Regular Session - March 10, 1999
877
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
March 10, 1999
11:02 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
878
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: The invocation
today will be given by Reverend Norman B.
Evans, retired pastor from American Baptist
Churches in Cazenovia.
REVEREND EVANS: Thank you.
Shall we bow in prayer.
Almighty God, Creator of the
universe and of our wonderful State, we come
today and ask You to bless us and that we
might bless You by what we do this day in this
session. As stewards of this State in its
beauty and its resources, its history and its
people, help us to know that not only are we
responsible to our constituents, but we're
also responsible to You, not only in our State
work but in our personal lives. And may that
great day come and may we be greeted with,
879
"Well done now, good and faithful servant."
Help us to progress this day and in
this session. Help us when we disagree, and
we usually do, to be not disagreeable. And
when we agree, to give wholehearted approval,
not worrying about our status.
And we ask, Lord, that we might
bless You in all that we do and we ask it in
the name of that Hebrew -- in the name of the
One whom the Hebrew Prophet Isaiah and the
Angel Gabriel called Emmanuel.
God with us. Amen.
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Tuesday, March 9th. The Senate met pursuant
to adjournment. The Journal of Monday, March
8th, was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
880
Reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi,
from the Committee on Corporations,
Authorities and Commissions, reports:
Senate Prints 1023, by Senator
Skelos, an act to establish a Business Trust
Law;
1808, by Senator Padavan, an act to
amend the Public Authorities Law;
2453, by Senator Goodman, an act to
amend the Public Authorities Law.
Senator LaValle, from the Committee
on Higher Education, reports:
Senate Prints 175, by Senator
Larkin, an act to amend the Education Law;
1250, by Senator Meier, an act to
amend the Education Law and the Public Health
Law; and
3024, by Senator LaValle, an act to
amend the Education Law.
All bills directly for third
reading.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, all bills directed to third
881
reading.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
State officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Madam
President. On behalf of Senator Meier, on
page 11, Calendar Number -- I offer the
following amendments to Calendar 163, Senate
Print Number 1908, and ask that said bill
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the bill will retain its place on
the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
I believe that there is a privileged
resolution at the desk by Senator Leibell. I
would ask that the title be read and moved for
its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
882
Leibell, Legislative Resolution Number 618,
honoring Temple Beth El of Northern
Westchester upon the occasion of its 50th
anniversary commemorative service on Friday,
March the 12th, 1999.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution.
All in favor, signify by saying
aye.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we, at this time, go to the
non-controversial reading of the calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
107, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 637, an
act to amend the Correction Law and the Public
Health Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
883
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
135, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 1836, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
authorizing the State University trustees.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2, this
act shall take effect on the 1st day of April.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 37.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
141, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 2091, an
act to amend the Mental Hygiene Law, in
relation to disqualification.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
150, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 1509,
884
an act to amend the Labor Law, in relation to
licenses.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
168, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 966, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
sentencing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
221, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 139, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to reports.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
222, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 1101, an
act to amend the Transportation Law, in
relation to increasing penalties.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
885
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3, this
act shall take effect on the 1st day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 37.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
235, by Senator Holland, Senate Print 1922, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
pupils afflicted with asthma.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2, this
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 38.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Bruno, that completes the
reading of the non-controversial calendar.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
886
can we, at this time, return to reports of
standing committees.
I believe there is a report from
the Finance Committee at the desk and ask that
it be read at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
We'll, at this time, return to the reports of
standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, offers up the
following nominations:
As a member of the
Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation
Authority, Leslie M. Goldstein, of Rochester.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, may I be heard on the confirmation?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Could we
please lay them aside. Thank you.
Discontinue. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: It is laid aside
887
at this time, Senator.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation
Authority, Thomas C. Tucker, of Batavia.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, could we lay that nomination aside,
too.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Lay it aside,
please. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The nomination is
laid aside.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Metropolitan Transportation Authority,
Lawrence W. Gamache, of Greenwood.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Lawrence W. Gamache as
a member of the Metropolitan Transportation
888
Authority.
All in favor, signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: Lawrence W.
Gamache is hereby confirmed as a member of the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the New York State Olympic Regional
Development Authority, Janet H. Bliss, of Lake
Placid.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Janet H. Bliss,
Esquire, as a member of the Olympic Regional
Development Authority.
All in favor, signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
889
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: Janet H. Bliss,
Esquire, is hereby confirmed as a member of
the Olympic Regional Development Authority.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a trustee of
the State University Construction Fund, Eugene
K. Tyksinski, of Altamont.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Eugene K. Tyksinski as
a trustee of the State University Construction
Fund.
All in favor, signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: Eugene K.
Tyksinski is hereby confirmed as a trustee of
the State University Construction Fund.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
890
the State Public Transportation Board, Thomas
Clements, of Saratoga Springs.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Thomas Clements as a
member of the State Public Transportation
Board.
All in favor, signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thomas Clements
is hereby confirmed as a member of the State
Public Transportation Board.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Central New York State Park, Recreation
and Historic Preservation Commission, Linda
DeFrancisco, of Syracuse.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
891
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Linda Ann DeFrancisco
as a member of the Central New York State
Recreation and Historic Preservation
Commission.
All in favor, signify by saying
aye.
Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Since I
have a personal interest in this volunteer,
non-paid position, I would like to abstain.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, Senator DeFrancisco is abstaining.
All those in favor, signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: Linda Ann
DeFrancisco is hereby confirmed as a member of
the Central New York State Park, Recreation
and Historic Preservation Commission.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
Board of Visitors New York State Home for
892
Veterans and Their Dependents at Oxford,
Richard M. Pedro, of Owego.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Richard M. Pedro as a
member of the Board of Visitors of the New
York State Home for Veterans and Their
Dependents at Oxford.
All in favor, signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: Richard M. Pedro
is hereby confirmed as a member of the Board
of Visitors of the New York State Home for
Veterans and Their Dependents at Oxford.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation
Authority, Leslie M. Goldstein, of Rochester.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Please -- move
893
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, may I be heard on the confirmation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead,
Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I rise today to oppose
Mr. Goldstein's renomination to the Rochester
Transit Authority, Greater Rochester Regional
Transit Authority. And I do it with all due
respect to my colleagues who are on the
Finance Committee and my colleagues across the
aisle. But, quite frankly, Madam President, I
feel that one of the prerogatives of members,
that I understand apply and that I learned the
hard way in my prior experience in the Finance
Committee when I was a rookie, I learned
something about the way the Finance Committee
dealt with nominations. And what I was told,
and I believe it was the last time
Mr. Goldstein was nominated, what I was told
894
then, when I, at the committee meeting, asked
why Mr. Goldstein wasn't appearing, I was told
that the rule of the Finance Committee was
that, in order to obtain someone's appearance,
in order for them to be asked questions about
their service on something as vitally
important as the Greater Rochester Regional
Transit Authority, which has had enormous
financial problems and which has suddenly
seems to have done better in the last couple
of years, to give me, as a person who
represents 70 percent of the people who ride
on the buses owned by the Transit Authority,
to give me an opportunity to stand up and ask
them questions.
So consistent with that policy, I
requested that Mr. Goldstein appear before the
Senate Finance Committee so I could ask him
about the operations of the Transit Authority
and about two other critically important
issues.
Mr. Goldstein, who is a
philanthropist in Rochester, who I don't have
any personal complaint with, nonetheless, his
company, Mapco, Limited, is a major parking
895
lot operator in the City of Rochester and in
Monroe County. One of the fundamental
questions that you can ask someone who
operates a parking lot is what about their
interest as an owner and operator of a parking
lot company, who is also supposed to provide
public transportation. I think it's a
legitimate question that ought to be answered
by a nominee, to what extent his occupation as
the owner of a parking lot would affect his
ability to serve as a member of a transit
authority. There seems to me to be a
fundamental incompatibility with someone who
wants to be on a transit authority and promote
public transportation and someone who is
operating a parking lot.
But there's a second issue that
Mr. Goldstein needed to be asked questions
about. Two years ago, when Mr. Goldstein was
appointed by this body, over my objection and
without his appearance, I had questions which
I raised at that time about Mapco, Limited,
his company's contributions to political
candidates in this state in excess of the
limitation of $5,000.
896
Everybody in this room knows that
corporations in this state cannot give in a
single year more than $5,000 in total
contributions to any particular candidate or
to any political party.
The proof at that time was that
Mr. Goldstein's corporation had given $7500.
I would point out, I believe, almost all of it
to the public entities that are involved or
the public officials who are involved in the
Greater Rochester Regional Transit Authority.
And, in fact, what I've been able to learn,
although I would have liked to have verified
this from Mr. Goldstein, as well, that after
1996, his company continued to do the same
thing, give political campaign contributions
that violate the law of this State, the law
that was passed by this body, the law that was
endorsed by the Republican majority in this
house as the reasonable ground rule under
which corporations could participate in public
debate and in public campaigns. I wanted to
raise that issue. I wanted to ask
Mr. Goldstein, "Why did you do it in 1996?
