Regular Session - February 12, 2001
717
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
February 12, 2001
3:03 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR RAYMOND A. MEIER, Acting President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
718
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: 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 MEIER: The
invocation today will be given by Rabbi
Nachman Simon, from Chabad House in Delmar.
Rabbi.
RABBI SIMON: This past Thursday
we celebrated Tu Bishvat, the 15th day of the
Hebrew month of Shvat, which commemorates the
new year of the trees.
This is a time when trees begin to
bud in Israel. It is customary to eat many
fruits, especially those for which the land of
Israel is praised in scripture. It is said
that man is likened to a tree in the field.
We can therefore derive many
lessons by observing the trees. One of these
is that if a tree has strong and deep roots, a
strong wind will never be able to uproot it.
719
This applies to us also. Our
country and state are rooted in the tradition
of great moral character. And even though
there are persuasions trying to turn us away
from these lofty goals, nevertheless, since we
have strong roots, we shall not turn away from
these pursuits.
Another lesson from the trees is
that a tree never stops growing, even when it
gets older. Humans stop physically growing
when they reach the age of maturity, but their
mental and spiritual growth should always
progress.
May it be the Almighty's will that
He should help each and every one of us to see
our full potential and never be deterred from
reaching our goal of seeing that the State of
New York and its people reach to their highest
level.
And may we all see the ultimate
perfection of the world, with the coming of
the Mashiach, the Messiah, speedily in our
days.
And let us all say amen.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Reading
720
of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Friday, February 9, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Thursday,
February 8, was read and approved. On motion,
Senate adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. I hereby give notice of a
motion to amend the rules of the Senate. The
rule's been previously noticed. I'm simply
reiterating the notice today for purposes of
making it eligible for debate and
consideration by the house tomorrow.
721
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
notice is received. It will be entered in the
Journal.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, I just move that the following bill
be discharged from its respective committee
and be recommitted with instructions to strike
the enacting clause. And that's Senate Bill
Number 322.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: So
ordered.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Mr.
President. On page 7 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 44, Senate Print
Number 859, and ask that said bill retain its
place on the Third Reading Calendar, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received, and the bill will
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
722
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President. On page Number 9 I offer the
following amendments to Calendar Number 65,
Senate Print Number 1073, and ask that said
bill retain its place on Third Reading
Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received, and the bill will
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
there's a privileged resolution at the desk,
Number 420, by Senator LaValle. May we please
have it read in its entirety and move for its
immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
LaValle, Legislative Resolution Number 420
memorializing Governor George E. Pataki to
proclaim February 14, 2001, as Congenital
Heart Defect Awareness Day in the State of
New York.
723
"WHEREAS, It is the sense of this
Legislative Body to memorialize Governor
George E. Pataki to proclaim February 14,
2001, as Congenital Heart Defect Awareness Day
in the State of New York; and
"WHEREAS, Congenital heart defects
are those existent at the time of birth; and
"WHEREAS, With the increasing
familiarity of the disorder, more diagnoses
are being made of what was not long ago
thought to be an extremely rare disorder. But
there is still a necessity for continuing
research and awareness.
"Congenital heart defects continue
to be among the most common birth defects. It
is estimated that almost one in 100 children
are born with some type of congenital heart
defect; and
"WHEREAS, Too many babies,
children, and adults continue to battle the
devastating effects of a congenital heart
defect every day. While many of these defects
are repairable or require no surgery, nearly
half of all those born with a defect will at
some time face one, if not many, surgeries.
724
"Overwhelming numbers of those
afflicted with a congenital heart defect
continue to lose their lives due to late
detection of the disorder, a lack of donor
hearts, or the severity of the condition; and
"WHEREAS, The citizens of New York
State and the nation must remain hopeful.
Congenital heart defects continue to be
researched by numerous professionals so that
the medical community may more accurately
describe their origin, physical signs, and
symptoms and uncover new surgical options that
will better aid our loved ones in their fight
against a congenital heart defect; and
"WHEREAS, It is the duty of this
Legislative Body to raise awareness of this
disorder so that the likelihood of early
diagnosis and intervention will increase; now,
therefore, be it
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative
Body pause in its deliberations to memorialize
Governor George E. Pataki to proclaim
February 14, 2001, as Congenital Heart Defect
Awareness Day in the State of New York; and be
it further
725
"RESOLVED, That copies of this
resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted
to the Honorable George E. Pataki, Governor of
the State of New York, and Violet Haufsk,
President of the Dominick Open Heart Memorial
Fund."
