -- and I'm 

15          assuming we would save a bunch of money in 

16          jail costs pending trials; is that correct?

17                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I guess, 

18          for me, the primary consideration is public 

19          safety.  And so I look at, for example, the 

20          preliminary results out of Kentucky and I say 

21          you actually decreased the number of crimes 

22          that were committed.  You know, so for me, 

23          that's point number one.  

24                 But then yes, point number two, if 


 1          you're incarcerating fewer people pretrial, 

 2          you're saving those costs.  There's some 

 3          pretty good data showing that if you get 

 4          incarcerated pretrial, there's a better 

 5          chance you're going to wind up incarcerated 

 6          at the end of your case.  So, you know, it's 

 7          certainly possible that there are cost 

 8          savings that would result long-term from 

 9          this.  

10                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  And I believe I read 

11          some research showing when you're 

12          incarcerated pending a trial, even if you're 

13          going to be found innocent or the case is 

14          going to disappear, you have a pretty high 

15          rate of risking losing your job and then 

16          potentially actually not being able to pay 

17          your rent and your other basic needs.  Could 

18          you confirm that my memory is correct and the 

19          research shows that?

20                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I think 

21          common sense also tells you that.  But yes, 

22          there's -- yeah, there's some good research 

23          looking at risk pools.  And whether you're 

24          talking about an ATI program or jail, when 


 1          you put a low-risk person into a pool with 

 2          high-risk people, generally the research 

 3          shows that you increase that low-risk 

 4          person's chances of recidivating.

 5                 So certainly the scenario you 

 6          described, if that person had a job, had 

 7          family connections and otherwise was a 

 8          low-risk person, and you put them into jail 

 9          and they lose their job and they develop 

10          associations with high-risk folks, you know, 

11          in all likelihood you've taken them from the 

12          low-risk pool and moved them up.

13                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  And is there any 

14          projection -- it's not a fair question, 

15          because you say you have to do your own 

16          development of a tool that would be used.  

17          But is there a projection of what percentage 

18          of people who now sit in jail pretrial could 

19          potentially not be in jail?

20                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  We don't 

21          have that now.  We are working with OCA, and 

22          OCA, because of issues with the way their 

23          records are kept, has not been able to get us 

24          good data that's in a form that we can use 


 1          for all of the courts that includes bail 

 2          information.  

 3                 I anticipate that they are going to be 

 4          able to do that soon.  And when they do, you 

 5          know, we certainly are going to look at that 

 6          and try and put our criminal history 

 7          information and their bail information 

 8          together and not only look at validation, but 

 9          look at projections.  

10                 So right now, no, we don't have any 

11          good information.  

12                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  And there were some 

13          earlier questions relating to wouldn't this 

14          be very complicated for dealing with the DAs, 

15          the police, the courts.  Can I take the leap 

16          that if 46 other states can figure it out, 

17          our police, DAs, and courts are smart enough 

18          to figure out also?  

19                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  I don't 

20          want to speak for any of them, but I have 

21          very good relationships, I think, with all of 

22          those groups.  And, you know, I've worked 

23          with them on a number of issues and they've 

24          come to agreement on sealing proposals, 


 1          they've come to agreement on videotaping and 

 2          on identification procedures and all kinds of 

 3          other issues.  

 4                 So yes, I'm confident that we can get 

 5          people behind a common-sense proposal to keep 

 6          moving us forward here.

 7                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Thank you very much.

 8                 Thank you.

 9                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Anyone else?

10                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  We've been joined 

11          by Assemblywoman Walker and Assemblywoman 

12          Fahy.  Thank you.  

13                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, Deputy 

14          Commissioner, for your testimony today.  We 

15          really appreciate it.

16                 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:  Thank 

17          you.  And I appreciate the support we get 

18          from everyone.

19                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Next up is Acting 

20          Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci, New York 

21          State Department of Corrections and Community 

22          Supervision.

23                 Okay, thank you, if we could have some 

24          order, please. 


 1                 Welcome, Commissioner Annucci.  We 

 2          appreciate your participation today, and we 

 3          look forward to your testimony.

 4                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Thank 

 5          you and good morning, Chairwoman Young, 

 6          Chairman Farrell, and other distinguished 

 7          chairs and members of the Legislature.  I am 

 8          Anthony J. Annucci, acting commissioner for 

 9          the Department of Corrections and Community 

10          Supervision.  It is my honor to discuss some 

11          of the highlights of Governor Cuomo's 

12          Executive Budget plan.  

13                 Last year, under the Governor's 

14          executive Order, Hudson was converted into a 

15          hybrid youth facility where 16- and 

16          17-year-olds are completely separated from 

17          adult inmates.  While this is a progressive 

18          interim measure, I urge the Legislature this 

19          year to enact the Governor's Raise the Age 

20          proposal.  

21                 The Governor has also advanced the 

22          Permanent Sentencing Commission's proposal 

23          that New York switch to determinate sentences 

24          for those Class B through E felonies that are 


 1          still subject to indeterminate sentences, and 

 2          also authorize alternative sentences for 

 3          low-level predicate offenders.  This will 

 4          save taxpayer dollars, eliminate confusion, 

 5          and ensure greater transparency, while also 

 6          reducing the burden on the Board of Parole.  

 7                 To ensure that safety and security 

 8          remain a top priority, we continue our 

 9          partnership with the unions and have 

10          implemented a number of technological 

11          enhancements, training improvements, and 

12          policy changes.  These initiatives include 

13          the completion of a full facility camera 

14          project at Attica, with plans for similar 

15          projects at Clinton and Great Meadow, among 

16          others.  Additionally, we have completed the 

17          deployment of thermal imaging and heartbeat 

18          detection devices, and new state-of-the-art 

19          portable metal detectors.  

20                 Also, for the first time, we are 

21          piloting the use of body cameras at Clinton, 

22          with an expansion to Bedford Hills this year.  

23          In addition, we significantly revised our Use 

24          of Force policy and included deescalation 


 1          techniques in our annual training to better 

 2          enable staff to defuse situations without 

 3          resorting to physical force.  

 4                 Lastly, we have worked with our 

 5          federal partners and have developed and 

 6          deployed a comprehensive security audit 

 7          instrument that will be used in all 

 8          facilities.  

 9                 Our partnerships and the initiatives I 

10          have briefly outlined have shown positive 

11          results.  While one assault on staff is too 

12          many, the total number of assaults on staff 

13          has been reduced by more than 15 percent, 

14          reversing the alarming upward trend.  With 

15          the new use-of-force training, we have seen a 

16          10 percent reduction in both the number of 

17          use of force incidents, and the number of 

18          staff involved in uses of force, an 

19          11 percent reduction in staff injured during 

20          a use of force incident, and a 45 percent 

21          reduction in baton use in the pilot 

22          pepper-spray facilities.  

23                 In terms of the inmate disciplinary 

24          system, which is vital to the safety of all 


 1          staff, inmates and visitors, we continue to 

 2          evolve by implementing the terms of the 

 3          historic SHU settlement agreement that will 

 4          further dramatically reform our approach to 

 5          segregated confinement and provide greater 

 6          uniformity to prison discipline.  These 

 7          reforms have already resulted in dramatic 

 8          changes in the population being housed in 

 9          SHU, including a 12 percent decrease in the 

10          number of African-American inmates in SHU, a 

11          7 percent decrease in the proportion of 

12          African-American inmates in SHU, an almost 

13          30 percent decrease in the average length of 

14          sanction in a SHU cell, and a 16 percent 

15          decrease in the median length of sanctions.  

16                 In April, we will institute the second 

17          round of changes to the disciplinary 

18          guidelines, with ranges being adjusted 

19          downward.  And we have begun a statewide 

20          training initiative for all staff on the 

21          terms of the settlement agreement, 

22          deescalation techniques, and implicit bias in 

23          decision-making.  

24                 Although we thus far have seen 


 1          encouraging results, as evidenced by these 

 2          statistics, we can and will do better as we 

 3          continue to evolve by implementing this 

 4          historic agreement, leading to a more fair 

 5          and humane system while preserving safety and 

 6          security.  

 7                 With respect to programming, the 

 8          budget will expand the Limited Credit Time 

 9          Allowance statute to include two additional 

10          significant program accomplishments, which 

11          are participation in the DMV Program and the 

12          Culinary Arts Program.  The LCTA benefit is a 

13          six-month reduction that is also based on 

14          good behavior, thus saving taxpayer dollars 

15          while making prisons safer.  

16                 To achieve savings, weekday visiting 

17          will be reduced in our maximum facilities, 

18          similar to our protocols for medium 

19          facilities.  By the same token, processing 

20          time for visitors will be greatly facilitated 

21          by our planned switch to a secure vendor 

22          package program.  

23                 With respect to community supervision, 

24          the Swift and Certain literature for 


 1          effective parole supervision focuses on the 

 2          need for positive rewards for good behavior, 

 3          as well as the need for certain limited 

 4          sanctions for negative behavior.  Thus far, 

 5          we have seen encouraging results in our pilot 

 6          RESET initiative, but our ability to provide 

 7          meaningful rewards is somewhat limited by 

 8          certain anachronistic laws.  

 9                 This budget would allow LCTA-eligible 

10          inmates who are released and serving 

11          post-release supervision to advance their 

12          maximum expiration date by three months, for 

13          every six months of unrevoked supervision 

14          they serve.  This is consistent with overall 

15          public safety, since the research indicates 

16          that if you have not been violated in the 

17          first two or three years, you will most 

18          likely succeed.  Parole officers can thus 

19          concentrate on higher-risk parolees.  

20                 In conclusion, many challenges and 

21          expectations lie ahead for the department as 

22          it continues to develop transformative 

23          programs and initiatives, while relying upon 

24          well-trained and dedicated staff who perform 


 1          their responsibilities in an exemplary 

 2          manner, often under dangerous and difficult 

 3          circumstances.  The Governor's proposed 

 4          budget takes bold new steps to place DOCCS in 

 5          an advantageous position to fulfill these 

 6          expectations.  

 7                 Thank you, and I will be happy to 

 8          answer any questions.  

 9                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you very 

10          much, Commissioner, for that testimony.  

11                 I did have some questions.  We started 

12          out by talking about Hudson and the 

13          Governor's executive order.  And as you know, 

14          in the 2017 enacted budget we included 

15          $30 million in capital funding to comply with 

16          the Executive Order 150, requiring youths 

17          within the state's prison system to be housed 

18          in a separate facility.  And that's what the 

19          Hudson facility actually is.  

20                 And the transformation of the Hudson 

21          Correctional Facility, located in Columbia 

22          County, was proposed to occur in three 

23          phases:  The first phase, $8 million in the 

24          current fiscal year -- and I assume that work 


 1          has been done?  

 2                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Yes.

 3                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  -- the second 

 4          phase, $22 million by August 31, 2016, to 

 5          allow the facility to open, with November 

 6          2016 construction of juvenile separation.  

 7          Has that been done?  

 8                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  That has 

 9          been tone.

10                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  So the third phase 

11          is unknown, with cameras, equipment, 

12          et cetera.

13                 How many youth have been housed since 

14          the facility became operational?

15                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  I can 

16          tell you what the population there is today.  

17          I believe it's 62 inmates.  We also have nine 

18          at Coxsackie, which is the other facility 

19          that handles maximum-security inmates.

20                 I visited the facility about a 

21          week and a half ago.  I spent some time 

22          talking to the young offenders that are 

23          there, listening to the issues.  I looked at 

24          the separation unit, I looked at the 


 1          programming.  It's working well, but it is 

 2          only an interim solution.

 3                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  What crimes were 

 4          committed by the people who are housed there?

 5                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  They 

 6          range.  I didn't go through the list of every 

 7          single crime.  I know one of the girls that 

 8          was there -- and we only had two -- she was 

 9          very young, 17.  I know she's eligible for 

10          work release, and I know we want to place her 

11          there.  Like so many other youth, there's a 

12          dysfunctional family situation, because I was 

13          encouraging her, I wanted her to do 

14          education, maybe pass her high school 

15          equivalency.  And when I said to her, "We 

16          want you to be safe, we want to return you to 

17          your family, I'm sure they're waiting for 

18          you," she said, "My family is not waiting for 

19          me."  And what I found out later, it was a 

20          horrific home situation for her.

21                 So placing these individuals when 

22          they're released from Hudson -- we had 

23          another 17-year-old individual --

24                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  But these are 


 1          people who have been convicted of violent 

 2          crimes, correct? 

 3                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  No, 

 4          they're 16- or 17-year-olds.  They could have 

 5          been convicted of drug offenses, they could 

 6          have been convicted of any offense that a 

 7          judge said state imprisonment is the 

 8          jurisdiction.

 9                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  So none of them 

10          have violent criminal pasts?

11                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  No, I 

12          didn't say that.  I said I didn't look 

13          through every offense.  I'm sure they range.  

14          But in this particular case, the girl I know 

15          was convicted of a nonviolent offense.

16                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Okay.  So you're 

17          saying that it's a mix of those.

18                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  It's a 

19          mix, yes.

20                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

21                 How many reside in the facility, on 

22          average?  

23                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  It 

24          varies.  It goes up and down.  Because once 


 1          they hit their 18th birthday, we have to 

 2          immediately move them, we can't commingle.

 3                 So right now it's 62.  Last week it 

 4          was 58.  It hovers around that number.  And 

 5          of course the ones that require 

 6          maximum-security placement are at Coxsackie.  

 7          That varies too as well.

 8                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Okay, thank you.

 9                 Could you break down for us what 

10          services are provided by DOCCS, which are 

11          contracted by the Office of Children and 

12          Family Services, and which ones are provided 

13          by the Office of Mental Health?

14                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Well, to 

15          make it simple, all of the mental health 

16          services that are required for this 

17          population are delivered by mental health 

18          staff, just the same way that they deliver 

19          mental health services to any of our caseload 

20          inmates in any of our other 53 correctional 

21          facilities.

22                 OCFS has been very helpful to us in 

23          structuring the programming for this youth 

24          population -- their special needs, keeping 


 1          them busy.  A heavy emphasis on education, 

 2          naturally; many of them don't have their high 

 3          school equivalency.  Keeping them busy and 

 4          keeping them occupied and ultimately trying 

 5          to effectuate the best placement.

 6                 It was startling to me, in a few of 

 7          those instances, how many of them have broken 

 8          families.  And so we have a psychologist, we 

 9          have a social worker.  They are going to be 

10          working on restoring the families, when they 

11          can, if they can be.  

12                 One 17-year-old is about to be 

13          released; he got paroled.  I'm hoping today 

14          we worked it out.  What happened with him is 

15          his mother lives in New Jersey, and to 

16          transfer him to New Jersey to be supervised 

17          there, they have to be 18.  They won't take 

18          them under interstate parole.  So I had to 

19          find a place, a residence that would take him 

20          for the next two months.  He turns 18 in 

21          March.  And then we had to have the mother 

22          come there and sign him in and -- I won't go 

23          into detail other than to say he has serious 

24          health issues related, so therefore we had to 


 1          have a special placement for him.  

 2                 But I am hopeful that ultimately we 

 3          will also put there perhaps a televisiting 

 4          connection so that we can better connect to 

 5          the families wherever they may be throughout 

 6          the state.

 7                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

 8                 So what would happen to Hudson if the 

 9          Raise the Age proposal under the Governor's 

10          budget went through?  Because it's my 

11          understanding that all of a sudden the 

12          jurisdiction would go back to the youth 

13          facilities and OCFS instead of DOCCS.

14                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Well, 

15          first of all, as you know, the bill envisions 

16          a two-step process.  The law doesn't 

17          immediately go into effect to make everybody 

18          the age of responsibility at 18.  So you 

19          would have first 16-year-olds treated as 

20          minors, and then ultimately 17-year-olds.  So 

21          that would take a two-year process starting 

22          in 2019.  So there would be an overlap 

23          period, number one.  

24                 And number two, when it's ended, we 


 1          would take it back as a general confinement 

 2          facility, and we would certainly assess all 

 3          of the efforts we have invested into making 

 4          the facility youth oriented.  And certainly 

 5          we have enough 18-to-21-year-olds, 

 6          18-to-24-year-olds that could go there and we 

 7          wouldn't be forced, as we are now, when 

 8          somebody turns 18, to move them to a general 

 9          confinement facility.

10                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  So Hudson would 

11          continue to operate under DOCCS 

12          supervision --

13                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Yes.

14                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  -- for the most 

15          violent offenders?  

16                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  I'm 

17          sorry?

18                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  For violent 

19          offenders?

20                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  For any 

21          general confinement offender.  

22                 We have -- 64 percent of our 

23          population are violent felony offenders, 

24          11,000 or so are drug offenders.  It's a mix 


 1          of a population that we have.

 2                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.

 3                 So right now we have two secure 

 4          facilities for youth in the state.  One is 

 5          Brookwood, and one is Goshen.  And you may be 

 6          familiar, back in 2010 OCFS was under the 

 7          supervision of Gladys Carrion, who is under 

 8          fire and actually is being let go from 

 9          New York City because of mismanagement on the 

10          city level, especially as it is related to 

11          the Administration for Children's Services 

12          and the recent deaths and mismanagement that 

13          have occurred.

14                 But under her supervision, these 

15          secure facilities for youth had sex parties 

16          as a rewards system -- there was actually a 

17          prostitute that was brought in, an underage 

18          girl.  And after that, the inspector general 

19          had a review done and DOCCS was involved in 

20          that, and DOCCS was very, very critical of 

21          how these youth facilities were being run.

22                 We just had another incident last week 

23          of violence.  There have been riots at those 

24          facilities and so on.  And I guess my concern 


 1          is if there's more of a focus on having OCFS 

 2          run certain programs under the Raise the Age 

 3          proposal, that we could have a repeat -- and 

 4          frankly, you know, the problem hasn't been 

 5          fixed.  The Office of Children and Family 

 6          Services still has a very high level of 

 7          violence against staff.  There's a lot of 

 8          violence of youth on youth, youth on staff.  

 9          And so I don't see where a lot of those 

10          issues have been resolved at this point.  

11                 And my question is, what do you 

12          envision would happen, and especially with 

13          OCFS running these programs versus DOCCS?  

14          There's an issue that needs to be resolved.

15                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Well, I 

16          don't think I'm in an ideal position to speak 

17          to how OCFS runs its facilities.  I --

18                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  However, DOCCS was 

19          involved, did an assessment, said that they 

20          were being run inappropriately.  And I'm not 

21          sure that everything has been fixed since 

22          that time.  And I think DOCCS would be very 

23          capable in many cases, if there are youth 

24          that are violent, that are acting out, that 


 1          it would be more appropriate for DOCCS to put 

 2          in place measures to make sure that there's 

 3          safety and security in the facilities.

 4                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Senator, 

 5          I believe you might be referring to the State 

 6          Commission of Correction that may have 

 7          rendered that report.  DOCCS did not have any 

 8          involvement.  We have no oversight in any 

 9          institutions that are run by OCFS.  

10                 And the issues that were going on -- I 

11          remember them in the paper -- we would have 

12          had nothing do with writing any kind of 

13          reports or assessing what was going on there.

14                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Were you here in 

15          2010?  

16                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Yes, I 

17          was here.

18                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Okay.  So there was 

19          an assessment that was done in the youth 

20          facilities?


22          believe it's the State Commission of 

23          Correction, which is an oversight entity.

24                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Okay, thank you.  


 1                 As far as the parole officers go, what 

 2          is being done to ensure that they are 

 3          assigned appropriate caseloads?

 4                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  I'm 

 5          sorry?

 6                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Parole officers.  

 7          You talked about parole officers in your 

 8          testimony, correct?

 9                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Yes.

10                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  What is being done 

11          to make sure that they have appropriate-level 

12          caseloads?  

13                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Well, 

14          first of all, we rely on the COMPAS risk and 

15          needs assessment to tell us what the 

16          appropriate caseloads are for Levels 1 

17          through 4 -- 25 to 1, 40 to 1, 80 to 1 and 

18          160 to 1.  

19                 We also have, I believe, two parole 

20          officer classes that are scheduled for this 

21          year.  And I believe since the merger -- and 

22          I'll double-check on that -- we have had a 

23          total of four parole classes.  So we're 

24          trying to always ensure that we have 


 1          sufficient resources supervising the 

 2          offenders.  

 3                 I made it a priority to make sure that 

 4          they have all of the equipment.  I have 

 5          placed orders for vests.  We've replaced the 

 6          Glocks.  We continue to invest in training.  

 7          We continue to try new initiatives.  

 8                 A big proposal for the Governor is to 

 9          get rid of those low-level people that don't 

10          require any further supervision.  The 

11          literature tells us that too much supervision 

12          is actually counterproductive.  And we would 

13          have a reward system for those on PRS, for 

14          every six months they serve without any 

15          revocation of their supervision, they would 

16          advance their release date by three months.

17                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  I'm 

18          going to come back, but I'll let the Assembly 

19          ask some questions.

20                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Assemblyman Weprin, 

21          chair of the Correction Committee.

22                 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN:  Thank you, 

23          Mr. Chairman.  

24                 Good afternoon, Commissioner Annucci.


 1                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Good 

 2          afternoon.

 3                 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN:  I want to start 

 4          off by saying I appreciate you reaching out 

 5          to me as the new chair of Corrections my 

 6          first week or second week on the job.  And I 

 7          look forward to working with you over the 

 8          next number of months and years, hopefully on 

 9          issues of concern to the State of New York.  

10          So thank you for that.

11                 I'm going to ask a couple of questions 

12          on the Limited Credit Time Allowance.  The 

13          Executive Budget proposes adding two more 

14          programs to the list of programs eligible for 

15          LCTA, the Department of Motor Vehicles Call 

16          Center Program and the Culinary Arts 

17          Vocational Program.  

18                 Can you tell me how many inmates a 

19          year participate in an LTCA-eligible program 

20          and how many of them are actually granted 

21          LCTA and, of those, how many are actually 

22          released on LCTA?  

23                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  I can't 

24          tell you off the top of my head.  I think I 


 1          can come back and get you more specific 

 2          numbers.  

 3                 I can tell you that since the program 

 4          was enacted in 2009, I believe, that the 

 5          State of New York has saved $14 million in 

 6          prison avoidance costs.  And that's with 

 7          every successful candidate being released an 

 8          average of 5.3 or 5.1 months earlier by the 

 9          time everything was done.

10                 So there were nine existing programs 

11          that qualify.  And this grew out of a 

12          Sentencing Commission recommendation that I 

13          was on with Assemblyman Lentol -- it was one 

14          of the recommendations in their final 

15          report -- that we looked at how many programs 

16          there were for nonviolent inmates and 

17          incentives to participate in programs and 

18          potentially advance their release dates, but 

19          there was nothing for this cohort, really.  

20          And they're in for long periods of time.  

21                 So we felt if we structured something 

22          that listed programs that were very 

23          significant, exceptional, and coupled it with 

24          significant hurdles for behavioral 


 1          achievement -- and they gave us the 

 2          discretion to decide what that is.  And you 

 3          cannot have engaged in a disciplinary 

 4          infraction and received a recommended loss of 

 5          good time within the prior five years.  Then 

 6          you would qualify.  

 7                 And we started out with I think seven 

 8          or eight, and we added to it the Puppies 

 9          Behind Bars program, which is extremely 

10          worthwhile.  And these two are very 

11          worthwhile.  We have two call centers, one 

12          that we operate jointly with the DMV at 

13          Bedford Hills, one at Greene.  Inmates go 

14          through the training and they answer calls 

15          from the general public.  And they answer 

16          questions that any member of the general 

17          public will have about driver's license or 

18          registration or -- that's basic questions.  

19                 In the culinary arts, we know the food 

20          service industry is welcoming to released 

21          offenders.  So giving them the practical 

22          skills -- first having them go through the 

23          training to receive the serve-save 

24          certificate, which is important, and learn 


 1          how to handle food safely and prepare it and 

 2          actually replicate almost a restaurant-type 

 3          experience -- take orders from staff, serve 

 4          the food and even charge for it.  This is a 

 5          real life experience.  

 6                 And so it's a win/win.  It will save 

 7          taxpayer dollars and make prisons safer, 

 8          because there is no stronger incentive for an 

 9          inmate than potentially reducing his length 

10          of stay in prison.

11                 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN:  Okay.  Have you 

12          had female inmates in these two programs as 

13          well?  

14                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Yes.  

15          Females at Bedford Hills, yes.

16                 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN:  And what's the 

17          breakdown of female versus male?

18                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  I'm 

19          going to have to get you that.  I know when I 

20          was there at Bedford, it looked like about 

21          40-something women actually in the program.  

22          But I'll have to get you a total over a 

23          year's time, how many might that be.

24                 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN:  Okay, thank you, 


 1          Commissioner.  

 2                 DOCCS recently changed its policy to 

 3          limit LCTA for college unless all the credits 

 4          are earned within two calendar years.  And 

 5          the problem with that I see is obviously, as 

 6          an incarcerated inmate it's very often hard, 

 7          especially for a young individual, to get all 

 8          the necessary credits for a degree within two 

 9          years, and that could be a problem.  Was 

10          there a reason by -- a particular reason for 

11          that change?  And is that flexible to be 

12          changed?

13                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  I have 

14          to double-check with my deputy commissioner 

15          for program services.  

16                 I know that the general rule of thumb, 

17          when we wrote the statute, was that we wanted 

18          at least a two-year type of program 

19          commitment, that it's something that's 

20          demanding and requires you at least to 

21          participate for two years.  So I think that 

22          was the thinking behind it, but I'll 

23          double-check with him.

24                 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN:  Yeah, because 


 1          generally you need 60 credits for an 

 2          associate degree and it's very hard for them, 

 3          you know, in the limited time as an inmate, 

 4          to get it within two years.

 5                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  But the 

 6          LCTA specifies you have to participate for 

 7          two years.  You don't have to actually get 

 8          the degree.

 9                 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN:  Okay, so you 

10          don't have to get the degree within two 

11          years.

12                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  No.  I 

13          don't believe so.

14                 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN:  Okay.  The 

15          Executive Budget proposes to allow the DOCCS 

16          commissioner, yourself, rather than the Board 

17          of Parole, to set the conditions of release 

18          for inmates who are released by operation of 

19          law, including inmates who are presumptively 

20          released, are conditionally released, or who 

21          max out but must complete a term of 

22          post-release supervision.  The Board of 

23          Parole would then continue to set conditions 

24          of release for inmates with indeterminate 


 1          sentences who the board releases.  

 2                 Additionally, the Executive Budget 

 3          proposes to allow three months of earned 

 4          reduction for every six months of 

 5          uninterrupted post-release supervision.  

 6                 Approximately how many inmates per 

 7          year would have conditions of release set by 

 8          the department?

 9                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  This 

10          would cover everybody that's getting released 

11          on a determinate sentence right now.  

12                 The Board of Parole sees individuals 

13          that are serving an indeterminate sentence.  

14          I think -- if I remember correctly, I had 

15          this number.  I'm going to guess somewhere 

16          around 10,000 or thereabouts, but let me 

17          double-check and get the exact number for 

18          you, that would continue to be seen by the 

19          board, and everybody else would be not seen 

20          by the board.  

21                 These are all the individuals that are 

22          going out either, you know, under a 

23          determinate sentence with a merit time date 

24          or a CR date.  They're not seen by the board.  


 1          The case plan is developed by program staff.  

 2          We hand off with the reentry specialists, the 

 3          community supervision.  It's really an 

 4          anachronistic function.  The board isn't even 

 5          seeing these individuals.  So it makes no 

 6          sense to place this continuing burden on them 

 7          for individuals that they don't even see.

 8                 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN:  And does the 

 9          department envision significant changes to 

10          the conditions of release compared to the 

11          kinds of conditions currently imposed by the 

12          board?  

13                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  No.  We 

14          actually think that in many ways these things 

15          will be specifically geared to the inmate's 

16          particular needs.  There's a case plan that 

17          develops.  If he needs substance abuse 

18          treatment, we'll make sure he gets it, we'll 

19          make sure the handoff is there.  

20                 We have no interest whatever in adding 

21          onerous conditions or additional conditions 

22          to any parolee.  You know, the theme 

23          throughout is we want you to succeed.  We 

24          want you to succeed when you're taking 


 1          programs in our facilities, we want you to 

 2          succeed out there, we want public safety to 

 3          be advanced.  So we do not want programs that 

 4          aren't tied to rehabilitation conditions to 

 5          be attached to any parolee.

 6                 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN:  I appreciate 

 7          that.  The Daily News did a story and it got 

 8          a lot of publicity about the proposal in the 

 9          budget to reduce the number of visiting days 

10          at maximum-security prisons, which currently 

11          have seven days a week, to three days a week 

12          in order to save what is a very small 

13          percentage of the overall Correction budget 

14          of about 3.5 billion.  It would save 

15          $2.6 million by eliminating 39 positions.

16                 My question for you is, a lot of our 

17          members in the Assembly have raised that 

18          issue as potentially, you know, not being 

19          humane, also not allowing families the 

20          opportunity to visit with those inmates who 

21          are often many, many miles from their home.  

22          And if the Department of Correction were 

23          going to choose these three days, it 

24          potentially might not be a weekend day.  It 


 1          could present a tremendous hardship.  

 2                 Very often, because of lines and 

 3          limited visitation areas, someone often 

 4          cannot stay more than a couple of hours.  And 

 5          very often when you have seven-day-a-week 

 6          visiting, family members may come long 

 7          distances and stay for a number of days 

 8          during that period.

 9                 So my question for you is, what was 

10          the thought process behind that, and how 

11          flexible is the department?  Because I know, 

12          you know, members of the Assembly majority 

13          have raised objections to that to me.  

14                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Thank 

15          you, Assemblyman.  

16                 Let me start off by just reiterating 

17          that I am absolutely committed to doing 

18          everything reasonable possible to maintain 

19          family ties.  It's absolutely critical to do 

20          that wherever we can.  It's so critical for 

21          reintegration.  Having family supports in 

22          place is vital to succeed in rehabilitation.

23                 Like everybody else, there are budget 

24          issues.  And I'm trying to save money 


 1          wherever we can, responsibly, to be 

 2          responsible to the taxpayers.  We gave a lot 

 3          of thought as to which day we would keep as 

 4          the weekday visiting day.  In the mediums, 

 5          there's no weekday visiting.  That was 

 6          another budget move made in the early '90s.  

 7                 But by keeping Fridays, this is what 

 8          we achieved.  When you go to a weekend and 

 9          holiday schedule, it means weekdays as well 

10          as holidays.  We know that four Mondays every 

11          year are holidays, with Martin Luther King 

12          Day, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, and 

13          Labor Day.  So that means four times a year, 

14          coupled with Fridays, that's four consecutive 

15          days.  We know that Thanksgiving is a 

16          Thursday.  So when you have Friday visits, 

17          that's a fifth time where you have visits 

18          four days in a row.  

19                 I've been through the max facilities, 

20          and every time I walk through the visiting 

21          room in a max facility on a weekday, there's 

22          a very limited number of visitors there.  

23          They don't get that much use, and yet they're 

24          fully staffed to be prepared for visitors.


 1                 I also want to point out that Friday, 

 2          when we measured it, was of all the five 

 3          days, the day where most of the visits for 

 4          weekdays happened.  

 5                 I'll also point out that I'm a strong 

 6          supporter, a continued supporter of the 

 7          Family Reunion Program, which really allows 

 8          the family to live like a family briefly for 

 9          a weekend or whatever the duration of the 

10          visit is.  And that will continue, of course.

11                 Also, in response to a bill that was 

12          passed a number of years ago, you directed 

13          that this agency no longer allow commissions 

14          from phone calls to be used for any 

15          supportive services.  So as a result we have, 

16          if not the lowest, among the lowest phone 

17          rates for when inmates call home, 0.048 cents 

18          per minute.  And I can tell you that in 2016, 

19          there were 21 million completed calls, for a 

20          total of 321 million minutes.  And to keep up 

21          with the demand for phones, we added 68 in 

22          2016, including facilities like Attica, 

23          Clinton and Green Haven.  

24                 Also, my long-range plan is to have a 


 1          secure messaging system present.  And we 

 2          currently have an RFP for the new phone 

 3          contract out there.  We're in the blackout 

 4          period.  But we put a placeholder in it for 

 5          the bidder on the phone program ultimately to 

 6          provide an email connection.  The bidder will 

 7          be required to outline how the infrastructure 

 8          and business rules of the inmate phone system 

 9          can be leveraged to implement secure 

10          messaging, making it much easier to stand up 

11          when we are ready to pursue.

