Joint Legislative Public Hearing on 2018-2019 Executive Budget Proposal: Topic Public Protection - Testimonies

12 Senator Catharine M. Young
Chair, Senate Finance Committee
13
Assemblywoman Helene E. Weinstein
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
Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz
23 Chair, Assembly Committee on Judiciary

24 Assemblyman Anthony H. Palumbo

1 2018-2019 Executive Budget
Public Protection
2 1-30-18

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 Phil Steck

12 Assemblyman Michael Montesano

13 Senator James N. Tedisco

14 Assemblyman Joseph M. Giglio

15 Senator Martin Golden

16 Assemblywoman Crystal Peoples-Stokes

17 Senator Brad Hoylman

18 Assemblywoman Earlene Hooper

19 Senator Jamaal Bailey

20 Assemblyman Jeffrion L. Aubry

21 Senator Elaine Phillips

22 Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis

23 Assemblyman Matthew J. Titone

24 Senator Marisol Alcantara

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

3 PRESENT: (Continued)

4 Senator Gustavo Rivera

5 Assemblyman Philip A. Palmesano

6 Senator Todd Kaminsky

7 Assemblyman Billy Jones

8 Senator Patty Ritchie

9 Assemblyman Kenneth P. Zebrowski

10 Assemblywoman Aravella Simotas

11 Senator Joseph Robach

12 Senator Elizabeth O'C. Little

13 Assemblywoman Latoya Joyner

14 Senator James Sanders Jr.

15 Assemblyman Michael Blake

16 Senator Brian Benjamin

17 Assemblyman Angelo J. Morinello

18

19

1 2018-2019 Executive Budget
Public Protection
2 1-30-18

3 LIST OF SPEAKERS

4 STATEMENT QUESTIONS

5 Honorable Lawrence K. Marks
Chief Administrative Judge
6 NYS Office of Court
Administration 12 24
7
Robert H. Tembeckjian
8 Administrator and Counsel
New York State Commission on
9 Judicial Conduct 163 168

10 Roger L. Parrino, Sr.
Commissioner
11 NYS Division of Homeland Security
and Emergency Services 178 184
12
Michael C. Green
13 Executive Deputy Commissioner
NYS Division of Criminal
14 Justice Services 218 224

15 Anthony J. Annucci
Acting Commissioner
16 NYS Department of Corrections
and Community Supervision 284 290
17
George P. Beach II
18 Superintendent
NYS Division of State Police 402 404
19
William J. Leahy
20 Director
New York State Office of
21 Indigent Legal Services 453 463

22 Robert H. Samson
Chief Information Officer
23 NYS Office of Information
Technology Services 466 474
24

1 2018-2019 Executive Budget
Public Protection
2 1-30-18

3 LIST OF SPEAKERS, Cont.

4 STATEMENT QUESTIONS

5 Bing Markee
Legislative Director
6 NYS Association of PBAs
-and-
7 Chris McNerney
Port Authority Police Dept.
8 -for-
Police Conference of NY 494 501
9
Michelle Esquenazi
10 President
NYS Bail Bondsman Association
11 -and-
John Kase
12 Retired Supervising Judge
Nassau County Criminal Courts
13 -and-
Jeffrey Clayton, Esq.
14 Executive Director
American Bail Coalition 509 527
15
Thomas H. Mungeer
16 President
New York State Troopers PBA 532
17
Michael B. Powers
18 President
NYS Correctional Officers &
19 Police Benevolent Assn. 535 542

20 Christopher M. Quick
President
21 NYS Police Investigators Assn. 563

22 David Soares
Albany County District Attorney
23 -on behalf of-
District Attorneys Association
24 of the State of New York 567 583

1 2018-2019 Executive Budget
Public Protection
2 1-30-18

3 LIST OF SPEAKERS, Cont.

4 STATEMENT QUESTIONS

5 Glenn Damato
President
6 NYS Court Clerks Association 607

7 Patrick Cullen
President
8 NYS Supreme Court Officers Assn. 612 623

9 Billy Imandt
President
10 Court Officers Benevolent
Assn. of Nassau County 627 634
11
William Dobbins
12 President
Suffolk County Court
13 Employees Association 637

14 Dan De Federicis
Executive Director & Counsel
15 Manuel M. Vilar
Vice President
16 Troy Caupain
Board Member
17 Police Benevolent Assn.
of New York State 647
18
Susan Bryant
19 Deputy Director
NYS Defenders Association 662
20
Grant Cowles
21 Senior Policy & Advocacy
Associate for Youth Justice
22 Citizens' Committee for
Children 666 674
23

24

1 2018-2019 Executive Budget
Public Protection
2 1-30-18

3 LIST OF SPEAKERS, Cont.

4 STATEMENT QUESTIONS

5 Melanie Blow
Chief Operations Officer
6 Stop Abuse Campaign 675

7 Karen L. Murtagh
Executive Director
8 Thomas Curran, Esq.
Board Member
9 Prisoners' Legal Services
of New York 679 686
10
Maha Syed
11 Executive Director
NY Legal Services Coalition 690 695
12
Dipal Shah
13 Director of Strategic
Partnerships
14 Center for Court Innovation 695

15 Dave George
Associate Director
16 Release Aging People in
Prison Campaign 705 714
17
Scott Paltrowitz
18 Associate Director of
Advocacy and Community
19 Engagement
Correction Association
20 of New York 718

21 Sebastian Doggart
President
22 New York Families Civil
Liberties Union 730
23

24

1 2018-2019 Executive Budget
Public Protection
2 1-30-18

3 LIST OF SPEAKERS, Cont.

4 STATEMENT QUESTIONS

5 Nancy Lorence
Board Member
6 Connie Altamirano
Survivor
7 Call to Action Metro NY 741

8 Steve Powers
Leader
9 Bridie Farrell
Leader
10 Upstate Call to Action
-and-
11 Mary Ellen O'Loughlin
Board Member
12 Foundation for Survivors
of Abuse 752
13
Gary Greenberg
14 Founder
Protect New York Kids 766
15
Elena Sassower
16 Director
Center for Judicial
17 Accountability 775

18

19

1 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Good morning.

2 I'm Senator Catharine Young, and I'm

3 chair of the Senate Standing Committee on

4 Finance. I'd like to welcome everyone here

5 today, especially my esteemed colleague, the

6 chair of the Assembly Ways and Means

7 Committee, Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein.

8 We also are joined by several of our

9 colleagues in the Senate, and I'll announce

10 the relevant chairs to the proceedings today.

11 First we have Senator Pat Gallivan, who is

12 chair of the Senate Standing Committee on

13 Crime and Corrections. We have Senator John

14 Bonacic, who is chair of the Senate Standing

15 Committee on the Judiciary. We have Senator

16 Tom Croci, who is chair of the Senate

17 Standing Committee on Veterans, Homeland

18 Security and Military Affairs.

19 We're also very pleased to be joined

20 by Senator Diane Savino, who is vice chair of

21 the Finance Committee. Also Senator Marty

22 Golden, Senator Jim Tedisco, Senator Elaine

23 Phillips, Senator Brad Hoylman, Senator

24 Gustavo Rivera, and Senator Jamaal Bailey,

1 who is right next to me in the seat.

2 So Assemblywoman, Chairwoman?

3 CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN: Yes, thank you,

4 Senator Young.

5 We are joined by the chair of our

6 Judiciary Committee, Assemblyman Dinowitz,

7 Deputy Speaker Earlene Hooper, Assemblyman

8 Matt Titone, Assemblyman Jeff Aubry, and our

9 ranker on Ways and Means, Assemblyman Oaks,

10 to introduce his colleagues.

11 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS: Yes, we've been

12 joined by Assemblyman Joe Giglio, Assemblyman

13 Tony Palumbo, Assemblyman Mike Montesano, and

14 Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis.

15 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

16 Pursuant to the State Constitution and

17 Legislative Law, the fiscal committees of the

18 State Legislature are authorized to hold

19 hearings on the Executive Budget proposal.

20 Today's hearing will be limited to a

21 discussion of the Governor's recommendations

22 as they relate to public protection.

23 Following each presentation, there will be

24 some time allowed for questions from the

1 chairs of the fiscal committees and other

2 legislators.

3 First of all, I'd like to welcome the

4 Honorable Lawrence K. Marks, who is the chief

5 administrative judge of the Office of Court

6 Administration. He will be followed by

7 Mr. Robert Tembeckjian, administrator and

8 counsel, Commission on Judicial Conduct.

9 So good morning, Judge Marks.

10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

11 Good morning.

12 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Look forward to

13 your testimony.

14 And I'd like to stress to everyone who

15 will be testifying today that we are letting

16 people know we want you to summarize your

17 testimony. As you know, we have a new rule

18 this year where testimony is to be submitted

19 24 hours in advance so the legislators have

20 ample time to review it.

21 And therefore, we have looked at your

22 testimony, Judge, but we really look forward

23 to hearing from you and you summarizing what

24 you submitted. So thank you.

1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

2 Okay, thank you. And good morning

3 Chairpersons Young and Weinstein, Bonacic and

4 Dinowitz, and good morning to the other

5 committee members.

6 I'm so pleased to be here this morning

7 to discuss the Unified Court System's

8 proposed budget. And with your permission,

9 I'd like to speak to you for a few minutes

10 about the major features of our budget

11 request. And then, of course, I'd be happy

12 to answer any questions you may have.

13 As was true last year, this year's

14 budget request is designed to support the

15 Excellence Initiative, which is the top

16 priority of Chief Judge Janet DiFiore. The

17 Excellence Initiative is our comprehensive

18 statewide effort to improve the operations of

19 the court system and ensure that everyone who

20 comes to the courts of this state receives

21 the highest level of assistance and service.

22 A primary goal of the Excellence

23 Initiative has been an all-out effort in

24 every jurisdiction of the state to provide

1 fair and expeditious justice in every one of

2 the millions of cases filed in our courts

3 every year. In carrying out this effort, we

4 have worked closely with our administrative

5 judges and local court administrators, the

6 bar, prosecutors' offices, and other justice

7 system stakeholders to attack delays and

8 inefficiencies that all too often can

9 frustrate the administration of justice.

10 In undertaking this effort, we have

11 developed individual plans in jurisdictions

12 throughout the state, taking into account the

13 distinct circumstances, problems and cultures

14 that have caused bottlenecks and delays in

15 adjudicating cases. Some of the steps we've

16 taken include restructuring how cases are

17 processed more efficiently, deploying

18 judicial and nonjudicial resources, and using

19 technology to collect and analyze caseload

20 data to identify where the problems exist.

21 In conjunction with Chief Judge

22 DiFiore's State of the Judiciary address,

23 which is next Tuesday, a week from today, we

24 will be issuing a detailed report documenting

1 the progress of the Excellence Initiative

2 during the past year. But I can tell you now

3 that this program is succeeding, that gains

4 have been made in every jurisdiction in the

5 state, and that in a large number of

6 jurisdictions the gains have been dramatic.

7 And I don't want to belabor the point,

8 but I would just note for you that, for

9 example, in the Eighth Judicial District,

10 which includes counties that encompass

11 Senator Young's district, older pending

12 foreclosure cases have declined by more than

13 a third. In Brooklyn, Assemblywoman

14 Weinstein's home county, older pending civil

15 cases in Supreme Court have declined by

16 36 percent. In Orange County, Senator

17 Bonacic's home county, older pending Family

18 Court cases are down by more than half. And

19 in the Bronx, Assemblyman Dinowitz's home

20 county, older pending felony cases are down

21 by nearly a third and older pending

22 misdemeanor cases are down by more than

23 70 percent.

24 And I could give you many more success

1 stories if time allowed. And I will see to

2 it that all of you receive a copy of our

3 report when it is released next week.

4 But I do want to emphasize that our

5 work is not finished, not by any means. A

6 lot more work needs to be done. And

7 although, as I've mentioned, the Excellence

8 Initiative has achieved success in every

9 jurisdiction, in general the successes have

10 come more easily in lower-case-volume

11 jurisdictions. Not surprisingly, eliminating

12 backlogs and delays has proved more

13 challenging in courts with higher-volume

14 caseloads.

15 That is why approval of our budget

16 request is critical. The money it would

17 provide will allow us to continue to replace

18 employees who leave the court system, which

19 thanks to the Legislature's support of our

20 recent budget requests, we have been able to

21 do over the past several years. The money

22 will also allow us to maintain and bolster

23 our technology infrastructure and, in doing

24 so, we would be able to continue and build

1 upon the progress we have made over the past

2 year.

3 Similar to last year, this proposed

4 budget is fairly straightforward. It seeks a

5 2 percent increase over the current spending

6 level in our operating budget, which would be

7 a $44.4 million increase. We believe this is

8 not only a modest increase which is

9 consistent with Governor Cuomo's benchmark

10 for the overall State Budget, but it is a

11 necessary increase.

12 And by the way, you may have heard

13 when the Governor gave his budget

14 presentation two weeks ago, he described the

15 increase in the Judiciary Budget as

16 2.5 percent. We believe it's 2 percent. And

17 I don't want to go into the details of that

18 in my prepared remarks, but I'd be happy to

19 answer any questions that you may have about

20 that discrepancy.

21 So although the responsibility of fair

22 and prompt adjudication of cases falls

23 primarily on judges, judges cannot do that

24 alone. Without an adequate number of court

1 officers, court clerks, court reporters,

2 court interpreters and back-office staff,

3 achievement of the goals of the Excellence

4 Initiative will be problematic.

5 Although we are at lower staffing

6 levels than we were a number of years ago

7 before the budget cuts of 2011 and the

8 ensuing several years of flat-line budgets,

9 we have nevertheless made real progress in

10 attacking case backlogs and delays over the

11 past two years. That would not have been

12 possible if we had been unable to replace

13 employees when they left. This proposed

14 budget will allow us to continue to do so.

15 The proposed budget will also continue

16 the trend of restoring support for a number

17 of valuable programs that were reduced during

18 the period of budget cuts. Following through

19 on the phased-in restoration of funding in

20 the current year budget, we will again

21 increase funding across the state for the

22 Community Dispute Resolution Centers, the

23 CASA program, and the Justice Court

24 Assistance Program.

1 Importantly -- very importantly -- the

2 proposed budget also continues to include

3 $100 million for civil legal services, the

4 budgetary goal that was set a number of years

5 ago. As you know, this money supports grants

6 we award to legal services offices throughout

7 the state, providing legal representation for

8 hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers with

9 legal matters who are unable to afford a

10 lawyer.

11 Similar to a year ago, in addition to

12 the 2 percent increase in our operating

13 budget, we are again seeking a modest capital

14 appropriation. This year's capital

15 appropriation request is $18 million. This

16 money would be used to build and support the

17 court system's infrastructure, particularly

18 our technology and public safety

19 infrastructure. It would allow us to proceed

20 with the second year of modernizing our

21 statewide computer network by maintaining and

22 updating our computer servers, switches, and

23 high-speed cable fiber, as well as the second

24 year of modernizing our public safety

1 infrastructure by replacing outdated

2 magnetometers and x-ray machines and

3 installing additional security cameras. And

4 it would support our efforts to continue to

5 digitize paper court records, a necessary

6 complement to our e-filing program.

7 Briefly addressing a number of other

8 topics that have been drawing our attention

9 in the court system in recent months, I

10 should point out that we are hard at work

11 preparing for the October 1 effective date of

12 the new Raise the Age legislation. Planning

13 is well underway, and we will be ready to

14 accommodate the influx of additional cases in

15 Family Court that will begin on that date in

16 the first phase of the new law's

17 implementation.

18 Planning is also underway for the

19 expansion of centralized off-hours

20 arraignment parts throughout the state,

21 pursuant to state legislation enacted in

22 2016. The first four centralized parts began

23 operating last fall, and they are off to a

24 successful start. Additional off-hours

1 arraignment parts will be established

2 throughout this calendar year.

3 We are also taking some important

4 steps in the court system to address the

5 opioid crisis that has plaguing communities

6 across our state. Our ground-breaking Opioid

7 Intervention Court in Buffalo, the first of

8 its kind in the nation, may already have

9 saved several hundred lives by combining

10 intensive treatment regimens for opioid users

11 followed by intensive court monitoring.

12 A variation of the Buffalo court has

13 been established in Bronx County, with a plan

14 underway to expand the Bronx approach

15 throughout New York City.

16 We are also working with the State

17 District Attorneys Association and other

18 stakeholders to develop a statewide action

19 plan to ensure that the court system, along

20 with the entire criminal justice community,

21 is doing everything it can to address this

22 crisis on a statewide basis.

23 There's one other thing I'd like to

24 just briefly discuss with you. And

1 technically it doesn't involve next year's

2 budget, the next fiscal year budget, it

3 involves this year's budget. But because it

4 concerns a significant amount of money, I

5 just want to briefly mention it to you.

6 We have 12 labor unions in the court

7 system. And as an independent separate

8 branch of government, we negotiate contracts

9 directly with our 12 labor unions. And we --

10 a number of years ago, after the budget

11 crisis of 2011, in -- several years after

12 that we were able to reach agreement with the

13 majority of our unions, nine of our 12

14 unions. But three unions, for a variety of

15 reasons -- we did not reach agreement with

16 three of our unions until fairly late in the

17 game -- that is, last year, in 2017.

18 And we're absorbing the -- with all of

19 our union contracts, we're absorbing the

20 prospective salary increases within the

21 2 percent increases that we've received in

22 recent years. But with these three unions,

23 because agreement was reached with them not

24 until last year, there's a significant amount

1 of retroactive money that's resulted from

2 that. And frankly -- and, you know, we made

3 this clear in the collective bargaining

4 negotiations with those three unions, that we

5 simply don't have the money in our budget

6 this year to pay retroactive increases to

7 those three unions.

8 So what we agreed with those unions,

9 and this was part of the collective

10 bargaining agreements that we reached with

11 them, is that we -- the court system would

12 put legislation in this session seeking a

13 supplemental appropriation to this year's

14 budget to pay for the retroactive salary

15 increases for the members of those three

16 unions. And it's essentially the period from

17 when their agreements were ratified with

18 their members in 2017, going back to

19 October 1st of 2014.

20 And there are three unions affected by

21 this: Our two stand-alone court officer

22 unions, as well as our court clerks union,

23 which represents court clerks in the New York

24 City courts.

1 The amount of the retroactive money is

2 $65 million. And the understanding is if the

3 Legislature approves that supplemental

4 appropriation to pay for the retroactive

5 salary increases, and the Governor signs the

6 bill, that the court system will be bound and

7 obviously would pay the retroactive money.

8 But if the bill does not pass the Legislature

9 and/or the Governor doesn't sign the bill,

10 then we would not be bound to make the

11 retroactive salary increases.

12 So I just mention that to you. The

13 bills have been submitted, and I'll be

14 talking about that with individual members of

15 the Legislature in the coming weeks.

16 So those are my prepared remarks. And

17 I'd be happy to answer any questions that you

18 may have.

19 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you, Judge

20 Marks.

21 First of all, I want to let everyone

22 know we've been joined by Senator Liz

23 Krueger, who's ranking member on the Finance

24 Committee.

1 But our first speaker will be Senator

2 John Bonacic, who is chair of the Judiciary

3 Committee. Senator Bonacic.

4 SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you.

5 Judge Marks, it's good to see you.

6 Good morning.

7 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

8 Good morning.

9 SENATOR BONACIC: I'd like to thank

10 you and the Chief Judge, both of you. I

11 think you're doing both a good job, both on

12 the Court of Appeals and the Office of Court

13 Administration. Okay?

14 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

15 Thank you.

16 SENATOR BONACIC: Let me get to the

17 controversial question first. The Executive

18 Budget provided that all state-paid judges

19 and justices assigned to a trial court must

20 certify that they have performed eight hours

21 of judicial duties a day at an assigned court

22 location. Does the Judiciary have any qualms

23 with certifying these hours and implementing

24 the Governor's request?

1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

2 Well, let me answer that question -- it's an

3 unusual proposal, certainly. We -- let me

4 just say this. Judges in the state court

5 system have a very difficult job, a far more

6 difficult job than a lot of people realize.

7 When I became a judge, I understood full well

8 how difficult a job it is to be a judge. And

9 judges in the court system also work very

10 hard.

11 But the state court system is a very

12 large operation, far-flung. We're in

13 62 counties. We have approximately

14 1300 state-paid judges across the state. And

15 as in any large organization, there are going

16 to be exceptions. But we -- the Excellence

17 Initiative is really, at its core, is all

18 about getting the lawyers to work harder,

19 court employees to work harder, and in

20 particular getting judges to work harder.

21 So to the extent that this is a

22 problem in any part of the state, in any

23 court of the state, it's a problem that we

24 have been addressing over the last two years,

1 and we are on top of this problem. So our

2 position on this bill is that it's

3 unnecessary, that we are dealing with this

4 problem. As I said, it goes to the core of

5 the goals of what the Excellence Initiative

6 is all about. And in the end, we believe

7 it's a proposal that's not necessary.

8 SENATOR BONACIC: Okay, thank you.

9 My second question, I just want

10 clarity on the cap of 2 percent of your

11 budget. The Governor says 2.5 percent. I

12 think in your preliminary remarks you said

13 the Judiciary Budget is really 2 percent.

14 Would I be correct in that?

15 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

16 Yes.

17 SENATOR BONACIC: Okay. Now, you also

18 talk about two collective bargaining

19 agreements. And if they were to be approved

20 by the Legislature and the Governor as

21 proposed, that would take you above the

22 2 percent cap. And my calculation --

23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: For

24 this year -- for this year's budget.

1 SENATOR BONACIC: For this year's

2 budget.

3 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

4 Yeah.

5 SENATOR BONACIC: My calculation would

6 be that you would be somewhere between 2.2 to

7 2.3 percent. Would that be fairly accurate?

8 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I

9 think it would. It's -- the price tag of two

10 bills that would cover the retroactive salary

11 payments for those three unions is

12 $65 million. So it would add at least

13 another percentage point to our increase,

14 correct.

15 SENATOR BONACIC: And if for some

16 reason you were told that you have to resolve

17 those labor contracts within the 2 percent

18 cap, I think you indicated that you could do

19 it, but the retroactive portion of those

20 agreements which you've agreed to with the

21 unions would then be eliminated. Would that

22 be a fair statement?

23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

24 Well, we're saying -- and this is what we

1 agreed to with the unions. There was a

2 recognition on both sides, certainly our side

3 and on the side of the unions, that it's

4 really impossible for us to pay the

5 retroactive increases out of our existing

6 budget allocation.

7 The prospective raises -- going

8 forward, we have absorbed the prospective

9 raises for all our unions. And we'll be able

10 to do so with these three additional unions

11 as well. It's the retroactive money that we

12 simply don't have the money in our budget to

13 pay for that and can't afford to pay for that

14 in our budget.

15 And if I could just make one more

16 point about that, because some people -- not

17 legislators, but some have asked didn't we

18 see this problem coming, you know, on the

19 horizon. You know, were we surprised by

20 this. And the answer is with the delays in

21 reaching agreement with these three unions,

22 we did know that there would be retroactive

23 salary increases that would be growing, you

24 know, with each passing month and passing

1 year that we didn't reach agreement with

2 these unions.

3 So in response to the question, well,

4 why didn't we save for that, you know, over

5 the course of those years, put money away and

6 do a reserve fund, do a rainy day fund so

7 we'd have the money available at the point

8 when we did reach agreement with these

9 unions -- and the simple answer to that is we

10 have no legal authority to squirrel away

11 money in our budget. Whatever we don't spend

12 by the end of the fiscal year of the money

13 that's appropriated and allocated to us goes

14 back to the General Fund.

15 So there's -- and I think our unions

16 recognize that as well, that number one, we

17 simply don't have the money in our current

18 budget to pay for these retroactive

19 increases. And number two, there was no

20 vehicle or opportunity for us to save money

21 over the course of two or three years to

22 establish a reserve fund or a rainy day fund,

23 if you will, to be able to pay the

24 retroactive increases once the contracts were

1 agreed upon.

2 SENATOR BONACIC: Okay. My last

3 question, we had a roundtable, Senator Hannon

4 and I, on Section 81 of the Mental Hygiene

5 Law, the issue of guardians, and data

6 collection in order to tackle the demand in

7 this area for the ability to pay guardians.

8 That they're not having as many, yet the

9 problem of the necessity of guardians is

10 growing quite a bit. Judge Diamond is

11 leading the charge down there on the Island

12 on this issue.

13 Would you be able to do some data

14 collection when it comes to guardianships,

15 how many there are throughout the state and

16 where the concentration is?

17 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

18 Yeah, absolutely. And we've talked about

19 this. When you raised this suggestion, I

20 talked to our people.

21 And we need to collect better data on

22 guardianship cases. As you say, this is kind

23 of a growing area, with the aging of the

24 population, and there are increasing numbers

1 of people who are not able to handle their

2 own -- not only their own finances, but their

3 day-to-day responsibilities of just getting

4 through life day to day.

5 And so we're starting to see an

6 increase in the number of petitions filed in

7 the court for appointment of a guardian. And

8 when there's no family member, you know,

9 ready, willing or able to step up and serve

10 as guardian, we appoint people off of lists,

11 private guardians off of lists.

12 And under state law, they're entitled

13 to a stipend for their services as guardian.

14 But unfortunately -- and this is the problem,

15 as you know -- in a fair number of cases

16 there's no money in the incapacitated

17 person's estate to pay the guardian, and so

18 the guardian service is essentially pro bono.

19 So as a first step, at your

20 suggestion, we are going to be collecting

21 more detailed information in guardianship

22 cases: The nature of the guardian, whether

23 it's a relative or a stranger appointed off

24 of a list, and whether the guardian will

1 receive full compensation or partial

2 compensation -- or perhaps no compensation,

3 you know, in cases where the incapacitated

4 person is truly impoverished -- and some

5 additional information, so that we can get a

6 better handle on this and work with the

7 Legislature in coming up with some solutions.

8 SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you very much,

9 Your Honor.

10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

11 Thank you.

12 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

13 CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN: Before we go to

14 our Judiciary chair, I just want to say that

15 we've been joined by Assemblyman Weprin, our

16 Corrections chair, Assemblyman Lentol, our

17 Codes chair, and Assemblyman Phil Steck.

18 So Assemblyman Dinowitz for some

19 questions.

20 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: Yes, thank you.

21 Good morning, Judge Marks.

22 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

23 Good morning.

24 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: First, I'm very

1 glad to hear that you think it's unnecessary

2 for judges to sign time sheets.

3 But I wanted to ask you specifically

4 about the number of judges that are allocated

5 in each of the judicial districts, and I know

6 we've discussed this before. As you know,

7 the State Constitution says that there shall

8 be a Supreme Court justice for every 50,000

9 population. So 12 of the 13 judicial

10 districts have fewer than that, and of course

11 you can guess which one has more than that:

12 Manhattan.

13 Now, in some of the districts perhaps

14 their caseload is very light compared to

15 others, but in some of the districts the

16 caseload is very heavy. For example, in the

17 Bronx, under the constitution, we should have

18 three more Supreme Court justices. And the

19 same thing is true -- numbers vary, of

20 course -- in several of the other counties

21 and several of the other judicial districts.

22 That has an impact on backlogs. The

23 Bronx and the other boroughs, I'm sure,

24 are -- except Manhattan -- are short not only

1 on judges but also on other court personnel.

2 You know, the delay that that causes is

3 really horrible.

4 You had mentioned that the backlog for

5 old misdemeanor cases in the Bronx has been

6 alleviated to the extent of 70 percent, but

7 that I think is after a lot of judges were

8 sent in temporarily from the outside. But

9 there are tremendous needs in a number of the

10 judicial districts, including those in the

11 City outside of Manhattan. I was wondering

12 if you have any thoughts on how we can try to

13 deal with that situation of the terrible

14 shortages, especially given the fact that the

15 constitution does say 50,000, one judge.

16 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

17 Well, I think it's clearly a problem you've

18 identified.

19 Let me just say we are making

20 significant progress with our existing

21 judicial resources, the existing number of

22 judges, but it's not an easy thing. And the

23 formula that you identified in the State

24 Constitution, which dates back at least a

1 hundred years, one judge for every 50,000

2 residents in each of the state's 13 judicial

3 districts, is obviously an antiquated

4 formula, you know, which was developed

5 before -- I don't know if it was before the

6 advent of the automobile, but it was

7 certainly before, you know, everyone in the

8 world or in the country, you know,

9 essentially owns an automobile. And before,

10 you know, much higher levels of crime. And

11 it sort of developed at a time when our

12 society was a lot less complicated and it was

13 a much simpler society.

14 So I believe, unfortunately, we missed

15 an opportunity in New York on Election Day

16 for a constitutional convention. That's not

17 our institutional position in the Judiciary,

18 that's my own personal view. Because the

19 judiciary article in the State Constitution

20 is something like 15,000 words. It takes up

21 fully one-third of the State Constitution.

22 And, for example, the Article III of the

23 United States Constitution is about 325

24 words. Article VI of the State Constitution

1 is 15,000 words, and it's replete with

2 anachronistic procedures and provisions, and

3 that's one of them, the one you identified,

4 the formula for determining the numbers of

5 Supreme Court justices.

6 Now, having said that, we are making

7 progress with the existing number of judges

8 that we have. But I think absolutely it's

9 something we should look at to see if there's

10 a need for more Supreme Court justices.

11 Because there aren't enough Supreme

12 Court justices in a number of areas of the

13 state -- I would absolutely include Bronx in

14 that category -- we rely on lower court

15 judges. In the City of New York, for

16 example, we have to elevate many if not most

17 of the New York City Criminal Court judges,

18 the misdemeanor court judges. We have to,

19 after they get some experience, if they're

20 good judges and they prove themselves as good

21 judges, we elevate them to Acting Supreme

22 Court and usually put them in the criminal

23 term of Supreme Court.

24 And we do the same thing with New York

1 City Civil Court judges, which is the lower

2 civil court in New York City. We elevate a

3 lot of the Civil Court judges to act in

4 Supreme and put them in the civil term of

5 Supreme Court.

6 And in the end, even by doing that,

7 for the most part we're short judges in the

8 Supreme Court. And of course we've depleted,

9 to a large extent, you know, the lower

10 criminal and the lower court.

11 So I'm happy to work with you, and

12 we've already had some preliminary

13 discussions about this, about whether it

14 makes sense to develop a new judgeship

15 package. Although, you know, I should say

16 judgeships are not cheap. Because it's not

17 just the judge and the immediate staff, but

18 when new judgeships are created, we need more

19 court officers and court clerks and court

20 reporters and court interpreters and the

21 like.

22 So it's not a cheap proposition to

23 create additional judgeships. And it can be

24 very political also, you know, when judgeship

1 packages are developed, and sometimes --

2 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: Political?

3 (Laughter.)

4 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: Can

5 be political, shocking as that may seem.

6 But there's probably a good case for

7 it, and it -- I'd, you know, be happy to work

8 with you on that.

9 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: Okay, good.

10 So several years ago the Legislature

11 enacted provisions, as you know, for

12 homeowners threatened by foreclosure that

13 included mandatory settlement conferences,

14 preforeclosure notices, strengthening

15 anti-predatory lending laws.

16 Do you have any data on how many of

17 these homeowners are represented by counsel

18 in the foreclosure settlement conversations?

19 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

20 Yeah, it's -- I don't have it with me, I

21 apologize. But we -- pursuant to statute, we

22 issue a report every year, it comes out in

23 November or early December, and it documents

24 the percentage of homeowners who are

1 represented in the settlement conferences.

2 And it's a much, much higher

3 percentage -- I don't have it off the top of

4 my head, but I'll get you the number and the

5 report. It's a much higher percentage than

6 it used to be, really in very large part

7 because of the money that we have in the

8 Judiciary Budget now that we give out to

9 legal services offices, and representing

10 homeowners in the settlement conferences in

11 foreclosure cases has been a top priority

12 where that money has been targeted.

13 So I believe over half of people --

14 I'll have to get you -- I don't want to speak

15 off the top of my head, but it's over half of

16 homeowners are now represented by a lawyer in

17 the settlement conferences. But I'll get you

18 the exact number. But it's significantly

19 higher than it was six, seven, eight years

20 ago.

21 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: Okay. In

22 another area -- and this is the last

23 question -- the Executive Budget proposes

24 eliminating the $4.3 million for the Legal

1 Services Assistance Fund. How do you imagine

2 that if that goes through as is, that that

3 would impact the court system?

4 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

5 Well, it's obviously not a good thing. And

6 we'll see what happens. There's a strong

7 effort to prevent that from happening on a

8 national level.

9 But a number of legal service

10 providers in this state accept money from the

11 Federal Legal Services Corporation. Not all

12 of them do, because -- I can't explain this

13 entirely, but I know there are limitations if

14 you accept money from the Federal Legal

15 Services Corporation as a legal services

16 provider, there are limitations on what you

17 can do as a legal services provider. I think

18 you can't lobby the Legislature on issues,

19 you can't bring class action lawsuits. And

20 there are a number of restrictions that you

21 have to agree to if you accept that money.

22 So as a result, not all of the legal

23 services providers in New York accept the

24 money. But a number of the major providers

1 do, and they get a significant amount of

2 money from Washington. And obviously if that

3 money is cut off, it's going to have a

4 deleterious effect on the justice system in

5 New York and it's going to lead to even more

6 people appearing in court without a lawyer,

7 with all the negative consequences that flow

8 from that.

9 So it's something that we're involved

10 with institutionally, the New York State

11 court system, through our national

12 organizations, the U.S. Conference of Chief

13 Justices, which Chief Judge DiFiore is a

14 member, and the U.S. Conference of Chief

15 Court Administrators, of which I'm a member.

16 And those organizations, along with the

17 National Center for State Courts, along with

18 a lot of other organizations across the

19 country, are very involved in the effort to

20 try to prevent the defunding of the Legal

21 Services Corporation.

22 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: Thank you.

23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

24 Thank you.

1 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

2 Your Honor, I just had a couple of

3 questions. You answered several of them so

4 far. But I wanted to ask you about the

5 capital programming that's included in the

6 budget.

7 The Judiciary is requesting

8 $18 million for capital projects. Can you

9 outline those for us, please?

10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

11 Sure. And this is sort of following on the

12 heels of the money that the Legislature was

13 generous enough to appropriate for the court

14 system in the current fiscal year, which has

15 allowed us to do a number of things,

16 primarily upgrade our statewide computer

17 network.

18 We have a very sophisticated,

19 complicated computer network in the court

20 system because we're literally in all

21 62 counties, as you know, and we have over

22 300 courthouses. It's a big, kind of

23 widespread operation. So we need to and we

24 do have a sophisticated computer network, and

1 this money, a good chunk of it, is going to

2 upgrade and modernize our computer network

3 across the state, maintaining and upgrading

4 servers and switches and the high-speed cable

5 fiber that we use to run our network.

6 The money -- and we've started that

7 upgrading and modernizing this year, and this

8 capital operation we're seeking in next

9 fiscal year's budget would allow to us

10 continue that effort.

11 The money would also be used to

12 continue to modernize our security

13 infrastructure, meaning x-ray machines in the

14 courthouses, magnetometers, and replacing the

15 bulletproof vests that our court officers

16 wear to protect themselves.

17 We also would use some of this money

18 to continue to digitize paper records. And

19 although we have an expanding and successful

20 e-filing program in the court system, it

21 doesn't cover all of our cases that are

22 filed, so we do a lot of scanning and

23 digitizing paper records. So a portion of

24 the money would go to support that effort.

1 And let me just mention this year with

2 the capital appropriation that we received,

3 we were able to purchase the SEI case

4 management system that 95 percent or more of

5 the town and village courts use throughout

6 the state to run, to manage their courts. It

7 was a privately owned case management system.

8 The owner and developer of the system

9 retired, and we were able to purchase the

10 program from this gentleman, who had

11 previously been a town judge himself out in

12 Western New York, and we were able to --

13 we're in contract proceedings right now to

14 purchase the system. So we will be able to

15 provide that to every town and village court

16 in the state free of charge.

17 So that's in this year's capital

18 appropriation, but that's just an example of,

19 you know, a very worthy purpose to which this

20 money is being used.

21 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you, Judge.

22 Just curious, you mentioned security.

23 Does OCA track security issues that occur if,

24 you know, some untoward incident happens in a

1 courtroom, for example, that breaches

2 security? Do you have any statistics on

3 that?

4 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: If

5 there's something unusual that happens -- you

6 know, a fight breaks out or some act of

7 violence in the courtroom or in the hallways,

8 anything we call an unusual occurrence, our

9 security staff will fill out an Unusual

10 Occurrence Report and it will be filed and

11 distributed to court officer supervisors and

12 a group of people.

13 So we do have a depository of these

14 Unusual Occurrence Reports, and we can

15 absolutely, you know, tabulate how many

16 unusual occurrences there have been over a

17 period of time and compare to prior years.

18 So we do have that information.

19 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: That would be

20 helpful, thank you.

21 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

22 Sure. And we can provide that to you.

23 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

24 Chairwoman?

1 CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN: Yes, we've been

2 joined by Ken Zebrowski and Aravella Simotas.

3 And now to our Codes chair,

4 Assemblyman Lentol, for some questions.

5 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Thank you,

6 Madam Chair.

7 And good morning, Judge.

8 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

9 Good morning.

10 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: We certainly

11 appreciate your service over the last couple

12 of years. I think it's been excellent. I

13 wanted to say that right up front.

14 And one of the things that came to my

15 mind as Assemblyman Dinowitz was making his

16 remarks was the -- when he talked about the

17 judge -- the need for more judges, and I

18 thought about the need for more judges as

19 soon as Raise the Age comes online.

20 I know we've had more Family Court

21 judges as a result of the actions taken three

22 years ago, but are we going to have enough to

23 fill the youth parts as well as the Family

24 Court parts for that purpose?

1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

2 Well, that's an excellent question. And the

3 answer is we're not sure yet.

4 As you know, the Raise the Age

5 legislation is being implemented in phases,

6 and the first phase of the implementation is

7 this October 1st, as I think I mentioned in

8 my prepared remarks. And on October 1st the

9 age of criminal responsibility in New York

10 goes up to 17, and then the following

11 October 1st it goes up to 18.

12 So we will be prepared on October 1st,

13 but to some extent we have to kind of see how

14 this goes. There's no question that with

15 Raise the Age there will be fewer cases

16 overall in the state court system than there

17 are now involving 16-and-17-year-olds, and

18 that's because with cases -- all the

19 misdemeanors under the law go immediately to

20 Family Court. And the felonies -- most of

21 the nonviolent felonies have to begin in the

22 criminal court. And under the statute,

23 everyone expects that most of the nonviolent

24 felonies will then be transferred to Family

1 Court within a 30-day period. And that

2 leaves the violent felonies, of which --

3 obviously that's a minority, a much smaller

4 percentage of the overall cases. Some of

5 those will stay in criminal, some of those

6 may be transferred to Family.

7 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: So I'm just

8 wondering, when you're talking, just thinking

9 about the youth parts that haven't been

10 created around the state. Is that process in

11 motion.

12 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: In

13 the criminal courts.

14 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Yeah, criminal

15 court. Is that process in motion now to get

16 ready for when --

17 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

18 Absolutely, yeah.

19 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: And have there

20 been slots filled for youth parts in parts of

21 the state where they don't have them now?

22 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

23 There will be judges selected and trained to

24 sit in those youth parts. And that's

1 happening over the next eight months, leading

2 up to October 1st.

3 But to finish what I was saying, the

4 number of overall cases will be smaller

5 because when cases go to Family Court, the

6 first step is the case goes to -- before a

7 case is actually filed, before there's a case

8 officially filed in the Family Court, the

9 case goes to Probation, and Probation can

10 adjust the case, meaning it can divert the

11 case from ever going into the Family Court.

12 It can take the youth and put them in a

13 program, supervise them. And many of these

14 cases, particularly the misdemeanors, will be

15 adjusted, will be diverted from Family Court.

16 So we're absolutely going to end up

17 with more cases in Family Court, obviously,

18 than we have now. But overall criminal court

19 will have far, far fewer of these cases.

20 Family Court will have more. But a lot of

21 the cases will be funneled out of court

22 entirely through the adjustment process.

