Regular Session - March 7, 2000
1066
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
March 7, 2000
3:08 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR PATRICIA K. McGEE, Acting President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
1067
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: 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.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: In the
absence of clergy, may we bow our heads in a
moment of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Reading
of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Monday, March 6, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Saturday, March
4, was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
1068
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we can just hold up a second for Senator
Lack.
Madam President, if we take up with
reports of standing committees.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack,
from the Committee on Judiciary, reports the
following nominations.
As a Judge of the Family Court for
the County of Chemung, David M. Brockway, of
Horseheads.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President. It's my pleasure to rise to move
the nomination of David M. Brockway of
Horseheads as a judge of the Family Court for
the County of Chemung.
Judge Brockway appeared before the
Judiciary Committee this morning. His
1069
credentials have been vetted by the staff of
the committee. They've been found eminently
satisfactory. After questioning by the
committee this morning, he was unanimously -
unanimously with one negative vote, sorry -
referred to the floor of the Senate for
consideration this afternoon.
And it is my pleasure to be able to
yield to -- where is Senator Kuhl? Well, to
Senator Kuhl, if he was here.
But in the meantime, why don't I
spend a moment and give you somewhat of the
resume of Judge Brockway, who has been an
assistant public defender, assignment to the
city court judge, village court judge in
Chemung County. He has been voted New York
State's Magistrate of the Year. He also, in
1999, issued Brockway's Bench Book for Local
Courts, and indeed is one of the most eminent
local jurists in the state.
The Governor is certainly to be
congratulated for sending his nomination to
the Senate as a judge of the Family Court.
In addition, he has had a wide
range of community activities, including being
1070
president of the Kiwanis Club of Horseheads,
involved with the Indian Guides and YMCA
programs in his area. And he is indeed a
welcome addition to the Family Court of the
State of New York.
One moment.
Madam President, I would most
respectfully yield to Senator Kuhl.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: You're
welcome, Senator.
SENATOR KUHL: And thank you,
Senator Lack. Thank you, colleagues, for
indulging my delay.
As a matter of fact, I was not only
working on school aid, but I was having a
conversation with the Majority Leader. The
Majority Leader was so enthralled and excited
about the qualifications of this candidate
that he said, "I'll be right into the chamber
also." So I expect him to be following right
along behind me.
1071
So it's my great pleasure, as I
indicated -- and here is the Majority Leader
to also support this candidate and another
candidate.
Anyway, it's my pleasure to stand
up here on the floor of the Senate and
recognize Dave Brockway. David Brockway is
one of those individuals who has really known
what he's wanted to do for a long time, and
that was to work his way up the judicial
ladder and provide service to our community.
He's done that in a variety of
different ways. But most importantly, he has
really toiled in the trenches. He's been a
justice in a village justice court for the
last 19 years and a practicing attorney at the
same time. And certainly he's seen it all -
not only family confrontations, but the actual
criminal aspect.
And the Family Court judge in
Chemung County really wears several hats. Not
only do they deal with Family Court matters,
but from time to time they sit as acting
Supreme Court judges, the County Court judge.
And they do it all.
1072
So he comes probably as well
qualified for this appointment to this
position as any judge to any position ever
has. It's my great privilege to be able to be
here and support his nomination and ask that
it be moved, Madam President.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
question is on the confirmation of -- Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. I rise to address the
nominee and the Chairman of the Judiciary
Committee.
During this morning's
deliberations, I made a statement before the
Judiciary Committee of why in committee I
voted against this nominee and the other two.
I took to heart, frankly, the
comments made by Senator DeFrancisco, Senator
Kuhl, and Senator Lack, the chair of this
committee. And even though, frankly, I'm
still not happy with what happened in
Rochester -- and I understand Senator Lack's
comments about the reevaluation of the Family
1073
Courts in this state -- and I'm still not
happy with the Governor's veto of the two
Family Court judges that Senator Alesi,
Senator Nozzolio, Senator Maziarz and I worked
so hard to put into effect, I'm convinced that
my strong protest of what the Governor did
shouldn't find its outlet in my voting against
these nominees on the floor.
And so despite my vote in the
committee against these nominees as a protest
against the Governor's veto of the Family
Court bill, and as a protest for the lack of a
coordinated plan to deal with the Family Court
problem we all acknowledge exists in this
state -- one that I am still going to continue
to pester the second floor, pester the members
of this chamber to try to resolve, and one
that I know the Chairman of the Judiciary
Committee is both well aware of and on his way
to a solution -- I believe it would be unfair
to these nominees, despite my strong protest,
to vote no. So I will be voting yes in favor
of these nominees.
I continue to say, as I have said
repeatedly on this floor, the nominees for the
1074
Family Court, as the nominees for the other
judgeships in this state, have been of top
quality and have been topnotch. The three we
have today continue that tradition. I want my
colleagues to know that I was swayed by their
words. I will not stop my advocacy for the
Family Court judges and a solution to the
Family Court problem in Monroe County, but I
will vote in favor of all three of these
nominees and wish them good luck.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Dollinger.
The question is on the confirmation
of David M. Brockway, of Horseheads, as Judge
of the Family Court for the County of Chemung.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: David M.
Brockway, of Horseheads, is hereby confirmed
as Judge of the Family Court of the County of
Chemung.
The Honorable Judge Brockway is in
1075
the gallery with us today and is joined by his
wife, Barbara, and his children, Matthew and
Kelly.
And on behalf of the Senate of the
State of New York, we welcome you to our
chambers for this very delightful occasion.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a Judge of the
Family Court for the County of Onondaga,
Martha Walsh Hood, of Marietta.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise once again to move the
nomination of Martha Walsh Hood, of Marietta,
as a Judge of the Family Court for the County
of Onondaga. We received the nomination from
the Governor. Her credentials were found to
be very satisfactory by the committee. She
appeared before the members of the committee
this morning and was moved to the floor for
consideration at this time.
1076
And I would most respectfully yield
the floor for purposes of a second to Senator
DeFrancisco.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I rise to
second the nomination of Martha Walsh Hood.
And it's just wonderful that we
will have a female Family Court judge in
Onondaga County. It's wonderful that she
happens to be a member of one of the most
outstanding families in our community, that
has years and years of public service. And
she is following that outstanding tradition.
But it's not really because of
either of those reasons that I rise, although
they're very admirable and very important.
Martha Walsh Hood is an excellent attorney who
has served her clients well. She's been in
the trenches handling the most difficult cases
for indigent clients, and also for women and
children in the Family Court, and she has done
an outstanding job in that regard. She
understands their problems, she understands
the needs of attorneys who practice in Family
1077
Court.
And, most importantly, she is a
person of utmost integrity and a person of
class.
And I really am very, very proud
that she's a constituent of mine. And I'm
very, very proud that she's going to serve all
the people of Onondaga County, and she will
serve as an outstanding Family Court judge.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
question is on the confirmation of Martha
Walsh Hood, of Marietta -- I'm sorry, Senator
Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I too would like to rise to second
the nomination of Martha Walsh Hood. She
resides in the Senate district represented by
Senator DeFrancisco, but it's within the
County of Onondaga, and I have enjoyed the
experience of watching this very talented
young woman as a legislator, as a member of
that very distinguished family that is known
for its dedication to public service now for
two generations.
1078
And it would be inappropriate for
me to let this moment go by without saying how
happy I am to welcome her to this Capitol
chamber today and to congratulate her and her
family on this most distinguished position. I
too know that she will serve with great, great
vigor, and she will bring a most important and
meaningful perspective to the Family Court of
Onondaga County.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you.
Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you,
Madam President.
Madam President, I rise to echo the
comments of Senator DeFrancisco and Senator
Hoffmann on this excellent appointment to the
bench. That I certainly have been honored to
be connected to the Walsh family, as one who
was brought into politics by Bill Walsh and
worked with the Walsh family.
And I know the entire Walsh clan is
extremely proud of the wonderful
accomplishments of this fine nominee. I add
my support and congratulations on this
1079
excellent appointment.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator.
The question is on the confirmation
of Martha Walsh Hood, of Marietta, as a Judge
of the Family Court of the County of Onondaga.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Martha
Walsh Hood, of Marietta, is hereby confirmed
as Judge of the Family Court of the County of
Onondaga.
She is joined in the gallery by her
husband, Paul, and her children, Allison and
Sean.
May I take this opportunity to
welcome you to the Senate chambers on this
very joyous occasion, and to say
congratulations to you on behalf of the Senate
and the State of New York.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
1080
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a Judge of the
Family Court for the County of Saratoga,
Gilbert L. Abramson, of Halfmoon.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise once again, this time most
happily, to move the nomination of a member of
the Senate's own family, Gilbert L. Abramson,
of Halfmoon, as a judge of the Family Court
for the County of Saratoga.
His credentials were examined very
scrupulously by the staff of the committee,
including his work for the past 12 years in
the Senate, and found to be eminently
satisfactory. He appeared before the
committee this morning, and with the exception
of saying some nice things about Senator
Saland, was virtually very nicely approved by
the committee and moved to the floor of the
Senate for consideration this afternoon.
And it is with great pleasure and
with a great deal of respect that I yield for
1081
purposes of a second to the Majority Leader,
Senator Bruno.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam
President. Thank you, Senator Lack.
I am very proud and honored that I
can stand here and speak on behalf of a very
distinguished constituent of the 43rd
District, residing in Saratoga, the town of
Clifton Park. And it's doubly a pleasure
because we've heard about other qualified
people to serve in the Family Court, which I
think is one of the most sensitive and
important courts in this state.
And Gil comes with a background
that is second to none, having learned from
his mentor, Steve Saland. And Steve, I think,
when he stands up, will probably say the
reverse, that he learned greatly. But
together, they made a team. And there isn't
any law in this state that has affected
children or families that Gil has not been
instrumental in helping to formulate.
And his wife, Beth, is here, and I
1082
know she's very proud, and his son, Josh,
other members of his family. And I am proud
to rise and speak on behalf of Gil Abramson,
one of our constituents and, again, a person
that I am very proud to be here supporting.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Madam
President. I rise, perhaps with mixed
emotions, but really with the greatest of
pleasure.