12                 The other thing that we do a lot of is 

13          we have many facility special events, family 

14          special events, for religious holidays and 

15          other events.  And in 2016, there were 608 

16          special events with family guests that were 

17          attended by 23,398 inmates and 22,539 

18          members.  And I participated in a number of 

19          these.  A week and a half ago, I attended the 

20          college graduation at Eastern Correctional 

21          Facility that was in partnership with Bard.  

22          The family members were in the audience, they 

23          saw all the students come in in cap and gown.  

24          I put on a cap and gown.  There was a speech 


 1          made by a Yale University dean.  We had 

 2          musicians playing the procession.  And we had 

 3          speeches by the inmates themselves, and then 

 4          we had food in the area afterwards as a 

 5          celebratory event.  

 6                 We had something similar at Sullivan 

 7          for a graduation there, Hudson Link at 

 8          Sullivan Community College.  We had it at 

 9          Woodbourne.  

10                 I've also allowed family members to 

11          come in during events such as Rehabilitation 

12          through the Arts.  So when the inmates put on 

13          the performance at Bedford -- they saw 

14          "The Wiz" -- the children can see their 

15          parents in character.  When we did it at 

16          Sing Sing, they came in and saw the inmates 

17          performing Twelfth Night.  

18                 And one last thing that we did that 

19          I'm going to replicate, we had Celebrate Your 

20          Child, an event at Sing Sing, where we just 

21          had the children brought in.  The caretakers 

22          brought them in -- the mothers, the 

23          girlfriends, whatever -- left them at the 

24          facility, we put them at a church off-site, 


 1          just so the fathers could bond with their 

 2          children.  We had a musician come in, we had 

 3          arts and crafts, we made the entire place 

 4          child-friendly so it looked like something 

 5          from Disneyland.  We had a DJ, we had food.  

 6          But it was an initiative that went off very, 

 7          very well, and it's the kind of event we're 

 8          going to continue to do because it goes to 

 9          the heart of maintaining family ties.  And my 

10          commitment to continue that is unabated.  

11                 So I have an obligation to the 

12          taxpayer.  And unfortunately, you know, years 

13          ago we made this change in medium.  So if 

14          you're in a max now, you have visits seven 

15          days a week, it's a little of an abrupt 

16          change to go to a medium.  And many of our 

17          mediums previously were at max, and to only 

18          have visits on weekends.  

19                 So this was, we thought, a prudent 

20          change, but still leaves weekday visits on 

21          Fridays.  

22                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.

23                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.

24                 Senator Gallivan, who is chair of the 


 1          Crime and Corrections Committee.

 2                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Good afternoon, 

 3          Commissioner.  

 4                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Good 

 5          afternoon, Senator.

 6                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  The budget, if I 

 7          read it correctly, provides for 165 new 

 8          correction officer positions that came about 

 9          as a result of the security staffing reviews.  

10          So that's additional positions in addition to 

11          your current strength.  

12                 Where are you in that security 

13          staffing review process?  

14                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  We're in 

15          the third year right now.  I think there's 

16          either four or eight left to be done.  That's 

17          a collaborative effort that we do with both 

18          unions, NYSCOPBA as well as Council 82.  

19                 And when the process is complete -- 

20          and I think it's four facilities left to 

21          finalize -- then the recommendations will be 

22          submitted to the Division of the Budget.

23                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  I'm pleased with 

24          your testimony to learn that assaults are 


 1          down, which is clearly a good thing.  But I 

 2          agree with you; as you testified, one assault 

 3          is too many.  So while assaults are down, if 

 4          I understand correctly, from year to year, if 

 5          we go back five years, we're still 

 6          significantly above what it was five years 

 7          ago.  And I know that's problematic.  

 8                 And I also know from our separate 

 9          discussions and your testimony, you're 

10          implementing some different things.  I'd like 

11          to talk just about a few of the things.  And 

12          this is in no particular order.  

13                 But you made reference to pepper 

14          spray, and you've got pilot facilities.  How 

15          many facilities is that being used in?

16                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  I'm 

17          going to double-check.  I think we're up to 

18          about six or eight.  

19                 But we are satisfied with the results.  

20          And this was something that was recommended 

21          strongly to us when we brought in auditors 

22          from the National Institute of Corrections, 

23          that this would make a lot of sense.  And the 

24          experience at places like Attica, where we've 


 1          put it, for the most part has been it can 

 2          stop a violent fight in its tracks, for the 

 3          most part.  

 4                 And I'm always about trying to enhance 

 5          anything to keep staff safer, and this is 

 6          something that we are going to look to expand 

 7          to all of our medium and max facilities, 

 8          because we are very satisfied with the 

 9          results thus far.

10                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Now, three other 

11          things that you had testified to -- thermal 

12          imaging, heartbeat detection device, and 

13          portable metal detectors -- are all of them 

14          deployed through every facility, or are they 

15          limited as well?

16                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  No, 

17          they're not at every facility, but we are 

18          spreading them at every facility, or all the 

19          maxes.  I'm trying to keep every one straight 

20          as to exactly where we are.  I think we've 

21          deployed about 110 of those portable metal 

22          detectors, which are very helpful in removing 

23          metal weapons from the population.  

24                 Because it's one thing when an inmate 


 1          sees a fixed location where he knows there's 

 2          a metal detector, and it's another thing when 

 3          we can move them and then do them in effect 

 4          in an unannounced fashion.  So that has been 

 5          very successful.  

 6                 The thermal imaging devices -- the 

 7          heartbeat detection is at I believe almost 

 8          all of our maxes, if not all, so that 

 9          vehicles exiting a facility -- and these 

10          things are so sensitive, they'll detect 

11          anything.  And one time a vehicle couldn't 

12          leave, and we found out it wasn't a person, 

13          it was a mouse that was trapped in there.  

14                 So we're learning that technology can 

15          be an enormous asset and help us and keep our 

16          inmates safe and security staff safe as well, 

17          and civilians as well. 

18                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Along the lines -- 

19          continuing the theme of technology, I don't 

20          think you testified to the x-ray equipment in 

21          the package room.  Where does that stand?  

22                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  We are 

23          still studying it, the x-ray equipment.  And 

24          we see an important role for that at our 


 1          front gate procedure.  

 2                 I'll check with my technological 

 3          people to see exactly where we are, but when 

 4          I last checked, we're still evaluating them.  

 5          We'll get back to you.

 6                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Please do.

 7                 I think a couple of years ago -- 

 8          although I may be mistaken, but I'm thinking 

 9          we had perhaps a brief conversation about 

10          body scanners.  And whether we had the 

11          conversation or not really is irrelevant.  I 

12          mean, what are your thoughts about the use of 

13          body scanners?  

14                 And if I back up, where I've seen them 

15          in use is post-visits.  So the body 

16          scanner -- the visitor is not subject to that 

17          at all.  But because so much contraband comes 

18          in through the contact visits, the idea would 

19          be that when the inmate leaves the visiting 

20          area, he then passes through the body 

21          scanner, similar to what you see at airports.  

22                 Do you have thoughts on their use?

23                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  I will 

24          have to defer to my people.  I haven't had a 


 1          discussion about that in a while.  

 2                 Certainly I am concerned with 

 3          visitation and the introduction of 

 4          contraband, especially drugs.  We do have 

 5          visitor processing systems so that we can 

 6          readily identify a visitor who has tried to 

 7          introduce contraband in one facility, and now 

 8          we have a way of identifying them should they 

 9          come with new identification or false 

10          identification at a different name.  

11                 So that is expanding to our 

12          facilities.  We do strip-frisk inmates after 

13          a visit.  I'm not sure if, on top of that, a 

14          body scanner would tell us more.  But I'm 

15          open to exploring anything that would further 

16          increase safety and security.

17                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Several years ago, 

18          Rikers deployed the body scanners.  It was 

19          only for a brief time.  And they reported 

20          success in reducing the amount of contraband, 

21          particularly weapons, coming into the 

22          facility, but also had reported where an 

23          inmate might have, you know, swallowed a 

24          balloon with drugs or something like that.  


 1                 They ran into a a problem, though, and 

 2          that's state law.  Public Health Law requires 

 3          certified x-ray technicians.  So we have some 

 4          legislation to -- I don't want to say to 

 5          overcome that, to ensure compliance.  But of 

 6          course we'd have to have a willing system to 

 7          be able to use it, find the funding, which I 

 8          would be committed to do.  

 9                 But I would ask that that's something 

10          that you look into because I think we 

11          together would find that the research shows 

12          it could be tremendously successful.

13                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  We have 

14          a product evaluation committee that's always 

15          looking at different things and seeing what 

16          the latest technology is from various 

17          vendors, so we could certainly explore that 

18          as well, Senator.  Thank you.

19                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Finally, I know 

20          that you do have a pilot going on with body 

21          cameras.  What can you report to us, and your 

22          thoughts on the use of body cameras in 

23          facilities?  And do you have enough data yet, 

24          or have you evaluated it enough to know 


 1          whether it can be an effective tool?

 2                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  We -- we 

 3          started out as a pilot.  It's still a pilot.  

 4          But we first started it at Upstate 

 5          Correctional Facility, which is an SHU 

 6          facility, and we said if there's going to be 

 7          an extraction, let's see how this technology 

 8          works.  It was already on contract, the 

 9          company and the vendor.

10                 So we started using it there, and then 

11          we started using it in high-risk escorts, so 

12          when our CERT team would be transporting 

13          somebody that was a high risk.  And we were 

14          satisfied to the point that we said, Okay, 

15          let's go to the next step, let's deploy it in 

16          widespread fashion -- first at Clinton, where 

17          we now have 150 body cameras that are 

18          deployed.  

19                 A lot of planning went into it.  It's 

20          basically event-specific, so that the 

21          officers who are outfitted with it -- it's in 

22          an inactive phase, but they activate it when 

23          one of these events, like movement for a 

24          particular area or a response to something.  


 1                 And so we're in the very early stages 

 2          of continuing to evaluate it.  Some issues 

 3          with the vendor, and they've been very 

 4          responsible, they've come on-scene to, you 

 5          know, fix any technical problems.  

 6                 But we're hopeful that -- we think it 

 7          will help.  Certainly my ultimate goal is to 

 8          have a fixed camera system in place at 

 9          Clinton, very similar to the $12 million 

10          project that is almost complete at Attica.  

11          And I can tell you when I went to Attica, 

12          which was only a couple of months ago, and 

13          walked down the cell blocks, you could sense 

14          the whole atmosphere was much calmer.  

15          Believe me, when the commissioner walks down, 

16          if they know it's the commissioner, and the 

17          inmates are unhappy about something, they 

18          will let you know.  But most of the 

19          conversation was "How you doin'?  Everything 

20          okay?"  "Yeah, everything's fine," and moved 

21          on.

22                 So cameras really have a calming 

23          effect on everybody.  And they let us know 

24          exactly what's happening.  So we're a strong 


 1          proponent.  When we built our new 

 2          facilities -- now 12 years ago or so -- 

 3          Upstate and Five Points, they were fully 

 4          camera-ed.  That's the way to go.

 5                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Thank you, 

 6          Commissioner.

 7                 Thank you, Madam Chair.

 8                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, Senator.

 9                 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS:  Assemblywoman 

10          Walker.

11                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WALKER:  So thank you to 

12          the respective chairs for allowing me the 

13          opportunity to speak and ask a couple of 

14          questions.  

15                 The first question that I have relates 

16          to college or college classes while a person 

17          is incarcerated in one of your facilities.  

18          Is this something that's already being 

19          implemented?  And, you know, is it at all 

20          facilities, being made available at all 

21          facilities?

22                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  It's not 

23          at all facilities, Assemblywoman.  But we are 

24          strong proponents of it.  We have about 


 1          900-and-some-odd inmates enrolled in some 

 2          type of college programs.  I think it's at 

 3          24 different facilities right now.

 4                 The U.S. Department of Education 

 5          recently awarded $30 million, and seven -- I 

 6          believe seven different college consortiums 

 7          that will service our facilities received 

 8          that award, so they'll be expanding on our 

 9          current capabilities.  One of the college 

10          consortiums I think was in Bennington, so 

11          they will service Great Meadow.  

12                 And we're also looking forward to when 

13          the announcement is made by the District 

14          Attorneys Association of New York, this asset 

15          forfeiture money that he has made available, 

16          so they'll be expanding on the college 

17          programs.  And we are all in favor of that.

18                 Based upon my experience, education is 

19          the purest form of rehabilitation.  And it 

20          really also has a very positive effect on the 

21          whole inmate population.  These are role 

22          models for other inmates, and it moves us 

23          towards safer institutions.

24                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WALKER:  So the 


 1          resources that are being utilized for these 

 2          college courses, is there any government 

 3          money that's attached to that, or is that a 

 4          part of your budget ask this year?

 5                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  The 

 6          government money now that's being used is not 

 7          the restoration of the Pell Grant funding 

 8          that was just announced by the U.S. 

 9          Department of Education, $30 million.  

10                 The money that will come from the 

11          Manhattan district attorney's office is asset 

12          forfeiture money --

13                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WALKER:  So there's no 

14          state money attached to that?

15                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Well, I 

16          think there might be a little bit left over, 

17          or it might all be gone.  

18                 But basically all of the existing 

19          relationships we have with college programs 

20          rely on outside donors, private 

21          donors like --

22                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WALKER:  Well, would any 

23          of these individuals be included in the 

24          Governor's Excelsior tuition-free scholarship 


 1          program?

 2                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  I'm not 

 3          aware that there are.  But certainly we look 

 4          forward to the expansion of the Pell with the 

 5          seven institutions that just got awards, and 

 6          the District Attorneys Association, so --

 7                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WALKER:  Okay.  Also, 

 8          would there be any continuation of services, 

 9          like once a person is released and they're on 

10          parole, or maybe not on parole, but would 

11          they still have an opportunity to continue in 

12          their classes?  Will they be transferable?

13                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  We are 

14          engaged in various conversations with some of 

15          the higher education institutions.  There's a 

16          vehicle by which some of our students can 

17          continue, for example, at John Jay, which 

18          we're looking at.  And in fact we might look 

19          to place some of them, take classes there 

20          while they're still with us, as part of one 

21          form of temporary release.  It's called 

22          educational release.

23                 So we're looking in some ways, limited 

24          ways, to continue their education in the 


 1          community when they need it.  And some of 

 2          these institutions on their own do it.  Like 

 3          I believe Bard, when some of our inmates get 

 4          paroled, do accept them into their programs, 

 5          or different college campuses.

 6                 So it is a continuous network, and it 

 7          certainly helps for employment purposes.

 8                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WALKER:  Thank you.  I 

 9          think that's a wonderful program.  

10                 But we also had an opportunity to see 

11          the usage of a restraint desk in some sort of 

12          educational environments of people who are 

13          incarcerated.  Is that particular technique 

14          something that would be employed here?  Or 

15          would someone who would require the usage of 

16          a restraint desk be limited in their 

17          opportunity to take any of these courses?

18                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  The 

19          restraint chair that you're talking about -- 

20          we call them restart chairs -- they're 

21          basically used for SHU populations.  They're 

22          not used for general-confinement inmates. 

23                 And we learned early on when we got 

24          advice from our mental health expert, before 


 1          we settled a complex lawsuit, that when you 

 2          bring inmates out into a group setting, it is 

 3          absolutely critical that they all be safe.  

 4          And sometimes they'll assault each other.  

 5          And group settings are important to have for 

 6          mental health therapy and other types of 

 7          programs.

 8                 So we will only do it if someone's in, 

 9          for example, our Marcy residential mental 

10          health treatment program or our step-down 

11          programs in SHU.  But they're not used for 

12          general-population purposes.  These are basic 

13          classroom settings for everybody else.

14                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WALKER:  But even if 

15          that person who maybe, you know, required 

16          some type of SHU exercises, if you will, 

17          whether it be solitary confinement or through 

18          the restraint desk or whatever the 

19          paraphernalia is called -- if that person is 

20          in one of these classes, will they still be 

21          required to wear --

22                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  No.  No.  

23          No.  If they were, for example, going out for 

24          their outside recreation, you know, there's 


 1          no restart chair, there's no restraints once 

 2          you're in your outside recreation.

 3                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WALKER:  Thank you.  

 4                 Thank you.

 5                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  Thank 

 6          you very much.

 7                 Senator Bailey.

 8                 SENATOR BAILEY:  So I just have a 

 9          couple of questions.  Thank you, 

10          Commissioner, for coming here.  It's along 

11          the same lines that Chair Weprin and 

12          Assemblywoman Walker just mentioned, 

13          concerning the DMV program and Culinary Arts.  

14          They sound like great programs.  

15                 But concerning reentry, do you have 

16          specific relationships with outside groups 

17          that would facilitate, post-release, that 

18          somebody would be able to actually be 

19          gainfully employed based upon the 

20          transferable skills that they've learned 

21          while incarcerated?

22                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Oh, 

23          absolutely.  We have many relationships.  We 

24          have relationships and contracts with outside 


 1          service providers, not-for-profits, Work for 

 2          Success, Pay for Success.  

 3                 There are a number of things -- we 

 4          have reentry specialists.  We have about 

 5          22 people that are concerned with getting 

 6          jobs, getting housing, getting placements.  A 

 7          big challenge, of course, with housing.  A 

 8          lot of our individuals being released 

 9          unfortunately require homeless services.  

10                 But reentry is a big, big focus.  The 

11          Governor has created the Reentry Council.  We 

12          listen to their recommendations all the time.  

13          We're always trying to remove the barriers 

14          that there may be for hiring and employment 

15          purposes.  It is the public policy of this 

16          state not to discriminate against anybody in 

17          the hiring decision or the housing decision 

18          because they may have a criminal record, and 

19          we remind people of that all the time.

20                 We work with the individuals as part 

21          of transitional services.  We do practical 

22          role-playing, get them ready for a job 

23          interview, how to, you know, make up a 

24          resume, how do you explain to a prospective 


 1          employer about your criminal record.  We do a 

 2          lot of different things.

 3                 And we're focused on those industries, 

 4          like the food service, that is friendly 

 5          toward the formerly incarcerated.  

 6                 SENATOR BAILEY:  Thank you, 

 7          Commissioner.  I think I have one more 

 8          question for you.

 9                 So we're looking at potentially fewer 

10          hearings and reduced sentences.  Overall, 

11          would you see -- what costs would that 

12          offset?  With the cost savings on this side, 

13          would that potentially offset other costs 

14          that you may have?

15                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  I'm not 

16          sure I got the first part.

17                 SENATOR BAILEY:  So understanding that 

18          there may be, you know, fewer hearings -- and 

19          if we're reducing the amount of folks that 

20          are coming in, right, do we -- are we going 

21          to offset any additional costs?  Are you 

22          going to be able to do that?

23                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  You're 

24          talking about the fewer hearings by the 


 1          Parole Board?

 2                 SENATOR BAILEY:  Yes.

 3                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Okay.  I 

 4          don't think that that's really going to 

 5          offset too much of the burden on the Board of 

 6          Parole, which is pretty extensive right now.  

 7          You know, they have a lot to do to basically 

 8          have a full file together and -- to some 

 9          degree, and it will take years to implement, 

10          if we enacted determinate sentencing, maybe 

11          that's going to change the number of hearings 

12          that they will see.

13                 But if we go with this change now that 

14          I will set the conditions, that's more or 

15          less paper changes.  It's not hours of 

16          changes, it's just eliminating an unnecessary 

17          step.  It will be helpful to them, but I 

18          don't think it's going to be big in terms of 

19          reduced workload for them.

20                 SENATOR BAILEY:  Okay.  Nothing 

21          further.  Thank you, Commissioner.  

22                 Thank you, Madam Chair.

23                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.

24                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.


 1                 Mr. Graf.

 2                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Do we have any 

 3          policy when it comes to guard/prisoner ratios 

 4          in our jail?

 5                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  I know 

 6          that our ratio, compared to the rest of the 

 7          country, is very, very good.  I think our 

 8          inmate -- correction officer or security 

 9          staff ratio to inmates is 1 to 2.5.  And I 

10          think for the rest of the country, the 

11          average is something like 1 to 6.5.

12                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Now, is this 

13          required, the ratio, the staffing ratio?

14                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  No, it's 

15          not required.  It's a function of what we do 

16          to create plot plans for a facility, what 

17          needed posts are and coverage, et cetera, 

18          relief factors and all of those things.  So 

19          that's the total security staffing for the 

20          whole system.

21                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  All right.  And 

22          right now we have enough manpower to do this 

23          1 to 2.5?

24                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  We have 


 1          yet to complete the final leg of the 

 2          three-year security staffing audit that was 

 3          enacted several years ago.  And so 

 4          ultimately, in my judgment, when we adopt all 

 5          of those recommendations, we'll be at the 

 6          full complement.

 7                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Correct.  But where 

 8          are we right now?

 9                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  We've 

10          implemented the second year.  We've 

11          implemented the first year, now the second 

12          year.  So the third --

13                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  What's our ratio 

14          right now?

15                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  One to 

16          2.5.

17                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  And now here it 

18          says that you as the commissioner, you can 

19          set conditions of parole in certain 

20          instances.  Okay?  Now, when you do that, do 

21          you take into consideration a victim impact 

22          statement like the Parole Board would do?  Do 

23          you talk to the victims of the crimes?

24                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  I don't 


 1          envision that we would talk to the victims of 

 2          the crimes.  

 3                 Because, first of all, the offenses 

 4          that we're talking about, the Parole Board 

 5          doesn't even see them.  You're talking about 

 6          people that are serving determinate 

 7          sentences.  So a determinate sentence is a 

 8          fixed sentence.  It's set in whole or half 

 9          years.  So somebody gets, let's say, a 

10          7Ω-year determinate sentence, right, on 

11          attempted assault, that person will get 

12          released either at the maximum expiration or 

13          the conditional release date.  When they get 

14          released, there's no victim impact to assess 

15          whether they feel they should get released or 

16          not.  

17                 We are fully aware of what happened to 

18          the victim and will measure that, because we 

19          look at the pre-sentence report.  That's a 

20          very detailed document that will tell us what 

21          happened.  That also tells us what programs 

22          the individual will need while he's with us.  

23          If he needs aggression replacement therapy, 

24          if it's a domestic violence matter, then 


 1          we'll certainly set conditions like that.  

 2                 But to actually reach out and 

 3          interview the victim, that's not done now 

 4          under present practice.

 5                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Okay.

 6                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Unless 

 7          it's an indeterminate sentence.  Then, of 

 8          course, the victim is interviewed, because 

 9          the decision is whether or not the person 

10          gets released or not, and the Executive Law 

11          requires -- that's one of the factors that 

12          the Parole Board looks at.

13                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Okay.  Well, it 

14          says in certain instances, under the 

15          corrections reform bill, that you can set the 

16          conditions of parole.

17                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Correct.

18                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Okay?  Are you 

19          limited in what types of cases you can set 

20          the conditions?

21                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  If this 

22          is enacted, this would be, in effect, every 

23          type of decision where somebody's released, 

24          in effect, by operation of law.  There's no 


 1          discretionary Parole Board release.

 2                 So a drug offender, for example, he 

 3          gets out, I will be able to set the 

 4          conditions.  And they will all be geared to 

 5          what he needs in the community.  Does he need 

 6          drug treatment, does he need mental health 

 7          services, does he need substance abuse 

 8          counseling?  

 9                 Whatever it is, we will set it 

10          according to the case plan that's developed 

11          by program staff, and then hand it off to 

12          Community Supervision staff.  Which will 

13          continue, by the way, to have the authority 

14          to change conditions as appropriate.  Parole 

15          officers have that authority now.

16                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Okay.  Are there 

17          any convictions where it would have to go to 

18          the Parole Board and you wouldn't be the 

19          determiner?


21          Absolutely.  Every single case right now 

22          where there's a Parole Board interview, 

23          right -- and under current law, if you 

24          changed nothing else, every single individual 


 1          with an indeterminate sentence, whether it's 

 2          15 to life, 3 to 9, 5 to 15, every one of 

 3          those cases goes before the Parole Board.  

 4          The Parole Board grants release or withholds, 

 5          holds them for two years, whatever.  When 

 6          they finally grant release, they will 

 7          continue to set the conditions, because they 

 8          are doing the interview.  They see the 

 9          individual before them, whether it's 

10          physically in their presence or through a 

11          televideo interview.

12                 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF:  Okay, thank you.  

13          I'm out of time.

14                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

15                 Any other questions?  Okay, well, 

16          thank you very much.

17                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  No, no, no, no, no.  

18          I'm sorry.

19                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Denny's trying to 

20          see if I'm still awake, I guess.  

21                 (Laughter.)

22                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Assemblywoman 

23          Peoples-Stokes.

24                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  I'll be 


 1          real quick, Madam Chair.  

 2                 Just a couple of quick questions.  

 3          Thank you very much for your testimony today.  

 4          You mentioned that there's 39 FTEs that will 

 5          be reduced as a result of the policy change 

 6          on visiting hours.  How many of those 39 FTEs 

 7          are filled positions?

 8                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  They're 

 9          all filled right now.

10                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  They're 

11          all filled right now.

12                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Yeah.  

13          What we would envision happening is if this 

14          is enacted, gradually we would basically 

15          absorb those staff through the normal 

16          attrition process.  Because, you know, we are 

17          always losing staff.  People retire, people 

18          move to other facilities.  So there are 

19          always items that need to be filled.  And so 

20          we don't envision anybody's current job being 

21          immediately affected.  They'll get a 

22          different post; obviously, they'll bid to a 

23          different job.  But we don't see that 

24          happening.


 1                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Okay.  

 2          So does your department budget have any 

 3          vacancies in it?

 4                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  I'm 

 5          sorry?

 6                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Does 

 7          the budget have any vacant positions in it at 

 8          all?

 9                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Does the 

10          budget have any vacancies in it?

11                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Yes.  

12          Yes.  You know, sometimes people will budget 

13          for vacant positions.

14                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Sure.

15                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Yeah?  

16          How many?  

17                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  We're 

18          always having vacancies.  

19                 It's -- it's -- when you have a 

20          workforce of 29,000 -- and we're budgeted, I 

21          believe, for FTEs, 29,215 -- there is 

22          constant turnover and constant challenges to 

23          fill positions.  Especially difficult 

24          positions like nurses, which is unfortunately 


 1          very difficult.  And then we have to schedule 

 2          training classes for correction officers.  I 

 3          believe we have nine that are planned for 

 4          this fiscal year.

 5                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Okay.  

 6          Because did you all just do a recent exam for 

 7          correction officers not long ago?

 8                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  I'm 

 9          sorry, do we have what?

10                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Give an 

11          exam for new correctional officers?  No?  A 

12          civil service exam?

13                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  I'm 

14          sorry, I still don't --

15                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Okay.  

16          There's an Article VII in the budget that 

17          proposes a change in preferred source 

18          correctional -- an industries program, which 

19          includes a procurement service for asbestos 

20          abatement.  

21                 Can you explain how that's going to be 

22          implemented and who's going to do the 

23          training?  And are the folks that are being 

24          trained able to leave at some point, under 


 1          their release, with a certificate?

 2                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Okay, I 

 3          believe the change you're talking about is 

 4          allowing that as a preferred source status 

 5          under our State Finance Law.

 6                 We've had an asbestos abatement 

 7          program for a number of years right now.  

 8          It's a part of our Corcraft program.  And the 

 9          individuals that participate in it, the 

10          inmates, are fully trained and are credited 

11          with certifications.  They're given the full 

12          equipment.  

13                 And there's a lot of demand for them, 

14          because unfortunately we have a lot of old 

15          buildings that require asbestos removal.  And 

16          it is one of the LCTA, the Limited Credit 

17          Time Allowance components.  So that if you 

18          qualify and you participate for I believe 

19          whatever it is, 18 months, plus the training 

20          certificate, you can shorten your release by 

21          as much as six months.  

22                 And I don't have the statistics, but 

23          I'm --

24                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  You can 


 1          shorten your -- I'm sorry, say that again.  

 2          You can shorten what?

 3                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  You can 

 4          get released six months prior to your normal 

 5          release date.  It's one of the nine 

 6          existing-law Limited Credit Time Allowance 

 7          criteria, as long as you behave as well.  

 8                 And I've heard, at least anecdotally, 

 9          that there's a demand for that job in the 

10          outside world.  So if you have real-life 

11          experience working as a crew to remove 

12          asbestos from one of either our buildings or 

13          one of the public buildings -- because we are 

14          allowed to work on any state building or 

15          government building, political subdivision of 

16          the state, without taking private business 

17          away -- that's very valuable in the real 

18          world.

19                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Yes, I 

20          have to concur, there is a demand for 

21          asbestos removal, because there is, I think, 

22          a huge demand to preserve some of the older 

23          buildings in our state.  We have a really 

24          great historic preservation operation going 


 1          on here.

 2                 The problem is that asbestos is a very 

 3          hazardous material.  And if business were to 

 4          listen when the environmentalists were 

 5          telling them that years ago, we would have 

 6          never put that in our buildings.

 7                 But my concern is that, one, the 

 8          inmates are providing this asbestos removal 

 9          as a -- through a training program for the 

10          private sector.

11                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  I can 

12          tell you that what we are doing is under the 

13          auspices of the Department of Labor, to make 

14          absolutely certain that all of our equipment 

15          is safe equipment, that no one's health is 

16          compromised, it's state of the art.  

17                 And we're very pleased with the 

18          results so far.  I have not heard any 

19          complaints or any --

20                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  How 

21          many facilities have this program?

22                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  I'm 

23          going to guess several.  I think there's one 

24          we're going to open at Fishkill as well.  But 


 1          I think about it's two or three right now 

 2          where we have crews available.  

 3                 But let me double-check on that.

 4                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Is the 

 5          training done by the Department of Labor or 

 6          New York State Education?  

 7                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  I'm not 

 8          absolutely sure.  I think it has been.  But 

 9          I'll have to double-check and get back to you 

10          on that.

11                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Okay.  

12          Well, we'll follow up on that, because I'm 

13          definitely interested in some clarity on, 

14          one, who provides the training, to make sure 

15          it's meeting all the milestones and safety 

16          measures that are critically important.  

17                 And I think the other thing that is 

18          important to know is where are the 

19          private-sector buildings that the inmates are 

20          providing this service, and where are the 

21          public-sector buildings that the inmates are 

22          providing this service?  

23                 And you said yes to the fact that they 

24          will have a certificate when they leave that 


 1          allows them to have a job skill that they can 

 2          use in the community that they return to.

 3                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Yes, 

 4          absolutely.  It's important that they be able 

 5          to document, whether it's in that program or 

 6          any of our other vocational programs or the 

 7          apprenticeship program that the DOL issues to 

 8          us -- there's a number of different things -- 

 9          or the computer technology programs that we 

10          operate -- whatever they participate in, they 

11          have to meet certain qualifications, pass 

12          tests.  We want them to have the 

13          documentation to document, when they go out, 

14          what they've actually accomplished.

15                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Well, 

16          thank you very much.

17                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.  

18                 Joe Lentol, chairman.

19                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  Thank you, 

20          Mr. Chairman.  Is this working?  I can hear 

21          myself usually when the microphone is on.  

22                 First of all, I just wanted to say 

23          that -- how many commissioners have you 

24          served under before you became acting 


 1          commissioner?  

 2                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Well, I 

 3          started in 1984 with Tom Coughlin, who was 

 4          succeeded by Phil Coombe, who was succeeded 

 5          by Glenn Goord, who was succeeded by Brian 

 6          Fischer.  So four.  But this is my fifth 

 7          governor.

 8                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  I always thought 

 9          that you were the brains of the outfit under 

10          those commissioners, and now you've proved it 

11          by taking over.  And I have to tell you that 

12          I hoped that we could have gotten rid of your 

13          acting commissioner title before the end of 

14          the year.

15                 (Inaudible; laughter.)

16                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  So let me just 

17          make a comment first about determinate 

18          sentencing.  Because and you and I served 

19          on -- as you suggested, you and I served on 

20          the Sentencing Commission under Commissioner 

21          O'Donnell as well as Mike Green.  And you 

22          know the difficulties that we had in trying 

23          to fashion a grid for the D and E felonies.  