23 But we can't really predict today how

24 many of those cases will be diverted out

1 until we have some experience with this. So

2 it's sort of a long way of answering your

3 question. In the first stage, we will not

4 need additional judges, we'll be able to --

5 we may have to reallocate some judges from

6 the criminal side to the family side, but for

7 the initial stages of the new law, I believe

8 we'll have enough judges.

9 But down the road, you know, we'll

10 have to see. We'll have to see, you know,

11 how many -- you know, what the real

12 additional burden is on Family Court. We

13 won't know that right away.

14 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Thank you. I

15 know I'm not going to be able to ask all the

16 questions that I want, so I just want to go

17 through some of the ones that are really

18 important and timely now.

19 The first one is we have folks in

20 court, human trafficking cases, victims as

21 well as defendants, and I'm hearing that ICE

22 has taken over those parts in an effort to

23 try and get people into custody in order to

24 deport them. And that's a really sad

1 situation, I believe, and I wonder if there's

2 something that your operation can do to stop

3 that from happening or at least interfere in

4 some way to prevent that from happening.

5 Because, you know, human trafficking is such

6 a bad thing that we ought not to stop it from

7 receiving the proper criminal justice it

8 deserves.

9 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

10 It's a -- this is a complicated situation.

11 If I could just have a few minutes, I'll

12 explain it.

13 So the court system for years has

14 allowed law enforcement to come into the

15 courthouses and take people into custody.

16 NYPD has done this for many, many, many

17 years, without controversy. State Police

18 have done this. Out of state law enforcement

19 agencies have come into our state courthouses

20 and taken people into custody. We've

21 permitted this. In fact, ICE has done this

22 in the past. In prior years, ICE has come

23 into the courthouses and taken people into

24 custody.

1 So we have allowed this. What

2 happened this year has sort of changed the

3 whole dynamic. As ICE has made more

4 appearances in court, it has not been through

5 the roof. I think -- and we're keeping very

6 close track of this, whenever ICE comes in.

7 Whether they take someone into custody or

8 not, we file one of these -- we prepare one

9 of these Unusual Incident Reports which I

10 mentioned a few minutes ago, and we track

11 this and we evaluate it.

12 But the problem is we've been asked to

13 prevent ICE from doing that, to either bar

14 them from coming into the courthouses or, if

15 they have to come into the courthouses, to

16 prevent them from making arrests. It puts

17 the court system in a very awkward and

18 difficult position, because of course we are

19 neutral. We have to be, as the Judiciary.

20 We can't take a position about policies,

21 immigration policies in Washington, whether

22 they're good or bad. Individual people have

23 their own personal views on that, but

24 institutionally we have to be neutral.

1 And it makes it very difficult for us

2 to say, okay, well, we'll allow these law

3 enforcement agencies to come into the

4 building and make arrests, but we don't like

5 you and you, and we're not going to allow you

6 to come in and make arrests. So it's a

7 complicated situation.

8 But one thing we have been -- I've

9 been directly involved with this, and the

10 Office of Court Administration. We have a

11 line of communication with ICE officials on

12 the regional level in New York and through

13 our national organizations -- the National

14 Center for State Courts, the U.S. Conference

15 of Chief Justices, the U.S. Conference of

16 Chief Court Administrators -- we have a line

17 of communication with ICE officials and

18 Homeland Security officials in Washington,

19 and we've asked them to designate courthouses

20 as sensitive locations.

21 Which is they have a policy where

22 they've designated churches, schools, houses

23 of worship, a few other institutions as

24 sensitive locations, meaning they will not go

1 and take people into custody in those places

2 unless there's some extreme exigency or, you

3 know, some emergency.

4 At this point they have declined to

5 expand their policy about sensitive locations

6 to include courthouses. However, they have

7 agreed to sort of unofficially, on the

8 regional level -- and I think we're about to

9 see a policy released very shortly on the

10 national level -- that ICE will not go into

11 non-criminal courtrooms or -- well, first of

12 all, we don't allow them to go into

13 courtrooms and arrest people. The arrests

14 have to take place outside of the courtroom.

15 But they are in agreement that they will not

16 go into non-criminal courthouses.

17 So they are not going into Family

18 Court, they're not going into Small Claims

19 Court, they're not going into Landlord-Tenant

20 Court.

21 And human trafficking court, there was

22 unfortunately an incident last June where --

23 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Excuse me, Judge.

24 I just had one last question. I don't mean

1 to stop you in mid-sentence, but I really

2 wanted to hear more about the opioid courts

3 in the Bronx and the ones in Buffalo, because

4 these are cutting-edge and I want everybody

5 to know about them because it may not come up

6 in this hearing.

7 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

8 This is obviously, you know, a very, very

9 serious crisis across the state. And we feel

10 there's an important role for the court

11 system to play. We're trying to take a

12 leadership role with the stakeholders, the

13 DA's offices, the defense bar, the treatment

14 community and take the problem-solving court,

15 the drug court model, and apply it to opioids

16 but step it up a number of levels.

17 So in Buffalo, a court that's gotten

18 national attention, you know, a lot of

19 recognition across the country, the -- it's

20 sort of drug court, you know, very much

21 stepped up. The defendants who come in on

22 drug possession and other charges, there's an

23 evaluation done of all of them. And if it's

24 determined that they have an opioid addiction

1 or the potential to become addicted to

2 opioids, they're -- this is all voluntary,

3 it's on consent of the defendant and the

4 defense lawyer -- they will go into immediate

5 detox and intensive residential treatment,

6 which usually involves medically assisted

7 treatment, methadone or another type of

8 medically assisted maintenance drug.

9 And when they come out of treatment,

10 they will go back to court every day for

11 30 days, so they see the judge every day and

12 the judge can talk to them and observe them.

13 And it's not a simple program to put

14 in place, and it's not inexpensive. We did

15 get some federal money to support the program

16 in Buffalo. But it's really been

17 tremendously successful. There have been far

18 more people that have gone through the

19 program than was originally anticipated. It

20 was opened last May. There have been over

21 200 participants in the program.

22 Unfortunately, there was one death,

23 but only one death, which is actually a

24 remarkable statistic considering the

1 population that we're talking about here.

2 So we want to -- it may be difficult

3 to expand that exact model because it's very

4 expensive, and bringing the defendants back

5 to court every day for 30 days may not be

6 practical in some jurisdictions around the

7 state. But we want to implement some aspect

8 of the Buffalo opioid court in as many

9 jurisdictions around the state as we can.

10 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Thank you,

11 Your Honor.

12 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

13 Our next speaker is Senator Hoylman.

14 SENATOR HOYLMAN: Thank you, Judge.

15 Very good to see you.

16 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

17 Good to see you.

18 SENATOR HOYLMAN: A couple of

19 questions, some of them brief.

20 In connection with the time clock

21 requirement that the budget has proposed, do

22 you see -- first, how unprecedented is that

23 for an Executive to propose something of that

24 nature? And do you see any constitutional

1 issues?

2 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: We

3 haven't researched it. You know, there's --

4 some have suggested that it would implicate

5 separation-of-powers concerns. But I

6 don't -- I really can't sit here -- honestly,

7 I can't sit here and sort of weigh in on that

8 because we haven't researched it at all, but

9 some have suggested that.

10 Is it unprecedented? I've never --

11 I'm not aware that it's ever been suggested

12 here in New York. Is any similar process in

13 place in any other state in the country? I'm

14 not sure, but I'm not aware. I've never

15 heard of a process like that in any other

16 state.

17 But it's something that, you know, we

18 plan on looking into and determining whether

19 we would be the first state to implement such

20 a process if the proposal is enacted into

21 law.

22 SENATOR HOYLMAN: Thank you.

23 Second -- and I appreciate the work

24 you've done in reducing backlog across the

1 state. These numbers, these percentage

2 decreases are impressive. What are your

3 goals for next year in terms of reducing

4 caseload?

5 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: The

6 goals for next year -- and I'm speaking in

7 general terms. But outside of the city, with

8 some exceptions maybe on Long Island, outside

9 the city, upstate New York, we've done

10 extraordinarily well. We've for the most

11 part achieved the goals that we set out to.

12 We're not -- you know, we have

13 something called standards and goals in the

14 court system, and they're not statutory

15 guidelines or parameters, they're sort of

16 involuntary aspirational guidelines that

17 we've set. And the timetables vary depending

18 on the type of case. Felonies are different

19 from misdemeanors and criminal cases are

20 different from civil cases and Family Court

21 is different.

22 But generally speaking, we -- we're

23 not saying that there should be no cases over

24 these standards and goals deadlines. Not

1 every case is the same, and some cases

2 obviously take longer than others. But, you

3 know, unofficially we're trying to achieve

4 the goal of at every level of court there are

5 no more than 10 percent of the cases over

6 standards and goals.

7 And we've succeeded in doing that in

8 many parts of the state. It's proving more

9 difficult, not surprisingly, in the

10 highest-volume jurisdictions in New York City

11 and in some places upstate and in some courts

12 on Long Island. So our --

13 SENATOR HOYLMAN: What's the

14 percentage over standards in New York City?

15 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

16 Well, in felony cases it's currently around

17 50 percent. It's way too high. And we have

18 a number of ideas. That is an absolute

19 priority for us, and it may be our top

20 priority, are the continuing backlogs of

21 older felony cases, particularly in New York

22 City. Because in some of those cases people

23 are, you know, presumed innocent sitting in

24 jail -- not all, but enough -- and we have to

1 move those cases more quickly.

2 We have a number of ideas for that,

3 some new ideas. I don't want to speak too

4 much about this today because the Chief Judge

5 will be addressing that in some detail in her

6 State of the Judiciary speech a week from

7 today. But that's an absolute priority for

8 us.

9 On the civil side, Supreme Court civil

10 cases in New York City, where we've made some

11 real progress in some counties, not as much

12 progress in some other counties, I would say

13 the percentage of cases over the standards

14 and goals that apply in the civil term of

15 Supreme Court, about 30 percent are over

16 standards and goals. So it's better than the

17 felony courts, but still a long way to go.

18 And I should add that some of those

19 courts -- not Manhattan, but Bronx, Queens,

20 Brooklyn and Staten Island -- were deluged by

21 foreclosure filings --

22 SENATOR HOYLMAN: So the goal is to

23 get to 10 percent next year?

24 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: The

1 goal is to get to 10 percent, ideally within

2 the next year, correct.

3 SENATOR HOYLMAN: I wanted to ask you

4 about a proposal in the Executive Budget

5 called the Child Victims Act. I think -- are

6 you familiar with that legislation that would

7 raise the statute of limitations for crimes

8 of child sexual abuse?

9 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

10 Yes.

11 SENATOR HOYLMAN: And how much

12 preparation has your department done in

13 anticipation of its passage? Have you

14 examined the specifics of the bill? And do

15 you see any concerns in implementation for

16 such legislation?

17 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

18 Look, I don't -- you know, I am generally

19 familiar with the bill. I haven't read it,

20 I've read the newspaper accounts about the

21 bill. So I'm not an expert on that proposal.

22 But my reaction is -- sort of

23 unofficially, without studying the bill

24 itself -- is that, you know, any concern that

1 we might have would be is there going to be a

2 flood of new cases that, you know, will add

3 to our case inventories and further, you

4 know, frustrate what we're trying to do with

5 the court system these days, which is to

6 eliminate delays and backlogs.

7 And I have to say I don't expect that

8 that proposal would lead to a flood of new

9 cases. There would be additional criminal

10 cases, but I think we would be able to

11 accommodate them. It would be nothing like

12 the flood of foreclosure cases that we saw

13 with housing foreclosure, the mortgage crisis

14 from a number of years ago.

15 I'm pretty sure we'd be able to

16 accommodate any additional cases that

17 resulted from passage of that law.

18 SENATOR HOYLMAN: The Governor's bill

19 in the budget does not allow for a six-month

20 delay before implementation. Do you think

21 that you would need some period for

22 preparation if it passed in the budget?

23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: You

24 mean the speedy trial proposal?

1 SENATOR HOYLMAN: No, I'm talking

2 about the Child Victims Act itself.

3 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: Oh,

4 I'm sorry.

5 Well, look, it's always good when the

6 law changes if there's some lead time to --

7 with the Raise the Age, there was,

8 fortunately -- and that was something that I

9 was urging last year, is, you know, the

10 Legislature will figure out the policy --

11 resolve the policy differences, but just give

12 us time to implement the law. And with Raise

13 the Age there was a fair amount of lead time,

14 which was very helpful.

15 So with something like this, I don't

16 think we'd need that much lead time -- you

17 know, a full year, a year and a half. But

18 some lead time is always helpful.

19 SENATOR HOYLMAN: Six months?

20 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

21 Sure.

22 SENATOR HOYLMAN: Thank you very much.

23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

24 Thank you.

1 CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN: We've been

2 joined by Assemblyman Morinello and

3 Assemblywoman Latoya Joyner.

4 And next, to our ranker on Judiciary,

5 Mr. Palumbo.

6 ASSEMBLYMAN PALUMBO: Good morning,

7 Your Honor, how are you?

8 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

9 Good morning.

10 ASSEMBLYMAN PALUMBO: I've just got a

11 quick comment, a couple of quick comments,

12 and most of my questions have been answered.

13 And then I have just one question for you.

14 And by the way, great work on dealing

15 with the standards and goals, cleaning up

16 those lists. I have several friends on the

17 bench who have said you've run a real tight

18 ship for the past few years and you've made

19 great strides in the direction. So thank

20 you.

21 The request for the $44.4 million, an

22 increase of 2 percent, regarding the

23 staffing -- and this is coupled with the

24 Executive Budget request that judges submit

1 essentially time sheets certifying their

2 duties. And in my experience -- I've been

3 practicing for 20 years, and I've only been

4 in politics a few years. I realized after

5 about 15 years that people don't like

6 lawyers, so I thought I'd get into politics

7 because they're so highly regarded.

8 (Laughter.)

9 ASSEMBLYMAN PALUMBO: But the judges

10 are there, certainly, for at least eight

11 hours. They're taking work home in all the

12 courts. And for example, in Suffolk County

13 where I'm from, many of these courts have

14 between 1200 and 1500 motions pending as we

15 speak. So they're trying to crank out five

16 or six decisions a day to just try and keep

17 up, including handling calendar, obviously,

18 and trial and so forth.

19 So my question is with regard to that

20 44 million and change, how much of that will

21 be allocated for staff? Because I think

22 that's where the issue lies, from a practical

23 standpoint -- that many people I've spoken

24 with, it's -- they're there and they're

1 working very hard to try and keep up with

2 their caseload. In light of these cuts that

3 they've never recovered from, they're really

4 struggling.

5 So how much of that would go

6 specifically to staff? If you cannot -- even

7 just a number, just generally -- is it the

8 bulk of it or -- what are your comments,

9 please, in that regard?

10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: The

11 $44.4 million additional money, the 2 percent

12 increase, the overwhelming amount of that

13 would be devoted to filling positions.

14 We -- it's hard to say with precision,

15 you know, as we sit here today, how many

16 positions we'd fill, because it depends on

17 how many people leave the court system. And

18 we lose, you know, a number of hundreds of

19 people every year. They retire, they go on

20 and do other things. And we've been able

21 fortunately -- for a number of years, we

22 weren't able to replace, you know, after the

23 2011 budget cuts and a few years afterwards,

24 we pretty much had a strict hiring freeze.

1 But, you know, with your help the last

2 few years, we -- with modest increases in our

3 budget, we have been able to replace people

4 when they leave -- when they left, and we've

5 been able to fill an additional number of

6 vacancies just beyond replacing the people

7 when they have left.

8 So -- but to answer your question, the

9 great majority of that money would be devoted

10 to hiring staff.

11 ASSEMBLYMAN PALUMBO: And hopefully in

12 addition to the current levels that we

13 presently enjoy.

14 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

15 That's -- that's the goal. Because we're

16 still down from before 2011 -- 2009, 2010,

17 which was the high-water mark. We were down

18 2,000 employees in the court system -- it's a

19 lot of people -- in 2014, and we've built

20 that back, but not a whole lot. We're down

21 maybe 1650 employees still from where we were

22 before 2011.

23 So we've been trying to chip away at

24 that, you know, each year as best we can. I

1 don't see us ever going back to the

2 employment levels we had before 2011, but I

3 always say we don't have to. I think we're

4 functioning more efficiently, we're more

5 streamlined than we were a number of years

6 ago, and we can get by without filling all of

7 those vacancies, even if we were ever to get

8 enough money to do that, which is also

9 unrealistic, I think.

10 But there's no question that, you

11 know, we could benefit from more court

12 officers, court clerks, court reporters,

13 court interpreters, back-office staff. We

14 could use more staff, absolutely.

15 ASSEMBLYMAN PALUMBO: Certainly.

16 Thank you. And thank you for e-filing,

17 right? That helps us a little bit. Cleans

18 it up to a moderate extent.

19 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

20 E-filing is great, yeah.

21 ASSEMBLYMAN PALUMBO: Yes, thank you,

22 Judge.

23 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

24 Our next speaker is Senator Bailey.

1 SENATOR BAILEY: Good morning, Judge,

2 how are you?

3 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

4 Good morning.

5 SENATOR BAILEY: Wow, I was a little

6 loud, huh?

7 So at the risk of being duplicative of

8 my colleagues, I'd like to commend you and DA

9 Darcel Clark on the opioid court in the

10 Bronx. I look forward to learning more about

11 its implementation. Over 300 deaths in Bronx

12 County alone in 2017 due to opioid-related

13 matters. I'm glad we are treating it like

14 the public health crisis that it is and has

15 always been, which was not always treated

16 like -- it was treated like a criminal

17 justice issue when it should not have been.

18 Also I'd like to say I would like to

19 work with you and OCA on the implementation

20 of Raise the Age as that comes.

21 But my first question would be the

22 criminal justice reforms as have been

23 outlined in the Executive Budget by the

24 Governor -- bail reforms, speedy trial, and

1 to a lesser extent for OCA, discovery

2 reform -- what effect would that have on the

3 backlog, the current backlog?

4 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

5 Well, discovery reform I think is very

6 important. We've had -- actually, the Office

7 of Court Administration has proposed criminal

8 discovery reform legislation for probably 25

9 years, if you can believe that. Maybe

10 longer.

11 Our view is that, you know, with

12 protections built in -- because prosecutors

13 do raise legitimate concerns about witnesses

14 and protection and risks to witnesses when

15 more discovery is turned over and it's turned

16 over earlier in the case. So there should be

17 protections built into any criminal discovery

18 reform legislation in that regard.

19 But as a general principle, if more

20 information is turned over in a criminal case

21 to the defense and it's turned over earlier

22 in the case, that will facilitate earlier

23 dispositions. If the evidence is clear to

24 both sides at an earlier stage, that -- it's

1 almost a truism, that will lead to earlier

2 disposition.

3 So, you know, properly crafted

4 criminal discovery reform perfectly

5 complements what we're trying to do in the

6 court system, which is speed the disposition

7 of cases and reach resolution of cases, you

8 know, at an earlier stage.

9 SENATOR BAILEY: I would most

10 certainly agree with you, as the first bill I

11 introduced in my long Senate career last year

12 was the bill concerning discovery reform. So

13 I am a hundred percent proponent of that,

14 earlier discovery will be better for both

15 sides.

16 Concerning the Access to Justice

17 Program, I have the pleasure of having as a

18 constituent Deputy Chief Administrative Judge

19 Mendelson.

20 What are we doing with the LEO

21 program? I do commend your efforts to

22 increase diversity in the legal profession.

23 Is that going to continue to be funded? And

24 if so, at what level?

1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

2 Well, Assemblywoman Joyner I think could

3 probably address that better than I could.

4 But it's funded through the Assembly,

5 am I correct? That's not -- that doesn't

6 come out of the legal services money that we

7 have in the Judiciary budget, it's separate

8 money. It's an excellent program. We

9 started it a number of years ago. We had to

10 disband it at some point for budget reasons,

11 but there's been funding provided the last

12 couple of years. We were very excited to

13 reinstitute the program.

14 And assuming we continue to get

15 funding from the Legislature, we have every

16 expectation of continuing that program.

17 SENATOR BAILEY: I also see that you,

18 in the testimony, indicated that there was

19 $100 million for civil legal services, also

20 equally if not more important sometimes than

21 criminal legal services.

22 As you may know, the New York City

23 Council in New York City recently enacted the

24 Right to Counsel Law concern tenants' rights

1 in housing courts. Would OCA be amenable

2 to -- if the State Legislature were to come

3 up with such a proposal, would OCA be

4 amenable to something of the sort?

5 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

6 Amenable to what?

7 SENATOR BAILEY: If this Legislature,

8 the State Legislature came up with something

9 along the lines of Right to Counsel

10 statewide.

11 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

12 Well, that would be a great thing. I mean,

13 if every tenant in the state in an eviction

14 proceeding could have an attorney, that would

15 be a remarkable thing. So, you know, we

16 would be fully supportive of it.

17 But it would be a very expensive

18 proposition. I think in the City of New

19 York, where the local legislation is passed,

20 I think the price tag is in the neighborhood

21 of $150 million just in New York City. And

22 there are a lot of eviction proceedings in

23 New York City, obviously, a big share of the

24 total statewide.

1 But look, you know, that people go

2 into court with the risk of losing the roof

3 over their heads and they do that without a

4 lawyer is disturbing and should be troubling

5 to all of us. And so if the State

6 Legislature ever approved legislation like

7 that and funded it, it would be a remarkable

8 thing.

9 SENATOR BAILEY: Thank you, Your

10 Honor. Nothing further.

11 CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN: Thank you.

12 We've been joined by our Government

13 Operations chair, Crystal Peoples-Stokes.

14 And next for a question, Assemblyman

15 Titone.

16 ASSEMBLYMAN TITONE: Thank you,

17 Chairwoman.

18 Thank you, Judge. I really appreciate

19 the testimony that you gave. And actually we

20 had spoken very briefly about some of my

21 concerns about alternative dispute

22 resolution, and in your testimony you really

23 addressed those concerns, and I appreciate

24 that. And I hope that the Chief Judge will

1 further expand upon it in her State of the

2 Judiciary next week.

3 But I do want to go to a question that

4 is a little bit more parochial to Staten

5 Islanders. You know, we're known as the

6 epicenter of the opioid drug epidemic. We

7 had a Part N for a little bit over a year

8 that was successful, but then it was, without

9 real rationale, closed down. Can you explain

10 if there was a rationale and what that

11 rationale was for closing a drug court down?

12 You know, so we're now the only borough in

13 New York City that does not have one.

14 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I'd

15 be happy to answer that question, because I

16 think there's a lot of confusion about that.

17 And I read -- I think it was an editorial in

18 the Staten Island Advance that was very

19 critical of the decision to close that court

20 part.

21 The court part was not working. It

22 was not a drug court, a drug treatment court

23 by any means. There was not a single -- over

24 the 16-month period that that court was in

1 operation, not a single case was diverted

2 under legislation that was passed by the

3 Legislature in 2009 to address the

4 Rockefeller Drug Laws, giving judges more

5 discretion to divert cases.

6 And by the way, the judge who sat in

7 the part is an excellent judge and nothing

8 I'm saying is in any way critical of that

9 judge. He's a very good judge.

10 But it wasn't functioning -- I don't

11 think it was ever designed to be a drug

12 treatment court. From the beginning, not a

13 single case was diverted out of that court

14 into drug treatment.

15 Secondly, there was only one trial

16 conducted in that part over the course of

17 16 months, a single trial.

18 And we came to the conclusion that the

19 part wasn't an effective use of court

20 resources. There is not a similar part in

21 any other borough in New York City except for

22 the Bronx, which has a part like that. It's

23 a post-indictment part for felonies where

24 they all go into one part. It's not set up

1 as a drug treatment court. It's nothing like

2 the opioid court.

3 It was -- we felt that it was not

4 succeeding --

5 ASSEMBLYMAN TITONE: So let me ask --

6 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: --

7 cases weren't being diverted to treatment,

8 and no trials were being conducted.

9 ASSEMBLYMAN TITONE: All right. Well,

10 you know, I mean to me that's not really

11 indicative of anything. I mean, there could

12 be settlements, there could be a disposition

13 nonetheless, whether by trial or some other

14 means.

15 My concern is that if you're telling

16 me that the narcotics part in Staten Island

17 wasn't really a drug court, then it begs the

18 question is there a drug court on

19 Staten Island. And what is OCA doing to help

20 Staten Islanders get into the treatment that

21 they deserve, just like every other borough?

22 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: No,

23 that's an excellent question. And let's

24 consider the sort of disbanding of that court

1 part Phase 1. Phase 2 is we should have a

2 real traditional, you know, effective

3 diversion part drug treatment court on

4 Staten Island. I agree with that completely,

5 and that should be the next step. And that's

6 something that we will work on achieving.

7 ASSEMBLYMAN TITONE: Sure. And I

8 think towards that goal, you know, Chairman

9 Dinowitz brought up the need for judges.

10 And, you know, OCA can look at it, well, you

11 know, the Constitution was written, you know,

12 years ago, it only has X number of words in

13 it -- but that still doesn't change the fact

14 that it exists. And that in Staten Island

15 we've created a judicial district, you know,

16 nearly a decade ago and we still do not have

17 the number of judges that we are

18 constitutionally entitled to.

19 And I think by addressing that problem

20 we can start to address the need for specific

21 court types -- our veterans courts, our

22 opioid courts, and things of that nature.

23 So, you know, I appreciate this, and

24 I'm hoping that, you know, these issues will

1 be addressed and that OCA will step up to the

2 plate on behalf of the people of

3 Staten Island and ask for the money to ensure

4 that we have what we're constitutionally

5 entitled to.

6 Thank you, Judge.

7 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

8 Thank you.

9 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Senator Croci.

10 SENATOR CROCI: Thank you, Senator.

11 And thank you, Judge, for your appearance

12 here today.

13 I want to start by complimenting you

14 and Chief Judge DiFiore on the truly

15 remarkable work that's been done in Suffolk

16 County with the Veterans Court. Retiring

17 Judge Toomey, working with the Suffolk County

18 Sheriff's Department, working with the

19 Vietnam Veterans of America, have started

20 something that now different prosecutors and

21 different law enforcement groups and

22 charities from around the country are now

23 coming to Suffolk County for firsthand

24 knowledge of what is a truly remarkable

1 program with very, very low recidivism rates.

2 So it's something that should be

3 studied, and I want to commend you.

4 I also want to know if you believe

5 that they are adequately resourced -- I know

6 that comes out of their budget, there's no

7 specific line for it -- but if you believe

8 they're adequately resourced to continue and

9 expand that program.

10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

11 Well, I know that Veterans Court in Suffolk

12 County has been a success. I mean, it's been

13 a very successful program in many places

14 across the state. And I haven't heard

15 complaints that the Veterans court in Suffolk

16 is understaffed. But if it is, it's

17 something that we would look at and need to

18 address if that's the case. But I haven't

19 heard complaints about that.

20 SENATOR CROCI: Okay. I think I want

21 to associate myself with some of what

22 Assemblyman Palumbo said.

23 We talk to not only jurists but staff

24 and attorneys in and out of the Central Islip

1 Court Complex, and some of the delay --

2 because we're all concerned about speedy

3 trial and making sure that that process is as

4 efficient as possible -- some of the delay is

5 the staffing issues in actually moving

6 defendants from detention facilities up, and

7 there are inadequate court officers to do

8 that.

9 Are we comfortable that in this coming

10 budget cycle we will see additional staff in

11 places like the Central Islip Court Complex?

12 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: Our

13 goal is -- this is sort of a year by year

14 process. You know, as I said, we were down

15 2,000 employees at one point, in I think the

16 calendar year 2014, and we've been slowly but

17 somewhat steadily increasing our employment

18 levels. And it's certainly our hope and

19 expectation that that will continue this

20 coming fiscal year, including in Suffolk

21 County.

22 SENATOR CROCI: Thank you.

23 In addition, the reason I bring up

24 Central Islip Court Complex is you're no

1 doubt aware of the presence and the recent

2 killings in my community from MS-13, which is

3 a criminal syndicate -- narcoterrorists,

4 essentially -- who have a very, I would say,

5 robust and sophisticated distribution network

6 for some of the heroin and opioids that we've

7 seen on Long Island.

8 I'm concerned that we are ensuring

9 that that courthouse specifically has

10 adequate security, because it is right in the

11 center of what is now a joint federal, state

12 and local effort to not only eradicate it but

13 to make sure that there's no violence at

14 places where people come to seek justice.

15 To that end, you raise in your

16 testimony that you had been requested to bar

17 federal law enforcement from state

18 facilities. I just wanted to know where the

19 instruction or request came from.

20 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

21 Well, we've been asked by a number of

22 individuals and groups, including public

23 officials, elected officials, criminal

24 defense advocates, immigration advocates,

1 domestic violence advocates. A whole range

2 of individuals, groups and organizations have

3 asked us to either bar ICE agents from coming

4 into the courthouses -- which by the way I

5 don't think would be constitutional. I don't

6 think we can prevent anyone from coming into

7 courthouses. They're public buildings. If

8 someone comes in and gets into a fight, we

9 can remove the person, obviously. But

10 generally speaking, whether we wanted to or

11 not, I don't think we can bar anyone from

12 coming into a courthouse.

13 But in lieu of that, we've been asked

14 to prevent ICE from arresting people in

15 courthouses.

16 SENATOR CROCI: This is just DHS, not

17 the FBI or the Department of Justice, they've

18 just requested one specific agency and

19 subcompartment of that agency?

20 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

21 Yes.

22 SENATOR CROCI: And that's just a

23 public request? You haven't been given a

24 request -- there's no other direct in-writing

1 request to do this?

2 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

3 There have been letters we've received on

4 this. There have been oral requests. There

5 have been meetings -- we've had meetings with

6 advocates to discuss their concerns. So it's

7 a combination of public statements, letters

8 we've received, and meetings we've had with

9 different groups and organizations.

10 SENATOR CROCI: And is there any

11 concern -- and this is my last question --

12 obviously there needs to be a federal fix to

13 legislation, particularly with regard to

14 immigration, no doubt. I think everyone

15 could agree that has to happen. But short of

16 that, under current U.S. law, under U.S.

17 Code, specifically 8 U.S.C. 1324, is it your

18 understanding that you would even have the

19 authority to do that without in some way

20 violating federal law?

21 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

22 Well, that's a very good question, and I'm

23 not sure what the answer is.

24 Let me say this, though. We -- you

1 know, in the court system we -- for us to

2 function, people have to come to us.

3 Litigants have to come to us, witnesses have

4 to come to us, victims of crime have to come

5 to us. If they don't come into our buildings

6 and come into our courtrooms and participate

7 in court proceedings, we can't possibly do

8 what we're constitutionally established to

9 do.

10 So the concern that's been raised --

11 and again, I explained our policy. We have

12 to be neutral. We don't have institutional

13 views on what immigration policies are good

14 or what are bad. We're the court system,

15 we're neutral. But we do need to be

16 concerned about events taking place in the

17 courthouses that might result in substantial

18 numbers of people being afraid to come into

19 the buildings and participate in court

20 proceedings.

21 And so that's the concern. Which

22 is -- I think when this came up earlier, I

23 think Assemblyman Lentol raised the issue, I

24 started out by saying this is a very

1 complicated issue for us. And we're working

2 it through and, you know, trying to figure

3 out what the right and appropriate policy is

4 for the court system on a very difficult

5 issue.

6 SENATOR CROCI: Well, and we certainly

7 appreciate that. My community is reeling

8 from not only the murders that -- of brutal

9 murders of children, essentially, but also

10 this ongoing fear and intimidation within the

11 communities from these organizations that

12 essentially followed the people who came here

13 to live a life and have the American dream,

14 followed them from those countries and are

15 brutalizing those neighborhoods in our

16 communities.

17 So I appreciate your attention not

18 only to the issue but to the security at that

19 court complex. It's very important to my

20 community, very important to the families and

21 the mothers and fathers who lost children in

22 the last year and a half.

23 So thank you very much. And again, my

24 compliments to you and to Judge DiFiore for

1 the work that's being done on the Veterans

2 Court.

3 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

4 Thank you.

5 CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN: Thank you.

6 Next is Deputy Speaker Hooper.

7 ASSEMBLYWOMAN HOOPER: Thank you,

8 Madam Chair.

9 Good morning, Your Honor.

10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

11 Good morning.

12 ASSEMBLYWOMAN HOOPER: In the interest

13 of time, I'm going to just present the

14 questions that I'm seeking clarity on, and

15 then I will hope that you could help to

16 address them for me, please.

17 I'm going to be looking at pages 4, 5,

18 6 and 7 of your presentation. Pages 4, 5, 6

19 and 7.

20 On page 4 I would like to know what

21 type of jobs -- you indicated that you're

22 going to be hiring to fill the void of

23 employees who deal with what the Judiciary is

24 attempting to accomplish. I would like to

1 know who, how, when, where these type of jobs

2 will be announced and whether or not the

3 Nassau community constituents will be able to

4 participate with these positions, and would

5 they be widely advertised.

6 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

7 Yeah, well --

8 ASSEMBLYWOMAN HOOPER: I'm going to

9 ask, and then I'll leave it to you. That's

10 one of the questions.

11 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

12 Okay.

13 ASSEMBLYWOMAN HOOPER: I understand

14 also that the towns and the village courts

15 carry the largest burden of cost when it

16 comes to dealing with the judiciary in the

17 counties. That's another question. That's

18 on page 4.

19 On page 5, I would just -- I'll go to

20 page 6. The cases that are in the Family

21 Court -- and I see where you're talking about

22 the $5.7 million in reference to increased

23 cases in the Family Court. Would you be kind

24 enough to explain how that can be addressed

1 economically and what type of resources do

2 you see going into the Family Court,

3 especially -- I'm speaking in terms of

4 Nassau County. That's on page 6, and that's

5 the fourth line.

6 On page 7, I see where you are seeking

7 to have non-attorneys to help with the

8 overload of legal work in the Judiciary. I

9 would like to know, how would this be

10 accomplished, and what impact on the

11 integrity -- or the legal implications

12 resulting from non-professionals representing

13 the clients?

14 So if you'd -- I'd appreciate it if

15 you would -- you may ask me again to go over

16 the questions.

17 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

18 Okay. Maybe I could go backwards and start

19 with the last question.

20 ASSEMBLYWOMAN HOOPER: That's fine,

21 thank you.

22 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: You

23 know, we -- the -- what we call the justice

24 gap, the hundreds of --

1 ASSEMBLYWOMAN HOOPER: You're speaking

2 of the non-attorneys right now, right?

3 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

4 Non-attorneys. Hundreds of thousands of --

5 despite all the good work that we've all

6 done, and there's more money for lawyers to

7 represent people in civil cases who can't

8 afford them, and there's been more pro bono

9 work that the bar has stepped up to

10 perform -- there's still what we call a big

11 justice gap in New York. There's still far

12 too many people who need a lawyer and can't

13 afford one and don't get one, even though

14 that problem is improving in recent years.

15 And we feel that there's -- like the

16 medical profession, you know, when you go

17 into a doctor's office or into a hospital,

18 there are nondoctors who perform a lot of the

19 work. You know, we still need doctors, of

20 course, to perform surgery and to make

21 diagnoses and do all the critically important

22 things that doctors do, but there are all

23 kinds of other professionals in the medical

24 profession that assist people with health

1 problems.

2 And we think that the court system,

3 the justice system, really could borrow from

4 that and make more use of nonlawyers who

5 cannot practice law, they can't provide legal

6 advice, they can't go into court and

7 represent people, they can't write briefs,

8 they can't try cases. But nonlawyers can

9 provide services to people in need of them.

10 They can help them fill out forms, they can

11 help them explain kind of the court system

12 and where to go and what to do when people

13 are representing themselves in court. They

14 can help them with agencies in terms of

15 getting benefits. There's a whole range of

16 things that nonlawyers can perform. And they

17 need to be trained before they do that, but

18 we've sort of tried to branch out in that

19 area and provide some leadership to bring in

20 nonlawyers to assist and support people who

21 have legal problems and can't afford a

22 lawyer. Again, not giving them legal advice,

23 not acting as lawyers, but doing a whole

24 range of other things that nonlawyers can do

1 and are legally permitted to do to help

2 people.

3 ASSEMBLYWOMAN HOOPER: So you would be

4 offering training to those personnel.

5 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

6 Training is a key part of it, absolutely.

7 ASSEMBLYWOMAN HOOPER: Would they be

8 volunteers, or would they be entitled to --

9 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

10 Generally we're relying on volunteers.

11 Students have proven to be a good resource;

12 sometimes they can get academic credit for

13 providing this service. But generally we're

14 talking about volunteers, yes.

15 ASSEMBLYWOMAN HOOPER: Thank you.

16 What is the position of the bar

17 association --

18 CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN: I'd like to try

19 and move on. If we could just be concise as

20 we go forward, we still have a lot of -- we

21 have a long day ahead.

22 ASSEMBLYWOMAN HOOPER: All right.

23 What is the bar association position on this?

24 The bar association, what is their position

1 on bringing in volunteers to --

2 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I

3 think the bar association -- I don't want to

4 speak for it. We have about a hundred

5 different bar associations in New York, and

6 they don't always --

7 ASSEMBLYWOMAN HOOPER: I'm speaking

8 Nassau County.

9 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: Oh,

10 Nassau County Bar? I'm not sure, but I think

11 the bar associations have generally been

12 supportive but have warned that we have to be

13 very careful in how nonlawyers are used and

14 that they don't cross the line into

15 practicing law. But in general, I think bar

16 associations support the notion of having

17 trained nonlawyers helping to address the

18 justice gap in the state.

19 ASSEMBLYWOMAN HOOPER: In the interest

20 of time, Madam Chair, just one last issue.

21 In reference to the jobs that you're

22 going to be seeking to fill, how will that

23 translate into persons applying for the

24 jobs -- the type of jobs, how will they be

1 advertised, and what impact would that have

2 on those persons who are seeking the jobs?

3 How would they know and when, and when do you

4 plan to do this and how do you plan to do it?

5 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

6 Well, most of the jobs in the court system

7 are civil service jobs, meaning people have

8 to take a test, they score on the test, they

9 go on a civil service list, which is -- their

10 ranking is based on how they performed on the

11 test. And particularly the positions that we

12 need to fill in the court system, where there

13 are shortages -- the court officers, court

14 clerks, court reporters, a lot of the

15 back-office staff -- most of those employees,

16 if not all of them, are civil service

17 employees, meaning they have to take a test

18 to get on the list.

19 So, you know, we feel it's very

20 important that when we have a test, when we

21 provide a civil service test that people take

22 so that they can qualify to get on the list,

23 that there be a lot of outreach in the

24 community and that we be reaching to all

1 segments of the community so people know

2 about the test and they have time to prepare

3 for it. And we do a lot of outreach in our

4 human resources department, and without going

5 into all the details, we'd be happy to share

6 with you some of the materials and

7 information on the outreach that we provide.

8 And we'd be interested in any suggestions you

9 have to do a better job in reaching out to

10 communities when we have a civil service

11 exam.

12 ASSEMBLYWOMAN HOOPER: Thank you very

13 much.

14 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

15 You're welcome.

16 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Senator Krueger.

17 SENATOR KRUEGER: Good morning, Judge.

18 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

19 Good morning.

20 SENATOR KRUEGER: I think it's still

21 morning -- yes, it is.

22 So the Governor has proposed a number

23 of significant changes to our criminal

24 justice system which would impact the courts,

1 so they may impact other people who are

2 testifying today. But I'd just like a little

3 clarification from you about how you

4 understand the language of the Governor's

5 proposal for bail reform, where there's a

6 "notwithstanding" clause that actually allows

7 the DAs to, at their request, override a

8 judge's decision not to require bail.

9 Are you familiar with that paragraph

10 in his bill? I'll try to read it, but --

11 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: You

12 know, it's -- I'm familiar with the bill. I

13 want to spend more time with it. I have a

14 lot of questions myself. But if you could

15 help me with that one particular provision.

16 SENATOR KRUEGER: Okay. I'm trying to

17 read very small print -- sorry.

