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

12 Senator Catharine M. Young
Chair, Senate Finance Committee
13
Assemblyman Herman D. Farrell, Jr.
14 Chair, Assembly Ways & Means Committee

15 PRESENT:

16 Senator Liz Krueger
Senate Finance Committee (RM)
17
Assemblyman Robert Oaks
18 Assembly Ways & Means Committee (RM)

19 Senator Diane Savino
Vice Chair, Senate Finance Committee
20 Vice Chair, Senate Codes Committee

21 Senator John J. Bonacic
Chair, Senate Committee on Judiciary
22
Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein
23 Chair, Assembly Committee on Judiciary

24

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
7
Senator Thomas D. Croci
8 Chair, Senate Committee on Veterans,
Homeland Security and Military Affairs
9
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

15

16

17 LIST OF SPEAKERS

18 STATEMENT QUESTIONS

19 Honorable Lawrence K. Marks
Chief Administrative Judge
20 NYS Office of Court
Administration 10 18
21
John P. Melville
22 Commissioner
NYS Division of Homeland Security
23 and Emergency Services 109 116

24

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
7
Anthony J. Annucci
8 Acting Commissioner
NYS Department of Corrections
9 and Community Supervision 277 284

10 George Beach
Superintendent
11 NYS Division of State Police 353 360

12 William J. Leahy
Director
13 New York State Office of
Indigent Legal Services 400 413
14
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
19
Thomas H. Mungeer
20 President
New York State Troopers PBA 508 512
21
Christopher M. Quick
22 President
NYS Police Investigators Assn. 524 531
23

24

1 2017-2018 Executive Budget
Public Protection
2 1-30-17

3 LIST OF SPEAKERS, Cont.

4 STATEMENT QUESTIONS

5 Patrick Cullen
President
6 NYS Supreme Court Officers Assn. 533 543

7 Billy Imandt
President
8 Court Officers Benevolent
Assn. of Nassau County 548 553
9
William Dobbins
10 President
Suffolk County Court
11 Employees Association 555

12 Michael B. Powers
President
13 NYS Correctional Officers &
Police Benevolent Assn. 563 568
14
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
20

21

1 2017-2018 Executive Budget
Public Protection
2 1-30-17

3 LIST OF SPEAKERS, Cont.

4 STATEMENT QUESTIONS

5 Victor Antonio Perez
DOCCS
6 Penny Howanski
OITS
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
16
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.
-and-
22 Sarah Rudgers-Tysz
Executive Director
23 Mediation Matters 661

24

1 2017-2018 Executive Budget
Public Protection
2 1-31-17

3 LIST OF SPEAKERS, Cont.

4 STATEMENT QUESTIONS

5 Terry O'Neill
Director
6 The Constantine Institute 667

7 Elena Sassower
Director
8 Center for Judicial
Accountability 671
9

10

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.

11 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: So

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?

13 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I'm

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?

11 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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 --

6 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

17 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

9 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: It

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?

3 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: It

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.

3 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

13 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: We

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.

22 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: In

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 --

3 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I

4 don't. I don't.

5 SENATOR BONACIC: Okay. Thank you,

6 Your Honor.

7 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

21 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

20 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

20 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

17 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

11 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

20 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I'm

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.

3 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

4 Sure.

5 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: And are you looking

6 at any other courts to expand into evening

7 hours?

8 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: Not

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.

12 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I

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?

16 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

17 Yes. Yeah.

18 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Do you have a

19 ballpark figure?

20 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I

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.

17 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

18 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

5 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

20 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

12 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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 --

19 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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 --

11 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: But

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?

14 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

7 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

20 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

2 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

2 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

11 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

14 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: No,

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?

1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

17 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: No,

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

19 ASSEMBLYMAN GRAF: Yeah. I'm trying

20 to communicate with my colleagues.

21 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

21 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

11 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

24 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

19 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

4 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

4 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

8 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

20 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES: So

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?

5 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I'm

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?

11 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: It

12 does not close it.

13 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES: Could

14 they?

15 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: It

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?

11 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

20 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

4 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

19 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: No,

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?

7 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: Let

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.

15 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

5 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I'm

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 --

19 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: You

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?

3 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

13 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: --

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.

20 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

21 Maybe not.

22 SENATOR CROCI: Because it's a

23 juvenile delinquency proceeding.

24 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

20 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

5 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

24 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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?