24          It wasn't an easy job.  


 1                 What makes you think that the 

 2          Legislature can do it?

 3                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Well, 

 4          let me say this, Assemblyman.  This is the 

 5          product of what the Permanent Sentencing 

 6          Commission put together, which are different 

 7          people altogether, who were very mindful, 

 8          very mindful of the resistance that came 

 9          about after the first O'Donnell Commission's 

10          recommended grids.  

11                 And they operated on two principles.  

12          They were absolutely adamant that the grids 

13          that they came up with could not in any way 

14          expose people to longer incarceration.  They 

15          were absolutely certain.  They wanted to 

16          ensure that people either would save the 

17          equivalent time or less.

18                 And the second thing is that this is a 

19          balanced approach.  There's a grid for the 

20          homicide offenses, which is separate from all 

21          the other indeterminates, because they this 

22          way enlisted the district attorneys' support.  

23          And this permanent commission is chaired both 

24          by District Attorney Cy Vance and Judge Derek 


 1          Champagne.  And many others --

 2                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  By the way, Tony, 

 3          you might remember that I was the one that 

 4          was screaming about racial disparities when 

 5          we discussed this, where we couldn't get any 

 6          information out of DCJS or anyone else to 

 7          determine whether or not this was efficacious 

 8          for us to do with the built-in racial 

 9          disparities in the system.  

10                 And I think we now have that problem 

11          now, because everyone is accusing the 

12          Parole Board of not letting anybody out.  And 

13          if we're going to build that into the system, 

14          then we're going to have disparities as well 

15          in determining what the actual grid could be.

16                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Well, 

17          let me say this, Assemblyman.  When the 

18          Legislature moved to determinate sentencing 

19          for all drug offenses, this has had seismic 

20          impacts on (A) who's in prison and the racial 

21          makeup of who's in prison.  

22                 The population in prison is driven by 

23          two things.  One is in admissions, and you 

24          get into prison by -- either as a new 


 1          commitment for a felony or as a return parole 

 2          violator.  The other thing is the length of 

 3          stay.  Now, what drives length of stay?  Not 

 4          just a sentence, but all of the programs that 

 5          the Legislature has enacted over the years 

 6          going back 30 years -- shock, merit time, 

 7          earned eligibility, the alternative with 

 8          parole supervision sentences.  

 9                 So right now, as we're sitting here, 

10          compared to 20 years ago, there are 

11          10,000 less African-Americans in prison, 

12          there are 10,000 less Hispanics in prison.  

13          There are 1800 more whites in prison.  So 

14          when you went to determinate sentencing, yes, 

15          you also did a number of other things.  You 

16          also created alternatives for drug offenders 

17          and did a number of other things.  But you 

18          dramatically changed the prison population, 

19          and I think you made it a lot fairer.

20                 So you went to determinate sentencing 

21          for drug offenders.  We think going to drug 

22          offenders for this cohort will have similar 

23          results.

24                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  I also have this 


 1          to say.  And I think this is important.  And 

 2          it's really not part of this hearing, but I 

 3          have to say it anyway because I have you in 

 4          the room.

 5                 I was here long enough to remember 

 6          that we promised the mental health community 

 7          to have clinics in the neighborhood in order 

 8          to solve people's mental health problems.  

 9          Right now we have a situation where all of 

10          the mentally ill people are either on the 

11          street, in homeless shelters, or in our 

12          jails.  Can we tackle this problem?  

13                 I mean, can you tell us how many 

14          people that you suspect are in DOCCS that are 

15          mentally ill?  Do you have a number for that?  

16                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Yeah.  

17          We currently -- and it's about 20 percent now 

18          of the population that are on the OMH 

19          caseload.  So that's about 10,000-plus 

20          individuals that are requiring some degree of 

21          mental health services.  And of that cohort, 

22          about 24 percent are diagnosed as seriously 

23          mentally ill.

24                 So it is a challenge for us.  And yes, 


 1          you know, a lot of this was when we 

 2          deinstitutionalized and took away all of 

 3          those large mental health hospitals and 

 4          didn't really come back with sufficient 

 5          community supports.  

 6                 So a lot of the services we provide it 

 7          should -- and we have really implemented an 

 8          incredible array of different possibilities 

 9          for delivering services with OMH.  We have, 

10          you know, the residential mental health 

11          treatment units that you enacted years ago.  

12          We have tri-ICP, we have ICP beds.  We have a 

13          new unit that we're going to create that's 

14          going to be a step-down from the residential 

15          crisis treatment beds, because you're still 

16          at high risk for suicide, we learn, when you 

17          get out of there.  So we're going to, you 

18          know, continue to deliver services.  

19                 Now we have, you know, specialists, 

20          mental health handoffs for the community.  We 

21          drive the individuals when we have a 

22          placement instead of putting them on a bus.  

23          We hook them up with services.  Getting them 

24          to continue to take medication is a 


 1          challenge.

 2                 So it's a very, very complex problem.  

 3          But we are doing a lot behind the walls and 

 4          in the community.  And perhaps someday we'll 

 5          have more diversion up-front, similar to what 

 6          happened with drug offenders, that you can 

 7          divert people from state prison altogether 

 8          with suitable placements up-front.  

 9                 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL:  We also have some 

10          programs that I think have been really not on 

11          anyone's radar screen, one by your former 

12          boss, Commissioner Fischer, up in the Bronx 

13          that is a residential facility for the 

14          mentally ill.  I won't mention the name of 

15          it.  

16                 But, I mean, these are the kind of 

17          approaches we have to do.  Government can't 

18          do it all, but government has to get involved 

19          in funding some of these programs like we do 

20          any of the other programs that help people 

21          who are in trouble, whether it's drug addicts 

22          or anyone else that is able to go to a 

23          residential facility and get help.  And I 

24          think we have to do that now, because we 


 1          haven't done our job.  We're letting private 

 2          citizens deal with the problem, and 

 3          government promised the people a better 

 4          shake, the mentally ill.

 5                 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 6                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.

 7                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.

 8                 Any other questions?  

 9                 Okay, well, thank you very much for 

10          joining us today.

11                 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:  Thank 

12          you.

13                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  We truly appreciate 

14          all of your information.  Look forward to 

15          working with you.

16                 You brought the whole room with you, 

17          apparently, because they're all leaving.  I 

18          guess some are coming this way.  

19                 Next up is Superintendent George 

20          Beach, from the New York State Police.  

21          Number five.

22                 If we could have some order in the 

23          house, please.  Okay, let's have some order.  

24          We'd like to begin. 


 1                 So welcome, Superintendent.  It truly 

 2          is always a pleasure to see you and have a 

 3          discussion with you.  So we are very, very 

 4          happy that you've waited around for this many 

 5          hours to be able to address any questions 

 6          that the Legislature may have.  So please 

 7          proceed.

 8                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Thank you.  

 9          Thank you, Chairman Young, Chairman Farrell, 

10          and distinguished members of the committees 

11          for the opportunity to discuss with you today 

12          Governor Cuomo's budget for the Division of 

13          State Police.  I am George Beach, 

14          superintendent of the New York State Police.  

15                 I would like to take this opportunity 

16          to thank the Legislature for its enduring 

17          support of the New York State Police.  

18          Because of your support, the New York State 

19          Police continues to enjoy its well-deserved 

20          reputation as one of the leading law 

21          enforcement agencies in the nation.  

22                 On April 11th, the New York State 

23          Police will celebrate the 100th anniversary 

24          of our founding in 1917.  Then-Governor 


 1          Charles S. Whitman signed the Wells-Mills 

 2          Bill into law establishing the State Police. 

 3                 As we reflect on the 100-year legacy 

 4          of excellence in our agency, we recognize 

 5          that our role in New York continues to 

 6          encompass our original purpose while the 

 7          expectations placed upon the agency in the 

 8          ever-changing environment of law enforcement 

 9          continue to expand.  Our members are faced 

10          with greater threats and demands on their 

11          abilities than at any time in our history. 

12          This is the reality of our mission.  

13                 For a century, the State Police has 

14          consistently provided public service through 

15          its core missions while adapting priorities 

16          to ever-changing societal needs.  We have 

17          striven for continuous improvement in every 

18          aspect of our public service.  Our current 

19          mission priorities include reducing the 

20          number of deaths, injuries and property 

21          damage caused by motor vehicle accidents, 

22          through traffic enforcement and motorist 

23          education; providing professional police 

24          services to communities and investigative 


 1          support to police departments around the 

 2          state; engaging in emergency preparedness, 

 3          planning and response activities; and serving 

 4          a crucial role in the state's 

 5          counterterrorism efforts through our 

 6          collaborative work with federal, local and 

 7          other state agencies.  

 8                 My first and foremost priority 

 9          continues to be the safety of the public and 

10          our troopers who protect them.  Toward that 

11          end, we will continue to provide our troopers 

12          with the necessary equipment and other 

13          valuable resources to achieve the best levels 

14          of safety in the performance of their duties.  

15          During the past year, with your support, we 

16          outfitted the agency with new patrol rifles, 

17          rifle-resistant body armor plates for every 

18          patrol vehicle, additional plates for large 

19          deployments, and new ballistic helmets as 

20          well as new fitkits for existing helmets 

21          statewide.  Both you and the Governor have 

22          paid close attention to this need after 

23          observing the increasing level of 

24          sophistication and tactics employed at 


 1          criminal events in the United States and 

 2          abroad.  

 3                 The Governor continues to dedicate 

 4          funding to enhance efforts to detect and 

 5          deter terrorism in a time when such acts are 

 6          constantly a threat to the safety of 

 7          New Yorkers and are news headlines around the 

 8          globe.  As a result, New York remains one of 

 9          the safest large states in the nation.  Using 

10          intelligence-based investigative techniques 

11          and targeted enforcement, state troopers are 

12          now assigned to potential target locations 

13          and, with federal and local partners, provide 

14          greater protection for the public through 

15          asset integration strategies.  

16                 Our increasing presence in the 

17          New York metropolitan area adds an additional 

18          layer of security for our citizens as they 

19          travel through the city's public 

20          transportation venues.  It is also intended 

21          to provide a deterrent effect to both 

22          terrorism and other criminality as the state 

23          moves to open road tolling at all of its MTA 

24          bridges and tunnels, where we have a 24-hour 


 1          presence.  

 2                 The State Police is unique as the only 

 3          law enforcement agency in New York State with 

 4          the ability to deploy large numbers of 

 5          professionally trained police officers 

 6          anywhere in the state on short notice in 

 7          response to an emergency or natural disaster.  

 8          The State Police is also available for 

 9          large-scale deployments to meet an immediate 

10          need for law enforcement services in any 

11          community.  In addition to our traditional 

12          investigative law enforcement responses, we 

13          continue our partnerships with the Office of 

14          Emergency Management and the Department of 

15          Homeland Security and Emergency Services, 

16          with a focus on disaster preparedness and 

17          response readiness.  

18                 Illegal drug use and its impact 

19          continues to dominate headlines in our state.  

20          Heroin availability and abuse continues.  

21          State Police will continue to aggressively 

22          investigate drug-related offenses and assist 

23          local police agencies.  State Police 

24          Contaminated Crime Scene Emergency Response 


 1          Team members responded to a 38 percent 

 2          increase in methamphetamine and other drug 

 3          manufacture locations statewide in 2016.  

 4                 Our troopers, as first responders, 

 5          continue to patrol with Naloxone, the opioid 

 6          reversal drug, which we have administered 

 7          218 times in medical emergencies involving 

 8          drug overdoses.  One hundred ninety-eight of 

 9          those administered Naloxone survived the 

10          overdose.  

11                 This year was the first year for the 

12          Campus Sexual Assault Victims Unit that arose 

13          from the "Enough is Enough' legislation and 

14          the Governor's commitment to combating sexual 

15          assault on college and university campuses 

16          statewide.  

17                 Fifteen State Police personnel worked 

18          across the state last year to ensure 

19          uniformity in the handling of campus sexual 

20          assault investigations, provide investigative 

21          assistance to campus or local law enforcement 

22          in receipt of these allegations, and educate 

23          individuals and campus communities regarding 

24          victim's rights and support resources.  


 1                 During the year, the Campus Sexual 

 2          Assault Victims Unit investigated 81 campus 

 3          cases of sexual assault, dating and domestic 

 4          violence or stalking.  

 5                 Agency staffing remains an area of 

 6          constant executive-level discussion within 

 7          the State Police.  New and core mission 

 8          priorities, both internal and external, 

 9          investigative statistics, member safety, 

10          transportation trends and personnel 

11          attrition, among others, factor into our 

12          needs requests.  We continue to request and 

13          conduct academy classes so that adequate 

14          staffing levels are maintained to perform our 

15          new and core mission priorities, without 

16          sacrificing the response time or the safety 

17          of our troopers.  We will continue to look 

18          for additional efficiencies through our 

19          partnerships with other law enforcement 

20          agencies throughout the state.  

21                 New Yorkers have come to expect public 

22          service from a stable, professional and 

23          adequately resourced State Police.  I am 

24          proud to say that New Yorkers can be 


 1          confident their expectations are being met. 

 2          It is the integrity, knowledge, dedication, 

 3          and quality of our men and women that 

 4          distinguishes the New York State Police.  I 

 5          am honored and privileged to be a part of 

 6          this agency, especially as we celebrate our 

 7          great traditions on our 100th anniversary.  

 8                 I thank you for your support of the 

 9          State Police and for the opportunity to 

10          address you this afternoon.

11                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.

12                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.

13                 Senator Gallivan to start.

14                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Thank you, 

15          Chairwoman.

16                 Good afternoon, Superintendent.  

17          Thanks for your patience.

18                 I would like to touch on two or three 

19          different areas.  The first is deployment in 

20          New York City, that I believe this particular 

21          budget calls for an increase in deployment to 

22          New York City with police personnel.

23                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, sir.

24                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Could you just 


 1          describe to us very briefly what's the role 

 2          of the State Police in New York City, in its 

 3          enhanced role, and then what impact might it 

 4          have on services throughout the rest of the 

 5          state?  

 6                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  The State 

 7          Police is deployed at the moment, Senator, on 

 8          high-profile transportation facilities, which 

 9          include all nine MTA bridge and tunnels, 

10          Grand Central Train Station, Penn Station.  

11          And in addition to that, about three weeks 

12          ago we also brought a contingent of troopers 

13          into both JFK Airport and LaGuardia Airport.  

14          Those are our primary missions at this time.  

15                 The reason behind this is the concern 

16          that we have that these are prime targets.  

17          It's no secret that all the available 

18          intelligence says that New York City, and in 

19          particular its infrastructure assets, remain 

20          prime targets for terrorism.  That has been 

21          shown again and again by the attacks which 

22          have either taken place or been thwarted 

23          through a combination of law enforcement 

24          agencies and resources down there.


 1                 A couple of important points.  The 

 2          jobs that we are undertaking in New York City 

 3          do not supplant or replace the effort of the 

 4          New York City Police Department.  In fact, we 

 5          work closely and cooperatively with the New 

 6          York City Police Department in all of these 

 7          ventures.  These are state administered 

 8          and controlled assets.  They have existing 

 9          police departments, the MTA Police Department 

10          in addition to the Port Authority.  So we are 

11          enhancing the law enforcement presence on 

12          those potential target locations.

13                 We have not staffed any of these 

14          positions in New York City at the expense of 

15          any of the resources which are committed in 

16          upstate troops.  The Governor has budgeted 

17          for these additional positions in New York 

18          City.  

19                 As you know, we have had a presence 

20          for decades in New York City, but it has been 

21          largely investigators who work in a variety 

22          of functions, including on federal task 

23          forces, drug task forces.  So this new 

24          component that we are adding of uniformed 


 1          positions has been budgeted above and beyond 

 2          our existing staffing levels so that we can 

 3          continue to adequately discharge our 

 4          functions without any diminution of service 

 5          in upstate areas.

 6                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Thank you.

 7                 A new proposal is a call by the 

 8          Governor for a Hate Crime Task Force.  And I 

 9          know that -- while the number escapes me, I 

10          know that he has provided funding for that.

11                 Are those additional positions?  

12                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  The -- we -- 

13          let me explain.  We have had, for several 

14          decades, specially trained investigators 

15          deployed throughout the state and in all of 

16          our troops to handle reports of hate crimes.  

17          So we had an existing capacity to handle 

18          these reports when they came in.

19                 The Governor has proposed a funding 

20          source for us which will allow us to assign 

21          full-time dedicated persons on a regional 

22          basis, including a senior investigator and 

23          five investigators.  But it will allow us to 

24          also expand the training.  And we envision 


 1          being able to bring in local police resources 

 2          as well, get them trained as well, to expand 

 3          our reach.  

 4                 And part of the reason is that, as 

 5          you're aware, hate crimes require a fast 

 6          response to them.  Evidence can be lost 

 7          quickly.  We've actually encountered some 

 8          instances where we've had some reports of a 

 9          hate-type graffiti and by the time we get 

10          there, it's already been painted over because 

11          it is so patently offensive to the people 

12          who, you know, live or frequent these 

13          institutions, that frequently we lose the 

14          evidence.  So our ability to respond quickly, 

15          secure evidence, is critical.  

16                 And so that money will allow us to 

17          further support our efforts on that.  In 

18          addition to that, we have centralized the 

19          command of that unit in the BCI command staff 

20          at division headquarters to ensure uniformity 

21          in the training, in the response, and in the 

22          investigation of those crimes.

23                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Thank you.

24                 Over the past -- in testimony in prior 


 1          years -- and of course you would have an 

 2          awareness of this because of your history in 

 3          working on the different positions in the 

 4          State Police -- there was a lot of concern 

 5          about the conditions of the fleet, both the 

 6          uniformed fleet and then the plainclothes 

 7          cars for the BCI.  And in the last several 

 8          years we provided funding to try to, I guess, 

 9          work towards fixing that.  

10                 Can you tell us the status of that?  

11                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes.  We have 

12          made tremendous progress in reducing the 

13          number of higher-mileage vehicles through the 

14          funding resources that you did provide to us.  

15          We estimate that towards the end of the 

16          fiscal year, by this March, anyway, we will 

17          be able to replace the last 125 to 130 

18          vehicles which will be approaching the 

19          threshold for mileage, which is 125,000.  

20          That's been our goal.

21                 The funding that is placed in this 

22          budget will allow us to continue that, and so 

23          we believe pretty confidently that we can 

24          maintain fleet under that mileage limit 


 1          moving forward.  But as you know, it's a 

 2          constant -- the vehicles are constantly in 

 3          motion, and so this is a problem which isn't 

 4          going to go away and something that we have 

 5          to stay on top of.

 6                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  But this funding -- 

 7          if I understand correctly, this funding would 

 8          allow you to catch up --

 9                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes.

10                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  -- and then get 

11          back on that cycle, and then obviously annual 

12          funding would be necessary.

13                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, sir.  The 

14          funding going forward will permit us to keep 

15          our fleet under that mileage threshold.

16                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  And where we are 

17          now is much better shape than the last few 

18          years --

19                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Oh, 

20          tremendously.  Yes, sir.

21                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  -- and we don't 

22          have concerns about safety, the safety of the 

23          vehicles at this point.

24                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  I do not.  I do 


 1          not.

 2                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  All right, thanks.  

 3                 My final question has to do with the 

 4          SAFE Act.  It continues to be an area of 

 5          concern for many of us.  

 6                 There is concern that I've received 

 7          from many of my constituents -- where they're 

 8          getting this, I don't know, and I wanted to 

 9          try to clarify this.  Are there any plans -- 

10          well, as we know now, pistol permits are 

11          administered at the local level, through the 

12          county courts, by the local judge.  And the 

13          concern is the future of that.  

14                 Are there plans for the State Police 

15          to take over the issuance of pistol permits?  

16                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  No, there are 

17          not.  That will remain the function of the 

18          county licensing authorities.

19                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  All right.  Thank 

20          you.

21                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, sir.

22                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  All set.

23                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, Senator.

24                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Assemblywoman 


 1          Crystal Peoples-Stokes.

 2                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Thank 

 3          you.  

 4                 Thank you, sir.  And thank you for 

 5          your service.  We certainly do appreciate the 

 6          service of the State Police.

 7                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, ma'am.

 8                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Having 

 9          had the opportunity to be in a briefing not 

10          long ago with the homeland security 

11          commissioner, I do understand why there's 

12          perceived need for the new officers, state 

13          troopers, in New York City.  But I still do 

14          have some concern because I think, you know, 

15          it's not the only area that quite frankly 

16          needs extra surveillance, and I think it 

17          should be spread out more throughout the 

18          state as opposed to the entire amount 

19          directed toward New York City.  That's just 

20          my opinion on that one.

21                 But my question for you is, have you 

22          received like any specific directive from the 

23          federal administration regarding the recent 

24          executive orders?


 1                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  No.  As was 

 2          indicated by several of the other 

 3          commissioners this morning, the executive 

 4          orders that have been issued are being 

 5          examined by our counsel's office to see if 

 6          there's any applicable matters or issues that 

 7          would arise.  

 8                 I have been told preliminarily that at 

 9          this point we don't anticipate any problems 

10          whatsoever, either now or moving down the 

11          road.

12                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Good.  

13          Good.  

14                 The other thing I -- the last thing I 

15          want to ask you is regarding the sexual 

16          offense evidence kits.  There has been some 

17          backlog in those for a while, and I 

18          understand that the Governor has proposed 

19          some additional resources to try to catch up 

20          on that.  What's the strategy for getting 

21          that done?  

22                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, ma'am.  We 

23          have budget authority now to hire 26 

24          additional forensic scientists to handle what 


 1          we anticipate to be the expected caseload.  

 2          In addition to that, we have performed 

 3          outreach to other police departments and 

 4          prosecutorial authorities in the state to try 

 5          and determine what that potential universe of 

 6          cases might be.  And we believe, based on 

 7          those surveys, that these additional 

 8          26 people will allow us to meet the demands 

 9          being placed upon us.

10                 We do have some space requirements and 

11          needs at our Forensic Investigation Center, 

12          and we are working closely with Division of 

13          Budget and with OGS to assess those needs and 

14          to move forward on making that -- 

15          implementing that additional square footage.

16                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Where 

17          is that forensic center located?  

18                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  It's located on 

19          the state campus in Albany, right adjacent to 

20          our --

21                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  And so 

22          are you saying that it's understaffed?  Is it 

23          understaffed?

24                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  We believe that 


 1          the staff that we have on board right now is 

 2          adequate.

 3                 However, it will take the addition of 

 4          these 26 people to meet this demand.  But we 

 5          are meeting our goals otherwise in addressing 

 6          the needs of the law enforcement and 

 7          prosecution and law community.

 8                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  So how 

 9          do you receive, say, these evidence kits from 

10          different law enforcement departments 

11          throughout the state?  What are they, mailed 

12          to you or do they come in a car or --

13                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  They can.  But 

14          typically what happens is their evidence 

15          technicians will bring the kits and other 

16          evidence which is submitted for 

17          examination -- the evidence technicians will 

18          frequently bring those either to the Forensic 

19          Investigation Center or to one of our 

20          regional laboratories which are placed --

21                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Oh, so 

22          how many regional laboratories?  

23                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  I'm sorry, 

24          ma'am?



 2          Regional laboratories, did you say?

 3                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, ma'am.  We 

 4          have one in Hudson Valley at Stewart Airport, 

 5          we have one in Binghamton, and we have one in 

 6          Olean that provide regional --

 7                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  The 

 8          last one you said?

 9                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  In Olean.

10                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Olean.

11                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, ma'am.

12                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Olean.  

13                 (Laughter.)

14                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:  Okay, 

15          thank you.  In the Senator's area.  

16                 Thank you very much.  I appreciate 

17          you.

18                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Thank you.  

19                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you very 

20          much.

21                 Senator Croci.

22                 SENATOR CROCI:  Thank you, Madam 

23          Chairwoman.

24                 Superintendent, thank you very much 


 1          for your appearance here today.  And I want 

 2          to again thank you for your service to our 

 3          state over the years.  You are in the 

 4          enviable position of leading one of the 

 5          finest law enforcement organizations in the 

 6          country.  All of us, I think, have troopers 

 7          as friends or in the family somehow, and it's 

 8          a long and storied tradition.  

 9                 And we're very proud to have you here 

10          today and again compliment you for the 

11          organization you lead.

12                 In the Governor's budget he proposes, 

13          as my colleague Senator Gallivan mentioned, a 

14          Hate Crimes Task Force.  Has this proposal 

15          been coordinated with the Department of 

16          Justice Civil Rights Division or the U.S. 

17          Attorney's offices in New York State?  

18                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  We envision at 

19          this point -- we don't envision, we are 

20          actually already working with the Division of 

21          Human Rights at the state level.  And in 

22          addition to that, partnering with local law 

23          enforcement agencies and sheriff's offices.

24                 To date we have not established a 


 1          partnership with federal prosecutors yet.  Of 

 2          course, as you know, we are well networked 

 3          with all of the district attorneys.  And they 

 4          have been made aware and are -- you know, we 

 5          have made an outreach to all of them.  

 6                 But I'm unaware that we've established 

 7          any partnerships federally.

 8                 SENATOR CROCI:  So it would be a fair 

 9          statement to say that this policy proposal 

10          was -- not at your level and your agency, but 

11          not at the policy level in the Governor's 

12          office coordinated yet with our federal 

13          partners?  

14                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Correct.

15                 SENATOR CROCI:  Thank you.

16                 The Governor also, as mentioned, 

17          includes money for bridge and tunnel 

18          initiatives.  I'm familiar, having worked 

19          with some of the New York City and other 

20          state agencies in reviewing that situation, 

21          that it's something that the Senate's 

22          Counterterrorism and Public Protection Task 

23          Force will be looking at.  

24                 I just wanted to talk about one 


 1          specific part of that allocation, the 

 2          nonpersonal service.  I notice $22 million 

 3          for personal service -- that's personnel -- 

 4          over time, et cetera, but then there's a 

 5          $5 million nonpersonal service.  I'm just 

 6          wondering if you could explain a little more 

 7          what that is.

 8                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Well, the -- I 

 9          haven't studied that portion of the budget as 

10          closely, Senator.  But in addition, we have 

11          had, in order to operationalize this 

12          initiative, to purchase vehicles.  With those 

13          vehicles, of course, comes protective 

14          equipment.  In addition to that, we purchased 

15          LPR units for the vehicles down there to 

16          function in the capacity that they have to on 

17          the bridges and tunnels.

18                 SENATOR CROCI:  Okay, so it's money in 

19          support of the personnel movement.  

20                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yeah, for 

21          equipment, yes, sir. 

22                 SENATOR CROCI:  Understood, thank you.  

23                 He also requests an additional 

24          $1 million a year to complete the transfer of 


 1          personnel from the Department of Homeland 

 2          Security.  This is the Intelligence Analysis 

 3          Unit.  We had discussed that last year, I 

 4          think, around this time.

 5                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, sir.

 6                 SENATOR CROCI:  Can you tell me how 

 7          that process has gone and what the additional 

 8          million dollars will be used for?

 9                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  We're actually 

10          almost complete with the process of 

11          transferring everybody right at this point.  

12          And the additional million dollars will be to 

13          offset some of the costs associated, 

14          personnel and nonpersonnel, to equip and 

15          staff over at the NYSIC where these folks 

16          will come in and work with us.

17                 SENATOR CROCI:  Okay.  So in last 

18          year's budget that money, I believe, was 

19          included as well.  This year there's 

20          another -- is there a way that we can 

21          receive -- I don't expect you to have it now, 

22          but receive a breakdown of how exactly 

23          that --

24                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Sure.  I'd have 


 1          to get back to you on that, but I'd be glad 

 2          to.

 3                 SENATOR CROCI:  Okay.  How is that 

 4          working, by the way, with those?  

 5                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  We are very 

 6          pleased.

 7                 SENATOR CROCI:  Is that information 

 8          flowing up to you and --

 9                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  This expanding 

10          capacity for us is tremendous.

11                 SENATOR CROCI:  And how is the 

12          intelligence reporting being done by your 

13          agency?  Is it being pushed up to DHS --

14                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes.

15                 SENATOR CROCI:  -- and can you just 

16          give us an idea of how that process works?  

17                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Well, as you're 

18          aware, the NYSIC is the state's fusion 

19          center.  And it's driven by the need to 

20          acquire, collect, analyze and push out 

21          actionable intelligence to local law 

22          enforcement, state partners, and through a 

23          consortium of federal agencies which 

24          contribute to all of that process.  


 1                 And in addition to that, we of course 

 2          push intelligence out for the New York State 

 3          Police as well as the chamber, senior 

 4          executives in state government, so that they 

 5          can make decisions about initiatives and 

 6          emerging situations as they're occurring.  

 7                 SENATOR CROCI:  Very good.  My last 

 8          question -- I have about 20 seconds left -- I 

 9          have repeatedly, as have other elected 

10          officials in the state, asked that the mayor 

11          of New York, Mayor de Blasio, and the 

12          Governor, through the State Police, 

13          reestablish the demographics units that were 

14          so successful under Commissioner Kelly in 

15          New York City in preventing terrorist acts -- 

16          before we have to get to preparedness levels, 

17          preventing by having that good human terrain 

18          information.

19                 Has the Governor yet directed that the 

20          State Police establish such a unit?  

21                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  No.

22                 SENATOR CROCI:  Okay.  Thank you very 

23          much.  And thank you again, to you and to all 

24          the troopers.


 1                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, sir.

 2                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.

 3                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Helene Weinstein.

 4                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  Just a 

 5          follow-up on the question about New York 

 6          City, the deployment of State Police in 

 7          New York City.  Was that coordinated?  Was 

 8          that at the request of New York City or --

 9                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  No, it was not 

10          at the request of New York City.  

11                 But one of the points that I should 

12          have made previously is that we have always 

13          worked very closely with the New York City 

14          Police Department.  As I mentioned 

15          previously, for decades we have had personnel 

16          working down there who work on a daily basis 

17          not only with the New York City Police 

18          Department but all the other police agencies 

19          and federal partners who we work with down 

20          there.  

21                 I have met with and my executive staff 

22          has met with all of the senior executives of 

23          the New York City Police Department, to 

24          ensure that the existing relationships that 


 1          we have and the coordination of our work is 

 2          seamless.  And so as we add this uniformed 

 3          component, I have personally met with 

 4          Commissioner Jim O'Neill.  I consider him a 

 5          friend.  And I can assure you that not only 

 6          the New York City Police Department but all 

 7          of our other partners down there have been 

 8          nothing but supportive in helping us stand 

 9          this mission up down there.

10                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  Just from 

11          personal experience at the Battery Tunnel, 

12          there used to be NYPD, and now that car is 

13          gone and now there's a state car, I guess the 

14          state Port Authority.  Or were those 

15          Triborough --

16                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, ma'am they 

17          were TB, Triborough Bridge and Tunnel 

18          Authority officers.  They still are there, 

19          but we call them now MTA Bridges and Tunnels 

20          officers.  So we are augmenting their 

21          existing patrols down there.

22                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  I guess they 

23          were hiding the other day.  Thank you.

24                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  I'm glad that 


 1          you saw the troopers, though.

 2                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, 

 3          Superintendent.  And I'd like to echo the 

 4          sentiments of my colleagues.  We are strong 

 5          supporters of the State Police, and thank you 

 6          for all of the great service that you give to 

 7          the citizens of New York.

 8                 Assemblywoman Crystal Peoples brought 

 9          up the crime labs.  And as you pointed out, 

10          we have one in Olean.  And I just wanted to 

11          ask you about not only the lab but also the 

12          barracks in Olean, and I want to get your 

13          assurance that both of those will remain 

14          operating.

15                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, they will.  

16          And the replacement of those facilities is 

17          also a priority for us in our capital budget 

18          planning.  But we'll continue to work --

19                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  And we'd like to 

20          see those remain in Olean.

21                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Oh, yes.  

22          Absolutely, yeah. 

23                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Okay.  Thank you.  

24          I'm glad to hear that.


 1                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, ma'am.

 2                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Very glad, 

 3          actually.  

 4                 I want to go through a little bit of 

 5          history, because we have been strong 

 6          supporters of the New York State Police 

 7          School Resource Officers Program.  And I know 

 8          you probably know the history, but it 

 9          actually started in the early 2000s under 

10          some COPS, the Community Oriented Police 

11          Services grants through the federal 

12          government.  