18 "Notwithstanding the above" -- it's a

19 reference -- it's in the bail reform

20 section -- "in cases where the prosecutor

21 indicates that it intends to" -- so sorry --

22 something for -- I apologize. Let me just

23 see if I can get it larger.

24 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

1 You're trying to read a bill off of a phone.

2 SENATOR KRUEGER: I'm reading

3 incredibly tiny print off my phone. I

4 apologize. Oh, thank you so -- this will

5 work better. Staff is so helpful. Thank

6 you, Dorothy.

7 "Notwithstanding the above, in cases

8 where a prosecutor indicates an intent to

9 move for pretrial detention, as set out in

10 Article 545 of this title, the court shall

11 commit the defendant to the custody of the

12 sheriff."

13 So I read this and think, compared to

14 existing law, this actually gives the DAs the

15 ability to actually override what we think of

16 as a bail reform proposal whenever they want,

17 and doesn't leave the judge any discretion

18 where the judges have discretion now.

19 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I'd

20 have to read that more closely. But that may

21 be, as I understand the bill from what I've

22 read, that when there's someone who's

23 eligible for pretrial detention -- and that's

24 a limited number of defendants under this

1 bill, certainly -- there's a limited, brief,

2 automatic remand or detention of the person,

3 and then they would come back into court

4 within a certain -- within five days for a

5 hearing on whether they can continue to be

6 detained.

7 If I'm reading it correctly. I may

8 not be reading it correctly. But that's my

9 understanding of the bill, that there's --

10 for a relatively small number of defendants

11 who can be detained pretrial. And this bill

12 certainly -- that number of defendants would

13 be much smaller under this bill than it is

14 now under current law. For that narrow group

15 of defendants, there would be an automatic

16 detention, pretrial detention, at the very,

17 very beginning of the case, but they then

18 have to come back into court within five days

19 for a hearing on the question of whether

20 detention should continue.

21 SENATOR KRUEGER: So I'm reading it

22 too broadly, so I need to revisit that.

23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

24 Maybe. Maybe.

100

1 SENATOR KRUEGER: Maybe. Okay, thank

2 you.

3 And a follow-up same theme on the

4 speedy trial -- no, excuse me, not on the

5 speedy trial, on the discovery reform. So it

6 would create a model where we would have an

7 obligation to follow discovery reform as the

8 vast majority of states in this country do,

9 but it would allow the prosecutors to redact

10 any and all information. Don't we think that

11 both defense attorneys and DAs are both

12 officers of the court and should have access

13 to the same information?

14 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

15 Well, as I was saying before, that with

16 criminal discovery reform you want to write

17 in some protections where there are, you

18 know, legitimate, genuine risks of safety to

19 witnesses. But exactly how you do it, you

20 know, that's going to be debated on this

21 bill.

22 But one approach you could take is in

23 the first instance to give the prosecutor the

24 authority to redact, you know, in their

101

1 discretion -- but perhaps that could be

2 challenged by the defendant, and the judge

3 would ultimately have to make the decision.

4 The judge, in camera, you know, meaning on

5 his or her own, could review the materials

6 and there could be a judicial determination

7 about whether or not there was appropriate

8 grounds to redact the name and identity of a

9 prosecution witness.

10 Of course that would be more work for

11 the courts, and we're not necessarily out

12 looking for more work. But on the other

13 hand, that might be a satisfactory resolution

14 of this dispute about how much authority

15 should the prosecutor have to make the

16 redaction determination, should it be

17 unilateral authority or should there be a

18 review of that decision by a judge.

19 SENATOR KRUEGER: So the reverse,

20 though, also would take place, that the DA

21 goes to the judge in cases where they

22 actually think that redacting is necessary.

23 And so it would have the same impact, but

24 with less work on the courts.

102

1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

2 Right. Right.

3 SENATOR KRUEGER: Because I'll tell

4 you I support the Governor's proposals in

5 these areas, but I worry that all of them are

6 set up in a way that it adds to delays in the

7 court and more work for the court, and I

8 don't think that's anyone's intention. Do

9 you share that concern?

10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

11 Under the bail statute, there are these

12 hearings that would be required. But there's

13 no getting around that, because you can't --

14 under Supreme Court case law, which I have

15 read, you can't detain a person on the

16 grounds that they're a risk to public safety

17 without a hearing.

18 So if there's going to be sort of --

19 in this proposal if -- you know, the law in

20 New York now is that a person can't be

21 detained -- there's only one standard that

22 applies, is the person a risk of failure to

23 return to court if they're released. If

24 you're going to add to the law giving judges

103

1 the authority to detain people pretrial

2 because they're a risk to public safety --

3 and most people agree if you're going to get

4 rid of bail in misdemeanor cases and the

5 lesser -- and do all these other things,

6 reform the bail statute -- that should be a

7 part of it. That's going to mean more work

8 for the courts. There's no getting around

9 that.

10 But look, if the Legislature decides

11 that, you know, the bail statutes need to be

12 reformed -- and there's a very good argument

13 that they do, certainly -- if it means some

14 additional extra work for the courts, you

15 know, we'll do the additional work. I mean,

16 we're not going to stand in the way of bail

17 reform because it will mean additional work

18 for the courts. Hopefully it's not an

19 enormous amount of additional work, and the

20 bill -- the current version of the Governor's

21 bill I don't think would cause tremendous

22 additional burdens on the courts, but there

23 would be some additional work.

24 With the discovery statute, if a

104

1 prosecutor's redaction of witness identity

2 was reviewable by a judge, that also would

3 lead to some additional work for the courts.

4 But as I was saying earlier, overall,

5 criminal discovery reform, if information is

6 turned over sooner in the case, that will be

7 a good thing for the courts. Because I

8 believe very strongly that that will lead to

9 earlier dispositions of criminal cases.

10 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you very much.

11 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

12 You're welcome.

13 CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN: So we've been

14 joined by Assemblyman Blake.

15 And before we go to the next speaker,

16 I just want to apologize in advance that

17 there's a need for a number of the members to

18 go to a Ways and Means Committee meeting.

19 Maybe that actually will be positive --

20 (Laughter.)

21 CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN: -- since you've

22 been in here a bit.

23 So Assemblyman Montesano.

24 SENATOR KRUEGER: If I can just -- oh,

105

1 I'm sorry, I apologize. We've been joined by

2 Senator Sanders and Senator Brian Benjamin

3 since the last time we were naming people.

4 Thank you.

5 ASSEMBLYMAN MONTESANO: Thank you,

6 Madam Chair.

7 Good morning, Judge.

8 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

9 Good morning.

10 ASSEMBLYMAN MONTESANO: Judge, I know

11 there's been a lot of progress made in

12 different areas -- you spoke several times

13 today about personnel matters and being able

14 to replace personnel as they retired, and I'm

15 happy to hear of that.

16 But my big concern is what efforts are

17 being made to replenish the ranks that we

18 lost over the years? I mean, I know

19 throughout the court system we're down, but

20 especially on Long Island. And we talk about

21 Nassau and Suffolk, and I know we're down

22 significant numbers of court personnel. I

23 mean, the clerks have a big problem, and

24 especially court officers.

106

1 And I know Senator Croci touched on

2 that before, because Nassau County has seen a

3 big influx of MS-13 arrests and cases in

4 progress. And I know it takes, you know,

5 many more court officers to protect the

6 courts in those type of circumstances.

7 So what efforts are being made --

8 because in the past years we've sat here and

9 we've always given additional money to OCA

10 for the budget for these things. What

11 progress are we seeing with not only

12 replacing your existing personnel as they

13 retire, but increasing the ranks in the area

14 of clerks and court officers?

15 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I'd

16 say, to be fair in answering that question,

17 we've seen slow but steady progress. And

18 we're -- and I can get you the exact number,

19 and, you know, it literally changes week to

20 week.

21 But we were down -- as I mentioned

22 before, a few years ago we were down 2,000

23 employees from the time before the budget

24 cuts and the hiring freeze that we were

107

1 required to impose as a result of that, and

2 now we're between -- I'd say about 1650

3 employees down. So we're replacing people

4 when they leave, and that's critical, but

5 we've also been able to fill a modest number

6 of additional vacancies so that we've gained

7 back 350 of the positions that we lost.

8 ASSEMBLYMAN MONTESANO: But so of

9 those positions that we lost -- the 350, how

10 is that personnel being distributed

11 throughout the court system?

12 You know, because, you know, of course

13 we all have our own little selfishness here.

14 So when we talk about Long Island or Nassau

15 and Suffolk counties, how is that 350 -- what

16 percentage of that is being allocated to

17 those counties?

18 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

19 Well, off the top of my head I can't talk

20 about individual counties. But I can tell

21 you in general terms attrition between

22 New York City and outside New York City. And

23 outside New York City is a big geographical

24 region, and to some extent, a county like

108

1 Nassau may have more in common with Queens

2 than it does with Wyoming County upstate.

3 But the attrition inside the city has

4 been about the same as the attrition outside

5 the city in terms of numbers. And filling

6 positions has also been about the same.

7 We've filled about -- this is over the last

8 year, but I think it's true over the last

9 several years -- we've filled about the same

10 number of positions inside New York City as

11 we have outside New York City.

12 And I know in Nassau -- look, I'm not

13 going to disagree with you, Nassau could

14 benefit from some additional hiring. But I

15 do think we've been -- we have no favorites.

16 You know, we don't favor one part of the

17 state over the other or one county over the

18 other. And we distribute the funding and the

19 authorization to fill positions, you know,

20 very fairly. And I think the result of that

21 has been that the filling of positions inside

22 New York City has been essentially equal to

23 the filling of positions outside of New York

24 City.

109

1 ASSEMBLYMAN MONTESANO: Judge, I just

2 want to touch on just one other item.

3 So I'm aware of a situation where the

4 clerks for a long number of years are working

5 out of title within the system. And I know

6 you've been endeavoring over maybe the last

7 two years to try and come up with a

8 resolution to this or to address it.

9 What progress, if anything, is being

10 made, you know, for these people that are

11 working out of title for a number of reasons,

12 and so either they're not getting properly

13 compensated or the right amount of work, you

14 know, needs to be done in different

15 departments? Because we know backroom

16 operations are a significant component of the

17 operation of the courthouse.

18 You know, you touched earlier about --

19 you know, when they were talking about making

20 sure judges are there, well, you could have

21 the judges sit there for 12 hours if they

22 don't have the help and the personnel to move

23 the cases. And the sheriff's department

24 sometimes doesn't bring prisoners till 10:00,

110

1 10:30 in the morning and the judge is on the

2 bench at 9:00.

3 So, you know, it's all these types of

4 things that go on. So how do we address this

5 issue about the reclassification of these

6 clerk titles?

7 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

8 Well, look. Let me say when you lose 2,000

9 employees, which we essentially did, you

10 know, a few years back, there are going to be

11 repercussions.

12 And look, people shouldn't be working

13 out of title. It's not good, it's not fair.

14 But when you're down 2,000 employees, you

15 sort of make do as best you can, and

16 sometimes that can happen that people are

17 working out of title. Sometimes they don't

18 complain about it, but they do have a right

19 to complain. If an employee is working out

20 of title, you know, they have a right to

21 complain about that.

22 So, I mean, I think -- look, the

23 answer ultimately is building back our

24 workforce. And not just replacing people

111

1 when they leave, but adding additional

2 employees and filling additional vacancies

3 beyond just addressing attrition and

4 replacing people when they leave.

5 Ultimately, that's the answer.

6 I think we're heading in the right

7 direction. It's completely driven by the

8 budget. I mean, we can only hire as many

9 people as we have the money to hire,

10 additional people. And we have been able to

11 do that on a modest basis. And I think it's

12 going to take some time, but in the end the

13 answer to the problem you raised is hiring

14 more people.

15 ASSEMBLYMAN MONTESANO: Thank you very

16 much.

17 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

18 Thank you.

19 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Senator Savino.

20 SENATOR SAVINO: Thank you, Senator

21 Gallivan.

22 Judge Marks, thank you for your

23 testimony. And if you recall, last year I

24 think we had a brief conversation about the

112

1 strain that has been placed upon OCA and the

2 Judiciary as a result of having to live under

3 the 2 percent spending all these years.

4 And I was actually quite happy to see

5 that this year that the Judiciary requested

6 an increase in their budget. And for the

7 temerity of suggesting that you might need

8 some more money, I think there's an insulting

9 provision in the Article VII that suggests

10 that judges should start punching a time

11 clock, which is insulting on many levels.

12 But in your request for additional

13 money, which is about $44 million, roughly

14 around there, you state quite clearly that

15 the first priority is for the purpose of

16 hiring court personnel -- court clerks, court

17 officers, court reporters, interpreters,

18 backroom office staff, all of the staff that

19 help support the work of the Judiciary.

20 So is it safe to say that the

21 reduction in head count, which dates back to

22 the 2011 budget cuts, has that had an effect

23 on the ability to administer the people's

24 justice? Because this is insinuation that

113

1 you're all going home at 1 o'clock, you know,

2 because you really have nothing else to do.

3 And I think, I would imagine -- I

4 don't work in the court system, but I would

5 imagine if you don't have a court clerk or

6 you don't have a court officer, you can't

7 operate a courtroom. Is that safe to say?

8 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I

9 would say we, in the least two years, under

10 the Chief Judge and her Excellence

11 Initiative, we've made progress in addressing

12 delays and backlogs. And I talked about

13 that.

14 But at times it can be much more

15 difficult, because, you know, we could use

16 more court officers and court clerks and

17 reporters and the whole range of titles, and

18 it can at times delay -- I mean, you know,

19 when there's a flu outbreak, you know, we

20 could have big problems in opening up court

21 parts. But even -- that's an extreme

22 example, but sort of day to day, it's a great

23 challenge moving people around in sort of

24 like the chess game of trying to keep --

114

1 opening up the court parts on time, keeping

2 them running through the course of the day,

3 getting people into the building, up on the

4 upper floors, through the magnetometers.

5 It's -- I can't sit here today and

6 tell you that it's not a great challenge.

7 It's difficult. It does cause problems. It

8 makes it more difficult to achieve the goals

9 of what we're trying to achieve in the court

10 system these days.

11 So I agree with you, yes.

12 SENATOR SAVINO: Thank you. I wanted

13 to at least get that out there on the record.

14 There's two things, though, that I

15 want to point out. One, with respect to the

16 collective bargaining agreement that affects

17 I think Superior Court officers -- I should

18 put my glasses back on to be able to read it

19 better. But you have -- we moved that

20 bill out of the Senate Judiciary Committee

21 this morning. It's going to go to the

22 Finance Committee, which most of us are on,

23 I'm sure we're going to move it through.

24 But the only thing that I'm perplexed

115

1 about is that bill, we estimate, is worth

2 about $43 million in -- is it current pay or

3 back pay? Or is it a combination of the two?

4 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

5 Well, it's $37 million. We amended the bill.

6 SENATOR SAVINO: Okay.

7 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

8 It's $37 million. It's -- the $43 million

9 included some prospective pay. But after

10 discussions, we amended the bill to reduce it

11 to $37 million so that it is strictly and

12 entirely retroactive pay.

13 SENATOR SAVINO: Okay. So then that

14 begs the next question, when you put in the

15 request of 2 -- whether it's 2 or 2.5 percent

16 above the spending cap, it's a debate -- why

17 not include that money as well so you don't

18 have to come back to us? I mean, knowing

19 that you have to pay that out, assuming we

20 approve it -- which of course we're going to,

21 it represents an agreement between OCA and

22 the bargaining units -- why didn't you

23 include that with the additional $44 million?

24 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

116

1 Because it's a supplemental appropriation for

2 this year's budget. You know, it's

3 retroactive pay that will be from a date this

4 fiscal year -- I think it's in early

5 November, when the contracts for the two

6 officer unions took effect, going back to

7 October 1, 2014.

8 So technically and legally, we

9 concluded that we really needed to seek a

10 supplemental appropriation to this year's

11 budget. Because it's money that would be

12 paid out this year.

13 SENATOR SAVINO: Is that because -- I

14 heard you say earlier that OCA is not allowed

15 to maintain labor representative reserves, as

16 opposed to the executive branch or city or

17 state --

18 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

19 We're not allowed to --

20 SENATOR SAVINO: -- to maintain

21 reserves to pay out labor contracts?

22 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

23 There's no way --

24 SENATOR SAVINO: That whatever you

117

1 haven't spent at the end of the year comes

2 back to the General Fund, is that --

3 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

4 Exactly.

5 SENATOR SAVINO: Okay. Then that

6 answers that question.

7 And finally, I just want to reiterate

8 a concern that was raised about the need for

9 more judges. As you know, over 10 years ago

10 Eliot Spitzer signed the legislation creating

11 the 13th Judicial District of Richmond

12 County. To date, we're still waiting for the

13 judges that we're entitled to. And in fact I

14 know Brooklyn would like the judges that

15 we've taken from them, back to them.

16 So maybe next year we can talk about

17 adding more money to the Judiciary for the

18 addition of judges around the state for those

19 of us who are waiting. Not to mention the

20 strain on the Family Court system and other

21 aspects.

22 So I want to thank you again for

23 having the nerve to ask for what you need and

24 not pretending that you can survive under the

118

1 spending cap. Now we're going to charge off

2 to help you get it.

3 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

4 Thank you.

5 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: Assemblywoman

6 Malliotakis.

7 ASSEMBLYWOMAN MALLIOTAKIS: Hi, how

8 are you.

9 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

10 Good morning.

11 ASSEMBLYWOMAN MALLIOTAKIS: Actually,

12 just to follow up on what both of my

13 colleagues from Staten Island said, does the

14 amount that you're requesting, this increase,

15 does that include the entitled judges for

16 Staten Island? Was that incorporated in the

17 ask?

18 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: No.

19 We can't create those judgeships. The

20 Legislature can create those judgeships. So

21 we wouldn't put money into our budget unless

22 there was some real understanding that new

23 judgeships are going to be created. It would

24 be too speculative to seek funding for that

119

1 before the Legislature either acted to create

2 the judgeships or there was some strong

3 indication --

4 ASSEMBLYWOMAN MALLIOTAKIS: Well, just

5 for those judgeships that we're already

6 entitled to, I think one of the steps is for

7 it to be included in the fiscal, right? We

8 have to be able to provide the funds for

9 that, and we're certainly all willing to do

10 that. We want to ensure that, you know,

11 something that we're entitled to and have

12 been for years is going to come to fruition.

13 So, you know, if that's some -- on

14 your end, if there's a way that you can

15 advocate for that to ensure that we're made

16 whole, that would be very helpful.

17 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

18 Okay, just a quick response to that.

19 Richmond County is short the number of

20 Supreme Court justices that it's entitled to

21 under the constitutional formula, but it's

22 not the only county that's short. There

23 are -- Bronx County is short. There are

24 counties across the state that don't have the

120

1 full complement of Supreme Court justices

2 that technically they're entitled to under

3 the constitutional formula.

4 So, you know, it's --

5 ASSEMBLYWOMAN MALLIOTAKIS: I

6 understand that. But also those counties

7 have other things that we don't have. You

8 know, the community courts that are in

9 Brooklyn, Manhattan and the Bronx; of course

10 our narcotics -- the Part N that's going to

11 be removed now. That is something that's a

12 concern to us, of course.

13 And you mentioned or you alluded to

14 something about a Phase 1, the closure of the

15 Narcotics N on Staten Island -- which is very

16 important, as you can imagine, with the high

17 dependency that we have on such a court;

18 3600 cases alone since -- in just a little

19 over a year. Or court dates, I should say.

20 What -- you did allude to like a Phase

21 2 coming, it seems. This is just part of a

22 Phase 1. Could you maybe give us some more

23 insight into that?

24 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

121

1 Well, I can't give you too much more

2 information. It's something that we have to

3 work on. And I agree with you, it's

4 something we need to pursue. We have a new

5 administrative judge in Richmond County,

6 Judge Desmond Green. He would take the lead

7 on this, obviously. So we have to sit down

8 with him, figure out practically what makes

9 sense. If we established a true drug

10 treatment court in Staten Island, I don't

11 think it would be a full-time court sitting a

12 full day, five days a week. I don't think

13 the caseload would support that, and I'm just

14 speaking off the top of my head.

15 But there would certainly be a need

16 for a dedicated drug court to sit maybe a

17 couple of days a week, two or three days a

18 week. And we have to figure that out.

19 ASSEMBLYWOMAN MALLIOTAKIS: Okay. I

20 mean, you did also talk about, you know, zero

21 cases going to treatment. You mentioned some

22 type of comment like that. But, you know,

23 look, if somebody's a first-time offender,

24 yes, they should be sent to treatment. But

122

1 if we're talking about somebody with multiple

2 felony convictions, then they shouldn't be

3 eligible for treatment. So I think that

4 that, you know, really is on a case-by-case

5 basis and we shouldn't be judging the

6 effectiveness of the court on that alone.

7 But I did want to add my voice to my

8 colleagues who have been advocating for that.

9 One other question, mental health

10 court. It's something that I believe is

11 important. We've had a number of incidents

12 on Staten Island that you read about in the

13 newspaper of individuals who are being killed

14 by people who are through -- in and out of

15 the criminal justice system over and over

16 again. We had two murders of Staten

17 Islanders -- we saw Police Officer Familia,

18 over the summer, murdered -- by individuals

19 who are either schizophrenic, bipolar. This

20 is a major issue. And when you look at the

21 history, you see 20, 30, 40, even, prior

22 arrests.

23 What is your opinion on the

24 effectiveness of mental health court in terms

123

1 of giving these individuals treatment before

2 they go back onto the street to hurt somebody

3 else, or even themselves? And what is your

4 opinion on how it could be expanded?

5 And also, from your perspective, are

6 there a lack of beds when you're trying to

7 send someone for, let's say, in-patient

8 treatment? You know, there were closures of

9 many mental health facilities, and so has

10 that come into consideration at all?

11 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I

12 think the mental health courts that we've

13 established, you know, in certain

14 jurisdictions in the state have proven to be

15 very effective in reducing recidivism.

16 They use the coercive leverage that

17 the judge has -- because a criminal case is

18 before the judge and the judge can, you know,

19 ultimately send the person to jail or

20 prison -- to use that leverage to get the

21 individual with the mental health problem to

22 go into treatment and, you know, address the

23 reason why he or she may be committing

24 crimes, sometimes violent crimes.

124

1 So it can be very effective. I think

2 our experience is -- you know, there are

3 limited treatment slots. You know, that's

4 always an issue. But that the mental health

5 courts we've set up, including the one in

6 Brooklyn, which has been a very successful

7 court over the years, they figure out how to

8 get people into treatment slots. And, you

9 know, they've been able to do that.

10 So maybe -- I mean, we have to look at

11 this, but maybe Staten Island could benefit

12 from a combined drug treatment/mental health

13 court. You know, maybe a single judge could

14 be trained to handle both types of cases.

15 And actually, with -- people with drug

16 addictions often have mental health issues

17 that go along with the drug addiction.

18 That's very common.

19 So it's something that, you know, I

20 think we need to work on, and we'll do that.

21 ASSEMBLYWOMAN MALLIOTAKIS: Okay.

22 Well, anyway, we can work together to

23 advocate for that. I just think that there

24 are too many people who are in need of

125

1 services and treatment that are being allowed

2 to go back on the street without any

3 supervision, without any requirements --

4 utilizing Kendra's Law, for example, for

5 mandated outpatient treatment -- and then

6 we're seeing, you know, it starts off as an

7 arrest for something small like jumping a

8 turnstile, and the next thing you know, we

9 have a murder. And there has to be some

10 more -- we have to be a little more proactive

11 in ensuring these individuals get the

12 services that they need to help themselves,

13 and also for public safety issues.

14 Thank you.

15 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

16 Thank you.

17 SENATOR GALLIVAN: We are now joined

18 by Senator Kaminsky, and Senator Rivera will

19 be next.

20 SENATOR RIVERA: Thank you,

21 Mr. Chairman, Your Honor.

22 I have two issues that I wanted to

23 just ask you about, one that we have already

24 heard about and one that we have not yet

126

1 heard about.

2 As far as the one that we have heard

3 about a little bit, earlier Assemblymember

4 Lentol was speaking to you about the presence

5 of ICE in courts across the state. And

6 because his time was running out, there was

7 one part that was -- that you started to

8 speak about related to -- you started to

9 speak about an agreement between the courts

10 and ICE related to sensitive locations. And

11 I wanted you to finish that thought just so

12 that we can know what the current parameters

13 are. And, most importantly, since you spoke

14 about apparently a new agreement or something

15 that has been reached, I wanted to get

16 clarification on what exactly you meant.

17 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

18 Well, we -- just the first part of that, I

19 wouldn't describe it as an agreement, but I

20 think in our communications with the regional

21 officials -- you know, the New York

22 City-based, Long Island, downstate-based ICE

23 regional office -- when there were -- when we

24 were seeing an increased presence of ICE in

127

1 the courthouses, you know, compared to in the

2 past, we met with them and began discussions

3 with them.

4 And we have asked them to designate,

5 you know, all courthouses as sensitive

6 locations. We have not gotten them to do

7 that, either at the regional level or the

8 national level. We've had those discussions

9 at the national level as well.

10 But what we've seen, and I think it's

11 in response to our urgings, is that ICE is

12 not going into non-criminal courthouses or

13 targeting people involved in non-criminal

14 proceedings. They've limited their presence

15 and their activities to criminal defendants,

16 you know, who have cases in criminal

17 courthouses, in criminal courtrooms.

18 So we would prefer that all the

19 courthouses, including the criminal

20 courthouses, be designated as sensitive

21 locations, and we will continue to urge that.

22 But at the moment, we think we've

23 accomplished sort of the result being that

24 the activity is limited to people who are

128

1 involved in criminal proceedings. And not

2 victims, not witnesses, but criminal

3 defendants.

4 SENATOR RIVERA: And also I want to

5 state for the record, since there was -- and

6 Senator Croci is not here, but there was a

7 conversation that he had about whether there

8 was added security necessary in certain

9 courthouses, et cetera.

10 We can all agree that ICE agents in

11 court does not mean more security, right?

12 They are there potentially to identify people

13 who are -- who would be undocumented people

14 or to arrest folks that are -- they want to

15 target for deportation. They don't provide

16 added security to the court. Would that be

17 correct?

18 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

19 They don't provide added security?

20 First of all, they're not -- we -- we

21 have our own policies on this. They're not

22 permitted to take people into custody inside

23 the courtroom. We don't allow that.

24 SENATOR RIVERA: I just wanted to

129

1 state it for the record, since Senator Croci

2 was talking about the added security that is

3 necessary in certain courtrooms in his

4 community, which I certainly appreciate, but

5 ICE does not mean security.

6 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: No,

7 those are separate issues.

8 SENATOR RIVERA: Correct.

9 So the second I have not heard much

10 about, and it is Section 510.45, of our

11 pretrial service agencies. There's an added

12 line that reads as follows in the current

13 budget proposal: "The Office of Court

14 Administration shall certify a pretrial

15 services agency or agencies in each county to

16 monitor principals released under conditions

17 of nonmonetary release."

18 Does that mean that we're privatizing

19 supervision?

20 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: No.

21 I'm familiar with that provision; I saw it.

22 These pretrial service agencies,

23 they're not government agencies, although

24 they -- pretrial services. Let me explain

130

1 this. Probation departments, many probation

2 departments around the state have a pretrial

3 services unit within their probation

4 department, so that would be a government

5 agency, the probation department. But in

6 some other jurisdictions, including New York

7 City, nonprofit organizations serve as the

8 pretrial services agency. In New York City,

9 the pretrial service agency is called the

10 criminal justice agency. It sounds like a

11 government agency, but actually it's not.

12 It's a nonprofit that contracts with the city

13 to perform the services that it provides.

14 And as I understand the Governor's

15 bill, there would be a greater role for

16 pretrial service agencies with bail reform.

17 If bail is going to be eliminated for

18 misdemeanors and nonviolent offenders, which

19 the bill provides for, there's going to be a

20 lot more of a need for supervision of

21 defendants when they're out, you know, while

22 their case is pending. And that will lead to

23 a larger role for pretrial service agencies.

24 And as I understand the bill, it would

131

1 require the Office of Court Administration to

2 certify, you know, that the agency has the

3 resources and the expertise to perform that

4 role. And if that's what the Legislature

5 wants to do, you know, we could take on that

6 role. I think that would work out fine.

7 SENATOR RIVERA: I might have a

8 followup later, Your Honor, but thank you so

9 much.

10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

11 Sure.

12 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: Assemblyman

13 Steck.

14 ASSEMBLYMAN STECK: Judge, I want to

15 ask you first a question about the electronic

16 filing. And that is, is this something OCA

17 designed itself or something that OCA

18 contracted out?

19 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: You

20 know, that's a very good question. Because

21 it goes back -- our e-filing system goes back

22 many years. It started in the '90s on a

23 small scale, and it's been expanded. And we

24 do expand each year.

132

1 I mean -- I'll say this with a caveat.

2 I believe in the beginning we used

3 consultants to help us design it. But I'll

4 have to check that and I'll get back to you.

5 ASSEMBLYMAN STECK: Well, I think

6 that kind of answers my question. I don't

7 know if you've ever looked at the current

8 state of the federal e-filing system.

9 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I'm

10 not familiar with federal e-filing system.

11 ASSEMBLYMAN STECK: Well, I would

12 suggest that someone from OCA do so, because

13 it is incredibly simple and easy to use and

14 covers a wide variety -- every conceivable

15 topic in the federal system. Whereas our

16 experience with the state system is that it

17 is incredibly cumbersome and difficult to

18 use.

19 The other thing is I don't know if

20 you're aware that now that New York County

21 has e-filing, were you aware that you're

22 still required to hand-deliver papers to a

23 part? And is that really consistent with the

24 objectives of an e-filing system?

133

1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

2 Well, that's a good question. And actually I

3 sit in the civil term in New York County,

4 so -- and by the way, I don't find e-filing

5 difficult at all. Now, I'm not filing

6 papers, and that may be where the difficulty

7 arises, but --

8 ASSEMBLYMAN STECK: That's what we're

9 talking about.

10 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

11 Okay. But calling up the documents, which in

12 my case is -- I find very easy.

13 ASSEMBLYMAN STECK: No, the issue is

14 how to file them, not how to review them once

15 they're filed.

16 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: So

17 we will look at that.

18 But in terms of the hard copies --

19 look, you know, a lot of judges are not

20 youngsters, maybe is a polite way to put it.

21 You know, it's an older group, for the most

22 part. And a lot of judges didn't grow up

23 with computers, and I think pretty much every

24 judge -- there may be a few exceptions --

134

1 don't use the computer.

2 But this is the problem you raise

3 about the requirement of -- and not all

4 judges require hard copies, but I think many

5 do. I think it's a function of people, sort

6 of an older class of people who aren't --

7 ASSEMBLYMAN STECK: That wouldn't

8 explain why you can't FedEx the papers to

9 that part when they want paper copies. You

10 have to actually hire someone in the City of

11 New York to deliver it.

12 But I think we could go on to another

13 topic, because I have a very short period of

14 time here. And that is you have been

15 repeating over and over and over that you've

16 lost 2,000 positions since a previous year,

17 and I think that school districts statewide

18 have probably lost a lot more positions than

19 that. But the filings in the court system

20 have been going down from 2006, from

21 4.5 million filings to 3.4 million filings in

22 2016.

23 Now, I recognize that there may be

24 regional differences here. In the area, in

135

1 the Capital District, if you go into a

2 courthouse you can hear a pin drop. We had

3 15 trials two years ago in the entire Third

4 Judicial District, civil trials, which is a

5 seven-county area.

6 So my question is, has any

7 consideration been given to instead of

8 assigning Court of Claims judges to hear a

9 lot of cases in the Capital District where

10 the Court of Claims is, to perhaps using them

11 in places like the Bronx, where my colleague

12 Mr. Dinowitz has been complaining of a

13 backlog? We don't appear to have that here,

14 and I think some of the problems that

15 Governor Cuomo has spoken about really do

16 exist in the Capital Region.

17 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

18 Well, you raised a lot of points; I don't

19 know if I can respond to all of them.

20 It's not necessarily a bad thing that

21 there are fewer trials. It's good when cases

22 settle. There's a lot of benefits when cases

23 settle -- to the courts, to the litigants, to

24 the parties. That's not necessarily a bad

136

1 thing. Although some cases have to go to

2 trial, and we wouldn't want to have a system

3 with no trials.

4 ASSEMBLYMAN STECK: Well, you can of

5 course grant summary judgment, then you don't

6 have a trial, whether it's warranted or not.

7 It's not all about settlements.

8 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I'm

9 talking about settlements, not summary

10 judgments.

11 ASSEMBLYMAN STECK: Well, I think

12 anybody who's ever practiced law believes

13 very strongly in settlements, so no one is

14 suggesting that settlements aren't desirable.

15 I think the point, Judge, is that we have

16 such few trials, I'm raising the question as

17 to, at least in my area of the state, whether

18 the courts really are overburdened and some

19 of the resources are maldistributed and might

20 be better used, say, in Mr. Dinowitz's area.

21 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

22 Well, that's not a novel idea. We've done

23 that periodically. We've reassigned judges

24 from upstate to downstate, including in Bronx

137

1 County. And it's not a panacea, but it is

2 something that can be helpful. Although it's

3 not without expense, because that generally

4 requires, under our rules, picking up the

5 accommodation costs and the transportation

6 costs of taking someone who lives in Albany

7 and assigning them to Bronx County or

8 New York County.

9 By the way, we've been criticized in

10 newspapers in New York City for the cost of

11 that, but that's fine.

12 So it's one aspect of perhaps an

13 overall solution to the problems that we

14 discussed this morning about judges in some

15 jurisdictions having very, very large case

16 inventories. So it's one possible solution

17 to a much larger problem.

18 ASSEMBLYMAN STECK: Well, I'm kind of

19 curious as to why our state court budget is

20 14 percent higher than the State of

21 California, which is larger geographically, a

22 very complicated state with more people.

23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

24 That's not true. That's not true.

138

1 ASSEMBLYMAN STECK: But in any event,

2 I apologize for interrupting. Fortunately

3 I'm not in court, so I don't get to be

4 penalized for that. But thank you very much.

5 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

6 Thank you.

7 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Judge, I'd like to

8 focus on bail. Regarding bail in its current

9 form and the laws revolving around it, do you

10 have any opinions about how it's currently

11 working?

12 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

13 Well, I would say it could work better.

14 There are too many people in certain parts of

15 the state who are detained on very low-level

16 bail, people who are not posing a threat to

17 public safety, charged with low-level

18 nonviolent offenses where bail is set at very

19 low levels and they -- I'm talking about

20 $1,000, $750, $500 -- and they can't make

21 even that low amount. And the bail bond

22 industry doesn't offer bail bonds for very

23 low bail because there's no incentive for

24 them, no profit incentive for them in very

139

1 low bail.

2 So I think that there are more people

3 who are detained who shouldn't be, and that

4 we need alternatives to that. And again, I'm

5 talking about people who are not -- do not

6 pose a threat to public safety.

7 At the other end, because our bail

8 statute -- we're one of only four or five

9 states in the country that does not permit a

10 judge, in making a bail determination, to

11 take into account the defendant's risk to

12 public safety -- that that needs to be

13 addressed also.

14 So I think there are problems within

15 our bail statute that are very different. On

16 the one hand, people being detained who

17 really don't have to be detained; on the

18 other hand, judges not being able, when they

19 make a bail determination, to take risk to

20 public safety into account, as judges can in

21 45 of the 50 states in the country but not in

22 New York. Different problems, but both

23 problems that could be addressed in an

24 intelligent approach to reforming bail in the

140

1 state.

2 SENATOR GALLIVAN: All right, thank

3 you.

4 No, I do understand -- I'm aware that

5 judges are prohibited from considering risk

6 to public safety. But it's my

7 understanding -- and I can't recite them, I

8 apologize, and I won't put you on the spot

9 either to do that -- but that there's -- I

10 think the current Criminal Procedure Law

11 provides for eight or nine different

12 options --

13 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

14 Yes.

15 SENATOR GALLIVAN: -- for judges.

16 One, of course, is releasing somebody on

17 their own recognizance, another of which is

18 unsecured bail, although I understand the

19 paperwork is a little bit more extensive.

20 My question is regarding -- now we'll

21 put that issue of public safety aside and

22 just focus on that second area that you had

23 talked about, the first portion of it. Would

24 it be your opinion -- or would it be fair to

141

1 say that the judges already have those tools

2 to make certain of those changes as far as

3 the release on recognizance, or unsecured

4 bail, or utilizing one of the other options?

5 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

6 Yeah. And the partially secured bail bonds,

7 as well, are an option.

8 There are -- I agree with you

9 100 percent, there are options in the

10 existing statute that could help to address

11 this problem that are not being successfully

12 utilized. And we have tried to get -- look,

13 bail is an individual decision of a judge

14 exercising his or her discretion. The Office

15 of Court Administration can't tell judges how

16 to make those decisions. But we have

17 provided training on the bail statute and

18 alternatives to bail, including the options

19 in the existing law. And we've encouraged

20 and urged judges to look at the statute more

21 broadly and not limit their decisions just to

22 cash or ROR or an insurance company bail

23 bond, and to use some of the other options in

24 the statute.

142

1 So I agree with you that there are

2 partial solutions in the existing law that if

3 they were taken more advantage of, you know,

4 would help make a contribution to solving the

5 problem.

6 SENATOR GALLIVAN: And if we had to

7 prioritize -- I mean, that being the case,

8 should we then be focusing on the issue of

9 the threat to public safety and trying to

10 resolve that issue?

11 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I

12 think we should be doing all of these things.

13 We should be looking at the -- figure out how

14 to get judges to use more of the options

15 available in existing law. We should be

16 looking at the problem of low bail being set

17 for people who pose no threat to public

18 safety, who can't make that bail. And we

19 should be looking at the fact that judges

20 can't take risk to public safety into account

21 when they make these decisions.

22 SENATOR GALLIVAN: My last question

23 has to do with the roles of the district

24 attorneys when it comes to the judge setting

143

1 bail. What role do they currently have, and

2 in your opinion, what role should they have?

3 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

4 Well, I think the role that they have is to

5 make their recommendation based on, you know,

6 the information they have before them and be

7 helpful to the judge by making a sound

8 recommendation as to the bail decision. I

9 think that's always been their role, and that

10 should continue to be their role.

11 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Thank you.

12 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: Assemblyman

13 Lentol.

14 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Yes, Judge, I

15 didn't want to speak again, but I just wanted

16 to offer a comment on what you said about

17 bail and public safety.

18 I believe that -- I completely

19 disagree with you. I believe that judges

20 take into account now the public safety

21 aspect of a defendant who's in front of them,

22 and it doesn't need to be in the statute.

23 And the reason I say that is a very simple

24 one: Because if you put it in the statute,

144

1 you'll have more problems in letting people

2 out than you know, because no judge will want

3 to make a decision regarding bail. If public

4 safety is in the statute, they'll be on the

5 hook for letting somebody out who commits

6 another crime.

7 So I believe that the framers of the

8 penal law when it was constructed in 1965 had

9 a great deal of difficulty in making a

10 determination as to whether public safety

11 should be put in this new statute that they

12 were creating -- they were all Republicans,

13 by the way -- and they decided against it

14 just because of what I said, that they could

15 leave it to the judges to decide. And most

16 judges will determine, in a case before them,

17 whether or not public safety would be

18 violated by a defendant who's before them and

19 make their decision accordingly regarding the

20 bail.

21 And you can comment on that if you'd

22 like, but I think if we -- we're going to go

23 down a very poor road that we don't want to

24 travel on because we're going to find out

145

1 that judges will let nobody out, and we will

2 have just the opposite effect of bail reform,

3 we'll have bail where nobody gets out.

4 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

5 Well, I mean, I guess the premise of that

6 view is that judges can't be trusted,

7 which --

8 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: No, no, it's not

9 that. It's not that they can't be trusted,

10 it's just that they can be trusted now. They

11 won't be trusted if they're required to

12 consider public safety, because they're not

13 going to be the ones to make the

14 determination as to whether public safety

15 will be violated because of this person

16 before them, and then committed a new crime

17 while he's out on bail.