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Mr. President,
thank you very much. I would like to open
sponsorship of this resolution to all the
members. I think many are already on this
resolution.
And just very briefly, I think
awareness is so important, education is so
important. There are, as the resolution
speaks, one in a hundred babies that are born
with some sort of congenital heart problem,
some defect. And today, with new surgical
options, I think we are giving people a longer
life.
And of course, with new technology
and research, I am very, very hopeful that we
will be able to do just wonder kinds of things
to help those infants that are born live a
726
full and long life.
As members, I think if we can, on
Awareness Day and beyond, just make each of
our constituents aware of new surgical
options, early detection. In many
communities, I think people do not have this
awareness and are not proactive enough in
helping their infants live a longer and
complete life.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, Senator LaValle has asked that it be
opened. Should we follow our custom and put
everyone on unless they inform the desk
otherwise?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Everyone
will be placed on the resolution, then, unless
they inform the desk otherwise.
Do you want to speak on the
resolution, Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, very
briefly, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
727
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I applaud
Senator LaValle's initiative with respect to
congenital heart defects and their detection
and education.
I would just suggest that there is
a corollary of endorsing the idea of greater
education and better understanding among
people in this state, and that is that the
cost may go up. We may get more people who
recognize that the detection of congenital
heart defects -- which sometimes, as in the
case of people like Pete Maravich, they go
through an extraordinary sports career and
they die of a congenital defect in their early
40s even though it could have been detected
early on.
But I think, Mr. President, this
resolution is versus critically important to
raising education awareness. But we have to
do it with an understanding that in the long
run, it may cost us more. But even if it
does, it's clearly the right thing to do.
We have to have the courage to make
sure that our wallets follow our proclamations
about the need for education and information.
728
When it does, it may cost more, but it seems
to me in a just and fair society we have to be
prepared for that. And it may mean that we in
this room have to be prepared to pay for it.
It will be well worth it if we do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President. On behalf of Senator Seward,
on page 9 I offer the following amendments to
Calendar Number 60, Senate Print Number 1120,
and ask that said bill retain its place on
Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendment is received, and the bill will
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
729
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could take up the noncontroversial
calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the noncontroversial
calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
3, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 66, an act
to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to the commission of crimes against
children.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
10, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 136, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
endangering the welfare of a child.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay that one
aside, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
730
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
43, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 858A, an
act to authorize the Congregation Shira
Chadasha, in the village of Great Neck, to
file an application.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay that bill
aside, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
51, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 394, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to allowing regional state park
police.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
57, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 358, an
731
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
providing for an additional annual
apportionment.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay that one
aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
71, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 63, an
act to amend the Administrative Code of the
City of New York, in relation to inquiries.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay that bill
aside, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
75, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 384, an
act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to
permitting.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
732
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could now go to the -- since we disposed
of that so quickly, if we could go to the
controversial reading of the calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the controversial
calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
3, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 66, an act
to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to the commission of crimes against
children.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR VELELLA: This bill would
require the district attorney to notify the
local child protective agency of the
conviction of any person at least 18 years of
age for the following crimes: abandonment of
733
a child, nonsupport, endangering the welfare
of a child, unlawfully dealing with a child,
sexual performance by a child, any other crime
against a child under the age of 16.
This notification requirement will
ensure that the agency has complete
information with which to advise the Family
Court about whether or not a child should be
returned to the custody of its parents.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor will yield to a
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, do you yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is it the
intent of this legislation that the local
Child Protective Services agency would then
bring an appropriate action? Is there any
requirement in law that they do that to
achieve the goals of this legislation?
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, this
legislation is to give notice to those
734
agencies so that then they could properly act
within the confines of the law and within the
duties assigned to them by the law to properly
act, that they would have the information
available to them, and that they would be
notified of any person over the age of 18
who's been convicted of any of these crimes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if sponsor will continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, do you yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator,
given the notification requirement in this
piece of legislation, is it your intention
that the potential civil liability for child
protective agencies would be increased because
they would now be placed in a position where
they knew about such conduct, such illegal
conduct, and therefore they would be in a
position where they would have to act? Does
that affect the potential civil liability of
735
those child protective services?