7 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

5 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I

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 --

19 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: You

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

100

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?

10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

101

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.

102

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?

5 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

6 Well, we --

7 SENATOR SAVINO: The same way we do

8 for corrections officers or police officers

9 or anyone else.

10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

11 Personally --

12 SENATOR SAVINO: And I understand the

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

14 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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

103

1 stronger than taking no position.

2 SENATOR SAVINO: Right.

3 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: In

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.

20 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

21 You're welcome.

22 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you, Senator.

23 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS: Assemblyman Steck.

24 ASSEMBLYMAN STECK: Thank you.

104

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?

22 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

23 Well, it's very difficult to answer that

24 question out of context and in isolation.

105

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.

12 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: No,

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

106

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.

9 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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

107

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

108

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.

109

1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

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.

110

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

111

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.

112

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

113

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

114

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

115

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

116

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

117

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

118

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

119

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

120

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,

121

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

122

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

123

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

124

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

125

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

126

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?

127

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

128

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.

129

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

130

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

131

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

132

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

133

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.

22 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES: So I

23 did have a chance to meet some of your

24 cybersecurity experts. They're very well

134

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

135

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?

14 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES: TSA

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

136

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.

137

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.

21 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES: So

22 thank you again, Commissioner.

23 COMMISSIONER MELVILLE: Thank you,

24 Assemblywoman.

138

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

139

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

140

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

141

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

142

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

143

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

144

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,

145

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

146

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

147

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

148

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.

149

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

150

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

151

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,

152

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

153

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.

154

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.

155

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

156

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

157

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.

158

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

159

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

160

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?

161

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.

162

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

163

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

164

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

165

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

166

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

167

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.

168

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.

169

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

170

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

171

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

172

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.

173

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.

174

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

175

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

176

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

177

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.

178

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

179

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

180

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

181

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

182

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

183

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

184

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

185

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.

186

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

187

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

188

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

189

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

190

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

191

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

192

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

193

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?

194

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

195

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?

196

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

197

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

198

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

199

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

200

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

201

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

202

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

203

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

204

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

205

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

206

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

207

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

208

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

209

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

210

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

211

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

212

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

213

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

214

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

215

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

216

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.

217

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

218

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

219

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.

12 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES: So

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

220

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

221

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

222

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

223

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

224

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

225

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.

226

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

227

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.

228

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

229

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

230

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

231

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

232

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.

233

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

234

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

235

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

236

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.

237

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

238

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,

239

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

240

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

241

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,

242

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

243

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

244

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,

245

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.

246

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.

247

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.

248

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.

249

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?

250

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

251

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

252

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

253

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

254

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.

255

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.

256

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

257

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

258

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

259

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?

260

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.

261

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

262

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

263

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.

264

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,

265

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

266

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

267

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

268

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

269

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.

270

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

271

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

272

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

273

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

274

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

275

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

276

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,

277

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.

278

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

279

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

280

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

281

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

282

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

283

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

284

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

285

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

286

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

287

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

288

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

289

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

290

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

291

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

292

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

293

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

294

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?

21 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I

22 believe it's the State Commission of

23 Correction, which is an oversight entity.

24 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Okay, thank you.

295

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

296

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.

297

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

298

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

299

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

300

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,

301

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

302

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

303

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.

304

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

305

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

306

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

307

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.

308

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

309

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

310

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,

311

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

312

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

313

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

314

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

315

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

316

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

317

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.

318

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

319

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.

320

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

321

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

322

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

323

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

324

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

325

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

326

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

327

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

328

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

329

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

330

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.

331

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

332

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

333

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

334

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

335

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?

20 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:

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

336

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

337

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.

338

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

339

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

340

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

341

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

342

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

343

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

344

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

345

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.

346

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

347

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

348

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

349

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,

350

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

351

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

352

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.

353

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

354

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

355

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

356

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

357

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

358

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.

359

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

360

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

361

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.

362

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

363

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

364

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

365

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

366

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

367

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

368

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?

369

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

370

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

371

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?

372

1 ASSEMBLYWOMAN PEOPLES-STOKES:

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

373

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

374

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

375

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

376

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

377

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.

378

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.

379

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

380

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

381

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.

382

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,

383

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?

384

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,

385

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

386

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

387

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

388

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,

389

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

390

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

391

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.

392

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,

393

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

394

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,

395

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

396

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

397

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

398

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

399

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

400

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

401

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

402

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 &n