18 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: So

19 you're saying judges are not following the

20 law now. That even though they're not

21 permitted, they are taking public safety into

22 account.

23 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: I think I am

24 saying that, yes.

146

1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: all

2 right. Well ...

3 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: Assemblywoman

4 Joyner.

5 ASSEMBLYWOMAN JOYNER: Okay, good

6 afternoon, Judge. I have two questions.

7 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: Is

8 it the afternoon?

9 ASSEMBLYWOMAN JOYNER: Yes, it's 12:00

10 now.

11 (Laughter.)

12 ASSEMBLYWOMAN JOYNER: The first

13 question is I was informed that there is a

14 proposal to move the Housing Court in the

15 Bronx into 851 Grand Concourse. I wanted to

16 know what's the rationale behind that. I do

17 see that this is going to create a lot of

18 challenges to implement.

19 And my second question is, you know,

20 we're happy to hear about the new drug court

21 that will be coming to the Bronx, but I

22 wanted to know, does this include any drug

23 use offense, certain drug use offense, and

24 what's the rationale as to why we're not

147

1 covering all drug use offenses?

2 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: The

3 first question is yes, we're going to be

4 swapping Housing Court with Civil Court. And

5 the reason is very simple. We have 16

6 Housing Court judges in the Housing Court

7 building. We have, I believe, seven,

8 possibly eight -- half as many, or less than

9 half as many -- Civil Court judges in

10 851 Grand Concourse. The Civil Court

11 operation has more space for seven or eight

12 judges than the Housing Court building has

13 for 16 judges. I mean, this is really a

14 no-brainer.

15 And Housing Court is at a turning

16 point with the universal access law that was

17 enacted by the City Council, and we're going

18 to be seeing more and more lawyers in Housing

19 Court, there's going to be more litigation in

20 Housing Court as a result of that.

21 And Housing Court, in its current

22 building in the Bronx, it's just completely

23 inadequate -- probably almost from day one,

24 but it's gotten worse. It's just a

148

1 completely insufficient space for 16 judges

2 and all the litigation that goes on in

3 Housing Court.

4 So to us, this was a no-brainer just

5 to make the swap. And there will be some

6 disruption, obviously, as a result of that.

7 But in the end, we'll have Housing Court with

8 more space and Civil Court with less space

9 but plenty of space to conduct Civil Court

10 operations.

11 ASSEMBLYWOMAN JOYNER: And the second

12 question?

13 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: The

14 opioid initiative in the Bronx is limited to

15 individuals with an opioid addiction or at

16 risk of an opioid addiction. And we have

17 treatment -- we do have a treatment court in

18 the Bronx, it's in the Supreme Court, not in

19 the Criminal Court. I believe I'm correct

20 when I say that, I just wanted to check that

21 before.

22 ASSEMBLYWOMAN JOYNER: Yeah, I'm not

23 sure that that's correct.

24 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I'm

149

1 going to have to look into that.

2 ASSEMBLYWOMAN JOYNER: Okay. Because

3 on the record, I just think that if it's

4 going to be a true drug court, it should

5 cover all drug use offenses.

6 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

7 Yeah, and we do have a drug treatment part

8 for felony drug cases. I don't think we have

9 one for misdemeanor cases in the Criminal

10 Court, with the exception of this new opioid

11 court that we've established. And maybe we

12 need a dedicated treatment part in the Bronx

13 for misdemeanors as well, and that's

14 something that I'll take a look at.

15 ASSEMBLYWOMAN JOYNER: Thank you.

16 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: Assemblyman

17 Morinello.

18 ASSEMBLYMAN MORINELLO: Good morning.

19 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

20 Good morning.

21 ASSEMBLYMAN MORINELLO: Or good

22 afternoon.

23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

24 Good afternoon.

150

1 ASSEMBLYMAN MORINELLO: Just briefly,

2 I want to swing back to the standards and

3 goals. I want to commend the Office of Court

4 Administration for the history of being open

5 to the quality-of-life courts. Drug court

6 was approved many, many years ago. We then

7 added the mental health court, domestic

8 violence court, we have the opiate addiction

9 court, which is new, and just before that,

10 the veterans court.

11 I think it's recognized that these

12 programs can take somewhere up to two, two

13 and a half years sometimes for the defendants

14 to go through the programs. How are these

15 reported, and how are they adjusted for

16 standards and goals so that they don't either

17 go against a judge's record or affect your

18 results in trying to expedite court cases?

19 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I

20 think that's a good question.

21 In most of the courts, not all, in

22 most of the cases in most of the courts

23 there's a guilty plea entered. And once a

24 guilty plea is entered, that's a disposition.

151

1 So the standards and goals framework doesn't

2 apply, it's considered a disposition.

3 ASSEMBLYMAN MORINELLO: Is eliminated,

4 correct.

5 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: And

6 I think as you probably know, if the

7 defendant then goes through the course,

8 completes the course of treatment and

9 successfully goes through that, often the

10 charge will be dismissed or -- the plea will

11 be vacated, the charge will be dismissed or

12 there'll be a conviction of a lesser offense.

13 So for most of the cases, there's a

14 guilty plea and the standards and goals no

15 longer applies.

16 In the instances like the opioid part,

17 where there's no guilty plea, the prosecution

18 is deferred. The standards and goals

19 timetables, you know, stops at that point and

20 then resumes if the prosecution resumes. So

21 essentially in the problem-solving courts the

22 cases come out of the standards and goals

23 structure.

24 ASSEMBLYMAN MORINELLO: So there is a

152

1 recognition and there is a separate reporting

2 column for those.

3 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

4 Exactly.

5 ASSEMBLYMAN MORINELLO: And that has

6 been recently, I understand, it hasn't been

7 the situation going back a couple of years.

8 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: It

9 may be.

10 ASSEMBLYMAN MORINELLO: Okay. I'm

11 glad you recognize that.

12 Number two, in the presentation

13 there's a section that discusses access to

14 justice, and within that, limited English

15 proficiency. I know when I was on the bench

16 we had difficulty getting interpreters, and

17 many times it was claimed as an economic

18 situation. Has OCA looked at -- is any of

19 this additional money for interpreters, or

20 are they coming up with creative ways and

21 possibly video arraignment or

22 representations?

23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

24 Yeah, we -- look, the language access to the

153

1 courts, as we call it, is a very high

2 priority for us. And across the country

3 every court system is dealing with this,

4 increasing numbers of people coming into the

5 courts with limited English proficiency.

6 And we -- it has been a real challenge

7 for us, but we -- believe me when I tell you

8 that we prioritize this issue. And we need

9 to hire more interpreters who are our

10 employees, staff employees. We also rely on

11 per-diem interpreters, interpreters who go on

12 a list, and we have an electronic system to

13 schedule them. And particularly in --

14 there's so many languages spoken in the

15 courts in this state. In Queens alone, I

16 think there are over 150 different languages

17 spoken.

18 We can't hire our own employees as

19 interpreters for 150 languages. In some of

20 the languages, the need for that interpreter

21 doesn't come up on a regular basis. And so

22 we rely on these per-diem interpreters.

23 They're not court employees, but they're

24 certified and on a list that we provide. And

154

1 we call them in in advance when we know that

2 there's a case on the calendar requiring an

3 interpreter in a particular language.

4 But still, that doesn't meet the full

5 need, and we're relying more and more on

6 remote interpreting, where the interpreter is

7 at a remote location. LanguageLine is one of

8 the outfits that -- it's a private company

9 that provides this service, and there are

10 other organizations that provide this

11 service.

12 And, you know, we need to sort of

13 think very broadly and expansively, you know,

14 beyond just our own court interpreter

15 employees, because that alone is never going

16 to meet the increasing demand for court

17 interpreting in the courts. Believe me, it's

18 a challenging issue, but it's critically,

19 critically important. Because, you know,

20 it's really -- if someone is a participant in

21 a court proceeding and can't understand

22 what's going on, that's as bad as coming into

23 court without a lawyer -- or maybe it's even

24 worse than that. It probably is even worse

155

1 than that.

2 So it's a whole other component of our

3 access to justice, and a growing challenge.

4 And I can assure you that we're committed to

5 meeting it as best we can.

6 ASSEMBLYMAN MORINELLO: Well, I liked

7 when you said remote, because the difficulty

8 many times is at the arraignment part, and

9 we're talking about bail adjustments. But if

10 you can't even arraign them, it's difficult

11 to then release them until there's an

12 arraignment. So with modern technology, I do

13 appreciate that you look in the study on

14 remote. Thank you very much.

15 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

16 Thank you.

17 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: Assemblyman

18 Blake.

19 ASSEMBLYMAN BLAKE: Good afternoon,

20 Judge.

21 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

22 Good afternoon.

23 ASSEMBLYMAN BLAKE: As a

24 representative from the South Bronx, where

156

1 the court's actually in our district, I first

2 want to go on record in agreeance {sic} with

3 Assemblywoman Joyner and others. It is

4 surprising to me that opioid would be the

5 only drug considered in the drug court. It

6 seems to be a continual preparation of what

7 we're seeing in terms of opioid being seen as

8 a more critical drug than drugs that have

9 been impacting communities of color. So we'd

10 greatly ask for that to be considered.

11 Judge, have you seen the memo from the

12 Legal Aid Society on January 22nd of this

13 year in response to criminal discovery and

14 discovery for justice?

15 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

16 I've seen the Governor's bill. I haven't

17 seen the Legal Aid memo. I think I'm

18 familiar with the concerns they have, though.

19 ASSEMBLYMAN BLAKE: Absolutely. So as

20 someone who -- you know, Kalief Browder was a

21 constituent of ours, his mother was a

22 constituent of ours, the challenges that

23 we've seen repeatedly.

24 I'm interested in a few things. Can

157

1 you please explain the rationale of the

2 Executive as to why the defense would have to

3 release information without it being

4 redacted; however, the prosecution could

5 redact information?

6 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

7 Well, first of all, I'm not in a position to

8 defend that bill. It's not our bill. I said

9 earlier, we have been advocating for criminal

10 discovery reform, the court system, for

11 25 years. So I'm not in a position, nor do I

12 want to defend the Governor's bill.

13 But I think there is an issue with

14 criminal discovery that is -- and I'm not a

15 prosecutor, but I know is very important to

16 prosecutors, and that's avoiding danger to

17 witnesses.

18 ASSEMBLYMAN BLAKE: To the witnesses.

19 So -- so, Your Honor, then, so in that

20 instance, as a judge, do you believe, in your

21 personal capacity, it is fair that one side

22 would share information without it being

23 redacted while the other does not?

24 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I

158

1 think you could argue that that's not the

2 best approach, but --

3 ASSEMBLYMAN BLAKE: I understand, Your

4 Honor. Thank you, sir.

5 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: --

6 you might want to give a judge, you know, the

7 capacity to review that decision.

8 ASSEMBLYMAN BLAKE: Understand. But

9 we are acknowledging that it is creating an

10 unfair dynamic there.

11 Secondly, do you equally have an

12 individual opinion in terms of the timetable

13 itself? So it says, and I'm reading in

14 Section 240 -- understanding that this is not

15 your bill, but it's for context -- that

16 within 15 days of the prosecution's

17 disclosure, information would need to be

18 released.

19 And it seems, again, that an unfair

20 dynamic is being created that the burden is

21 being placed on the defense to take actions

22 that the prosecution does not have to take in

23 that same timetable.

24 In your individual capacity, is it

159

1 fair that a proposal is coming forward that

2 the defense actually has to do things that

3 the prosecution does not?

4 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

5 Well, look, I think just to answer your

6 question generally, the more information that

7 can be disclosed, as early as possible, you

8 know, should be the goal. And from the court

9 system's perspective, as I said earlier, that

10 will lead to earlier dispositions, which is

11 something that we're very interested in and

12 focused on. The more information that can be

13 disclosed, you know, at the earliest possible

14 stage, should be the goal.

15 ASSEMBLYMAN BLAKE: Understand. So in

16 your individual capacity, again, from what

17 you have heard as of now from the current

18 proposal as relates to open discovery and the

19 current implementation of how it works, your

20 assessment of what is working versus not

21 working when it comes to open discovery is

22 what?

23 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: My

24 view of what's working in the current

160

1 process?

2 ASSEMBLYMAN BLAKE: Correct.

3 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: My

4 view is that there is information that is

5 disclosed much too late in the process,

6 including on the very eve of trial. A lot of

7 the critical discovery does not need to be

8 disclosed until that very, very, very late

9 stage, and that's disruptive to the court

10 system, it's not the fairest approach, and

11 that should be reformed. That's my -- that's

12 not only my opinion, I think that's the

13 institutional position of the court system.

14 ASSEMBLYMAN BLAKE: Grateful for the

15 answer, Your Honor.

16 Going back to initially what we were

17 talking about in terms of the courts and the

18 decisions on the courts, I'm just still

19 trying to get a clear understanding as to why

20 a drug court is being considered in this

21 aspect, and only opioids is recognized -- and

22 let me be very clear -- is a critical issue

23 that has to be addressed. Why would that be

24 the only one being assessed, as opposed to

161

1 all misdemeanor drug violations that could be

2 considered?

3 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS: I'm

4 going to have to look into that. I know we

5 have a dedicated drug court in the Supreme

6 Court in the Bronx for felonies. We started

7 this opioid part in the criminal court for

8 misdemeanor cases. And I have to look into

9 why we don't just generally have a drug court

10 for misdemeanors as a whole. You know,

11 non-opioid drug situations in the Bronx.

12 ASSEMBLYMAN BLAKE: Understand.

13 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

14 There may be a very good reason for that, but

15 I have to find out.

16 ASSEMBLYMAN BLAKE: Would ask that

17 that gets submitted back to us so we can have

18 an understanding of the rationale.

19 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

20 Absolutely.

21 ASSEMBLYMAN BLAKE: And just in

22 conclusion, knowing the time is short, there

23 is a continual dynamic and frustration -- and

24 I'm not taking this out towards you, but on

162

1 the collective system -- that proposals are

2 looked at that are consistently hurting black

3 and brown communities on a repeated and

4 continual basis, without rationale as to why

5 we would not be assessing it in totality.

6 So when we look at open discovery, we

7 look at bail reform, we look at speedy trial,

8 there has to be a more general assessment of

9 assessing things in totality. And given the

10 numbers in our district in particular, would

11 ask that you all come back to us with the

12 rationale.

13 Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you,

14 Chairman.

15 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

16 Thank you.

17 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

18 That concludes the testimony today.

19 We appreciate your patience and taking so

20 many questions. And good luck. Thank you.

21 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARKS:

22 Thank you very much.

23 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Our next speaker is

24 Robert Tembeckjian, administrator and counsel

163

1 for the New York State Commission on Judicial

2 Conduct. Welcome.

3 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN: Thank you,

4 Senator.

5 And I thank those of you who have been

6 meeting with me and making your staffs

7 available to me throughout the last couple of

8 years, so that we have a little bit of an

9 understanding of one another before I show up

10 to testify.

11 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Very impressive.

12 We have your testimony, and you don't have

13 it, so you're following the directions and

14 you're going to summarize, which is great.

15 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN: I am, and

16 I appreciate it very much.

17 Public confidence in the court system

18 requires that the judiciary be not only

19 independent but accountable. In New York, as

20 in all other states, there is an independent

21 mechanism for reviewing the conduct of judges

22 and, where appropriate, to discipline those

23 judges for ethical violations. In New York

24 that role, under the constitution, falls to

164

1 the State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

2 We've been at it in our current form since

3 1978, replacing a more temporary situation

4 that was established by the Legislature until

5 the constitution created the body that we now

6 have.

7 For the last eight years, under a

8 system in which our caseload has been growing

9 rather substantially, our resources have been

10 flat, which has effectively meant that our

11 staff has been reduced and the resources that

12 we have to bear on the significant caseload

13 that we have, have been under significant

14 strain.

15 In the last year alone, we had close

16 to 2100 complaints, which is an annual record

17 for us. We've never had more than that. At

18 the same time, since 2011, when this era of

19 stagnant budgeting for us began, we've lost

20 19 percent of our staff. We've gone from 51

21 to 41 and a half. Last year I lost three

22 attorneys, two to retirement, one who

23 returned to the private sector, and was only

24 able to replace them with a half-time

165

1 position.

2 This has had an adverse effect on our

3 ability to conclude our matters in a timely

4 manner. Although last year we publicly

5 disciplined 16 judges and confidentially

6 cautioned 29, we conducted over 330

7 investigations and over 480 preliminary

8 inquiries, which is a substantial number on a

9 staff that has been gradually reduced.

10 Now, the Division of Budget, through

11 the Executive Budget, has recommended for us

12 an increase this year of $112,000. That's on

13 an overall budget of slightly under

14 $5.6 million. That will not be enough to

15 keep us even. Just to maintain our current

16 level of resources, we would need an increase

17 of $228,000 -- and that would not allow for

18 the addition of any new staff to make up for

19 the losses, and it would not likely lead to

20 an increase in the disposition time of our

21 matters. And that is simply unfair to the

22 innocent judge who's waiting exoneration and

23 to the public which expects -- and rightfully

24 should get -- the expeditious disposition of

166

1 those cases in which misconduct has occurred

2 and the judge should be disciplined.

3 I asked in my request to the Division

4 of Budget for an increase of a little over

5 $540,000 this year, which would allow us to

6 get our staff up to 45 -- not to our full

7 complement of 50 -- and to reverse some of

8 the deleterious effects that this era of

9 stagnant budgeting has created for us.

10 This is the first time in eight years

11 that the Executive Budget has proposed an

12 increase for us, and for that I am extremely

13 grateful. But as I've indicated, the amount

14 that's been recommended for us is not going

15 to be enough for us just to maintain the

16 status quo. So if we don't get a little more

17 assistance from the Legislature, which in the

18 past has demonstrated its willingness to do

19 that for us, we're going to have even more

20 attrition and an even slower disposition rate

21 as the overall caseload continues to expand.

22 Now, I realize that these numbers in

23 the overall context of a $168 billion State

24 Budget are almost inconsequential. But for a

167

1 small agency like ours, and for others that

2 might be similarly situated, these relatively

3 small numbers have an outsize effect, because

4 as you might imagine, a flat budget is

5 effectively regressive. Because in order to

6 meet the increasing obligations year to year

7 in rent, in salaries, and so forth, we have

8 to make cuts in order to make do on the same

9 dollar amount.

10 The only way that I've been able to do

11 that in the last eight years has been through

12 attrition, and that has had a negative impact

13 on our ability to do the job.

14 So as much as I appreciate, under very

15 difficult financial circumstances, that the

16 Executive Budget has proposed a modest

17 increase for us, I'm hoping to find some

18 sympathy in the Legislature and that, with

19 all of the importuning of other worthy causes

20 for your time and resources, that you find

21 some way to at least partially supplement

22 what the Executive has recommended for us so

23 that we can at least stay even and, with a

24 little bit of luck, replenish some of the

168

1 diminished resources that we've had to live

2 with over the years and do our job a little

3 more efficiently and expeditiously.

4 So with that, and the statistical

5 analysis that is in my statement, I again

6 appreciate the time that you've given me

7 today and that you and your staffs have given

8 me in the run-up to this proceeding so that

9 we can share our views and hopefully I might

10 be able to find some help.

11 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

12 So I had a few questions. And I

13 appreciate your testimony about your concerns

14 regarding funding levels. One of the things

15 that is outlined in the Governor's budget has

16 to do with judges leaving work early.

17 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN: Yes.

18 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: And is that

19 something that the commission would track or

20 enforce? How would that work?

21 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN: Well,

22 first of all, I'm not aware that there's any

23 widespread issue of judges who are not

24 conscientious and doing the job. In our

169

1 experience, we find that the overwhelming

2 majority of judges in New York are indeed

3 conscientious and are very serious about the

4 work that they do.

5 To the extent that there have been

6 individual complaints of judges who are not

7 doing the job, when brought to our attention,

8 the commission deals with them. For example,

9 last year we had a case, publicly reported,

10 in which a judge had not been attending to

11 his duties for a period of over two years.

12 It turned out that the judge had profound

13 medical issues. And when we became aware of

14 it, we negotiated with the judge a retirement

15 in a relatively short period of time,

16 indicating that the alternative would be a

17 full-fledged disciplinary proceeding for

18 failure to perform the duties of office,

19 which is a constitutional requirement of the

20 judiciary.

21 So when we are made aware of issues

22 involving judges who are not performing the

23 duties of course in a consistently

24 appropriate and diligent manner, we have the

170

1 ability and the resources to deal with it.

2 I also indicated in my written remarks

3 that if the Governor's proposal is enacted, I

4 predict that it will cause a further increase

5 in our workload because his proposal is for

6 the Comptroller to audit the workday of the

7 judges. But the Comptroller doesn't have the

8 constitutional authority to take any action

9 upon finding that a particular judge has been

10 derelict in his or her responsibilities. The

11 only constitutional entity that has the

12 authority to act on such a complaint is the

13 Judicial Conduct Commission.

14 As I indicated, we have done so in the

15 past when these types of complaints have been

16 brought to our attention. We're equipped to

17 do it. We don't have the resources, nor do I

18 think it would be appropriate, to fan out

19 across the state and literally monitor the

20 workday of 1250 judges in the state-paid

21 court system, particularly without some

22 significant showing that there has been a

23 real problem.

24 We deal with the individual problems

171

1 when they're brought to our attention, we do

2 it quite effectively and efficiently, and I

3 think that's a system that ought not to be

4 disturbed -- but it ought to be appropriately

5 funded so that we can do our job.

6 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: So what you're

7 saying is you respond to individual cases

8 when they are reported to you, but you

9 haven't seen any trends of widespread abuse

10 of the system, judges not being at the job,

11 and that sort of thing.

12 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN: That's

13 correct. I'm not aware of any such

14 widespread problem. As Judge Marks indicated

15 in his testimony, in any group of 1250 or

16 1300 individuals, judges or otherwise, there

17 are going to be some who are not as

18 effectively performing their duties as they

19 should.

20 To the extent that that does present

21 an issue, the Judicial Conduct Commission

22 does deal with it. I think we've shown that

23 we can deal with it. And when properly

24 resourced, we can do it as efficiently as

172

1 possible.

2 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Just curious, there

3 was a pretty notorious case in Rochester

4 about a judge that was -- that actually was

5 driving drunk and failed to show up to work.

6 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN: Yes.

7 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Is that something

8 that the commission was involved in?

9 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN: It has

10 been publicly reported that we have, and we

11 are. And in terms of a specific comment on a

12 pending matter, that's pretty much as far as

13 I can go, because we do have a

14 confidentiality mandate in our statute that

15 is pretty airtight.

16 But let me just as a general

17 proposition -- and you might apply this to

18 any particular case that you've read about in

19 the newspapers -- one of the reasons why it

20 appears to take so long for the commission to

21 reach a disciplinary disposition on a matter,

22 even when there is a lot of public notoriety

23 for it, is because we literally don't have

24 the resources to do the job as efficiently as

173

1 we do.

2 And just one simple example that every

3 lawyer will appreciate. We don't have the

4 funding in our budget for stenographic

5 services. And of course we're required to

6 produce a transcript for every bit of

7 testimony that we take. We take 12,000 or so

8 pages of transcribed testimony every year

9 during investigations and during disciplinary

10 hearings. All of those transcript pages are

11 transcribed in-house by our secretaries

12 because we don't have the funding to go

13 outside.

14 A case such as the one that you

15 mentioned might have been disposed of six

16 months ago if we had the resources

17 commensurate with our responsibility.

18 Because just the physical task of producing

19 transcripts to the extent that we generate

20 them every year can add two to six months to

21 the disposition of a case. If there's an

22 investigation that results in a hearing,

23 transcription services would go a long way

24 towards speeding the process up. And we

174

1 just -- we don't have a nickel for it.

2 And the other aspect of this is the

3 very confidentiality that prohibits me from

4 discussing in detail a matter that might be

5 pending, the commission itself has been

6 advocating since 1978 that when formal

7 disciplinary charges are proposed, that its

8 proceedings at that point should be public,

9 as they are in a majority of states, so that

10 the public and the Legislature can see what

11 it is we're doing as we're doing it. So that

12 one can see all of the due process

13 obligations that we fulfill and that we

14 afford to a judge.

15 It should not be easy to remove a

16 judge from office. It shouldn't happen

17 without significant due process protections.

18 But under the veil of secrecy which we are

19 statutorily obliged to observe, you and the

20 public can't see what it is we're doing as

21 we're doing it to be satisfied -- as I think

22 you would be -- that we are on the job and

23 doing the best we can with the resources that

24 we have.

175

1 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

2 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: Okay, we have

3 35 more witnesses, so I'm going to make this

4 pretty brief.

5 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN: I'm very

6 aware of that, and not a problem.

7 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: And I'm sure

8 that our answers will also be brief.

9 I just want to get the numbers

10 straight. So the increase proposed is

11 $112,000 for the budget?

12 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN: That's in

13 the Executive Budget. That's less than the

14 $500,000 I asked for --

15 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: No, I

16 understand. But that's what the Executive

17 Budget --

18 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN: That's

19 what the Executive is.

20 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: How much of

21 that is going towards rent increase?

22 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN: $78,000.

23 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: So $6500 a

24 month increase in rent.

176

1 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN: Yes.

2 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: What's the old

3 rent?

4 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN: I'm sorry?

5 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: What was the

6 rent?

7 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN: Our rent

8 obligations in New York City and in Rochester

9 are a little over a million dollars a year.

10 And that's negotiated by the Office of

11 General Services -- which, by the way, did a

12 very, very good job in negotiating this new

13 lease for us. Real estate, as you know, in

14 New York City is rather expensive. The

15 cost --

16 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: There's plenty

17 of space in the Bronx where you might get a

18 better deal, just so you know.

19 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN: That might

20 be so. We've been in Manhattan and, by rule,

21 our headquarters are in Manhattan.

22 And OGS calculated the cost of moving

23 us, building a courtroom -- because we have

24 our own courtroom facilities, because all of

177

1 our proceedings are held in-house -- and they

2 assessed, and I think appropriately so, that

3 the cost of moving and building out new space

4 would have been more than the $78,000 annual

5 increase in rent that they ultimately

6 negotiated for us.

7 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: Still a pretty

8 hefty increase.

9 So other than that, though, your

10 budget has been flat for seven years.

11 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN: Yes.

12 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: Which in

13 essence means, in real dollars, that you've

14 had a significant decrease, would that be

15 correct?

16 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN: That's

17 absolutely right. And that's why our staff

18 has been decreased 19 percent in that time

19 frame.

20 ASSEMBLYMAN DINOWITZ: Right. Okay,

21 thank you.

22 Assemblyman Lentol.

23 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: (Inaudible.)

24 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Okay.

178

1 ADMINISTRATOR TEMBECKJIAN: Thank you

2 very much. Appreciate it.

3 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Well, thank you.

4 We appreciate you appearing today, very much.

5 Our next speaker is Commissioner Roger

6 Parrino, New York State Division of Homeland

7 Security and Emergency Services.

8 Welcome, Commissioner.

9 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: How you doing,

10 Madam Chair.

11 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: I would remiss if I

12 didn't thank you again for spending some time

13 in my district to look at flooding concerns.

14 I think we had a great day together, and I

15 truly appreciate it.

16 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Thank you very

17 much. I appreciate it.

18 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: And the feedback

19 was great too.

20 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Shall I begin?

21 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Yes, sir. And as

22 we're asking all of the people testifying,

23 we're asking them to summarize rather than

24 read word for word the testimony, if that's

179

1 okay. If it doesn't work for you, we're okay

2 too.

3 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Yeah, I prefer

4 to read it if that would be fine.

5 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Okay.

6 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Thank you.

7 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: We give

8 commissioners a little leeway on that.

9 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Thank you,

10 Chairman Young. I am Roger Parrino,

11 commissioner of the Division of Homeland

12 Security and Emergency Services. Thank you

13 for the opportunity to discuss the excellent

14 work of the division over the past year as

15 well as a few highlights from the Governor's

16 public safety budget.

17 The men and women of the division are

18 charged with a tremendous responsibility --

19 namely, protecting New Yorkers from natural

20 and manmade disasters through prevention,

21 preparedness, response and recovery efforts.

22 The Governor's budget provides the resources

23 needed to accomplish our mission and protect

24 public safety. Total appropriations are

180

1 $1.5 billion. Some notable budget items

2 include resources to construct a Field

3 Operations Building at the New York State

4 Fire Academy; continuation of funding to

5 support interoperable emergency

6 communications; support for the expansion of

7 disaster preparedness and emergency response

8 efforts; and resources to implement recently

9 enacted legislation.

10 I'd like to recognize the exceptional

11 work of my employees, who rise to the

12 occasion every time they are called upon.

13 I'd also like to thank the families of these

14 men and women, who spend time away from home

15 and loved ones because of their commitment to

16 public safety. Whether it was the long-term

17 Lake Ontario emergency response and recovery

18 effort, flooding, fires, tornados,

19 snowstorms, ice jams, mud slides or any other

20 incident throughout the state -- mutual aid

21 missions in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,

22 Florida, and Texas -- they continue to assist

23 those in need.

24 I'm especially proud of the division’s

181

1 work on Lake Ontario. The long-term nature

2 of severe flooding along the lake created

3 unique challenges and required creative

4 solutions. The Division worked on the ground

5 with many state agencies and local officials

6 throughout the duration of the event to fill

7 sandbags, utilize new dam technologies,

8 provide insurance information, and even pump

9 out flooded street and basements.

10 Thanks to this work and our

11 partnership with FEMA, New York State was

12 able to secure a federal disaster declaration

13 during, rather than after, the event. FEMA

14 funds will supplement the relief package that

15 was passed by you and your colleagues last

16 year.

17 We continue to support other recovery

18 efforts, which includes the reimbursement of

19 over $7.5 billion for projects related to

20 Sandy, Irene and Lee. I've had the

21 opportunity to speak with several lawmakers

22 about projects effecting your communities,

23 and I'd like to thank you for your continued

24 support.

182

1 I'm happy to report that the Swift

2 Water Flood Training Facility at the State

3 Preparedness Training Center (SPTC) is

4 scheduled to open by late spring. We are

5 fully staffed and expect to begin training

6 our emergency responders as early as this

7 summer.

8 Over the last year, the division has

9 worked to ensure that local first responders

10 are better trained to handle an Orlando or

11 Las Vegas-style active shooter event.

12 Through the regionally focused Advanced

13 Active Shooter Scenario courses provided at

14 the SPTC, the division and the National

15 Center Security and Preparedness trained over

16 300 law enforcement and emergency medical

17 service personnel from four regions. This

18 rescue task force concept has law enforcement

19 secure "warm zones" for EMS to gain access to

20 victims and ultimately save more lives.

21 This past year, the division increased

22 the number of Red Team exercises across the

23 state, evaluating and enhancing the state’s

24 overall counterterrorism posture. Red Team

183

1 exercises have been conducted in all 16

2 Counterterrorism Zones, across over 900

3 locations and businesses, in partnership with

4 nearly 100 law enforcement agencies. These

5 efforts have built upon New York's "See

6 Something, Say Something" campaign and has

7 raised awareness among various industries and

8 strengthened their partnerships with law

9 enforcement.

10 We have developed a new mandatory

11 training for civilian airport workers, which

12 provides them with the skills necessary to

13 assist passengers during emergencies and

14 identify suspicious activities. We continue

15 to grow our team to provide a full day of

16 training to civilian airport workers across

17 the state. And with the Legislature’s

18 support, training has already been provided

19 to approximately 6,000 airport workers.

20 We are also committed to educating the

21 next generation of homeland security

22 professionals. The division has a strong

23 partnership with the College of Emergency

24 Preparedness, Homeland Security, and

184

1 Cybersecurity, which now has nearly 2,000

2 students enrolled in the program.

3 Further, the division, in conjunction

4 with the National Guard and the Red Cross,

5 has trained over 215,000 New Yorkers as part

6 of our Citizen Preparedness Corps.

7 While it is not possible to cover all

8 the great work the division has done during

9 my testimony today, I hope that I've provided

10 you with an idea of the division's priorities

11 for the next fiscal year. I appreciate the

12 opportunity to appear before you today, and I

13 am pleased to answer any of your questions.

14 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you,

15 Commissioner.

16 Our first speaker is Senator Tom

17 Croci, who is the chair of the Homeland

18 Security Committee in the Senate.

19 SENATOR CROCI: Thank you, Senator

20 Young.

21 Commissioner Parrino, thank you for

22 coming here and being part of this

23 conversation today and for your testimony.

24 Just a couple of questions. I know

185

1 you and I have had numerous discussions since

2 the beginning of your tenure, and I want to

3 compliment you and your team on the work that

4 you're doing on behalf of the residents of

5 New York State.

6 And to all of my colleagues, if you

7 don't know the commissioner's background both

8 in the military, law enforcement and as a

9 dedicated public servant -- I assure you that

10 our questions are directed through you and

11 not at you, sir. And we just want to make

12 sure that we understand some of the proposals

13 that are coming our way so that we can better

14 enable resources.

15 The first question is with regard to a

16 proposal for -- I guess it's $1.9 million for

17 20 full-time employees to participate in

18 disaster preparedness and emergency response

19 efforts. And the second is a $5.8 million

20 proposal for only seven full-time employees.

21 So I'm wondering why there's $1.9 million for

22 20 and what are the scope and duties of their

23 responsibilities, and then 5.8 for only seven

24 and what the scope and duties of their

186

1 responsibilities would be.

2 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: So, sir, thank

3 you for the question. The 5.8 million is for

4 things that have already passed in the

5 Legislature, things that we are already

6 responsible for that we have to pick up on.

7 And the 20 is something new. We're

8 trying to increase our ability to, in the

9 emergency management area and also in the

10 counterterrorism area, to beef up and be a

11 little bit more flexible in how we respond to

12 threats to New York.

13 SENATOR CROCI: So what specifically

14 would be the duties, the kind of backgrounds

15 that these full-time employees that are

16 proposed that you envision -- what

17 backgrounds do you envision them having, and

18 what would be their duties?

19 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: So in there

20 would be five assistant commissioners for

21 emergency management. We're looking for

22 people who can respond who don't get excited.

23 Perhaps they have a career as a fireman or a

24 police officer or something along those

187

1 lines, and they're used to dealing with both

2 the public and with elected officials in

3 problem solving.

4 I'm also looking for people with

5 emergency management backgrounds who can pass

6 their knowledge on and work and communicate

7 with locals.

8 SENATOR CROCI: And all of these

9 individuals will be subject to same kind of

10 rigorous screening that people who work for

11 DHSES go through -- background checks, some

12 of them presumably would be -- it would be

13 necessary for them to have access to

14 classified information.

15 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: That's correct,

16 sir.

17 SENATOR CROCI: Is that kind of the

18 caliber we're looking at?

19 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: So yes, that's

20 absolutely correct. And I guess the best

21 example would be the same caliber of which I

22 work with today. I have a fantastic division

23 that I'm very proud of.

24 But some of these would -- part of

188

1 their ability to be hired may be hinged on

2 the fact that if they're capable of getting a

3 clearance or they've had one in the past.

4 SENATOR CROCI: Okay. Are these

5 envisioned to be civil service positions or

6 are these envisioned to be direct hires? How

7 do you envision the process?

8 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Mix -- it's a

9 mixture of both. So -- and some of those we

10 require for the clearance would probably be

11 in the civil service area and they'd also be

12 looking for them to work in the Red Team and

13 the infrastructure area.

14 SENATOR CROCI: Okay. And the seven

15 full-time employees at 5.8 million, which you

16 said would be necessary to handle existing

17 requirements?

18 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: So this has to

19 do with -- I really wish I could get with you

20 after this to make sure I get my specifics

21 down, but I think this --

22 SENATOR CROCI: That's fine.

23 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Yeah, the -- so

24 having to do with -- up the -- fire cancer,

189

1 water purification -- infrastructure for the

2 water, cyber. These are all things that

3 we've been working on.

4 SENATOR CROCI: Okay, very good.

5 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: I assure you

6 we'll be a good steward of the state's money.

7 SENATOR CROCI: Oh, I have no doubt,

8 commissioner.

9 In looking at the budget and reading a

10 press release from the Governor of

11 December 5, 2017, I notice that there's a

12 counterterrorism advisory panel that's been

13 formed. I'm extremely familiar with the

14 individuals on that panel. I used to work

15 for one of them. And obviously few better

16 minds in the country to be advising both the

17 Executive and this government on how to

18 proceed.

19 So I'm wondering, have there been

20 published recommendations, is there a report,

21 is there anything that would better inform

22 the Legislature as to the recommendations

23 that these experts have made?

24 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Sir, as far as

190

1 I know, the work is still ongoing.

2 So I worked with two of the three,

3 Lisa Monaco and Commissioner Kelly. And I'm

4 looking forward to seeing their

5 recommendations and what they think. It's an

6 interesting balance between the 3,000-feet

7 view -- the 30,000-foot view or federal view

8 with someone who's worked on the local level

9 and implemented that, Commissioner Kelly. So

10 I'm very interested to see their findings

11 also. It's still in the works.

12 SENATOR CROCI: Well, our

13 understanding from the release was that these

14 recommendations were going to advise the

15 proposals in the budget. So if that's not

16 the case, we're looking forward -- would this

17 be something that we can, as a legislative

18 body, have access to, the committee? Because

19 these recommendations obviously would be very

20 interesting, to know that we're resourcing

21 what the best minds in the business say

22 New York should be doing.

23 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Yes, so -- as

24 far as I know, they haven't finished it or

191

1 handed anything in. I know that when I had a

2 chance to speak to them, I spoke very highly

3 about things that I was interested in, and

4 hopefully will reflect it.

5 SENATOR CROCI: Okay. Well, we look

6 forward to those recommendations. And if

7 it's to advise what is going into this

8 budget, then should we expect to see these

9 recommendations before the budget is passed

10 at the end of March, hopefully?

11 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Understood,

12 sir.

13 SENATOR CROCI: Okay. We'll be eager

14 to see that.

15 My final question -- I know we're

16 getting short on time, you've been very

17 patient -- the mutual aid operations that

18 we've conducted -- and as somebody who was on

19 the ground during Superstorm Sandy, like some

20 of my colleagues in this room, we know too

21 well the importance of mutual aid and what it

22 meant to our communities.

23 I'm just wondering where the money for

24 some of the mutual aid support that we've

192

1 given other states and territories, where is

2 that coming from? Is that coming from the

3 existing department or agency budgets? Is

4 there a special fund? How are we paying for

5 the support that we provided places like

6 California and Puerto Rico, Texas, et cetera?

7 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: So as -- the

8 way the mutual aid works, sir, is the -- so

9 it's set up on the 50 states and territories,

10 which would include Guam, Puerto Rico and

11 Washington, D.C. And when they make a

12 request, they're actually on the hook for

13 providing the finances for their request, but

14 they work with FEMA to get the funding so

15 that the state that provides the -- for that

16 request gets back-paid.

17 SENATOR CROCI: So that means that

18 federal monies are going to reimburse New

19 York State for the Guard, the National Guard

20 deployment, the amount of time that civilians

21 spent on the ground, et cetera?

22 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: So in theory,

23 it works that the federal government would

24 back the state or municipality that made that

193

1 request, and the state or municipality that

2 made that request funds it back to the agency

3 that provides it.

4 SENATOR CROCI: So in some way

5 New York is going to be made whole for these

6 deployments, or we're taking it out of hide

7 in one budget area? If we're going to

8 resource certain departments and agencies, we

9 want to make sure that we're doing so to

10 support mutual aid. Given what we've seen

11 with regard to natural disasters, it's

12 something we should be thinking about more

13 proactively.

14 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: I understand.

15 SENATOR CROCI: So if I could get from

16 your office perhaps a breakdown of, after

17 federal reimbursement from FEMA or the host

18 municipality, slash, territory, what are

19 taxpayers on the hook for and what should we

20 be planning for for the future.

21 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: So those

22 receipts are still coming in. So we're not

23 completed yet. There was a lot of work that

24 we did that was a result of donations that

194

1 came at the -- New Yorkers and corporations

2 that provided funds.