Let me just tell you, Gil, that you
almost blew this, because Senator Bruno said,
"We're letting him go?" So let that be fair
warning to you that what Senator Bruno had to
say truly came from the heart and his
knowledge of your performance.
What can I say about an
extraordinarily fine and decent human being
who has served not merely ably but
extraordinarily well as counsel to the Senate
Children and Families Committee -- a man who
has been a source of strength and knowledge to
me, as the chairman of that committee, and
perhaps beyond that, a man who has just been a
1083
wonderful friend.
I can think of nobody who brings to
the bench a greater wealth of knowledge and
background than does Gil Abramson. And that
certainly is not to take anything away from
the fine people whose nominations have been
moved immediately before his. It's just that
Gil has been so keenly and materially
involved. Whether it be child support, child
abuse, domestic violence, he's been at the
table, he's been the one who has been part and
parcel of negotiating the bills that
ultimately were signed into law.
He's the one who, as he mentioned
during the course of his comments a bit
earlier, who on more than one occasion has
been asked by a judge, when he has appeared in
court in Saratoga County, "Well, what was the
legislative intent?" And certainly nobody
would know it any better than he.
But beyond his superb intellect,
beyond his great ability -- and certainly
those abilities will serve you well, as will
your legislative experience here in the course
of hammering out agreements from the bench -
1084
the enormous wisdom and perhaps the judicious
nature are something which he's been blessed
with, something which I'm sure his parents are
most proud of, and certainly his wife and son,
Josh, are extraordinarily proud of.
I can only say, Gil, that in order
to somehow or other puncture the specter of
perfection, the bench will require you to be
there in a timely fashion, and you will have
to move your cases in a timely fashion, Gil.
But I'm sure you will be up to that somewhat
difficult task.
I will miss you and your counsel
terribly, but it's for a far greater cause. I
congratulate you, Beth, your parents, your
family, your son, Josh. And may you be as
capable and as exemplary of a judge as you
have been a counsel. God bless you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President.
I'm delighted to rise and support
the confirmation of Gil Abramson as a judge of
the Family Court. Throughout the years -
1085
and, Steve, we agree: He taught you.
SENATOR SALAND: No question
about it.
SENATOR SKELOS: But he's taught
you well.
And you have taught many of us in
this chamber that have dealt in the areas of,
obviously, child abuse, orders of protection,
adoption.
So much of the legislation in this
state concerning families should be named
after you, because you put your expertise, you
put your everyday experience, and you put your
love of the law behind the effort in making
all the legislation that we pass concerning
family offenses, family law on the books.
And we are going to miss you. I
know that Steve, not only from a governmental
point of view but also a personal point of
view, is going to miss you on a daily basis.
But your expertise, your institutional
knowledge is going to be missed by the entire
Senate chamber.
We salute the Governor on this
appointment, and certainly the confirmation
1086
which is to come, and certainly we look
forward to wonderful decisions that will be
directing or indicating to the Legislature
that you should maybe do this, or you should
maybe do that, or we were wrong in doing
something. But we look forward to them
because we know they will be well-reasoned and
in the best interests of the people of the
state of New York.
God bless you in your new endeavor,
Gil.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, as you will appreciate, our time in
the Assembly was a lot of fun. But possibly
the best aspect of being in this house is the
ability to stand up and talk about an
appointment of a friend and a colleague.
The year was 1985, and Senator John
Dunne took up the issue of surrogate
parenting. And he said, "You know, we ought
to go talk to Mary Goodhue. She's the chair
of the Children and Families Committee, and I
want to set up a meeting with her counsel."
1087
So I'm young, enthusiastic, and
know nothing -- some might argue that not much
has changed in 15 years -- and I go over and I
meet Harry Love, who to this day I think is
probably the best-named advocate on behalf of
children in this state, and Gil Abramson. And
here comes this gentle, methodical -- not
intense, but someone who, when he levels his
gaze at you, you feel like, Uh-oh, I've done
something really bad, or I've hit on something
right.
We were charged with trying to
draft a surrogate parenting bill to deal with
this tremendously controversial issue. And I
can remember one particular Sunday afternoon,
Gil and I go and we hole up, I think it was in
our conference room in John Dunne's office,
and were there for five or six hours, going
over the provisions that we wanted to draft
for the bill.
And I, of course, am rushing and
saying, "Well, why don't we do this?" And
"Why don't we take this provision?" And he
looks at me and he says, "Well, wait a minute.
Have you checked this case?" And he pulls out
1088
a tome of cases. Or, "Have you looked at this
statute? How about this regulation?" After
about five hours of this, I wanted to strangle
him. And at that point in time he wouldn't
have been a judge, and I wouldn't have been a
Senator.
Gil and I continued our
relationship through that process, and I came
to understand that he also had -- he was also
a practitioner. He practiced in this area.
And the most extraordinary thing
about Gil Abramson is his effect on children
and his understanding of the effect on
children of divorce, of matrimonial
difficulties, of the unrest in a family. It
is amazing to me that with all the cynicism
out there, that the process works.
Ladies and gentlemen, the person
who we send to the Family Court, I cannot
imagine anyone more qualified, better
prepared, or with a better understanding of
the human condition, particularly that of a
child, than Gil Abramson. I've watched it
countless times. It is such a privilege to be
able to stand here as a member of this body
1089
and to say, ladies and gentlemen, job well
done, we have been well served.
And I know that you're going be
very well received when you go to the bench.
God bless you, Gil.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you,
Madam President.
I think the tone has been right
here, that we have, one, lost a very valued
staff member in the Senate, one who has
provided his expertise to the chair of the
Committee on Children and Families, who has
interacted with us individually on our pieces
of legislation that have come before the
committee.
But if there is ever clearly an
individual who's going to the Family Court who
has the right demeanor to be in that court,
who has patience, knowledge, who has a good
deal of heart and caring about the people that
will be coming into that court -- and for
those who have not been in Family Court, some
of the toughest, most difficult cases come
1090
into that court and require someone to really
look at, very carefully, the issues of whether
a parent who comes before the court who wants
to give up custody of their child, whether
that is indeed a right decision, a major
decision -- or those that come in abused. Gil
Abramson really will have all of those
qualities.
There is something else, that we
have made major changes to the Family Court
Act that Gil has guided through as counsel.
I'm just wondering, Senator Saland, how many
times Judge Abramson will be penning a letter
that maybe we moved a little bit too quick on
this issue or that, and we need to do a little
fine-tuning. But that's all right, because we
will have had the input of someone who will be
out there knowing what the legislative intent
was and whether it's working right.
As everyone has said, Gil, a job
well done. We know you're going to do a great
job. And God bless you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
question is on the confirmation of Gilbert L.
Abramson, of Halfmoon, as a Judge of the
1091
Family Court for the County of Saratoga. All
in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Gilbert
L. Abramson, of Halfmoon, is hereby confirmed
as a Judge of the Family Court for the County
of Saratoga.
Judge Abramson is joined in the
gallery by his wife, Betty; son, Joshua;
parents, Sidney and Shirley Abramson; brother,
Clifford; sister-in-law, Karen Messinger.
On behalf of the State of New York
and the New York State Senate, we welcome you
on this joyous occasion.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee,
from the Committee on Alcoholism and Drug
Abuse, reports:
Senate Print 1093, by Senator
Nozzolio, an act to amend the Vehicle and
1092
Traffic Law;
2029, by Senator Fuschillo, an act
to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
2031, by Senator Fuschillo, an act
to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
2032, by Senator Fuschillo, an act
to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
2064, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
And 4822, by Senator McGee, an act
to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
Senator Lack, from the Committee on
Judiciary, reports:
Senate Print 6744, by Senator Lack,
an act to amend the Judiciary Law and the
Penal Law.
Senator Hannon, from the Committee
on Health, reports:
Senate Print 1488A, by Senator
Marchi, an act to amend the Public Health Law;
4765, by Senator Hannon, an act to
amend the Public Health Law;
5088, by Senator Hannon, an act to
amend the Public Health Law;
And 6729, by Senator Marcellino, an
1093
act to amend the Public Health Law.
Senator Trunzo, from the Committee
on Transportation, reports:
Senate Print 3588, by Senator
Libous, an act to amend the Highway Law;
6484, by Senator Marchi, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
6673, by Senator Bonacic, an act to
amend the Highway Law;
And 6724, by Senator Trunzo, an act
to amend the Transportation Law and the
Vehicle and Traffic Law.
Senator Morahan, from the Committee
on Veterans and Military Affairs, reports:
Senate Print 913, by Senator
Larkin, an act to amend the Education Law;
5838, by Senator Morahan, an act to
amend the Military Law;
5861, with amendments, by Senator
Morahan, an act to amend the Military Law;
5882, by Senator Farley, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
5885, by Senator Morahan, an act to
amend the Military Law;
6310, by Senator McGee, an act to
1094
amend the Highway Law;
6437, by Senator Morahan, an act to
amend the Military Law;
6438, by Senator Morahan, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
And 6511, by Senator Morahan, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection, all bills ordered directly to third
reading.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President.
On behalf of Senator Maltese, I
move that the following bills be discharged
from their respective committees and be
recommitted with instructions to strike the
enacting clause: Senate Print Numbers 159,
714, 2161, 3700, and 5233.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: So
1095
ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: May we please
adopt the Resolution Calendar, with the
exception of Resolution 3252.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All in
favor of adopting the Resolution Calendar,
with the exception of Resolution 3252, signify
by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Resolution Calendar is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there's a privilege resolution at the desk by
Senator Trunzo. May we please have it read in
its entirety and move for its immediate
adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Legislative
resolution by Senators Trunzo and Bruno,
1096
memorializing the New York Congressional
Delegation to exhort the President of the
United States to restore federal funding for
highway and bridge projects in New York.
"WHEREAS, Congress in 1998 adopted
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
century for highway funding (TEA 21); and
"WHEREAS, the reauthorization
legislation clearly stated that all gas tax
revenues will be preserved for transportation
improvements; and
"WHEREAS, The legislation provided
that should tax revenues be higher than
anticipated, each state would receive a
proportional share of the surplus.