13                 And it took a little bit to catch on, 

14          but at the time it was to provide training to 

15          students, faculty, and staff in the following 

16          areas, which included identifying and 

17          mitigating problems contributing to bullying, 

18          school safety curriculum, gang recognition, 

19          drug resistance and personal safety, and 

20          identifying environmental factors that 

21          contribute to substance abuse, disorderly 

22          behavior, and truancy.  And I don't think any 

23          of those problems have gone away.  And in 

24          fact, we've seen active shooter situations, 


 1          unfortunately, across the country over the 

 2          past many years.

 3                 So once the schools had the SROs 

 4          within their facilities, they were just 

 5          thrilled with the results.  And the fact that 

 6          they had a mentor who could provide, you 

 7          know, guidance to students, help them, be a 

 8          sounding board, and provide safety and 

 9          security to the school buildings.

10                 So in 2009 the Executive Budget, under 

11          Governor Paterson, included the redeployment 

12          of 200 troopers, of which 92 were assigned to 

13          school districts as SROs.  Unfortunately, the 

14          majority at that time rejected that proposal, 

15          and through administrative action, the 

16          Executive did provide the 92 officers.  And 

17          then in 2010, unfortunately, the program was 

18          ended.

19                 There still is a lot of interest in 

20          our school districts, I think, and some of 

21          our colleagues in the Legislature on the SRO 

22          program.  And the division currently has a 

23          School and Community Outreach Unit.  Could 

24          you tell us what this unit actually does?  


 1                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Well, it's 

 2          actually headquartered and administered in 

 3          our field command operation, so it's part of 

 4          our day-to-day policing operations.  It falls 

 5          under the purview of one of the captains who 

 6          works in field command.

 7                 There are two uniformed sergeants who 

 8          work in that unit with that captain.  In 

 9          addition to that, we have civilian staff who 

10          maintain the webpage and, in concert with the 

11          State Education Department, the portal 

12          through which we can put out information on a 

13          frequent basis to school systems.  And it's 

14          a -- I am told, a tremendous resource.

15                 In addition to that, we have taken 

16          other steps towards safety and security at 

17          the schools.  We have acquired, over time, 

18          emergency plans for each of the facilities in 

19          each of the districts.  That project is 

20          underway, but we're largely complete now.  

21          Those plans are put together by the 

22          superintendent; typically, it would be the 

23          business superintendent who we deal with in 

24          the districts.  We created a form, basically, 


 1          they can fill it out for us.  They can do 

 2          that online to make it seamless, submit that 

 3          to us.  

 4                 We share that, and have uploaded that 

 5          not only into our own computer car systems, 

 6          so that our people responding to potential 

 7          incidents have the layout and have the 

 8          emergency plan available right at their 

 9          fingertips, but we have also made that 

10          available to our partners in local police and 

11          to sheriff's offices.

12                 In addition to that, each of the 

13          troops -- and in some cases there are several 

14          of our people assigned in each of troops as 

15          resource officers.  This does not replace the 

16          SROs, who were able to devote time in each 

17          one of the schools to which they were 

18          assigned, but they are an active outreach 

19          component of the New York State Police to all 

20          of the schools in their district.  And they 

21          coordinate the flow of information back and 

22          forth between us and the schools.  

23                 Where possible, they do spend time, 

24          particularly in areas in which there are no 


 1          other local or sheriff's patrols to provide a 

 2          visible presence at the schools.  And so we 

 3          kind of lean on them to do some of these 

 4          functions for us.  But it cannot completely 

 5          replace the SRO program as we had once run 

 6          it.  

 7                 The last thing, and I want you to 

 8          know, is that every chance I get -- and I 

 9          frequently get a chance to speak both to our 

10          supervisor groups or to our troopers, and one 

11          of the first things that I make them aware of 

12          that's a priority for us is they have to know 

13          where the schools are, they have to go there 

14          frequently, they have to -- I prefer them to 

15          be on a first-name basis with the principals 

16          or administrators at those facilities, so 

17          that if something does happen, we have a 

18          ready resource and people who are 

19          knowledgeable about what's happening.  

20                 So we've tried to draw kind of a net 

21          together to perform some of these functions.

22                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  The Legislature and 

23          the Governor worked together to put in place 

24          several new initiatives to deal with the 


 1          opioid and heroin crisis that we see.  And 

 2          obviously we're all very alarmed by the fact 

 3          that it still is a crisis in the state.  I 

 4          think we've put measures in place that will 

 5          help over time to alleviate some of the 

 6          issues that are out there.  But I was at one 

 7          of my school districts recently and the kids 

 8          were talking about "Another one died last 

 9          week."  Very matter-of-factly, by the way, 

10          which is horrifying when you think about it.  

11          But they were referring to one of their 

12          fellow students who had died from an 

13          overdose.  

14                 And in light of that -- and I 

15          appreciate the fact that you talked about the 

16          Narcan administration that the troopers have 

17          given out.  You've saved a lot of lives.  But 

18          in light of the drug situation that is 

19          rampant in some of our schools, in light of 

20          the active shooters that have occurred in 

21          other states, have you given any thought to 

22          possibly reconstituting the SRO program?  

23                 Because, you know, I appreciate 

24          that -- and I know you're very on top of the 


 1          schools and you know where they're at and you 

 2          know -- you help them with their plans.  But 

 3          is there any thought to that?  And what would 

 4          it cost to restart the SRO program?

 5                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  We -- based on 

 6          our existing programs in the past, we know 

 7          what it would cost.  We know what the 

 8          commitment of the personnel would be.  And it 

 9          has been the subject of discussion, and it 

10          has been the subject of some planning in the 

11          State Police.  Unfortunately, at this time -- 

12          and as you know, there's a constant 

13          assessment of needs around the state, and 

14          staffing levels.  At the current time, with 

15          the commitments that we have now undertaken, 

16          I can't at this point commit people.  When we 

17          ended the program, we had about 105.  And I 

18          know what great work they did.  

19                 But yes, we do, from time to time, 

20          look at that.

21                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.

22                 I think that's all I have.  Thank you.

23                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Assemblyman Oaks.

24                 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS:  Yes, 


 1          Superintendent, I just wanted to focus a 

 2          little bit with -- the recertification of 

 3          pistol permits is coming up, and I know 

 4          actually within this budget year that we're 

 5          looking at and talking about, we're going to 

 6          start to see the first ones of those coming 

 7          up for being renewed.  

 8                 So just wanted to check with you, do 

 9          you have numbers on about what we're talking 

10          on, total numbers for recertification?

11                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, sir.  I'm 

12          happy to be able to report to you that we 

13          started that recertification program on 

14          January 1, as we were required to do.  

15                 We have, to date, received just under 

16          60,000 recertifications, either by computer 

17          or by mailed recertification forms.

18                 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS:  And those -- they 

19          have how long to do that?  Or you said you've 

20          received 60,000.  But if that's only a 

21          portion of it --

22                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Oh, yes.

23                 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS:  -- do you know 

24          what -- the total number you're going to be 


 1          looking at?

 2                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  We are -- we're 

 3          estimating it could be potentially 500,000.

 4                 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS:  And when do you see 

 5          that, then, that the cycle will have been 

 6          completed, that you will have all of those?  

 7                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  We anticipate 

 8          -- to answer your question, the closing date 

 9          on this for recertification is January 31, 

10          2018.  We're hopeful that in that universe 

11          that's potentially out there -- and that is 

12          just an estimate on our part -- that we will 

13          have, if not all, certainly most of them in 

14          by that point.

15                 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS:  And are there fees 

16          related to that?  

17                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  No, there are 

18          not.

19                 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS:  And as a part of 

20          the recertification, is there changing 

21          responsibilities of any of the entities -- 

22          you know, local sheriffs have had 

23          responsibilities, the local courts, county 

24          clerks.  Or that process, if someone was 


 1          going to get a new one, the filing of the 

 2          papers, et cetera, that's kind of continuing 

 3          as is, except for the notification and the 

 4          recertification?  

 5                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Correct.  There 

 6          will be no change in the actual licensing 

 7          procedures and protocols as they exist now.  

 8          That will remain a function of the counties.

 9                 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS:  Thank you.

10                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, sir.

11                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Anyone else?  

12                 Senator Krueger would like to ask some 

13          questions.

14                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Thank you very much.

15                 So one of my colleagues just asked you 

16          about the demographics units of the NYPD.  My 

17          understanding is that those are the units we 

18          were referring to as racial and religious 

19          profiling units that the U.S. Justice 

20          Department investigated New York City about 

21          and urged the closing of the units rather 

22          than sue us.  Is that your understanding of 

23          what those units were?

24                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, ma'am.


 1                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Would you support 

 2          the New York State Police profiling by 

 3          religion or race?

 4                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  We would not do 

 5          so.

 6                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  You do not do so.

 7                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  No.

 8                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Thank you.

 9                 In your testimony you reference the 

10          work on college campuses --

11                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, ma'am.

12                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  -- over the last 

13          year based on the law that was successfully 

14          passed, the Campus Sexual Assault Victims 

15          Unit.  You talk about 75 cases.  I'm curious, 

16          do you have any data on what was the outcome 

17          of any of these cases?  Were they followed 

18          through with police, DAs, court cases?

19                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, I do.

20                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Thank you.

21                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Let me just 

22          make sure I do have it.  

23                 And we're up to 81 as of today.  

24          Between the time we wrote this and now, 


 1          it's --

 2                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  So your testimony is 

 3          there were 75 cases.

 4                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, ma'am.

 5                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Do you know how many 

 6          of those were actually taken off campus and 

 7          brought to DAs and the criminal justice 

 8          system?

 9                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Let me just 

10          check.  And if I don't have that, I will 

11          certainly be glad to get that.  Let's see.  

12          Forty-eight of the cases specifically 

13          assigned to and investigated by the State 

14          Police, in conjunction with our CSAVU 

15          members, the specially assigned unit members.  

16          We assisted, in 27 cases, either local police 

17          departments or university police departments.  

18          And the 75 cases involve 47 different 

19          institutions.  We made a total of 18 arrests, 

20          which is 24 percent of those cases which were 

21          investigated.  We have 33 cases that are 

22          currently pending, and 42 that are closed.

23                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Thank you.

24                 Do you happen to know if that's a 


 1          significant increase over the numbers of 

 2          cases being dealt with by the police prior to 

 3          this law being implemented?  

 4                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  I don't know 

 5          that.  I have only our stats from this unit 

 6          here.

 7                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Okay.  Thank you.

 8                 So for several years since we passed 

 9          the SAFE Act, there's been the question about 

10          whether there could be successfully 

11          implemented an ammunition database -- and 

12          I'll let Cathy Young jump in afterwards.  Has 

13          anybody figured out whether this can in fact 

14          be done, from a technical perspective?

15                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  A couple of 

16          things on that, Senator.  As you know, the 

17          SAFE Act requires ammunition sellers to 

18          access a database to ensure that a buyer is 

19          not prohibited from owning a weapon.  And as 

20          the superintendent, I'm required to certify 

21          that such a system meets the needs and the 

22          demands that are made by the law.  My 

23          predecessor, Joe D'Amico, had three 

24          technological solutions presented to him, 


 1          none of which met that demand.  And I have 

 2          not, to date, seen anything that has been 

 3          developed which would make that operational 

 4          in the law.

 5                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  And have new 

 6          proposals been submitted to you to review?

 7                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  No.  Just the 

 8          three that are preexisting.

 9                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  And whose 

10          responsibilities would it be to submit those 

11          proposals to you to review?

12                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Office of 

13          Information Technology Services.

14                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  So they'll be 

15          testifying later.  Thank you.  

16                 The Governor puts money into the 

17          budget to put additional State Police into 

18          New York City.  How many State Police 

19          additionally will be assigned to New York 

20          City?

21                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  We have -- at 

22          the current time, we have 105 uniformed 

23          members of all ranks.  That includes 89 

24          troopers, sergeants, two lieutenants, and a 


 1          captain.

 2                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  And this will be 

 3          additional troopers, with this new budget 

 4          money?  

 5                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, ma'am.

 6                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  What would it bring 

 7          your count up to in New York City?  

 8                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  That would be 

 9          -- that's the existing count now.  Now, there 

10          is envisioned, to meet the initiatives that 

11          we've undertaken for counterterrorism and 

12          open road tolling, that will result in us 

13          having, by fall of next year, a total of 202 

14          uniformed personnel in the city.

15                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  So going from 105 to 

16          202 --

17                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, ma'am.

18                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  -- full-time 

19          equivalent staff of the State Police located 

20          in New York City.

21                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, ma'am.

22                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  So Senator Young 

23          brought up the SRO program, and when you were 

24          answering her questions where she was urging 


 1          a reevaluation of that program, you said at 

 2          least one time there were 105 State Police 

 3          assigned to that program, I guess it's in 

 4          upstate school -- or outside of New York 

 5          City.  I'm not asking this question, I'm 

 6          saying it just for the record.

 7                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  I understand.

 8                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  I think NYPD is 

 9          extraordinarily qualified to handle the 

10          situations on a daily basis in New York City.  

11          The numbers are enormous in comparison to 105 

12          or 200 State Police in New York City.  I 

13          would urge the Governor to reevaluate and 

14          reassign those State Police to other parts of 

15          the state where I think they are needed and 

16          they are wanted.  Not that they're not always 

17          welcome in New York City.  Love to always run 

18          into New York State Police.  

19                 But I really think for all the 

20          problems, the NYPD has got the manpower to do 

21          what needs to be done.  And I worry, in the 

22          context of not enough funding and not enough 

23          State Police for communities throughout the 

24          state, that this is not the best use of 


 1          resources.

 2                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes, ma'am.

 3                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Thank you very much.

 4                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.

 5                 Senator Croci.

 6                 SENATOR CROCI:  Yes, thank you, Madam 

 7          Chairwoman.  I just wanted to clarify 

 8          something that my colleague had mentioned.  

 9                 Superintendent, does the State Police 

10          on a routine basis use undercover operatives?  

11                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Yes.

12                 SENATOR CROCI:  Okay.  Do they 

13          investigate in areas of drug gangs and gangs 

14          that are involved in criminal activity?  

15                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Sometimes.

16                 SENATOR CROCI:  And are those gangs 

17          sometimes of a specific demographic, either 

18          national descent or otherwise?  

19                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  I'm just 

20          reviewing, Senator, in my mind if I can say 

21          that as a declarative statement, and I -- I 

22          don't -- I would not have that information 

23          now, to be honest with you.

24                 SENATOR CROCI:  Well, I'll help.  So 


 1          having some experience working with law 

 2          enforcement in New York City and around the 

 3          state and indeed in the country, we do 

 4          investigate drug gangs, criminal gang 

 5          activity.  We understand what countries that 

 6          these gangs are coming from, and they are 

 7          investigated as such.  There is no profiling, 

 8          to my mind, or has been documented either in 

 9          the NYPD or in the State Police, even though 

10          we've been doing this for many years.  

11                 I know that my colleague cited a 

12          couple of specific examples.  But do you know 

13          of any other way -- is there any doubt in 

14          your mind that good human intelligence is a 

15          key to preventing future attacks?

16                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  It's an 

17          accepted best practice, Senator, that good 

18          human intelligence does make a difference 

19          in -- particularly in countering terrorism 

20          and terroristic acts.

21                 SENATOR CROCI:  Thank you very much.

22                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Anyone else?  

23                 Again, thank you, Superintendent, for 

24          your service and for joining us today.  We 


 1          truly, truly appreciate it.

 2                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Thank you, 

 3          Chairman.  

 4                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you very 

 5          much.

 6                 SUPERINTENDENT BEACH:  Thank you, sir. 

 7                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Our next speaker is 

 8          Director Bill Leahy, New York State Office of 

 9          Indigent Legal Services.

10                 Welcome.

11                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Thank you, Madam 

12          Chairwoman, and Chairman Farrell and the 

13          other esteemed members of the committees.

14                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  I apologize, first 

15          of all, for the long day, but obviously 

16          there's a lot of interest in the information 

17          to be presented.

18                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Thank you.  

19                 I wanted to introduce my comments upon 

20          the Executive Budget by just giving a little 

21          bit of history, and I want to started with 

22          some numbers.  And these come from a report 

23          we published, it's an annual report we 

24          publish, on what it would take -- or let's 


 1          put it another way, the progress being made 

 2          in upstate New York toward reducing the 

 3          habitually vastly excessive caseloads.  

 4                 And in that report we published this 

 5          fall, there's a chart that shows that in the 

 6          year 2012, the average caseload in the 57 

 7          counties outside New York City was 719.  It 

 8          went down to 680 in the following year, and 

 9          then to 616 in 2014, and 561 in 2015.  

10                 Now, I do not cite those numbers -- 

11          it's a 22 percent reduction -- I don't cite 

12          them with pride, I don't cite them with 

13          satisfaction.  But I do cite them to show 

14          what can be done by a very small office with 

15          very small additional amounts of funding -- 

16          if legislative support is present, if clear 

17          and effective communication with localities 

18          is in place and if, importantly, the 

19          professional expertise of the office is 

20          allowed to function independently and without 

21          any interference other than the need to 

22          secure funding on an annual basis, which is 

23          indeed my purpose here today.

24                 I also want to say that as many of you 


 1          know, but perhaps some of you may not, 

 2          reducing caseloads in the upstate counties is 

 3          not all we have done.  And this is all 

 4          pre-Hurrell-Harring, so I'll get to the 

 5          Hurrell-Harring piece in just a moment.  We 

 6          have grants out to 25 counties to provide 

 7          Counsel at First Appearance, in compliance 

 8          with the law, or at least to begin compliance 

 9          with the law.  We have grants out to 

10          47 upstate counties for caseload reduction 

11          and quality improvements in assigned counsel 

12          programs.  

13                 We have the country's first network, 

14          statewide network of regional immigration 

15          assistance centers, so that lawyers who 

16          represent clients in criminal cases can have 

17          the benefit of expert advice as they fulfill 

18          their responsibility to inform their clients, 

19          under the Padilla vs. Kentucky case, 

20          accurately about the immigration consequences 

21          of convictions and whether or not to accept a 

22          plea offer.

23                 We have also established New York's 

24          first statewide standards for criminal trial 


 1          representation, for appellate representation, 

 2          for parental representation.  We are working 

 3          now on assigned counsel representation 

 4          standards, which will also be a first.  

 5                 We are -- we have just released our 

 6          second Counsel at First Appearance request 

 7          for proposals, with more ample funding this 

 8          time, which we hope all or almost all 

 9          57 counties will apply for and will make use 

10          of.

11                 We are awaiting approval from OSC for 

12          the release of our first ever upstate quality 

13          parental representation office, which was 

14          explicitly modeled after the very successful 

15          programs which have been established in 

16          New York City over the past 10 to 15 years.

17                 So the point is everything we have 

18          been able to accomplish basically with a 

19          staff of 11 -- up until the Hurrell-Harring 

20          moment -- is really attributable to these 

21          three factors I have mentioned.

22                 Now, on October 21, 2014, a thunderous 

23          event happened in the State of New York:  The 

24          state agreed to settle the Hurrell-Harring 


 1          class action lawsuit alleging massive 

 2          deprivations in the provision of counsel in 

 3          five New York counties.  And the day 

 4          following that settlement, I sent out a 

 5          memorandum trying to set it in context, what 

 6          did it mean for the state.  

 7                 And I said three things.  First, I 

 8          said it was historic because for the very 

 9          first time the State of New York recognized 

10          that it's a state responsibility to comply 

11          with the 6th Amendment and the pertinent 

12          provision of the State Constitution.

13                 Secondly, what was historic is that 

14          the state had chosen to vest the 

15          responsibility for the implementation of that 

16          settlement with a professionally staffed -- 

17          I'm quoting myself, I'm sorry, that's 

18          probably tacky -- professionally staffed and 

19          independent office and board, thus complying 

20          with the first and most important of the 

21          American Bar Association's 10 principles of 

22          an effective public defense delivery system.

23                 Then I went on to say, what is it 

24          going to take to make this work in the five 


 1          counties?  That was the next step.  And the 

 2          three things I identified there -- and I'm 

 3          happy to say they're all in place -- a 

 4          continuation and a strengthening of the good 

 5          working relationships that we already had 

 6          with officials in those five counties; number 

 7          two, full funding of the budget requests that 

 8          come along and are necessary to effective 

 9          implementation of the supplement -- and I'm 

10          happy to say that has been true -- and 

11          third -- well, actually that part -- I should 

12          have said two points, because that part I 

13          broke it out into two, I broke it out at the 

14          start and then ongoing.  Right up until 

15          today, with the Governor's budget release two 

16          weeks ago, those commitments are fully 

17          fulfilled by the state in those five 

18          counties.  

19                 And then, of course, my third point 

20          was, what about the rest of the state?  What 

21          about the counties who weren't lucky enough 

22          to be sued?  And there I said that, first of 

23          all, there's no argument that they should be 

24          in any worse -- there's no principled 


 1          argument that anyone had then, or even 

 2          subsequent, expressed to me as to why any of 

 3          those other counties should be left behind 

 4          and left unremedied.

 5                 And then I said that our goal is to 

 6          work towards the day when there's one 

 7          standard of justice in New York City.  And 

 8          I'm saying this in kind of halting terms 

 9          right now.  We have here in the room 

10          Assemblywoman Fahy and Senator DeFrancisco, 

11          who have spoken far more eloquently and have 

12          made this point with crystal-clear logic, and 

13          it's of course inarguable.  Of course there 

14          should be one standard of justice in the 

15          State of New York, and not two or three or 57 

16          or 62.

17                 So all of that brings me to the 

18          Executive Budget.  And there is very, very 

19          good news in this Executive Budget.  And 

20          there are a couple of problems.  The very, 

21          very good news is that, as I mentioned, there 

22          is full funding of the three provisions of 

23          the Hurrell-Harring lawsuit for which the 

24          state agreed in the original settlement to 


 1          pay.  

 2                 There is an additional -- there's a 

 3          total of $19 million in funding for caseload 

 4          relief.  Now, you may recall that in last 

 5          year's budget the state put in $10.4 million, 

 6          and I believe I testified to you that that 

 7          was sufficient to get those five counties to 

 8          the then-weighted caseload standard of 367 

 9          cases.  And that's a national standard that 

10          adds in a supervision component, because the 

11          First Department in New York City has 

12          identified a supervision component.  So that 

13          has been our standard, ILS, subject to state 

14          funding, since 2014.

15                 So the caseload standards we delivered 

16          for the five counties, pursuant to 

17          paragraph IV of the settlement, Roman numeral 

18          4 -- and I gave you each a copy of the 

19          settlement as well, for reference -- that 

20          adds another 8.6 million to that 10.4.  So 

21          it's just over $19 million annually in the 

22          five lawsuit counties, and that is fully 

23          funded in the Executive Budget, and that is 

24          very good news.


 1                 It is also very good news that in the 

 2          Executive Budget funding is continued for 

 3          quality improvements and funding is continued 

 4          for counsel at arraignment.  And that is, if 

 5          not full funding, certainly deserves the 

 6          title ample funding for those purposes in 

 7          those counties for this year.  And we're very 

 8          pleased to see it.

 9                 We are also very, very happy to see 

10          that in the first Executive Budget I think in 

11          New York's history, there is proposed an 

12          extension of those Hurrell-Harring settlement 

13          reforms to the entire State of New York.  Not 

14          just the 52 upstate or outside of New York 

15          City counties, but also the City of New York.  

16                 Why is this important?  This is 

17          important because the new caseload standards 

18          we delivered to the parties on December 8th 

19          exceed, are lower than, the existing caseload 

20          standards in New York City.  So they help 

21          New York City and they help the rest of the 

22          state.  There are many portions of the state, 

23          I hasten to add, whom they help a lot more 

24          than they help New York City, because of the 


 1          simple fact that caseloads upstate are 

 2          averaging 561, but there are a couple of 

 3          jurisdictions out in the Southern Tier where 

 4          the caseloads are double that.  So there's a 

 5          lot of work to be done, comparatively, to get 

 6          the upstate counties down.

 7                 So that's all the very good news in 

 8          the Executive Budget.

 9                 There's a little more good news.  And 

10          that is that if you look at the authorized 

11          positions that the executive branch 

12          publishes, there's an increase of three 

13          positions in my office, from 19 to 22.  And 

14          if you run an office the size of the office I 

15          run, and you have the needs that we have 

16          identified, we are very pleased to see that 

17          responsiveness.  

18                 So that is the good news, and it's an 

19          important good news.

20                 Now, there are a couple of issues.  

21          You will have noticed, no doubt, that in the 

22          line for State Operations of my office, where 

23          current funding is $3.2 million, where our 

24          budget request in October was for 


 1          $6.4 million, and where we were encouraged to 

 2          and did file a late post -- just before the 

 3          Executive Budget, a proposal for a unit to 

 4          implement the extension of statewide 

 5          reform -- we did that, a 10-person unit, with 

 6          a total request of a million and a half 

 7          dollars -- there is, instead of the sum of 

 8          all these numbers or any combination thereof, 

 9          there is a zero in that account.  

10                 And on the other hand, in the Aid to 

11          Localities account, which includes the 

12          increases I've already described to you -- 

13          which is a total of $8.6 million, as I 

14          mentioned, over the original -- not the 

15          original request, but the original last 

16          year's budget -- there's a total of 

17          $4.8 million in excess of the $81 million 

18          level funding.  I think those of you who 

19          follow our budget have been familiar with the 

20          $81 million Executive Budget ask for a number 

21          of years now.  And instead, it's 85.8.  And 

22          then there's also language in that Aid to 

23          Localities -- at the very end of the Aid to 

24          Localities appropriation that a portion of 


 1          these funds may be transferred to State Ops.  

 2          So that is one problematic area that I would 

 3          like to address with you.  

 4                 And the second one is that the 

 5          extension of the Hurrell-Harring settlement 

 6          statewide one would think would follow the 

 7          model of the Hurrell-Harring settlement.  And 

 8          in most respects, it does.  It leaves to the 

 9          office and our governing board the planning 

10          and the proposing, and this is what we have 

11          done.  And in the Hurrell-Harring settlement 

12          you'll notice the language "in consultation 

13          with" the Executive and other parties, 

14          including the Legislature.  And this, of 

15          course, we're happy to do, and we have done.  

16          And it has worked splendidly, because when we 

17          produced our caseload standards, which is the 

18          big -- the biggest of the reforms, and 

19          certainly the biggest cost-driver, to the 

20          Executive on December 8th, our judgment was 

21          respected and accepted and, now we know, 

22          fully funded.

23                 So for some reason, there is in the 

24          Executive proposal an addition.  And that 


 1          addition, I'm sure you've seen it in both the 

 2          Article VII and in the appropriation 

 3          language, says that our plan must be approved 

 4          by the director of the Department of the 

 5          Budget.  

 6                 So those are the two problematic 

 7          aspects of this budget.  And we are having 

 8          conversations, of course, regular 

 9          conversations with the Executive about this.  

10                 The point I would like to make about 

11          the Department of Budget and the independence 

12          issue is the following.  It is that the 

13          independence of a public defender function 

14          does not mean independence from fiscal 

15          responsibility, and it certainly does not 

16          mean that you're given a printing press to 

17          print money.  Appropriations are the 

18          exclusive domain of the Executive and the 

19          Legislature, and no one suggests otherwise.  

20          But it is the planning function that has to 

21          be independent and is governed by an 

22          independent board composed of representatives 

23          from the executive, the legislative, the 

24          judiciary, the counties and so on.


 1                 So in our conversations, that 

 2          distinction is clear.  I think everyone 

 3          accepts that distinction.  And the problem is 

 4          we don't yet see that distinction honored in 

 5          the language in the Executive Budget.

 6                 I'm happy to take any questions, 

 7          particularly on those issues.

 8                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Thank you very much.

 9                 Our first questioner is Senator John 

10          DeFrancisco.

11                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Thank you for 

12          the kind words.  I did carry the bill.  And 

13          there's a -- I've got a bunch of questions.  

14                 The first question is you said the bad 

15          news is the fact that the budget director has 

16          to approve your actions and the funding 

17          request and so forth.  Isn't there another 

18          big problem?  Isn't there no funding for the 

19          rest of the state?

20                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  I'm sorry, I missed 

21          the question, Senator.

22                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Isn't another 

23          little problem the fact that it talks about 

24          applying the supplement of the five counties 


 1          statewide but it doesn't have any funding to 

 2          do that, does it?  

 3                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Exactly.  It calls 

 4          for -- I should have been more specific about 

 5          that.

 6                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  More specific?  

 7          That's the big issue.

 8                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  No, I'm saying it -- 

 9          no, it calls for my office to submit plans by 

10          December 1st for, I would assume -- and full 

11          implementation by April 1, 2023.  So the 

12          assumption is that this would be a plan that 

13          would go into effect on April 1, 2018, with 

14          funding.  Funding is certainly a piece of it.

15                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Are you 

16          comfortable with that assumption?  

17                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Well, I do note in 

18          the state's financial plan that we appear for 

19          the first time and there are -- you know, 

20          there are of course, you know, also budget -- 

21          yeah.

22                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay.  So you're 

23          okay with it.

24                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  I think it's 


 1          appropriate way to plan.

 2                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay --

 3                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  I'm not withdrawing 

 4          our budget request for this year for caseload 

 5          relief and Counsel at First Appearance.  We 

 6          have 19 million requests for caseload relief 

 7          and 8 million requests for Counsel at First 

 8          Appearance, and I'd love to see those funded 

 9          this year.

10                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay.  Well, the 

11          Governor, in vetoing the bill that 

12          Assemblywoman Fahy and myself put forward, 

13          talked about the cost of that bill was too 

14          much.  Is that fair to say?  

15                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Yeah, I -- well, the 

16          way I interpreted it, he did not want the 

17          state exposed to uncontrollable fiscal costs.  

18          There's nothing we have done in our 

19          implementation of the Hurrell-Harring 

20          settlement that can fairly be characterized 

21          as imposing uncontrollable costs.  Quite the 

22          contrary.  We have worked very closely to 

23          ensure that our plans are approvable.

24                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  All right.  


 1          Except that if -- I'm not so sure how you 

 2          have that comfort when he's got your plans 

 3          being subject to the approval of the budget 

 4          director.  That doesn't sound like a lot of 

 5          confidence towards your office.

 6                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  It doesn't.  And 

 7          there's a disconnect there, there really is.  

 8          There's a disconnect between what I am told 

 9          in meetings and the actions -- 

10                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  All I'm trying 

11          to say is that I think it's more of a dire 

12          situation than you're talking about.  The 

13          logic of allowing every state {sic} to be 

14          able to have the same benefits as the five 

15          states that settled -- the five counties that 

16          settled, it seems to me that it doesn't show 

17          that here in any way that that's going to 

18          happen.  And clearly not to what extent, 

19          whether it will be the same funding or not.  

20          So I think you're painting this picture as, I 

21          think, much nicer than it really is.

22                 So with that in mind, the Governor 

23          claims his intent is that he wants to 

24          treat -- and I've talked to him directly on 


 1          this -- he wants to treat the other counties 

 2          exactly the way the five counties were 

 3          treated in the settlement.  And I'm sure 

 4          you've heard that as well; correct?  

 5                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Yes.

 6                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  All right.  Now, 

 7          the bill that Pat Fahy and I put forth, did 

 8          that bill treat the other counties that 

 9          haven't been part of the settlement exactly 

10          the way the counties that did settle the case 

11          were treated?

12                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  In my opinion, it 

13          didn't.

14                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay.  So 

15          there's a disconnect there, then.  If there's 

16          a veto and he said he wants to treat the 

17          counties -- do you have any -- and I'm being 

18          very serious, because I'm trying to figure 

19          out what we've got to do to get this done.  

20          Is there any way you could bridge that 

21          disconnect?  Have you talked to anybody that 

22          would give you an indication of what things 

23          the Governor thought were too expensive in 

24          the bill and treated the other counties other 


 1          than the five better than the five counties?

 2                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  I've had three 

 3          conversations in the two weeks since the 

 4          Governor's budget came out, on this very 

 5          issue.

 6                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay.

 7                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  And there is 

 8          agreement that -- here's -- the Governor's 

 9          position, as explained to me, is there is no 

10          intent to interfere with the independent 

11          operation and planning of the office and the 

12          board.  Okay?  That's number one.  

13                 Number two, from my part I have made 

14          it very clear that we have no right, desire, 

15          or dream of dictating how the state spends 

16          its money going forward into the future.