3 So for example, I was down in Puerto

4 Rico for 16 days. I didn't stay in a hotel

5 at the expense of anyone. And we were able

6 to -- I used the type of techniques that I

7 used in the Middle East with

8 counterinsurgency where I hooked up with the

9 locals -- the Carlos Beltran Foundation, to

10 be exact, who knew people throughout the

11 island. And we were able to get supplies

12 that were donated, and the transportation

13 down to Puerto Rico was donated, so at no

14 expense to New York at all, and get supplies

15 for the humanitarian relief of Puerto Rico as

16 quickly as we could.

17 SENATOR CROCI: Okay, and the final

18 question that I always ask at these hearings

19 is: This is your legislative body; do you

20 feel that we are adequately resourcing your

21 department to ensure that we are doing

22 everything possible to protect the homeland

23 and to make sure New Yorkers are safe?

24 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: So I appreciate

195

1 that question, sir, and absolutely.

2 SENATOR CROCI: Okay. Thank you,

3 Commissioner Parrino. And again, thank you

4 for your service.

5 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you. So the

6 Assembly doesn't have any questions, so we'll

7 speed through the Senators that do.

8 But Commissioner, again, I thank you

9 for viewing some of the flooding areas in my

10 district. And as you know, my district goes

11 a long way. It goes from 10 miles outside of

12 Erie, Pennsylvania, all the way to near

13 Rochester.

14 And in 2017, in the spring and summer,

15 Lake Ontario experienced a significant amount

16 of flooding. And I was wondering what the

17 department's role -- what kind of support did

18 you give during that time period to the

19 people around Lake Ontario?

20 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: I spent a

21 tremendous amount of time in Lake Ontario,

22 just even understanding the problem set and

23 seeing what we could, as New Yorkers, could

24 do.

196

1 But the interesting thing that

2 separates Lake Ontario from other disasters

3 in the country is that it's not over. So we

4 don't know what spring is going to bring us.

5 And we were able to get FEMA to work with us

6 and cooperate with us and make it a federal

7 disaster while it's still going, which is

8 really unusual.

9 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you. And I

10 fully understand that and agree with what you

11 said.

12 Now, there were funds that were

13 distributed through the state that you were

14 able to secure to help the people around

15 Lake Ontario. What role -- did you take an

16 advisory role in the agencies that were

17 distributing the funds? How did that work?

18 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: So I have an

19 Office of Recovery that works with making

20 sure that under any circumstances, we get the

21 most amount of dollars. So it's never a

22 cookie-cutter approach that one program works

23 best. So I was advised by my recovery people

24 on how we should approach and when we should

197

1 be taking state funds and when we should be

2 applying for federal funds and when we should

3 be applying for SBA loans. Each incident was

4 different.

5 Does that answer your question?

6 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Yes, it does.

7 Thank you for that.

8 Just switching a little bit now, in

9 2017 in New York State we experienced three

10 domestic terrorism incidents, all being

11 home-grown or lone wolf incidents. I know

12 that you have to be careful about what you

13 can say, but could you elaborate for the

14 Legislature on what the division's role was

15 in these incidents and what is being done to

16 prevent these types of occurrences in the

17 future?

18 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: So we use the

19 term counterterrorism, and I hope I don't get

20 punished for using it. The true term is

21 antiterrorism. My division does

22 antiterrorism.

23 So what we try to do is we're looking

24 at the patterns and trends, not only in the

198

1 New York State or even the United States, but

2 we're looking at the patterns and trends

3 overseas so that we can adjust and adapt to

4 what's going on.

5 So for example, the Port Authority

6 bomber. So public information, training.

7 Our citizen's preparedness now involves

8 active shooter training, which we introduced

9 this fall. Working with DOT on different

10 ways to block the bike path for the future

11 and any other paths that we have. Working

12 with other state agencies.

13 One of our biggest concerns is large

14 gatherings. Large gatherings are targets for

15 people that want to cause us harm. So my --

16 not only my counterterrorism people, my

17 emergency management people are working with

18 locals to let them know about the

19 vulnerabilities every time there's a large

20 mass gathering, and what they can do to

21 mitigate these issues.

22 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: So do you work hand

23 in hand, for example, with the New York City

24 Police Department? I know that some of our

199

1 modes of transportation -- subway systems and

2 so on, maybe buses -- could be targets. So

3 could you explain your relationship with some

4 of the cities around the state?

5 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: So my

6 relationship with the NYPD is directly

7 related to their counterterrorism people, who

8 I worked with when I was with the feds and I

9 work with today.

10 One of the assistant commissioners

11 that I have working for me comes from the

12 intelligence division of the NYPD, gives us a

13 special connection. My director for

14 counterterrorism is a lieutenant colonel in

15 the State Police, which keeps us very sharp

16 with the State Police. I'm also in

17 discussion with the Port Authority, Amtrak,

18 and everyone else, so that we're always

19 discussing the latest issues and what we can

20 do and what kind of funding we can get

21 through federal grants to harden targets as

22 opposed to leaving them vulnerable.

23 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you for that

24 answer, commissioner.

200

1 You know, we'll be having ITS

2 testifying in just a little while -- I hope

3 just a little while. But as we know, there

4 are different types of terrorism. So

5 cyberattacks are something that we experience

6 in New York State every single day,

7 unfortunately. And I was wondering, did your

8 division provide any support to the Erie

9 County Medical Center ransomware attack that

10 occurred in April of 2017?

11 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: So we did

12 through our counterterrorism piece, working

13 with the NYSIC and the State Police and ITS,

14 to just make sure that we're up on exactly

15 what happened and if there was any good

16 practices that we could provide for the

17 future.

18 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Okay. Thank you

19 for that.

20 And so the fiscal year 2018 enacted

21 budget, the one we did last year, provided

22 the division funds to start a cyberincident

23 response team for certain vulnerable state

24 agencies and localities. Is this the type of

201

1 incident that the team would respond to?

2 We'd be very curious to know, just since, you

3 know, we made sure it was included in this

4 year's budget.

5 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Yes, this would

6 be the type of incident.

7 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Okay, thank you.

8 How many staff members would be on a

9 typical cyber response team?

10 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: We're looking

11 for seven. That's the number, seven plus one

12 administrative helper.

13 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Okay. Is there

14 more than one team or --

15 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: No, this would

16 be one team. Right now we're supplemented by

17 people from the National Guard who are doing

18 a very good job for us.

19 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: What kind of

20 qualifications would be necessary for a team

21 member?

22 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: We're still

23 building the team. But we're looking for

24 people that have the cyber background and the

202

1 ability to also communicate their knowledge

2 in a style which the locals will understand.

3 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: So you're looking

4 to have positive relationships --

5 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Yes.

6 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: -- rather than the

7 state coming in and taking over. And some of

8 the things we've heard --

9 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: That's not what

10 we're looking to do.

11 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Right. Gotcha. So

12 thank you for that.

13 One of the issues would be -- and you

14 and I had actually talked about it the day we

15 were together. But speaking of local

16 governments, I think that you would want to

17 be more of a resource rather than -- you

18 know, I just referenced it, but sometimes I

19 think local governments feel that the state

20 comes in. But I also know that the

21 cyberattack problem is something that they

22 may not have the resources to deal with it.

23 So how are you communicating with

24 local governments? Are you waiting until

203

1 there's an incident, or are you proactively

2 letting them know that you're available if

3 they need you?

4 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: We are

5 proactively letting them know that we're

6 available to discuss the best practices,

7 cyberhygiene practices. And we're trying to

8 get that communication going at all levels of

9 the state with the whole division. I would

10 like more of a holistic view than just, oh,

11 yeah, and we're just counterterrorism. Just

12 let them know that we're available. And

13 we're not looking to take charge or take over

14 or force our ways. What we want to do is to

15 be able to always to assist and help.

16 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: How do you

17 interface with the state's ITS?

18 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: I interface

19 with them when we have -- we have my cyber,

20 especially my infrastructure group, who's

21 under counterterrorism, is constantly in

22 conversation with them. We attend briefs

23 together at the NYSIC to make sure that we're

24 all on the same sheet of music and we

204

1 understand the trends and patterns that we

2 have to be concerned about.

3 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: So thank you for

4 that. I mean, that's an emerging issue and

5 it just seems to be getting more and more

6 explosive as we go through the days. So we

7 appreciate all your efforts in that area.

8 Finally, I want to ask about the

9 reappropriation to allow for reimbursements

10 of Superstorm Sandy costs. And I know that

11 Senator Croci referenced Superstorm Sandy.

12 But what costs are being reimbursed with this

13 reappropriation? Because it's not clear in

14 the Governor's proposal.

15 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Could you ask

16 that question again, please? Because I -- so

17 your question wasn't clear about how unclear

18 it was in the proposal.

19 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Right. It's not

20 clear in the budget, in the proposal, as to

21 how the reimbursement of Superstorm Sandy

22 costs will occur, and it's actually included

23 in a reappropriation. So there's a reapprop

24 there, not clear -- it says it's for

205

1 Superstorm Sandy reimbursement costs, I

2 believe. How will that money be spent?

3 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: So I'm really

4 not quite sure, so I'd have to get with my

5 staff with you on that one. Because I'm sure

6 I know the answer, but the way you're asking

7 it, I'm just not grasping it. And I

8 apologize.

9 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Okay.

10 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: I know we have

11 like over $6 billion that we have done to

12 Sandy already, 7.5 when you include Irene and

13 others. But I'm not sure about the specific

14 part of this budget that I'm stumbling on.

15 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Right. And from

16 our members on Long Island, I think that they

17 would say -- or down in the city also, the

18 areas that were affected by Superstorm Sandy,

19 they would say that there's still a lot of

20 needs out there that need to be addressed.

21 And so we're just curious, if there's

22 money in the budget for Superstorm Sandy --

23 and it looks like there is -- I'm sure our

24 members would want to know how that money is

206

1 being spent.

2 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: So it's being

3 spent with the locals making their

4 requirements and us getting their --

5 reimbursing them after it's been done. So

6 we're not coming up with any new ideas, it's

7 the locals that we're funding to make sure

8 they get taken care of what they want to.

9 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Is there some kind

10 of list available that the members could look

11 at?

12 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: So we have the

13 list of all the requests. I don't -- I

14 suppose we could look at that and see if

15 that's available that we can make public.

16 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Right. Well, I

17 think that --

18 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Those

19 priorities are decided by the locals. So I'm

20 not sure it's a best practice that we are --

21 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: No, it's just a

22 communication thing. You know, we have to

23 vote on a budget.

24 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: I understand.

207

1 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: It's our

2 constitutional duty to review the budget,

3 understand what's in it. And I know that all

4 the members care deeply about their

5 constituents in their districts and their

6 communities, and so they'd like to know how

7 the money is being spent. And, you know,

8 maybe if there is a need that hasn't been

9 identified, it would be helpful to have that

10 information too, so --

11 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Yes, ma'am.

12 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Okay. Well, thank

13 you, Commissioner.

14 Our next speaker is Senator Kaminsky.

15 SENATOR KAMINSKY: Thank you, Madam

16 Chairwoman.

17 Good afternoon, Commissioner. The

18 community of Island Park was grateful to have

19 you this summer take a tour of the areas that

20 were badly flooded in Sandy and continue to

21 flood badly in moon tides and rainstorms.

22 And as we are now more than five years

23 coming up to the sixth anniversary of Sandy,

24 believe it or not, through next year, the

208

1 $40 million FEMA program that your agency

2 oversees has not been seen in action. And

3 the residents there, who continue to have

4 trouble getting their kids in and out of an

5 elementary school and to just drive down the

6 basic streets, are interested where the

7 progress is.

8 We were really grateful to have you

9 there. I think your background is just

10 tremendous in lighting a fire under this

11 issue and ensuring that it's managed

12 correctly. And as we're here another year

13 later, I'd just like to ask you about it and

14 see what we can do to expedite it so that

15 there's flood relief brought to the important

16 village of Island Park that needs it so

17 badly.

18 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: So as you know,

19 I'm fully aware of the situation. I came

20 down there and you were able to introduce me

21 to a lot of people so that we could get a

22 better line of communication going. Which

23 resulted in the village's proposal of Phase

24 1, which we got sometime after July. What

209

1 was missing was we needed a benefit-cost

2 analysis, which we got with the village. And

3 as recently as I believe late December and

4 the middle of January, only a week or two

5 ago, we've had that information.

6 So we'll be moving forward to make

7 sure that that project gets the attention it

8 needs.

9 SENATOR KAMINSKY: Okay, I appreciate

10 it.

11 Also my district has a number of

12 religious childcare centers, community

13 centers and sites, one of which received a

14 bomb threat earlier in the year in the wave

15 of anti-Semitic threats that we unfortunately

16 witnessed.

17 And as you review the security grants

18 that our state has been so generously able to

19 provide for very important causes, you know,

20 we have -- we entrust agencies to take care

21 of our young people, as young as infants, to

22 make sure that they have the properly secured

23 doors, windows, cameras and the like. It's

24 critical, and I'd ask that you consider some

210

1 of these centers in Nassau County that could

2 badly use the funding, that are a very

3 visible target and certainly deserving of

4 such funding.

5 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Absolutely,

6 sir.

7 SENATOR KAMINSKY: Thank you for your

8 time.

9 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.

10 So thank you very much for your

11 testimony. But you know what, I'm skipping

12 Senator Savino, so I will hand it to her

13 first.

14 SENATOR SAVINO: Thank you. I just

15 have one question.

16 First of all, thank you for your

17 testimony, and I want to thank you --

18 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: I was this

19 close.

20 (Laughter.)

21 SENATOR SAVINO: I also want to thank

22 you for coming out to Staten Island and

23 meeting with myself and my colleagues about

24 some of the issues around not just

211

1 Staten Island but Brooklyn. We did

2 appreciate that, especially since that day

3 you were being, I think, pulled to Puerto

4 Rico right after you left us.

5 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Yes, ma'am.

6 SENATOR SAVINO: I just have one

7 question. In the aftermath of the terrible

8 vehicle-ramming terrorist attack in Lower

9 Manhattan, what do you think we can do as

10 lawmakers or policymakers to prevent

11 something like that from happening, either

12 people being able to lease vehicles and use

13 them as weapons -- I mean, is there something

14 that we can do to stop that?

15 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Well, I believe

16 one of our proposals is looking at something

17 with rental trucks over a certain weight,

18 asking for two types of I.D.

19 I think looking at the -- my Red Teams

20 look at the rental car or rental truck

21 industry. I think we can review that more.

22 That character followed a playbook that was

23 written by al-Qaida on exactly how to do

24 this, and part of that is renting a big

212

1 vehicle that is difficult to stop.

2 So we're looking at regulations that

3 will just give a second look to people

4 renting those types of vehicles. I think

5 that could be helpful.

6 SENATOR SAVINO: I don't know the

7 answer to this, I guess I'm going to have to

8 look it up, but I'm curious. Do the same

9 standards apply to renting a truck for the

10 day from a retailer that apply to renting

11 from, say, an actual auto or car rental

12 facility? I'm not sure if they do, and I

13 guess if they don't, they should.

14 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: I think that's

15 something we can work on to look -- I could

16 work with your staff, if you'd like, to see

17 that.

18 SENATOR SAVINO: Because he rented it

19 from the Home Depot.

20 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Home Depot.

21 But -- I think they're under the same

22 regulations, but I'm not sure.

23 SENATOR SAVINO: Well, that's

24 interesting. I'll have to check that.

213

1 But thank you anyway.

2 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. And we

3 have been joined by Senator Sanders.

4 SENATOR SANDERS: Semper fi, sir.

5 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Semper fi.

6 SENATOR SANDERS: I rushed back here

7 to do several things, but I would not have

8 missed you.

9 First, I want to thank you for coming

10 out to my community. It's very hard to get

11 to for some people, but you made your way.

12 And it was very kind of you and your family

13 to come and celebrate Thanksgiving with my

14 community by helping to make sure everyone

15 had a good Thanksgiving. So we certainly

16 appreciate that.

17 I also thank you, sir, for taking us

18 on a tour. We are in the storm-ravaged part

19 of the Rockaways and other communities where

20 we got hit very bad by Sandy, and we are

21 quite concerned over the next one. It's not

22 a question of if there will be, it's when.

23 You have assured me -- and took me

24 around to see some of the sites and to see

214

1 some of the planning that the city is -- the

2 state, I stand corrected. Well -- well,

3 12 years as a City Councilperson, it's hard

4 to get it out of your system -- that the

5 state is actually doing. A very impressive

6 positioning of supplies, a much smarter --

7 we're going to be dealing with these storms

8 in a smarter way in the days to come.

9 I of course want to remind you that

10 the bad thing of being in this storm pattern

11 is that we really need to make sure that we

12 lift everything in our supply depots so that

13 when the storm comes, it does not take out

14 our depots.

15 You may have been asked about

16 communications, and of course that's very

17 important to us down there also. Do we have

18 a sufficient communication network for the

19 areas of New York City or -- I don't simply

20 want to say my district, but I'm thinking of

21 it. How are we going to communicate with the

22 state when the storm hits us again, sir?

23 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: So we're set

24 very well with that. So between Mesonet and

215

1 working with the locals and our own dispersed

2 emergency managers and regional directors and

3 assistant commissioners, we're not -- it's

4 not Albany responding to your district; we

5 have people that live just outside your

6 district that are going to be monitoring this

7 and going to be communicating and meeting

8 with the locals.

9 Is that the type of communication

10 you're talking about?

11 SENATOR SANDERS: Yes, that's exactly

12 the communication.

13 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: So we're -- and

14 we monitor the weather beyond New York State

15 to see what's coming in. So we're getting

16 much, much better on that over the years.

17 SENATOR SANDERS: We were caught short

18 before. And I stayed down there on the

19 ground and saw the dysfunction that the

20 different parts of government were not

21 speaking to one another. Again, my

22 particular community, which was hard-hit, we

23 did not see any help for four days. I

24 mean -- and in that time we had to start

216

1 working for ourselves.

2 Can I encourage you also, sir, that it

3 would be good to start training, doing more

4 training of the local people there? One

5 point is the city trained all kinds of first

6 responders, but then they didn't think it

7 through. They trained and had a group of

8 people, but told everybody to evacuate, so

9 they dispersed them and never used them.

10 We need to not simply train but

11 perhaps get them into a positioning where we

12 can send them to help. The city trained

13 community people, they had a core of people

14 who could help, but they dispersed them and

15 there was nothing on the ground to work with.

16 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Sir, allow me

17 to get with your staff, I'll have my

18 assistant commissioner meet with you and

19 we'll talk this through and see if we can get

20 Joe Esposito's office and my office on the

21 same sheet of music so that we can actually

22 take care of this and we'll have something

23 going forward.

24 SENATOR SANDERS: Well, that's all

217

1 that I can ask for. And you certainly spoke

2 as a good Marine, sir. So as one to another,

3 I would just say I feel very confident that

4 we're going to see this thing through,

5 especially since I know it was a Marine that

6 you put in charge of the supply depot. So

7 I'm looking forward to those.

8 You're welcome back to my district.

9 New York is a safer place with you. Thank

10 you very much, sir. Thank you.

11 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Thank you.

12 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.

13 I'm just going to thank you very much

14 for your testimony. I appreciate you coming

15 to my district and talking to me about a

16 number of issues. And I know we're all very

17 appreciative of the work, which is incredibly

18 diverse, of your agency in all parts of the

19 State of New York.

20 And I'm going to hopefully excuse you

21 because we have another 35 people to chat

22 with this afternoon. Thank you so much.

23 COMMISSIONER PARRINO: Thank you very

24 much.

218

1 SENATOR KRUEGER: And our next

2 testifier is Michael Green, New York State

3 Division of Criminal Justice Services.

4 And we're at 10:45 on the schedule,

5 for people who are keeping track. Thank you.

6 Good afternoon.

7 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Good

8 afternoon.

9 Good afternoon, Chairwoman Weinstein,

10 members of the Assembly, members of the

11 Senate. I'm Mike Green, head of the Division

12 of Criminal Justice Services. Thank you for

13 inviting me to appear before you today.

14 New York continues to experience

15 reductions in crime and the prison

16 population. Reported crime reached an

17 all-time low in 2016, and we maintain our

18 standing as the safest large state in the

19 nation. While numbers for this past year are

20 not yet final, preliminary data shows that

21 crime reached another all-time low in 2017,

22 with a homicide decrease of more than

23 10 percent.

24 DCJS initiatives such as GIVE, SNUG,

219

1 and our alternatives to incarceration network

2 contribute to this success, and these

3 programs continue to receive national

4 recognition. Governor Cuomo's proposed

5 budget for fiscal year 2018-2019 will allow

6 DCJS to continue to support the criminal

7 justice system in communities across the

8 state, support evidence-based programs proven

9 to be effective and cost-efficient, and

10 develop innovative programs that position

11 New York as a national leader in effective

12 public safety policy.

13 Governor Cuomo has advanced

14 significant criminal justice reforms,

15 improving every stage of the justice system

16 from arrest to community reentry. Last year,

17 several major reforms were enacted: raising

18 the age of criminal responsibility, extending

19 the landmark Hurrell-Harring settlement,

20 requiring video recording of interrogations

21 for serious offenses, and allowing properly

22 conducted witness identifications into

23 evidence at trial.

24 Building on this success, Governor

220

1 Cuomo has proposed additional criminal

2 justice reforms addressing bail, speedy

3 trial, discovery, civil asset forfeiture, and

4 reentry that will enhance the fairness and

5 effectiveness of our criminal justice system.

6 The majority of people in New York's

7 jails have not been convicted of any crime

8 and are held because they cannot afford to

9 post bail. The current system based on

10 monetary bail is unfair to those who lack the

11 financial resources to post it. The Governor

12 is committed to reforming New York's bail

13 statute and has proposed legislation that

14 would require that most defendants charged

15 with misdemeanors or nonviolent felonies be

16 released without requiring cash bail, in a

17 manner that is the least restrictive way of

18 assuring the defendant's appearance in court.

19 The court may order a defendant to be

20 held in jail pretrial upon motion by the

21 people in cases where a defendant is charged

22 with a crime of domestic violence or other

23 more serious violent crimes, commits a crime

24 while already on pretrial release, or fails

221

1 to appear in court.

2 The Sixth Amendment to the United

3 States Constitution and state law guarantee

4 all citizens accused of a crime the right to

5 a speedy trial. Too often, however,

6 defendants are held in pretrial custody for

7 excessive periods of time and courts are

8 overburdened with the number of pending

9 criminal cases. To address this problem, the

10 Governor has advanced legislation to reduce

11 unnecessary delays and adjournments in court

12 proceedings and ensure that accused

13 individuals proceed through the justice

14 system in a streamlined and efficient manner.

15 New York has one of the nation's most

16 restrictive discovery rules. It allows

17 prosecutors to withhold basic evidence until

18 after a jury has been selected and right

19 before opening statements begin. The

20 Governor has proposed legislation that would

21 require both prosecutors and defendants to

22 automatically share information in an

23 incremental fashion well in advance of the

24 start of a trial. This will ensure that

222

1 defense attorneys have the tools necessary to

2 represent their clients and prosecutors have

3 the tools they need to protect the identity

4 and safety of witnesses.

5 Individuals with criminal convictions

6 continue to face significant barriers to

7 their successful reintegration into society.

8 Everyone benefits from the opportunity to

9 participate fully in the workforce, where

10 they can build a stable life and support

11 themselves and their families. Our

12 communities benefit as well, as employment is

13 closely tied to reduced recidivism and

14 reduced dependence upon public services.

15 In recognition of this, the Governor

16 proposes to update New York's occupational

17 licensing statutes to remove outdated

18 mandatory bars that have kept qualified

19 applicants with criminal convictions from

20 being licensed in many fields.

21 Last year, the Legislature passed and

22 Governor Cuomo signed into law historic

23 legislation raising the age of criminal

24 responsibility to 18 years of age. To

223

1 successfully implement the Raise the Age

2 legislation, the Governor proposes a

3 $100 million appropriation over the next

4 fiscal year to support a continuum of

5 effective prevention, diversion, treatment,

6 and supervision services at the state and

7 local level.

8 This 2018-2019 budget proposal will

9 allow DCJS to continue to carry out and

10 implement innovative and evidence-based

11 initiatives that are designed to promote

12 fairness, respect, and transparency in the

13 state's criminal justice system. Our highest

14 priority is public safety. We are confident

15 that with your continued support, we will

16 sustain the historic reductions in crime we

17 have achieved, while continuing to reduce the

18 number of individuals who enter the criminal

19 justice system.

20 Thank you for the opportunity to speak

21 with you today.

22 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you very much.

23 Our first questioner is Senator

24 Gallivan.

224

1 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Thank you, Madam

2 Chair.

3 Good afternoon, Commissioner.

4 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Good

5 afternoon.

6 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Thank you for being

7 here, and for your testimony.

8 I want to touch on two or three

9 different areas. First, Raise the Age and

10 the additional -- I think it was $100 million

11 in funding?

12 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Yes.

13 SENATOR GALLIVAN: A couple of

14 questions along that -- or a couple of

15 questions regarding that.

16 So you outlined a number of different

17 areas where we would incur costs. Are you

18 able to be more specific at this point?

19 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:

20 Certainly. There are a number of agencies

21 involved, so DCJS is involved in one piece,

22 OCFS is involved in others.

23 From a DCJS perspective, I think

24 probation is one of our major focuses. Raise

225

1 the Age will put additional responsibilities

2 on probation departments across the state.

3 Responsibilities I think are very

4 constructive in terms of trying to intervene

5 early through the screening process, see if

6 cases can be safely diverted, supervision.

7 But part of that $100 million is to

8 make sure that local probation departments

9 get reimbursed 100 percent for the costs that

10 they incur, to make sure that DCJS has the

11 resources we need to support them and doing

12 things like training and technical

13 assistance. The money is envisioned, for

14 example, to make sure that local sheriff's

15 departments get reimbursed for costs that

16 they've raised in terms of transport.

17 So my understanding is that that

18 $100 million appropriation is to support both

19 state and local costs in implementing Raise

20 the Age.

21 SENATOR GALLIVAN: And it's your

22 understanding that the state bears the

23 responsibility for all the additional local

24 costs associated with the implementation.

226

1 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Yes.

2 SENATOR GALLIVAN: The one thing that

3 was not mentioned in your testimony, and this

4 might be in another area of the budget, is

5 there any consideration for the potential

6 capital costs? The capital costs

7 specifically that -- the items that have been

8 raised at the local level regarding capital

9 costs focus on the potential for new housing

10 for those that are, first, the 17-year-olds

11 and then after that -- I'm sorry, first --

12 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Sixteen.

13 SENATOR GALLIVAN: -- the 16 and then

14 the 17-year-olds, October 1, '18, followed by

15 '19.

16 And when I have talked with some of

17 the courts and the judges there was some

18 concern about -- some potential concern about

19 facilities. I don't know if it's a real

20 concern or not. But anyway, the question is

21 capital costs. Any consideration for that?

22 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: So I do

23 believe there is consideration for capital

24 costs. But I think in terms -- the question

227

1 that you're asking I think goes specifically

2 to detention facilities, which are currently

3 a local responsibility. And I think that is

4 something that probably would be more

5 appropriately addressed to OCFS, since DCJS

6 is not directly involved.

7 The one thing I would say, though, I

8 think it's important --

9 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Excuse me for

10 interrupting. I will do that. But go ahead.

11 Good point.

12 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I think

13 it's important in looking at this and keeping

14 it in context to understand the numbers. In

15 2010, there were approximately 46,000 16- and

16 17-year-olds who went through the criminal

17 justice system. By 2016, that number was

18 down to 21,000, and it's been going down

19 incrementally every year. It looks like if

20 this trend continues, it will be down to

21 about 18,000 next year.

22 We anticipate for the first six

23 months -- so that would be what's covered

24 under this budget, October 1st through March

228

1 31st, just 16-year-olds. That number for the

2 entire state will be somewhere between 4,000

3 and 4,500. So that's spread across the whole

4 state. Obviously nowhere near that entire

5 number are going to go through detention.

6 It's envisioned that a very small percentage

7 of that number will go through detention.

8 So while it's a very real concern, I

9 do think it's important to keep the numbers

10 in perspective as well.

11 SENATOR GALLIVAN: I think that where

12 we would see the potential for costs would be

13 in the larger counties. So we have New York

14 City, then of course the Erie, Monroe,

15 Albany, et cetera. When you look at most of

16 the other upstate numbers, I understand we

17 might be talking only one or two per county.

18 But the obligation, of course, is

19 anybody who is confined has to be held

20 safely -- and the concern of keeping now, for

21 this fiscal year, the 16-year-olds separated

22 from those that are younger so we don't run

23 into some of the same problems that we were

24 concerned with when 16-year-olds were with

229

1 older people.

2 Changing gears, the New York State

3 Commission of Corrections. The Governor has

4 called -- the Governor has called -- I don't

5 have any specific language in front of me --

6 for stepped-up oversight, at least in his

7 presentations, between his budget

8 presentations and the State of the State,

9 regular inspections of all of the facilities,

10 local and state, in the state. The proposed

11 budget for the State Commission of

12 Corrections is unchanged.

13 So two questions. First, are you able

14 to describe what the Governor's

15 intentions are in the proposal as far as the

16 additional stepped-up oversight of local

17 facilities? And second, if it's an increased

18 workload, how can they do it without any

19 increase in their budget or personnel?

20 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: And I

21 apologize again, but they are a separate

22 agency and I can't speak for them in terms of

23 their staffing or their ability to carry that

24 out. I think that would have to be directed

230

1 to them.

2 SENATOR GALLIVAN: My mistake, I

3 think. Do they not fall under DCJS?

4 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: No, they

5 don't. We do have a -- they're a completely

6 separate agency, with one exception.

7 They're -- it's what's called a hosted

8 arrangement. So certain services such as,

9 for example, HR services or other services,

10 we will share. But, you know, they're

11 completely separate --

12 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Okay, I'll follow

13 up separately.

14 The last area I wanted to touch on,

15 you testified briefly to it, the Governor's

16 proposals regarding bail reform. And I don't

17 know, were you here when Judge Marks was

18 testifying --

19 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Yes, I

20 was.

21 SENATOR GALLIVAN: -- and the

22 discussion about bail reform?

23 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Yes.

24 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Well, given your

231

1 background, of course, I'm sure you're

2 aware -- and I can't recite it, and I won't

3 ask you to recite all the options in bail.

4 But similar to my discussion with Judge

5 Marks, the Criminal Procedure Law provides

6 eight or nine different types of bail,

7 including -- eight or nine different options

8 that judges have, including releasing

9 somebody on their own recognizance. And when

10 we focus on judges setting low amounts of

11 bail, recognizing that public safety is not

12 an authorized element of the law that judges

13 are able to take into consideration.

14 My question is, would it be -- I have

15 the opinion that judges have enough tools to

16 make changes right now, some of the intended

17 changes that the Governor is trying to

18 achieve. What is your opinion about the

19 tools that the judges have available right

20 now in the law, and do they use it to the

21 full extent that they can, in your opinion?

22 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: To me I

23 think the very basic problem is that our

24 current bail statute, by definition, uses

232

1 someone's -- the amount of resources they

2 have as a factor in determining whether or

3 not they're going to sit in jail.

4 When you have cash bail, whether it's

5 cash, whether it's a bond where you have to

6 put some cash up, people who are otherwise

7 exactly similarly situated in terms of the

8 crime that they committed, the risk that they

9 pose, will either stay in jail or be released

10 because of how much money they have. And

11 personally, my personal opinion is that that

12 is patently unfair and it's something we

13 ought to do something about.

14 In 2016 we had 45,000 people in the

15 State of New York sit in jail for five days

16 or more who were charged with a misdemeanor

17 or a nonviolent felony because they simply

18 did not have the money to post bail. And if

19 you look at the breakdown, the demographic

20 breakdown, about 70 percent of those 45,000

21 were black or Hispanic.

22 So to me, the concept of cash bail in

23 and of itself carries a fundamental

24 unfairness that needs to be addressed. And

233

1 the Governor's proposal is an attempt to do

2 that.

3 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Point taken. But

4 cash bail is not the only option that the

5 judges have available to them. They can

6 release on recognizance, they can provide

7 unsecured bond, and other options.

8 But when you talk about -- and we

9 didn't -- when the judge was testifying, that

10 was one area we didn't talk about, something

11 that you just raised and I was remiss in not

12 bringing that up, is the requirement that the

13 judges consider the defendant's ability to

14 pay or resources available.

15 Is it possible that the judges need to

16 be trained in this area and that's something

17 that they're not considering at this point?

18 Because if they were, why would there be so

19 many people on small amounts of bail and they

20 can't come up with the cash?

21 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Those

22 things are all things that could help. But I

23 think as long as you have cash as an option,

24 particularly for misdemeanors and nonviolent

234

1 felonies, you will never remove the inherent

2 unfairness that the system puts on people who

3 don't have resources.

4 So the Governor's proposal removes

5 cash for a large group of offenders,

6 particularly misdemeanors and nonviolent

7 felons, in an attempt to minimize the effects

8 of that really prejudicial effect of our

9 current system.

10 So, you know, I agree with you that

11 training, use of alternatives would all be

12 good things. But as long as you leave cash

13 as an option in there, the system by

14 definition is going to be a system that

15 discriminates against people who don't have

16 means.

17 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Thank you,

18 Commissioner.

19 CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN: Assemblyman

20 Lentol.

21 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Thank you,

22 Commissioner.

23 So I don't know where to begin.

24 There's a 212-page criminal justice budget,

235

1 and I know I'm only going to get to a few

2 pieces of it. But I wanted to start out with

3 discovery, because discovery in my opinion is

4 the key to all criminal justice reform. In

5 any area, in any state, in any country that

6 you talk about, if you don't have the right

7 to know, it's going to be difficult.

8 However, we have been saddled in

9 New York State with a system of justice --

10 and I don't want to speechify, believe me, I

11 just want to put this into perspective.

12 Because there is a large audience out there

13 that doesn't understand discovery. I talk to

14 my constituents about discovery and they look

15 at me blankly and don't know what I'm talking

16 about.

17 And I think, though, when they watch

18 TV and they see what happens in the

19 courtroom, that in every case, whether it's

20 Court TV -- I don't know if they have that

21 anymore -- or whether it's actually live

22 trials of O.J. Simpson or in any other case,

23 they see that the law of the land, as they

24 see it, is open file discovery and that you

236

1 have a system of justice whereby the

2 prosecution has evidence and the defense has

3 evidence that they're going to present at the

4 trial, and that it's going to be a fair

5 fight. You turn over the evidence you have,

6 Mr. D.A., and Mr. Defense Attorney, you turn

7 over what you have, and we'll a have a fair

8 fight and fight it out in court.

9 But that's not the system of justice

10 in New York, is it, Mr. Green? Even though

11 you actually see that on cases in -- I can't

12 even remember the series that -- on

13 television, Law and Order, which films as

14 though it's happening in New York State. You

15 would think that that's not only the law of

16 the land, but it's definitely the law of New

17 York State. But it's not, Mr. Green, is that

18 correct?

19 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: That's

20 correct. Even though I know as a DA, I

21 always had an open file discovery policy, and

22 I know other DAs do, currently New York's

23 discovery statute is written in a way that

24 would allow prosecutors to wait until after a

237

1 jury is selected and before opening statement

2 to turn over some of the discovery or Rosario

3 material.

4 And I think the Governor shares your

5 concern in that regard --

6 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Yes.

7 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: -- and

8 the reason that he's introduced this proposal

9 is to change that framework.

10 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: That's why I was

11 happy to see a proposal on discovery put in

12 the budget, because I think there is an

13 opportunity for change.

14 However, when I looked at it, I was, I

15 have to tell you, mortified. First because

16 it was very hard to understand, very

17 complicated, and it didn't seem to do what I

18 thought we do in the civil law and in every

19 other jurisdiction that has open file

20 discovery, and that is: Here's the evidence,

21 we're turning it over now to you,

22 Mr. Defendant. The defendant says, Here's

23 our evidence, we're turning it over to you.

24 That's not what this does, this

238

1 proposal, is that correct?

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

3 think it's fair to analogize criminal cases

4 to civil cases.

5 I think what this proposal does is

6 recognize the issue that we have in our

7 current discovery statute, but also recognize

8 some of the inherent issues in the criminal

9 justice system, such as the fact that every

10 day there are examples of witnesses who have

11 been threatened, intimidated, houses are

12 being firebombed, they're being shot.

13 And so we need to balance and we need

14 to do everything we can in cases where those

15 issues aren't present, to get the defense the

16 materials they need in an early stage of the

17 proceedings so they can use them to get the

18 representation they deserve and need. But at

19 the same time we need to make sure that we

20 take into account the very real issues that

21 prosecutors raise with regard to witness

22 intimation and witness protection. And this

23 proposal that the Governor put forward is an

24 attempt to balance both of them.

239

1 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Thank you for

2 that affirmative defense, but I didn't get

3 there yet.

4 (Laughter.)

5 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: I didn't want to

6 talk about that yet, I just wanted to set

7 exactly what I believe the stage of the

8 discussion is and what it ought to be.

9 Now, I understand that we have to

10 protect witnesses. And we have MS-13, we

11 have all these gangs to worry about in

12 New York. I understand all of that. Don't

13 they have gangs in California?

14 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Yes,

15 they have a gang statute in California. We

16 don't too. I'm not advocating that we adopt

17 that.

18 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Well, I'm just

19 saying -- I'm not advocating anything about

20 gang statutes. I'm talking about the type of

21 discovery that they have in California allows

22 for protective orders to be issued by judges

23 in order to protect against witnesses being

24 tampered with or being hurt or being followed

240

1 or any of that. Isn't that true?

2 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I have

3 not read California's discovery statute

4 recently, but I know the Governor's proposal

5 you have in front of you also provides for

6 protective orders to be sought by either

7 party.

8 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: So all I'm saying

9 is that this particular statute is difficult

10 because it unilaterally allows prosecutors to

11 do a lot of different things that they

12 wouldn't be able to do in other states that

13 have effective discovery statutes.

14 For example, redaction. When I looked

15 at it, I said, well, you know, maybe there

16 are cases where a prosecutor needs to use

17 redaction. But it seems, as you go through

18 the statute, that it's almost in every case

19 that a prosecutor will be able to

20 unilaterally redact information, witnesses'

21 identities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera,

22 as you go down the line. And there seem to

23 be plenty of escapes and loopholes in the law

24 that no discovery will follow as a result of

241

1 that unilateral power.

2 Now, maybe if there were equal time

3 given to defense to be able to redact, I

4 would have been happy. I don't think I

5 would, anyway. But I might have been happier

6 if I saw redaction allowed by the defendant.

7 But that's not allowed here. It's only one

8 way, where the prosecution gets to redact

9 everything. Is that correct?

10 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I've got

11 to disagree with your characterization. I

12 don't believe that it's full of loopholes. I

13 don't believe they can redact in every case.

14 I think the right to redact is limited.

15 I think it's important to note that

16 any time there is a redaction, it provides

17 for the right to have a judge review that

18 redaction to see whether or not the judge

19 agrees with that. So I think I would again

20 disagree with your assessment. I feel that

21 it's a very balanced statute, it attempts to

22 balance legitimate concerns.

23 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: So let me give

24 you an example of what I'm talking about.

242

1 What is the basis for the new

2 prosecution's right to redact when

3 disclosure, quote, could interfere with the

4 ongoing investigation of a case -- or a case,

5 any case? Isn't there always a hypothetical

6 chance of interference with an investigation?

7 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Again,

8 as I read that, I would not read it as

9 hypothetical. I would read it as actual, and

10 I believe a judge reviewing it would also

11 read it actual, not hypothetical.

12 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: And as I read the

13 protective order statutes, which I tried to

14 do -- they're complicated too. But why, in

15 your view, are they insufficient?

16 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I

17 believe one reason would be the time delay

18 between -- that it would take to get the

19 protective order. This just provides for an

20 immediate remedy so the prosecutor can

21 redact, can promptly turn the remaining

22 materials over, and then if the defense has

23 an issue with the redaction, it goes to the

24 judge and the judge reviews it and makes a

243

1 determination as to whether or not more

2 material needs to be turned over or the

3 redactions were proper.