Why, after you did it in 1996 and you were
897
told you couldn't do it, why did you do it
again? Why is it that the appearance of
violating the law in this State, the law
passed by this Legislature, suddenly is
disregarded when an individual is seeking
appointment to a public authority and
commission to spend public money?" Very
legitimate question. Mr. Goldstein may have
very legitimate answers. I didn't get a
chance to do that.
The third issue I wanted to talk
about with Mr. Goldstein was something that
happened within the last two months. Two
months, less than two months ago, there was a
member, the commission had an architect, the
Authority had an architect on its board. Sure
enough, what happens? One day, the architect,
a man named Mr. DeWolff, again, another good
Rochester person, good man, done a lot for our
community, but one day he's a member of the
Transit Authority, he resigns, and the very
next day he gets a design contract in his role
as an architect for work on behalf of the
Transit Authority. And the Transit Authority
waves its rules and ethics to allow him to
898
take that assignment. I would suggest that
that is not only an enormous appearance of a
conflict of interest but it may also violate
the conflict of interest rules and laws set by
this Legislature, and, I presume, endorsed by
the Republican majority in this house and I
further presume one that's of continuing
importance to the members of the Republican
majority in this house.
All I wanted was an opportunity to
ask those three questions of Mr. Goldstein.
If anybody can tell me why those
aren't legitimate questions about the
importance of public nominations and why they
shouldn't be the subject of debate in the
Finance Committee so that I, who represent
probably 70 percent of the people who ride
these buses, would know how Mr. Goldstein
answers those questions, I'd like to know.
I asked the Finance Committee to
hold that nomination. Mr. Goldstein has a
health problem. He couldn't be here today.
And I would simply suggest to everyone in this
chamber that, if someone were nominated to be
a Supreme Court judge and came before this
899
body and had a health problem and he couldn't
be here, we wouldn't approve his nomination if
someone, a member of the Majority had asked
for them to be there.
I would also point out, if there
were a commissioner who were appointed by the
Governor and we wanted him to appear before
the Finance Committee, if he had a health
problem and a cold that day, the Senate
Finance Committee would do the reasonable
thing under the circumstances, which is to say
he can't appear here today, we know members
have questions, let's do this, let's hold his
nomination for a period of a week or two until
he recovers his health so he can come back and
answer these very legitimate questions.
So I appear here -- I rise today to
oppose this nomination, but, more importantly,
to oppose the process. I've learned in this
chamber that the rules are important. I know
they're important. I played by the rules. I
gave the notice. I asked as a prerogative of
a member, the member who is most affected by
this appointment, I asked for the opportunity
to put on the public record questions and
900
answers to critical issues that may involve
violations of the State Ethics Laws, that may
be in violation of the State Campaign Finance
Laws, and philosophical questions about the
competence of this individual to serve.
I don't know and won't presume what
Mr. Goldstein's answers would be, but I'm
darned if I am not entitled to those answers
in this forum. And I'm exceptionally
discouraged and distressed that this is the
way the rules get bent to prevent important
public discussion. It was done in the Finance
Committee. In my opinion, it would be
distrustful of the public interest not to
allow Mr. Goldstein to recapture his health
and to come in and answer these questions.
I would actually move, Madam
President, that the nomination be laid aside
until Mr. Goldstein appears before the Senate
Finance Committee.
I'd like that motion voted on now.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Leslie M. Goldstein as
a member of the Rochester-Genesee Regional
Transportation Authority.
901
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, could I make a motion that it be
laid aside?
THE PRESIDENT: On the motion,
all in favor, signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is
defeated.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, I know we want to stay right by the
book, and there was a motion, and correct me
if I'm wrong, there was a motion to confirm,
so I think we vote on that motion. I think
any other motion is -- we're just going by the
rules.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is
defeated.
The question is on the confirmation
of Leslie M. Goldstein.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, could I be heard, one other second.
As a member of the -
THE PRESIDENT: We have
902
resolution that we were voting on.
I'll repeat, the motion -- the
question is on the confirmation of Leslie
M. Goldstein as a member of the
Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation
Authority.
All in favor, signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, may I explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, to explain your vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I was
criticized by a lot of people in this chamber
when I first came here six years ago, because
I didn't follow the rules. I can remember
standing over there, being very critical of
people about votes, critical issues. I can
remember debates with Senator Velella that
were somewhat heated. I can remember debates
with Senator Hannon that were heated. I can
even remember debates with the Chairman of the
903
Finance Committee that were somewhat heated.
I learned how to play by the rules, Madam
President. I was told those were the rules.
Now I'm told that there are a whole set of
rules, but, wait a second, there's this other
rule that we didn't tell you about the first
time. Just like Animal Farm, two legs are
better than four. Remember the progression of
the rules in Animal Farm? The rules were made
up as they went along.
I would just submit that, if
someone asks me to act with a little bit more
decorum than the people in Animal Farm, I'll
just remember that the rules kept getting
modified day by day by day. The Majority has
the power to make those rules. I appreciate
that power. I'm respectful of that power.
But why those rules get bent time and time
again makes a person like me say the hell with
the rules.
THE PRESIDENT: Leslie M.
Goldstein is hereby confirmed as a member of
the Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation
Authority.
The Secretary will read.
904
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation
Authority, Thomas C. Tucker, of Batavia.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Thomas C. Tucker as a
member of the Rochester-Genesee Regional
Transportation Authority.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Has Senator
Stafford moved the confirmation? I'd like to
speak on it.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move the
confirmation.
We certainly yield to Senator Rath.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Stafford.
Go ahead, Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Madam President,
I'd like to rise in support of the
confirmation of Thomas Tucker,
Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation
Authority.
I've known Mr. Tucker for a number
of years in his capacity as a Genesee County
Legislator. Inasmuch as I represent all of
905
Genesee County, I feel his resume speaks for
itself. His experience speaks or itself.
He's well qualified to serve in this capacity.
I look forward to working with him as a
commissioner of that board.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Thomas C. Tucker as a
member of the Rochester-Genesee Regional
Transportation Authority.
All in favor, signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, may I been heard -
THE PRESIDENT: Thomas C. Tucker
is hereby confirmed as a member of the
Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation
Authority.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
I yield to Senator Paterson.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
906
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, point of order. Senator
Dollinger's explaining his vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
I am going to reluctantly vote
against Mr. Tucker. I met Mr. Tucker for the
first time in the Senate Finance Committee
meeting and I asked him a question in which he
gave me an answer that he didn't know.
I have here on the top of my desk
an enormous newspaper article that deals with
the Greater Rochester Regional Transit
Authority that was published on February 14th
of this month that describes the conflict of
interest issue that I raised earlier with
respect to Mr. Goldstein. I'm disappointed
that Mr. Tucker, who seeks to be put on this
board, doesn't know about the conflict of
interest question. And, quite frankly, as I
asked Mr. Tucker, puts me in a very difficult
position. Either Mr. Tucker -- and I don't
question Mr. Tucker's answer. He has a good
907
career as a county legislator. I think
Senator Rath properly points it out. What
disappoints me is that someone who seeks
appointment to a board, doesn't follow the
newspaper accounts about what's going on with
that board. I'm even willing to give Mr.
Tucker the benefit of the doubt that he
doesn't reside in Monroe County and might not
have seen the newspaper. But it's just
somewhat inconceivable to me that a big public
issue of which someone who wants to be on that
authority is unaware.
I would just -- with all due
respect, I'm going to vote in the negative,
Madam President.
And I made my pitch earlier for
what the rules mean and I still don't quite
understand them.
THE PRESIDENT: Thomas C. Tucker
is confirmed as a member of the
Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation
Authority.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Also, Senator
Stafford reports:
908
Senate Prints Number 39, by Senator
Volker, an act amend the Executive Law;
1781, by Senator Farley, an act to
amend the Executive Law;
2012, by Senator Spano, an act to
amend the State Finance Law;
2271, by Senator Skelos, an act to
amend the Executive Law.
All bills directly for third
reading.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, all bills directed to third
reading.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, can we go to the controversial
calendar, starting at 141.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read, beginning at 141.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
141, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 2091, an
act to amend the Mental Hygiene Law, in
relation to disqualification.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
909
THE PRESIDENT: An explanation
has been called for, Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
who's asked for the explanation?
Who has asked for the explanation?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson
asked for the explanation.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Madam
President. And I was hoping it was Senator
Paterson because we do have dialogue each year
on this very, very important bill. And,
Senator, I'm going to convince you this year
to vote for the bill. I'm going to do my
best.
But the bill, basically, what it
does, Madam President, it allows a physician
on the staff of a private hospital to admit a
mentally ill person to that hospital. And
we've made some changes in this bill than in
previous years, where we actually put in a
sunset of three years because it's something
that the Assembly said that they would like to
see in the bill, it would be more palatable to
them and they felt they would be able to pass
it in their house. And along with that would
910
be a report by the Office of Mental Health
that would be required within two years to
help determine how effective this measure has
been.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. And I am very grateful to
the Senator for making the changes. And,
actually, in our discussions, what I have
pointed out is that, having somewhat, in a
previous career, worked a little bit with the
hospitals and understand the problem that the
hospitals are trying to address, which is
often that in these situations there really
aren't enough doctors to be in position to
actually facilitate signing the two physician
certificates. And I understand why that this
is the case.