"The President, in releasing his
fiscal budget proposal for 2001, has diverted
from all fifty states $1.3 billion from the
Highway Trust Fund, thereby reducing New
York's share of highway funding by nearly
$67 million, which is the third largest
reduction among all states; and
"WHEREAS, The State of New York is
expected to adopt a five-year Transportation
Plan for highway improvements, the State of
1097
New York is vitally concerned about the impact
of losing nearly $67 million in highway funds;
and
"WHEREAS, This Federal Highway
Program was designed to assist states in
maintaining safe and efficient highways; now,
therefore, be it
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative
Body pause in its deliberations to memorialize
the New York Congressional Delegation to
exhort the President of the United States to
comply with the 1998 legislative formula for
highway funding and to restore $67 million in
funding for New York; and be it further
"RESOLVED, That copies of this
resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted
to the New York Congressional Delegation,
including United States Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan and United States Senator Chuck
Schumer."
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
question is on the resolution.
SENATOR CONNOR: Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Connor.
1098
SENATOR CONNOR: On the
resolution.
Madam President, I have several
problems with this resolution, one of which is
it just came out immediately, and I have had
no way in the last ten minutes of
ascertaining, number one, the accuracy of
figures in here, the $1.3 billion and New
York's share of $67 million.
I further object to this resolution
on the grounds that, frankly, I think some of
its language is inappropriate and misconstrues
what was proposed. We're talking about the
President proposing his budget. Ostensibly,
it would result in this cut of TEA 21 money.
Now, number one, I think the resolution is not
accurate when it says that the 1998
legislation said that the excess gas tax would
go into the Highway Fund.
In fact, my learned counsel points
out that with respect to the Highway Trust
Fund, it provides that at that time any excess
amounts more than $8 billion cash balance in
the Highway Account will be transferred to the
General Fund; i.e., once you get over that
1099
amount in excess receipts of gas tax, there is
no requirement that it go into the TEA
program.
Be that as it may. I think it may
be a good idea to put it there. The fact is
that language in this resolution talks about
the President's failure to comply with an old
law. Well, he's no more in failure of
compliance in making a budget proposal than
Governor Pataki is when he proposes a budget
that cuts TAP. That doesn't mean he's out of
compliance with last year's law. Part of the
process is the Executive proposes and the
Legislature disposes.
And I think the thrust of this
resolution is really wrong. The President is
presenting his budget proposal. To
memorialize the Congressional delegation to
exhort the President to do something is
misdirected. We ought to be directing this
resolution toward memorializing our
Congressional delegation to get the Speaker of
the House of Representatives and the Majority
Leader of the U.S. Senate, such big spenders
as they are, to restore the money and reject
1100
the President's proposal.
Even as I certainly trust -- and
let me say, Madam President, we know, we know
in New York we have a serious crisis with
respect to bridges and highways. A study in
1999 by the University of North Carolina,
Professor Harkin, indicated New York's highway
and bridge needs are among the highest in the
nation. His study found that 9.3 percent of
state-owned roads were in very poor condition
and that New York -- that New York State's
17,388 highway bridges were ranked 43rd in the
nation in deficiencies and would require
$10.7 billion in order to make the necessary
repairs. And, by the way, our traffic grew
13 percent in the last -- between 1990 and
1997, in preparation for that study.
So no one doubts that we have a
grave need here. The disappointment is,
frankly, that Governor Pataki has made
essentially a flat budget proposal with
respect to bridges and highways. This year it
totals $1.6 billion, basically things that
were already authorized and now are coming on
line. Woefully inadequate. Indeed, there are
1101
estimates that -- and, by the way, the
Governor's proposed five-year program is
$14.3 billion. But every expert that's looked
at it says we have a need more on the order of
$26 billion.
That's why all those folks were up
here about two or three weeks ago criticizing
the fact that the Governor won't put enough
money into bridges and highways to meet
New York's infrastructure needs and, indeed,
to prepare New York for economic recovery and
growth in the future.
So yes, there's a problem with
bridges and tunnels. A big part of the
problem is here right here in this Capitol,
Madam President, right here in this Capitol
with this Governor's proposal. And I'm not
happy if there will be a $60 million cut in
TEA 21 funds. We don't know that to be true,
since we haven't had time to make necessary
inquiries in Washington, and this just came
out.
But, secondly, let's do something
effective in Washington. Let the Majority
here call Speaker Hastert and Trent Lott and
1102
say, Put that money back in. That's how the
budget process -- even as I'm saying to the
Majority here, put that money back in New York
State's budget.
This is just press-release
rhetoric, exhorting the President to somehow
or other modify the budget he's already
proposed. Let's go to Congress and say, Do
something about it yourselves. Get the
leadership in both houses down there to put
more money into bridges and tunnels, rather
than decry that the President's made a
proposal.
Frankly, I think it's
mischaracterized it to say it doesn't comply
with existing law. Everybody's budget
proposal this year doesn't comply with last
year's provisions. That's what a budget
process is about.
So I'm going to vote no on this
under the circumstances, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator.
Any other Senator wishing to speak
on the resolution?
1103
The question is on the resolution.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, may we now go to Senate Resolution
3252, by Senator Smith, and have the
resolution read.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Smith,
Legislative Resolution Number 3252,
memorializing Governor George E. Pataki to
proclaim March 16, 2000, as "Hunger Awareness
Day" in the State of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Smith.
SENATOR SMITH: Thank you, Madam
President.
I would like to give everyone in
1104
the chamber the opportunity to be a cosponsor
on this resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Velella, Senator Smith would like to open this
resolution up for cosponsorship. Could we
please put everybody on the resolution.
Anyone who does not wish to do so should
notify the desk.
The question is on the resolution.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
resolution is adopted.
The resolution is open for
cosponsorship. Everyone will be put on the
resolution. If you do not wish to be put on
it, please notify the desk.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, may we now go to the
noncontroversial calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
1105
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
83, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 4314A, an
act to amend the Town Law, in relation to the
settlement of claims by certain towns.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Lay it
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
90, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 6276A, an
act in relation to the dates during which a
public hearing may be held.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1106
96, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 1708, an
act to amend the Public Health Law, in
relation to public notification.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 180th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
135, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 4464A,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to reporting of motor vehicle
accidents.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect in 60 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
1107
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
175, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 1803 -
SENATOR SMITH: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
188, by Senator Libous -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE SECRETARY: -- Senate Print
2088, an act to amend the Real Property Tax
Law, in relation to including cooperatively
owned dwellings.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
191, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 6171, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to interest on late installment
payments.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
1108
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the same date and in
the same manner as Chapter 447 of the Laws of
1999.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
198, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 1541, an
act to amend the Public Health Law, in
relation to expanding the definition.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1109
266, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 745, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to a taxing district's obtaining.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
278, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 3103, an
act authorizing the State University of New
York to lease and contract.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
1110
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
279, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 126, an act
to amend the Public Health Law, in relation to
expanding the network.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
285, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 6357,
an act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law, in relation to county responsibility.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
1111
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
347, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 2752, an
act to authorize the City School District of
the City of Poughkeepsie.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
350, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 6681, an
act to amend the Education Law and the Penal
Law, in relation to violent and disruptive
incidents on school grounds.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
1112
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect July 1.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Lay it
aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
Senator Velella, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, can we have the reading of the
controversial calendar now.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
SENATOR VELELLA: Can we go to
Calendar Number 188.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read, beginning with Calendar
188.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
188, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 2088, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to including cooperatively owned
1113
dwellings.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Calendar 175. The Secretary will
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
175, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 1803, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to defense of guilty but mentally
ill.
SENATOR ONORATO: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: An
explanation is asked for, please, Senator
Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
This is the eighth time this body
1114
has considered this legislation -
Senator Paterson has his hand up.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator
Padavan, would you yield for a question?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: I guess it's
the eighth time it hasn't -
SENATOR PADAVAN: I think we need
a little order up here, Mr. President.
Senator Paterson is right in front of me, and
I can't hear him.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: That's
because he's not talking, Senator.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Padavan would yield for a question.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan yields.
1115
SENATOR PATERSON: I thought that
in Senator Padavan's first sentence I could
have an objection to this bill. And he says
that this is the eighth time we've discussed
it. Well, Senator Padavan, isn't it true that
this is the eighth time it hasn't become law?
SENATOR PADAVAN: That's true.
We passed it on seven previous occasions, the
first being 1978. However, the other house
has declined to consider it, either in
committee or on the floor.
In any event, Mr. President, I
think an explanation was asked for. And while
most of you, if not all of you in this
chamber, you've heard it probably several
times, what we provide for in this proposal is
an alternative to what now are two options in
the law.
One is if someone who has been
arrested, having committed a terrible act, a
violent act, in pretrial, and before reaching
any point in the trial, it is determined that
there is some level of insanity, a mental
defect, a decision can be made currently by a
defendant's attorney to plead acquittal by
1116
reason of insanity.
If that fails in any trial, a judge
or jury trial, then that person is found
guilty. And in those circumstances, one of
two things will happen. In the first
instance, the person will be remanded to a
psychiatric facility, hopefully in a secure
ward. And at some point in time -- and this
has happened in many, many instances over the
years -- that person will be deemed cured by
psychiatrists, usually as a result of drug
therapy, and released.
And tragically, there have been
instances thereafter where that very same
person, not taking his or her medication,
committed another violent act. In that
instance, in my judgment, justice wasn't
served, but certainly the public safety was
not served.
Now, on the other side of the coin,
if the insanity defense is rejected, then that
person goes to a state prison, is treated like
any other criminal.
Now, what we're doing here is
providing, in fact, a third alternative.
1117
Impairment is acknowledged, and a
determination can be made that while that
individual knew the consequences of his act
when he pushed that person off the platform in
the subway, he knew that person was going to
be hit by a train and probably killed. But at
the same time, he has some level of mental
instability. And so guilty but mentally ill
can be either pleaded for or determined in the
course of a trial.
Now, what happens thereafter if
that person is found guilty but mentally ill?