17                 In other words, so -- and furthermore, 

18          the third point about that is what you arrive 

19          at is this should be easily resolvable if 

20          both of those positions are accurate.  I 

21          mean, there can be consultation, there can be 

22          submission of the cost of the plan as part of 

23          the budget --

24                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:   Okay, I've -- 


 1          I'm going to just finish this line and then 

 2          I'm going to stop, because I'll -- they'll 

 3          back to me because I've got many, many other 

 4          questions.  

 5                 I guess the point is that the -- did 

 6          the five-county settlement, did that provide 

 7          for those five counties to be given resources 

 8          to pay for the initial cost of the assigned 

 9          counsel program in addition to the additional 

10          cost that your standards are providing?  In 

11          other words, was there a complete takeover of 

12          the costs of the five counties in your 

13          settlement?  

14                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Well, no, there's 

15          not.  That's the difference between the 

16          Governor's budget proposal and your bill.  

17          Your bill would have had the state pick up 

18          those existing costs.

19                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay, but this 

20          is crucial.  This is really crucial.  What's 

21          crucial is that did, did the settlement, 

22          okay, the five counties, did that settlement 

23          assume all the costs of indigent legal 

24          services?  


 1                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  No, they did not.

 2                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  All right.  So 

 3          isn't the Governor right and -- I'm just 

 4          trying to be fair to both sides -- isn't the 

 5          Governor right that to mirror what the five 

 6          counties got, that bill overstepped?

 7                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Well, that's for the 

 8          Governor and the bill sponsors, I think, to 

 9          determine.  But --

10                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay, you could 

11          figure it out, I think.  If the bill covered 

12          all costs of assigned counsel, which is 

13          greater than simply the increased costs for 

14          the five-county settlement, isn't that 

15          logical that the bill was -- provided more 

16          than the settlement?  

17                 (No response.)

18                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay, you don't 

19          want --  

20                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  It's certainly 

21          logical, yes.  It's extending -- it's doing 

22          what it says it's doing, and it's not doing, 

23          you know, what it doesn't say.

24                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  And this is the 


 1          crucial question to try to get this resolved, 

 2          and I think the Governor and his people would 

 3          ask the same thing.  If the budget mirrored 

 4          exactly what the five-county settlement was, 

 5          would that satisfy you as far as your quest 

 6          to have counsel?  

 7                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  That is exactly the 

 8          component of the Executive Budget of which we 

 9          strongly approve.  Not only approve, we say 

10          it's historic in the State of New York.

11                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  So that would be 

12          satisfactory to you, if the five-county deal 

13          got translated to the other counties -- not 

14          assuming more of the cost, but just the cost 

15          that was assumed with the five counties.

16                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Yes.  But not to take 

17          this too far afield, but this is an important 

18          point.  The bill that you and Assemblywoman 

19          Fahy filed would have also assumed the costs 

20          of -- all the costs of parental 

21          representation in Family Court.  That's 

22          25 percent of the caseload.  That is not in 

23          the Hurrell-Harring settlement and so it's 

24          not part of the five-county deal.  And, of 


 1          course, nor is it part of the extension of 

 2          the five-county deal to the rest of the 

 3          state.  That's another qualification along 

 4          with --

 5                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay, I'll wait 

 6          till my next turn.

 7                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.

 8                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.  

 9                 Ms. Fahy, please.

10                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN FAHY:  Thank you, 

11          Mr. Chairman.  

12                 I want to piggyback on some of the 

13          questions that Senator DeFrancisco just 

14          raised, as well as some of the concerns.  And 

15          I also want to reiterate I'm afraid I'm not 

16          that satisfied as well.

17                 I think that it was intentional in the 

18          bill that we proposed these last couple of 

19          years -- and passed, with unanimous support 

20          in both bodies -- it was intentional to pick 

21          up those base costs or existing costs within 

22          the counties.  

23                 Now, I recognize that that was part of 

24          and one of the core reasons why the Governor 


 1          vetoed the bill, in addition to this 

 2          independence issue that you mentioned.  But 

 3          if I could just push you a little further -- 

 4          again, piggybacking on what Senator 

 5          DeFrancisco raised -- I thought the intent 

 6          here, the intent of our legislation was that 

 7          we would try to remedy what in our view had 

 8          been essentially a 50-year unfunded mandate, 

 9          a constitutional mandate that had been passed 

10          on to the counties and unfunded.  

11                 So a constitutional requirement that 

12          those accused of a crime be provided this 

13          representation.  Most states did pick up the 

14          cost of that.  In New York, we chose to pass 

15          that on to the counties.  

16                 So one of the reasons that we had 

17          proposed to go beyond the settlement of the 

18          Hurrell-Harring, the five counties that had 

19          been settled in 2014, was that because the 

20          state's -- because the counties do feel that 

21          they have been unfairly picking up this 

22          burden.  And in order to improve the entire 

23          foundation, or to improve the entire 

24          structure of this system, that we would pick 


 1          up, over a phased-in period, at least seven 

 2          years, that we would begin to pick up those 

 3          costs.

 4                 Now, whether -- you know, I understand 

 5          that Family Court and even Surrogate's Court 

 6          could be included in that.  But I really want 

 7          to get at the criminal court piece of this.  

 8          So if you don't mind, I'd like to pin you 

 9          down a little bit further on that in terms of 

10          your position, following on what Senator 

11          DeFrancisco said.

12                 It was intentional on our part.  Are 

13          you saying that you are satisfied with just 

14          going where we are in the budget right now?  

15          And by the way, I commend the Governor for 

16          agreeing to extend the Hurrell-Harring case 

17          to the rest of the counties, to the other 52.  

18          So that is progress.  The glass is half full.  

19          I would just prefer to fill the entire glass 

20          as opposed to halfway.

21                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Let me answer you 

22          directly.  Bearing in mind we are an 

23          implementing agency and not an outside 

24          advocacy group, there were three big 


 1          components of the Fahy-DeFrancisco bill:  The 

 2          state takes over the unfunded mandate, the 

 3          state picks up the cost of the 

 4          Hurrell-Harring settlement, and -- somewhat 

 5          buried, but in the fiscal piece, it was there 

 6          -- would also pick up the parental 

 7          representation costs, past and future.  

 8                 Loved all three.  Loved the bill.  

 9          Love it today.  But it was vetoed.  And I 

10          can't do anything about the veto.  

11                 Now, is the Governor's proposal to 

12          extend the settlement reform statewide 

13          positive and important?  Very much so.  And I 

14          support it.

15                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN FAHY:  Okay, so I -- 

16          okay.  Then I won't push any further.  But I 

17          just want to concur with what we just heard 

18          from Senator DeFrancisco --

19                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Would I be happier if 

20          it were the Fahy-DeFrancisco bill in toto?  

21          I'd be even happier.

22                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN FAHY:  Okay.  Because -- 

23          well, I did think the budget included the 

24          monies -- or did reference the $250 million 


 1          for the increase going forward in order to 

 2          extend the Hurrell-Harring to the rest of the 

 3          counties, those provisions.  

 4                 Again, our preference -- and I have 

 5          reintroduced the bill and am working, intend 

 6          to work with Senator DeFrancisco to still 

 7          move that.  But the intent is that we work on 

 8          that foundation to relieve this burden and 

 9          improve the quality of the existing services.

10                 With regard to the independence, I 

11          think you've made some good points there.  I 

12          think that -- I would like to think that we 

13          could address some of that language and find 

14          some agreement, because as you have said, we 

15          need to maintain that independence in the 

16          planning while we respect the Governor's 

17          right to oversee the expenditures and the 

18          fiscal piece of this.

19                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  I think that's the 

20          right way to put it.  

21                 And the point I keep making is this is 

22          too important a gain, the statewide 

23          expansion, to have it fall apart over what, 

24          once you parse it out, is largely a matter of 


 1          semantics.  And again, if you accept at face 

 2          value what everyone is saying, it's just a 

 3          matter of semantics and it can be dealt with 

 4          in the normal negotiating course.

 5                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN FAHY:  Last quick 

 6          question, I just want to reiterate a point 

 7          that I think you just mentioned.  The 

 8          $250 million that is referenced in the budget 

 9          or in the Title VII language, I'm not sure, 

10          that would again -- that would be for funds 

11          going forward, any increased funds in order 

12          to extend the settlement.  That does include 

13          the cost of Family Court going forward, 

14          right, increased costs?  

15                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  No, it does not.

16                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN FAHY:  So it's still 

17          criminal --

18                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  It's expansion of the 

19          Hurrell-Harring settlement, which is 

20          criminal --

21                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN FAHY:  Just criminal, 

22          not the -- okay.  And you do estimate that 

23          that -- I think your estimates have been that 

24          that would be -- to address the base funding 


 1          or the existing funds, as well as to include 

 2          Family Court, that would be roughly 

 3          $400 million, is that some of the estimates 

 4          that have been --

 5                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Well, there's a lot 

 6          of calculations that need to be done, 

 7          especially now that you have New York City in 

 8          the budget and the bill.  And New York City, 

 9          we don't have as solid data for New York City 

10          as we do for the upstate.

11                 But I think the $250 million number 

12          that I saw, I think it was in the budget 

13          book, you know, it seems like a reasonable 

14          kind of long-term estimate.  I mean, we're a 

15          long way from being at full funding 

16          statewide, which under the Governor's 

17          proposal is five years out and I think under 

18          Fahy-DeFrancisco was going to be seven years.

19                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN FAHY:  Seven, yes.  

20          Okay, thank you.  

21                 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

22                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Senator 

23          DeFrancisco.

24                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Just to be 


 1          clear, it definitely was the intent to try to 

 2          get full funding for all the counties.  But 

 3          then when it got to the point of the cost 

 4          that the Governor was not willing to do, the 

 5          question was where do we go from there.  

 6          Okay?  

 7                 So I want to make clear today, so we 

 8          go from there more quickly, is there money -- 

 9          not something's going to start in 2018, but 

10          is there any money in the budget right now to 

11          start implementing the five-county settlement 

12          for the rest of the counties in the state?  

13                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  No, there is not.

14                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  And this may be 

15          what Assemblywoman Fahy just asked you.  Do 

16          you have an estimate of what that would be?  

17                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Well, we would 

18          have -- should this budget provision be 

19          enacted, we would have the responsibility to 

20          give an answer to those questions by 

21          December 1st of this year.  

22                 We can ballpark things.  We can say 

23          that $19 million -- that is a hard number.  

24          That's a very detailed number including all 


 1          the costs of adding the staff and the offices 

 2          and so on in the five counties.  That should 

 3          be about 14 percent of the 57-county cost.  

 4          So you can basically times it by seven, 

 5          you're at about 140 -- well, 140 plus the 19, 

 6          so say $160 million in round dollars.

 7                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  So wouldn't it 

 8          be better --

 9                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Outside New York 

10          City.

11                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay.  Wouldn't 

12          it be better to start -- we know it's going 

13          to cost.  If it cost $19 million for five 

14          counties, we know it's going to cost 

15          something.  So wouldn't it make sense to have 

16          a number to begin the process of applying 

17          this principle in the settlement to the rest 

18          of the counties?

19                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Oh, absolutely.  I 

20          think the number -- right.

21                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  And the number, 

22          you think, once it starts being implemented, 

23          is $160 million, approximately?  

24                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Plus the increased 


 1          city costs, yeah. 

 2                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay.  All 

 3          right.  Okay, that's number one.

 4                 Number two, one of the things that was 

 5          done here in this process was -- one of the 

 6          things you were charged to do in the 

 7          settlement is to come up with eligibility 

 8          standards; correct?  

 9                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Yes.

10                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:   Now, you've got 

11          a whole book on eligibility standards here.  

12          Okay?  Do you have it with you?  

13                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  I do.

14                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay.  Could I 

15          just ask you -- for example, Onondaga County.  

16          This is one of the five counties that was 

17          part of the settlement, and I represent part 

18          of Onondaga.

19                 Page 11.  Does this chart that's on 

20          page 11, does this -- the arrow going up on 

21          the top chart, which deals with applications 

22          for assigned counsel, it sort of goes up 

23          maybe, I don't know, 70 -- I don't know how 

24          many degrees.  But that shows a substantial 


 1          increase in applications; correct?  

 2                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  It does.  During a 

 3          six-week period.

 4                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay.  And the 

 5          lower chart, where the lines are going down, 

 6          does that mean that the denials by the judge 

 7          for free counsel are going down?  

 8                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Yes.

 9                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay.  So based 

10          on the standards, at least for Onondaga 

11          County, the new standards, the number of 

12          applications for free counsel are going up 

13          and the judges are denying them less.  

14                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Yes.  

15                 Keep in mind, though, Senator, that 

16          Onondaga County is a true outlier with 

17          respect to eligibility.  Our findings, dating 

18          back to the beginning of 2015, show that 

19          judges had historically been overriding 

20          denials of eligibility by the assigned 

21          counsel program in 86 percent -- with an 

22          86 percent frequency.  

23                 During the six-week, very short period 

24          in which we had data post the new standards 


 1          coming in, that rate rose to 89 percent 

 2          reversal of denials.  So the judges in 

 3          Onondaga have really been replacing the 

 4          assigned counsel program, which I'm very 

 5          happy to say is now under new leadership.  

 6                 And we're hoping for -- in other 

 7          words, what we don't know about those numbers 

 8          you note on page 11, we don't know whether it 

 9          is a true spike because of changes in 

10          eligibility or whether, as many attorneys 

11          have told us, the process of having a client 

12          become eligible took weeks or months in 

13          Onondaga under the old leadership of the ACP 

14          program.  Because voluminous documentation 

15          was required.  As I've already indicated, 

16          many, many erroneous denials of eligibility 

17          were rendered.  Attorneys didn't get paid 

18          until eligibility was determined, so the 

19          critical first weeks of representation were 

20          not funded.  

21                 So what we don't know is whether all 

22          of those pent-up applications which had not 

23          been submitted to the program because 

24          documentation was not complete -- and now, 


 1          all of a sudden, September 19th, 

 2          documentation was not required in order for 

 3          eligibility to be considered -- whether that 

 4          led to a one-time surge.  That's noted in the 

 5          accompanying pages.

 6                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay.  Can you 

 7          go to page 26?  There's a chart there for 

 8          Schuyler County.  Percentage of applications 

 9          found ineligible; correct?  

10                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Right.

11                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  And do you see a 

12          precipitous drop down to zero people were 

13          found ineligible for assigned counsel?  

14                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  0.9?

15                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Excuse me, 0.9.

16                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Yup.

17                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  So of all the 

18          people applying for assigned counsel, only 

19          0.9 percent in Schuyler County were found 

20          ineligible, based on the new standards.

21                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Actually, you can 

22          look at the table on page 4, which has all 

23          five counties in one place, and that will 

24          show the Schuyler rate did go down from a 3.1 


 1          percent denial rate before implementation to 

 2          0.9 percent after implementation, and that 

 3          the five-county average went from 4.4 percent 

 4          denial rate to 1 percent denial rate, on 

 5          average, during this very short period of 

 6          time.

 7                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  During a very 

 8          short period of time, which all happens to be 

 9          after you changed the eligibility standards.

10                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Yeah.  The point 

11          being that in the five counties, the overall 

12          impact on -- of the eligibility standards on 

13          increased cases and cost is quite minimal.

14                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  I don't make the 

15          same conclusion.  When you've got counties 

16          that everybody's eligible that applied, that 

17          concerns me a little.  Which brings me to my 

18          very, very final point.  The out --

19                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Senator, let me say 

20          one more thing about that, if I may.  And I'm 

21          sorry if I'm interrupting.

22                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Go ahead.

23                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  That is that -- 

24          please understand that we were not 


 1          negotiators of this settlement, we're the 

 2          implementers of it.  Had I been at the 

 3          negotiating table, I can tell you, without 

 4          any fear of doubt, that either that provision 

 5          would have been funded or it wouldn't have 

 6          been in there.  

 7                 And that's the one provision in the 

 8          settlement that is not funded, except for the 

 9          five counties.  And that is not right.  And 

10          that is why we have a $6 million request not 

11          found in the Executive Budget -- I hope it 

12          will be found in the legislative add -- to 

13          reimburse counties for any additional costs 

14          of the implementation standards -- which 

15          don't go into effect in the other counties 

16          until April 1st.

17                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay.  This is 

18          my concern.  If you have poor counties, rural 

19          counties, where everybody applies for free 

20          counsel, gets it -- or 0.9 percent don't get 

21          it, okay -- that the costs overall to each of 

22          these counties are going to go up 

23          substantially with the new eligibility 

24          standards.  And we're going to be creating a 


 1          problem, a substantial problem down the road.  

 2          Okay?  

 3                 It's different if the Governor signed 

 4          the bill that the state's picking up all of 

 5          the charges.  But the state, under this 

 6          budget, is not.  Okay, so that's point one.  

 7                 And these are the standards.  Now, 

 8          tell me if I'm incorrect.  The old standards, 

 9          when we were talking about this bill, trying 

10          to get things done, was that if your gross 

11          income was -- I think it was 125 percent of 

12          the poverty level, you would be -- under the 

13          guidelines, the people would be eligible.  Is 

14          that fair to say?  

15                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  No.  Senator, we did 

16          eight public hearings, we did a survey of 

17          judges and providers, we -- in this very 

18          report you can read that we found at least 

19          70 different standards for determining 

20          eligibility in the state.  

21                 And you can also read, again on page 

22          4, that three of these five counties under 

23          this preliminary study -- very preliminary, 

24          we don't take it as gospel -- show no 


 1          increase in assignments.  

 2                 A fourth one, Washington County, shows 

 3          an increase that they attribute not to 

 4          eligibility but to Counsel at First 

 5          Appearance.  And the reason there is pretty 

 6          clear, that if people have a lawyer at first 

 7          appearance, that lawyer hands them an 

 8          application form, they're much more likely to 

 9          go through the laborious process of applying 

10          for counsel than they would have been if they 

11          were alone there.  

12                 And then there's Onondaga, and that 

13          one is very much in flux.  And we expect that 

14          to even out, but it's early days.

15                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay.  Now, 

16          getting back to the question, the question 

17          was, if you want to tell me the five 

18          counties, what was the percentage over the 

19          poverty level that each of the counties 

20          applied before you changed the standards?

21                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  I think that that is 

22          probably in the report.  I don't have it off 

23          the top of my head.  

24                 I can tell you that over and over and 


 1          over again, at our eight public hearings -- 

 2          and I attended six of them -- we heard that 

 3          we have a low rate but we have a beneficent 

 4          review and most people who apply for counsel 

 5          are given counsel.  That was the 

 6          overwhelming --

 7                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Well, that's 

 8          great.  I don't care what's said at the 

 9          hearings.  What I'm trying to find out is 

10          what was fact, not what people's opinions 

11          were trying to expand the system.

12                 My understanding was that 125 

13          percent -- if you are 125 percent, your gross 

14          income is 125 percent of the poverty level, 

15          under the guidelines, you're eligible.  Make 

16          it a 150 percent.  Make it 175 percent.  The 

17          new guidelines went from that number to 

18          250 percent -- not of the gross income, but 

19          of the net income.  Is that fair to say?  

20                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  I don't believe gross 

21          income was really the actual standard in any 

22          county, Senator.

23                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Bill, you're 

24          losing me.  You're really losing me.  We'll 


 1          have more discussions about it.

 2                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  We really need to, 

 3          because there has been so much hysteria about 

 4          what these new standards -- which we're 

 5          implementing under a court order, please keep 

 6          in mind, are going to cost.  And there is as 

 7          yet scant evidence that that actually is the 

 8          case.  

 9                 We're doing our best with this 38-page 

10          report concerning three months of experience.  

11          We're getting it in here on time for this 

12          budget hearing.  It should be the start of a 

13          more rational debate about this important 

14          issue.

15                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Well, you can't 

16          have a rational debate if you're changing the 

17          facts as you go forward.

18                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  I'm not changing any 

19          facts, I am telling you what we learned 

20          during our study.

21                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Well, answer 

22          this.  Maybe you can do this without any 

23          public hearings and so forth.  Do you know 

24          the new standards, the eligibility standards?


 1                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Yes.

 2                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay.  Is it 250 

 3          percent --

 4                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Yes.

 5                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  If your net 

 6          income, not gross -- 

 7                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Yes, net.

 8                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  -- your net 

 9          income is 250 percent of the poverty level.  

10          And net means you take out automobile 

11          payments, rent payments --

12                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  You take our 

13          reasonable and necessary living expenses for 

14          you and your dependents.

15                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Now, is that a 

16          substantially bigger eligibility pool?

17                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Yes, it is an 

18          expanded eligibility pool.  The question is, 

19          is it a more appropriate one.  We think it 

20          is.

21                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay.  And the 

22          last point is simply this.  We've got to get 

23          something that works.  All right?  If you 

24          want to insist that the eligibility 


 1          standards are going to be expanded to that 

 2          amount, then you're going to be in a 

 3          situation where the costs are going to be 

 4          expanded.  And the issue of cost is not going 

 5          to be over after this budget, it's going to 

 6          be continually going forward.

 7                 What I'm only suggesting is that in 

 8          order to get this thing moving, we should 

 9          have an amount in the budget that's realistic 

10          to start treating the other counties exactly 

11          like the five counties that sued -- or were 

12          sued.  And secondly, to make sure that the 

13          eligibility standards aren't going to break 

14          the bank of the counties, because at least 

15          right now, all of the costs of the counties 

16          are not being covered by the state.  Fair 

17          enough?

18                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Fair enough.  

19                 Senator, I agree with you on both 

20          points.  I'm happy to continue the discussion 

21          with you.  And as I've told you before, when 

22          we have a body of work, when we have a year's 

23          time to take a look at what the impact 

24          actually is -- you know, we don't consider 


 1          ourselves all knowing and supremely 

 2          intelligent.  We're happy to reassess should 

 3          data demonstrate that we should.

 4                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Finished?

 5                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:   Yes.

 6                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Okay, thank you.

 7                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Assemblywoman 

 8          Weinstein, please.

 9                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  Thank you, 

10          Mr. Chairman.

11                 Bill, I thought I heard you mention 

12          that about -- close to 25 percent of the 

13          cases were family representation.

14                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Yes.

15                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  So I'd just 

16          like some clarification.  I know that you 

17          said that they're not included in the 

18          settlement agreement, but are they included 

19          in the caseload standards that you've 

20          developed so far?

21                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  No, they're not.  

22          Because those are done pursuant to the 

23          settlement and as part of the implementation 

24          of it.


 1                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  So then how 

 2          do the family representations fit with 

 3          caseload standards?  Could that then increase 

 4          the number of cases, individual 18b --

 5                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Right now they're 

 6          essentially orphaned.  I have a -- on page 8, 

 7          the last page of my written presentation, I 

 8          have a paragraph called "Unfinished Business" 

 9          to try to highlight this.  Some of you may 

10          have seen the New York Law Journal piece in 

11          which I raised it as a real concern.  

12                 Angela Burton, who is the director of 

13          parent representation in my office, is 

14          studying this and organizing, you know, what 

15          we hope will be a task force to look at the 

16          problem.  The problem is it goes all the way 

17          to the Kaye Commission.  It was not included 

18          in the Kaye Commission study.  Therefore, or 

19          perhaps therefore, it was not included in the 

20          Hurrell-Harring litigation, which began in 

21          2007.  And it is left out of the settlement 

22          and it's left out of the Governor's 

23          otherwise, you know, very positive proposal, 

24          and it's very unfortunate.  It should be in.  


 1          It's every bit as much mandated 

 2          representation as is criminal defense.

 3                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  So I don't 

 4          want to take up more time here, but if you 

 5          could forward us some data on the cost of 

 6          that representation.

 7                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  We've done a little 

 8          preliminary work.  The five counties is where 

 9          we have our best data, just because we've dug 

10          in so deep there.  And based on just the five 

11          counties, you know, it looks as though the 

12          cost component may exceed case assignment 

13          component.  So 25 percent case assignments, 

14          it's looking like about 30 percent of costs, 

15          as near as we can tell.  Again, early basis 

16          and always subject to further review.  But 

17          that's the way we see it right now.

18                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  And I know 

19          you were having a discussion with Senator 

20          DeFrancisco about the 250 percent of poverty.  

21          You said that was net?  Do you have a dollar 

22          figure --  

23                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Net income.

24                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  -- 


 1          associated with --

 2                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Well, we were guided 

 3          by two things.  We were guided by the Third 

 4          Department guidelines going back to 1977.  

 5          They didn't say 250, but they talked about 

 6          net income and how you have to be able to 

 7          care for yourself and your family, and then 

 8          can you hire a lawyer.  That's the proper way 

 9          to analyze it.

10                 And the second thing we followed is 

11          the self-sufficiency index for each county.  

12          And the lowest self-sufficiency index of any 

13          county in the state, in 2010, was about 

14          220 percent.  So very likely even there 

15          it's --

16                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  It may even 

17          be low for --

18                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  And of course on Long 

19          Island, Westchester, Hudson Valley, it's like 

20          350, 400.  So we don't think 250 is an 

21          unreasonable approach.

22                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  Okay.  Thank 

23          you very much.

24                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Senator Krueger.


 1                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Evening.  Is it 

 2          evening?  I'm not sure.  Oh, it's afternoon.

 3                 So we just got into lots and lots of 

 4          substance about the money for the different 

 5          counties.  I'm a little confused about the 

 6          money just to have you continue.  Because 

 7          you've been taken out of the State Operations 

 8          budget and you can be moved into Aid to 

 9          Localities, but you're not there now.  So who 

10          moves you and when?  And what happens if you 

11          don't?

12                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Well, I am seeking -- 

13          not necessarily daily, but very, very 

14          frequently -- the assurances that I think are 

15          implicit in your question.  

16                 Here we are in the budget not only -- 

17          well, we're two years, first of all, into a 

18          7Ω-year implementing role, chosen by the 

19          State of New York for that role.  We're very 

20          proud to have it, we're fulfilling it very 

21          responsibly, but we've got 5Ω years to go, 

22          and that obligation doesn't cease if we have 

23          zero in our State Operations line, the 

24          state's obligation.  That's number one. 


 1                 Number two, we are vested with the 

 2          responsibility of taking Hurrell-Harring 

 3          reforms statewide in the Governor's own 

 4          budget.  So the word "disconnect" is about 

 5          the most mild word I can think of to describe 

 6          all of those responsibilities on the one 

 7          hand, and the zero in the State Ops line on 

 8          the other.  

 9                 And I wish I had an answer to that 

10          question which I have been putting.  I don't 

11          have one yet.  I intend to get one.  I have 

12          expressed that I have a very hardworking and 

13          very expert staff which produces these 

14          reports and these plans, and they 

15          understandably would like to know that their 

16          state employment will continue.

17                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  So if you're not put 

18          back into State Ops, then you have to 

19          actually be written in somewhere in a budget 

20          bill into Aid to Localities, correct?  

21          Because you're not there really either.

22                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Right.  We're not 

23          specifically written in, it's just a portion 

24          may be transferred to State Operations.  


 1          That's what it says.

 2                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  No, I think it said 

 3          a portion may be transferred to Aid to 

 4          Localities.

 5                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  From Aid to 

 6          Localities into State Ops.  

 7                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Right, that could be 

 8          transferred.  But that would need to be 

 9          explicit in the budget, except "can be" is 

10          not really very explicit if you want to make 

11          payroll.  Right?

12                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  I'm sorry, I missed 

13          your question.

14                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  "Can be" is not very 

15          useful when you want to make payroll.

16                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  "Can be" is not very 

17          useful.  And of course we have no control 

18          over that.  I mean, I have already expressed 

19          the view that there's $4.8 million that 

20          belongs in State Ops, and what's it doing in 

21          Aid to Localities, and I want it back.

22                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Okay.  So I just 

23          wanted to agree with you that you're not in 

24          the right place right now.


 1                 In the very beginning of your 

 2          testimony, you talked about all these reports 

 3          showing real success coming out of the work 

 4          in indigent legal services, and a reduction 

 5          in the number of cases.  Where are the 

 6          reports?

 7                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  The reports are all 

 8          on our website.  They come out every fall.  

 9          They're called -- they have a kind of 

10          unwieldy title, I have one here, "Estimate of 

11          the Cost of Compliance with Maximum National 

12          Caseload Limits in Upstate New York."

13                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  So I can go online 

14          now and see the most recent reports.

15                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Yes, you can.  Or you 

16          can simply ask me to send your office an 

17          email with all four, and I will do it before 

18          the day is out.

19                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Thank you very much.  

20                 Thank you.

21                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

22                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.  

23                 That's it?

24                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Okay.  Thank you so 


 1          much for your testimony today.  We truly 

 2          appreciate it.

 3                 DIRECTOR LEAHY:  Thank you very much 

 4          for your time.  I really appreciate it.

 5                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Okay, thank you.

 6                 Our next speaker is Director and Chief 

 7          Information Officer Margaret Miller, New York 

 8          State Office of Information Technology 

 9          Services.

10                 Welcome.  So go ahead, proceed.

11                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Thank you.

12                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

13                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Good afternoon, 

14          Chairwoman Young, Chairman Farrell, and 

15          distinguished members of the Legislature.  I 

16          am Maggie Miller, the state's chief 

17          information officer and director of 

18          Information Technology Services, and I'm 

19          joined today by Matt Millea, executive deputy 

20          director of the Office of Information 

21          technology Services.  

22                 The 2017-2018 Governor's Executive 

23          Budget includes $582 million in General Fund 

24          support to enable ITS to continue to provide 


 1          consolidated statewide information technology 

 2          services.  The Executive Budget also includes 

 3          $85 million in capital funds for IT 

 4          innovation in enterprise-level applications 

 5          and programs.  

 6                 The funding will allow ITS to build on 

 7          the very considerable progress accomplished 

 8          to date towards ensuring the citizens of 

 9          New York are provided with the best possible 

10          technology in their interactions with state 

11          government, making government work smarter 

12          for citizens, spurring economic growth, and 

13          making the state more accessible to business.  

14                 Every member of the ITS team can be 

15          proud of the progress made in our 

16          transformational journey.  We are very 

17          conscious of the distance still left to 

18          travel before the ITS organization and the 

19          services it provides fully meet the standard 

20          that the citizens of New York deserve.  Such 

21          was the fragility of the environment before 

22          consolidation that we've had to focus more 

23          and for longer than we'd anticipated on 

24          reducing operational and cyber risk rather 


 1          than creating new functionality.  

 2                 However, let's not ignore what's been 

 3          achieved.  We are already delivering greater 

 4          operational resilience, an environment much 

 5          hardened against cyberattacks, some very 

 6          significant savings, and key initiatives 

 7          applying our strategy of "build once, reuse 

 8          often" that delivers better, new services 

 9          faster and cheaper.  

10                 Our TS team comprises some of the most 

11          talented and committed individuals it's been 

12          my privilege to work with.  New York State 

13          can be very proud of them and their 

14          achievements.  And we are grateful for the 

15          continued support of the Governor and our 

16          agency partners.  

17                 The transformation of ITS is without 

18          precedent in terms of ambition and scale and 

19          is taking place in the face of unusual 

20          challenges, including the extent of 

21          technology debt that has resulted from 

22          long-term underinvestment, as well as fiscal 

23          and practical constraints.  

24                 We are aggressively driving complexity 


 1          from the environment of the agencies ITS 

 2          serves, to reduce risk, improve the quality 

 3          of our services, provide the best career 

 4          opportunities to ITS team members, and free 

 5          up resources to invest in innovative new 

 6          services to citizens.  We make multiyear 

 7          plans based on the best information available 

 8          at the time, while continuously modifying 

 9          these plans as the needs of citizens and 

10          agencies evolve, and as circumstances demand.  

11                 The Office of Information Technology 

12          Services' Executive Budget request for state 

13          fiscal year 2017-2018 reflects these goals 

14          and constraints.  

15                 In the last year, ITS determined key 

16          areas of strategic focus, and these remain 

17          our strategic priorities in the 2017-2018 

18          financial year.  

19                 There is no higher priority for ITS 

20          than protecting citizen data against 

21          cyberattack.  We have adopted the industry 

22          standards NIST 800.53 and ITIL frameworks and 

23          are aggressively driving towards compliance, 

24          working closely with our partners in DHSES 


 1          and State Police as well as the FBI and the 

 2          federal Department of Homeland security.  