What I think, in spite of the
sunset, and would like to have some comment
from the Senator, is that it still doesn't
really clear up just the appearance. And I
emphasize appearance, because I don't think
they really is an intentional conflict of
interest. But if you do have a doctor that's
911
on the board of a hospital and they are
admitting patients, there, certainly, at some
point in the future, the conflict could be
raised as an issue of the doctor helping to
create further work for the hospital.
And so, the sunset is actually a
very good idea, but I don't know and I wish
the Senator would comment on whether or not it
actually addresses the conflict.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Madam
President.
The issue that addresses the
conflict stems to a couple of things that are
on the books already. Keep in mind that we
have a number of agencies that have oversight
such as the State Mental Hygiene Legal
Services Group that has oversight, it looks at
these type of issues, we have the State
Commission on Quality Care and we also have in
our hospitals, as I know everyone is aware,
Madam President, the Patient's Bill of Rights.
This would ensure that if a physician, who is
working at that particular hospital, is trying
to fill beds, beds that are unneeded, I think
912
that the hospital would come under a
tremendous scrutiny through any one of these
vehicles or even through the State Health
Department.
I understand the Senator's concern
about why he feels there could be an issue of
conflict of interest, but I think what we're
trying to accomplish here is opportunity for
involuntary commitment so that we can help
those people who have mental illness, we can
help them get the help that they need.
So, Senator, I hope that those
agencies that are on the books that have done
oversight, along with the Patient's Bill of
Rights, is as much oversight that I think is
needed in this case. And while I respect your
concern, I also would hope that you would
consider the concern for the patient.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
This is, this is a very difficult
question, and I'm going to continue to talk to
Senator Libous, not only in your presence but
off the floor, because I understand what he's
913
saying about the patient and if you don't have
a doctor that's available at the time that the
commitment really is needed, that becomes an
extremely serious issue and it's really a
matter of trying to balance the values.
I'm going to vote against the bill.
I note that the Mental Health Association of
New York for the same reasons opposes the
bill. But somehow, with Senator Libous's
persistence and my continuing willingness to
exchange in the movement of ideas and
opinions, I know that we're going to get this
worked out, maybe even by the end of this
session. So we beg your indulgence, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
I'm disappointed that I could not convince
Senator Paterson to see it my way.
And, Senator, I'm hoping that, that
what we can do is get the Assembly to pass
this and send this to the Governor so you
won't have to deal with it again.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
914
THE SECRETARY: Section 4, this
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 141 are
Senators Duane, Montgomery, Paterson,
Schneiderman, Seabrook and Waldon.
Ayes 47. Nays 6.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
150, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 1509,
an act to amend the Labor Law, in relation to
licenses to possess and use explosives.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford,
an explanation has been called for.
SENATOR STAFFORD: We passed this
bill -- thank you -- we passed this bill last
year, I believe it was 57 to 1. And I would
point out that with this bill there are still
safeguards, there are still rules and
regulations, there is still are laws that have
to be followed and followed very carefully.
915
This is a step to try to be more reasonable
with business.
There'd be a three-year license
rather than a two -- one-year license. And we
would suggest that the bill does make sense.
In this State, when we're trying to be
reasonable, we shouldn't do anything that will
not be in the public interest or, or safe for
our people. I would suggest this is. It's a
good bill and that's why I think it passed
last year 57 to 1, and I'd hope it would pass
this year unanimously.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes. Madam
President, I would just -- I understand
Senator Stafford's desire that it pass this
year unanimously, and I know I was the only
one that voted against it. And I know that
the issues that I raised were in relationship
to the fact that we -- the bill, it seems to
me, relaxes our, our licensing and thereby our
ability to more closely monitor the purchase
and sale of explosives at a time when it seems
916
to me we need to be strengthening it rather
than relaxing it. There have been a number of
very, very serious incidents where people have
used explosives just indiscriminately and
people -- I fear, even still, opening my mail
because of the possibility of some devious
person sending an explosive through the mail
and so forth and so on.
So I'd raise that. I still have
that concern. I will still vote no and hope
that passing this legislation won't, in fact,
lead to us losing more capacity to monitor
this kind of business.
I vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I certainly
respect the Senator and we've discussed it.
I would want to put on the record
and emphasize, this does not reduce the
safeguards or it does not reduce or lessen the
control because it's people who are lawfully
using it in business. And we would suggest
that doing it every three years, to cut down
on costs, is not really relaxing anything
because you are checking on these people.
917
Now, when it is used illegally,
Senator Montgomery and I are right on the same
wavelength. But I think it is a good bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
I rise just to support that the
Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. I
understand Senator Montgomery's concern but,
under this bill, this effects the obligation
to renew the license. The actual purchase of
certain types of explosives is still
controlled. The actual purchase, there has to
be filings, there has to be disclosure at the
time of purchase. It's just simply the
license, once the purchase has been made, to
possess them lawfully and to use them.
And Senator Stafford's correct that
this bill will also -- it simply says that
instead of renewing it every single year,
they'd do it every three years.
It's actually one that came about,
I think, through a common constituent of the
two of ours that we've worked together on.
918
And I appreciate the Plattsburgh, Rochester
access of the bill. So -
But any explosive purchase that is
now required to be disclosed, would still be
required to be disclosed at the time of
purchase. This simply says that the person
who buys it, who has a license to use it for
mining or excavation doesn't have to renew
their license every single year, except every
three years.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Would the sponsor yield to a
question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford,
would you yield in a question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, go
ahead.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Under, under this legislation, if
the person who holds the license moves or if
the principals of the company changes, if
they're new people, do you have to report that
to the licensing agency?
919
SENATOR STAFFORD: Good question.
I would say, as far as moving within New York
State, you would not. On any license of this
type if the principals change, or any of the
decision-making changes, as far as ownership,
as you asked, that obviously has -- the
license is no longer valid.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: On the bill,
Madam President.
I am concerned because of recent,
very tragic things that have happened around
the nation that we in any way would be able to
lose the, you know, knowing where people who
have access to explosives are at any given
time. If it were that you had to -- if there
were any changes within that three-year
period, if you had to report whether your
company moved or if the principals moved to
another location, even within New York State,
I would be more confident about it. But I
still have, because of terrible things that
have happened, uneasiness about that.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move the bill,
please.
920
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last -
Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I usually
don't debate enough.
The problems you are raising, if
they were a -- are problems, would be very
serious, but it isn't. See, it doesn't
change.
Move the bill, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2, this
act shall take effect on the 1st today of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 52. Nays 2.
Senators Duane and Montgomery
recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
168, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 966, an
act to amend the Penal Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
921
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4, this
act shall take effect on the 1st day of
November.
SENATOR SMITH: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
an explanation has been called for.
SENATOR VELELLA: Can we put that
over to tomorrow's calendar?
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me,
Senator?
SENATOR VELELLA: Can we put that
over to tomorrow's calendar?
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
SENATOR VELELLA: We'll debate
that bill tomorrow.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
221, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 139, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2, this
act shall take effect on the 60th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, do
922
you wish to be recognized?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes. Thank you,
Madam President. I was wondering if the
sponsor would take a question or two.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Madam
President, thank you.
The measure before us amends the
Vehicle and Traffic Law in relation to reports
of motor vehicle accidents during the
involvement of correction officers while they
are on duty.
The purpose of the bill is to grant
those on-duty correction officers with the
same types of privacy protections afforded to
police officers and firemen in this State.
When they are on duty and have an accident,
those officers have a privacy protection in
that they do not have to file an accident
report, that that exemption, from personally
reporting the accident, the accident needs to
be certainly dealt with by the individual
department in question. But, but the report
does not list the driver personally;
923
therefore, this exemption protects his
privacy.
The reason for that, I think, is
obvious, but for those who do not know how
stressful it can be walking up and down a cell
block and having the inmates yell to you, "I
know where you live," is something that none
of us in this chamber, I believe, would want
to put forth on a good servant of the people
of this State.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
Other than transporting prisoners,
what are the other occasions when a correction
officer would be driving while on duty?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: You just
mentioned -- Madam President, Senator Duane
just mentioned, certainly, the major vast,
vast majority of effort that transport entails
is taking prisoners from one prison to health
services, from a prison moving them to another
prison in this State. So the vast, vast
majority, 99 percent of the time, correction
officers are traveling, that is in the
924
transport of prisoners. There are occasions
when items need to be picked up, courier
entity needs to be taken from one prison to
another. But that is a very, very rare
circumstance. Vast majority of cases,
virtually all cases are those in transporting
prisoners.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Would the sponsor
yield to another question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President, continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I understand why
the bill would include this during prisoner
transport, but I don't -- it doesn't seem to
me that if you are transporting files or, I
don't know, other things from one prison to
another, why it raises the same level of
concern that the Senator mentioned. I also
don't think that, you know, while driving
925
within speed limits, when transporting items,
is not an emergency situation, there wouldn't
be any need for high speed transportation, and
so I'm wondering why it is that the bill
wasn't crafted so that it just narrowly was
for, for instance, the transport of prisoners
when it is possible that I suppose a prisoner
could overhear an address or something like
that.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Madam
President, let me try to explain.