First, he goes to a prison -- after some
period, perhaps, in a psychiatric facility -
and psychiatric care is mandated, mandated.
If that individual at some future date is
paroled, or early release or whatever, a
requirement would be in the law that that
individual continue to take his medication,
continue to visit a psychiatrist, if that's
required, whatever the regimen that is
determined by professionals is. Should he or
she fail to do that, then incarceration can
take place again.
I believe in this instance we serve
1118
justice and we also serve the needs of the
individual involved. Certainly the situation
today doesn't do either of those things well,
in certain instances. I believe this corrects
that deficiency.
Nineteen other states, the last
time we checked, have this statute on their
books, the oldest being Michigan, going back
to the mid-seventies. And we have records of
some cases that they have tried and dealt with
where it was applied and where it worked.
It's supported by not only the
Governor's office but the Office of Mental
Health. It's supported by the New York State
Law Enforcement Council, by the Criminal
Justice Board of the City of New York, by the
Citizens' Crime Commission, and others.
That briefly is an explanation of
the proposed statute.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Padavan would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you continue to yield?
1119
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
as you may or may not know, I was actually a
supporter of Senator Padavan's bill nearly
twenty years ago when I worked in the forensic
unit of the Queens district attorney's office,
and have changed my point of view over the
years to opposition.
But I think that Senator Padavan is
certainly on the right track, because we have
had these situations where individuals were
found, under the technical definition of our
law, as not responsible due to mental disease
or disability and were converted to civil
status, at times placed in psychiatric care.
And it did not become as clear what danger the
individual might pose to society, and they
would inevitably be released after a certain
period of time, and that there were these
further acts of violence which perhaps could
have been avoided.
And I think that that's what
Senator Padavan is really trying to address in
1120
this legislation.
Since we have performed two hours
of debate and disagreement in the past, I'm
actually going to show that I really do have a
heart and spare Senator Padavan of that today.
But I would only let him know at this time to
force him to be as prepared as he usually is.
But I do have this question.
Senator, in your statement you really went to
the core of what I think is my disagreement
with this bill when you cited the example of
the individual who would, as you put it, have
knowingly pushed someone in front of the
train. If they knowingly pushed someone off
the subway platform onto the tracks, knowing
that a train would hit them, then they
definitely knew the difference between right
and wrong and, as I would see it, should not
be found to be not responsible by reason of
mental disease or defect, but should just be
found guilty.
But what I thought you mean by
guilty but mentally ill is not to address
really the state of mind of the defendant but
really to address the state of the
1121
circumstances. Meaning that this person is
guilty of committing the act, but because they
are mentally ill we will treat this in a
completely different way, since they may not
have really -- since we're not really going to
be able to determine whether or not they knew
the difference between right or wrong, we're
going to treat them until such time that we
think that they actually not only would
understand that but would also take the
medication.
So I was just wondering if you
would clarify for us what the actual meaning
of the legislation is.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well, thank
you, Senator.
The meaning is quite clear,
actually, in the reading of the bill. And let
me share it with you directly, and so we can
all hear it together.
Guilty but mentally ill. If a
defendant asserts a defense of not guilty by
reason of mental disease or defect, in
accordance with Section 40.15 of the Penal
Law, the defendant may be found guilty but
1122
mentally ill. If, after trial, the trier of
facts finds all of the following beyond a
reasonable doubt: (A) that the defendant is
guilty of a crime -- in most cases, that's
quite obvious -- (B) that the defendant was
suffering from mental disease or defect but
not -- and here's the part that I think is the
most significant -- but not to such an extent
that he lacks substantial capacity to know or
appreciate either the nature and consequences
of his conduct or that his conduct was wrong
at the time of the commission of the crime.
Now, let me add to that by saying
you know and I know that when you have a trial
and you have dueling psychiatrists -- the
defense brings in a psychiatrist that says one
thing, the prosecutor brings in a psychiatrist
that says something else -- and there that
jury's sitting there, and either psychiatrist
or lawyers, perhaps, trying to make a
judgment. By putting this in law, I think we
make their responsibility easier to discharge
as well as improve upon the entire system.
So if I understand your question,
yes, if the person knowingly knows the
1123
consequences of his act, we would hope -- we
would hope that he'd just be found guilty.
But at the same time, I think compassion and
common sense leads us to also accept the fact
that there is some level of impairment with
regard to that person, and diminished
capacity -- a term of art and a legal term
that's used quite frequently -- is in effect,
is there.
Diminished capacity, mental
impairment. But, as the bill says, not to the
extent that it totally eliminates the
defendant's knowledge that what he was doing
was going to be harmful to the other person.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President.
So then therefore, Senator, if
we've now cleared up what we're going to do
about the defendant that is guilty in the
sense that, as you now put it, as a state of
mind they knew the difference between right
and wrong, and we are now going to add this
compassion that you talk about, what do we do
1124
with the defendant now that we determine was
not able to distinguish between right and
wrong at the time that the crime was
committed?
SENATOR PADAVAN: We do nothing
in terms of the current law. Any individual
who has committed an act, violent or
otherwise, and a determination has been made
that that individual did not know the
consequences of his or her act, then the
current law remains.
Obviously, we deal with those
individuals in the current system. They
frequently are sent to psychiatric centers
throughout our state, usually in secure wards,
until such time as a determination has been
made that they are able to return to society.
We have something now in effect, as
you know, called Kendra's Law, which attempts
to deal with part of that problem, and which I
think was the right thing to do as well.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President. This is my last question, unless,
1125
of course -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: I would ask an
additional -- I will ask additional questions,
but only if Senator Padavan would bring that
photographer back here and let me be included
in his album of pictures that he was having
taken here.
The question is simply this. Now
that you've set up, in a sense, three options
rather than two -- we have a person who is
guilty of the crime, they knew the difference
between right and wrong; the person is guilty
but mentally ill, in that they were guilty of
the crime but their awareness was perhaps
diminished, to some extent, by their mental
disease or disability; or what we currently
have, which is that the person is not
responsible by reason of mental disease or
disability, commonly known as the insanity
defense.
1126
Now that we have these three
options, this comes to the crux of what is
really my inability to vote for the
legislation. Isn't it very possible that when
presented with the fact that there is a guilty
but mentally ill charge that can be given to a
jury, that it in some respects prejudices the
jury to believe that since the prosecution can
establish that the defendant did cause the act
of the victim, that it would be more likely
that it's guilty but mentally ill than the
fact that it could be not responsible by
reason of mental disease or disability?
SENATOR PADAVAN: No, I wouldn't
accept that at all, Senator.
In the first place, the defendant
would have the responsibility -- or his
attorney would have the responsibility to
seek, as an attorney representing the
defendant, the best possible outcome. Any
trial attorney who would turn away from that
would obviously not be doing his or her job.
So I don't accept that thought on your part.
And a determination of guilty but
mentally ill may not even be the plea. It can
1127
be, if that is what the defendant determines,
or his attorney determines.
So your notion that this is going
to provide a vehicle by which more people will
not be acquitted by reason of insanity when
they should be is totally wrong, in my view.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, I would
just like to ask Senator Padavan a couple of
questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you yield for a question by
Senator Montgomery?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Padavan, I'm not able to follow the
intricacies and the technical discussion, but
I would just like to ask one question.
I'm looking at the memo in support
that is attached to the bill, and it says that
once the defendant is convicted of a crime,
assuming that the person pleads guilty with
1128
mental illness -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Guilty but
mentally ill, pleads that?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, under
your -- in your bill -- under your bill, that
the person serves the sentence or is sentenced
as per any person charged under that
particular crime?
SENATOR PADAVAN: No, that's not
quite true, Senator. Because if you read the
bill itself -
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: They receive
a psychiatric examination.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes, you must
be given -- and it's in the bill, it's on page
2, beginning line 3, "Court shall impose any
sentence which could be imposed pursuant to
law upon a defendant that is convicted of the
same crime. If the defendant is committed to
the custody of the Department of Correctional
Services, he shall undergo further evaluation
and be given such treatment as is
psychiatrically indicated for his mental
illness or retardation." And then it goes on
and on and on in that vein.
1129
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Now, my -
SENATOR PADAVAN: So they're
guaranteed, which is not the case now, that
that person will receive psychiatric care.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes. But
then does that mean that the Department of
Corrections would be mandated, under your
legislation -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Absolutely.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- to
provide mental health services to mentally ill
inmates?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Exactly.
That's right. And we do have -
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Each one
that comes in.
SENATOR PADAVAN: And we do have
some of our correctional facilities that have
a greater resource in that regard than some
others, that already exist, because we do have
people in state prisons who become mentally
unbalanced after they're there, for whatever
reason.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr.
1130
President, if I may pursue just a little bit
with Senator Padavan -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes, he
does.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So, Senator
Padavan, given the fact that there is such a
large percentage, over a quarter of the
inmates that are currently in the Department
of Corrections who are essentially determined
to be mentally ill who are not receiving
treatment, so your bill in fact would require
that the Department of Corrections provide
mental health services -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Correct.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- to any
inmate that pleads under your bill?
SENATOR PADAVAN: And I might add
they can do so also in cooperation with the
Office of Mental Health.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. Just
one last question.
You also indicate that the bill
1131
would require, if -- assuming that they
improve their condition while incarcerated and
they come out of prison -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Parole or
whatever.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- on
parole, they then are responsible for pursuing
their -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Treatment
regimen, whatever it may be, yes.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yeah, their
treatment, based on -- as a condition of
parole?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Correct.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So we now
don't have a system which -
SENATOR PADAVAN: No.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- which
provides for a continuum of services from
inside to outside?
SENATOR PADAVAN: We have it now
in the Office of Mental Health, in psychiatric
facilities, as a result of Kendra's Law. But
we don't have it for people who leave prisons,
no.
1132
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Right. So
that means, then, that they are much more
likely to return because they will not be able
to -- under the current status of our mental
health system, with that kind of break, they
can't easily access a continuum of care
after -- outside on parole.