 3                 Among our initiatives to improve 

 4          cybersecurity are a remediation of critical 

 5          applications to achieve the required level of 

 6          cyber protection, implementation of a 

 7          vulnerability scanning architecture and 

 8          support organization to ensure devices 

 9          located at our CNSE data center are 

10          maintained to industry security controls, 

11          real-time network monitoring against threats 

12          in both the CNSE and Utica data centers, 

13          passive email phishing and malicious URL 

14          payload protection, real-time network packet 

15          capture and incident response support for 

16          network threats discovered, and threat 

17          correlation across multiple vectors and 

18          consolidated management of threat 

19          intelligence.  

20                 Running existing services and building 

21          new ones as cost-effectively as possible, 

22          while managing our financial resources in 

23          accordance with best practice, is the very 

24          core of what we do.  These outcomes are those 


 1          most visible to our agency partners and 

 2          citizens.  The remaining strategic priorities 

 3          are those areas we must focus on in order to 

 4          transform the way ITS delivers services to 

 5          agencies and citizens.  

 6                 New York citizens expect IT-enabled 

 7          services to be reliable, secure, and 

 8          available 24/7, and we have a major focus on 

 9          overcoming decades of underinvestment in 

10          infrastructure, processes and skills to 

11          achieve operational excellence by remediating 

12          the technology debt, driving out complexity, 

13          accelerating the consolidation of legacy data 

14          centers, and significantly upgrading our 

15          level of operational maturity while further 

16          driving down costs.  

17                 ITS continues to transform 

18          applications by delivering integrated IT 

19          services from the citizen viewpoint, and 

20          these services will mirror the best of the 

21          commercial world in functionality, 

22          availability, reliability, usability and 

23          security.  Wherever possible, we build 

24          capabilities once and reuse in multiple 


 1          places to deliver a seamless citizen 

 2          experience and best value, securely and 

 3          reliably.  

 4                 We are achieving this by identifying 

 5          opportunities for sharing technology 

 6          solutions across agencies with similar needs. 

 7          Technologies procured and stood up with a 

 8          ready-trained workforce are being leveraged 

 9          by multiple initiatives.  

10                 ITS has the capacity to help transform 

11          how cost-effective services are delivered to 

12          the citizens of New York State.  To achieve 

13          this, we must have the right resources, the 

14          right skills and the right organization.  We 

15          plan to become a national leader in building 

16          the IT workforce of the future by partnering 

17          with academic institutions and technology 

18          industry leaders to develop the workforce we 

19          need to grow the technology sector in 

20          New York State.  

21                 We're reengineering the ITS 

22          organization and offering really exciting 

23          career opportunities to our staff.  We do 

24          have much to do to ensure that each member of 


 1          the team has the opportunity to reach his or 

 2          her potential and make the greatest possible 

 3          contribution to our transformation program. 

 4          We're ensuring our training and development 

 5          plans are closely aligned with our 

 6          transformation strategy and that each team 

 7          member has the skills needed to be effective 

 8          and to progress in his or her career.  In 

 9          2016 alone, ITS provided more than 6,800 

10          training courses to our staff.  

11                 However, expertise requires both 

12          training and experience.  We face a 

13          significant loss of experience, with 

14          35 percent of our staff eligible to retire in 

15          the next five years, and 15 percent of our 

16          team eligible to retire today.  As the vast 

17          majority of IT staff in the state are already 

18          part of ITS, the only way to replace the head 

19          count lost from retirements is with 

20          entry-level staff with very limited 

21          experience.  That results in a very high 

22          reliance on expensive consultants to meet the 

23          experience deficit.  

24                 For these reasons, we are requesting 


 1          your support for the Governor's Executive 

 2          Budget proposal that allows us to hire a 

 3          number of these consultants into the 

 4          PEF-represented state workforce in term 

 5          roles.  On passing the civil service exams, 

 6          those individuals would then be able to apply 

 7          for permanent positions, in competition with 

 8          existing ITS staff.  

 9                 Again, I ask for your support for this 

10          important legislation.  

11                 Thank you for the opportunity to speak 

12          with you today, and I welcome your questions 

13          and comments.

14                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you very 

15          much.  Thank you for joining us here today.

16                 And I listened to your testimony.  

17          Now, we had a discussion last year about 

18          career ladders within the department, and 

19          you're bringing forward a proposal that 

20          actually would add I believe an additional 

21          250 slots.

22                 So in 2009, we authorized 500 term 

23          appointments.  To date, how many of these 

24          slots have been utilized?


 1                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  I think that 

 2          provision has expired.

 3                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  It expired, but how 

 4          many were utilized, and were any held over?

 5                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  None.  The program 

 6          was very successful, and we were very 

 7          successful in retaining those staff.  

 8                 So the examination was held within the 

 9          five-year period, and all the staff who were 

10          then in those positions I believe took the 

11          exam, and many of them passed and were 

12          successful in achieving permanent positions, 

13          and we've retained them.  There's been a 

14          great record of retention of some very key 

15          skills as a result of that program.  And 

16          that's one of the reasons we're asking for a 

17          repeat of the program.  

18                 I don't have the number on exactly how 

19          many were hired during that process, I'm 

20          afraid.  I can get it back to you.

21                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Okay, thank you.

22                 Are term appointment employees 

23          classified as contractors, or something else?

24                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  They're classified 


 1          as staff.  They're PEF positions, so they are 

 2          PEF-represented roles, so they're classed as 

 3          staff positions -- technically not permanent, 

 4          they're this unique-term role.  

 5                 Temporary positions are what we use 

 6          for project roles of a limited duration.

 7                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  So you're saying 

 8          the vast majority of the 500 slots made the 

 9          transition to permanent employee?

10                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  I could be wrong; I 

11          don't remember it being 500.  I do apologize.  

12          I'll check the numbers and get back to you.

13                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Oh, okay.

14                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  I thought the 

15          original number was lower.  But I will find 

16          out.

17                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Because I thought 

18          you just said that, that the 500 slots were 

19          utilized and most of them transitioned into 

20          permanent employment.

21                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  From memory, the 

22          first time around it was a lower number than 

23          500.  And we're requesting 250, as you know, 

24          this time.


 1                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  It would be helpful 

 2          to know those figures.

 3                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Yes, of course.

 4                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.

 5                 What kind of job functions do these 

 6          individuals perform?

 7                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  It will be a range 

 8          of roles, depending on our need.  But roles 

 9          where experience, as I say, is crucial.  And 

10          in IT, experience always matters.  

11                 And as I just described, we're losing 

12          a great deal of valuable experience through 

13          retirement, and currently our only mechanism 

14          is to hire people at entry level.  And 

15          unfortunately, that's adding to the already 

16          increasingly unsustainable load on some of 

17          our senior staff, who are really critical to 

18          the operation of the agency.

19                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  So your testimony 

20          says that you face a significant loss of 

21          experience --

22                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Yes.

23                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  -- with 35 percent 

24          of your staff eligible to retire in the next 


 1          five years.  I seem to remember a discussion 

 2          last year during the budget hearings about 

 3          career ladders and employees being very 

 4          concerned about lack of career ladders.  And 

 5          what have you done to address that situation?

 6                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Well, as I just 

 7          mentioned, we've had a very intensive 

 8          training program.  We've chosen some very 

 9          specific skills that are strategic skills for 

10          the future so we can really focus our career 

11          development on those skills, and we have 

12          conducted 6,800 trainings.  

13                 And in fact, in the last year, we 

14          promoted a record 11 percent of our staff 

15          internally into new opportunities.  But 

16          unfortunately, that isn't sufficient to meet 

17          the experience deficit.

18                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

19                 The IT cybersecurity responsibilities 

20          were absorbed from the Department of Homeland 

21          Security and Emergency Services.  And as it 

22          stood, DHSES performed this task for three 

23          programs -- information security management, 

24          managed security services, and the 


 1          cyber-incident response team. 

 2                 The Executive's 2018 budget proposal 

 3          includes the creation of a cyber-incident 

 4          response team funded through DHSES.  So when 

 5          IT absorbed the responsibilities that were 

 6          formerly with the Department of Homeland 

 7          Security, IT took over information security 

 8          management, managed security services, and 

 9          the cyber-incident response team.  Now that 

10          the cyber-incident response team is being 

11          funded through DHSES, does your department 

12          still have a response mechanism?

13                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Well, one of the 

14          things that I've worked very closely on with 

15          the commissioner of DHSES and also the 

16          superintendent of State Police is making sure 

17          we have absolute clarity on who's responsible 

18          for what.  And that's working very well.

19                 And in fact what we've clarified now 

20          is that the responsibility of ITS is for 

21          ensuring the security of the data held by the 

22          48 agencies we support.  Whereas the 

23          Department of Homeland Security, of course, 

24          is responsible for helping New York State 


 1          citizens and businesses and critical 

 2          infrastructure protect themselves, so that 

 3          their scope is somewhat wider.  

 4                 So we have a capability to respond to 

 5          incidents within the organizations we 

 6          support, but DHSES's responsibility is very 

 7          much broader than that.

 8                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  So it's still split 

 9          between multiple agencies, is what you're 

10          saying.

11                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Well, and 

12          appropriately so, I think, because we have 

13          different areas of responsibility.  And of 

14          course there's also State Police, who enforce 

15          cybersecurity laws and provide targeted cyber 

16          intelligence.  

17                 And in fact we actually had the 

18          opportunity to test out how well we work 

19          together only a couple of months ago, because 

20          we had the opportunity to take part in a 

21          tabletop exercise run by the federal 

22          Department of Homeland Security, where we 

23          mocked up a cyberattack on the health agency 

24          and we had -- goodness me, I think we must 


 1          have had 50 people in attendance, from all 

 2          the potentially affected departments who 

 3          would have to respond to a real cyber event.  

 4          We had members of staff from the chamber and 

 5          everybody from the Governor's staff to 

 6          communications and so forth.

 7                 Nobody had prior notice of this 

 8          exercise, what it was going to be like, so 

 9          nobody could prepare -- other than how they 

10          would normally.  And in fact we did very 

11          well.  And we looked at the after-action 

12          report that was produced for us, and the 

13          Department of Homeland Security was very 

14          complimentary about the way the different 

15          agencies worked together, didn't fall over 

16          each other, but really understood their 

17          roles.

18                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Which state 

19          agencies and public authorities specifically 

20          are covered under ITS?

21                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  There are 48.  I can 

22          list them for you if you'd like.

23                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Forty-eight out of 

24          how many?


 1                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Well, there are, 

 2          gosh, quite a large number of non-executive 

 3          agencies and authorities and other executive 

 4          agencies that we don't support.  That was the 

 5          original mandate of ITS when it was formed.

 6                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  If an executive 

 7          state agency is the victim of a cyberattack, 

 8          how are the victims notified?  Are they 

 9          notified by you?  How does that process work?

10                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  It depends on the 

11          nature of the attack.  If the -- if it's an 

12          attack on an agency that we support, then -- 

13          and the majority of attacks, of course, are 

14          not successful.  

15                 But in the rare event that an attack 

16          might be successful, then we would work very 

17          carefully with that agency to determine the 

18          extent of any breach and whether indeed that 

19          breach required notification, and then the 

20          agency itself would handle the notification 

21          if it was citizens' data that was breached.

22                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  How do you 

23          interface with federal agencies, that sort of 

24          thing?  Because it seems to me that there are 


 1          constant new threats out there, there are new 

 2          schemes that are put together and -- how does 

 3          that work so that you're up to speed?  

 4          Because I have to imagine that this changes 

 5          day by day and even minute by minute in some 

 6          cases.

 7                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Indeed it does, 

 8          yeah.

 9                 We work very closely with the NYSIC 

10          and also with the Multistate ISAC, which is 

11          an organization that collects information 

12          from around the country and around the world, 

13          from federal agencies and state agencies.  We 

14          have a very close relationship with them.  

15          And of course, conveniently, they're located 

16          very nearby.  And we review all the 

17          information provided to us to determine 

18          what's actionable and what's for information 

19          only, and move very aggressively to implement 

20          their recommendations, such as we did with 

21          the Grizzly Steppe recommendations that 

22          recently surrounded the election.

23                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  One of the issues 

24          has to do with -- and I know you're focused 


 1          on the state agencies, but with the new 

 2          cyber-incident response team.  It will be 

 3          helping localities who may be under threat 

 4          and that sort of thing.

 5                 But do you see a need for some kind of 

 6          focus on private industry or business?  And 

 7          the reason I ask that is that many people in 

 8          the state were victims of a computer hack by 

 9          a health insurance organization.  And of 

10          course we're very concerned about that.  

11          Those are some of the most sensitive records 

12          about anyone, and it includes items that 

13          could be used for identity theft and other 

14          nefarious deeds.

15                 So what need do you see out there?

16                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Indeed, I was the 

17          victim of such an attack myself only a couple 

18          of weeks ago, so I totally understand that.

19                 I'm confident that Commissioner 

20          Melville has a good plan in place in order to 

21          advise industry.  And of course, you know, we 

22          welcome the new regulations that DFS is 

23          proposing to make sure that financial 

24          organizations secure their data.


 1                 The threats are constantly evolving.  

 2          We maintain a posture of I would call it 

 3          confident paranoia, because however on a 

 4          daily basis we increase our level of 

 5          protection, the threat continues to evolve.  

 6          And that's one of the reasons why in ITS 

 7          we're spending more on cybersecurity -- in 

 8          fact, more than twice as much as the majority 

 9          of government agencies across the country.  

10          We're spending fully 17 percent of our budget 

11          on securing citizen data.

12                 But I do think that there's a need for 

13          more awareness.  Certainly there are federal 

14          regulations and financial regulations, such 

15          as SOX, that focus on this.  But I'm 

16          confident that Commissioner Melville has a 

17          plan on that subject.

18                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

19                 We'll allow the Assembly to ask some 

20          questions, and then some of my colleagues.

21                 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS:  Yes, I just had a 

22          question.  The ammunition database through 

23          the SAFE Act, originally there was an 

24          appropriation of $80.74 million that would 


 1          have paid for that.  My understanding is 

 2          there's currently $4.6 million left in that.  

 3          So I guess the question would be, are we done 

 4          with that?  And if so, do we have a plan to 

 5          use that other 4.6?

 6                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Unfortunately, I 

 7          don't recognize those specific numbers.

 8                 But I mean, as you know, 

 9          Superintendent Beach has been in his role for 

10          some seven months at the moment, and we 

11          continue to work very closely with him and 

12          his team in order to find a suitable solution 

13          for the ammunition database.  But so far, as 

14          you know, we've been focusing on the many 

15          provisions required -- the many elements 

16          required to fully meet the provisions of the 

17          SAFE Act.  

18                 And in fact we've just this month 

19          implemented the functionality for pistol 

20          recertification, and I'm pleased to say that 

21          we've already seen some 30,000 registrations, 

22          pistol recertifications.  

23                 But as I say, unfortunately I don't 

24          recognize those specific numbers.  Happy to 


 1          follow up with you later.

 2                 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS:  I would be 

 3          appreciative of that.  Thank you.

 4                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Of course.

 5                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  And I will remind 

 6          you, Director, that there is a memorandum of 

 7          understanding that the database cannot go 

 8          forward without --

 9                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Indeed.

10                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  -- the agreement by 

11          the majority leader in the Senate, and that's 

12          still in place.

13                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Indeed.

14                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Senator Croci.

15                 SENATOR CROCI:  Thank you, Madam 

16          Chair. 

17                 Director, good to see you again.

18                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Good to see you, 

19          Senator.

20                 SENATOR CROCI:  A quick question.  You 

21          mentioned that there's coordination with 

22          regard to the cyber-incident response teams, 

23          the fact that they're going -- they're not 

24          going to your office, and instead they're 


 1          going to DHSES, whereas I think last year 

 2          when we were having these conversations, it 

 3          was the other way around.  

 4                 But you said that there's an 

 5          understanding between the superintendent of 

 6          State Police and Commissioner Melville at 

 7          DHSES and yourself.

 8                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Mm-hmm.

 9                 SENATOR CROCI:  So there is a coherent 

10          policy, everyone knows their lane in the 

11          road.  My question is, where can I as a 

12          legislator read that policy or that roadmap 

13          for how these lanes in the road function?

14                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  For how we interact 

15          between us and --

16                 SENATOR CROCI:  Yes.  You said 

17          there -- and it was recognized even by the 

18          Department of Homeland Security.  I'm just 

19          wondering, is this an informal policy or is 

20          this something where it's a, you know, 

21          interagency process and you've come up with 

22          something that a legislator or someone else 

23          can look at and say this is -- who is 

24          responsible for this kind of an incident 


 1          across the enterprise and across the spectrum 

 2          in the State of New York?

 3                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  I'm not aware of a 

 4          published policy, I'm afraid, Senator.

 5                 SENATOR CROCI:  Okay, so it's an 

 6          informal policy between the commissioners 

 7          that's agreed to by the Governor?

 8                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Not in the format of 

 9          a formal policy, no.  Although we do have a 

10          very good understanding between us and work 

11          very closely together.

12                 SENATOR CROCI:  Would it make sense to 

13          have a formal policy?

14                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  It's actually a 

15          really interesting suggestion.  Let me look 

16          into it.

17                 SENATOR CROCI:  Okay.  I had a 

18          question about -- we talked a little about 

19          the Governor's -- one of his very I think 

20          effective measures that he implemented, which 

21          was that 6 percent set-aside for contracts 

22          statewide go to service-disabled 

23          veteran-owned businesses.

24                 You previously testified that you were 


 1          either compliant or approaching compliance.  

 2          I'm looking at the report that I got from 

 3          OGS, my office received, with the members of 

 4          the committee.  And you're not in this one, 

 5          your department isn't, but I see zero 

 6          percent, zero percent in this year's report, 

 7          which was late -- not from you, but was late.  

 8          I don't see you listed.  So I'm wondering 

 9          what is your current compliance with the 

10          state law with regard to state contracts 

11          issued by your department for 

12          service-disabled veteran-owned businesses?

13                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Yeah.  Well, the 

14          good news is I'm pleased to say for the 

15          second year running, on the minority- and 

16          women-owned businesses, we are exceeding our 

17          target.  In fact, we've reached double our 

18          target. 

19                 I'm personally disappointed to have to 

20          tell you that for disabled and veteran-owned 

21          business, for the current year we'll probably 

22          only reach 50 percent of our goal.  I'm very 

23          disappointed about that.  I --

24                 SENATOR CROCI:  Fifty percent of the 


 1          requirement, or do you have a goal that's 

 2          short of the requirement?

 3                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  We have a --

 4                 SENATOR CROCI:  It's 6 percent.

 5                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  We have to establish 

 6          a goal, and that's a published goal.

 7                 The limitation on us in that area, 

 8          which hopefully won't exist in the next year, 

 9          is that we're limited by the order of 

10          precedence of procurement.  So first of all 

11          we have to go to preferred-source vendors, if 

12          the form and fit meets our needs.  Then we go 

13          to OGS centralized contracts, and that's 

14          where we do the vast majority of our 

15          purchasing.  And there just weren't many 

16          veteran-owned businesses in that category.  

17                 I'm pleased to say that OGS has just 

18          added 10 disabled and veteran-owned 

19          businesses to that category.  So I'm really 

20          optimistic that I'll be able to tell you next 

21          year that we've beaten our goal.  That's our 

22          intent.

23                 SENATOR CROCI:  I sure hope so.

24                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Yeah, I'm --


 1                 SENATOR CROCI:  I had one other 

 2          question, and this is with regard to a report 

 3          that the Comptroller did with regard to 

 4          different agencies.  It's not very flattering 

 5          for your agency -- words like "significant 

 6          deficiencies in planning and execution of 

 7          transformation."  

 8                 And more alarming is "ITS often did 

 9          not provide timely or independent access to 

10          certain data and staff, thus limiting the 

11          reliability of some of the data that auditors 

12          received and the interviews the auditors 

13          conducted.  There is considerable risk that 

14          the material information pertaining to IT 

15          transformation was withheld.  Further, 

16          throughout the audit, we were presented with 

17          contradictory information when trying to 

18          obtain documentation and answers to our 

19          inquiry."

20                 And this is from Comptroller 

21          DiNapoli's report of August 2016, which 

22          you're no doubt aware of.  This recently came 

23          across our desks, and I just wanted to give 

24          you the opportunity to explain it.  Thank 


 1          you.

 2                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  I'm delighted to, 

 3          thank you.

 4                 I categorically reject OSC's 

 5          statement.  ITS always works in good faith to 

 6          comply with all auditors' requests.  I 

 7          believe the truth matters, and the truth is 

 8          that no requested data was withheld.  In 

 9          fact, I personally committed to provide any 

10          information requested, and did so, and spent 

11          many hours explaining the terminology and 

12          concepts.

13                 I welcome all input that's objective 

14          and constructive and well informed.  

15          Unfortunately, I don't think anybody learned 

16          anything useful from this exercise.  I 

17          requested the standard against which the 

18          transformation was to be evaluated; the only 

19          reply I ever received was that OSC would 

20          measure the program against the measures we 

21          use ourselves.  But the report makes no 

22          reference to the NYST and ITIL frameworks 

23          that we do use.

24                 And despite the tone of the report, 


 1          they only came up with four recommendations 

 2          that were specific, all of which were either 

 3          already complete or in progress.

 4                 So I'm as puzzled as you are, Senator, 

 5          by the nature of their comments.

 6                 SENATOR CROCI:  Well, just to close, 

 7          Madam Chair, I haven't found the 

 8          comptroller's office to engage in hyperbole 

 9          or speculation.  They're normally very 

10          factually based.  And of course Comptroller 

11          DiNapoli is somebody that is held in high 

12          regard in both houses.

13                 I'm just curious as to how there can 

14          be such a disagreement with the process of an 

15          audit or the information that was provided.

16                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  I'm, as I say, as 

17          puzzled as you are.  

18                 There were some initial delays that 

19          were due entirely to the fact that OSC 

20          objected to the presence of a member of my 

21          audit team in the interviews.  That was 

22          necessary to make sure that statements by ITS 

23          staff weren't misrepresented or 

24          misunderstood, as unfortunately had happened 


 1          in the past.

 2                 And also, some of the information 

 3          requested by OSC didn't exist in the form 

 4          they specified, and they were working 

 5          documents.  So it took a while for us to pull 

 6          the information together and create the right 

 7          versioning and check for accuracy and so 

 8          forth.

 9                 This is a really complex 

10          transformation that is tough to understand 

11          for those with many decades of experience in 

12          IT.  But as I've said to you, while we're far 

13          from perfect and have a long way to go, we 

14          have already or are in the process of 

15          actioning all the recommendations they made 

16          and did categorically provide all the 

17          information requested.  And I completely 

18          reject the statement that we in any way 

19          frustrated the audit.  We did not.

20                 SENATOR CROCI:  Okay, thank you.

21                 Thank you, Madam Chair.

22                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Thank you.

23                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.

24                 Senator Krueger, please.


 1                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Thank you.

 2                 So just following up on Assemblymember 

 3          Kolb's question, even if from a different 

 4          direction --

 5                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Oaks.

 6                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  I'm sorry, excuse 

 7          me.  I apologize.  

 8                 So there was $84 million for the 

 9          ammunition database at some point in time, 

10          and you said you were going to get back to 

11          him on that.  I would also like to understand 

12          what was spent exactly, because we don't 

13          actually have one.  

14                 And I asked the question of 

15          Commissioner Beach of the State Police, who 

16          said there's been no new proposals made to 

17          him since he's been in charge of the State 

18          Police.  So I know that there were three 

19          earlier proposals, but I can't believe we 

20          spent millions and millions of dollars on 

21          yet-to-happen.

22                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Right.

23                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  So I would like a 

24          clarification of that.


 1                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Certainly.  By all 

 2          means.

 3                 So as I said, the SAFE Act requires a 

 4          number of provisions, and there are number of 

 5          elements to the IT work required to meet 

 6          those provisions.  

 7                 The components we've completed already 

 8          are the assault weapon registration, mental 

 9          health reporting, ammunition dealer 

10          registration, and the recertification of 

11          pistols.  And on all of those, we spent 

12          $12.8 million.  But we have spent no money at 

13          all on the ammunition database.

14                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  So you've said that 

15          you oversee -- what did you say, 48 or 49 

16          agencies?

17                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Forty-eight.

18                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  And you talk about, 

19          in your testimony, all these things you're 

20          doing.  Do you have a list of the 

21          accomplishments that you have completed on 

22          any of these agencies in their software or 

23          hardware?

24                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  We do report to the 


 1          commissioners on a regular basis on our 

 2          progress.  And in fact we're currently 

 3          working on a report that calls out all the 

 4          achievements over the four-year life of ITS.  

 5                 Unfortunately, I don't have a report I 

 6          can give to you right now.

 7                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  So it's one of my 

 8          pet peeves:  So have we finished the 

 9          computerization of the Department of Housing?  

10          Which is no longer called DHCR, it's HCR.

11                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  I'm pleased to say 

12          that finally the contract has been awarded 

13          for that piece of work.

14                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Just the contract?  

15                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Yes, and the -- the 

16          work has been begun.

17                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  So that was 

18          supposedly a top priority of the Cuomo 

19          administration when the Governor was first 

20          elected, and we have a contract awarded 

21          after -- six and a half years?

22                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  It's been a very 

23          lengthy process, yes, I know.

24                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Get any farther on 


 1          any other agencies?

 2                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Oh, yes.  Yes.  I 

 3          mean, we have -- at the moment we have a 

 4          portfolio in the current year of some 140 

 5          projects that are over a million dollars, as 

 6          well as a large number of enhancements to 

 7          existing systems.

 8                 So there are a huge number of projects 

 9          going on at any time in the agency.

10                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  I share some of my 

11          colleagues' frustration that we're not 

12          getting anywhere fast enough on an incredible 

13          number of issues.

14                 You are right when you say the people 

15          of New York State, the consumers of state 

16          government, in fact are expecting a 

17          21st-century government that has functioning 

18          IT and allows them to participate in all 

19          kinds of ways, and that our workers deserve 

20          the kinds of systems that allow them to 

21          provide the services.

22                 And I look at the state compared to 

23          other states -- or even the City of New York, 

24          where I live -- and I'm constantly shocked 


 1          with how little progress we make.

 2                 So I have not read the comptroller's 

 3          report.  I will, on the recommendation of 

 4          Senator Croci, read it.

 5                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  For sure.  I mean, I 

 6          would say that we probably don't do a good 

 7          enough job of explaining some of the progress 

 8          we do make, and we are making significant 

 9          progress.  You'll have noticed, for example, 

10          on the recent election, that the voter 

11          registration process went very smoothly.  And 

12          that, for example, required us to completely 

13          rewrite the systems that underpin 

14          applications for voter registration.  We 

15          rebuilt those between the primary and the 

16          general election registration process.  And 

17          we handled 800,000 applications, 200,000 of 

18          those in the last week, without any 

19          interruptions in service.

20                 So a lot of what we do is not terribly 

21          obvious because it's not headline-grabbing, 

22          but actually works very well.  

23                 And we've also, unfortunately, because 

24          of the fragile nature of the environment when 


 1          ITS was formed, we've had to focus far too 

 2          much and for far too long on stabilizing the 

 3          environment and on cybersecurity.  

 4          Unfortunately, those things have to come 

 5          first.  It doesn't make me very popular with 

 6          my commissioner colleagues, but I have to 

 7          insist that stabilizing the environment, 

 8          making sure that we have operational security 

 9          and cybersecurity, has to come before 

10          anything else, including, unfortunately, some 

11          of the newer projects.

12                 SENATOR KRUEGER:  Thank you.

13                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Point of 

14          clarification.  There was never any money 

15          lined out in any state budget regarding the 

16          SAFE Act.

17                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  That's correct.

18                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  So you apparently 

19          have been spending these millions of dollars 

20          out of the ITS budget.

21                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Out of the General 

22          Fund, that's correct.

23                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.

24                 Senator Savino.


 1                 SENATOR SAVINO:  Thank you, Senator 

 2          Young.

 3                 Thank you, Ms. Miller.  I just have a 

 4          question about -- at the end of your 

 5          testimony, you talk about the IT staff and 

 6          the significant threat to -- the loss of 

 7          staff.  I think in your testimony you said 

 8          you're facing -- about 35 percent of your 

 9          staff right now are eligible to retire in the 

10          next five years, and 15 percent are eligible 

11          today.  That's fully 50 percent of the IT 

12          staff.

13                 And at the same time, in the 

14          Governor's budget there's a proposal to allow 

15          for the hiring of 250 people.  And this was 

16          the subject of some discussion the other day 

17          with Civil Service and with GOER, and I'm 

18          still somewhat confused as to who these 

19          people are, what they would do.  

20                 Because I understand we have an 

21          existing -- we have an existing civil service 

22          list for IT positions with almost a thousand 

23          people on it.  So I asked the question then, 

24          why can't we just turn to that list and hire 


 1          people off the list?  They couldn't answer 

 2          it.

 3                 So perhaps you can tell me --

 4                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Certainly.

 5                 SENATOR SAVINO:  -- one, if that list 

 6          for those positions are positions that you 

 7          need to fill with these 250 that we want to 

 8          hire.  And if not, why not?  Like, what 

 9          exactly are these 250 people going to do?

10                 And then at some point these 250 staff 

11          people that will now be represented and state 

12          workers, there's going to have to be a civil 

13          service exam developed for this position.  

14          That's my understanding.

15                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Happy to clarify.

16                 SENATOR SAVINO:  Maybe you can explain 

17          it to me, because they couldn't.

18                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  I'll try.

19                 So these individuals are current -- 

20          currently contractors, very expensive 

21          contractors.  So they're a known entity.  So 

22          we know their value to the state.  They've 

23          already learned about state systems.  

24                 And this legislation allows us to turn 


 1          those expensive contractors into state 

 2          employees in PEF positions, but those 

 3          positions only last for up to five years.  

 4          During that five-year period they have to 

 5          take a civil service exam appropriate to the 

 6          role that they would be going into.  

 7                 But what this does do is allow us to 

 8          hire people at more senior levels, more 

 9          experienced people.  Because currently the 

10          only way we can bring people into the ITS 

11          organization is at the lowest levels.  Now, 

12          that's great, and we have fantastic 

13          internship programs, and we love having 

14          bright kids straight out of college join the 

15          organization.  But as I said, expertise is a 

16          mixture of skill and experience.  And we 

17          desperately need an injection of experience 

18          into the middle layers and into the more 

19          senior layers of the organization.

20                 SENATOR SAVINO:  So the existing list 

21          that has a thousand -- that would be a lower 

22          title or a lower level of skill?

23                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  There are probably a 

24          range of lists, so we have lists applicable 


 1          to multiple titles.  And those -- I think 

 2          there's a misunderstanding that -- about who 

 3          competes for the permanent roles.

 4                 So the permanent roles that these term 

 5          appointments would be eligible to compete for 

 6          are available to -- and indeed the term 

 7          roles -- are available to permanent staff as 

 8          well as the contractors.  And in fact we're 

 9          obliged to hire from the permanent staff in 

10          preference to the contractors.  

11                 So there's an opportunity for the 

12          permanent staff to apply for the term roles, 

13          and then when term staff, if they pass the 

14          exam, they're in competition with permanent 

15          staff who might have reached that level in 

16          the ladder, and we would take a view on which 

17          are more suitable and would most likely hire 

18          the -- those who had the greatest skills as 

19          well as the experience.

20                 SENATOR SAVINO:  It makes a little bit 

21          more sense than the explanation I got the 

22          other day.  But I just wonder, you know, if 

23          we are developing exams that actually reflect 

24          the work that the agency needs.  And perhaps 


 1          that's something that Civil Service should be 

 2          looking at.

 3                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Yeah, that's a 

 4          different matter and something that we're 

 5          working very closely with Civil Service on.

 6                 The tricky thing is that the civil 

 7          service exams are by nature very general, and 

 8          IT skills are very specific.  So that does 

 9          give us some challenges, and that's something 

10          that Civil Service and our HR department are 

11          working on very closely.  Because obviously 

12          we don't want to have to develop an exam for 

13          each very narrow technology skill.  That 

14          wouldn't be a good use of anybody's time.  

15                 But at the same time, if someone comes 

16          in the top three on a particular exam, but 

17          their skills are in COBOL programming and I 

18          need someone who's skilled in an Oracle skill 

19          set, then that's a mismatch too.

20                 So it's -- we're trying to work within 

21          the system, at the same time hoping Civil 

22          Service and PEF will work with us to make the 

23          system more appropriate for the 21st century.

24                 SENATOR SAVINO:  Thank you.


 1                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  I just have just 

 2          one more question, and that's whether -- I 

 3          wanted to ask whether ITS has developed a 

 4          cloud strategy.