The purpose of this legislation is
not just to protect the officer while he's
transporting prisoners, I'd also would say it
would apply to an officer who may get in a
vehicle accident when there are no prisoners
in his vehicle, on his way back to the home
prison after transporting prisoners. There's
not a guarantee that once prisoners are
transported form prison A to prison B, that
prisoners necessarily would be transported
back from prison B to prison A. So that there
will be many times when the officer will be
driving with an empty vehicle after he has
926
made his, his appropriate assignments in
transporting prisoners to a particular
location.
It's not the question, Madam
President, of prisoners overhearing an officer
describe his personal home, place of home to
the officer in charge of, responsible of
reviewing the accident; rather, it is a
prisoner filing a Freedom of Information Act
request on the locality which would present
that prisoner with the entire report of an
accident, which in many, many cases, I would
say, probably virtually all cases, but
certainly the vast majority of cases an
accident which would occur not at the fault of
a correction officer. It's the Freedom of
Information Act request that we're concerned
with, that the prisoner would take that
report, find the home address of the officer
driving the vehicle and, in effect, engage in
the typical harassment and somewhat unnerving
harassment which could occur as a result of
having that information.
It's not, it's not a dealing with
overhearing prisoners. It's a correction
927
officer acting within the scope of his
responsibility, on official business, who
happens to get in a vehicular accident that,
to protect that officer from the taunts, the
harassment of prisoners in the correctional
system from having that officer's home
address.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President,
one -- if I may ask one final question?
THE PRESIDENT: Do you continue
to yield Senator Nozzolio?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I would be more compelled if it
were more narrowly drafted, this legislation.
But just as -
One final question. Does this bill
only include if the correctional officer is
driving an official vehicle or is it also if
they are using their own vehicle?
The bill may be silent on that
point. I understand. But it's of concern to
928
me as well that it's, it's not -- it doesn't
say whether it's only if you're in an official
vehicle or whether you're in your own, and
under what circumstances you're on official
business in your own, etcetera.
I don't -- I mean, not to belabor
it, because I'm intending on voting against
it, so we don't need the answer now, but I was
just -- it's of concern.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I'd be glad to
respond to the question. That the measure is
exempting or modifying existing law. And in
existing law does provide the issue of
department vehicles while on duty, which
temptates (sic) official business.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2, this
act shall take effect on the 60th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 55. Nays 1.
Senator Duane recorded in the
929
negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
107, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 637, an
act to amend the Correction Law and the Public
Health Law.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Lay it aside
for the day.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
Senator Valella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, at this time would you recognize
Senator Paterson, who has an announcement.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, the announcement I'm going to make
involves a conference that's being held by the
Minority. It's going to be immediate. It's
going to be in Room 314. That's three one
four, which is the mathematic derivation of
pi, by the way. The meeting will be held
promptly, immediately and without delay.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Senator
930
Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Lunch will be
served in Room 314. And the Senate will stand
in recess -- the Senate will stand at ease
pending the Minority conference.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Thank
you for that clarification, gentlemen.
There will be an immediate Minority
conference in Room 314.
The Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the
Senate stood at ease.)
(Whereupon, at 12:46, the Senate
resumed.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
come to order.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room. And the Senate
will stand at ease pending the report of the
Rules Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room and the Senate
931
will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, at 12:46, the Senate
stood at ease.)
(Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the
Senate resumed.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator will come
to order.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Senate
Finance Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you. And
we'll stand at ease.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, at 1:00, the Senate
stood at ease.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
come to order once again.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
932
if we could return to reports of standing
committees. I believe there's a report of the
Rules Committee at the desk. I ask that it be
read.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
We'll return to the reports of the
committees, specifically the Rules Committee.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bill directly for third reading:
Senate Print 3580, by Senator
Padavan, an act to repeal Section 5 of Chapter
149 of the Laws of 1998.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
I move to accept the report of the Rules
Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
accepting the report of the Rules Committee,
please say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The report is
933
accepted.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could take up Calendar Number 290,
Senate 3580.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
290, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 3580, an
act to repeal Section 5 of Chapter 149 of the
Laws of 1998.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
is there a message of necessity at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept
the message.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
moving to accept the message of necessity,
signify by saying aye.
(Response.of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The message is
accepted.
934
Read the last section.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: An explanation
has been requested, Senator.
Senator, Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Very briefly,
Madam President. As everyone here, I'm sure,
recalls last year, we reformed the method, the
methodology by which what elect community
school board members in the City of New York,
by eliminating a rather archaic paper ballot,
proportional methodology and replacing it with
one where we use the voting machines in a
direct, more direct approach. That bill
passed unanimously in both houses, was widely
supported and viewed as a way to involve more
people in school board elections and improve
the system.
Unfortunately, earlier this year,
the Justice Department chose to evaluate or to
review that new law. The Justice Department
has jurisdiction under the Voting Rights Act
over three of our counties, three boroughs;
Manhattan, Bronx and Brooklyn. And the
935
administrative decision by that Department,
that agency, was that the new system that we
were about to implement was contrary to the
best interests of certain minorities. That
decision is being appealed by the Corporation
Counsel and a new application, a new refiling
is being made with the Justice Department
simultaneously. We're very hopeful that we
will succeed in that initiative, supported by
the Board of Education, the Chancellor and
many, many others.
Now, what does this bill do? It
does several things. First, in order to
provide uniformity, we can't really, I think,
with all prudence, have part of the City using
one system and another part of the City using
another. And so this bill says we go back
prior to last year's enactment to the old
paper ballot, proportional method of electing
school board members. However, if we get a
favorable decision by April 5th, then that
part of this bill before us destructs. We're
now on the new, the new method.
We also indicate that, because of
this delay and this occurrence, that the
936
school board election will be delayed from May
4th, the first Tuesday in May, to the third
Tuesday, which is May 25th.
We also open up the window for
filings by candidates. There will be four
consecutive days for new people to file for
these elections the tenth day after this bill
would become law, which would be mean after
the Governor signs it.
An unfortunate circumstance but I
think we are dealing with it, agreement in
both houses, in the most efficient way we can
and the most practical way that we can.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, recognize Senator Seabrook.
THE PRESIDENT: I certainly will.
Senator Sefert. Seabrook. Excuse me,
Senator.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Not a problem,
Madam President.
Will the sponsor yield to a couple
of questions?
937
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes, I'd be
happy to.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Senator
Padavan, the bill that was passed to talk
about reforming this old archaic system, what
was wrong with that system?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well -
SENATOR SEABROOK: As to why we
brought about this bill, to change it, not,
not the bill, but -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes. I
understand what you're asking.
I think you voted for it.
SENATOR SEABROOK: That's right.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Okay.
What was wrong about the old system
is, number one, people were discouraged. You
went in there and you got a paper ballot and
your votes for Candidate 1 might shift down to
Candidate 6, and is rather, as I referred to
it, convoluted, proportional, cascading voting
system. And it did not allow for voting on a
machine because, obviously, there's no way in
the world you could do that on a voting
machine. And I think it discouraged people
938
from participating both as candidates and as
voters.
So the new system said, in effect,
nine people running, the top or the top nine
people who run are elected. Just the way we
are elected. And that was, in essence, the
improvement that we had adopted in law last
year.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Will the
Senator yield to another question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes. I'm
sorry.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Senator
Padavan, what is the time period in which
these votes are actually calculated, come to a
conclusive -
SENATOR PADAVAN: The paper
ballot -
SENATOR SEABROOK: The paper
ballot system.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Weeks. It took
weeks for this counting of these paper
ballots.
939
SENATOR SEABROOK: And, perhaps
you're familiar with a couple of cases in the
City, the last election there were people who
I think had some problems with stuffing ballot
boxes and putting names in, a couple of
districts, one in the Bronx and places -
SENATOR PADAVAN: I did read
about it.
SENATOR SEABROOK: -- that, with
this old system, and thank God we was looking
for a new system -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Correct.
SENATOR SEABROOK: -- to come in
place.
Will you yield to another question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Senator, where
else in the State of New York do they have a
paper ballot voting for school board
elections?
SENATOR PADAVAN: I don't know of
any. There may be some, but I'm not familiar
with them.
940
SENATOR SEABROOK: On the bill.
Thank you, Senator.
On the bill.
SENATOR PADAVAN: They're not
elected in that proportional system.
SENATOR SEABROOK: So this system
is basically a New York City -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yeah, it was a
New York City (laughter), a New York City
special.
SENATOR SEABROOK: New York City
special.
On the bill, because we're going
back to the New York City special.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, on the
bill. Go ahead.
SENATOR SEABROOK: On the bill.
The concern that I have about this
bill is because we all felt that there needed
to be a sense of reform with this whole school
board, school board elections and the process
of how we elect people to school boards. And
it was with a unanimous vote, I think it was,
that we all agreed that this system should be
changed, it was old, outdated, made no sense
941
and created a lot of problems in our
communities and a lot of corruption that was
actually involved in this. And everybody said
thank God that the legislative body made a
decision to talk about a change, a reform
system. And everybody -- it was a package.
And Senator Padavan got up and spoke eloquent
about it and all these changes that would
actually take place.
Now we have a bill that says guess
what, we got to go back to that same old
system, the New York special, which says that
you will probably have people stuffing ballot
boxes again, we will have people voting on an
election day and they will find out if they
are the winners, if they vote in May, they'll
find out in June if they actually won, and
then there will be some sense of -- there
might be some contesting about did they
actually win, how it was done.