SENATOR PADAVAN: No, I wouldn't
say -- that's not true, because in your county
or mine there are a number of facilities,
clinics and psychiatric facilities, to which a
person can be required to visit periodically,
continue their drug medication, if that's the
treatment that they're under, or follow-up
psychiatric care. That's certainly available.
And they would be required to take advantage
of it.
If for some reason they stop by
their own determination, then obviously they'd
be subject to being brought back in. Very
similar to what Kendra's Law requires outside
the criminal justice system.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. All
right. Thank you, Senator Padavan.
Just briefly on the bill, Mr.
1133
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I have in
the past voted in opposition of Senator
Padavan's bill. I really find this bill a
very interesting area for us to consider.
Certainly I would like to see much
more mental health services provided for
inmates who are mentally ill, and I think a
very large number -- in fact, the Corrections
Department is probably providing a very large
percentage of our -- providing not care, but
they have a large percentage of people who are
mentally ill.
So I would like to see something
done about that. However, I am concerned that
when people currently come out of any
institution, including the corrections, there
really is no way for them to access care or
any other support. And so it's very likely
that this population is certainly going to
fall right back into recidivism.
So we're not really helping to
resolve that issue. And they will probably
1134
come back into the system after having
committed some infraction, some other crime,
because they will be destabilized, because
there won't be any support for them.
So I'm going to continue to oppose
the bill, although I certainly appreciate,
Senator, your attempt to make sure that we
provide services to people who are criminally
mentally ill.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Mr. President,
if I may.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Senator, I
respect your view. But just to relieve some
of your discomfort, if you would read page 2,
the middle of the bill, there is specific
reference to that person we're talking about
being assigned to an outpatient facility to
which he would be directed. So we are
marrying up that individual with a specific
facility in his community to ensure treatment.
Now, that may not be the broad
scope that you were talking about. But as it
relates to this individual who would be
1135
covered by this law, should it become so,
there is a very specific tie-in between
release and treatment.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
will Senator Padavan yield to a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator
Padavan, under your bill, someone who is
convicted like that and is sentenced, and who
goes into the treatment program and is now
declared cured, or certainly in much better
condition, how does that affect his sentence?
Must he continue serving it,
depending -- what does he get, a
two-to-five-year sentence with the ability of
getting parole? Does it affect his time
release when he goes into the program and is
assisted to the degree that they think he's -
he or she is fit for society again?
SENATOR PADAVAN: The sentence is
1136
whatever the sentence is.
However, when the person comes up,
as you know they do, for parole at various
points in the sentence, obviously his state of
mental health is a prime factor for the Parole
Board to consider when they determine whether
early release, work release, or parole is
appropriate.
And then the other things that
Senator Montgomery and I were talking about
kick into place.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
DeFrancisco, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I vote no,
for the following reasons.
First of all, the line between not
guilty and guilty is the defendant was
suffering from a mental disease or defect and
1137
was guilty of a crime. Now, that makes, to
me, literally no sense. You are either guilty
of a crime or you're not guilty of a crime.
If you have the capacity to commit the crime
of murder, you're guilty of murder. If you
don't have the capacity to commit a crime,
you're not guilty.
That's what criminal justice is all
about, setting a standard of liability. And
we set a standard of what a mental disease or
defect is to determine whether that person is
capable of committing a crime.
There's no chance of a middle
ground, because it's -- if you're capable of
committing the murder, you should be guilty.
If you're not capable, by the law, you should
be not guilty. I think that's much the same
as what Senator Paterson was saying.
Secondly, I disagree strenuously
with my learned colleague. Having tried many
cases, criminal and civil, there is literally
no doubt in my mind that if a jury hears a
defendant saying the man is mentally ill but
he's not guilty at all, and you see the
evidence of a crime that's clear and you see
1138
the defendant conceding that the man is
mentally ill, there is literally no chance
that a person will be found not guilty,
because there's that middle ground that will
satisfy the common sense of most people, not
the legal-justification defense of mentally
ill.
So for those reasons, I am going to
vote no. And I would request that Senator
Padavan look at those 19 states -- maybe I
will -- to see who is right, he or Senator
Paterson and me, as far as the results of
crimes, the conviction rate, and the
middle-ground conviction rate as to what
really happens in these cases, what juries
really do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
DeFrancisco will be recorded in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 175 are
Senators Connor, DeFrancisco, Dollinger,
Lachman, Marchi, Markowitz, Meier, Mendez,
Montgomery, Onorato, Paterson, Sampson,
Schneiderman, Smith, and Stavisky. Ayes, 39.
1139
Nays, 15.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
83, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 4314A, an
act to amend the Town Law, in relation to the
settlement of claims by certain towns.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Mr.
President. Certainly.
This legislation was developed by
the Legislative Commission on Rural Resources.
The present and current law calls -- provides
that towns having a population of less than
200,000 -- and there are only six towns in the
state that have a population greater than
200,000 -- may settle a lawsuit or a claim
which exceeds $300 only with the approval of
the Supreme Court.
This bill would eliminate the
population and dollar restrictions, and it
would allow all towns to settle all lawsuits
1140
and claims against them without judicial
approval. The requirement for judicial
approval is old and really very outdated, and
all the towns should have the flexibility to
settle claims and lawsuits without
restrictions.
Enactment of this legislation will
save towns the legal costs associated with
many applications to the court for approval
and remove these actions from crowded court
caseloads.
As you well know, that in some
cases, accidents with a vehicle owned by a
municipality, et cetera, et cetera, may very
well cost over $300 to replace a bumper or
replace a fender on a vehicle.
In this case, if we can go to -- if
the towns can go to -- just to take care of it
regularly rather than have to apply to the
Supreme Court, this clears the court docket
and is less expensive to the town. It's a
cost-effective measure for the towns.
There it is.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
1141
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, just to explain my vote. Or on the
bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: You want
to speak on the bill?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just on the
bill, Mr. President. I'll be real brief.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I voted
against this last year. I still think there
are instances in which some towns in New York
State need the requirement of applying to a
Supreme Court justice. We do this in a number
of instances to provide an additional check on
the resolution of some of these claims.
I think especially in small
communities, there's a danger that these
claims could be adjudicated in a way that
would be either favorable or unfavorable to
the town in exchange for other considerations.
In the small-town world of New York, I think
having a state Supreme Court judge in some
cases review these may have some value.
So rather than adopt a carte
1142
blanche for all towns, I would favor that some
certain small towns which may not have the
assistance of a full-time counsel still be
required to engage in some review by the court
process. I think it will only give another
way to try to prevent what could be the
temptation for misuse of public money.
And so I'll vote against it again,
and wish the sponsor well with the other 57
votes on her side.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
350, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 6681, an
act to amend the Education Law and the Penal
1143
Law, in relation to violent and disruptive
incidents on school grounds.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This is a bill that is aimed at
stilling the violence in our schools and also
protecting the people that are employed there.
There are two specific provisions
of the bill, one which would create what we
call a uniform violent incident reporting
system, which would call for the Commissioner
of Education to set up a system whereby all of
the school boards and schools across the state
report incidents of violence, and that there's
an annual report.
The second portion of the bill
would call for setting a penalty for assaults
on employees of school districts, to become
Class D felonies.
That, in essence, is the nature of
what the bill is all about.
1144
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Would the
sponsor yield to one question, please?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I note,
Senator, in reading this bill that it refers
to the types of violent and disruptive
incidents by level of offense occurring in the
schools. Is there some other provision in the
Education Law that describes what you mean by
disruptive events, disruptive incidents, and
what the level of offense is?
I'm referring specifically, Senator
Kuhl, to lines 11 through 14 on the -- in
Section 2 on the first page of the bill.
SENATOR KUHL: I don't believe
there's anything in the Education Law right
now, Senator.
But our intent here is to have the
Commissioner kind of set up classifications of
1145
incidents so that he can categorize the types
of incidents that are occurring in schools so
we'll have a report so that we know whether or
not next year a student in, say, Brighton High
School was spitting on a teacher or sassing a
teacher back or actually throwing spitballs at
a teacher or swearing at a teacher or
assaulting a teacher or hitting a teacher over
the head with an umbrella or whatever other
activity it might be.
And I think the report would kind
of be broken down by the Commissioner into
that type of reporting system that would allow
us to get a better handle on all of the
various types of incidences that are occurring
in the schools.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. And
again, through you, Mr. President, if Senator
Kuhl would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I understand
1146
this bill is intended to have a broad sweep.
My question is with respect to lines 15
through 17, is it the actions -- all other
forms of discipline administered and the
grounds for such discipline? That would
include, as they did in my Jesuit high school,
sending you off to jug for the afternoon if
you were, you know, wrestling with someone out
in the schoolyard? Is that what that means?
SENATOR KUHL: I'm just reading
the language, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: My only
concern here, Senator, the reason why I've
asked both the question about level of offense
and the question about the type of discipline,
is I understand -- and I'm going to support
this bill, because I think that the need to
broaden the information basis about what's
going on in our schools about the degree of
disruptive or violent behavior, I think as
we've talked about a lot here -- but I agree
with you, and I'm not so sure we've got a good
handle on how much is going on out there.
My question is, in your attempt to
be so broad, are you so broad as to require an
1147
enormous amount of recordkeeping on every
student who's put in detention in the public
schools in this state or gets after-class
suspension or is tossed out of class and sent
to the principal's office for a little
discussion with the guidance counselor?
SENATOR KUHL: Well, Senator, let
me be more specific to you. While I
appreciate your attention to the first page of
the bill, perhaps the second page of the bill
is the major emphasis of what we're doing
here.
Just so that you know, during the
last decade, 1990 through the year 1999,
14,000 teachers and school staff members were
assaulted in the schools in this state. And
many of them were victims that it caused them
to be hospitalized and loss from their jobs.
And the unfortunate thing is that
this trend of violence in our schools is
increasing, and to the point that there was a
recent editorial in the New York Post
reporting on the situation in the New York
City school systems, where it appears as
though now we have an attack a day on a
1148
teacher.
And let me just kind of briefly
talk about that, just so that you know the
types of things that are happening. Okay, on
February 14th, Valentine's Day, love day,
okay, a male head-butted a female teacher.