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, I
couldn't comment on whether or not it would.
My intention with this bill is
exactly what I said it is. It is to give
notice to the proper agencies that someone has
been convicted of these enumerated crimes and
that that agency should act properly based on
that information. It's an attempt to give an
agency that protects children every bit of
information necessary.
And then you and I can only assume
that those in those agencies act properly and
within the confines of the law. If they do
so, they have nothing to fear from any
liability statute or any liability theory that
you might be able to think of.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Velella will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
736
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Isn't it true
that the conduct that you've described -- the
use of a child for pornography, the failure of
supervision -- all of those things would
constitute a basis for action by a local Child
Protective Service against each of those
individuals?
The reason why I ask this question
is because you've outlined a series of
conduct, you've told them you're going to give
them information, but the statute doesn't -
the proposal doesn't require them to do
something with it.
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, I
think you're trying to read an awful lot into
a very simple statute that makes common sense.
When somebody is convicted of one
of these crimes, you notify the Child
Protective Services that this is a bad person.
They have been found guilty of doing something
to a child or doing something with a child
that we don't like, that was illegal, and you
ought to be aware of that and act accordingly
in the future. Simple, direct, to the point.
You're trying to read too much into
737
it, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Velella will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, do you yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President. What I'm trying to do, Senator
Velella, is figure out why we're doing this.
Because my question is, if they are
bad people and they're involved with children,
is merely telling them enough? Shouldn't we
require the local Child Protective Services to
do something with this information, such as
commence a proceeding that would prevent them
from having access to children or, if they had
children in their custody, removing that
custody?
I understand that you're simply
giving them notice. My question is, why
shouldn't we do more and have them do
something with this information?
738
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, in
your zeal to find questions to ask me, you
have blinders. They have been found guilty of
a crime. The court is going to punish them.
There is a sentence. They will be punished by
the Penal Law because they committed a crime.
All we're doing is giving a little
bit more notice to some of the agencies to
further protect, in addition to the
punishment. So this will be in addition to
all the bad things you want to do to these bad
people.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I appreciate
the clarification from Senator Velella. I'm
going to vote in favor of this bill. But I
don't think it quite goes far enough. I think
it needs a companion.
And the companion would be that
simply transmitting the information from the
criminal process into Child Protective
Services is not enough to achieve the goal
739
that Senator Velella I think is trying to get
to, and that is to protect children.
The thing to do is to require,
under this bill, if we're going to have the
courage to transmit the information to the
child protective agencies, let's require them
to do something with it. Senator Velella's
comment about they'll be punished criminally
isn't enough. After all, many of these
individuals can take their criminal
punishment -- which may be probation, it may
be something very minor, a 30-day prison
sentence -- but we don't remove those children
who are exposed to adults who have committed
crimes involving children.
We don't take the important
following step, which is to guarantee or to
require that the child protective agencies
stand on their feet and take the next action,
which is to remove the children from parents
or any adult who has shown lack of fitness for
their position as parents or advisors to
children.
So I'm going to vote in favor of
this bill, Senator Velella, and I hope by the
740
end of this session we'll see another bill
that carries it to its logical conclusion,
which is knowledge is not enough, we need
action in these cases to protect our children.
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, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
10, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 136, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
endangering the welfare of a child in the
first and second degrees.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: May we have
an explanation, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Volker, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR VOLKER: Mr. President,
this is a bill that passed the Senate last
741
year by a vote of 58 to nothing. It creates
the offense of endangering the welfare of a
child in the first degree and redesignates the
offense of endangering the welfare of a minor
in the second degree.
At the present time, the offense
that's involved here, the first degree
offense, would be an A misdemeanor. And as I
think some of us have pointed out, in many
courts today it's unfortunately a crime which
is more -- its absence of weight,
unfortunately, is more used than anything
else. Many of the district attorneys,
particularly with the busy courts that we
have, it's usually virtually ignored.
What it would do is a person would
be guilty of endangering the welfare of a
minor in the first degree if she'd either
previously been convicted of an offense of
this nature or if she knowingly acts in a
manner that creates -- he or she -- that
creates a substantial risk of physical injury
or prolonged impairment of mental or emotional
condition of a child less than 17 years of
age.