Then you also have people who had
the idea that they was now going to be able to
vote directly for their candidate to the
school board, that now my vote was going to be
for that particular candidate. Now these
942
people -- we're going to go back to the
community and say guess what, you can't vote
for the person that you really wanted to vote
for now because you're going to be voting for
one person that might get a lot of votes that
will elect other people that you really didn't
want to get elected to the school board. So
you're actually really disenfranchising that
individual who really had a sense that I am
going to vote for someone who is fighting for
my children in the district in which I live.
Now we have another situation with
this proportional representation. We've never
redrawn school district lines since the first
time we drew school districts. Communities
have changed, districts have changed. And now
we're still under the same old system, the New
York special, that we're actually going to
again allow certain communities to, who
actually might have a small amount of real
hard voting folks consistently, we have a
large population of immigrants, although, in
school board elections, if they have children
in the district, they can actually be
certified as parent voters. Most of them are
943
afraid to do that because there's a whole
process and most schools don't want them to
participate and vote. So you will now have
people who don't have children in the school
district again being eligible to control the
whole entire school district. So we're
actually going backwards on this fast New York
special. And I think it's a disservice
because we applauded the change that would
actually take place with this whole school
board reform, this omnibus reform that we're
going to talk about changing. And we heard
some eloquent speakers about the historical
dynamics of it; Senator Marchi talked about
how it, all this came about. And I listened
to that debate. And Seymour Lachman. All of
the things that we would really talk about the
need to change that old archaic system.
Nowhere else in this state do people vote on
paper ballots. I mean, it might have happened
in the '30s and '40s. I'm not sure. I wasn't
born. But it seems to me it's time for some
sense of change. I mean, we're talking about
Y2K and we're still using paper ballots in
school board elections that people will make
944
decisions.
The danger of this is that people
wanted the right to elect Tom Duane to be
their Senator, and they voted for Tom Duane
and they voted for Hevesi because wanted them
to represent them. Now with school boards,
they might vote for Mr. Schneiderman and he
might have a slate that four people that
nobody likes, they get elected, for one guy's
popularity. And it can happen.
Until we decide to really talk
about it -- now, I mean, if we really wanted
to do something about this proportion
representation, then you tie it into redrawing
school district lines. Then, perhaps, you
might get people a fair shot at proportion
representation. But you can't have this whole
proportion representation, this paper ballots
and all these things and you haven't redrawn
these lines since 1969 or '70. So it makes,
you know -- I mean, I don't understand it,
because we have to redraw lines and we're
going to be doing that soon again.
So I'm saying, on this bill, it is
a real contradiction, if we vote it
945
overwhelmingly, to say that it was a bad
system and everybody talked bad about it, but
we need to read that transcript of what
everybody said about that bill. All of us
talked real bad about that bill and said how
horrible it was. We got up on the floor and
talked about it was bad, and now we're going
to vote for the same bill. So, obviously,
it's something wrong. We need to call a time
out on this, go back to the drawing board and
think of something else, because now Justice
is going to look at us because all of what we
did went to the Justice Department. And we
said the reason why it has to be passed -
because they called our office for clearance
of all of this and said, "Well, what's your
opinion about this and what do you think about
this?" They called our office because we were
covered counties. And we said that this is a
great idea that the change is going to be
made, thank God for that. I'm in support of
that. And now the Justice Department is going
to call us again and say, "Wait a second. You
just voted for that bill before and you said
this was bad." And they read transcripts,
946
too. So I'm confused as to how we're going to
now tell Justice -
Perhaps, if the sponsor would yield
to a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield to a question?
SENATOR PADAVAN: If I may,
Senator, before I yield to your question, tell
you that I agree with 99 and nine-tenths
percent of everything you said. As a sponsor
of the bill that you lauded from last year and
all the reasons you gave, you're absolutely
correct.
If there's any contradiction, and
their is, in what we're doing here today, any
fallacy in the logic of what we've been
confronted with, it rests at the feet of the
Justice Department; specifically, a man by the
name of Lee, who, ironically, wrote a
decision -- if you've read it or not had an
opportunity -- the most convoluted piece of
dictum that I've ever read. And, ironically,
he talks primarily about Asian-Americans, most
of whom are in Queens, who are not covered by
his decision. Shows you how absurd the whole
947
thing is.
We are forced to do this today, not
because we want to, but because of that
decision in the Justice Department at the
federal level in an administration by a
individual who doesn't belong there, many have
said.
However, I draw your attention to
one part of this bill that you may have not
heard me correctly or not heard me speak to.
If we win the case by April 5th, we don't go
back in time, we continue forward as we had
planned to. If we win the case after April
5th, then this proportional voting will
evaporate in the year 2000. So we have
allowed ourselves in this bill before us every
opportunity to continue as we had planned to
with regard to the elections.
Unfortunately, however, if we fail,
both in the new application before the Justice
Department or in the Federal Court, where we
are as of this moment, then, obviously, we
cannot have a divided city, one part of it
voting one way and another part of it going,
voting another way. And we will to have do
948
what you said, try and come up with something
different that will satisfy these people down
there, if it is at all possible.
But this is the best way to go in
the short term. It gives us all the options
we could possibly seek to attain at this
moment in time.
Now I'll be glad to yield to your
question.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Will the
sponsor yield to a question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
will you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Now, Senator
Padavan, Mr. Lee, and I read of his concerns,
and it looks as if he focused on the Asian
community as it relates to the new system.
Are you aware that the NAACP and
other groups were opposed to this system that
we are voting for now?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Right.
Absolutely, and with good cause for the
reasons you articulated, which I won't repeat.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Right. So
949
there will be another lawsuit and another
question -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well, Senator,
that's always a possibility, if that is a
question that you're raising. However, keep
in mind what we've said here. April 5th is
only a matter of weeks away. Hopefully, if we
could all, you know, cross our fingers, we'll
prevail at the federal, in the Federal Courts
and the application before the Attorney
General, in which case then that possibility
becomes moot. But we cannot stop people from
taking actions that they think are
appropriate. And if NAACP or anyone else were
to step forward and say that old system
disenfranchised many of us, I would say,
"You're absolutely right. That's why we
changed it."
The fault is not here, Senator. It
is not with anything we have done or about to
do. It is elsewhere. And what we can do is
defend ourselves in the interim until we sort
this out at the judicial level.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Will the
sponsor yield to another question?
950
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield? Senator Padavan?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Now, Senator
Padavan, the real issue that Mr. Lee raised
was also a question that it was not the
one-person, one-vote situation and that here
you had that there would be a sense of
disenfranchisement.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Very strongly.
SENATOR SEABROOK: No, I'm saying
that's the issue that he raised.
SENATOR PADAVAN: You vote for
four people and the top nine win. I mean,
that's -- you can't be any more direct than
that.
SENATOR SEABROOK: But the issue,
again, in terms of him raising in that which
was brought about was a sense of a community
that had not participated and not been
involved, so they raised that issue.
My concern is that the people who
had been raising issues about proportion
representation, now you wake them up again
with an sense of going back to the Justice
951
Department.
SENATOR PADAVAN: You will have
to explain to them, as I've been trying to do
here as best I could, that we were forced to
do this, we're hopeful that we will prevail
and that it will not become effective in the
period of time that I've tried to explain and
outline for you and we will pursue the matter
in every venue, in every way we can. And
because we all agree, there is no
disagreement, in this house or the other, no
disagreement with the Board of Education, no
disagreement with the Chancellor, the entire
establishment.
And you pointed out, we were all
asked to comment, and everyone I know said
just what you said, this is a major
improvement, and they ignored us, they ignored
us. I don't understand those people down
there, but we have to deal with what they have
brought upon us.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Thank you,
Senator.
On the bill. Just on the -- I have
to say that it would really be a disservice
952
for us, and I understand the predicament that
we might assume that we are in; however, I
think that there can be some sense of a little
more creativity than for us to go back and
resurrect the dead. And I think that what has
to be done is that we have to begin to look
that there are other ways of dealing with
this.
I am certain that if there are no
problems in other parts of the State, then
perhaps we need to take what they're doing in
other parts of the State. They seem to be
functioning pretty well in Buffalo. They seem
to be functioning pretty well in Syracuse.
They seem to be functioning in Westchester.
They seem to be functioning in Albany. So
perhaps we need to just take a look around.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Will the
Senator yield?
Are you aware -
Senator, would you yield?
SENATOR SEABROOK: Yeah.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead,
Senator.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Are you aware
953
that only in the City of New York, in those
three counties, are we in this entire State
subject to civil rights review on these
elections? So -
SENATOR SEABROOK: I'm aware of
it, and even rightfully so -
SENATOR PADAVAN: So, even
though, even though many other parts of the
State are doing things that we could emulate,
it's not applicable because they are not
subject to the review we are in three
counties.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Well, I'm not
going to throw out the review with all of
this, because I think it's necessary and
essential to have this review because there
was some injustices that took place in those
counties and continue to take place. So we
can't just throw that out either.
But, I'm also certain that perhaps
we can learn a little bit about what takes
place in Albany and various surrounding
counties and that we can implement that in the
City of New York. Even if we had to implement
it in those other areas and allow where they
954
be covered counties to have that type of
voting to actually take place.