She had to go be personally looked at. The
next day, a parent punched a teacher, and she
was treated by a physician. Go to the next
day. A student slammed a teacher into the
wall. Go to the next day, February 15th,
okay, another teacher -- this is at the
elementary level, repeatedly kicked and
punched a teacher. And it goes on and on and
on and on.
The point is, is that there are two
parts of this bill. One part is that there
are assaults, potentially deadly assaults
being put upon the employees in the school
district which have to come to an immediate
halt. Have to come to an immediate halt.
There's no room in our schools today for
disruptive students to be assaulting,
physically, teachers or other employees of the
schools.
1149
But as a follow-up, we also need to
know the other kinds of instances that are
occurring so that we can treat the issue. We
know that we can start to create a bigger
deterrent by increasing the penalty for an
assault on a school employee from a Class A
misdemeanor to a Class D felony, which is
currently, right now, the kind of protection
that we provide to policemen and firemen in
the line of duty. Why should a teacher be any
more susceptible to attacks, for lack of a
deterrent, than a fireman or a policeman? I
don't think so.
But our point is, in response -
and I know it's a long response to your
question -- is that to get the broad scope of
where we are, we need to know not only the
assaults that are reported in papers that we
see that really are unacceptable, we need to
know everything that's going on. So that when
we get to -- eventually, if the Assembly will
come to the table and talk about a
comprehensive school violence bill, we will be
able to address the code of conduct situation
and the appropriate penalties that should be
1150
handed out in relation to that.
So that is why you'll see the
language in our bill that will call for those
incidents, so we know, we have a paper trail.
And it will start, and I would assume that
within the first year we'll have a good idea
as to how we deal with that disruptive
conduct.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator Kuhl,
like the good lawyer that he is, does what a
good lawyer does when someone sits at a trial
and says, I want to focus on the little tiny
language in one portion of this bill because I
think it may be too broad.
I think when we're looking for
disruptive behaviors and the definition of
that, we may sweep a whole bunch of student
offenses that don't rise to the level which I
think Senator Kuhl wants to get at, which is,
in essence, criminal activity that happens in
our schools.
1151
And Senator Kuhl, I think
rightfully so -- I guess I sort of threw him
what I thought was a curve ball, but he has
tagged it and sent it out of the park when he
talks about the head-butting of teachers, the
assault by parents of teachers. All of these
are criminal activity in our schools that I
agree with Senator Kuhl, one, we should make
it a greater penalty to emphasize our
disapproval and distaste for it, and,
secondly, we should go about gathering the
data to figure out the nature of this problem.
Senator Kuhl, I'm going to vote in
favor of this bill. I would suggest you look
at that language both with respect to the
definition of offenses and what constitutes
disruptive behavior and look at the
requirement that you're going to put on these
schools to report the actions that they take.
My fear is that this bill may be so broad as
to include all the detentions, all the minor
penalties for student misconduct in the
schools.
And that relates to the final
question. While I'm going to support this
1152
bill, Senator, I think it is a tad misleading,
just a little, tiny bit, to say that the
fiscal implication of this bill is
undetermined. The fiscal implication of this
bill is that someone is going to spend an
enormous amount of time in our public schools
filling out the reports necessary to comply
with the statute.
And while I agree with you we've
got to be able to get our hands on that data
to figure out what's going on in our schools
and figure out whether we in this chamber need
to do something to either change the penalties
or provide additional resources for metal
detectors or other devices in our schools in
order to be able to convey a clear message
that school violence is unacceptable, I do
think that this bill will have a very
significant administrative cost -- not only
for the Commissioner of Education, who's got
to come up with the rules and regs, which I
think will be an enormously complicated task,
but for every school district in this state
that's going to have to sit down and figure
out how are we going to provide all that
1153
information for all the student infractions.
Senator Kuhl, I think this is a
good idea. I agree with both parts of it. I
think it needs a little work on the drafting
to tighten it up. And I think, for the
purposes of having a fair and honest debate
about this bill if it someday comes back to
us, we ought to at least come up with an
estimate of what the fiscal implication would
be -- not necessarily just to the State of New
York, but the cost to every school district in
this state. It will be sizable, I believe.
But in my judgment -- and this is
where I agree with you, Senator Kuhl -- it
will be worth it, because it will give us the
data to figure out how to send an even
stronger message that this type of behavior is
not permitted in our public schools.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Mont -- Senator Pat -- oh, I'm sorry. Senator
Paterson is down.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Oh, yes, Mr.
President, I would like to ask the sponsor a
couple of questions.
1154
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you yield to a question from Senator
Montgomery?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Kuhl, I was trying to determine what is the
difference in your legislation, essentially,
and the bill that we did last week that was
sponsored by Senator Bruno, which seemed to
have the same intent. Or is yours different?
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you for
indulging me, Senator.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Sure. No
problem.
SENATOR KUHL: I just needed to
refresh my memory as to what the bill that
Senator Bruno passed last week was.
His bill related to essentially, if
you will, elevating the severity of a felony.
This bill deals with elevating the severity of
a misdemeanor. Different categories of
crimes.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. So -
1155
SENATOR KUHL: Essentially, they
dealt with crimes committed on school grounds,
which is Senator Bruno's bill.
Ours deals with assaults on school
employees that are Class A misdemeanors.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. So
Senator Bruno's bill would raise the penalty
for any crime committed, and yours deals
specifically with -
SENATOR KUHL: No. No. No,
Senator. Not for any crime. It only dealt
with felonies.
If it was a Class D felony, it
would elevate it to a Class C felony. If it
was a Class E felony, it would elevate it to a
Class D felony. If it was a Class B felony,
it would elevate it to a Class A felony,
because it happened on school grounds.
Ours deals specifically with
protecting school employees -- teachers,
custodians, administrators -- who were
assaulted, and the crime is a Class A
misdemeanor. It elevates that penalty from a
Class A misdemeanor -- which, as you know, is
a crime for which one can be sentenced to up
1156
to a year in a local place of incarceration,
whether it's a county jail or whatever -- to a
Class D felony, which would be a maximum
penalty of up to seven years in prison.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. Class
D felony, up to seven years in prison.
Senator Kuhl, can I just ask you -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Wait a
minute. Do you want Senator Kuhl to continue
to yield?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Kuhl, I would just like to know, what do we do
with someone who is, say, 10, 11, 12, a
fifth-grader, a sixth-grader, a fourth-grader,
that is charged with -- under your
legislation, with throwing spitballs at the
teacher?
SENATOR KUHL: Well, spitballs
1157
wouldn't come under the form of an assault, I
don't believe.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I thought I
heard you refer to spitballs.
SENATOR KUHL: Well, I did refer
to spitballs, but I referred to spitballs as
part of the initial part of the bill, which
calls for reporting incidents of violence or
disruptive behavior.
That certainly would be disruptive
behavior. I think you and I could probably
agree to that, that throwing spitballs at a
teacher or another student would be disruptive
behavior.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Sure, yes.
I'm sure a lot of us in here have done that.
SENATOR KUHL: Senator Smith is
nodding that she was disruptive at one time
during her high school -- no, I -- anyway,
the -- that's not -- that would not be here.
But I can't speak to that, and the
bill doesn't speak to that. Because there are
several different procedures that a young
person could be handled as. It could be as a
juvenile delinquent, in which case the
1158
severity of the crime in this particular case
wouldn't make any difference, because the
ultimate penalty would be some sort of reform
school. It could mean that if the person was
treated as an adult, under some circumstances
that might mean a difference in severity of
the crime.
So it's impossible at this point,
without some sort of a factual scenario, and
knowing what the prosecutor in that particular
case would do, as to how this would impact.
All this simply does is raise the severity of
the crime or assault, which is a Class A
misdemeanor now, to be typed as a Class D
felony.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Now, a
couple of sessions back we had -- we
considered, in this legislative chamber, a
bill that essentially, under certain
circumstances -- I'm not sure if it was
actually a Class D felony, but it was under
certain circumstances a juvenile as young as
12 would be tried as an adult.
And so my question to you is that
based on this legislation, and based on the
1159
bill that we passed last week that was
sponsored by Senator Bruno where automatically
any infraction on school grounds would be
increased to the next degree -
SENATOR KUHL: Again, that's only
as it relates to felonies.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So in other
words -- exactly. Well, his relates to
felonies.
So under his bill and under yours,
if it essentially becomes a felony, even
though it's a misdemeanor, is it your -- do
you maintain the philosophical position that
those 12-year-olds should be tried as adults?
SENATOR KUHL: I don't think,
Senator -
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Vis-a-vis
the legislation that we considered, the
Juvenile Reform Act legislation that we
considered in this house that did pass.
SENATOR KUHL: I don't think that
has anything to do with what we're doing here,
Senator. I think -
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So in other
words, this doesn't become part of the
1160
Juvenile Reform Act legislation?
SENATOR KUHL: I don't see how.
I don't see how.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. All
right.
Just one last question, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KUHL: I'll be happy to.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay.
Senator Kuhl, we've talked about unfunded
mandates. And your memo, where it says
"fiscal implications," says that's
undetermined. So my assumption is that none
of the school districts have yet either been
asked or thought about what this might cost,
and so we don't know at this point.
But does this not become one
additional report that has to be kept at the
level of the school, sent up to the, I'm
assuming, the district, and from there to the
Education Commissioner and then the Education
1161
Commissioner has to give us one more ream of
paper to read?
SENATOR KUHL: Senator, there's
no question that this bill, if passed -- and I
believe it will pass today -- would require a
new report that's not currently being filed.
It's like last year, you may
recall, as part of the budget process, we also
required school districts to file another new
report that previously wasn't required, and
that related to transportation costs relative
to summer schools.
Well, as you know, there is
currently an implementation of a higher
Regents standard for quality education being
implemented by our Regents. What that is
requiring is many students to spend time,
after their normal school curriculum, to
concentrate on issues that they haven't been
successfully meeting.