742
What this is is it in effect sets
up a situation where a person who causes some
additional problems for a child under 17 years
of age could be charged with a Class D felony,
which would allow, in effect, some sort of
penalty for the kind of conduct that now in
many cases is virtually being unpunished.
And these are pretty serious
situations, and I think it's something -- and
that's why it passed 58 to nothing last year,
because I think it's something that we should
really do in both houses. And I'm hoping that
the Assembly will follow suit this year.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President, I wonder if Senator Volker will
would answer -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Volker, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
I'm just wondering, Senator Volker,
743
currently what does the law say regarding an
instance where there is a conviction of abuse,
as is in your legislation, or endangering the
welfare of a child? What is the current
punishment for that?
SENATOR VOLKER: Class A
misdemeanor.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Class A
misdemeanor.
SENATOR VOLKER: Right.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: And this
bill -- Mr. President, through you, does this
bill then change that? The exact same charge
would be now a Class D felony, violent felony,
is that -
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, what it
does is -- it isn't the exact same charge.
What we do is we create a more serious
charge -- as I said, if you knowingly create a
substantial risk of serious physical injury or
prolonged impairment of mental or emotional
condition of a child less than 17 years old,
then we create a Class D felony.
Otherwise, if it's just -- I don't
want to say ordinary -- endangering the
744
welfare of a child, which could be a great
many things -- as a for-instance, if you leave
a child in a car unattended, you could be
endangering the welfare of a child.
A lot of times a person is charged
with endangering the welfare of a child,
which -- if they leave the house and a child
is in there and there's a fire or something,
and then, even though there's no injury or
anything, they could be charged. That's just
a misdemeanor.
Where there's a more serious kind
of thing where the child's life is
threatened -- and I use the fire situation -
and if they were -- I would think I would
almost call that reckless. But that's where
the Class D felony would come in, because
their very life was threatened.
Or, in some cases, the mental
condition of the child, their -- it seems
to -- I believe this came -- it seems to me it
came from the district attorneys. Or I'm not
even sure, it may have been child welfare
people. It seems to me that there should be
some grading of offense based on the
745
circumstances.
So that at a more serious situation
you could charge the Class D felony, and
otherwise you would have the normal
endangering the welfare of a child, which is a
Class A misdemeanor.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr.
President, I just want to pursue this a little
bit. Just one more question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Volker, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So, Senator
Volker, I want to be clear about this. If I
leave my son home alone and it is determined
that by leaving him home alone I could be
putting his life in danger, and therefore it
could be considered at the higher order of
crime, under your legislation? And therefore
I could be charged with a violent felony,
Class D, based on the determination that I put
his life in danger?
Or does it -- is it now that I left
746
him and he is burned to death in the
apartment, in the house, is it only then that
I'm charged with a Class D felony? Or is it
that even if I leave him, nothing happens to
him, but just because he could have burned to
death I could be charged?
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, first of
all, Class D is not a violent felony. Let's
put that -- this is not a violent felony.
Which means it's not in the upper grades.
But, number two, if he actually
burns to death, that would trip up the penalty
anyway. Probably you wouldn't even have to
use the Class D felony, because you would
already be in a higher situation.
You cannot assume -- under that
evidentiary situation, there's no way that you
could assume that something might happen. You
have to have something more than that, quite
clearly. Because at the present time, what
you just described, if nothing did happen, I'm
sure it would be a Class A misdemeanor. It
would be the same as it is now, because what
that -- in fact, most of the time the person
isn't even charged with that if there's
747
nothing else besides that. I think in most
places there weren't, more than anything.
What is really intended here,
though, is the more serious situations where a
child's life is actually threatened, where
there's an actual situation where a person
should have known, under the circumstances,
that the child's life could have been
threatened or could be threatened, or the
mental or emotional welfare of that child.
You have to have a higher -- one of
the things about it is that in any felony
case, particularly a D felony, you're held to
a higher standard in any court in this state.
And that's the way it should be. That's the
difference between a misdemeanor, frankly, and
a felony.
So that what we're trying to do
here is differentiate between the ordinary
situation where maybe something could have
happened rather than something did happen.
Now, if the child obviously is
burned to death, then you already have -
you're going to have a much more serious
charge there of neglect. It's not even going
748
to be neglect, it's going to probably be
involuntary manslaughter or something of that
nature.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'll yield my
time to others.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President. Would the Senator yield
to a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Volker, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes. Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you. I was listening to the discussion that
was transpiring, and many of the questions
that Senator Montgomery has raised were those
that I earmarked as I looked at your
legislation.