4 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Well, let's go

5 back to the material that's turned over.

6 Now, I don't know if this is true and I'd

7 like to ask you, because some of the lawyers

8 that I've spoken to after they've read the

9 bill -- and they're smarter than I am -- have

10 told me that the bill is unconstitutional as

11 drafted because it requires the defense to

12 disclose information before the prosecution

13 does, not after. So the prosecution --

14 instead of changing the law so the

15 prosecution will turn over stuff, we're

16 making the defense turn it over, maybe as

17 payment or a fee for them to get some

18 discovery from the prosecution.

19 So the way this statute does read, it

20 requires disclosure of certain categories of

21 information by the defense but not by the

22 prosecution also as well.

23 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I

24 believe the case you're referring to is a

244

1 Supreme Court case involving the State of

2 Oregon, and I don't believe --

3 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Yes.

4 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I think

5 that dealt with alibi witness situations. I

6 don't believe that our statute that the

7 Governor has proposed runs afoul of that.

8 I also don't believe that it generally

9 requires disclosure by the defense before it

10 requires disclosure by the people. The one

11 exception may be grand jury minutes, which

12 can be disclosed 15 days prior to trial. But

13 otherwise, the way I read it, the obligation

14 is on the prosecution first.

15 But in any event, I think the Supreme

16 Court case you referred to talks about a

17 one-sided discovery situation where there's

18 disclosure required by the defense without

19 reciprocal obligation. When you read this

20 statute as a whole, I don't think that it

21 would even come close to falling afoul of

22 that case.

23 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: So I don't have

24 much time left, but I just wanted to make one

245

1 remark because -- about bail reform. And as

2 I said from the very outset, the key to all

3 of these criminal justice reforms, whether

4 they're speedy trial or bail reform, is

5 discovery. Because if you don't know the

6 information that you need to try your case,

7 why would you want a speedy trial? So you

8 could go to jail? I don't think so.

9 If you don't know about what happened

10 in the case and you want to argue against

11 preventive detention, which the Governor's

12 bail reform requires to be mandatory for five

13 days, how are you going to be able to fight

14 that detention at a hearing if you don't know

15 because you don't have discovery at the

16 outset?

17 So I'm just making that as a

18 statement; you don't have to reply to it.

19 But all I'm telling you and I'm telling the

20 Governor, that I love the fact that we're

21 talking about this, I love the fact that

22 discovery, bail reform and speedy trial is in

23 the budget, but we have to change it.

24 Thank you, sir.

246

1 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Thank

2 you. I know you've advocated for these

3 issues for a long time. I appreciate your

4 comments.

5 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Thank you.

6 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

7 Senator Croci.

8 SENATOR CROCI: Thank you.

9 And thank you, sir, for being with us

10 again today this year.

11 A question, one of the proposals that

12 is in the budget in your section is the

13 Governor has proposed a half a million

14 dollars for MS-13 gang prevention efforts,

15 presumably for the Long Island area, my

16 Senate district. And I guess the efforts are

17 to be allocated pursuant to a plan submitted

18 and approved by the budget director.

19 Can you give us some details about

20 what the nature of the plan is, where the

21 monies are intended to go, what

22 organizations, and how it will be utilized?

23 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: It's my

24 understanding that that money is meant to be

247

1 targeted for Long Island related to MS-13,

2 and specifically related to the funding of

3 anti-gang education and training programs in

4 schools.

5 SENATOR CROCI: And who would be

6 conducting this training? Is this local law

7 enforcement? Is this --

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

9 believe that's spelled out in the budget

10 language. But I believe the intention would

11 be for the state to be supporting local

12 efforts.

13 SENATOR CROCI: Absolutely. And if

14 that's the case, we'd very much like to know

15 how it will be spent and to what

16 organizations and groups. Because there is a

17 federal law enforcement investigation and a

18 lot of partners down there working now, we

19 want to be complementary to those efforts.

20 So we'd just like to know exactly that

21 money is going to be allocated and what kind

22 of efforts are going on, either in the

23 Brentwood school system or Central Islip

24 school system or others. We'd very much like

248

1 to have the details on that.

2 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN:

3 Understood.

4 SENATOR CROCI: Thank you.

5 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

6 CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN: Assemblyman

7 Weprin.

8 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN: Yes, thank you,

9 Madam Chair.

10 Thank you, Commissioner Green, for

11 coming.

12 I appreciate your initial comments. I

13 chair the Corrections Committee, and I

14 appreciate your comments on the reduction of

15 crime and prison population.

16 Having said that, I was a little

17 disturbed there were two cuts, probably

18 totaling less than a million dollars, on two

19 very good programs that were taking place

20 under your jurisdiction, and they were also

21 organizations that I have worked with closely

22 as chair of Corrections and help to prevent

23 recidivism and also reducing the prison

24 population. One is a program by the Osborne

249

1 Association, a defender-based advocacy

2 program, and the other one was the Legal

3 Action Center Program. I think the total of

4 both of the items were less than a million

5 dollars.

6 Is there any reason why they were

7 defunded? And obviously we can restore them,

8 but what was the thinking behind that?

9 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: So in

10 the Governor's proposed budget, I don't

11 believe that there are any cuts in line with

12 anything you've mentioned. I'm assuming or

13 guessing that you're speaking about money

14 that was allocated pursuant to a competitive

15 request for proposal, a request for

16 application, last year. So in the ATI

17 funding realm, we did put out funding in a

18 number of different areas. There was

19 workforce-related ATI funding, and then there

20 was ATI funding related to other programming.

21 And it's possible, as part of that

22 competitive solicitation, that the

23 organizations that you mentioned may have

24 previously got money but did not put in

250

1 proposals that met the standard to get

2 funded.

3 So there's no cut in funding in any of

4 those funding streams. But we put out

5 competitive proposals and then made awards,

6 looking at both geographically where is the

7 need, and then in terms of programming,

8 making sure we had the right programming

9 being funded, and then, within those

10 confines, funding the best proposals that we

11 had. So I can only guess that you're

12 referring to organizations that may have not

13 gotten funding through that.

14 And all I can say is that we've done

15 the best that we can at DCJS to make sure

16 that we take the money that's being allocated

17 and make sure it's being distributed where

18 the need is and that the right types of

19 services are being funded and that they're

20 being provided in the best way possible.

21 I know that we have significant

22 contracts with Osborne still. So, you know,

23 it's not that we don't work with them or they

24 don't provide very valuable services under

251

1 our funding streams.

2 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN: I've been told by

3 counsel that they did lose the funding

4 through the ITA process. But if it's

5 possible to look at those programs again,

6 maybe we can look to fund them in addition or

7 try to see if the services they provided are

8 being provided by some of these new programs

9 that came out through the ITA RFP.

10 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: We'll

11 certainly do that.

12 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN: Thank you.

13 Thank you, Madam Chair.

14 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you very

15 much.

16 Any more questions? Senator Phillips.

17 SENATOR PHILLIPS: Good afternoon,

18 Commissioner.

19 Just in reference, I also represent a

20 portion of Long Island, but Nassau County.

21 And I'd like to go back to the MS-13 gang

22 activity. Although we're fortunate in Nassau

23 that we haven't had the extreme that's in

24 Suffolk, but it's in Nassau County. And, you

252

1 know, thanks to the hard work of the Nassau

2 County Police Department, we are prepared.

3 But what kind of support has DCJS

4 offered in an effort to eradicate MS-13?

5 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: About, I

6 would say, maybe two months ago myself and

7 Mike Wood, who's the head of our Office of

8 Public Safety and a former deputy chief at

9 the Rochester Police Department, went to

10 Long Island. We spent the morning with the

11 Nassau County police commissioner and his top

12 people working on the issue. We spent the

13 afternoon with Commissioner Ryder and his top

14 people, you know, looking for ways we could

15 help. We've been working with Suffolk County

16 with regard to improvements they're making to

17 their intelligence center. I think the

18 proposal that Senator Croci asked me about

19 came out of those conversations.

20 So, you know, we've personally been

21 down there -- and I agree with your

22 assessment that I think both police agencies

23 are very dedicated and working very hard on

24 this issue. And we're working with them

253

1 behind the scenes to support them in any way

2 we can.

3 SENATOR PHILLIPS: And do your crime

4 analysis centers provide any support? Is

5 there any --

6 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: We're

7 networked -- our DCJS directly supported

8 centers, there's eight of them. And then

9 we're networked with centers in both Nassau

10 and Suffolk. So to the extent -- first of

11 all, we share information through that

12 network so they can -- you know, if MS-13

13 members are operating somewhere else within

14 that network, they can share information with

15 law enforcement agencies.

16 And then if we have tools that exist

17 within our network that would be useful to

18 them -- such as, for example, facial

19 recognition or social media mining tools --

20 we can make those available to them.

21 SENATOR PHILLIPS: And last, I just

22 would like to support what Senator Croci said

23 on this half a million dollars.

24 There are several programs in this

254

1 MS-13 gang prevention proposal, and I think

2 the worst thing that could happen is the

3 school districts don't know how or aren't

4 thought of. And, you know, I worry about

5 that a little bit in my district because

6 sometimes people don't think, but, you know,

7 Westbury, Elmont, Port Washington, you know,

8 these are districts that need support to

9 combat this and prevent it before it comes

10 in.

11 So the sooner you can be clear on

12 where that money is going and how to apply,

13 the better. Thank you.

14 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Thank

15 you. I appreciate the concern.

16 CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN: Thank you,

17 Commissioner. I have a question.

18 I see that the Executive Budget

19 eliminates the $2.83 million in funding for

20 civil legal services and instead funds part

21 of the $6.1 million in existing aid to

22 defense services through the LSAF fund, the

23 Legal Services Assistance Fund.

24 What's the rationale for eliminating

255

1 the civil legal services funding and

2 replacing it with indigent defense funding?

3 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: The

4 funding that comes through DCJS's budget in

5 terms of the money that's going out to the

6 defense agencies I know is unchanged.

7 I believe with regard to two areas of

8 funding, the source of those funds may have

9 changed from General Funds to another

10 specific fund.

11 In both of those cases, I think the

12 fund that's now being used as opposed to the

13 General Funds, the purpose of that fund does

14 specifically cover the funding it's being

15 used for. And I think that might be more

16 appropriately addressed to Budget, but my

17 understanding is that the purpose was to try

18 and make sure that no on-the-ground agency

19 suffered any cuts in a very difficult budget

20 year.

21 CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN: Well, the --

22 since I was around at the time with your

23 predecessor, Katie Lapp, when that was

24 established, we -- the LSAF fund specifically

256

1 was designed for civil legal services.

2 I understand the desire to show that

3 the agency is under its 2 percent cap, but I

4 don't know that it's appropriate to do that

5 by offloading expenses that rightfully belong

6 under the General Fund and eliminating legal

7 services funding.

8 Is there any proposal to replace that

9 $2.83 million in legal services funding?

10 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: And

11 again, I think the figure I had was $2.6

12 million here. But I think that might be a

13 question that's more appropriately addressed

14 to the Budget Division.

15 All I can say is what I know from the

16 DCJS budget is that the same amount of money

17 that we had to fund Aid to Defense and to

18 fund the New York Defenders in last year's

19 budget is also present in this year's budget.

20 The only difference is the source of those

21 funds.

22 CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN: Right. Okay,

23 thank you very much.

24 Senate?

257

1 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.

2 Senator Jamaal Bailey.

3 SENATOR BAILEY: Thank you, Senator.

4 Thank you, Commissioner, for coming

5 before us.

6 Not to belabor the point that

7 Assemblyman Lentol made so well about

8 discovery, but I do -- I am a huge proponent

9 of discovery reform, and I'm happy about the

10 steps that we're taking but we need to go a

11 little bit further.

12 You mention that certain

13 jurisdictions are in fact open file

14 jurisdictions where they do allow the defense

15 to get the information -- the evidence

16 beforehand. We mentioned how important

17 witness protection is, and I agree. But in

18 these jurisdictions do we have any statistics

19 about any spike in intimidation or issues

20 that would require these witnesses to be

21 protected as such?

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

23 believe there's any statewide data that's

24 kept, but I've had prosecutors for the last

258

1 year sending me examples. And I have

2 documented examples. They include videotapes

3 taken off of social media of gang members

4 reading witnesses' grand jury testimony aloud

5 and proclaiming that they're putting out

6 warrants for the witnesses and that they

7 should be killed. You know, and I could go

8 on and on with examples.

9 So I think a comparison to other

10 states is tough because you can pull out one

11 piece of a statute from another state and

12 say, See, this is great. But my general

13 experience is when you read the whole

14 statute, you and everyone else will find

15 things you like in other states' statutes and

16 things you don't like. And I think it's

17 probably the same in the Governor's proposal.

18 And the bottom line is I think everybody is

19 trying to balance these things.

20 You know, personally I think the

21 Governor's proposal did a very good job. It

22 goes much further than our current discovery

23 statute in terms of making information

24 available to the defense. It will no longer

259

1 allow prosecutors to walk in after jury

2 selection, before opening statement, dump

3 materials on the desk and say, Let's go now.

4 It provides for grand jury testimony to be

5 turned over 15 days before trial, which is a

6 tremendous improvement over our current

7 statute.

8 But it does put those witness

9 protection things in there too, because

10 they're very important.

11 So, you know, I'm sure we could

12 discuss and there will be discussions about

13 how you strike that balance. But I think the

14 important thing is, you know, that we

15 recognize the importance of both of those

16 things and try and come up with a statute

17 that takes them both into account.

18 SENATOR BAILEY: I would agree with

19 you. And to your point about the countless

20 social media clips about witness

21 intimidations, I could also have countless

22 clips of people who have taken guilty pleas

23 without knowing information before them,

24 individuals who have been incarcerated with

260

1 little to no information about why they are

2 in there.

3 So it's -- what we're saying is

4 essentially the same thing. I believe that

5 we have come further than we've been before.

6 But as Assemblyman Lentol mentioned, the

7 discovery -- the redaction policy I believe

8 is overbroad. There is far too much

9 prosecutorial power in that statute. And I

10 hope that's something that we can remedy.

11 In my limited time, I wanted to speak

12 about the SNUG program and its funding,

13 $4.8 million in appropriation. The SNUG

14 program does a lot of good work in my

15 senatorial district, particularly in the City

16 of Mount Vernon. Are there any new SNUG

17 programs that are going to be planned

18 statewide?

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

20 believe there are any plans for any new

21 programs in our network. I think the

22 Poughkeepsie program that was just stood up

23 as a result of money in last year's budget is

24 the newest one. I think that gives us 11

261

1 sites that we're operating with the

2 $4.8 million in funding that you provide.

3 You know, I would agree with you, I

4 think those programs are just absolutely

5 tremendous programs. And we're on pace -- we

6 don't have the final 2017 numbers in yet, but

7 by all accounts it looks like we're going to

8 come in under 600 homicides for the state for

9 2017. We haven't hit that number since 1965

10 when we started keeping track as a state. It

11 looks like the shootings, both in New York

12 City and the rest of the state, are going to

13 come in significantly down in 2017 compared

14 to '16.

15 And I think that, you know, while law

16 enforcement deserves some credit, I think the

17 SNUG programs deserve a lot of credit as

18 well. You know, we've worked very hard with

19 those programs, we have a great partnership

20 between DCJS and the local programs on the

21 ground and the not-for-profits they operate

22 out of, and really appreciate the support

23 that the Legislature has provided us with

24 those.

262

1 SENATOR BAILEY: It is an excellent

2 program, Commissioner.

3 One final question about civil asset

4 forfeiture. There is mention in the

5 Executive Budget Article VII about the

6 ability of law enforcement to bring civil --

7 eliminating the ability, excuse me, of law

8 enforcement to bring civil asset forfeiture

9 proceedings against individuals not charged

10 with a felony and requires a conviction

11 before a court may grant forfeiture of the

12 defendant's assets.

13 Where does DCJS come down on this?

14 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: The

15 genesis of the proposal I believe are

16 instances where there have been forfeiture

17 actions where money has been taken from

18 people who ultimately they weren't charged

19 with crimes or weren't convicted of crimes.

20 And so I think the purpose is to try and

21 limit forfeiture to situations where there is

22 a conviction.

23 SENATOR BAILEY: Okay. Thank you,

24 Commissioner. Nothing further.

263

1 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Thank

2 you.

3 CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN: Assemblyman

4 Oaks.

5 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS: Hi. I just wanted

6 to address the issue related to the bail

7 proposal and the concern that I've heard

8 raised around the issue of outstanding

9 warrants.

10 Already with the bail system we have a

11 significant number of people who, you know,

12 don't appear or whatever and there are

13 outstanding warrants. I'm concerned that

14 without bail then the percentage of people

15 who would then appear in court might be

16 reduced dramatically.

17 So is there anything within the

18 proposal that would address the issue of the

19 possibility of having an increased number of

20 folks who don't appear?

21 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Yes, I

22 believe there is. And a couple of comments

23 I'd make.

24 First, the fact that people raise that

264

1 as an issue and say that there's a large

2 number of warrants, if that's true, would

3 indicate that the current system is not

4 working to get people to return to court.

5 I have seen studies in a very limited

6 basis that indicate that removing monetary

7 bail does not in any way reduce reappearance

8 rates.

9 But the Governor's proposal also does

10 address situations where someone refuses to

11 voluntarily return to court. And one of the

12 bases for pretrial detention or a motion

13 asking a judge to consider pretrial detention

14 would be in a situation where someone has

15 been released, has been given a court date,

16 and has refused to voluntarily return to

17 court. And ultimately a judge would have the

18 power, after going through the proper

19 processes, to order that person held if

20 there's no other way to get them to return to

21 court.

22 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS: So when you're

23 saying you looked at some data and whatever,

24 your sense is we may not see that increase

265

1 or -- in people appearing?

2 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: You

3 know, some of the data I've looked at -- for

4 example, people who have $500 or less bail

5 set, over half of those people across the

6 state cannot afford the bail, and that amount

7 of bail keeps them sitting in jail.

8 You know, I'm hard-pressed to think

9 that someone who posted $250, the sole reason

10 they come back to court is for that $250. So

11 no, I don't think the elimination of cash

12 bail for misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies

13 is going to dramatically increase the number

14 of people who don't come back.

15 Further, in the Governor's proposal,

16 for the first time the Governor would put in

17 a statutory framework to provide monitoring

18 services. And there are studies that show

19 that things like text messaging or

20 notifications being sent to people to inform

21 them of their court dates can dramatically

22 improve the percentage of people that come

23 back to court when they're supposed to.

24 So I think there are much more

266

1 efficient ways, in this day and age, other

2 than cash bail to really focus on and improve

3 appearance rates in court.

4 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS: Well, one of the

5 things I think certainly people who commit an

6 offense appear, many are referred under the

7 current structure to services, pretrial

8 services of different kinds. And certainly

9 getting individuals in these services can

10 often highlight some of the issues, whether

11 it's homelessness or education issues,

12 trouble with finding jobs, et cetera. Some

13 of those educational issues are addressed,

14 identified, and perhaps more stability

15 brought to the person's life and the

16 likelihood of reoffending goes down.

17 Certainly I've seen, you know, benefits. Had

18 a chance to serve on a board, you know, that

19 did that.

20 Again, I guess as I was concerned, if

21 you're not appearing to answer, then the

22 opportunity to get them to, you know, those

23 services may be reduced.

24 But obviously should this go forward,

267

1 you know, the opportunity for us to be able

2 to respond and have an impact on lowering

3 crime and certainly individuals' involvement

4 in that crime, you know, we need to be

5 successful with.

6 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: No, I

7 would agree that that's a very important part

8 of the proposal.

9 ASSEMBLYMAN OAKS: Thank you.

10 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

11 Senator Savino.

12 SENATOR SAVINO: Thank you,

13 Senator Young.

14 Thank you, Commissioner, for your

15 testimony.

16 I'm not going to belabor the point on

17 the proposals in the Governor's budget around

18 bail and discovery and others, because there

19 are other people who are going to come up and

20 speak later on. I know the DAs Association

21 is here and Defenders are here and Legal Aid,

22 so I'll leave those questions for them.

23 I do want to make one point, though.

24 I think both Assemblymember Lentol and

268

1 Senator Bailey, who -- he and I cochair the

2 Codes Committee, and we're working on some of

3 these legislative efforts -- I want to

4 emphasize their point about discovery being

5 the most important part of it. Because if

6 you're a defense attorney or a defendant, the

7 last thing you want is a speedy trial when

8 you don't know what evidence the DA is

9 sitting on. So that has to be front and

10 center of anything.

11 But I want to ask you a question about

12 a proposal in the Governor's Article VII

13 which sounds like a good thing, but it's a

14 little confusing. So it talks about removing

15 the employment restrictions for persons with

16 felony convictions and makes hiring

17 discretionary.

18 And they outline several particular

19 positions: Check cashers; the ability to

20 serve on the Community District Education

21 Council; serving on the Bingo Control

22 Commission, which I didn't even know we had

23 one of those, but I guess we do; a notary;

24 selling or distributing games of chance;

269

1 insurance adjusters; real estate brokers and

2 real estate salespersons; subsidized

3 private-sector and not-for-profit employment

4 programs; and driver school employees. I'm

5 assuming that means persons who work for a

6 driving school, not school employees who

7 drive, right?

8 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I

9 believe the first is the case.

10 SENATOR SAVINO: All right. So the

11 question I have, does it mean all felony

12 convictions, there would be a bar? Because

13 say, for instance, you were convicted of

14 embezzling money from a non-for-profit. We

15 wouldn't want you working there again. Or if

16 you had robbed a bank, we wouldn't want you

17 working as a check casher.

18 Or we've also passed several

19 restrictions on what Level 3 sex offenders

20 and what kind of occupations they're allowed

21 to work. I think in the Senate we've pretty

22 much outlawed all of them. I'm not sure the

23 Assembly has followed suit. But would that

24 conflict with those statutes, where we don't

270

1 believe that Level 3 sex offenders shall be

2 working in a school or teaching people how to

3 drive?

4 So I'm -- could you explain some of

5 these? And if you don't know the answer,

6 that's fine. But I'm just curious about

7 these.

8 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I

9 believe under current law a conviction serves

10 as an absolute bar.

11 I think the intention here is that in

12 the overwhelming majority of cases, when a

13 person has served their time, has

14 successfully completed and is going on trying

15 to rebuild their life, that we can't be

16 throwing up roadblocks.

17 And I think you, you know, rightfully

18 point out that there are certain limited

19 circumstances where it would make sense to

20 look at those. I don't know if the bill

21 makes provisions for that or not, but I can

22 get back to you on that.

23 SENATOR SAVINO: Thank you. I would

24 just say, again, I believe in redemption and

271

1 I think the most important thing we could do

2 to prevent recidivism is to find a way for

3 people to become productive members of

4 society. But I think that, again, if you've

5 been convicted of embezzling money from a

6 nonprofit, we might not want you working in

7 the nonprofit sector again.

8 And I only point these out because

9 these were pointed out to me that these are

10 occupations that for some reason have been

11 identified. So I think we should just be

12 very careful about how we apply this. And in

13 an effort to get people back to work and

14 become functioning members of society -- all

15 important goals of the state, but at the same

16 time we have to be careful how we apply it.

17 Thank you.

18 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Thank

19 you.

20 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you, Senator

21 Savino.

22 We've been joined by Senator Joe

23 Robach, Senator Patty Ritchie, Senator Marty

24 Golden, and Senator Brian Benjamin.

272

1 CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN: Assemblyman

2 Lentol for a question.

3 ASSEMBLYMAN LENTOL: Thank you. I'm

4 not going to come back for my 15 or 10

5 minutes -- five minutes that I have, I just

6 wanted to make a comment. And this is a

7 complimentary one to be sure, Commissioner

8 Green.

9 And it's not on policy, but I wanted

10 to let you know that buried in the DCJS

11 website -- and this was something that was

12 produced by DCJS a few years back when -- it

13 was apropos then, but it seems to be more

14 apropos now. And buried in the website is a

15 video I had commissioned legislatively, and

16 it's called "The Familiar Stranger." And it

17 teaches parents, teachers and coaches that

18 they're not the only ones, that they are

19 usually the first victims, not the pedophiles

20 of a pedophile {sic}. Parents, teachers and

21 coaches.

22 We heard the gymnasts who were abused

23 say that they were groomed, but the pedophile

24 grooms the parents first. And nobody talks

273

1 about that. And so everyone misses the

2 point, and it puts the kids at risk. And

3 they put it on the kids to have the

4 responsibility for it.

5 So I just put it on the front burner

6 for you so you can put it on the front page

7 of the website, because it really is very

8 good. And it was done by CJS.

9 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Thank

10 you. I've actually seen the video. Thank

11 you. I appreciate the comment.

12 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

13 Our next speaker is Senator Krueger.

14 SENATOR KRUEGER: Good afternoon.

15 Thank you for your testimony.

16 You may have heard me ask the Chief

17 Administrative Judge this earlier today. My

18 concern -- as much as I support bail reform,

19 discovery reform and speedy trial reform, my

20 concern is the way the wording is written in

21 the bail reform bill, it actually would take

22 existing discretion away from judges. And if

23 a DA decided that they were going to demand

24 remand into custody, it would result in -- as

274

1 I understand it -- at least a five-day

2 placement, and perhaps longer, before a judge

3 even evaluated whether they should be

4 remaining in jail if they don't have cash or

5 bond.

6 So my question is, you highlighted

7 there are 45,000 people in the state who

8 currently end up staying in jail because they

9 have inadequate money to pay their bond.

10 Don't we need to fix this language so we

11 don't actually, at the end of the day, say we

12 thought we did something but actually we're

13 not seeing fewer people ending up in our

14 jails for at least some period of time?

15 Because my understanding is for a

16 low-income person, five days in jail means

17 losing their job, potentially losing their

18 children to child welfare. And that the goal

19 of the Governor is not to create a new set of

20 problems, but rather to address the problems

21 you so well described as happening for

22 45,000 people.

23 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I think

24 we share the same goal. I think that we have

275

1 a different view of that language. That

2 language doesn't apply in every case. As I

3 read it, there's a limited universe of cases

4 that that would apply in. It includes

5 domestic violence cases, it includes Class A

6 felony cases, cases of serious violence,

7 cases involving witness intimidation. That's

8 not an exhaustive list, but I think it's

9 close to exhaustive.

10 So as I read it, in that limited

11 universe of cases, yes, if a DA moves, it

12 would be up to five days until the judge

13 could hold a hearing. The judge -- you know,

14 to the extent the court had the ability to

15 hold the hearing before five days, that could

16 be done. They don't have to hold the person

17 for five days. But in the event it takes the

18 court five days to get to the hearing, they

19 would have up to that much time.

20 So, you know, I'm sure that there will

21 be discussions or negotiations over the

22 language, and I look forward to those

23 discussions.

24 SENATOR KRUEGER: So I would urge that

276

1 you clarify that the language is designed for

2 a subset universe of people, because as it's

3 been confirmed to me by several others, that

4 that might be the intent but that's not the

5 language. And so --

6 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I just

7 read it again this morning, and I -- you

8 know, again, I respect -- you know, people

9 read the same laws and disagree. I read it

10 that way. I think the language says it. But

11 certainly I'll take that back and it's

12 something we'll look at.

13 SENATOR KRUEGER: And again, I suppose

14 just to reiterate, but I think you did say

15 and highlight -- because sometimes we sit in

16 these rooms and, you know, it's the Public

17 Protection Day so we're talking about all the

18 things people are worried about, and there

19 are real worries. Certainly gang violence is

20 a real worry, and violent criminals are a

21 real worry. But again, just to emphasize,

22 we're a safer state than we've been certainly

23 in my lifetime. And that I think that we

24 all, to some degree, who are in government

277

1 and in public protection and the advocates

2 who are here should recognize that actually

3 we must be doing something right, because

4 we're clearly going in the right direction

5 here.

6 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Not only

7 are we safer, but our prison population is

8 lower than it's been since -- it peaked in

9 '99, but it's incredibly low.

10 If you look at the number of people we

11 have under total community correction

12 supervision, we're the fourth lowest state in

13 the country. I think it's only New

14 Hampshire, Maine, and one other small state

15 that are below us.

16 So, you know, probation numbers have

17 diminished considerably, prison numbers have

18 diminished considerably. At the same time,

19 our index crime rate is at an all-time low,

20 our homicides are at an all-time low.

21 So I really do appreciate your

22 comments. Thank you.

23 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you very much.

24 Senator Marty Golden.

278

1 SENATOR GOLDEN: Thank you very much.

2 I just have -- I got here late. I'm not

3 going to go over some of the -- I was at an

4 another committee meeting. So I too am not

5 going to go over the bail, I'm going to

6 listen to those in the audience that are

7 going to be testifying shortly. I'm not sure

8 it's the right route to go, but we'll listen

9 to both sides and see what we can, to make

10 sure that the constituency here in the City

11 and the State of New York are safe.

12 The area I want to deal with -- I

13 think it may have been touched on -- is gang

14 violence. I know that we -- there's a budget

15 cost of 500,000 to fund a plan to cut MS-13's

16 recruitment pipeline. Is DCJS engaging in

17 other activities that would help stop that

18 gang recruitment? Because we don't see it

19 just in Long Island, we see it across the

20 state now, big time in Brooklyn. So we need

21 to hopefully have a good approach on dealing

22 with that issue. Is there other avenues that

23 the -- that your agency is taking to curtail

24 that?

279

1 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I

2 believe two other programs that we have that

3 have received national recognition are

4 directly related to gang violence, and that's

5 our GIVE, or Gun-Involved Violence

6 Elimination Program, and the SNUG programs.

7 And both of those look at the gang and

8 the violence issue from a different

9 perspective -- you know, GIVE more centered

10 at the law enforcement perspective, so it

11 provides about $14 million in funding to

12 prosecutors, police departments, probation

13 departments and sheriff's departments in the

14 17 largest counties outside New York City, to

15 focus on shootings and homicides. And in

16 many of our cities, those shooting and

17 homicide issues are in many ways

18 gang-related.

19 The shootings and homicides are down

20 significantly in GIVE jurisdictions in 2017.

21 That money, in addition to providing funding,

22 we provide extensive training and technical

23 assistance on evidence-based efforts to

24 attack those problems.

280

1 And then the SNUG or street outreach

2 problems are looking at that same issue from

3 a public health perspective and attacking it

4 from a different angle. And, you know, what

5 we've been working on doing is behind the

6 scenes getting those efforts to work hand in

7 hand. In many of our jurisdictions, that's

8 starting to happen and happen successfully.

9 So yes, we are very focused on the

10 issue, both on Long Island and across the

11 rest of the state.

12 SENATOR GOLDEN: Is DCJS obviously

13 working with the feds here on this, and the

14 local counties?

15 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I would

16 say it's the local law enforcement that works

17 more with the feds in many of the efforts.

18 So for example, focused deterrence is

19 one of the efforts that we support under

20 GIVE. Focused deterrence involves many

21 different components, but one is an outreach

22 directly to the people involved in this

23 behavior, letting them know what the

24 community feels about it. But another piece

281

1 are enforcement actions when people violate

2 those community norms. And many times those

3 enforcement actions do involve a combination

4 of the locals and the feds working together

5 to do, for example, a RICO takedown against a

6 gang or something to that effect.

7 So it's -- you know, DCJS is

8 supporting efforts behind the scene, but part

9 of those efforts we support do involve, where

10 it's appropriate, supporting and encouraging

11 ways that locals and feds can work together.

12 SENATOR GOLDEN: And the approach that

13 you're now taking with MS-13, are we

14 expanding these approaches into the organized

15 crimes within the Russian and different

16 organizations that are out there organized

17 throughout the State of New York? Are you

18 taking some of those new approaches, are you

19 applying them to organized crime?

20 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I think

21 that in some ways each of these situations

22 poses unique challenges and some of the

23 challenges MS-13 poses are unique and are

24 unique solutions. You know, some of the

282

1 problems, for example, in places like

2 Rochester and Buffalo, which are more the

3 neighborhood-crew-type situation driving the

4 violence, call for different types of

5 solutions.

6 So what we're really encouraging is

7 the local law enforcement in each of their

8 jurisdictions to, you know, from an

9 analytical perspective drill down and

10 understand exactly what the issues are. We

11 assist in looking at national research to

12 understand what is out there that's worked in

13 the past for those specific problems, try and

14 make the connections, and try and make sure

15 that each locality is pursuing strategies

16 that are appropriate for the particular

17 issues or problems that they're facing.

18 SENATOR GOLDEN: We do see a spike in

19 financial crimes, obviously, within the

20 Russian, Asian and Hispanic gang culture.

21 And I'm just wondering if we're expanding

22 into that area to curtail some of those

23 financial crimes that are going on,

24 especially with our seniors and with our

283

1 institutions.

2 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: I know

3 in our conversations -- and I think you may

4 have missed it, but I indicated that we were

5 in Suffolk and Nassau earlier this year

6 talking with the police commissioners there,

7 and they did mention some of the financial

8 crimes that they're seeing associated with

9 the gang activity. And where we can support

10 them in their efforts to fight that, we're

11 certainly doing that.

12 SENATOR GOLDEN: Thank you for your

13 service, sir. Thank you.

14 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Thank

15 you.

16 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you very much,

17 Commissioner.

18 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Thank

19 you.

20 SENATOR KRUEGER: I believe all people

21 have asked their questions. Appreciate your

22 time.

23 EX. DEP. COMMISSIONER GREEN: Thank

24 you.

284

1 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

2 SENATOR KRUEGER: Our next speaker is

3 Anthony Annucci, New York State Department of

4 Corrections and Community Supervision.

5 Good afternoon.

6 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Good afternoon.

7 Welcome. We're glad to have your testimony,

8 Commissioner.

9 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Thank

10 you.

11 Good afternoon, Chairwoman Young,

12 Chairwoman Weinstein, and other distinguished

13 chairs and members of the Legislature. I am

14 Anthony J. Annucci, acting commissioner for

15 the Department of Corrections and Community

16 Supervision. It is my honor to discuss some

17 of the highlights of Governor Cuomo's

18 Executive Budget plan.

19 Last year, New York appropriately

20 raised the age of criminal responsibility in

21 stages to 18. Since then, we have worked in

22 coordination with our state and local

23 partners, and this year we will transition

24 Hudson and Adirondack into Adolescent

285

1 Offender Facilities, to become operational by

2 October 1st. In 2019, we will convert the

3 previously closed Groveland Annex to a

4 standalone Adolescent Offender Facility.

5 Also, we will continue to reform the

6 use and conditions of solitary confinement

7 through the multiyear, comprehensive

8 settlement with the New York Civil Liberties

9 Union.

10 Since implementation in 2016, there

11 has been an impressive 29 percent reduction

12 in the number of inmates serving sanctions in

13 a special housing unit (SHU) cell, and a

14 25 percent decrease in the average length of

15 stay of an inmate in a SHU cell. During this

16 same period, assaults on staff were reduced

17 approximately 11 percent.

18 To continue building on this success,

19 Governor Cuomo has directed DOCCS to

20 consolidate SHU beds by closing one housing

21 unit at Cayuga, Upstate and Southport

22 Correctional Facilities. Upon completion of

23 these consolidations, and throughout the

24 implementation of this historic agreement,

286

1 New York will have removed more than 1,200

2 SHU beds.

3 Safety and security will again remain

4 a top priority. Working with the unions, we

5 have implemented and will expand upon a

6 variety of technological enhancements,

7 training improvements, and policy changes.

8 The department will continue installing a

9 number of fixed camera systems. After

10 initially piloting the use of body cameras at

11 Clinton and Bedford Hills, we will also

12 expand their use to other facilities and our

13 office of Special Investigations.

14 Lastly, since the department has

15 successfully piloted the use of pepper spray,

16 this year we will operationalize it

17 statewide. Thus far, among the results of

18 the pilot at the four test facilities, there

19 is an 11 percent reduction in the number of

20 reported staff injuries associated with staff

21 assaults.

22 As we continue to use technology to

23 make our prisons safer, we will also leverage

24 it to improve operations and interactions

287

1 with family and friends by expanding services

2 to our population. The department plans to

3 move to an electronic Inmate Trust Account

4 Services system, which will allow family and

5 friends to more easily deposit money, as well

6 as provide quicker access to the funds for

7 the population. Through this platform,

8 releasees will be issued debit cards that can

9 be transitioned to a bank account in the

10 community.

11 In a groundbreaking move, the

12 department will provide each incarcerated

13 individual a tablet at no cost, with the

14 ability to access free educational material

15 and e-books, and to file grievances.

16 Individuals will also have the option to

17 purchase music and additional e-books, and to

18 use a secure email system to communicate with

19 family and friends.

20 We have also awarded a new inmate

21 telephone system contract, resulting in a

22 reduction in the per-minute call rate to be

23 one of the lowest in the nation, while also

24 securing the ability to make permanent our

288

1 SHU pilot tablet program, to provide easier

2 access to the telephone and preloaded

3 educational materials.

4 The budget will also build upon proven

5 reentry initiatives with an expansion of the

6 merit time and limited credit time allowance

7 statutes, as well as a pilot to place up to

8 100 LCTA-eligible inmates into educational

9 release and work release. Also, geriatric

10 parole will be authorized for inmates over 55

11 with debilitating age-related conditions; the

12 parole supervision fee, which inhibits

13 reentry, will be repealed; and the Board of

14 Parole, in conjunction with Community

15 Supervision staff, are engaging with the

16 Governor's Reentry Council for a

17 comprehensive review of parole revocation

18 guidelines and practices.

19 Appropriate alternatives to

20 incarceration for those technical violators

21 who pose little risk to reoffend will be

22 prioritized.

23 This year we will also expand our

24 Veterans Residential Therapeutic Program to a

289

1 maximum-security prison. This program

2 provides treatment services in a therapeutic

3 community setting to the veteran population,

4 to heal and restore them to a pro-social

5 state.

6 For Community Supervision, we have

7 implemented a strategic plan to improve

8 outcomes for parolees to include monitoring

9 enrollment in substance abuse treatment,

10 anger management, sex offender counseling,

11 domestic violence programs, mental health

12 services, and employment and vocational

13 training programs.

14 Additionally, we continue to study our

15 RESET initiative, which focuses on

16 case-plan-driven techniques that concentrate

17 on criminogenic risks and needs to enhance

18 public safety. This evidence-based approach

19 continues to show indications of better

20 outcomes by taking swift, certain and fair

21 actions toward new delinquent behavior, while

22 also acknowledging and rewarding positive

23 achievements.

24 In conclusion, this year we will

290

1 embark on many exciting initiatives that will

2 have a positive impact throughout the entire

3 agency. We will rely on new technologies to

4 deliver transformative programs and

5 initiatives, while our professional,

6 well-trained, and dedicated work force will

7 continue performing their daily and

8 oftentimes dangerous responsibilities in an

9 exemplary manner. The Governor's proposed

10 budget will build on criminal justice reform

11 and place DOCCS in an ideal position to

12 fulfill its expectations.

13 Thank you, and I will be happy to

14 answer any questions.

15 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you,

16 Commissioner. We appreciate that testimony

17 very much.

18 I'd like to start with a few

19 questions. And first of all, I have spent

20 time visiting all the facilities that are

21 either in my Senate district or surround it.

22 And recently I had the opportunity to go back

23 to Attica, which I hadn't visited since I was

24 a reporter in my early twenties many, many,

291

1 many years ago.

2 So the first question has to do with a

3 proposal by the Governor. But could you

4 please explain what the purpose is of special

5 housing units?

6 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Special

7 housing units is the means by which we

8 basically separate from the general

9 population those individuals whose

10 misbehavior places other inmates at risk,

11 such as a serious assault or possession of a

12 large amount of contraband or drugs. So they

13 are separated from the general population

14 pursuant to a disciplinary hearing and

15 sanction that may impose placement in a

16 special housing unit.