Also part of that is a
concentration by students now spending -- and
I think we've heard it, I don't remember if -
I think it was just a couple of days ago on
the floor here, or in a committee meeting, it
1162
may have been, where there are going to be as
many as 300,000 students attending summer
school in the city of New York this year.
Well, that's a huge number of
students. But if this state is going to be
able to provide a service which is going to be
beneficial to those districts in the form of
dollars to support the transportation to and
from those summer schools, then we need to
know the statistics.
The same is true here, that we have
violence in the schools. I just cited that
there have been articles in the New York Post
in the last week as to the outrageousness of
the violence in the schools. Well, to deal
with that, we have to know the completeness of
that. We have to know whether there are
assaults on teachers and that sort of thing.
So while at this time there may be
the requirement of an additional report, that
is information we need so that we can say,
Okay, fine, we need to provide metal detectors
for those schools. Which we've tried to do in
this conference. We passed a bill here that
provided that kind of support. We need to
1163
know what is out there so that we can meet the
need.
Any kind of additional fiscal
responsibility that this bill creates is so
minimal in the form of just requiring
additional reports, or reports that they're
already required to keep. It's insignificant
to the cost that is really undermining the
quality of education, if you want to think
about it in these terms, Senator.
In fact, if in fact these
disruptions, these assaults are undermining
the quality of education so these students
aren't meeting the standards, well, that
perhaps is a cost that is not necessary.
Those people have to spend additional time to
educate the students. Where if the classes
were under control and there was no
disruption, that's maybe a savings.
And so that's why we said the cost
is undetermined. Because if we had no
violence in our schools, there would be not
the cost of trying to remediate the students
who are not getting a proper education because
of the disruptiveness. So one little form
1164
could really save the school districts
thousands of dollars or millions of dollars in
this state.
So you can look at it a number of
ways. But it's in one of those issues that
it's really undetermined.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. Thank
you, Senator Kuhl, for that explanation.
Briefly, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr.
President, I'm certainly, obviously, going to
vote against this legislation.
And I just want to remind my
colleagues that while I don't agree with this
aspect of the Governor's budget, he has said
in his own budget, he has proposed that we
pass a budget which includes language that
restricts the Board of Regents from making any
regulations that would be considered a new
mandate unless they fund it.
Now, if the Governor is going to
require that the Regents fund any mandate -
and the Regents is the highest policy-making
1165
body for the education of all children in our
state -- then it seems to me that we, as the
Legislature, should at least, since we are the
ones who actually do the budget, it seems to
me that that law or that rule should pertain
to us, certainly more so than the Board of
Regents.
But it seems to me that every week
we do another bill that puts a mandate on the
local -- the localities, the local school
districts, for them to spend more money, and
we don't attach any money to it.
Now, some years ago, Mr. President,
I had a bill, which did pass both houses and
was signed into law, which would mandate that
the Office of Mental Health do a study of
children, the mental health needs of young
people in our state, both in and out of
school, both in and out of the OMH itself.
Which would have included schools and school
districts throughout the state. But my bill
was only to go into effect if there was
funding attached to it.
It's still a viable situation, a
viable proposition. I think it's still
1166
needed. But certainly until the Legislature
funds it, OMH is not required to do it.
I have been a strong advocate for
school-based health-clinic programs for
schools throughout our state, and I have also
been an advocate for mental health services to
be a part of those school-based health
clinics. I am a very strong advocate of
providing crisis-intervention services,
support services, guidance counseling, all of
the possible additional resources that help
schools identify and work with difficult young
people. I think that's appropriate, I think
we should be doing that, and I hope that
someday we will get to that.
But it seems to me that what we
have been doing in the last few months and
weeks, as we convene each week in this
Legislature, is that we look for ways of
arresting children, sentencing them, figuring
out ways to get them into the criminal justice
system.
Now, I have to ask myself and my
colleagues, why are we taking this approach
and what are we really aiming to do? It's
1167
certainly not, not to help create an
environment of safety and learning in the
schools and on the school grounds. So I'm
going to oppose this.
And, lastly, I just want to
reiterate my position. And that is whatever
we intend this to be, whatever we say about
whether or not it's going to make teachers
safer or school grounds safer or children more
able to learn, or whatever we talk about,
ultimately it is going to -- the results of
this legislation is going to fall most
heavily, as every punitive measure that we
have that already exists, will fall the most
heavily on the children in my district and
other districts like mine.
So I cannot possibly support this.
And I just must remind my colleagues that we
already have a situation where the largest
percent of young people who are suspended from
schools with very long suspension sentences,
and those young people who are in special ed
classes without any particular physiological
designation, are young people of color;
specifically, young African-American males.
1168
So I cannot vote for this, because
I see this as one more attempt to get into the
net of the criminal justice system young
people of color. So I'm voting no on this,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I rise once again to bring to the
attention of my colleagues the problems that
we face in recruiting staff to our school
systems. I hear Senator Montgomery's
concerns, and we've heard them before. She's
said them on many bills and many issues
similar to this. She's said them previously,
the same complaints and the same responses.
But I see no alternatives. The
methodology she talks about, about teaching
and taking kids who have problems and giving
them counseling, that's been done. It's being
done. It was done when I was teaching in the
school system in the city of New York. We had
counselors, we had guidance counselors, we had
program after program after program, federally
1169
funded, state funded, city funded -- you name
it, it was funded. Guidance counselor after
guidance counselor, psychiatrist after
psychiatrist dealing with youngsters. We had
all kinds of programs.
There were many high schools in the
city where the guidance counselors had to walk
through the metal detectors that the kids were
involved with, and these schools had more
guidance staff than anybody else in the city,
yet metal detectors had to be put in high
schools. And elementary schools. And middle
schools. And junior high schools.
How can you possibly teach, how can
you possibly educate anyone when you have to
walk through a metal detector to get in there,
into a school? How can you attract staff to
teach when they are threatened, when parents
will punch them in the face, when students
will head-butt them -- in an elementary
school -- throw them down stairs, disrupt
classrooms?
What does that teacher do? Send
them out of the classroom to a guidance
counselor to talk to them for the day? Then
1170
they get them back the next day. What do you
do with a kid? What do you do with a child
that is absolutely disruptive?
When I was the dean of students in
my high school, 2 percent of the kids -- we
did an analysis of that school, and it was a
mixed school. The percentage of minority -
Hispanic, black, African-American, Italian,
Irish, you name it -- was about 50 percent
when I was teaching there, minority to
nonminority, if you will. Two percent of the
students could disrupt that school on any
given day if they chose to. That was the
population that we were trying to address.
We spent more time dealing with
that 2 percent than we did with the other
98 percent who were there to get an education
but whose classrooms were routinely being
disrupted by 2 percent, in many, many ways.
A teacher has 40 minutes in which
to a make a lesson work or not work. One
child, one child who got up on the wrong side
of the bed, or just for the hell of it, can
destroy that lesson and set that classroom
back weeks when they decide to misbehave.
1171
I'm not saying that one child on
that one day gets sent to Alcatraz and never
comes off the rock. That's not what we're
looking for. But you have to be able to take
some control of your schools.
In the city of New York, you have
thousands, tens of thousands of uncertified
teachers teaching. Why? Because you can't
get certified teachers. Because you can't
attract them to the schools. They won't go
there. Why? Because of the reputation, in
many cases, of the disruptive school districts
where teachers are not given support, where
staff is not given support.
Now, that's not nice to say, but
it's reality. And until that's addressed,
you'll never get it. Pay is a factor, there's
no doubt about it. Nobody goes into education
to make a million dollars. We all know that.
You're not going to get, you know, somebody
going into schools because they want to make a
million or become a millionaire. That's not
what they're there for. There's a motivation.
But you're going to drive them out if they
can't do what they go there for.
1172
If they go there to teach, with all
the best of intentions, and they're assaulted
or their classes are disrupted or they can't
get to the kids they want to get to, if they
can't teach what they want to teach because of
violence in the schools or disruption in the
schools or breakdowns in the schools or fire
alarm bells being rung daily, hourly, period
by period -- if that's continuously happening,
no education will happen. That teacher will
leave the system and never return and
bad-mouth it forever amber. And that ends it.
And you've got to take it. You
can't have it both ways. Yes, we should do as
much prevention programs as possible. Yes, we
should fund as many outreach programs as
possible. And to address the factor of the
unfairness in the way some rules are applied
to certain members of our society, I agree
with you, that should be addressed.
I think Senator Kuhl's bill
addresses that by taking count. By getting
the statistics, you prove your point. And
someone might be able to address it in reality
when you in fact see it, no pun intended, in
1173
black and white, when the numbers don't lie.
But you have to have the records and you have
to have the statistics and you have to have
the numbers. You can't hold schools to
standards unless you know what you're doing.
Here we're saying disruption we're
not going to address because, well, we don't
want to hurt anybody's feelings. But we don't
worry about the teacher. That teacher can get
head-butted, that teacher can get punched,
that custodian could get hit, can be
assaulted, the aide can be tossed down a
flight of stairs.
And you can't have that. You can't
have it both ways. We have to address
violence. Violent people, regardless of who
they are, must be stopped.
And if we don't, we delegate those
schools and we relegate the students involved
with those schools to no education whatsoever.
And then all the good standards and all the
good comments that we make here will be for
nothing if we do not address the day-to-day
living conditions of teachers, staff members
in schools.
1174
If we don't protect them and if we
don't keep them safe and if we don't give them
what they need to work, then we lose them. We
lose them. They'll go to other states where
it's safer, or they'll go to those districts
where it is easier to do. And no amount of
incentives, no amount of programs is going to
get them back.
And no amount of pay will get them
back. You can just pay someone so much, but
no one's going to go anywhere where they feel
threatened. If they feel their life is
threatened, it's not going to happen. If I
can't park my car in a radius near the school
and not have it vandalized, it's not going to
happen. I'm not going to go there.
And that's typical. And that's why
many districts in the city, some districts on
Long Island, and districts in other areas of
the state are having problems. Because you
can't teach when there's chaos in the system.
And in some systems, I'm sorry to say, there
is chaos. And until we address that, until we
recognize it honestly, we're going nowhere.
I don't disagree with you, Senator.