749
And I guess the nature of the
question is really to understand, is this -
is the intent of this bill to create a series
of levels within the Penal Law of behaviors
directed toward children? Is that accurate?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
A series? Actually, two levels.
Primarily two levels. Right now the only
charge is a misdemeanor. So that either you
have to have another element involved here
entirely that you could make another charge,
or all that you could charge for endangering
the welfare of a minor is a misdemeanor.
And I think the child welfare
people, as well as many of the people that
have dealt with this, believe that you ought
to be able to have some gradation where the
act that involves -- and it's not just
parents. I mean, there's obviously -- you
know, there can be guardians, there can be all
sorts of things. So that you will have, where
the child is clearly endangered and there's a
substantial risk and you can prove that risk,
which is what you have to do, then it should
be a felony.
750
Or if it's just the ordinary
situation where, for instance, you can be
charged with endangering the welfare of a
minor for giving the minor alcohol, something
of that nature. So that's not the kind of a
situation, obviously, where you'd want a
felony, that's a misdemeanor. And that's
fine. And we're leaving that the way it is.
But where the situation is far more
serious, then you would want a far more
serious charge.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, on the bill.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:
Senator Volker, I appreciate your explanation
and your support in helping me to understand
this.
My background is in early childhood
education. It's also working with
substance-abusing parents and working with
children. But it isn't in Penal Law. And
many times I'm not always as clear as others
here may be about how the Penal Law is
751
affected.
I certainly know and would support
this bill primarily because of some incidences
in the lives of some of the families and
children that I have worked with over the
years. And there's a woman now who's serving
25 years to life in Bedford because she left
an eight-month-old unattended for five days
because she had a crack habit, and the child
died of starvation.
My perspective here says that as we
look at families, I am not as anxious or
concerned about creating more penal layers as
I am intervention programs. Because I think
that in some of the instances, we fail to
realize early on that there are some very -
some problems that we have signals for, but,
because of the way in which our Penal Laws are
written, there are no red flags that are
raised.
So that each time as I've listened
to the way you have presented bills, I get the
sense that you have some of the same concerns
that I have. And so I can support this bill,
with the understanding that as we do this, we
752
need to extract certainly heavier penalties on
certain behaviors. But I always need to be
sure that we don't jump from one behavior to
another and suddenly we've gone from a mother
who may leave a child unattended in the car
for a moment while she picks up a package and
a neighbor reports that, and if she does that
more than once, then it suddenly goes from
being a misdemeanor to a felony.
And so I just needed to be sure
that I was clear that it was a gradation as
opposed to those kinds of jumps.
And I thank you. Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, would the sponsor yield to just one
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Volker, will you yield for just one question?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Volker, I want to just call your attention to
the section that -- as I understand it, the
753
second section of this bill will include
endangering the welfare of a child in the
first degree, which you have now elevated to a
Class D felony, will include it in the
definition of violent felony offenses. Am I
dealing with the wrong print here?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yeah, you're
right. I'm sorry, you're absolutely right.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, just so I clarify my question
to Senator Volker.
The category of offenses that are
included, this is to create a violent felony
offense that triggers the VFO requirements?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yup.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: All of the
other offenses listed there are (a) an attempt
to commit certain Class C felonies, which are
violent in nature; assault, which is violent;
stalking, which is violent; sexual abuse;
sexual conduct against a child; aggravated
sexual abuse; criminal possession of a weapon,
which I think has certainly a very violent
overtone to it. But this is the only one of
those offenses that doesn't involve
754
necessarily violent intent.
And my question is, why would you
include endangering the welfare of a child,
which is really a crime of omission or
neglect, in a category of offenses that
largely involve the intent of violence?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yeah, I remember
now. I'm sorry.
One of the things that's
interesting is when the Senator described the
situation where somebody is in jail for 25
years to life because a child was, for five
days -- died because of lack of food, one of
the interesting things about that case -- it's
the exact case that's a problem -- if you came
and found that child still alive, let's say
after two or three days, and took the child,
the only charge you could make against that
woman would be a Class A misdemeanor.