So I would hope that we would not
vote for this, which forces us to really do
something creative by just deciding to do what
other parts of state do and send that to
Justice and then let Justice make that
particular decision. That's not a hard job.
They've been running elections all over this
State for school boards and they haven't had
these particular problems. So we need to just
do that. That's the most simplest, creative
way of doing this. And perhaps the Justice
Department would look favorable upon us.
So I would hope that my colleagues
would not vote for this, which would force us
just to take a little look around the corner
at places like Albany, places like Buffalo,
places like Rochester, Syracuse and those
other places.
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith.
SENATOR SMITH: Thank you, Madam
President. On the bill.
As a person who has personally
955
witnessed this archaic system of school board
voting, and 49 percent of my district is not
covered under the Voting Rights Act, I have a
great concern.
I voted for the new bill last year,
even though I realized later that with the
voting on the machine any one section of a
community could control at least five to seven
votes, if they turned out. And that's done
mathematically. It's still a great
improvement over a system that takes sometimes
a month to count votes, where people were
elected last year and later -- well, not
last -- in the last election, and later
removed because they didn't even have enough
signatures to be on the ballot to run, in a
system where people stuffed ballots;
therefore, we don't know in those districts
who were actually eligible to be, to sit on
the school board. And in districts where
people won with less than a hundred votes and
where you have a turnout of less than 200
people in a district where there are 20 and 30
schools. It's unconscionable to think that we
would return to that system.
956
In previous years, we have extended
the period of the school board's term. We
have allowed them to stay for a longer period.
That could have been done while we researched
other possibilities.
There are other actions that we
could have taken if we had jointly come
together to look into how it could be done,
and I do not see how we can possibly vote to
return to a system that has destroyed our
communities.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Waldon.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you, Madam
President. My colleagues, I'll be brief.
I am baffled and confused by the
fact that we're going back to something that
didn't work in the past and, if history is
true in terms of its predictions, won't work
in the future.
My reasons for that bafflement and
confusion has to do with the fact that people
who are in the minority, in the districts I
represent, and there are three school
districts in the area I am most fortunate to
represent, control the school board all too
957
often, control the power, are not even parents
of students in the schools. It is confusing
to me that there's a need to maintain control
of the schools and the children. What is the
reason? Maybe it's money. Maybe it is power.
Maybe it is the reluctance to turn over the
community to the people who are now in the
majority. Whatever the reason, I cannot see a
need to go back to what didn't work in the
past.
And so I'm confused not only by
what we are going to review here today and
vote upon, but by Justice, those high and
mighty people down in Washington, who seem, on
certain issues and at certain times, have
great intellect, how could they been so
stupid.
So, my colleagues, I encourage you
today to look at this and say, nah, this ain't
the way to go. Let's vote it down today and
maybe we can conjure up something, you know
blue smoke and mirrors, a little three-card
Monte or maybe some real thoughtful processes
going into our deliberations and come up with
something that will work.
958
This will not work for the people
in 29, 27, 28. This will not work for
African-American people and Caribbean-American
people, Latinos. I will vote in the no.
Thank you, Madam President and my
colleagues.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much.
Would the sponsor yield to a
question, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
would you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
The legislation makes it so that
the Board of Elections is able to set the date
for the school board elections; is that
correct?
SENATOR PADAVAN: No, the date is
set in the bill, May 25th. Previously, it
would have been May 4th. We've extended it
from the first Tuesday to the third Tuesday.
SENATOR DUANE: If the sponsor
would continue to yield for a further
959
clarification?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
do you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes, I will
yield.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm under the
impression, I'll take another look again, I
thought that the legislation, and maybe not
for this election, although, it seems to me
that the Board has the power to set it back to
May 4th.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Future
elections. Future, not now. The current, the
election coming, in May, because of all of
these problems, will be delayed from the first
Tuesday, which is current law, to the third
Tuesday, for that election only.
SENATOR DUANE: However, Madam
Chair, if I may continue along this line of
questioning?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Padavan -
960
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you continue
to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes. yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
SENATOR DUANE: But later on,
should there be another school board election
date set, the setting of that date is left to,
in the hands of the Board of Elections; is it
not?
SENATOR PADAVAN: No, it reverts
to the law that is in effect that we're
dealing with here.
This statute, or this bill, which
hopefully becomes statute, is specific to this
election only in terms of the delay. It is in
fundament -- in basic law, the first Tuesday
of May, just like our elections are in the
first Tuesday in November.
SENATOR DUANE: I was under the
impression that the Board would be able to
take action if there was a religious conflict.
Not a -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Not to my
knowledge.
961
SENATOR DUANE: -- with a
holiday, not a war.
SENATOR PADAVAN: We would have
to take action. If there was any changes in
those fundamental dates of elections, the
Legislature would have to act.
SENATOR DUANE: And then I just
wanted to clarify it and make sure it's on the
record.
Those people who petition for the
later date -
SENATOR PADAVAN: The what?
SENATOR DUANE: -- for the later
date, for the May 18th -
SENATOR PADAVAN: It's the same
election, just on a different date, yeah.
SENATOR DUANE: But the people
who petition under the new ability to
petition -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Just opening
the door.
SENATOR DUANE: -- they are
permitted -- though, they are then enabled to
be on the ballot for the earlier election,
should the Justice Department say it's okay to
962
have the election then; is that correct?
SENATOR PADAVAN: No matter what
happens, we win the case, the election's still
going to be on the 25th of May. That's a
given for this year.
SENATOR DUANE: So the people -
SENATOR PADAVAN: So the new
people, who would be petitioning, would be
running on that date.
SENATOR DUANE: I mean, I think
there's some confusion about that, Madam
Chair, if I may continue.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well, I tried
to explain that earlier. They, the new
petitioners will be permitted to file
petitions as candidates 10 days, beginning 10
days after this becomes law for four
consecutive days. So that, in effect, if the
Governor, for instance, were to sign it
tomorrow, they'd have another two weeks.
SENATOR DUANE: And everybody
could potentially be on the ballot for May
4thr?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Exactly.
Right.
963
SENATOR DUANE: I think then,
Madam President, if I may speak on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: Well, let me say
that it is always a thrill to hear my name
invoked in the Senate and particularly by
Senator Seabrook. And I agree with Senator
Seabrook in many ways but not in all ways, but
that's democracy, that's America.
I'm actually a proponent of
proportional representation and feel that it
has and potentially could do an awful lot to
empower communities that don't always get to
have a seat at the table. My position has
been that we retain proportional
representation.
I share unhappiness with paper
ballots. But I, more than anything else,
share an enormous unhappiness with the Board
of Elections and I have virtually no faith in
the Board of Elections' ability to run
anything appropriately. And, obviously, as
was exemplified in the Attorney General's
race, their ability to count it all is highly
964
suspect.
I also do not believe that changing
dates wildly and not coming to a final
decision today will in any way, under any
circumstances increase voter participation. I
think that's absurd. That we don't know and
that we can't definitively say what day the
election is going to be, that we are tinkering
with it even further today and leaving the
door even open, I think belies the ability of
us to generate voter turnout for a school
board election, which, tragically, doesn't
generate that much attention as it is.
In addition, the Board right now
has done a terrible job in terms of
publicizing that this election is happening at
all, and I don't see anything that points to
their ability to publicize it even if it
happens a couple weeks later. So, again,
that, you know, in any way setting the date
further in advance would make anything better,
certainly flies in the face of anything that
the Board of Elections has ever done about
school board elections in the past, and I
believe and I think it will be proven if this
965
bill would -- goes through, that voter turnout
will probably be unbelievably low as compared
to the terribly low turnouts that we've
previously had on this.
I'm also very, very concerned that
this legislation is coming forward without any
public comment period. We hear nothing
publicly or on the record or any kind of
public discussion about how it is that people
believe that school board elections would
actually generate the interest that they
should have and will generate the kind of
voter turnout that they should have on such an
important issue. We've heard nothing from any
of the groups who believe that traditionally
they are under represented on school boards.
They have in no way been able to put their
views on the record so that their views could
be incorporated as we decide what to do with
the issue of school board elections. And I
think that that is a disgrace, because the
whole reason that there's voting rights action
on school board elections is because those
very people who we haven't heard from
complained about the past ways that this has
966
been done.
So, for all of those reasons, I
believe that this is the wrong action to take
and will actually make it so that school board
elections are even more poorly paid attention
to.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Madam
President, I just briefly wanted to ask my
colleague, Senator Waldon -- Senator Waldon -
if he would yield just a minute. Or you don't
really have to yield, it doesn't require an
answer. I just wanted to remind you that we
did pass legislation last week, I believe,
that makes three-card Monte players subject to
arrest, so we want to make sure that that's
not part of your suggestion for us to do in
order to rectify Senator Padavan's bill.
That's it, Madam President.
Thank you.
SENATOR WALDON: Madam President,
may I respond to the inquiry of myself?
THE PRESIDENT: You may, quickly,
967
Senator Waldon.
SENATOR WALDON: I thank you for
your graciousness, Madam President.
The house is conducted in such a
marvelous way since you've arrived, and I'd
like to say that first.