17 Our system is different from others,

18 in that we have a fixed system with penalties

19 for periods of time in a special housing

20 unit. Once that is served, the person is

21 released. And we, as you know, are in the

22 process of implementing a multiyear agreement

23 with the New York Civil Liberties Union to

24 transform our SHUs to basically provide more

292

1 services so that, consistent with where the

2 entire country is going, we can safely say

3 that you will not be at risk of harm when you

4 are placed in these SHUs with all of the

5 changes that we are making.

6 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: So with the SHUs,

7 they're designed to protect other inmates

8 from potential violence, protect a person

9 maybe from himself, protect the staff;

10 correct?

11 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Correct.

12 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: So you mentioned

13 something about a national trend. But in the

14 Governor's proposal, there's a section that

15 proposes closing 900 special housing unit

16 beds. So where will those inmates that are

17 currently residing in those beds be

18 relocated?

19 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: They're

20 not currently residing in those beds,

21 Senator. Those are vacant beds. We have

22 that many vacancies in our --

23 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: So in the system

24 today there are 900 vacant beds.

293

1 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well,

2 there are vacant beds and there are beds that

3 we have put offline and filled with

4 alternatives.

5 For example, the step-down unit at

6 Green Haven, the step-down unit at Wende are

7 providing out-of-cell time for individuals,

8 preparing them for release. And so when

9 they're released into the community, we don't

10 consider them to be traditional SHU beds.

11 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: So today you're

12 saying that those step-down and those other

13 beds, those SHU beds are vacant. Or is this

14 going to be created?

15 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I'm

16 sorry, I didn't get the question.

17 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: So you're creating

18 this, it sounds like. You're saying that

19 there aren't --

20 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: It's a

21 combination of two things. It's a

22 combination of the SHU population has

23 dramatically been reduced, and at the same

24 time we're putting online new programs that

294

1 are providing out-of-cell time and treatment

2 and therapy, and therefore we do not need

3 this many SHU beds.

4 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: How long has DOCCS

5 been reducing the SHU beds?

6 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Since we

7 started the agreement and converted a number

8 of these.

9 You may also recall that when we

10 enacted all the laws to deal with the

11 seriously mentally ill, we took that RMH, the

12 RMHU that's now at Marcy, that originally was

13 a 200-bed S block. We converted that to an

14 RMHU for the seriously mentally ill. And we

15 have converted other units. I can probably

16 compile a master list, I just can't think of

17 everything off the top of my head right now.

18 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Okay, thank you,

19 Commissioner. Do you envision closing more

20 SHU beds in the future?

21 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I don't

22 envision it right now. But I'm really

23 anticipating what the system will look like

24 when everything is brought online. And we

295

1 have yet to enact the centerpiece of the

2 agreement, which is the 252-bed step-down

3 program at Southport that's planned. That's

4 going to take a bit of time to build up and

5 provide the necessary program space and group

6 recreation areas.

7 Later this year we will implement the

8 step-down unit at Lakeview.

9 So I am confident when all is brought

10 online that we will retain the ability to

11 safely segregate individuals but provide them

12 the needed out-of-cell treatment and

13 programming so that there is no potential

14 risk of harm, keeping everybody safe.

15 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you for that

16 answer, Commissioner.

17 So you just referenced Lakeview, which

18 is in my Senate district. Could you give

19 more information on what's happening there?

20 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I didn't

21 quite get that, Senator.

22 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: So, Commissioner,

23 you just mentioned Lakeview, which is in my

24 Senate district. Could you please give more

296

1 information as to what's happening there.

2 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: In terms

3 of what our plans are for that unit?

4 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Yes.

5 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yes,

6 that is going to be a program designed

7 primarily for the offenders that keep cycling

8 in and out of SHU because they keep taking

9 drugs and they have drug dependencies.

10 And so this is a special program

11 that's going to be for them, it's going to

12 focus on their substance abuse and hopefully

13 get them to finally understand that they need

14 to refrain from this. And it will be very

15 heavily focused on treatment.

16 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Okay. Well, thank

17 you for that.

18 Just switching gears, you referenced

19 Raise the Age. And it would be beneficial, I

20 believe, to the Legislature to hear directly

21 from you more information about what

22 transformations DOCCS has undertaken since

23 Raise the Age was enacted.

24 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yes.

297

1 And obviously we got a head start because the

2 Governor issued his executive order a couple

3 of years ago which required us to remove all

4 16- and 17-year-olds from the adult system

5 and house them in Hudson. And now with the

6 law, we are nicely positioned to transform

7 Hudson and make it into an adolescent

8 offender facility when that law takes effect.

9 It has been eye-opening for us. We

10 worked very closely with the Office of

11 Children and Family Services to really

12 develop age-appropriate programming for this

13 cohort and also to properly train staff. So

14 we are now in the midst of doing physical

15 rehabilitation at Adirondack and making

16 individual rules for this population, and

17 developing programs that are specifically

18 aimed at the young.

19 And it's a work in progress, to some

20 degree. For example, we just met with Hudson

21 Link. We want to bring a college program

22 there. We want to put the barbering program

23 there. We want to bring credible messengers,

24 that people who have been through the system

298

1 and who have made it on the outside to come

2 and speak to this cohort.

3 So they're very, very challenging.

4 The number of females we have are only one or

5 two at a time. I was just there a week ago

6 for the graduation of one who received her

7 high school diploma. She was the first one

8 from that facility to get a high school

9 diploma, but I wanted to be there,

10 congratulate her. She stood up, thanked the

11 facility and said "If it's not for this

12 facility, I would not have turned my life

13 around." So that was very gratifying. We

14 took some pictures with her mother and

15 family. And we're definitely moving in the

16 right direction there.

17 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you for

18 sharing that.

19 How many youth are at Hudson right

20 now?

21 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: We have,

22 I think, 50 at Hudson and six at Coxsackie.

23 Coxsackie is now where we house the 16- and

24 17-year-olds that require maximum security

299

1 placement. But we are going to have

2 everybody stay at Hudson when the law changes

3 since there's no more maximum security.

4 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: So there was

5 $30 million spent, I believe, so far to

6 retrofit Hudson. Can you give us a little

7 bit more information as to how that money was

8 spent?

9 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: A lot of

10 it had to do with, you know, upgrading and

11 being able to construct the rec areas, the

12 juvenile separation unit that is there.

13 Obviously there will be times when inmates

14 will fight with each other, youth will fight

15 with each other, and we have to be able to

16 separate them. But we also want to give them

17 group recreation, if needed. We also, if we

18 have to use what we call the restart chair so

19 that -- to prevent them from fighting.

20 So there's a lot of different

21 upgrades. As well as the fact that we had to

22 add a whole separate area for the females.

23 That was always a male facility except many,

24 many, many years ago. But to be able to do

300

1 all those things and secure the perimeter,

2 et cetera, is a lot of work.

3 But we can -- I can get you the full

4 rundown on those costs, Senator, if you wish.

5 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you. That

6 would be helpful.

7 What about OCFS? You referenced them

8 just a few minutes ago. And what do you see

9 OCFS's role being moving forward as far as

10 working with DOCCS?

11 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: They've

12 been our partners from day one. And we

13 really value their experience, their

14 knowledge, advising us on what the

15 appropriate curriculums should be, and

16 programs.

17 They in turn have admired some of the

18 things we have. They were very complimentary

19 of the vocational programs that we have there

20 as well.

21 We studied their educational programs.

22 They actually have coed classrooms for some

23 of their college programs, I believe at

24 Columbia.

301

1 So we'll certainly keep an open mind

2 and be able to communicate regularly and take

3 their input.

4 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you for that.

5 You mentioned Groveland. Could you

6 tell us about that?

7 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI:

8 Groveland had an annex that we closed a

9 number of years ago when we were downsizing

10 in general. And that is an ideal location --

11 with a lot of rehab work, obviously, to make

12 it as the third adolescent offender facility.

13 Even though the numbers are low, what

14 we anticipate is that once the laws have

15 changed and once you have someone who is,

16 let's say, a week from their 18th birthday

17 and gets sentenced to, you know, a state

18 imprisonment sentence, at a minimum we have

19 to hold on to that person for two years.

20 Right now when a 16- or 17-year-old

21 turns 18, we're transferring them to the

22 adult system. But going forward, we will

23 hold on to those people for at least two

24 years, even if they're only a week shy of

302

1 their 18th birthday.

2 So we feel with these three

3 facilities -- and again, it's hard to predict

4 exactly what the numbers will be -- this will

5 give us the latitude. Because in effect,

6 this is going to be a system within a system,

7 separate and distinct, entirely, from the

8 adult system.

9 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: One of the things I

10 wanted to ask about -- so we have three

11 facilities. It's Coxsackie -- right, you

12 said -- Hudson and Groveland. Those are the

13 three?

14 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: No.

15 Coxsackie is right now used in accordance

16 with the Governor's executive order for those

17 16- and 17-year-olds that require maximum

18 security placement. But that is going to

19 stop, obviously. Probably in the very near

20 future we'll just have anybody coming in on

21 the current law, we feel confident we can

22 handle them safely at Hudson.

23 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: At Hudson.

24 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: So

303

1 that's just going to just phase out, and

2 we're going to use Coxsackie for a different

3 purpose.

4 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Okay, so --

5 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: But the

6 three facilities will be Hudson, Adirondack,

7 and then Groveland.

8 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Okay. Thank you

9 for clarifying that.

10 So I wanted to ask about transporting

11 the youth population. Who is responsible for

12 that? So, say, for example in Chautauqua

13 County, which I represent, there has to be a

14 youth who's transported from Chautauqua

15 County to Hudson.

16 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: That's

17 what happens now, Senator. That is right now

18 the sole reception place, in accordance with

19 the Governor's executive order, for any 16-

20 or 17-year-old that's sentenced.

21 And the counties from around the

22 state, they've arranged -- sometimes they

23 coordinate with one another, and someone will

24 pick up one of their youth and drive them.

304

1 But they take them to Hudson, because that's

2 the only place that we currently use as a

3 reception location for the 16- and

4 17-year-olds.

5 Which is another thing that we had to

6 rehab. We had to make it a reception center

7 as well.

8 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: So who is

9 responsible for the cost of transporting

10 these young people?

11 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Local

12 officials have always been responsible for

13 transporting them.

14 They have applied to us for

15 reimbursement under a statute that the

16 Governor is now proposing to amend. Instead

17 of continuing to reimburse them for a portion

18 of their salaries, they will be reimbursed, I

19 believe, for regular mileage.

20 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: So there is some

21 reimbursement to the local governments?

22 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: It's the

23 sheriff, I believe, that submits the requests

24 for reimbursement.

305

1 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Okay. So if it's

2 not based on the salaries, is that actually a

3 drop in reimbursement to the local

4 governments? And the reason I ask that is

5 because Senator Gallivan, Senator Lanza and I

6 negotiated with the Governor on the Raise the

7 Age proposal, and part of the deal, for lack

8 of a better word, was that there wouldn't be

9 costs imposed on local governments.

10 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I think

11 we're mixing a little bit of apples and

12 oranges. The change I talked about in the

13 law that the Governor is proposing is a

14 change for all the counties in the state,

15 however they're delivering to us individuals

16 that are state-ready, whether they're

17 adolescent offenders or whether they're

18 adults.

19 Right now under the law they apply for

20 reimbursement, and in that bill to us is a

21 portion of their salaries. And that's pretty

22 much an antiquated statute. So across the

23 board, we are making that change and treating

24 everybody uniformly. They'll get reimbursed

306

1 for their travel.

2 And part of the thinking, Senator, I

3 should point out is that we have been very

4 accommodating, my agency, to the needs of the

5 local counties when they have someone in

6 their custody that requires extraordinary

7 mental health care or medical care. And

8 under a provision of the law that's called

9 Section 504 of the Correction Law, they've

10 come to me and they've said, Would you,

11 instead of us having to have this individual

12 with us and pay enormous outside hospital

13 costs, can you take them into one of your

14 regional medical units? And I have done that

15 repeatedly and saved a lot of counties a

16 fortune. And we always get thanked by the

17 sheriffs, by the Sheriffs Association, we

18 always get that feedback that they are

19 extraordinarily appreciative of us doing

20 that.

21 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: No, and I think

22 that we're appreciative of that also. But I

23 just want you to give me an answer to my

24 question. Does the Governor's proposal

307

1 included in the budget actually reduce

2 funding to local governments for the

3 transportation costs? Is it going to net out

4 to be less to the local governments or more

5 to the local governments? How is it going to

6 net out?

7 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well,

8 the statute that I'm talking about that's

9 been changed, obviously there will be less

10 reimbursement going back to the sheriffs for

11 the transportation costs.

12 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

13 CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN: Assemblyman

14 Weprin, Assembly chair of Corrections.

15 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN: Thank you, Madam

16 Chair.

17 Good to see you, Commissioner. I just

18 want to say, on a personal note, this is my

19 second year as chair of Corrections and

20 you've been very open and responsive to my

21 office last year and this year. And I think

22 we have a very good working relationship, and

23 I appreciate that. And hopefully that will

24 continue.

308

1 And I've also enjoyed many, many

2 programs that we've witnessed together,

3 including the most recent performance that we

4 were at at Green Haven, and want to keep that

5 going, obviously, and look forward to that.

6 I also am happy to see the Governor's

7 proposal on geriatric parole. It's something

8 that I've been pushing for for a while. And

9 I'm actually -- I'm going to be amending my

10 bill, if I haven't already done it, to go

11 from 60 to 55 based on your proposal, and I

12 thank you for making my bill stronger.

13 Can you give me an indication about

14 how many inmates currently are over 55 in

15 facilities in the state?

16 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I had

17 that number, Assemblyman. I don't remember

18 it off the top of my head.

19 But what I can tell you is in looking

20 at, according to our bill, the number of

21 individuals who meet the criteria crimewise

22 and who either today are housed in a unit for

23 the cognitively impaired or a regional

24 medical unit, which means they would have

309

1 difficulty functioning, taking care of

2 themselves in a general confinement setting,

3 that number is somewhere around -- a little

4 below 200, I believe, about 195.

5 But I can separately get to you the

6 number that are 55 and older. And it is a

7 population that has slowly and steadily

8 increased, which has also driven, you know,

9 our hospital costs. Even though we had 800

10 less hospital days than the year before, the

11 costs of hospital treatment go up, obviously.

12 And obviously we're looking -- this is a

13 humanitarian gesture, but obviously we'll

14 also save the state money.

15 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN: I appreciate

16 that. I know the geriatric parole proposal

17 creates a health standard of a chronic or

18 serious condition, disease, syndrome or

19 infirmity exacerbated by age that has

20 rendered the person so physically or

21 cognitively debilitated or incapacitated that

22 the ability to provide -- and I'm quoting

23 from the bill -- self-care within prison is

24 substantially diminished.

310

1 Could you define what that means? And

2 generally, what kinds of illnesses are we

3 talking about?

4 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: We

5 carefully sat down with all of the people

6 involved in making -- in writing the statute.

7 In particular, we got a lot of feedback from

8 my chief medical officer, Dr. Carl

9 Koenigsmann. And he was very clear that

10 there's no per se definition of conditions

11 that are only applicable to people at a

12 certain age. That you can have some of these

13 conditions at any age, as we know, whether

14 it's cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes,

15 et cetera. But we do know that many people

16 who, when they get these conditions at

17 advanced ages, it is more debilitating for

18 them.

19 So we are looking at the individual as

20 a whole. Not just his age per se, but what

21 the conditions are and, most importantly, his

22 ability to self-ambulate and take care of

23 himself in a correctional facility setting.

24 And the other important thing is that

311

1 this statute nicely bifurcates the

2 responsibility for determining dangerousness.

3 It's no longer incumbent upon my chief

4 medical officer, and he needs the

5 commissioner to approve it, to determine

6 whether or not the individual is capable of

7 presenting a risk of harm to the public.

8 That responsibility will now solely fall to

9 the Board of Parole. Which I think is a

10 better way of handling things, because they

11 do it as a face-to-face interview.

12 Dr. Koenigsmann was more or less doing

13 this on a paper review of the medical records

14 he gets. He then passes it up to me, and

15 99 percent of the time I sign off. My office

16 will then, as is the current practice, send

17 out the letters to the judge, DA, district

18 attorney, on behalf of the Board of Parole,

19 to get input, as the case is being then

20 referred to the Board of Parole for a final

21 determination.

22 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN: Okay, staff has

23 given me a calculation of 5,610 inmates

24 currently incarcerated over 55. Would that

312

1 sound like a good number?

2 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yeah,

3 that sounds fair.

4 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN: Okay, moving on

5 to a couple of other topics, merit time and

6 limited credit time allowance expansion.

7 I've strongly supported that, but I have a

8 question. Why continue to have different

9 criteria and time reductions for the two

10 programs? Shouldn't achievement in good

11 behavior be rewarded the same way regardless

12 of the class of the offense?

13 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yeah,

14 there's a real history to this. The merit

15 time statute goes back to I think 1997 or

16 '98, and that's the time when the state

17 wanted to differentiate significantly between

18 what would happen with violent felony

19 offenders and what would happen with the

20 nonviolent felony offenders. And so there

21 was a recognition that nonviolent offenders,

22 and particularly since we had so many drug

23 offenders, that we would allow them the

24 ability to potentially earn an earlier

313

1 release.

2 And so it was based upon a formula,

3 the benefit being one-sixth off the minimum

4 sentence. If you serve six to 18 years, you

5 qualify for merit time by doing one of those

6 programs -- whether it's substance abuse

7 treatments, whether it's get your GED, a

8 vocational program, or performing 400 hours

9 or more of community services as part of a

10 work group -- plus a positive disciplinary

11 record, you would get the benefit.

12 Now, after the passage of time and the

13 sentencing commission that was chaired by

14 then Director of Criminal Justice Denise

15 O'Donnell, there's a recognition that we also

16 need to look at a lot of people that may be

17 in prison for serious offenses, but they're

18 in for a long time and they've changed their

19 lives around. And having nothing that

20 enables them to get any kind of time

21 reduction was counterproductive.

22 So after discussing this issue for a

23 while, we came up with an agreement that

24 there should be some ability to earn a

314

1 reduction of time. And rather than make it

2 formula-driven by taking a percentage,

3 et cetera, we recognized why not make it just

4 a neat, clean six-month reduction.

5 In the case of anybody serving an

6 indeterminate sentence without a life term

7 maximum, that would be six months off the CR

8 term. In the case anybody with a life term

9 maximum, it would be six months off the

10 minimum sentence. So if it's 15 to life,

11 it's -- you'd get out after -- potentially,

12 with Board of Parole approval -- after

13 14½ years.

14 But there was a recognition that

15 because these are serious offenses, the bar

16 had to be raised higher. So generally

17 speaking, this is a list of pretty

18 significant programs.

19 It's a lot easier to get a GED than to

20 get your master's degree from, you know, the

21 theology school that is present at Sing Sing.

22 If you look through all the different program

23 listings, I believe there's 12 of them now,

24 they're pretty demanding. So there's a

315

1 recognition, and it's consistent with their

2 recommendations, yes, give them a benefit,

3 but make it much more demanding. And I think

4 the new ones that we're proposing are very

5 good. The cosmetology, we just got an

6 agreement with the Department of State, the

7 Department of Education, that we can

8 license -- an inmate that passes the test can

9 actually receive her license while

10 incarcerated, and then go out and potentially

11 get a job in that business. So we wanted to

12 do that, we wanted to do barbering. And of

13 course the third thing is the T4C plus one

14 year of work release.

15 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN: I have actually

16 personally visited a number of those programs

17 and was very impressed. So I hope you

18 continue in those veins of adding more

19 programs. And I appreciate the work that you

20 and the Governor have done in that area.

21 When I first became chair of

22 Corrections last January, one of the issues

23 that was obviously a problem were the

24 vacancies in parole commissioners. I'm very

316

1 happy to see that the Governor filled those,

2 including one of our staff members that you

3 know. So that's positive. And I'm very

4 happy to see your proposal to add three new

5 commissioners.

6 How many parole commissioners do we

7 have now? I've heard different numbers.

8 I've heard 16, 17, and then --

9 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I

10 think -- we're funded for 17, but I think

11 there was one vacancy recently created.

12 Including the chairwoman.

13 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN: So there will be

14 17. And then the additional three is

15 included in that, or it would be on top of

16 that 17?

17 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: It

18 includes the three that were recently

19 appointed. So we're funded for 17.

20 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN: No, but I'm

21 saying the three that are proposed. In

22 the current budget, there's a proposal to add

23 three new.

24 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: No,

317

1 that's the current.

2 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN: That's the

3 current. So a full complement will be 17.

4 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I

5 believe. Let me double-check on that,

6 though. I'm not a hundred percent sure.

7 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN: Okay, if you

8 could let me know.

9 The other thing that I've been a

10 strong supporter of, and I know you have as

11 well, is the video visitation. Not to

12 supplant regular visitation -- as you know,

13 I've been a strong advocate for regular

14 visitation -- but as a supplement to regular

15 visitation.

16 Can you give us an update on how many

17 facilities have the video conferencing

18 visitation and how that's working?

19 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I know

20 we have arrangements, contracts, with the

21 Osborne Association, the Children's Center, I

22 think another entity called Jericho. I think

23 it's the Child's Center that has Bedford

24 Hills and Albion. And I forget the sites;

318

1 there might be one in the Bronx, one in

2 Brooklyn. Osborne I think had Clinton and

3 one other. And I can't remember everyone. I

4 will get you all of that. I had it all

5 written out in my notes.

6 But I know they're looking to expand,

7 including we want to put it at the youth

8 facility in Hudson as well.

9 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN: Okay, great.

10 And just one last question. I know we

11 went through that whole issue with the

12 package program which was rescinded. But

13 during that process when I was contacted by

14 many advocacy groups, it was either a rumor

15 or something that people had mentioned that

16 there were certain commissary facilities that

17 were going to be closed or not taking place

18 in different facilities because of, you know,

19 this new package program which is no longer

20 in existence.

21 Are there any facilities contemplating

22 removing commissary privileges and --

23 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: No.

24 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN: So there's no

319

1 truth to that.

2 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: That was

3 never part of the secure package vendor

4 program, to close commissaries. We always

5 want to have commissaries, we always want to

6 have the ability for inmates to purchase what

7 they want.

8 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN: Well, I'm happy

9 to hear that, because I have gotten favorable

10 comments, you know, on commissaries. And

11 there was that rumor going around during that

12 program, so I'm happy to hear that that is

13 not in fact the case.

14 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: No.

15 ASSEMBLYMAN WEPRIN: Thank you, Madam

16 Chair. I'm okay for now.

17 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you. Our

18 next speaker is Senator Gallivan.

19 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Thank you, Madam

20 Chair.

21 Good afternoon, Commissioner.

22 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Good

23 afternoon, Senator.

24 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Thanks for your

320

1 patience.

2 I too would like to thank you for your

3 cooperation as our offices have worked

4 together over the past number of years. And

5 I look forward to that continuing, of course.

6 I want to pick up on a couple of

7 things discussed already. First we'll start

8 with SHU, special housing. And I know that

9 you described it. Is it fair to say, though,

10 that the use of special housing is among the

11 tools that helps provide for the safety,

12 security and order in a facility?

13 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yes.

14 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Can you describe

15 the specific cell? And how does the cell

16 itself where the inmate resides, how does it

17 differ than the normal cell in regular

18 housing?

19 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well,

20 for starters, compared to a normal cell

21 there's basically no property. And it's also

22 removed to a remote part of the facility, so

23 there's not access or travel by other

24 inmates, not a lot of contact with other

321

1 people.

2 But there is a fair amount of contact

3 when people make rounds, when the supervisors

4 make rounds, the sergeants, the ORC, or the

5 offender rehabilitation coordinator. The

6 chaplain may make site visits and check on

7 people. Depending upon if it's an OMH-level

8 facility, the clinician will make rounds. So

9 there's that kind of activity.

10 But in terms of its physical location,

11 it's physically removed from the

12 general-confinement aspects of the facility.

13 SENATOR GALLIVAN: How about its

14 physical size as compared --

15 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: The

16 cells vary, but generally speaking they're

17 pretty much comparable to what you'd find in

18 a normal general-confinement cell.

19 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Are you able to

20 distinguish it from what -- sometimes the

21 general public gets a view of it from

22 television or the movies, like Orange is the

23 New Black, Shawshank Redemption, that --

24 where it's dark and it's very small. I mean,

322

1 can you distinguish it from that?

2 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: No, I

3 don't think they're quite that small. But

4 it's -- you know, the problem is, and the

5 experts tell us, that 23 hours a day

6 confinement over a long period of time does

7 potentially cause a risk of harm.

8 So all of these programs that we

9 developed -- and I see us moving in a very

10 similar path to what we did when we enacted

11 all these programs for the mentally ill. We

12 provided all these programs or all these

13 special beds that provide out-of-cell

14 treatment and programming. And that's a lot

15 of what we're going to be doing going

16 forward.

17 As well as the amenities that are

18 being provided while they're in their SHU

19 cells, such as we have presently rolling

20 telephone carts where they now, as part of

21 the PIMS system, can make I believe a

22 once-per-month phone call to family.

23 SENATOR GALLIVAN: So that's a move

24 you're referring to inmates in SHU would

323

1 ultimately --

2 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yes.

3 SENATOR GALLIVAN: -- for what they

4 don't have now, would ultimately have that

5 whole menu of programs available to them,

6 with the movement that -- or where you're

7 moving to.

8 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I'm

9 sorry --

10 SENATOR GALLIVAN: I'm not sure if I

11 understood you correctly. So what you just

12 described, you talked about making a movement

13 towards or what you're working towards. And

14 that is offering that full range of programs

15 to the inmates that are housed in the special

16 housing.

17 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yes.

18 Yes.

19 SENATOR GALLIVAN: All right, thank

20 you.

21 So we talked about the safety and

22 security of the facility. And I know that

23 that always is a concern of yours, based on

24 our discussions. And in your testimony you

324

1 talked about some of the pilots that were

2 started that work towards that. Some of them

3 came about as a result of the Inspector

4 General report, obviously --

5 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Correct.

6 SENATOR GALLIVAN: -- and some of them

7 were things that you had been working on and

8 trying to implement for years.

9 Is it ultimately your intention, these

10 various programs -- you talked specifically

11 about pepper spray and in those four

12 facilities you had a reduction of assaults on

13 staff. Is it ultimately your intention to be

14 expanding these various programs statewide?

15 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Pepper

16 spray, it's our intention to make that

17 statewide.

18 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Contraband is

19 always a concern, and we still have sky-high

20 levels of assaults, inmate on inmate, inmate

21 on staff. Are there other tools that you

22 haven't implemented yet that could be used?

23 Such as -- one of the things that we are

24 trying to provide the ability to use in

325

1 legislation, and then obviously funding has

2 to follow -- would be the use of body

3 scanners.

4 Rikers Island used them for several

5 months. They used them for the most part

6 following visitation -- inmates would go

7 through them -- and they saw a significant

8 reduction of violence inside the facility.

9 So have you considered other things

10 that you're not doing to date --

11 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well, I

12 can tell you that we've done a lot to try and

13 combat contraband. I've added significantly

14 to the canine units. We have nine in special

15 ops and we have two more in our OSI unit.

16 And together, we have made hundreds of

17 arrests. They have really been

18 extraordinarily effective. Our partnership

19 with the State Police, who also come in and

20 allow their teams to work as well. They're

21 very good at detecting illegal substances.

22 And so we will continue to do that,

23 potentially expand in the future as we go.

24 With respect to body scanners, my

326

1 understanding -- and you and I briefly had a

2 conversation about that -- is that it may

3 either violate the Public Health Law or may

4 violate one of the regulations that --

5 SENATOR GALLIVAN: That's exactly what

6 the legislation would provide for. Currently

7 there's a limitation on who can use the body

8 scanners. There's been some question of

9 safety, but we'll treat that as a separate

10 issue for now. But it is the authority to

11 use it under the Public Health Law.

12 However, if we assume that that

13 obstacle is overcome, is that something that

14 you've considered using? Or would it be

15 valuable to use?

16 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well,

17 Senator, there's a lot to consider there.

18 These are -- the overwhelming majority of

19 families that come, young children that come,

20 we're trying to make an atmosphere where they

21 can maintain family connections, because that

22 is critical for reentry. And I don't want to

23 make a final determination because obviously

24 I keep an open mind about everything. But I

327

1 certainly don't want to create another

2 problem and make people feel that, you know,

3 this is -- I have to see it in operation. Is

4 it a humiliating experience, et cetera.

5 What I can also tell you that we've

6 done --

7 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Excuse me,

8 Commissioner. Commissioner, if I may, this

9 would only be -- the use at Rikers and the

10 use that I would propose would solely be for

11 the inmates to pass through after they leave

12 the facility or after they follow a visit.

13 It would not be the visitors themselves.

14 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Okay,

15 well that's different.

16 SENATOR GALLIVAN: I understand your

17 concern over visitors.

18 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Okay.

19 But the problem is once drugs get into the

20 facility, right, they can be left in a

21 restroom and people have elaborate ways to

22 get it out. So the best defense is to

23 prevent it from coming in in the first place.

24 I will also say that we have

328

1 completely implemented our visitor processing

2 identification system so that when a visitor

3 has been identified as trying to bring in

4 drugs at one facility, should that person try

5 and enter another facility under a different

6 name with different identification, we now

7 know who they are and can prevent their

8 entrance.

9 SENATOR GALLIVAN: Thank you. The

10 last area right now for the sake of the time

11 that I have, the secure vendor package

12 program. I know that was a goal for years

13 and years, and it's recognized as a best

14 practice nationwide. There were some

15 problems with it, and the Governor responded

16 by pulling that back.

17 Now, I think I have the correct

18 understanding of that, that the Governor's

19 action was to pull it back until you work out

20 the problems. Do I have that correctly --

21 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yes,

22 Senator, it clearly was the right decision to

23 make.

24 SENATOR GALLIVAN: But is that the

329

1 correct understanding, that this is not pull

2 it back and get rid of it --

3 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Right,

4 this is --

5 SENATOR GALLIVAN: -- this is pull it

6 back and fix it.

7 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: The term

8 "suspended" was used, so that we can have an

9 opportunity to take into consideration all

10 the feedback that we've received thus far,

11 sitting down with the unions, getting their

12 input, sitting down with our superintendents,

13 particularly at the three facilities where it

14 was a pilot, listening to the advocates,

15 listening to the inmates. Perhaps talking

16 further with the vendors that we had

17 enlisted.

18 And I'm confident that at some point

19 in the future we can craft a proposal that

20 will still accomplish the security things

21 that we need accomplished but balance those

22 other considerations. There are pilots that,

23 you know, work well, and unfortunately this

24 was one that right out of the block generated

330

1 a lot of problems. And I will take

2 responsibility for some of that, in that I

3 should have better prepared and explained,

4 because there was some misinformation about

5 what was going on as well.

6 Lesson learned. I think we can go

7 forward in the future. I can't give you a

8 timetable, because we have that and we have

9 so many other things that we're doing at the

10 same time. But it remains an important issue

11 for us.

12 SENATOR GALLIVAN: All right,

13 Commissioner, thank you. And thank you again

14 for your efforts across your agency with like

15 25, 30,000 -- a very difficult, challenging

16 job from top to bottom. I understand that.

17 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Thank

18 you, Senator. I'm very proud of the

19 29,000-plus people. They never cease to

20 amaze me, every one of them, what they do.

21 SENATOR GALLIVAN: With good reason.

22 Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you,

23 Madam Chair.

24 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

331

1 CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN: Assemblyman

2 Palmesano.

3 ASSEMBLYMAN PALMESANO: Thank you,

4 Madam Chairwoman.

5 Commissioner, I just wanted to kind of

6 touch on a few areas. First, I know when we

7 were talking about the special housing units

8 that's going on in the budget -- and I know

9 part of this is to comply with the NYCLU

10 settlement. You know, in full disclosure, I

11 was not supportive of that when I saw that.

12 I think, as one of my colleagues up

13 here mentioned, the use of the SHU is a tool

14 that is used to keep our correction officers

15 that are in our facilities safe, but not just

16 our correction officers but the inmates that

17 are trying to do their time and not trying to

18 be a part of the problem.

19 So in the budget I know there's about

20 $6.8 million in savings, 110 FTEs that are

21 going to be -- they said they can be

22 transferred. And I know part of that NYCLU

23 settlement, there's a lot of money that's

24 being invested to comply with that. But like

332

1 for some of these workers who might be

2 dislocated and might have to travel hundreds

3 of miles away to another facility, away from

4 their families, is there going to be any

5 accommodations for them for housing or for

6 travel to make their lives a little easier

7 when they might be losing their job?

8 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: We're

9 very confident that we can accommodate as

10 best as possible the staff that are at these

11 units.

12 I attrit every pay period, I believe,

13 something like 54 or 55 staff. So there's

14 always vacancies being created. As these

15 units get emptied, the staff will work with

16 them to get them other jobs in that facility.

17 And I believe we're going to leave them there

18 till May, when there's a reranking list and

19 so they'll have better options to pursue.

20 So my system changes very quickly.

21 There's a lot of attrition, there's a lot of

22 new demands for correction officers. And in

23 fact, we are predicting that we will need, in

24 the upcoming fiscal year, as many as eight

333

1 academy classes to fill the vacancies in our

2 system that are created.

3 ASSEMBLYMAN PALMESANO: Because one of

4 the areas -- and not physically in my

5 district, but nearby, is Southport. So I

6 definitely have some concerns relative to the

7 employees that are there. I know there's

8 going to be changes being made to the

9 facility, and I think anything that would be

10 able to allow those individuals who have been

11 there for a number of years to stay there,

12 where they have their families, I think would

13 be a positive thing and also would send a

14 positive message to them through this

15 transition.

16 I want to get into the issue of -- you

17 know, one of the big issues we know is drugs

18 that are a big problem in our prisons. And

19 from some of the information I'm getting --

20 and I would hope that maybe you can clarify

21 for us statewide the number of drug tests

22 that are going on in the prisons, how many

23 people are testing positive, what are the

24 results of those tests. Because I think you

334

1 mentioned in your statement that you would

2 rather see us get to them before they get in

3 the prison than afterwards.

4 And I think on that front, you

5 mentioned the use of the canine drug dogs.

6 And we have 54 correctional facilities across

7 the state, and I think I heard you say we

8 have 11 that we're using. I think the

9 success of the canine drug dogs is well

10 known. Why not make that investment and put

11 them in every facility across the state,

12 another tool that's given to our law

13 enforcement so if people are coming with

14 drugs, we can catch them before it gets

15 there. And that will help relieve the

16 powder-keg environment that quite frankly I

17 think is going on in our facilities, whether

18 they're maximum or medium security prisons.

19 Any plans on your part, in addition to

20 the millions of dollars that are being

21 invested for the NYCLU settlement, to give

22 our officers, our COs, and our prisons more

23 drug dogs in the facilities to keep them out

24 when they get in. You know, because the

335

1 package program was put aside. Some people

2 thought it was a bad idea, some people

3 thought it was a good idea. But the drug

4 dogs I think everyone can recognize is a good

5 idea. Let's get to them before they get into

6 the prisons and put them in every facility --

7 it can't cost that much money -- and we'd

8 make a significant impact on addressing the

9 drug problems.

10 Because I've heard some statistics,

11 2500 annually just in one region of drug

12 tests. And that's something we have to

13 address. Because with the gangs that we know

14 are in our facilities, with the assaults that

15 are rising dramatically, and from your own

16 numbers from 2012, probably 40 percent

17 inmate-on-staff assaults and inmate-on-inmate

18 assaults up 70 percent, if you looked at the

19 numbers, that's a powder-keg environment.

20 And I don't know about anyone else --

21 and I'm sure they do -- every so often

22 there's an article in the paper about an

23 inmate getting attacked -- or a correction

24 officer getting attacked by an inmate. And I

336

1 think we need to do more to give them the

2 tools they need to protect themselves,

3 because they have a very dangerous job.

4 And the NYCLU settlement I think takes

5 tools away from them. I think the canine

6 drugs could be an issue to help them. So is

7 there anything you can do to give us the drug

8 result tests? And what's your plans on

9 expanding the canine units statewide to all

10 our facilities to address this problem?

11 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well,

12 there's a lot you said there, Assemblyman. I

13 certainly respect everything that you said.

14 I couldn't agree more that our staff have a

15 tough job. And I'm very proud of the job

16 that they do.

17 I don't think at this point we're

18 ready to expand the canine units, but I can

19 tell you that I really stepped up our OSI

20 narcotics unit. We have phenomenal means of

21 intelligence that we learn of who's

22 potentially smuggling drugs in. We work with

23 outside law enforcement, we seek criminal

24 prosecutions. Because anybody trying to

337

1 smuggle drugs into a correctional facility is

2 a felony, dangerous drugs should raise it to

3 a felony.

4 So I can tell you that we are open to

5 expanding this. I don't know if putting a

6 team, a canine in every facility would still

7 be a hundred percent effective. But back to

8 your earlier question as to the percentage of

9 individuals that test positive by random

10 urinalysis, it's -- I checked it a while ago,

11 but it's not nearly as high as you might

12 think. It's --

13 ASSEMBLYMAN PALMESANO: Could you

14 provide those figures?

15 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yeah, I

16 can definitely get those. Now I can't

17 remember off the top of my head, but I'll get

18 that for you.

19 ASSEMBLYMAN PALMESANO: That's fine.

20 I have another question on one of the

21 issues that, you know, we've talked about in

22 the past, and that is the issue of double

23 bunking and double celling. And again, with

24 the NYCLU settlement there's millions of drls

338

1 being invested into the correctional

2 facilities to address that. But by I think

3 our own statistics, we still have in the

4 neighborhood of 6,494, a combination of

5 double bunks and double cells in our

6 facilities both at maximum and medium

7 facilities.

8 Certainly that's an environment that I

9 believe, a lot of my colleagues believe, is a

10 dangerous environment -- not just for the

11 corrections officers who are in these

12 facilities, but for the inmates. I've been

13 to a facility where it was in a dormlike

14 setting -- because I too have toured all the

15 facilities in and around my district, and you

16 would have 60 inmates in a room, not a big

17 room, and they were a cubicle, double-bunked,

18 and not much bigger space than me to

19 Mr. Weprin.

20 And I don't think that's a positive

21 environment. I know the administration and

22 the Governor has gone around touting the

23 closure of prisons and is proud of it, but we

24 should get rid of these double bunks and

339

1 double cells as quick as possible to make for

2 safer environment, not just for our

3 corrections officers but for the inmates that

4 are in these facilities. And I think we

5 should have a plan in place, because there's

6 a lot of plans to deal with the NYCLU

7 settlement, but not a lot of plans to deal

8 with the double bunking and double celling.

9 And I think between the drugs and the

10 double bunking and double celling -- and we

11 know the assaults are up dramatically. I

12 know you said there's an decrease, but if you

13 look from 2012 to now, dramatic increase in

14 the assaults on corrections officers and a

15 dramatic increase in assaults on inmates.

16 And we're in a powder-keg environment.

17 And I'm very concerned about what's going to

18 happen in these facilities. It's not enough

19 just to go around saying we're closing

20 prisons, we've got to give our corrections

21 officers the tools they need to do their job,

22 but to do it so they can be safe, so they can

23 get home to their families.

24 And for the other inmates in the

340

1 facility who are just trying to do their

2 time, we have to be able to get the bad guys

3 out of there and separate them from those

4 instances. And that's where I'm concerned

5 where some of these settlements are taking

6 away important tools to keep everyone else

7 safe in that facility.

8 I'd like to know your comments on that

9 relative to double bunking and double

10 celling, and your plans on that.

11 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Just to

12 clarify, when we were overcrowded, we had to

13 take 5 percent of our maximum security space

14 and convert that to double cells. And these

15 were very small cells that were built to just

16 hold one person. You know, we did that at 13

17 of our then existing 14 maximum-security

18 facilities. Southport was the only

19 exception. So 5 percent.

20 And I have basically a few years

21 ago -- it started under my predecessor, but I

22 continued it -- we've taken down basically

23 every cell in a max that had originally been

24 converted, was originally a single and

341

1 converted to double, with very few

2 exceptions -- I think just the depot at

3 Auburn and I think a few double cells at

4 Downstate. So there's just a small number of

5 double cells still being operated that were

6 originally single-cell construction.