I think the reason that we have
made this potentially as serious an offense is
is because what we're saying here is that this
is a situation where -- a serious situation
here, substantial risk of serious physical
injury or prolonged impairment. And the idea
755
is that we want the ability to charge them
with a very serious crime where that child has
been subjected to a situation where they could
die or they could be severely injured or
whatever.
And I think that's the reason for
that, is because the attempt is to set up a
gradation of crime. Because the normal
situation is that it's a Class A misdemeanor.
And I think there's an attempt here to give a
range of penalties where it's more serious.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. I appreciate Senator Volker's
always thoughtful and I think
right-on-the-nose explanation of this bill.
But I'm going to vote in favor of
it, Mr. President, not without some misgiving.
I think if you look at the collection of
offenses that will be combined under the VFO
provisions, those are all crimes of intent.
Those are all crimes of violent intent where
the proof at trial would show that there was
an intent to commit violence against children.
Endangering the welfare of a child,
as defined in this bill, simply says that it's
756
not necessary that you have any intent. And I
would suggest that the proposed change, by
elevating it from a misdemeanor to a Class D
felony, is, as I think Senator Volker properly
points out, a reflection of our determination
this is a very serious crime. This can have a
substantial impact on a child.
But my concern would be that by
including it in the violent felony offenses,
as certainly Senator Volker knows better than
anyone, we substantially enhance the penalties
for second-time violent felony offenders. And
one of the perhaps unforeseen circumstances is
that you can have someone who had done time as
a violent felony offender, as a parent,
commits this crime and now runs into the
substantially enhanced penalties for second
violent felony offenders, which would put them
in jail for a long time and probably end their
period of time that they would frankly be able
to influence children or be even connected
with children.
I'm going to vote in favor of this
bill. I've voted for it in the past. I would
simply ask if the sponsor gets a chance to
757
negotiate this bill with the Assembly that he
take a very careful look at including this
particular issue of neglect of children,
whether it rises to the same criminal
intentional level as the other ingredients in
violent felony offenses.
Senator Volker is absolutely right;
we have to a send a clearer message to parents
and to those people who have custody of
children that this is serious and this
violates our acceptable norm of conduct. But
by including it in violent felony offenses, we
may be sending an unintentional message that
combines it with directly intentional criminal
behavior, and that may not be the right thing
to do.
I'll vote for it with that
misgiving, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
758
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery, to explain her vote.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President. I'm going to vote no on this
legislation. I have voted no in the past.
And I just would like to clarify one reason
why I vote no, I want to be on record.
We've had a couple of cases in the
recent past -- one was a young mother who
unfortunately had an infant and had a dog, and
in desperation she went out of her apartment
looking for food, left the dog in the
apartment with the baby, and the dog ate the
baby because they were both starving to death.
We had a young mother who was, I
believe, breast-feeding her baby. There was
something wrong, the baby didn't thrive, and I
think the baby died.
And in those instances, and many
others like them, we could very well have
people charged under Senator Volker's law.
And it doesn't really give us the incentive or
it doesn't support the need to address the
symptoms that go beyond the issue of whether
759
or not you've simply committed a crime. And
in many instances where parents in particular
are involved and children are involved and the
question of abuse arises, I think we have to
be extremely sensitive and careful as to how
we define those situations.
So I'm going to vote no only
because I just want to be on record as not
agreeing so quickly to deal with the
criminalizing issue before we address the
question of symptoms that have criminal
outcomes.
So thank you. I'm voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery will be recorded in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
1. Senator Montgomery recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
43, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 858A, an
act to authorize the Congregation Shira
Chadasha, in the village of Great Neck, to
760
file an application.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
this is a piece of legislation that corrects
basically a problem in time. This
congregation purchased a piece of property,
the purchase of the property was after the
date when the tax rolls closed, and therefore
they were not able to apply for the religious
tax exemption that is afforded all religious
institutions in this state.
Now, if I could just jump ahead so
we could save a little time, I suspect that
the objections to this particular piece of
legislation might revolve around the procedure
and not the substance, and that the person
asking the questions might raise the issue we
should do this all at once as opposed to
consideration of individual bills.