In regard to the question or the
inquiry or statement from my learned colleague
from Kings County, I believe that three-card
Monte, if it has been practiced by Justice or
by the Board or by whomever in regard to the
destiny of our children, if they've done the
crime, they should do the time.
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman, germain on the bill, please, you
may proceed.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: On the
bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: On the
bill, not on the game, Madam President.
No, I just want to say very, very
briefly, that I concur in a lot of what has
been said already.
968
We have to recognize, though, that
the elected officials in the government in the
City of New York and the State of New York,
including members of this house, in my view,
we have, we are failing the 1.1 million
children in the city schools, that this is not
a matter of casual observation or procedural
technicality. We have righted a construction
authority that can't build buildings. We
don't provide adequate funds or target them
correctly. We now have a situation which I am
unable to explain to my constituents when a
school board election will be. And that this
legislation, and I'm sure it is well
intentioned, is just a matter of compounding
our prior failures and that we really have to
seek this session to take fundamental steps to
remedy a problem for the economic future of
our state and for the future of our country,
that if our 1.1 million children aren't
getting the education that they need, we're
not getting the advocates enabled in the
school boards to work on their behalf, we are
creating a disaster for our state coming into
the next century and we are committing, I
969
think, a great violation of human decency as
well.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
I don't want to take up this body's time
reiterating a lot of the comments that we've
already heard, except I must echo the comments
and sentiments of my colleague, Senator
Waldon, in that I hope we would, as an
institution, move forward and attempt to
remedy a situation that I cannot, in good
conscience, vote to perpetuate, which is what
we'd be doing here today.
And just to share my experience, I
have been a Democratic district leader for
years and years, intimately familiar and
involved with the electoral process and school
board process in New York City, and I will
confess before this body that I do not fully
understand all of the intricacies involved in
this so-called proportional representation
system of voting in school board elections.
It is a hinderance to democracy as a result it
precludes participation to the extent that we
believe it all should -- we all believe it
970
should be desirable. And we must institute
some type of reform, make some type of
effort -- and I commend Senator Padavan for
his work in this area but, but this action
today would extend the situation which we know
cannot, cannot stand. This is, this is
something that we cannot stand in support of.
As a result, Madam President, I
vote in the negative on this legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: And to close,
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam
President, I'll attempt to be much briefer
this time than I was when we adopted the
original legislation. And my colleagues were
quite eloquent in describing why we adopted
it, the legislation, to prevent the corruption
or the possibility of corruption that existed
at that point with paper ballots and
proportional representation.
However, before discussing the
reasons why I'm voting against it, I'd like to
bring to the attention of all my colleagues
the process and procedures that were used to
bring this to our attention.
971
I think it's unconscionable, at a
period when we should be shortly discussing
major issues of the budget, to have this
placed on our desk five minutes before we go
to discuss this in our conference. Many of us
did not even see it until we walked into our
conference room. This is not the way to run a
government.
Now, Winston Churchill once said
that democracy is the worst form of government
except for all the other alternatives. I
happen to agree with him.
Why do we have to again and again
in important issues that can disenfranchise
many people in the City of New York, proceed
in a manner that does not allow us to
adequately discuss, examine, and look into the
facts regarding this bill?
Now that that is on the record, I
would like to speak on the objections to this
bill.
This bill will undo all the reforms
that we had attempted, through prior
legislation, to clean up an act that should
have been cleaned up many years ago. This
972
bill is a quick fix that resolves nothing.
Some of my colleagues have said, "Well, we had
to act now because we're in court." Why can't
we wait until the court decision? I predict
we'll be in court again as a result of voting
for this bill, because, in midstream, when all
the rules and regulations are already out, in
terms of dates and times and procedures, we
are changing this again with less than two
months to go. And if my learned colleagues on
the right or the left of me, don't fully
understand what's involved, how in the world
are we going to explain it to our
constituents?
Furthermore, I was told it will be
easy this time because we have a new method
that will scan the votes. That's easy to do
with the machine, but how do you differentiate
between a one and a seven on a paper ballot
and other numbers?
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a
disaster waiting to occur. As Voltaire once
said, the idea of proportional
representation -- paraphrasing Voltaire, who
said, on something else, this was an idea that
973
has come and gone. We have buried
proportional representation. It's an idea
that has come, has failed and is now gone.
Why are we resurrecting this at this point in
history and time?
I think it would be a major mistake
for anyone in this chamber to take a quick fix
and to bring upon ourselves total chaos on an
election day, which might be the 25th of May
or the 18th of May or the 4th of May, and also
bringing upon ourselves in, along with that,
another major court case.
Finally, Madam Chair, I believe
that this impacts negatively upon the minority
populations of the City of New York. The
NAACP has said this and other groups have said
this, and it's the minority population of the
City of New York that comprise the vast
majority of our public school students.
I vote nay.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Hopefully, to
close debate, if I may.
Senator Lachman, we didn't
resurrect this failed system. We corrected
974
it. And using the old adage, no good deed
deserves to go unpunished. I was the person
who's led the way with your support, with your
strong support, I might add.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Right.
SENATOR PADAVAN: It was
resurrected by the Justice Department.
Now, let's consider for a moment if
we did nothing.
SENATOR LACHMAN: And wait for
the court decision.
SENATOR PADAVAN: You cannot wait
for the court decision, Senator, because time
is wasting. The court decision has to be
implemented. You cannot implement it between
April 5th and May 4th, less than four weeks.
We had to put in place safeguards that provide
for either eventuality, winning or losing.
And we've done that. And I think we've done
it appropriately.
As I said earlier, none of this
makes me happy. But, nevertheless, we have to
accept it. If we do nothing, the entire City,
correction, three boroughs of the City, yours,
Manhattan and the Bronx, would have to begin
975
to prepare for paper ballots. It's not an
easy task you do in the blink of an eye. And
the other two counties, Queens and Staten
Island, would have to prepare for machine
ballots. And I think we'd all have to agree
it's not the most desirable circumstance to
find ourselves in.
And so we have allowed two things
to happen. If we win the court case, this
destructs, except for the delay in the date.
By the way it is the third Thursday, third
Tuesday. That happens to be the 18th. And I
stand corrected, Senator Smith, you're right.
The third Thursday, third Tuesday.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Not Tuesday.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Tuesday.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Tuesday.
SENATOR PADAVAN: And aside from
that change and opening up for the opportunity
for people to petition, we go back to the
system we are all applauding here, and which I
join you in applauding. If we don't get a
decision by April 5th, then for this election
only, we have to endure that failed system,
Senator Lachman. However, if we get a
976
favorable decision after April 5th, then the
next election beginning, of course, in the new
year and thereafter, we go back to our
improved procedure.
I think, you know, Senator, you've
complained and I don't disagree with you to
some degree about not having had an
opportunity to study this bill.
Unfortunately, you know, we work with two
houses here. We have been negotiating with
the Assembly now for over two weeks to come up
with an appropriate measure. We completed our
negotiations this morning at 10 o'clock, and
then we had to get a rush print on the bill.
So I apologize to you for that, but,
nevertheless, it was something that I had no
control over. And, frankly, we want to get
this done because time's a wasting with the
recess, hopefully, coming up in April and so
on.
So, in any event, Senator, I know I
probably haven't convinced anyone to change
their vote, but I do want the record to show,
quite clearly, that I think we've covered all
the bases with all the eventualities and put
977
ourselves in the best possible position that
we find ourselves, regrettably, as a result of
the action of others a long way from Albany.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7, this
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 290 are
Senators Dollinger, Duane, Hevesi, Kruger,
Lachman, Montgomery, Nanula, Oppenheimer,
Paterson, Rosado, Sampson, Santiago,
Schneiderman, Seabrook, Smith, Stavisky,
Waldon, also Senator Onorato.
Ayes 40. Nays 18.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could return again to the reports of
standing committees.
I believe there's a report of the
978
Finance Committee at the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: We will return to
the reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports:
Senate Prints 3581, Budget Bill, an
act to amend Chapters 50 and 54 of the Laws of
1998;
Senate Print 3582, Budget Bill, an
act to amend Chapter 57 of the Laws of 1998.
All bills directly for third
reading.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, all bills are directed to third
reading.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
at this time, if we could take up Calendar
Number 291, Senate Print 3581.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
291, Budget Bill, Senate Print 3581, an act to
amend Chapters 50 and 54 of the laws of 1998.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
979
is there a message at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Senator
Skelos, there is.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept.
THE PRESIDENT: All those in
favor of accepting the message of necessity,
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The message is
accepted.
Read the last section.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes. Just,
would the sponsor yield to a question, or
perhaps the chairman of the Finance Committee
yield to a question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford,
will you yield.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Sure.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: In the
Finance Committee deliberations, Senator, I
asked for some information about the Public
Officers Law portion of this bill, this is -
980
SENATOR STAFFORD: Right, we have
some information and the information is that
this is money that's going to pay plaintiffs'
attorneys -- excuse me. I know I'm supposed
to talk into this -- plaintiffs' attorneys who
have sued the State.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again, Madam
President, through you. Just so I make sure I
understand this.
The bill I have, on page 3,
contains, on line number 8, it says "for
public lands." That's the $4 million for the
payment in lieu of taxes on public lands.