7 The new construction was double cells,

8 and those are all 105 square feet. So those

9 cells at Upstate and at Five Points, those

10 are new maximum-security facilities, all

11 double-celled, with 105 square feet. And I

12 believe the Cadre Unit at Southport also was

13 double-celled. Again, those cells were built

14 large enough for two. And of course all the

15 S blocks were built for two inmates. So

16 there's ample space there -- at least, it's

17 not crowded.

18 With respect to the dorms, there's a

19 maximum under the standards allowed by the

20 SCOC of 60 in a multiple-occupancy unit. And

21 in order to fit 60 in, you have to double the

22 back 10 against the wall. And that's where

23 the double bunks are. And I get it that, you

24 know, people would say, Well, if we put only

342

1 54 in instead of 60 -- because when we opened

2 them, that's exactly what we put in there.

3 We put 54 because we put two beds on each

4 end.

5 So each cookie-cutter facility, when

6 it opened, had 54. We added six more,

7 consistent with an SCOC standard that allowed

8 as many as 60. And to do it in such a way

9 that the officer would have a full panoramic

10 view of the dorm, we double-bunked the back

11 10. So spacewise, it's just six more than

12 what we originally had when they opened many,

13 many years ago.

14 But I understand your concerns. And

15 again, I couldn't agree with you more that

16 the officers have a tough job and we should

17 do everything possible to make them as safe

18 as possible.

19 CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN: Thank you.

20 Senate?

21 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

22 Senator Ritchie.

23 SENATOR RITCHIE: Good afternoon,

24 Commissioner. I would like to start by just

343

1 following up on a couple of questions that

2 Senator Gallivan had on the packaging policy.

3 Just recently I had the opportunity to

4 tour once again the five facilities that I

5 represent, and one of the main issues was the

6 contraband or drugs coming into the facility.

7 And they were looking forward to the

8 packaging policy just because it's so hard to

9 screen and make sure that they're keeping the

10 drugs out.

11 So just for clarification, the

12 packaging policy is suspended, it is not

13 suspended indefinitely?

14 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well,

15 it's suspended until we can come back and

16 create what we think is an acceptable policy.

17 And of course I will sit down with my

18 principals when we get to that point and

19 carefully lay out what we think is the

20 reasonable alternative, and then a decision

21 will be made where we go from there. Right

22 now, it's just suspended.

23 SENATOR RITCHIE: So do you have any

24 time frame for that? Because this is

344

1 something that's been in the works for years.

2 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yeah, I

3 can't give you any time frame, Senator.

4 If you were to ask me today or any

5 time in the last two years what is the single

6 overriding challenge I have, I would answer

7 today and any time in the past two years

8 there's no single challenge. The challenge

9 is that we are doing so many things, so

10 quickly, in the system. All of the changes

11 that came about as a result of the Clinton

12 escape, all the security enhancements, the

13 deescalation training, the new

14 responsibilities we have to house adolescent

15 offenders, the geriatric parole, studying the

16 parole revocation guidelines -- so many

17 initiatives that we're doing so quickly.

18 When you have a pilot like this that

19 immediately stumbled, it takes away from our

20 ability to make sure all the other things

21 that we're doing are happening appropriately.

22 So my intention is yes, we're going to

23 take our time, we're going to sit down

24 carefully, we're going to look at what we

345

1 had. But I can't take away from all these

2 other things that are also very important as

3 well. And lot of them go to safety and

4 security, such as expanding statewide the

5 pepper spray program.

6 SENATOR RITCHIE: So I certainly

7 understand what you're saying, that you have

8 a number of moving parts. But the contraband

9 and the drug issue is something that I heard

10 at all five facilities -- and not just at the

11 five that I represent, but pretty much every

12 facility across the state -- that the

13 situation is getting to a really dangerous

14 level because of the drugs getting into the

15 facility.

16 So I would ask that -- I understand

17 it's complicated -- that this doesn't just

18 get put by the wayside for another couple of

19 years, that this is something that's

20 extremely important as a safety tool.

21 And along with that, the pepper spray

22 that you mentioned earlier. I know that I've

23 had facilities who have reached out and asked

24 for pepper spray and have not been able to

346

1 get that. So that is something that is a

2 priority at this point?

3 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yes,

4 it's a priority.

5 SENATOR RITCHIE: And recently I

6 reached out to you with a letter on the

7 personal alarms, where there was an issue

8 that they weren't working in a couple of the

9 facilities. And I did receive a response

10 back that that was going to be a priority.

11 So I'm just wondering what the status of

12 making sure that the personal alarms for the

13 civilians working at the facility -- where

14 are we at with that?

15 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Yeah,

16 I'm trying to remember from my notes because

17 there's a lot of things I had to go over.

18 But I know we just -- we are replacing

19 them. I don't know the exact schedule. They

20 have -- some of these systems are quite

21 dated. I forget the two facilities that we

22 just finished. But what I'll do, Senator, is

23 I'll go back and I'll look at the schedule

24 and I'll give you a written reply as to what

347

1 our plan is going forward with that. Because

2 it is very important, civilian alarms.

3 SENATOR RITCHIE: And my next couple

4 of questions are on staffing levels. Just

5 recently I learned that several months ago

6 there was an incident with a generator and

7 the facility was in the dark for most of the

8 night. Luckily, it happened at shift change,

9 so there were extra officers who were

10 available to stay over.

11 But one of the staffing issues seems

12 to be at critical level from -- for the later

13 shift, from 11:00 to 7:00, that there are not

14 enough officers who are able to rove or make

15 the rounds on the grounds if in fact

16 something does come up.

17 Is that an issue that you think we

18 need to look at staffing-wise?

19 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well, as

20 you know, Senator, we added 268 additional

21 staff in the last two years after a review of

22 two-thirds of the facilities. So our ratio,

23 when compared to every other prison system in

24 the country, is very favorable. It's

348

1 basically one to three.

2 I'm not sure what facility you're

3 talking about. And certainly when an

4 emergency happens where a generator fails and

5 there's housing units in the dark, yeah,

6 we're pressed. And we -- you know, the

7 initial solution would be mandating overtime

8 for the existing staff that are there to make

9 sure we're under control.

10 But I'm not aware of any complaints

11 that have been brought to our attention in

12 central office about insufficient staff on

13 the late shift at any facility. But if you

14 have something in particular, let me know and

15 we'll certainly take a good look at it.

16 SENATOR RITCHIE: Okay. And along the

17 staffing lines, the issue of the number of

18 officers who are retiring. Recently I

19 sponsored the bill that would allow an

20 officer's family to collect the pension if

21 something were to happen, and it was vetoed

22 by the Governor.

23 So it's a concern from a number of

24 officers that I've met with and their

349

1 families. And as we get more and more

2 inexperienced guards at the facilities, those

3 that are retiring in pretty big lots is a

4 real concern.

5 Can you tell me how you're going to

6 address the attrition issue?

7 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well,

8 everybody has free choice. I can't not allow

9 staff to retire.

10 I think the best thing I can do is

11 everything humanly possible to make it a safe

12 environment, and at the same time recognize

13 the difficult job they have.

14 One of the things I worry about a lot

15 is the rates of suicide among security staff.

16 And I don't think it's just a problem in

17 New York; I know California is concerned and

18 they've commissioned a study on it. And I've

19 asked my mental health staff to really take a

20 good look at the resources that are available

21 and how we can connect people to help that

22 they need before it's too late.

23 It's a tough job, there's a lot of

24 stress on the job. And I think part of the

350

1 problem is a reluctance to come forward and

2 admit you're feeling the stress or it's

3 affecting you. And it's not easy to go home

4 at night and then become a normal family man

5 and a normal parent when you've had the

6 stress of perhaps an assault, perhaps

7 witnessing the suicide of an inmate. It's a

8 very tough, tough job.

9 So my goal, among others, is to try

10 and make the working environment -- not just

11 for our security staff, but for all our

12 civilians -- as safe as possible.

13 And I'm more than happy -- we meet

14 regularly with the unions. If they have

15 suggestions, things that we can do that might

16 be positive -- wellness programs, nutrition

17 programs -- we've partnered in the past with

18 them, and it's a valuable relationship.

19 Anything to be done to make it a better, more

20 healthy working environment for them I think

21 in turn would help with our attrition rate.

22 SENATOR RITCHIE: Well, I think one of

23 the issues that would have kept more officers

24 on the job is the fact that if this bill

351

1 would have been signed. It's a real risk for

2 their family if they stay on past the time

3 that they're able to retire. If something

4 does happen to the officer, the family is not

5 entitled to the retirement benefits. And I

6 think that's something that should be

7 addressed.

8 I understand I'm over my time, so I

9 have one last question for you. You know, as

10 we're looking for ways to make sure there are

11 resources in place for a safe staffing level,

12 I really don't understand the mental health

13 transport issue, especially when it has to do

14 with the hub that I represent.

15 We actually have a correctional

16 facility, two of them, within sight of a

17 psychiatric center. But when an inmate needs

18 a mental health evaluation, they are

19 transported over two hours to a facility.

20 Many times the officers have to come back

21 just to find out the next day they go back to

22 pick the inmate up and bring them back.

23 If we're looking for a way to save

24 money for the state as a whole and be more

352

1 efficient, I really don't understand, with a

2 psychiatric facility, you know, a stone's

3 throw away, why we can't put some kind of

4 resources in place so that an inmate who

5 needs an evaluation can be just transported

6 across the street, saving two officers back

7 and forth on multiple days, times five

8 prisons.

9 So I would ask -- we brought this up

10 in the past. You know, I understand there's

11 a couple of agencies that would have to work

12 on this. But if we're looking for a way to

13 save money and be more efficient, this looks

14 like it would be something that would be very

15 easy to do.

16 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I'll

17 certainly look into that, Senator.

18 SENATOR RITCHIE: And just to close, I

19 would like to just take a moment to thank you

20 but also thank the men and women who work in

21 our correctional facilities. I think when

22 you go and tour the facilities and you see

23 what they're up against, it gives you a

24 greater appreciation for how dangerous their

353

1 jobs are. Thank you.

2 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

3 CHAIRWOMAN WEINSTEIN: Assemblyman

4 Jones.

5 ASSEMBLYMAN JONES: Thank you, Madam

6 Chair.

7 And Commissioner, thank you. And I'd

8 like to extend my thanks to your office.

9 You've always been very accommodating to me

10 in anything I've reached out with, so thank

11 you.

12 I have a little bit of experience;

13 I've been -- in my previous life I was a

14 correction officer for over 20 years and

15 dealt with these things on a day-to-day

16 issue. I think -- or I know the number-one

17 thing we need to do is keep contraband out of

18 these facilities, because we know anytime we

19 introduce contraband into these facilities,

20 it puts our hardworking men and women that

21 work in those facilities, and the inmates

22 that want to go to programs and do the right

23 thing, it puts everybody in jeopardy.

24 So I just want to, on top of the

354

1 Senator's point, and the Assemblyman, my

2 colleagues, we need to seriously take a look

3 at the secure package program again. I think

4 we were on the right path. If we have to

5 make a few adjustments to it, I think it's

6 one way, one tool we can use to keep

7 contraband out of the facilities. We need to

8 do that.

9 I also want to associate with

10 Assemblyman Palmesano, because double bunking

11 needs to go, it's just got to go. No ifs,

12 ands, or buts about it. It still exists. We

13 can call it by any other name, but just -- I

14 would like to see it go.

15 I do have a question here, I'm not

16 going to grandstand the whole time. The

17 implementation of pepper spray, we're doing

18 it on a pilot basis. I know the Senator

19 touched on it. Could you give me a time

20 frame on when statewide implementation of

21 that would be?

22 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: We hope

23 to have it complete in 2018.

24 ASSEMBLYMAN JONES: 2018 for statewide

355

1 implementation? Okay, great.

2 I'm going to keep it brief. I want to

3 thank you again, your office, for everything

4 you've done. But I really do need to stress

5 that we need to do everything we can to keep

6 our hardworking men and women, COs and

7 civilians in those facilities, safe. And I

8 would -- please explore and go and take a

9 look at the implementation of the secure

10 vending program again.

11 I'm happy to hear from you that we're

12 not just canceling it, we're taking another

13 look at it. But I think we need to do that.

14 You get the reports in your office every day

15 about contraband. I get reports. I have

16 five correctional facilities in my Assembly

17 district also. We need to help protect our

18 hardworking men and women that work in those

19 facilities. Please take a look at that

20 policy. If we can make some tweaks to it, we

21 can make everybody in the correctional

22 facilities safe. Thank you.

23 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

24 Senator Savino.

356

1 SENATOR SAVINO: Thank you.

2 Commissioner, good to see you.

3 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Good to

4 see you, Senator.

5 SENATOR SAVINO: I just have one or

6 two questions for you.

7 As you know, for the past several

8 years whenever you've come before us, we had

9 to address the issue of overtime and its

10 effect on the budget. I didn't see anything

11 about it in your testimony or even in the

12 Governor's budget. If you can tell us a bit

13 about the staffing levels now and whether or

14 not you're still relying on overtime to the

15 extent that you used to be.

16 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well,

17 overtime is driven by a number of things.

18 And some of the things that have changed in

19 the last two years are we seem to see more

20 one-on-one watches for people that are at

21 risk, the mentally ill, and those are ordered

22 by OMH. Outside hospital trips are costly,

23 unplanned for.

24 And at any one time, I have a

357

1 significant number of officers that are out

2 on workers' comp, which we're not really

3 funded to cover that. Those are

4 unanticipated expenses. So we have, as of

5 last week, 986 or so officers out on comp. I

6 think that needs to be looked at. The

7 overall majority have nothing to do with

8 inmate contact. And obviously I would be

9 able to really make a dent in the overtime if

10 more staff were present at work. So that's

11 subject to negotiations, and I can't really

12 comment much further on that.

13 SENATOR SAVINO: I think that nurse at

14 Bedford Hills, Mercy -- I think she finally

15 retired. She probably has a pension worth

16 $500,000. But God bless her, she worked hard

17 for it.

18 But I want to return back to the issue

19 of double bunking, make sure I understand

20 this. Because, you know, for years the

21 corrections officers would come up and do a

22 visual, they would bring a model of what

23 double bunking looked like. And quite

24 frankly, it looked inhuman.

358

1 So let me just see. So before the

2 massive increase in the prison population in

3 the 1980s, it used to be 50 beds to a dorm,

4 right? And then after that, because of the

5 explosion in the inmate population, we went

6 up to 60.

7 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: We

8 really never had 50. It was 54, really. Now

9 it's 60.

10 SENATOR SAVINO: Then we allowed it to

11 go up to 60. But the inmate population is

12 now at the lowest it's been in several years.

13 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Correct.

14 SENATOR SAVINO: In fact, we've closed

15 prisons. So if we were to eliminate double

16 bunking, we wouldn't have any empty beds,

17 then, in the prison system at all, would we?

18 And why not do that, since we know that --

19 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Because,

20 Senator, this is a difficult fiscal year.

21 We're facing enormous challenges. We have so

22 much uncertainty out of Washington.

23 To the extent that we continue to

24 downsize in our population, the responsible

359

1 thing to do, in the absence of closures, is

2 for me to do consolidations. And that is you

3 have a facility, let's say, with 14 dorms but

4 you only need really 11, then you consolidate

5 three of them. And the other 11 may be

6 filled close to 60, but at least you're

7 saving the staffing for those dorms. And I

8 think we do owe a responsibility to the

9 taxpayers.

10 If it was a question of this

11 presenting an unsafe situation, then that

12 would be different. But we have operated

13 under that standard for years. And I think

14 everybody overfocuses on the fact that it's a

15 bunk bed. It's two beds, one on top of

16 another. That's what you see in many college

17 dorms, and maybe a lot less. So --

18 SENATOR SAVINO: Different population.

19 So if what you're saying is that the

20 double bunking is not a problem, why is it

21 routinely pointed out to us by those who work

22 in the prison system, the corrections

23 officers, former corrections officers, that

24 it creates problems? It creates, you know,

360

1 issues between the inmates and between the

2 corrections officers. I mean, are they just

3 misrepresenting it, or is it really a

4 problem?

5 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: I don't

6 think it's really a problem. But it's a

7 question of if it was less inmates, there

8 would be less issues to worry about. So I

9 get where they're coming from. And, you

10 know, the argument that take down all the

11 double bunks in the back and you would have

12 less inmates in the dorm to worry about.

13 But the real concerns, the real

14 incidents that I'm concerned about most of

15 all aren't in my medium security facilities.

16 Right? They're in my maxes. That's where

17 the long-termers are, that's where most of

18 the gang violence is. And that's really

19 where the rubber meets the road.

20 So for the most part, the mediums are

21 running very well even with, you know, 60-man

22 dorms and other dorms that have double bunks.

23 SENATOR SAVINO: Well, I'm glad to

24 hear they're run very well, and I guess we've

361

1 got to give some credit to the staff that

2 works there, the corrections officers and the

3 nonuniformed staff and, of course, yourself.

4 I just want to thank you for your

5 testimony and the comments you've just made.

6 Thank you, Commissioner.

7 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Thank

8 you, Senator.

9 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Senator Krueger.

10 SENATOR KRUEGER: Good afternoon.

11 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Good

12 afternoon.

13 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. I'm

14 sorry I had to leave for a little while.

15 So sexual harassment is a hot topic in

16 the world we live in right now. And I'm

17 wondering what you are doing to decrease the

18 chances of an inmate being raped in one of

19 your prisons. I have found any number of

20 rape accusations in the last year by women

21 who are inmates in state prisons, and I'm

22 wondering whether there's some kind of change

23 in policy that you're implementing or can

24 implement to try to decrease the number of

362

1 incidents.

2 And I don't know that they're all

3 against women, by the way, so I don't want to

4 be sexist, they're just the cases that I

5 found.

6 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well,

7 first of all, Senator, we are moving fast and

8 furious to be fully compliant with the Prison

9 Rape Elimination Act. Those are standards

10 that were promulgated by the feds that we

11 have to comply with. We've had 45, I

12 believe, or 46 of our 54 facilities

13 accredited under PREA. Those are strict

14 standards. Outside auditors come in and walk

15 through the entire facility. It's required

16 us to make changes here and there -- privacy

17 curtains for the showers, mirrors so that

18 blinds spots are eliminated. A lot to do

19 with the LGBT community, how you respectfully

20 communicate with them, et cetera. So many,

21 many changes there.

22 With respect to our female facilities,

23 I've taken a number of additional steps.

24 First we are adding, I believe -- and there

363

1 are already fixed cameras at Bedford, but I'm

2 adding something like I'm going to say 800 --

3 I hope I'm wrong on that number, I'll

4 double-check that. So we're really expanding

5 our fixed camera system there.

6 I've instituted body cameras and

7 requiring staff to wear them. To the best of

8 my knowledge, no other correctional system in

9 the country is even close to what we're

10 doing. When it's fully implemented, we will

11 have ordered, I believe, 650 body cameras for

12 staff to use, particularly when they're in

13 areas of the facility where there are not the

14 fixed cameras.

15 I've also instituted a number that the

16 inmates can call to make a direct complaint

17 to our Office of Special Investigations. I

18 think it's just star 44 or star 45, they hit

19 that, and they're connected directly to our

20 OSI.

21 I've also had our OSI make unannounced

22 visits there, walk through the units, and

23 allow -- get the feedback directly from the

24 offender population.

364

1 So while obviously the Prison Rape

2 Elimination Act applies to all of our

3 facilities and all individuals have to be

4 protected, I'm especially mindful of the

5 potential vulnerability of female staff. And

6 when we have successfully identified and

7 obtained the evidence, we go for criminal

8 prosecution. We have a strong partnership at

9 Bedford Hills with the Westchester DA and

10 with the U.S. Attorney's office. And then we

11 hold up as examples of deterrence what

12 happened. And one individual recently was

13 convicted and is serving time in a federal

14 prison.

15 And in my training video, which all

16 staff listen too, I warn them in very stark

17 terms, think about for a moment what it would

18 be like to one day being a person employed by

19 the department, and the next day being a

20 person confined by the department.

21 And we absolutely have to have a zero

22 tolerance policy for that. Inmates deserve

23 to be protected. I pushed years ago to

24 change the law so that as a matter of law, an

365

1 inmate cannot consent to a sexual

2 relationship, given the power differential in

3 the relationship. And I was glad years ago

4 that the Legislature acted on that. So just

5 like a 15-year-old can't consent, an inmate

6 confined in a correctional facility cannot

7 consent.

8 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. I

9 appreciate you're doing this.

10 I'm just curious because we're rolling

11 out body cameras in police forces as well,

12 and there seems to be a little bit of

13 discussion about then who has access to

14 review the tapes and can they be used as

15 evidence by people who may file the

16 complaints.

17 What will be your policy with the body

18 cameras?

19 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: We

20 absolutely would use them as evidence if we

21 need to.

22 And we haven't had any problem that

23 I'm aware of reviewing them and turning them

24 over. Some minor problems, initially; some

366

1 of them didn't work properly. But that's to

2 be expected with any pilot.

3 And we are going forward with that,

4 and the next facility I believe is Taconic.

5 And a number of our other max facilities,

6 males.

7 SENATOR KRUEGER: So when an inmate

8 comes forward through the phone number to the

9 inspector general, are they then provided

10 representation in some way? What happens?

11 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: No, we

12 open an investigation. They've officially

13 lodged the complaint.

14 And the reason that we did this is we

15 wanted to give another means by which, if a

16 female feels that it's unsafe to either write

17 a letter or, you know, ask to meet with OSI,

18 this is a direct connection, they can make

19 that complaint and hopefully feel safe doing

20 it, and we will then open an investigation

21 and go see what's involved.

22 SENATOR KRUEGER: So my time is up.

23 But are they moved or the person they accuse

24 moved during the investigation?

367

1 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: It

2 depends. It depends on the facts and

3 circumstance.

4 I mean, number one, if there's any

5 potential credibility there, our number-one

6 priority is keep her safe. And whatever we

7 have to do to do that, we'll make sure that

8 happens.

9 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you very much.

10 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

11 Our next speaker is Senator Robach.

12 SENATOR ROBACH: Yes, thank you.

13 Very quickly, I'll get to it, we

14 talked a lot about inmates, a lot about

15 people that work in that. I'd like to just

16 touch a little -- a couple of things here

17 about the other population group, the public

18 we're trying to protect. I'll get right to

19 it, because we have limited time.

20 I'm a little concerned with, you know,

21 more merit time and credit time allowance.

22 We have had a lot of recidivism in Rochester,

23 which I know you're aware of. There have

24 been horrendous cases. And the statement

368

1 keeps being made by DOCCS that a hundred

2 percent of the time, violent felons do

3 80 percent of their time. I don't think

4 that's true. But I'd like us to work toward

5 it.

6 So I guess my question would be is, do

7 you really think we need to be letting more

8 people -- or would some of these violent

9 people be eliminated from the pool of merit

10 time and/or credit time allowances? You

11 know, I do think it's a very small percentage

12 of the people. But I do think we've had too

13 many, I'll say, for a lot of nefarious

14 reasons, slip through the cracks. And I

15 think we could do both things and address

16 that, with some work.

17 I'm just wondering what your

18 thoughts are on that.

19 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Senator,

20 I appreciate your remarks. And I think part

21 of our problem is we use the term "violent

22 felony offender" and we paint a very broad

23 brush. And I'm very mindful of the very bad

24 cases that happened in your area and deeply

369

1 regret that they did happen.

2 But I think, starting with day-to-day

3 operations in a correctional facility, having

4 meaningful incentives for inmates to

5 behave -- and this is two-pronged. It's not

6 just that you do this program and you'll get

7 the benefit, you also have to have a very

8 positive institutional record. And if you

9 don't meet that criteria, you're not getting

10 the benefit.

11 And for the limited credit time, it

12 means you can't, for example have had a

13 recommended loss of good time in the prior

14 five years or you can't have maintained an

15 overall poor institutional record. And it

16 also means you can't have filed a frivolous

17 lawsuit.

18 And it's the same thing with merit

19 time. Different category of offender that's

20 eligible, but he has to maintain the record.

21 If he has a total amount of either SHU or

22 keeplock sanctions in excess of 60 days, he's

23 not eligible to get it.

24 So these are very important

370

1 incentives, I think, and help make our

2 prisons safer because there's a strong

3 incentive to behave.

4 And I think the people that commit the

5 offenses that were committed in Rochester,

6 they wouldn't get the benefit of that kind of

7 program while they were incarcerated with us.

8 I really doubt that they would be able to

9 meet these standards.

10 SENATOR ROBACH: What I would hope as

11 you move forward, I think there should be a

12 standard -- that was the sentence or the line

13 I got from DOCCS, I like that. I would like

14 80 percent time served for violent felons.

15 And I think they should be defined by, you

16 know, people that do inflict bodily injury --

17 shooters, rapists, murderers. I mean, some

18 of people that have been let out early are

19 very concerning to me.

20 And just real quickly --

21 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Sex

22 offenders are not eligible. By law, they

23 would not be eligible for limited credit

24 time.

371

1 SENATOR ROBACH: Okay. Well, I think

2 we ought to put more people in that category,

3 too, just for my two cents.

4 And then I'd be remiss if I didn't say

5 it too -- and I don't want to make it

6 personal -- while I get that, I'd like to

7 know what the definition is of debilitating

8 age release. What would constitute

9 debilitating? Would that mean they couldn't

10 be physically able to get up and attack

11 somebody else? What would define that?

12 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well,

13 our job is to look at somebody with these

14 conditions, whatever it may be -- it may be

15 advanced arthritis, it may be a severely

16 weakened heart that the person has difficulty

17 moving from point A to point B -- and us

18 making an assessment and understanding this

19 person now has severe limitations in caring

20 for themselves.

21 The whole reason why we have regional

22 medical units, among others, and a unit for

23 the cognitively impaired, is these

24 individuals cannot function on their own. In

372

1 fact, were we to release them, many of them

2 would have to be placed in some kind of

3 hospital-like setting, a hospice setting or a

4 nursing home placement.

5 Now, can they possibly pose a danger

6 to others? That's a judgment that you have

7 to make. And I think you make that in three

8 ways. Number one, you know what the whole

9 history is, right? You look at his original

10 crime, you look at how long he's been

11 incarcerated, you look at the amount of time

12 remaining on his sentence, and then you make

13 an assessment during the interview. And

14 that's what the Parole Board is going to do

15 going forward.

16 SENATOR ROBACH: Well, good. Because

17 I -- you know, again, we had another one in

18 Rochester, a 59-year-old. I saw the tape, he

19 was very, very capable of being very, very

20 violent. And you know, again, I don't know

21 if the right answer is quantify the

22 conditions or raise the age, or maybe some

23 combination.

24 But I would say this. I mean this

373

1 sincerely. You have a very, very hard job.

2 But I think some of the things that are being

3 suggested, if they are not implemented

4 correctly, I really believe they're going to

5 put more of the public in danger, who has

6 done nothing. And so I hope, I really do --

7 I know there's a push for a lot of reforms,

8 and some of them are good. But I hope --

9 you're in an influence of power -- that

10 you'll even talk to the Governor directly and

11 hopefully, when we get to the end of this,

12 some of those loopholes or some of those

13 things will be diminished greatly. I really

14 think if we don't take that opportunity,

15 we'll be doing the wrong thing.

16 So I appreciate you considering those.

17 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Sure,

18 Senator.

19 SENATOR ROBACH: Thank you.

20 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Okay. Thank you,

21 Senator Robach.

22 Our next speaker is Senator Rivera and

23 then Senator Little.

24 SENATOR RIVERA: Thank you, Madam

374

1 Chair.

2 Commissioner.

3 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Senator.

4 SENATOR RIVERA: So I have a few

5 things. And I apologize that I had to be in

6 and out, so some of the stuff you might have

7 already covered. I did want to start where

8 Senator Robach just ended, geriatric parole.

9 The current proposal -- and I'm sure

10 that in the line of questioning that you had

11 with Senator Robach, you did discuss it. But

12 if you could give me just in a minute the

13 overall -- I certainly get the reasoning, but

14 tell me how it's structured currently as far

15 as the proposal is concerned.

16 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Okay.

17 So this is in addition to the current medical

18 parole types, one for the terminally ill, one

19 for the severely debilitated though they're

20 not terminal. And this is looking at a

21 cohort of individuals who are 55 and older

22 and who are suffering from some conditions

23 that when coupled with their advanced age,

24 severely limits their ability to care for

375

1 themselves in the correctional facility

2 setting.

3 And as a starter, we're looking at the

4 individuals who meet that criteria and are

5 either in our unit for the cognitively

6 impaired or one of our regional medical units

7 which provide skilled nursing care.

8 Obviously these individuals aren't able to

9 function on their own. So those would be,

10 without knowing any individual cases, the

11 potential pool that you'd start with, that

12 you'd look at carefully and perhaps refer to

13 the Board of Parole.

14 My determination and my doctor's

15 determination is solely to whether or not

16 they have those conditions debilitating them.

17 It's then up to the Board of Parole to decide

18 whether or not their release is incompatible

19 with the welfare of society.

20 SENATOR RIVERA: There you go. So

21 since time is limited, so first on the issue

22 of debilitating. Right, that's the -- is

23 that the word or the terminology that's used

24 in the proposal, debilitating? And is there

376

1 a clear definition of what debilitating

2 means?

3 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Other

4 than the dictionary definition? If it's not

5 written in that statute, I don't think so.

6 But I think it's more the result

7 that's happening, you know, to the

8 individual. What is their condition, what

9 are they able to do? Can they help

10 themselves? Do they require help for

11 activities of daily living?

12 SENATOR RIVERA: And then once you

13 make that determination, you have the -- the

14 person has to be above 55 and fit the

15 criteria of debilitating, of having a

16 debilitating condition. Then they are

17 eligible.

18 But this does nothing to change the

19 statute that currently exists, which

20 particularly as it relates to instant

21 offense, in many instances people who have

22 paid their debt to society 15, 20, 30 years,

23 they have been rehabilitated in all sorts of

24 different ways, but yet are not paroled. So

377

1 basically this changes nothing of that,

2 correct?

3 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Correct.

4 SENATOR RIVERA: Okay. I wanted to

5 talk a little bit about overdoses.

6 Particularly, what is the protocol currently

7 when an incarcerated person overdoses inside

8 a facility?

9 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: So we

10 have a standing order where our nurses,

11 without a doctor's order -- this is an

12 arrangement by the Department of Health --

13 can, if they suspect an overdose, can inject

14 Narcan to bring somebody back. We have

15 Narcan kits available, we don't have to wait

16 for the medical --

17 SENATOR RIVERA: So but after, let's

18 say, that that happens, the person is

19 stabilized, there are -- I've heard some

20 reports, and they've been very troubling,

21 that as part of the protocol in some

22 facilities, that somebody, after they have

23 survived an overdose, that they're put in

24 SHU.

378

1 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: No, no.

2 No, no. First things first. We have to save

3 lives. And somebody who's in an overdose

4 situation, we have to bring them back right

5 away. So it's routine, without us knowing if

6 the person took drugs or not, if they are

7 unresponsive -- and this happens a lot -- we

8 will administer Narcan immediately, right,

9 and hopefully bring them back.

10 But there have been, you know, periods

11 where we've had to rush 25 people, different

12 times during the week to outside hospitals

13 for opioids. Now, after that, when they come

14 back, obviously they violated our

15 institutional rules, they may be charged with

16 an act of misconduct and they may be placed

17 in segregated confinement. I don't know that

18 that's been done in any specific case, but

19 it's a logical follow-up for that.

20 SENATOR RIVERA: I would want to have

21 further conversations with you at some other

22 point, because it is -- as we've had this

23 ongoing conversation talking about addiction

24 as a public health issue, obviously this is a

379

1 slightly different situation because we're

2 talking about somebody that's already

3 incarcerated. But it seems that this is

4 obviously a punitive action that is taken

5 about something to someone. I'd want to talk

6 with you about that further.

7 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Sure.

8 SENATOR RIVERA: Just one more thing,

9 since I've run out of time but I have one

10 more question that I quickly want to ask, and

11 that is about the -- how many people

12 currently incarcerated are there for

13 technical parole violations? If you have any

14 sense of that. And I might come back for a

15 second round.

16 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Sure.

17 Sure. I mean, first of all, the Governor has

18 directed my Community Supervision staff and

19 the Board of Parole to work with the Reentry

20 Council to look at the parole revocation

21 guidelines. Those guidelines were created

22 back in the '90s, and they're very much

23 dependent upon the original crime of

24 commitment. If the original crime of

380

1 commitment was violent, then the penalty for

2 a technical violation is longer.

3 That doesn't make sense anymore. That

4 needs to be changed. And I've internally

5 been looking at that with my staff and coming

6 up with some potential ideas.

7 We take very seriously what the

8 Legislature wanted when you directed us to

9 merge and you wanted us to use graduated

10 sanctions. And so, for example, we have a

11 lot of alternatives that didn't exist five

12 years ago. Our parole diversion programs --

13 we have it at Edgecombe and Hale Creek and

14 Orleans, it's a 45-day program. Instead of

15 sending someone up to a regular facility for

16 two years, they successfully complete that

17 program, they return to the community, they

18 still are eligible for a merit discharge of

19 sentence.

20 We have the Reset Initiative, where we

21 have a grid of responses to both negative

22 behavior and good behavior. The negative

23 behavior might be just one day or two days,

24 you're placed back in a facility. But it's

381

1 done up front. We know that the parolee

2 signs a contract: If I do this, this will

3 happen. If I do that, that will happen. But

4 I think there's a lot more room to be had.

5 And I know there was a report, I

6 didn't read the report, but I know that last

7 week there were 130 people in Rikers Island

8 that were our parolees on a technical warrant

9 only. So I think there was a lot of

10 misleading things about what that report

11 claimed.

12 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you.

13 Senator Little.

14 SENATOR LITTLE: Okay, thank you. And

15 thank you, Commissioner, for being here.

16 A lot of topics have been touched on

17 today, but I'd like to begin by thanking you

18 for your leadership and many of these

19 programs that you mentioned today -- the

20 veterans programs, all of those, the tablets

21 that you're now providing, and also to your

22 staff. I have nine facilities in my

23 district, state facilities and one federal,

24 and wonderful people working day and night,

382

1 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in these

2 facilities.

3 I just also can touch upon the double

4 bunking. Have seen the difference that

5 eliminating the two to a cell has made at

6 Great Meadow. Recently toured there again,

7 and there was a big difference in what went

8 on. And I'm sure it's a lot safer for the

9 correction officers working there.

10 But I do want to mention one facility

11 that I was at just recently, Moriah Shock.

12 And I know that you had a great deal to do

13 with forming the program way back. But

14 nevertheless, it -- I just couldn't say

15 enough about it, how commendable the

16 superintendent was, the counselors that were

17 there, the people that were there.

18 And I guess my biggest question, there

19 were only 170 inmates there when there's a

20 capacity of 300. Two questions, actually. I

21 wonder if there's a way that rather than

22 bringing inmates from other parts of the

23 state out to Lakeview for intake and then

24 bringing them back to Moriah, if there's a

383

1 way to do the intake at Moriah, it might save

2 on some transportation.

3 And secondly, how do we get more

4 inmates to benefit from this program?

5 Because you could see just -- you know, we

6 spent quite a few hours there -- that this is

7 a program that's very beneficial to them.

8 And then as well, I'm sure your agency

9 wouldn't be in charge of it, but when they

10 get out, something that's going to help them

11 get through, whether it's military or some --

12 some way.

13 And we talked about some more training

14 and workforce training, like maybe volunteer

15 fire squadrons or basic EMS training that

16 could take place among them and help them

17 out.

18 But they do a great job in their work

19 programs, and I can't say enough about it. I

20 wish everybody got a chance to see this

21 place. It is -- it's just really

22 commendable, and I thank you very much for

23 that. But some questions of how to make it

24 bigger. So thank you.

384

1 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Thank

2 you, Senator. And I appreciate your

3 questions very much. I'm very proud of the

4 Shock program in general. It's saved

5 taxpayers, since it was created, over

6 $1.5 billion in prison cost avoidance. I

7 think it really builds character in the

8 individuals that graduate. It's amazing the

9 difference when you see when they first start

10 the program and when they end up. And it's

11 basically a lot of dedication by staff. And

12 Moriah in particular has a wonderful

13 superintendent. And I'm always getting

14 letters, acknowledgments from the community,

15 appreciation when the work crews help out,

16 helping put out fires sometimes, you know,

17 and various other things.

18 What we did was originally we made

19 Lakeview the reception center because we

20 wanted more inmates to volunteer, and we

21 wanted them to get them out at reception and

22 see what a real program was like and be

23 interested in signing up for it.

24 Many years ago we had so many more

385

1 drug offenders than we have now. We had at

2 one time like 24,000, and now we have about

3 6700. So there's a lot less from the pool to

4 apply for that program. But we can recruit

5 from general population when they become

6 within three years or less of their release

7 date.

8 And I know the superintendent has some

9 ideas to maybe market the idea that you can

10 spend your last three years in a shock

11 facility and get out by serving six months.

12 We can certainly, I think, up enrollment

13 there. Someone suggested that this process

14 for Lean might be appropriate to do that.

15 And I might, you know, revisit having central

16 office play more of a role as to, you know,

17 who goes to Lakeview, who goes to Moriah.

18 The program is wonderful, they do a

19 great job at Moriah. And if there are

20 creative ways to get more inmates to

21 volunteer, I think it's a win/win all around

22 for public safety. They're better for it.

23 It's just a very good program.

24 SENATOR LITTLE: There is a YouTube

386

1 "Prison With No Walls" that you can just go

2 on YouTube and watch, it gives you a good

3 example.

4 But the counselors, the amount of

5 investment they have in the inmates and

6 working with them and -- I can't say enough

7 about it. But thank you, and I just hope

8 more people can benefit from that program.

9 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Thank

10 you.

11 SENATOR LITTLE: Thank you. Thanks

12 for all you do.

13 CHAIRWOMAN YOUNG: Thank you, Senator.

14 Senator Bailey.

15 SENATOR BAILEY: Thank you, Madam

16 Chair.

17 Good afternoon, Commissioner. Thank

18 you for your patience and your testimony thus

19 far.

20 I was looking over the comments

21 concerning the merit time -- excuse me, your

22 testimony concerning the merit time statutes,

23 and I look at it as generally positive. How

24 many people would you estimate would benefit

387

1 from the merit time expansion?

2 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: How do I

3 think people would benefit from it?

4 SENATOR BAILEY: No, how many people.

5 Approximately how many people would benefit

6 from that?

7 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Under

8 the new change?

9 SENATOR BAILEY: Yes, under the new

10 change, sir.

11 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: It's not

12 going to be big numbers. And I know that we

13 have a number that was given for the budget,

14 I just can't remember. It's not huge.

15 Basically, you know, it's individuals

16 who would, for example, not need any of the

17 other criteria -- not be in need of substance

18 abuse treatment, you know, not need a GED,

19 someone who's already got a high school

20 diploma. But there's some number of them,

21 you know, that would qualify and meet it. So

22 I think -- I'm pretty sure it was a low

23 number, but I think we still need to assess

24 what's out there to come up with a firm

388

1 number. I'll try and do that and get back to

2 you on that.

3 SENATOR BAILEY: All right, I thank

4 you for that.

5 Within that potential expansion, is

6 there a possibility of -- and I know you just

7 said you're not sure about the numbers, but

8 is there a possibility of expanding

9 vocational or college programs within that?

10 ACTING COMMISSIONER ANNUCCI: Well, we

11 have a huge college program expansion. I'm

12 very grateful what the Governor did, arrange

13 with the Manhattan DA's office DANY funding

14 that is going to allow, when it's fully up,

15 an additional 2400 college slots. We already

16 have Pell grants. We'll have college at 26

17 of our facilities.

18 So we're very proud of that, and I

19 think it's really transformative in what it

20 does safety-wise and for the rest of the

21 population.

22 The voc programs we have -- and we

23 have 28 of them, and they are really good

24 programs. And what I've had program staff do

389

1 is they're making a DVD and they've had our&