 5                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  I'm sorry?

 6                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  A cloud strategy.

 7                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Oh, a cloud 

 8          strategy.  Yes, indeed.

 9                 We're very thoughtful and very careful 

10          about it.  Such is the scale of ITS that in 

11          fact we have our own private cloud that 

12          operates out of our CNSE data center, and 

13          that's how we provide services to many of our 

14          agencies, is using a private cloud concept.

15                 But we are very carefully and 

16          selectively adopting government clouds.  So 

17          for example, our email system is housed in 

18          the Microsoft government cloud.  And we are 

19          also, on a very selective and careful basis, 

20          making use of other cloud services that meet 

21          our security requirements, and where we 

22          believe we won't be locked into a particular 

23          vendor in an inappropriate fashion.

24                 So we have a strategy, but we're being 


 1          very careful and thoughtful about it.

 2                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you for that 

 3          answer.

 4                 Are the other state agencies and local 

 5          governments able to access the cloud system 

 6          that you're putting together?  Because that's 

 7          a low-cost alternative.

 8                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  It can appear a 

 9          low-cost alternative, although I often 

10          counsel my colleagues to be careful of the 

11          total cost of ownership over time.

12                 But certainly where cloud providers 

13          are available on the OGS contracts, those are 

14          available to other state agencies, yes.

15                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  And to local 

16          governments also?

17                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  I believe so, yes.

18                 EX. DEP. DIRECTOR MILLEA:  If I could 

19          just add, Senator, we are working closely 

20          with OGS on a periodic recruitment for the 

21          cloud umbrella contract that OGS has, with a 

22          particular focus on making sure that local 

23          governments will have the vendors they're 

24          looking for and that they'll be able to 


 1          participate through the OGS procurement.

 2                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Thanks, Matt.

 3                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Okay, thank you.

 4                 Anyone else?  Okay, I think we're all 

 5          set, so thank you for testifying today.  We 

 6          truly appreciate it.

 7                 DIRECTOR MILLER:  Thank you.

 8                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Next up is 

 9          Robert -- Tembeckjian?

10                 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN:  You got it 

11          right last year and this year too.  Thank 

12          you, Senator.

13                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  It took me a 

14          second.  

15                 -- administrator and counsel for the 

16          New York State Commission on Judicial 

17          Conduct.

18                 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN:  Thank you.

19                 No, I'm not going to read it at all.  

20          And I will be as brief as possible. 

21                 Public confidence in the courts and in 

22          the integrity of the judiciary requires an 

23          effective and capable judicial ethics 

24          enforcement component, and that's what the 


 1          Commission on Judicial Conduct does.  We are 

 2          created in the State Constitution.  We have 

 3          disciplinary jurisdiction over the 3300 

 4          judges of the New York State Unified Court 

 5          System.  We receive close to 2,000 complaints 

 6          a year and process them all.  

 7                 We have, over the last nearly 40 years 

 8          of our existence, conducted over 10,000 

 9          preliminary inquiries, 8,000 investigations, 

10          and have publicly disciplined 814 judges, 

11          including 169 who were removed from office 

12          for egregious misconduct as well as 63 who 

13          resigned with the stipulation that they never 

14          return, also in situations where the alleged 

15          misconduct was significant.  

16                 The Legislature in 2007 made a 

17          significant investment in the commission's 

18          resources by, for the first time in a 

19          generation, bringing our budget up to a level 

20          far beyond what the Executive Budget had 

21          recommended so that we would have the 

22          resources to investigate and, where 

23          appropriate, publicly discipline judges in a 

24          timely manner.  


 1                 Certainly it is in the interest of 

 2          both the judge under investigation and the 

 3          public that our inquiries be conducted and 

 4          concluded in as expeditious a fashion as 

 5          possible so that those who are guilty of 

 6          misconduct are punished and those who are 

 7          innocent are exonerated, without undue delay.  

 8                 Now, in the last seven years we've 

 9          been in a period of I would call Executive 

10          Budget stasis.  For the seventh year in a 

11          row, the Executive Budget is recommending not 

12          one penny more in resources to the Judicial 

13          Conduct Commission.  And that is a problem.  

14                 Over the last seven years of this 

15          static period, our staff has been reduced by 

16          18 percent -- we went from 55 authorized 

17          full-time employees to 50, but I'm only able 

18          to employ 45 because of the limitation on our 

19          resources.  The progress that we made after 

20          the 2007-2008 infusion of funds to more 

21          speedily conclude our proceedings has begun 

22          now to backslide, because the resources are 

23          limited.  

24                 A flat budget is a cut, because our 


 1          expenses go up, our rent goes up, the cost of 

 2          our services go up, salaries go up.  But if 

 3          we're not given any additional funding to 

 4          cope with it, then we've got to find places 

 5          to cut.  And that has an impact on our 

 6          ability to do our job efficaciously, swiftly, 

 7          and within the constitutional and statutory 

 8          guidelines of due process under which we 

 9          operate.  

10                 And that is a concern.  So that, for 

11          example, in the last five years, the average 

12          number of matters pending at the close of the 

13          calendar year has remained static at about 

14          195, where we had been down to under 170 as 

15          the result of the infusion of funding that 

16          you provided for us in 2007.  

17                 In the last several years, I have 

18          asked the Legislature to give us a little 

19          more than the Executive Budget has 

20          recommended, just so that we could stay 

21          constant and not hemorrhage staff any 

22          further.  Throughout the year, in 

23          consultation individually with a number of 

24          Senators and members of the Assembly, I took 


 1          some of the advice that I was hearing and I 

 2          asked in this year's budget submission for 

 3          what would be required to get us up 

 4          essentially to our approved station of 50 

 5          employees.  I've asked for $550,000 more on 

 6          our budget of $5.6 million.  

 7                 In the large scheme of things, we're 

 8          really not talking, obviously, about very 

 9          much.  I'm asking for a budget of slightly 

10          over $6.1 million.  Given the large amounts 

11          of money that you've been hearing about and 

12          discussing with all the previous speakers to 

13          me today, this must seem almost like a walk 

14          in the park.  

15                 But unlike most of my colleagues who 

16          have testified before you today, I don't 

17          really have -- and the commission doesn't 

18          really have -- a constituency to which we can 

19          turn for support.  We don't get funded by the 

20          judiciary, for the very logical and obvious 

21          reason that the judicial branch should not be 

22          controlling the budgetary purse strings of 

23          the entity that disciplines members of the 

24          judicial branch.  


 1                 And for whatever reason, in the last 

 2          seven years I've been unable to make the case 

 3          to the Division of Budget and the second 

 4          floor that the commission's budget ought to 

 5          at least keep pace with inflation.  And in 

 6          fact, the $6.1 million that I'm asking for 

 7          this year is less than what would have been 

 8          our due if we had simply kept pace, 2 percent 

 9          a year, with the rate of inflation over the 

10          last seven years.  

11                 I hope that in dealing with the very 

12          large budgetary numbers that you deal with in 

13          the overall state budget and with individual 

14          agencies, that somehow you might find the 

15          relatively limited resource improvement that 

16          I'm asking for so that we can get our staff 

17          back up to speed, so that we can more 

18          efficiently and quickly dispose of the 

19          matters before us.  And hopefully it would be 

20          the last time in half a generation I'd have 

21          to come back and ask, hat in hand, for this 

22          kind of assistance.  

23                 And that said, most of you know our 

24          record of achievement.  Despite this 


 1          limitation of funding, we essentially lead 

 2          the nation -- every state has a judicial 

 3          disciplinary entity like ours.  None gets 

 4          more complaints in a year than we have.  None 

 5          has more judges under its jurisdiction than 

 6          we do.  None discipline as many judges as we 

 7          do.  

 8                 But in the smaller states, where the 

 9          resources are more commensurate with the size 

10          of their judiciary and the size of their 

11          physical jurisdiction, they tend 

12          comparatively to do better than we do.  And 

13          so I'm hoping that this year the Legislature 

14          can find its way to give us the resources we 

15          need to get back up to speed.  

16                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you very 

17          much.  

18                 Senator DeFrancisco.

19                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Yes, you have 

20          some in this room that are very sympathetic.  

21          Some in this room haven't seen an increase in 

22          18 years. 

23                 (Laughter.)

24                 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN:  I'm aware 


 1          of that.

 2                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  I was a young 

 3          man back then, the last time --

 4                 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN:  There's no 

 5          one here more sympathetic than you, Senator, 

 6          and Assemblywoman Weinstein, for which I am 

 7          deeply grateful.

 8                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  I'm going to do 

 9          what I can to try to get some increase.  

10                 And there's two reasons.  One, because 

11          it's the right thing to do.  You know, I 

12          remember when your organization came into 

13          being -- I think it was in the '70s, wasn't 

14          it?  

15                 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN:  Yes, it 

16          was.  Right, 41 years ago.

17                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  And at that time 

18          the judges went ballistic, thinking that 

19          there could be a body that could possibly 

20          supervise -- not supervise them, but look 

21          over their shoulders to make sure that they 

22          comply with proper comportment, proper 

23          procedures, and dealing with the public 

24          fairly.  And that was the case for many 


 1          years.  

 2                 Now it's second nature.  The judges in 

 3          many cases are appreciative of your office 

 4          because they review wrongful allegations 

 5          against them and clear them from nonsensical 

 6          charges.  

 7                 So it's exactly what's needed in the 

 8          judicial realm, and it's accepted by judges 

 9          and practitioners alike.  And I think it's 

10          the right thing to do to make sure you 

11          operate the way you've been operating.

12                 The second reason is a selfish reason.  

13          As you well know, I'm trying to do the same 

14          thing with a prosecutorial commission that 

15          reviews prosecutorial conduct.  Because 

16          it's -- and there's been a lot of screaming 

17          and yelling, just like there was in the '70s 

18          with respect to your commission.  And I think 

19          over time it would do a great service to 

20          everyone in our community, and I want to make 

21          sure you continue to succeed so you're the 

22          light for the rest of us to recognize what we 

23          should be doing with a prosecutorial 

24          commission.  


 1                 And you've done a great job.  I 

 2          appreciate it.


 4          appreciate that very much.  And as your 

 5          colleagues know, the legislation on a 

 6          prosecutorial misconduct commission is 

 7          modeled on the statute that governs the 

 8          Judicial Conduct Commission, and I think that 

 9          it's significant.  And I deeply appreciate 

10          that you think well enough of us that you 

11          would want to model your new version on the 

12          success that we've been able to demonstrate, 

13          both statutorily and I think in operation.  

14                 And I certainly hope that when the 

15          three parties sit down to negotiate this 

16          year, that we can prevail.

17                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  And we didn't 

18          plan that, did we?  

19                 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN:  No, we 

20          didn't.  We certainly didn't.

21                 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:  Okay, thank you.  

22                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.

23                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Helene Weinstein.

24                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  Thank you, 


 1          Bob, for being here and joining us in this 

 2          marathon.

 3                 I want to join my colleague, the 

 4          former chair of the Judiciary Committee when 

 5          we clearly saw the need to improve services.  

 6          He's gone on to bigger and better things, but 

 7          I share his commitment that the office is 

 8          deserving of an increase.  It is important 

 9          for judges to be able to have that, and for 

10          people who are alleging wrongdoing to be able 

11          to have a quick resolution of the issues.

12                 And I just wanted to ask a question.  

13          Over these past six years when the budget has 

14          remained flat, has the number of matters 

15          referred to the commission increased, 

16          remained steady?

17                 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN:  It's 

18          actually gone up.  The average, the five-year 

19          average has been about 1850 complaints a 

20          year, and last year we had 1940.  The year 

21          before, we had 1959.  So that we actually are 

22          seeing more complaints and are processing 

23          more.  

24                 And as you know, because of the depth 


 1          of the investigations that we conduct, it can 

 2          take as long and it is just as important to 

 3          spend the resources to clear a judge as it is 

 4          to censure or remove a judge from office.  

 5                 And in that respect, to follow up on 

 6          what Senator DeFrancisco said, the commission 

 7          does absorb a lot of the heat and hostility 

 8          that might otherwise be directed to the 

 9          judiciary for incorrect rulings, bad 

10          decisions.  The number of complaints that we 

11          get that we dismiss because they don't really 

12          allege ethical wrongdoing, but have to do 

13          with someone's dissatisfaction with a court 

14          ruling, actually does a service to the 

15          judiciary.  And I think it helps to enhance 

16          the independence of the judiciary to call 

17          them like they see them and to know that 

18          they're not going to be punished for having 

19          made what might be an unpopular decision but 

20          one that was certainly within their 

21          discretion.  

22                 That's a very important role that we 

23          play.  It doesn't show up in the statistics, 

24          but it's extremely significant.  And we take 


 1          it very seriously, as we do our role in 

 2          helping to educate and train the judiciary 

 3          and court staff in the appropriate ethical -- 

 4          promulgated ethical rules to follow.  

 5                 And I think that the behavior overall 

 6          among the judiciary has dramatically improved 

 7          from the time in 1976 when the commission was 

 8          created in its current incarnation to today.  

 9          And having been there then and still having 

10          been there today, I have seen a dramatic 

11          change for the better.  And I think that also 

12          speaks to the significant role that we play 

13          and why it's important to fund us at a level 

14          that we can do our job.

15                 ASSEMBLYWOMAN WEINSTEIN:  Thank you.

16                 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN:  Thank you.

17                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.

18                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Assemblyman Weprin.

19                 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN:  Thank you, 

20          Mr. Chairman.  

21                 Mr. Tembeckjian, I'm sure you wouldn't 

22          remember, but -- 

23                 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN:  But I do.

24                 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN:  -- as a young 


 1          lawyer --


 3          remember.  I do.

 4                 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN:  -- it was from 

 5          like 1981 through 1983, I worked for Alfred 

 6          Julien, who had a number of cases before 

 7          you -- Gerald Sternway {ph}.  I was the 

 8          administrator at the time.  I think you were 

 9          deputy, if I'm not correct --

10                 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN:  That's 

11          right.  That's right.  And I do remember.  We 

12          were both pretty young then.  We didn't have 

13          any gray hair, neither one of us did.

14                 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN:  You look pretty 

15          good.  

16                 But I'm well aware of -- even though 

17          on the other side of a couple of cases, I am 

18          very much aware and respectful of the great 

19          work that your commission has done over the 

20          years.

21                 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN:  I thank 

22          you.

23                 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN:  And it is a very 

24          important tool to keep, you know, the 


 1          judiciary honest and also to allow aggrieved 

 2          litigants to have an opportunity to have some 

 3          other form of appeal.

 4                 So I certainly will support an 

 5          increase in your budget.

 6                 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN:  I thank 

 7          you very, very much, Assemblyman.  Thank you.  

 8                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

 9                 All set?  I think we're all set, so 

10          thank you so much for joining us.  We really 

11          truly appreciate you.

12                 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN:  Thank you, 

13          Senator Young, very much.   Thank you.  

14          appreciate it, thank you.

15                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Next we have 

16          President Thomas Mungeer, the Police 

17          Benevolent Association of the New York State 

18          Troopers.

19                 Good evening.

20                 PRESIDENT MUNGEER:  Chairwoman Young, 

21          Chairman Farrell, esteemed members of the 

22          Legislature, I appreciate it.  I'm going to 

23          keep this very simple because I know it's 

24          been a long day.  


 1                 I kind of want to go off the testimony 

 2          of my superintendent, George Beach, before, 

 3          that focused -- the questioning was focused 

 4          more on New York City initiatives for 

 5          antiterrorism.  I believe in the mission, 

 6          very important.  But I think it's very 

 7          important also that we don't lose track of 

 8          there's another 57 counties other than 

 9          New York City.  

10                 You know, as he said, that we 

11          celebrate our 100th anniversary this year, 

12          and we've always been able to go in and help 

13          other police agencies, which is what we're 

14          doing down in New York City.  But Senator 

15          Young, you brought up a very good point, that 

16          the SRO program -- very important, would love 

17          to see it reinstituted.  As the father of 

18          four children, I see the value.  Also, I 

19          think the lesson that we learned from earlier 

20          this month with the Fort Lauderdale airport 

21          was that the terrorists are going to look 

22          for, you know, the path of least resistance.  

23                 It doesn't have to be the Miami 

24          Airport, it might not be the JFK or the 


 1          LaGuardia, but it might be upstate, at the 

 2          points -- what I'm trying to get at, the 

 3          border crossings, transportation hubs, points 

 4          of mass gathering, we definitely need more 

 5          protection.  And if we're able to come in and 

 6          help out the local police departments, county 

 7          sheriff's departments, the more the better.

 8                 We are stretched.  There is funding 

 9          for more troopers down in New York City, but 

10          the bottom line is that we're stretched.  We 

11          have troopers headed down right now, manning 

12          posts down there at the airports, bridge and 

13          tunnels on overtime.  And that, you know, it 

14          does -- I won't say that it leaves upstate 

15          short, but again, it's on overtime.  These 

16          guys, men and women, are away from their 

17          families.

18                 Normal year, in the Division of State 

19          Police, they lose slightly under 250 troopers 

20          through attrition.  I'm looking to increase, 

21          besides the attrition, two classes of 250 

22          troopers.  It's an extra 250 troopers to be 

23          used for such things as the SRO program, 

24          antiterrorism initiatives upstate, plus also 


 1          be able to carry out the mission that the 

 2          Governor has entrusted us with down in the 

 3          city.

 4                 With that, again, the Legislature has 

 5          been very good the last couple of years, as 

 6          Senator Gallivan has helped and stated with, 

 7          you know, increased -- better patrol cars.  

 8          We are starting to come out of that hole.  

 9          We're still not there.  We still need an 

10          additional $15 million, just as a matter of 

11          course, to keep up so we're not -- so we're 

12          replacing the cars at 125,000 miles instead 

13          of 200,000 miles.  

14                 Our troopers -- you know, we don't 

15          drive 55 miles an hour.  It's not by choice.  

16          When you have to chase people down, sometimes 

17          you have to get up to high speeds, so you're 

18          going from zero to almost 100 miles an hour 

19          back to zero all day long, so you need a 

20          reliable vehicle.  

21                 The other thing we made is that -- for 

22          the antiterrorism mission, we're going to 

23          need rifles, we're going to need the tactical 

24          ballistic vests.  So we need all this 


 1          equipment to carry out this mission.  It's 

 2          good that the Governor has appropriated 

 3          funds, but we need more.  And I believe that 

 4          we can't leave upstate -- we can't ignore 

 5          upstate.  We have -- that's been our mission 

 6          since 1917.  

 7                 Again, I appreciate what the Governor 

 8          is doing down in the city, but there's a 

 9          whole other area north of the George 

10          Washington Bridge, and west, that we can't 

11          lose sight of.  And also, not for nothing, 

12          Fort Lauderdale should be a lesson to us all 

13          that we can't turn a blind eye.  

14                 So I appreciate the time.

15                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

16                 How does it work as far as people 

17          being assigned to New York City?  Do they 

18          rotate in and out?  Do they --

19                 PRESIDENT MUNGEER:  We do have a 

20          permanent detail down there, as the 

21          superintendent said.  But, you know, the 

22          expanded mission with the airports, the 

23          troopers are being sent down a week at a 

24          time.  And it's similar.  It's just part of 


 1          the job.  The Dannemora prison break, we had 

 2          the same thing.  During 9/11 we sent 500 

 3          troopers, in the blink of an eye.  We were 

 4          down there that afternoon.  

 5                 So it's a matter of course of what we 

 6          do.  But again, it's a week away from home.  

 7          And that's what we sign up for.  But they are 

 8          troopers coming from up in your area, Troop 

 9          A.  They are coming down from Troop B and 

10          what have you.  It is taking manpower off the 

11          road.  They are filling in the gap in tour 

12          coverage with, you know, troopers filling in 

13          the patrol posts and what have you.  But 

14          again, the manpower is being stretched thin.

15                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Okay, thank you.

16                 Any -- Assemblyman?  

17                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  The Chrysler 

18          product, does it make the 100,000?  The 

19          Dodge.

20                 PRESIDENT MUNGEER:  The Dodge?  You 

21          know, they did have some glitches on that, 

22          from what I understand, the brakes and what 

23          have you.  But unfortunately we've been 

24          pushing these products to almost 200,000 


 1          miles at times, and when -- I'm all right 

 2          with 125,000 miles, but, you know, a normal 

 3          car usually doesn't go by that, especially 

 4          when you're driving it the way we do at high 

 5          speeds all day long.

 6                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  One of your guys 

 7          picked me up when I blew out at 225 with a 

 8          Pontiac.  He was very nice.  I didn't know 

 9          you can't get picked up on the Taconic.

10                 Thank you.

11                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Senator Gallivan.

12                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Welcome, 

13          Mr. President.

14                 PRESIDENT MUNGEER:  Senator.

15                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  As always, thanks 

16          to your and your members for what you do 

17          across the state on behalf of all our 

18          citizens.

19                 A number of members up here today 

20          expressed concern -- and I share the 

21          concern -- to ensure that we have proper 

22          staffing across the state.  I think the 

23          reason for the little focus on New York City 

24          is because of the Governor's proposal to add 


 1          funding for that.  But please don't mistake 

 2          that, and I think I can speak for my 

 3          colleagues.  We are concerned with deployment 

 4          statewide and ensuring safety for our 

 5          communities statewide.

 6                 Can you help me on a couple of things?

 7                 PRESIDENT MUNGEER:  Sure.

 8                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  First, your 

 9          testimony -- and then looking at your written 

10          testimony -- you mentioned two classes of 250 

11          people to help staff up beyond attrition.

12                 PRESIDENT MUNGEER:  Yes.

13                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  And I see funding 

14          for a thousand troopers in your written 

15          testimony.

16                 PRESIDENT MUNGEER:  Yeah, by the end 

17          of next year.  This is not the -- I guess the 

18          end all.  We're going to lose 250 troopers 

19          this year, 250 next year.  So I'm looking -- 

20          next year I'm going to be back here again, 

21          Senator --

22                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  So the fourth 

23          class --

24                 PRESIDENT MUNGEER:  -- and I think 


 1          you're going to be in the same spot --

 2                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  I hope so.

 3                 PRESIDENT MUNGEER:  -- and I'm going 

 4          to sit here and I'm going to ask for another 

 5          500 troopers again.  So I figured I'd cut to 

 6          the chase and put the thousand in there right 

 7          off the bat.

 8                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Understood.  And 

 9          while we can check on these numbers, I just 

10          don't have them with me.  And if you're able 

11          to help with the numbers, fine.  If not, 

12          we'll look it up.  

13                 We believe that over the past two 

14          fiscal years, about $30 million were spent, 

15          from what we allocated, for State Police 

16          vehicles, and I'm looking at a little under 

17          $15 million for the uniform patrol cars.

18                 PRESIDENT MUNGEER:  Yeah.

19                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  So that was a total 

20          of $30 million.  I'm seeming to remember that 

21          we allocated more.  Do you know that or not?  

22                 PRESIDENT MUNGEER:  I believe that it 

23          was an extra -- you allocated on top of the 

24          existing, I believe, $12 million to 


 1          $15 million.  We were again stuck -- I don't 

 2          want to use the term stuck in the rut, but we 

 3          hadn't bought any cars and our cars were very 

 4          dilapidated, if you will.  That was on top.  

 5                 We're actually -- we're not out of the 

 6          woods yet, but we're a heck of a lot better 

 7          than where we were because of that funding.

 8                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  I think that's 

 9          consistent with the superintendent's 

10          testimony.  

11                 Well, we can check on it, because it 

12          may be that -- I mean, you mentioned the 

13          number $15 million.  It might already be 

14          provided for, so -- if I understood the 

15          superintendent's testimony correctly, that 

16          kind of gets you up to where you have to be 

17          to then continue the regular rotation so long 

18          as you're sufficiently funded in years 

19          forward.

20                 PRESIDENT MUNGEER:  Yeah, $15 million 

21          is pretty much what they need every year just 

22          to keep up the vehicles just on a yearly 

23          turnover.  

24                 We can't ignore also, with extra 


 1          troopers, whether they're down in New York 

 2          City or upstate, we need cars.  You know, a 

 3          trooper needs his horse to get around on, if 

 4          you will.  So extra cars come, you know --

 5                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:   Except these 

 6          horses cost a little more.

 7                 PRESIDENT MUNGEER:  Yeah, a little 

 8          bit.

 9                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Last question -- 

10          and again, it goes back to refreshing my 

11          memory.  I know in the past several years 

12          that we've had discussions, you've testified, 

13          NYSPIA has also testified -- I might be 

14          confusing your testimony, or what we 

15          ultimately did about the need for additional 

16          firepower -- rifles, things like that.

17                 PRESIDENT MUNGEER:  Yes.

18                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Was money allocated 

19          in the past year or two for some of these 

20          things, for rifles for troopers?  

21                 PRESIDENT MUNGEER:  Yeah, for -- my 

22          goal is -- and again, I think in this day and 

23          age you never know when you're going to be 

24          deployed -- I would like a rifle for every 


 1          uniformed member.  And I would like a rifle 

 2          plate and carrier for every uniformed member.  

 3                 Right now the allocation is -- I 

 4          believe there's 1700 rifle plates.  That's 

 5          one for every car plus another 500 for the 

 6          various troop locations.  And I believe 

 7          there's a little over a thousand patrol 

 8          rifles.  So that means that a third of my 

 9          uniformed force -- actually, a quarter, when 

10          you count the supervisors -- do not have a 

11          patrol rifle yet.  

12                 So we are picking away at the problem.  

13          You have allocated funds over the last couple 

14          of years, and we're getting there.  But I 

15          don't think we're over the finish line yet.  

16          Because as you know, Senator, you get 

17          deployed somewhere, you want that equipment 

18          with you.  Sometimes you don't have time to 

19          run back to the barracks and pick that stuff 

20          up and run out.

21                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Okay, thanks.  

22          That's all I had.

23                 PRESIDENT MUNGEER:  Thanks, Senator.  

24                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  


 1                 Senator Savino.

 2                 SENATOR SAVINO:  Thank you, Senator 

 3          Young.  

 4                 Tom, I just have a question about -- I 

 5          know there's some dispute about whether you 

 6          guys should be in New York City or not in 

 7          New York City.  Personally, I love you 

 8          wherever you are.  

 9                 But we have you guys on Staten Island 

10          now, because we have an HOV lane on the 

11          Staten Island Expressway.  And after a 

12          tremendous amount of money that went into 

13          building it out, for some reason or other we 

14          were -- it seemed like the local department 

15          was just not doing a particularly good job of 

16          enforcing the HOV-3 lane, and it became a bit 

17          of a problem.  And so the solution, it 

18          appeared, was the Governor's office sent the 

19          State Police down to patrol the Staten Island 

20          Expressway.

21                 So your guys have been down there now 

22          for a couple of months, and so abuses of the 

23          HOV lane seem to have stopped.  You know, 

24          nothing like having state troopers assigned 


 1          to it.  But how many of your members are 

 2          actively doing that?  And has there been any 

 3          discussion with the NYPD about them actually 

 4          taking it over?  Because it really is 

 5          something highway patrol should be doing, you 

 6          know, in New York City.

 7                 PRESIDENT MUNGEER:  I cannot comment 

 8          because I do not know if there's been 

 9          conversations with the NYPD over taking over, 

10          you know, various roadways down there.  

11                 I do believe that the patrol has been 

12          pulled back, only because there's other 

13          duties, whether it's the bridges and tunnels 

14          or the airports.  And again, we don't really 

15          have the manpower.  But I believe they have 

16          taken that patrol out of that area.  

17                 I have heard, you know, comments that, 

18          you know, the NYPD can handle what they have 

19          down there, and I agree.  They have, you 

20          know, adequate resources.  Where we've been 

21          put is actually not where the NYPD was.  It 

22          was actually bridge and tunnel and the Port 

23          Authority were the areas.  MTA is where we've 

24          been deployed.


 1                 So again, I don't know -- to answer 

 2          your question, I don't know if that 

 3          conversation has gone on.  I do not believe 

 4          that that is one of our missions that we'll 

 5          be looking to do.  

 6                 Personally, I think that what we're 

 7          doing now with the bridges and tunnels, 

 8          airports, it's enough.  I don't think, you 

 9          know, patrolling the roadways as such -- we 

10          don't have the resources, actually, right 

11          now.  You know, we're spread thin.  And any 

12          other duties such as that without, you know, 

13          getting the funding for what we're looking 

14          for for upstate and what have you, I don't 

15          think it's part of the mission.

16                 But again, I think that's better left 

17          to the superintendent of State Police to 

18          answer that.

19                 SENATOR SAVINO:  Well, it's certainly 

20          had an effect on HOV lane abuses.  But you're 

21          right, you now are at the bridges and tunnels 

22          alongside the Port Authority PD --

23                 PRESIDENT MUNGEER:  Yeah, the Bridge 

24          and Tunnel Authority is --


 1                 SENATOR SAVINO:  Or the Bridge and 

 2          Tunnel Authority.  And so at the same time 

 3          we're moving to cashless tolling, dismantling 

 4          toll booths at all of the MTA crossings.  So 

 5          they've taken them down at the Battery Tunnel 

 6          now, they've taken them down at the Queens 

 7          Midtown Tunnel.  By the way, it's a mess, but 

 8          that's beside the point.  

 9                 So what role is the State Police -- 

10          are they there for security or is it to help 

11          with this new transition to cashless tolling?  

12          I'm confused as to what -- because we have 

13          two sets of police on the scene on these 

14          sites.

15                 PRESIDENT MUNGEER:  We do.  And from 

16          my understanding, again, some of these 

17          questions are probably better posed to the 

18          superintendent of State Police.  But it is my 

19          understanding that they're engaged in traffic 

20          enforcement.  

21                 But I think a lot of it also is that 

22          the Governor's wish -- and I -- you know, I 

23          believe, is that the mere presence of the 

24          State Police is an antiterrorism type -- is a 


 1          terrorism deterrent, if you will.  The same 

 2          with the airports with the troopers.  The 

 3          Port Authority are there and they've policed 

 4          that location for decades.  But again, not to 

 5          supplant them, but to basically buttress up 

 6          the enforcement there.

 7                 SENATOR SAVINO:  Thank you.

 8                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you, Senator.

 9                 Thank you, President Mungeer for 

10          waiting so long today and appearing before 

11          us.  And truly we appreciate everything that 

12          your members do, and they certainly are the 

13          finest.  So thank you for being here.

14                 PRESIDENT MUNGEER:  And we appreciate 

15          your support.  Thank you.

16                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

17                 Our next speaker is President 

18          Christopher Quick, New York State Police 

19          Investigators Association.

20                 Hi, President Quick.  Great to see 

21          you.

22                 PRESIDENT QUICK:  Good evening, 

23          Senator Young, Assemblyman Farrell.  Thank 

24          you for having me here for my testimony.  


 1                 I am Christopher Quick, an 

 2          investigator with the New York State Police.  

 3          I also serve as president of the New York 

 4          State Police Investigators Association. 

 5                 NYSPIA is the employee union that 

 6          represents approximately 1100 State Police 

 7          senior investigators and investigators 

 8          throughout the state.  State Police 

 9          investigators are assigned to stations or 

10          special details and are referred to the 

11          Bureau of Criminal Investigation, or BCI.  

12                 Our investigators work on everything 

13          from larcenies, robberies, burglaries, 

14          identity theft, sex crimes, and homicides.  

15          We also have investigators assigned to 

16          special details, including computer crimes, 

17          forensics, narcotics, auto theft, special 

18          investigations, dignitary protection, gaming 

19          and counterterrorism.  

20                 Demand on the resources of State 

21          Police, particular investigators, has 

22          increased, whether it's to keep up with the 

23          background checks for the casinos being built 

24          in New York State or keeping the public safe 


 1          in the face of the changing world we live in 

 2          involving terrorism and mass attacks on the 

 3          public.

 4                 To ensure the safety of New Yorkers 

 5          and visitors to the state, we must have the 

 6          proper equipment and manpower.  The BCI is 

 7          commonly known as the undercover operation of 

 8          the Division of State Police and are not 

 9          issued uniforms that a trooper wears in his 

10          or her normal course of duty.  There are 

11          certain situations where a uniform would be 

12          necessary for an investigator.  For example, 

13          the Matt Sweat manhunt, state of emergencies 

14          such as Hurricane Sandy and Irene operations.  