1175
We must do the programs you suggest. We must
have more of those outreach. I'm not
suggesting in any way, shape, or form by
comments I'm making that they are not
worthwhile and should not be tried. They
should and they must be funded. But we've got
to deal with that youngster who, even after
the outreach is made and even after the
programs are tried, still will not function.
That has to be addressed.
So I say to you we must support
this bill. I voted for Senator Bruno's bill
for the same reason. I'm going to support
this bill gladly, because it's time we took a
hard stand. You can't say you want education
and then not be willing to do what has to be
done to give people a safe place to provide
that service for us.
I'll vote aye on this bill when it
comes up.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: If Senator
Kuhl would just yield for one final question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
1176
Kuhl, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
Senator, I was talking a little
earlier with Senator Duane, and we were
wondering together, so I thought I would ask
you, in this research that's going to be
compiled would the issue of hate crimes, even
though it would be a standard that might
differ in interpretation from one area to
another, do you think that would be important
to include that as a category, since it's
probably something that would probably begin
at young ages, or at least the notion to
manifest one's bias toward other people in the
area of violence?
Did you consider that, and -
SENATOR KUHL: Senator, there -
that is a possibility.
But feeling that the Commissioner
of Education probably knows what goes on in
the schools better than you or I do, or even
Senator Marcellino, we wrote the language such
1177
that the Commissioner would prescribe a form
and that he would set out the following
information: the number of and types of
violent and disruptive incidents, by level of
offense, occurring in the schools. That's
really kind of the only designation as to what
is there.
So if it was perceived by the
Commissioner that he thought that that was
important, fine, he would include it. But we
haven't specified that that be included.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Senator.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson, on the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: If one of the
contingents was that, as Senator Bruno said
that last week right here in this chamber,
that he would pass the hate crimes if we
didn't specify the categories, I couldn't be
more strongly opposed to that.
However, for the purpose of
1178
conducting research, I would strongly urge
that the Commissioner, who will perhaps be
given this opportunity now through Senator
Kuhl's bill, take that opportunity. Because
in that sense, the Commissioner can study it
any way he wants to.
And I think it would actually
provide some very interesting information
which could influence some legislation that we
need to pass on the hate crimes bill itself.
And we need to do that as soon as possible.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. If the sponsor would yield for
a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President.
Would the violent incident as
1179
defined in this bill, or for the purpose of
this bill, would that include possession of a
firearm? That's not a violent incident per
se, but it's something that certainly, I
think, should be reported on in a system like
this if a kid brings a gun to school.
Is that something that could be
included within this legislation?
SENATOR KUHL: Very definitely,
Senator. It does talk about disruptive
incidences too, so I think that it would be
included in that, certainly.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I
appreciate the thoughtfulness and the good
intent behind this. I appreciate the comments
of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
And I do sense that we have -
there is a strong bipartisan desire to do
something about the problems that Senator
Marcellino spoke of, that Senator Montgomery
and others have spoken of.
1180
We have to do something about the
public schools in this state. It's our life.
It's our future. The best investment you can
make in preventing crime is fixing the
schools. The best investment you can make in
our economic development is fixing the
schools.
However, I think that in one area
when we're talking about violence we really do
have to take responsibility in this house for
the fact that every year in the Assembly, they
pass bills to keep guns out of the hands of
children -- child access prevention bills and
trigger lock bills -- and we don't.
And I think if we're really going
to be serious about this effort, especially in
light of recent incidents in the last year of
kids bringing guns to school, this year, in
addition to this bill, we really do have to
pass some serious laws to get guns out of
children's hands.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
1181
much, Mr. President. I'd like to speak on the
bill, if I may.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much.
I believe that the reporting, which
is a very -- the majority segment of this
legislation, is very important. I'm a staunch
advocate of reporting. I think we need it for
criminal acts and violent acts in the schools,
and I think we need to have it for bias and
hate crimes and have a way to report them on a
statewide basis.
Soon you will all be able to see
the "Dignity for All Students Act" which I'm
planning on introducing into this body, which
also will have reporting. But it's also
combined with an action plan to make our
schools safer. And I think that that is what
is missing here.
Reporting, as I say, is all well
and good, but I don't think that we should
only focus on how it is that we can punish
students. I think we also have to work on the
1182
prevention side of the issue as well.
I also, though I respect Senator
Marcellino's comments and his comment about,
well, you know, what do we expect, that
they'll go to a guidance counselor -- well, I
might be willing to accept that. But in New
York City schools, there aren't even enough
guidance counselors to go around. Many of the
students in New York City schools are unable
to get an appointment with a guidance
counselor because they just are -- there are
not enough guidance counselors in the schools
for the demand that students have.
And also it's well and good to say,
well, we can only pay so much for teachers to
keep them here. But in New York City, we
don't pay them so much. We pay them much less
than so much. And I do think that that's
something else we have to look at when we talk
about how it is that we not only attract
teachers but keep them in the schools.
So I think we have to look at this
in a much broader way. Yes, reporting. Yes,
seeing what students are the most disruptive
and potentially violent. But also looking
1183
towards the prevention of acts which endanger
teachers and students in the school.
I'm looking forward to a time when
we can see more comprehensive legislation.
But until that time, I'm going to have to vote
no on this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect July 1.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, to explain his vote.
SENATOR KUHL: To explain my
vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Senator Montgomery raised the issue
about civility in our schools, I think, and
that sort of thing. And I just wanted to let
the members know that those people who really
are on the front line are the teachers. And
that one of their major organizations of
representatives, the New York State United
1184
Teachers, totally support this bill.
And I just would like to read from
a portion of their statement of support. It
says: "The New York State United Teachers
strongly supports Senate 6681" -- which is
this bill -- "which would establish a
statewide uniform violent incident reporting
system and raises the penalty for assaults on
school employees while on school grounds.
"For years, NYSUT has proposed and
lobbied for comprehensive safe school
legislation. Ideally, such legislation would
include the enforcement of school codes of
conduct, authority for educators to remove
disruptive students from the classroom, and
protection of teachers from harassment and
assaults.
"Unfortunately, we'll all agree
that though such legislation is critical to
restoring civility and order to our schools,
nothing has been accomplished. In the
meantime, discipline, civility, and order
continue to disintegrate in our schools, and
the danger to our teachers is at an all-time
high.
1185
"During the last school year, there
has been a 20 percent increase in assaults on
teachers in New York City. Nine teachers have
been attacked in the first six weeks of this
year. These are intolerable numbers. There
can no longer be a question that it is time to
put aside party differences and pass Senate
6681, which could go a long way toward
protecting teachers as they perform their
jobs.
"NYSUT urges all of you to pass
Senate 6681 and make this the first step
toward restoring an atmosphere of respect and
civility in our schools by passage of a
comprehensive school safety legislation."
I vote aye, Mr. Speaker.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, you will be recorded in the affirmative.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr.
President, I would like to explain my vote.
Is that possible?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Just
to -- we're going to let you do that, but we
haven't called the roll yet. So we'll do that
in proper order, and then we'll -- it's the
1186
chair's mistake.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I'm sorry.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: No, not
necessary to apologize. My mistake.
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery, to explain her vote.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, to
explain my vote.
I certainly understand the position
that NYSUT is taking, and it won't be the
first time that I'm voting in opposition to or
taking a position opposite to NYSUT.
But I want to reiterate, Mr.
President, very quickly, I am not opposed to
the safety of teachers. I certainly support
any measure that would improve the environment
within schools. But I also understand that we
have to be proactive, especially as it relates
to what we do for young people in our state.
And this bill, in my estimation -
I'm not opposed to the reporting, but I do
think that if we're going to require this
level of recordkeeping, we should pay for it.
1187
That's number one.
And, number two, when we are
talking about going onto school grounds, going
into schools and making arrests, charging 10-,
11-, and 12-year-olds with felonies because of
some infraction or other, we have to be very
careful, I believe, because we are going down
the slippery slope of having these young
children being incarcerated, building up
criminal records, before they are even able to
build some level of self-esteem and to
understand essentially, in some instances,
what is the appropriate behavior.
And we have not put into our
schools people who are there specifically to
be crisis-intervention agents for young people
who are in trouble. And we have not put in
our schools supports for teachers to be able
to reach out to when they have a problem with
young people.
So the only -- for us to come up
with the only answer is to arrest them and
criminalize them and put them in prison I
think is wrong. So I'm voting no. And it's
not -- I'm not opposed to safety for teachers,
1188
but I am opposed to criminalizing children. I
vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery will be recorded in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 350 are
Senators Duane, Mendez, Montgomery, and Smith.
Ayes, 51. Nays, 4.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. I was hoping that I could have
unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 135 and Calendar
Number 175.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Duane will be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 135 and 175.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I ask that on Resolution 3298, that
we passed a little while ago, that the
1189
sponsorship for that be opened. I've been
asked by several Senators to be included,
specifically Senator Lachman and Senator
Connor. If those two could be added as
cosponsors, I'd appreciate it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Those
Senators wishing to cosponsor should see the
desk, please.
Senator Marcellino. I'm sorry,
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Mr. President,
is there any housekeeping now?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes,
there is.
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator
Marcellino wishes to be recognized.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, on page Number 5 I offer the
following amendments to Calendar Number 12,
Senate Print Number 2543, and ask that said
bill retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
1190
amendments are received, and the bill will
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Likewise,
Mr. President, on page Number 18, I offer the
following amendments to Calendar Number 240,
Senate Print 3987, and ask that said bill
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received, and the bill will
stay on the Third Reading Calendar.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, I wish to call up Senator Marchi's
bill, Print Number 1639B, recalled from the
Assembly, which is now at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
345, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 1639B, an
act to amend the Education Law and the Vehicle
and Traffic Law.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, I now move to reconsider the vote
by which this bill was passed.
1191
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, I now offer the following
amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, the desk is clean at this point.
SENATOR VELELLA: Mr. President,
there being no further business to come before
the Senate, I move we adjourn until Wednesday,
March 8, at 11:00 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: On
motion, Senate stands adjourned until
Wednesday, March 8th, at 11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 5:18 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)