The second says, "for judgments
against the State," and that talks about going
from 47 to 70 million. And I was concerned
about why that number was up so high.
And then the third one says, "for
the payment of the defense by private counsel
in the indemnification of payment on behalf of
state officer and employees." I assume, again
through you, Madam President, with your
continued indulgence and Senator Stafford's as
well, that that's for private counsel
defending us, defending Lieutenant Governor,
981
the Governor or the Attorney General the
Comptroller, other state officers, including,
I'm sure, corrections officers when there are
conflicts, and we retain private counsel. I'd
just like to know where that 15.5 -- point 2
million and the 20.2 million, where it's going
and why we need to spend more.
SENATOR STAFFORD: That -- most
of those funds are going in payment of the
plaintiffs' attorneys who have sued the State
in various actions.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Do you happen
to know -- and through you, Madam President -
Senator Stafford, who was defended in those
actions?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I certainly
could get the details, and that's -- in fact,
they, the question was thought about before
you asked it and we're getting a list.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again,
through you, Madam President, if I could.
I have no interest in prolonging
this proceeding, but the answer to those
questions will affect, certainly, my vote and
perhaps others. Is it possible to put this
982
aside for a moment until that information is
here?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, I would point out then, again,
Senator Dollinger and I often visit on the
floor and we visit in the committee and I'm
sure we will have many exchanges, and I think
they're good. I think they're wholesome. And
sometimes it gets heated on one side or the
other, but we've done very well so far -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: We have.
SENATOR STAFFORD: -- this year.
There's been done that we would call heated.
Yet.
I would say that this question,
obviously, cases are documented, obviously,
there will be a list of exactly where this
money goes due to lawsuits, and I would, I
would respectfully submit to my colleague
that, really, I don't think we have to hold
up.
And let's be very candid now, very
open and very frank, whether we've been here
one day or 20 years, when we have a budget in
front of us, it does not take a bright person,
983
it takes any person. And I'm not considering
you in the latter.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I appreciate
that.
SENATOR STAFFORD: It's a
compliment. You can ask questions to get
details that can hold up a budget. And I
think that that question, I respectfully
submit, is really not something to hold up
this, because we're passing it today, it is
necessary, we'd like to have it done by the
end of the week and we certainly can get that
list. But I -- you hear the gist of my
suggestion and I say it very respectfully and
so far we're doing very well.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President. I appreciate the
graciousness of Senator Stafford's comments.
I, I would simply point out to
Senator Stafford, although it's been
abundantly clear to me for seven, six and a
half years, that my vote may not matter in the
final compilation of approval on this bill.
But what I've just suggested, however, is that
in order for me to say whether this $5 million
984
additional appropriation makes good sense,
especially when the issue is the defense of
officers of the public -- the public officers
of the State of New York, it just seems to me
that having a breakdown as to why that expense
line is up 25 percent in a single year or less
than a single year, I don't know, maybe there
were prior transfers, maybe there's other
evidence that this money's been put in there.
I've requested the information.
I would just ask again, I'm not
going to make a motion. I'm not prepared to
do that. I don't want to do that. But -- and
I don't want to delay this bill. But it seems
do me, having the backup detail to explain why
we need $5 million more to buy, hire outside
counsel to defend the officers of this State
is a very legitimate question and should have
a reasonable answer that would satisfy my
inquiry and perhaps put me in a position where
I'd vote for this bill.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Can I -- we
don't know and I guess the answer is -
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, I think,
985
again, I've made the point. You said six and
a half years? Thirty-four years for me. And
I will make this point and I make it very
respectfully and I make it very directly and
very candidly and I say it with all the
respect and I consider I'm sharing it with a
friend, and I mean that. You're making your
point and you're making your mark and the type
of mark you make is entirely up to you. I
think I've answered it.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Fine. Thank
you.
Madam President, just on the bill
briefly.
I appreciate Senator Stafford's
candor. I understand that he may not be in
the possession of the information, he or no
one in his staff is in the possession right
now of the information on this bill. I
appreciate that. I understand how that's how
government works. I understand that that's
sometimes how communications between this body
and the executive downstairs may work.
But, nonetheless, Senator Lachman
pointed out that, here we are, doing something
986
again very quickly. It may be the right thing
to do. It may very well be the right thing to
do, but the backup information just isn't here
and it seems to me it's premature to do it
under those circumstances.
I've learned that that doesn't
necessarily dictate how we're going to do
things, but it does seem to me to be, to be
asking us to spend more money without knowing
exactly what it's for and where it arises,
doesn't seem to be that we're doing our full
job.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I haven't said
Mr. President; have I? I just caught myself.
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: I would have
noticed.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Please, Madam
President, I still want to -- my answer was,
and I think it should be on the record again,
which is stated. We talk in terms of outside
counsel, we're not talking about outside
counsel. We're talking about money who has
been paid to plaintiffs' attorneys who have
987
sued the State. So I want to make that
clear, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
The provision in the deficiency
bill, which adds money to the EPIC Program, I
just want to point out that that money that's
added to the program only covers the increased
enrollment because of the miscalculation of
the enrollment over the past year. While
that's a laudatory move to cover the level of
about a hundred thousand seniors that are in
the EPIC Program, what this bill fails to
address and what we have failed to address in
this State is the situation of almost 55,000
seniors across New York State who have been
dropped by their HMOs come January 1st, this
past January 1st. And as a result, 55,000
seniors or more are without prescription drug
coverage. We have this program, the EPIC
Program, that can cover those seniors if we
were to increase the income eligibility
levels. It would be something that we can do
very easily in this State, in this
988
Legislature. It was an indignity upon those
seniors who three or four years ago were
recruited by these HMOs to join, to join the
HMOs and then three years later get a notice
saying they were being dumped. These seniors
now cannot afford prescription drug coverage.
They are over the income limits that are now
set in the law under the EPIC Program.
What we need to do as a State, what
this body needs to do, what the executive
chamber needs to hear is that these seniors
are out there on the streets in New York State
without prescription drug coverage. We need
prescription drug coverage for those seniors
who cannot otherwise afford them. The way to
do it is to increase the EPIC eligibility
limits to 24,000 and 35,000 will cover many of
them. It's a small, small price to pay.
So while this is a good provision
in the bill to cover those seniors that still
fit under the income limits, we need to do
more. We need to do more quickly, ladies and
gentlemen. We need to do more quickly for the
seniors who are walking around today, almost
55,000 of them, without prescription drug
989
coverage.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2, this
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, to explain your vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Just briefly to explain my
vote.
I just, I feel compelled to stand
and just say, my interest in this particular
appropriation is because, contrary to what
Senator Stafford said, I'm not interested in
what's paid to the plaintiffs' lawyers, I'm
interested in the line that says for the
payment of the defense by private counsel and
the indemnification or payment on behalf of
state officers and employees in civil judicial
proceedings in accordance with the provisions,
Section 17 of the Public Officers Law. And in
criminal proceedings in accordance with the
990
provision of Section 19 of the Public Officers
Law.
I would simply like to know how
much money we spend when public officers are
sued in civil courts and they need outside
counsel and how much we pay them, and when
they're subject to criminal actions how much
we pay private counsel to defend them. That
is somewhere in the books and records of this
State. Somewhere, someone on the second floor
knows the answer to those questions and
there's someone on the third floor, namely,
me, who would like an answer to them, too, and
who was elected, I think, with the obligation
to get the information so that if somebody
asks me why we spent $5 million more, I'll be
able to team them.
I would hope, even though that
information isn't available today, that it
would be made available to me so that I can
make that determination in the future.
Under those circumstances, I'm
voting nay.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, you will be recorded as voting in
991
the negative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 291 are
Senators Dollinger, Schneiderman and Smith.
Ayes 55. Nays 3.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 292,
Senate 3582.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
292, Senate Budget Bill, Senate Print 3582, an
act to amend Chapter 57 of the Laws of 1998.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
is there a message of necessity at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. All
in favor of accepting the message of
992
necessity, signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The message is
accepted.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3, this
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Senator, we
have three motions at the desk.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Madam
President. On behalf of Senator Marcellino, I
would ask, on page number 5, I offer the
following amendments to Calendar Number 70,
Print Number 1130.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
993
received, Senator.
SENATOR McGEE: And I ask that
the bill, I ask that said bill retain its
place on the Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: And the bill will
retain its place on Third Reading Calendar.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you.
In continuation, if I may. On
behalf of Senator Saland, I offer on page
number 20, I offer the following amendments to
Calendar Number 36, Senate Print 1031A, and
ask that said bill retain its place on the
Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
received and the bill will retain its place on
the Third Reading Calendar, Senator.
SENATOR McGEE: And one more, if
I may.
And on behalf of Senator Maltese,
on page number 12, I offer the following
amendments to Calendar 184, Senate Print
Number 2191, and ask that said bill retain its
place on Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
received and the bill will retain its place on
994
the Third Reading Calendar.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there being no further business, I move we
adjourn until Monday, March 15th at 3 p.m.,
intervening days being Legislative days.
THE PRESIDENT: On motion, the
Senate stands adjourned until Monday, March
15th, at 3 p.m., intervening days being
Legislative days.
The Senate is adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 2:15 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)