15          Investigators will often wear civilian 

16          clothing and are not readily recognizable as 

17          law enforcement officers.

18                 The superintendent recently approved a 

19          Class B uniform to be worn in these types of 

20          emergency situations.  The uniform consists 

21          of a blue-color cargo-pocket work pant and 

22          shirt with clear markings of "New York State 

23          Police," and name tags.

24                 The cost to outfit one investigator 


 1          with two sets of these uniforms would be 

 2          $250.96.  The uniforms are produced by the 

 3          Blower uniform company and are made in the 

 4          USA.  I ask this board to consider 

 5          appropriating $300,000 for the purchase of 

 6          Class B uniforms for the BCI members this 

 7          budget year.

 8                 Another area of particular importance 

 9          is our aging fleet of undercover vehicles.  

10          The BCI fleet is currently numbered at 1,237 

11          vehicles.  There are 490 vehicles with more 

12          than 90,000 miles, roughly one-third of the 

13          BCI fleet.  There are 245 with 135,000 miles 

14          or more still in service.  It is the belief 

15          of the division and the automotive 

16          maintenance inspector that vehicles should be 

17          surplused at 125,000 miles.

18                 Last year when I testified before the 

19          public protection board, the majority of the 

20          vehicles exceeded 150,000 miles.  Monies were 

21          appropriated with the intent of replenishing 

22          the fleet on a two-year timetable.  This 

23          strategy has improved the fleet noticeably, 

24          and I sincerely appreciate the interest, 


 1          concern and problem-solving that each of you 

 2          took.  This is, however, a continuing problem 

 3          that needs continued attention.  On behalf of 

 4          the NYSPIA members, we want to thank you for 

 5          making that a concern.

 6                 Many of our investigations involve 

 7          undercover operations.  In these cases, our 

 8          investigators need to blend in with the 

 9          community, both in clothing and with their 

10          vehicles.  These undercover operations can 

11          range from drug surveillance to 

12          counterterrorism investigations.  The 

13          criminal element does its homework, and many 

14          are aware of the types of undercover vehicles 

15          we typically use.  

16                 For that reason, we propose a pilot 

17          program to allow for the leasing of vehicles.  

18          Leased vehicles will allow for 

19          diversification in makes and models and, most 

20          importantly, non-police-type vehicles for 

21          undercover work. 

22                 Leasing vehicles will also help reduce 

23          the high maintenance costs the division 

24          currently experiences.  


 1                 In addition to the desperate need for 

 2          more unmarked vehicles, the Division of State 

 3          Police must be made whole again in terms of 

 4          manpower in order to meet today's security 

 5          threats.  Oftentimes, even when there's an 

 6          immediate operational need to promote a 

 7          trooper to the rank of investigator, that 

 8          promotion is delayed because of the shortage 

 9          of BCI vehicles.  This can result in a 

10          shortage of investigators for months at a 

11          time for the sole reason that there are no 

12          BCI vehicles available.  

13                 Terrorism in the United States is on 

14          the rise.  The Governor recognizes this and 

15          has dedicated a significant uniform trooper 

16          presence in New York City.  The troopers are 

17          assigned to high-profile landmarks that are 

18          potential targets for terrorism -- Times 

19          Square, the Freedom Tower, commuter trains to 

20          bridges and tunnels and, just recently, John 

21          F. Kennedy Airport and LaGuardia Airport.  

22                 As more troopers are added to 

23          Troop NYC, it increases the need for more 

24          investigators.  Airport security will require 


 1          a large detail consisting of troopers and 

 2          investigators.  An investigator's duties 

 3          would include gathering intelligence, 

 4          conducting investigations, and acting as a 

 5          liaison to the Port Authority Police, NYPD, 

 6          and Joint Terrorism Task Force.  

 7                 While our superintendent has 

 8          repeatedly stressed and fought for the need 

 9          to have recruit basic school classes at our 

10          academy to bolster the needs of the division, 

11          we have not been able to keep up with the 

12          attrition.  This has resulted in the BCI not 

13          being full-strength to perform the expanding 

14          duties and initiatives required by our 

15          changing world.  

16                 We strongly urge this Legislature to 

17          ensure our investigators are safe, as well as 

18          the public, by adequately funding the 

19          Division of State Police to allow for the 

20          purchase of unmarked vehicles, Class B 

21          uniforms, as well as funding new and regular 

22          academy classes, so we can accomplish our 

23          core mission of protecting and serving the 

24          people of this great state.  


 1                 I appreciate your time, and I'm happy 

 2          to answer any questions you may have.

 3                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.

 4                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

 5                 Just one quick question.  You talked 

 6          about the attrition rate, Mr. President.  And 

 7          I was wondering, do you have any kind of 

 8          figures or facts on how many people will be 

 9          aging out over the next several years, so the 

10          Legislature has that information?  

11                 PRESIDENT QUICK:  I don't have it in 

12          my testimony.  But, you know, as we talk to 

13          the division, they estimate 250 people 

14          annually.  President Mungeer of the Troopers 

15          Association testified to that as well.

16                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Okay.  Good.  I do 

17          think that's a very significant issue that we 

18          need to address.  We went through years 

19          without academies, and now we want to make 

20          sure that they stay on track.  So thank you.

21                 Thank you.  Oh, I'm sorry, Senator 

22          Gallivan would like to say something.

23                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  I'd be remiss if I 

24          didn't thank you and your members for the 


 1          work that you do as well.

 2                 I think I'm clear now about the 

 3          vehicles.  I mean, combined with yours and 

 4          President Mungeer's testimony.  So your 

 5          belief is that you're now on the plan with 

 6          what was allocated last year to at least 

 7          catch up with the vehicles.

 8                 PRESIDENT QUICK:  I believe it's 

 9          working.

10                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  And once caught up, 

11          we need the future funding, of course, 

12          annually.

13                 PRESIDENT QUICK:  Right.  We can't 

14          take our eye off the prize.  The need is 

15          there continuously.

16                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Understood.  

17          Manpower as well.  So it's noted.  Thanks 

18          again.

19                 PRESIDENT QUICK:  Thank you.  

20                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  And our 

21          sincere appreciation to all of your members 

22          for putting their lives on the line for us 

23          every day.  Thank you so much.

24                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.  


 1                 PRESIDENT QUICK:  Thank you.

 2                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Our next speaker is 

 3          President Bill Imandt, Court Officers 

 4          Benevolent Association of Nassau County.

 5                 PRESIDENT IMANDT:  Senator, do you 

 6          have Pat Cullen?  Because on the schedule 

 7          he's ahead of me.

 8                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Oh, you're right.  

 9          Do you mind waiting?  I'm sorry, I'm going 

10          out of order here.

11                 PRESIDENT IMANDT:  {Inaudible.}

12                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Well, you got up 

13          and stretched your legs, so that's good.  

14                 Our next speaker will be President 

15          Patrick Cullen, New York State Supreme Court 

16          Officers Association.

17                 Sorry about that, President Cullen.

18                 PRESIDENT CULLEN:  Oh, that's quite 

19          all right.

20                 Good afternoon, Chairwoman Young, 

21          Chairman Farrell, and members of the 

22          Legislature.  I am once again thankful for 

23          the privilege to address you all.  It's an 

24          honor to appear on behalf of the men and 


 1          women that I represent.  They are New Yorkers 

 2          who put service first and bravely protect 

 3          their fellow citizens.  

 4                 We are citizens of this great state 

 5          who endeavor on a daily basis to provide 

 6          safety and security for the millions of users 

 7          who enter our facilities each year.  It is a 

 8          task we continue to do better than our many 

 9          counterparts nationwide, despite being 

10          without a collective bargaining agreement for 

11          six years.  Lean personnel levels and 

12          training inefficiencies add to the 

13          troublesome work conditions we encounter.  

14          And I thank you for allowing me this forum to 

15          once again share the manner in which this 

16          budget affects our professional and personal 

17          lives.  

18                 This year's Judiciary Budget can be 

19          described as yet another in a series of 

20          illusions, specifically its impact on 

21          New York State court officers.  As it is 

22          outlined, another 2 percent increase and a 

23          new line item for a $15 million capital 

24          appropriation are steps in the right 


 1          direction.  The larger picture, however, 

 2          remains unclear, as we have serious financial 

 3          and personnel shortfalls dating back seven 

 4          years that have still not been fully 

 5          recovered.  The budget directly notes that 

 6          the system "faced significant cost increases, 

 7          mostly non-discretionary, without 

 8          corresponding increases in funding."  

 9                 Over a seven-year period, an increase 

10          of only $120 million was granted, while costs 

11          were absorbed at a much higher rate.  The 

12          summary continues by admitting that service 

13          to the public suffered.  Workforces shrunk, 

14          and positions were not refilled upon 

15          attrition and cessation of service for more 

16          lucrative jobs in the law enforcement and 

17          civil service arena, to the tune of more than 

18          2,000 employees.  These disadvantages and 

19          burdens would be catastrophic for private 

20          business and enterprise, but for us it is a 

21          mere hardship to digest and move forward.  

22                 Efforts have unquestionably been made 

23          to address the many inadequacies our system 

24          faces, and I am grateful for the new and 


 1          inclusive philosophy Chief Judge DiFiore has 

 2          infused into the court system.  Her 

 3          Excellence Initiative is exactly the type of 

 4          action which will rebuild this ailing system.  

 5                 We know how we got to this point, and 

 6          I believe our new leadership will prove how 

 7          to deliver us to the future.  The question at 

 8          hand is, Where are we presently?  The hard 

 9          truth remains that in the jurisdiction I 

10          represent, we are still shorter, albeit by a 

11          small number, than 2015, when we were at an 

12          8.3 percent deficit from 2009.  This 

13          minuscule shift in totals of security 

14          staffing translates into problematic 

15          disorganization through safety breaches in 

16          our courts, a force well behind on training, 

17          issues of delays in every court, and 

18          ultimately a disservice to the public.  

19                 This continual lack of staff and the 

20          system's inability to properly reconstitute 

21          its security protocols leads to delays 

22          throughout the day.  They contribute to much 

23          slower entry times, part opening times, and 

24          the inability to promptly deliver inmates to 


 1          court.  

 2                 A systemwide moratorium of sorts on 

 3          overtime is responsible for a decrease in the 

 4          length of the actual court Day.  This leads 

 5          to frustrated court users, jurors and 

 6          employees, who all attribute this stagnant 

 7          pace to the inherent indolence of an entire 

 8          branch of government.  All of this while 

 9          judges and judicial staff are continuously 

10          added -- as no court officers are to maintain 

11          acceptable security for them.  

12                 In fact, bringing court officer 

13          staffing to levels attainable in 2008 would 

14          cure these ills.  The court day would begin 

15          faster, trials would begin on time, and all 

16          safety protocols met, allowing the system to 

17          perform efficiently and recover from years of 

18          listless operation.  

19                 Furthermore, the staffing deficits we 

20          have faced have further-reaching 

21          consequences.  Many of our members have not 

22          been sent for yearly CPR, AED, first aid and 

23          equipment training because they cannot be 

24          spared at their work location.  This is 


 1          beyond unacceptable, it is nonsensical.  It 

 2          is equivalent to sending a carpenter to work 

 3          without a hammer.  In fact, school resource 

 4          employees in the metropolitan area receive 

 5          more training than we do -- because it is 

 6          mandated -- where we overlook the importance 

 7          of keeping up to date with our most important 

 8          capabilities and certifications because the 

 9          Office of Court Administration refuses to 

10          maintain a proper census of officers.  

11                 Another development to consider with 

12          respect to these personnel deficiencies is 

13          the employees' inability to be granted their 

14          duly accrued vacation time with their 

15          families because managers cannot afford their 

16          absence.  It has been proven that law 

17          enforcement officers face serious stressors 

18          in their workplace and should be required to 

19          take leave when requested.  

20                 Lastly, health initiatives conducted 

21          by our organization demonstrate that our 

22          levels of serious health concerns, such as 

23          hypertension and heart disease, continue to 

24          rise higher than national averages.  We must 


 1          recognize that the mandate of doing more work 

 2          with less resources, especially in the law 

 3          enforcement community, is making our people 

 4          ill. These issues affect our family life as 

 5          spouses and parents.  

 6                 By once again expanding our rosters to 

 7          sufficient levels, the court system can once 

 8          again flourish and our employees can begin to 

 9          feel less burdened both at work and at home.

10                 As of March 31, 2017, our bargaining 

11          unit will be out of a contract for six full 

12          years.  Our members want a fair contract.  

13          They want to be compensated for the efforts 

14          they have given in the leanest of times.  

15          They also want to be compensated for the 

16          ever-increasing hazards they face on a daily 

17          basis.  Overcrowded courts, simultaneous 

18          multiple defendant cases, large gang 

19          populations, suspicious packages, the 

20          always-present specter of terror, and the 

21          New York City Department of Corrections 

22          continually shifting their responsibilities 

23          to our ranks are among the latest conditions 

24          which cause our employment to be more 


 1          perilous.  These issues must be addressed 

 2          through training, as I have said earlier, but 

 3          they also must be addressed in the fair and 

 4          equitable compensation that comes with 

 5          bargaining in good faith.  

 6                 Furthermore, matters requiring massive 

 7          amounts of funding have superceded the 

 8          reasonable and decent provisions that would 

 9          bring us labor peace through a long-term 

10          contract.  The massive raises given to judges 

11          and civilians within the court system, as 

12          well as initiatives in excess of $100 million 

13          to ensure attorney engagement in the very 

14          system this budget funds, are among the more 

15          frustrating features of this budget process. 

16                 We are earnest and hardworking men and 

17          women, and we want to be treated as such by 

18          receiving what we deserve for the job we do, 

19          no more and no less.  

20                 I wholeheartedly welcome and applaud 

21          our new chief judge, Janet DiFiore, and her 

22          Excellence initiative, which is rooted in a 

23          back-to-basics philosophy.  I believe the 

24          best method of change is to break things down 


 1          to bare elements, and that is the ideology 

 2          being used in rebuilding the New York State 

 3          court system.  

 4                 In recent years at this hearing I have 

 5          testified and advocated for new equipment, 

 6          programs and training to become comparable to 

 7          other agencies throughout the nation who have 

 8          innovated security protocols and practices.  

 9          I am pleased to see some of these issues 

10          addressed within this budget.  There is a 

11          request for an appropriation in the amount of 

12          $15 million, some of which will be used to 

13          re-outfit our entire force with body armor.  

14          It will also be used to replace our security 

15          screening equipment, which is the first line 

16          of defense for anybody entering a court 

17          facility.  These inclusions in the Judiciary 

18          Budget are clear indications that the 

19          critical issue of security has not been 

20          overlooked as it has been in the past.  

21                 I urge the Office of Court 

22          Administration to sustain that sensibility 

23          and look to support our forces with 

24          forward-thinking measures, both practically 


 1          and financially, to progress into the future.  

 2          We are only as safe as the policies and 

 3          operations we maintain.  We must 

 4          technologically advance with the use of 

 5          cameras, explosives detection, and K-9 

 6          programs.  It is my sincere hope that next 

 7          year I can sit here and update you on the 

 8          development of such critical and innovative 

 9          programs.  

10                 This summary of serious and crucial 

11          issues to New York's court officers is only a 

12          cursory view of some of the problems we face 

13          and how the budget affects us.  Our morale 

14          has been subterranean for many years now 

15          because of the agency's inability to fund the 

16          most necessary tools we require.  Our pride 

17          has been terribly damaged, and the way to 

18          reconstruct it is through budgetary items, 

19          only some of which I have described here 

20          today. 

21                 I urge you to visit your court 

22          facilities as well, as many of the problems 

23          are obvious upon arrival.  Together we can 

24          all steer the course forward for the system, 


 1          the public it serves, and those who have 

 2          sworn to serve it.  

 3                 I thank you once again for your time 

 4          and for your service to the people of the 

 5          State of New York.

 6                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you very 

 7          much.

 8                 PRESIDENT CULLEN:  Thank you.

 9                 CHAIRMAN FARRELL:  Thank you.

10                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Senator Savino.

11                 SENATOR SAVINO:  Thank you.  

12                 Thank you, President Cullen.  I just 

13          have one question, because earlier today when 

14          Judge Marks testified, he talked about the 

15          judiciary's budget and their request for 

16          funding, they didn't mention anywhere whether 

17          or not they had money in reserve for the 

18          settlement of a contract that is six years 

19          overdue.  It doesn't sound like they do.

20                 PRESIDENT CULLEN:  There are no 

21          indications.

22                 SENATOR SAVINO:  So is there a pattern 

23          that -- let's assume you were to settle 

24          tomorrow.  Is there a pattern that other 


 1          unions have settled that we could anticipate 

 2          to try and figure out what it might 

 3          potentially cost OCA?

 4                 PRESIDENT CULLEN:  As you know very 

 5          well, contract negotiations are a very 

 6          difficult path to walk upon.  The problem in 

 7          the court system is that 11 unions represent 

 8          employees throughout the entire system.  And 

 9          as the representative of an entire uniformed 

10          force, we feel deserving of a different 

11          treatment when it comes to compensation.  

12                 There are no indications that -- and 

13          there never have been indications in the 

14          Judiciary Budget of funds set aside should 

15          there be the completion of the round of 

16          negotiations for collective bargaining.

17                 SENATOR SAVINO:  Are there any other 

18          outstanding contracts?  

19                 PRESIDENT CULLEN:  Yes.  My 

20          organization is one of four out of those 11 

21          that have not a contract since 2011.

22                 SENATOR SAVINO:  Are any of them as 

23          long overdue as yours?  

24                 PRESIDENT CULLEN:  All the same, all 


 1          the same period of time.  2011 was the 

 2          last -- the end of the prior collective 

 3          bargaining treatment agreement.

 4                 SENATOR SAVINO:  This could run into a 

 5          significant amount of money if in fact they 

 6          were to settle with retroactivity on four 

 7          bargaining units.

 8                 PRESIDENT CULLEN:  Indeed.  And I 

 9          think the time has come to look forward 

10          towards a long-term contract to settle the 

11          previous contract and current contract, 

12          Senator.

13                 SENATOR SAVINO:  And finally, when was 

14          the last bargaining session that was held?  

15                 PRESIDENT CULLEN:  Mid-December.

16                 SENATOR SAVINO:  Is there one 

17          scheduled soon?

18                 PRESIDENT CULLEN:  No.

19                 SENATOR SAVINO:  Thank you.  

20                 PRESIDENT CULLEN:  And thank you for 

21          your comments earlier also on our disability 

22          bill, which was unanimously passed by the 

23          Senate last year.  Much appreciated.

24                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you so much.  


 1          We appreciate you coming in today to share -- 

 2          oh, I'm sorry, Senator Gallivan would like to 

 3          speak.

 4                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Thank you, Madam 

 5          Chair.

 6                 Senator Savino did touch on an area 

 7          that I wanted to touch on, so I'll pass right 

 8          over that.  

 9                 Help me with your membership.  You're 

10          about 2,000?  

11                 PRESIDENT CULLEN:  We're 1500 as of 

12          2009.  Currently, today, 1379.

13                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  And you're Supreme 

14          Court --

15                 PRESIDENT CULLEN:  Supreme Courts in 

16          the five boroughs and the 9th Judicial 

17          District, which consists of the five boroughs 

18          north of New York City.  Ten counties in all, 

19          30 facilities.

20                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Do you include 

21          supervisors as well?

22                 PRESIDENT CULLEN:  Yes.

23                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  The entire uniform.  

24          What's that go up to, captain?


 1                 PRESIDENT CULLEN:  Major.

 2                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  Up to major.

 3                 PRESIDENT CULLEN:  Yes, sir.

 4                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  The other three 

 5          that are without contracts, are they law 

 6          enforcement units as well?  

 7                 PRESIDENT CULLEN:  They have -- I 

 8          believe their memberships are made up 

 9          partially of law enforcement and also 

10          partially clerical and civilian employees as 

11          well.  My membership is strictly uniform 

12          personnel.

13                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  All right, thank 

14          you.  And of course thanks to you and your 

15          members for your efforts.

16                 PRESIDENT CULLEN:  Thank you for your 

17          support, always. 

18                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  We'd 

19          love to see your situation resolved.  And we 

20          truly appreciate everything that you and your 

21          members do, so please extend our gratitude.

22                 PRESIDENT CULLEN:  Thank you, Senator.

23                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.  

24                 Now you're up.  Our next speaker is 


 1          President Bill Imandt, Court Officers 

 2          Benevolent Association of Nassau County.  So 

 3          you get to be introduced twice.

 4                 PRESIDENT IMANDT:  Thank you, Senator.

 5                 (Discussion off the record.)

 6                 PRESIDENT IMANDT:  I want to thank 

 7          you, distinguished members of the Senate and 

 8          the Assembly.  I am one of the four unions 

 9          that was just alluded to that do not have a 

10          contract six years strong -- April 1st will 

11          begin our seventh year, actually going from 

12          six to seven years.  

13                 I sat before your committee at the 

14          hearing on public protection approximately 

15          one year ago today and gave you a report on 

16          my take as the union president of COBANC, the 

17          Court Officers Benevolent Association of 

18          Nassau County, about the state of New York 

19          State courts, downstate and Nassau County in 

20          particular.  I told you that 2011 was 

21          probably the worst year in my 33-year career 

22          as president, court clerk, court employee and 

23          as a citizen of New York State. 

24                 Why?  Well, because in 2011 something 


 1          happened in the judiciary that we in the 

 2          court system and the citizens of New York may 

 3          never recover from.  That year we suffered 

 4          layoffs, in Nassau County and statewide, of 

 5          approximately 20 percent of our workforce.  

 6          It is the same year we were offered 

 7          zero percent compensation during contract 

 8          negotiations, the first of three consecutive 

 9          zeroes.  The seed was also planted to raise 

10          the judges' salaries, which came to fruition 

11          only last year.  New discretionary programs 

12          were started up, carving out a tremendous 

13          portion of the budget, and those monies were 

14          never replaced.  And neither was the 

15          personnel.  

16                 We are one of the three equal branches 

17          of government, and we are being treated like 

18          an experimental startup program.  Last year 

19          you graciously increased the court budget by 

20          2.4 percent -- and that was supposed to go 

21          towards bringing back some of the 2,000 

22          workers that were laid off back then and 

23          towards decent, at least near-cost-of-living 

24          increases to the middle-class court 


 1          employees.  And I'd like you to know how it 

 2          turned out a year later.  

 3                 Of the approximate 155 court employees 

 4          in Nassau County that were laid off -- again, 

 5          20 percent of the Nassau court workforce -- 

 6          we actually are down from last year.  Oh, 

 7          there's been some hiring, with retirements, 

 8          transfers and promotions to other counties, 

 9          but subtract two more employees that we are 

10          down from that 20 percent that we were down 

11          from last year.  Six years of getting the job 

12          done with 20 percent less people.  

13                 My members are understaffed, tired, 

14          overworked, unappreciated, and woefully 

15          underpaid.  Again, morale is way down.  

16          Sickness and absenteeism are up, and 

17          disciplines are way up, over 200 percent 

18          since just two years ago.  

19                 This heartless game that goes on 

20          between the Office of Court Administration, 

21          the Legislature, and the Governor has got to 

22          stop.  The Governor mandates a 2 percent  

23          increase cap on state agencies and doesn't 

24          even give that to the Judiciary -- again, the 


 1          third branch of our government.  We averaged 

 2          1.3 percent during those five years since 

 3          that edict.  If we got that .7 percent each 

 4          year, we'd have enough to fund the courts 

 5          now -- but we've averaged out to be 

 6          1.3 percent.  

 7                 As the court administration is fully 

 8          aware, we need at least a 5 percent increase 

 9          this year to properly serve the citizens of 

10          New York.  But the Office of Court 

11          Administration is afraid to ask the 

12          Legislature, who appears to be afraid to push 

13          back on the Governor.  And the court workers 

14          and the citizens of New York are the ones 

15          that suffer.  

16                 I know most of you are practicing 

17          attorneys and many of you have come to tell 

18          me the horror stories about the once proud 

19          New York court system -- five years for a 

20          misdemeanor jury trial, where the maximum 

21          penalty for a guilty verdict is one year, 

22          eight-year-old foreclosure cases that have 

23          cost Long Island over $300 million in lost 

24          property values, matrimonial cases taking 


 1          over 300 percent longer to conclude, with 

 2          backlogs due to understaffing, and the 

 3          accused taking longer to be arraigned and all 

 4          civil cases taking that much longer.  

 5                 We're better than that.  We have to 

 6          be.  With the billions that the Governor is 

 7          throwing around on all these new projects, 

 8          there's no excuse not to be.  Take care of 

 9          your foundation before you put on an 

10          extension.  The Judiciary's foundation is 

11          crumbling.  

12                 And my last paragraph -- I promise you 

13          I won't take much longer -- is the citizens 

14          of New York deserve better than what they are 

15          receiving for their tax dollars.  You tell us 

16          that you can only give the Office of Court 

17          Administration what they ask for.  Well, 

18          then, we need to have you have meaningful 

19          conversations with the Office of Court 

20          Administration to find out what they really 

21          need to operate properly, effectively, and 

22          efficiently.  Again, my numbers say it's a 

23          5 percent increase. 

24                 Then, together, we all need to tell 


 1          the Governor, in no uncertain terms, this is 

 2          not a request, this is our mandate, a mandate 

 3          from the citizens of New York State, the 

 4          New York Legislature, and the Office of Court 

 5          Administration and all the court workers that 

 6          I represent.

 7                 I'm sorry for being upset about this, 

 8          but it's six years.  But I will take 

 9          questions.  I appreciate if you have any, 

10          because I've got answers.

11                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Questions?

12                 Well, I think -- you know, obviously 

13          we're sympathetic and we appreciate your 

14          passion for your members.  And it sounds like 

15          they're dealing with very difficult 

16          situations.  And we'd really like to see it 

17          resolved, because they deserve to be treated 

18          in a fair way, there's no question.

19                 PRESIDENT IMANDT:  Well, yes, Senator.  

20          Thank you, I appreciate that.  But we need to 

21          have meaningful contract negotiations too, 

22          and that's not happening.  The bargaining is 

23          stonewalled for the last two years.  So you 

24          give them more money, and it never filters 


 1          back to the court workers.

 2                 So I appreciate it, Senator Savino and 

 3          all of you up there.  Please, hold their feet 

 4          to the fire:  What are you doing with the 

 5          money?  Where is it going?  

 6                 Senator Savino asked about is there a 

 7          reserve for retroactive pay.  I've calculated 

 8          Nassau County is close to $6 million in 

 9          retroactive pay.  The court clerks are about 

10          $11 million, and so is Pat Cullen.  This is 

11          all back money that's going to be due 

12          someday, and they're not prepared for it.  

13                 Apparently, I'm told, they can't carry 

14          from one budget to the next.  If that's true, 

15          then when you get to no contracts at the end 

16          of the fiscal year, they put it on furniture, 

17          computers -- they do some hiring, yes.  But 

18          with attrition and retirements and things 

19          like that, the numbers aren't going up.  

20          Nassau's numbers have gone down.  Please help 

21          us.

22                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you.

23                 PRESIDENT IMANDT:  Thank you.

24                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Thank you very 


 1          much.  

 2                 The next speaker is President Michael 

 3          Powers, New York State Correctional Officers 

 4          and Police Benevolent Association, Inc., 

 5          NYSCOPBA.

 6                 (Inaudible interjection.)

 7                 SENATOR GALLIVAN:  First, Suffolk 

 8          County Court Employees.

 9                 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG:  Oh, okay.  I'm 

10          trying to push it, I guess, subconsciously, 

11          because it certainly isn't a slight.  And I'm 

12          sorry.  

13                 President William Dobbins, Suffolk 

14          County Court Employees Association.

15                 Okay, my apologies.  So welcome.  Very 

16          happy to have you here. 

17                 PRESIDENT DOBBINS:  Thank you.  Thank 

18          you, Senator.  Thank you, everybody, for 

19          allowing me to be here today.

20                 You gave me the privilege of appearing 

21          last year, and I spoke to you about the 

22          staffing issues and the concerns that we have 

23          in Suffolk County.  And unfortunately, you 

24          know, I'm sad to report nothing has changed.  


 1          Our staffing levels are lower than they were 

 2          a year ago.  And the court got an increase to 

 3          their core budget -- they got a 2.4 percent 

 4          increase to their budget last year, and none 

 5          of it translated into jobs for our courts.

 6                 President Cullen spoke before about 

 7          his court officers, they are almost 9 percent 

 8          down in staffing.  Well, my court officers in 

 9          Suffolk County are 22 percent down in 

10          staffing.  We can't keep our courts safe, we 

11          can't keep them secure.  

12                 And we are here to ask that somebody 

13          hold OCA's feet to the fire.  Judge Marks was 

14          here this morning, and he paints a fairly 

15          decent picture of what's going on in the 

16          courts, but it's not quite the case.  Let's 

17          talk about 200 more people being hired in the 

18          next year.  That doesn't even touch what we 

19          need.  We have a class of 120 court officers 

20          going in in the end of February -- 120 court 

21          officers.  He's talking about 200 people.  

22          Well, what about the other staff?

23                 I represent 102 separate titles, 

24          ranging from court messenger, court officer, 


 1          court clerk, court reporter, court attorney, 

 2          court attorney referee, and it goes on and 

 3          on -- 102 separate titles, and we're 

 4          suffering.  We have the highest mortgage 

 5          caseload in the state.  We have backlogs.  

 6          Those backlogs -- because the court attorneys 

 7          can't get to do the motions, there's not 

 8          enough of them, those backlogs translate into 

 9          zombie homes in our communities.  So it 

10          affects the community as well.

11                 You know, there's a sense that 

12          people -- this is a human issue.  There's a 

13          sense that people care about the community, 

14          that it should be about public service, but 

15          that seems to fall on deaf ears when it comes 

16          to OCA.  Last year they received some extra 

17          money in the budget.  That money went to pay 

18          for their raises, judges' raises, an increase 

19          of $27 million for judges' raises.  None of 

20          it translated into more hiring, none of it.  

21                 And the only reason why there was more 

22          hiring this year was because they couldn't 

23          settle the contracts with one of those unions 

24          that just spoke before, COBANC.  When they 


 1          couldn't settle the contract, there was 

 2          $40 million available; they said, Okay, now 

 3          we'll hire.  That's the only reason those 

 4          people were hired.

 5                 Last year Judge Marks -- I think it 

 6          was Senator Bonacic asked him, he said, "What 

 7          are you going to do if you don't get the 

 8          money for your raises?"  And Judge Marks 

 9          said, "Well, we'll probably have to reduce 

10          staffing through attrition."  Well, that's 

11          what he's been doing.  That's exactly what 

12          he's been doing.  And the only reason he 

13          started to hire was because one of the unions 

14          didn't settle their contract this year.  He 

15          had money that he had to spend.

16                 My concern is what's going to happen 

17          when these other four unions do finally 

18          settle.  You're talking maybe $50 million in 

19          back pay.  Fortunately, my union has a 

20          contract -- well, we had a contract.  Our 

21          last contract expired last year.  We're 

22          working on a new contract.  

23                 But what happens when those four 

24          unions that have been without a contract 


 1          since 2011 finally settle their contract?  

 2          You're talking about $50 million to 

 3          $60 million in back pay owed to those unions.  

 4          What is that going to translate to in the 

 5          court system?  They're not going to be able 

 6          to hire.  We have all these wonderful ideas 

 7          about programs, putting money in to help 

 8          people that can't afford attorneys.  What 

 9          good is it if there's no staff to support the 

10          court?

11                 The infrastructure of the court is 

12          collapsing.  It's collapsing.  And nobody 

13          seems to care, nobody seems to be doing a 

14          thing about it.  It seems like it's become a 

15          political game of ping pong -- it goes back 

16          and forth, back and forth, and nothing gets 

17          done.

18                 I'm here to implore you to please hold 

19          their feet to the fire.  They have the funds.  

20          They have the resources.  They decide to 

21          spend it in other ways.  Without the 

22          personnel to support our court system, to 

23          answer motions, to accept dockets -- could 

24          you ask a judge to initiate a case?  Could 


 1          they prepare a court file?  Do they know how 

 2          to enter it into the system?  Do they know 

 3          how to talk to a litigant in order to prepare 

 4          an order of protection?

 5                 It's the little people that work in 

 6          our system that do all of that.  We are the 

 7          people that make it all work.  When I took 

 8          over in this union, my motto was that we are