And my response -- and again, to
truncate the discussion -- is to respond by
saying that's all well and good and procedure
761
is very important, but that won't do my
congregation here any good. They need the
relief now, they're entitled to it, and
therefore that's why I submit the bill for
this house's consideration.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, will the sponsor yield for just
a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR BALBONI: I thought my
explanation of the bill would have perhaps -
okay, never mind. Go ahead.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Short
circuited the -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
Could you tell me what date they
actually bought the property and how much tax
we're going to rebate here or allow the County
762
of Nassau to rebate?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I can.
It's Section 1, Block 99, Lot 360. And it was
24 Crampton Avenue, off of Middle Neck Road.
And the property was purchased on
September 18, 1998. And the taxes were
approximately $26,000 -- no, $29,500.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Sure.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is that the
amount of taxes from September of '98 to date,
or is that just for the '98/'99 year and
'99/2000 and 2000/2001? Is that all three
years or each year?
SENATOR BALBONI: I've forgotten
my calculator back in my office. But I'll
tell you what. After we pass the bill, why
don't you and I call the rabbi. We'll ask him
directly.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, will Senator Balboni yield to
another question.
763
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: I continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Do you know,
Senator Balboni, whether there was any
discussion at the time they purchased the
property about the fact that they wouldn't
qualify for the tax exemption?
SENATOR BALBONI: No, I do not.
I have not had any conversations with the
attorney who did this.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Balboni will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Does this tax
exemption include the '98/'99 real property
tax year?
764
SENATOR BALBONI: I would imagine
it does.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Balboni would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Does it
include the '99/2000 tax year?
SENATOR BALBONI: You know,
actually, I'm looking at it and I don't see
the '98 tax year. I don't see the '98 tax
year included on this.
So I don't believe -- I would like
to amend my response, Mr. President, and say
that the '99/2000 was -- the school tax was
$4,701.56 and in the '98/'99 was $3,410.22.
And the general tax was $2,254.51 for the year
2000 and $1,071.02 for the year 1999.
And as you recall, taxes are
assessed, perhaps differently than in your
county, at certain times. In other words,
765
half year is the school tax, and then the
general tax is assessed quarterly, so there's
a difference in the assessment times. And
that might explain the discrepancy as to what
tax they're asking to be rebated.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Balboni would
continue to yield.
SENATOR BALBONI: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: As oftentimes
happens both in my conversation or questions,
lots of other questions crop up.
My question is, does this include
the '98, '99, and 2000 tax years? This is for
all three years, is that correct?
SENATOR BALBONI: As to certain
portions of taxes, I believe so.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Mr. President. So is it fair to
say, Senator Balboni, that this congregation
not only missed the tax filing date once but
didn't it get it right for two straight years?
Is that correct?
766
Because they went through several
periods of time where they could have claimed
the exemption at the cutoff date. They
actually went through two or three rounds of
cutoff dates and kept missing them; isn't that
correct?
SENATOR BALBONI: As I recall -
and this is upon information and belief, not
exactly a sworn affidavit, Senator, so you'll
have to take my recall -- what happened here
was they closed and they went and they said,
Oh, great, now we'll get exempted from taxes.
And they said, No, no, no, that doesn't
happen. You actually must apply.
And they said, Well, what's the
problem? Well, let's go to the assessor's
office. They went to the assessor's office.
It took a little time to get a response. And
the response came back and said, No, you're
not entitled, because you need a special act
of the Legislature in fact to be granted the
exemption, because you did not file prior to
the tax date.
And they said, Oh, well, then what
do we do? And they said, Well, go see Balboni
767
and DiNapoli. And they did. That's why we're
here.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Balboni would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Did anybody
give them the advice that they might need to
go see you and Assemblyman DiNapoli for the
partial year that they owned the property, but
do you know whether they got the advice to go
apply for an exemption so for the other two
years they could get the exemption that
they're entitled to by law? They obviously
never filed the exemption.
SENATOR BALBONI: I do not.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Final
question, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Do you
yield for a final question?
SENATOR BALBONI: A final
question, yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
768
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, to Senator Balboni. This
amount of tax, how often in the past when
we've done these bills does the county
legislature in Nassau County award the taxes
back? Has it happened every time, to your
knowledge?
SENATOR BALBONI: I wouldn't
know.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Thank
you, Mr. President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again, I
appreciate Senator Balboni continuing to
enlighten me on the difficulties of taxing
charitable organizations in Nassau County.
I would suggest, however, that this
bill does something that I don't think we've
ever done in the past. We have often granted,
over my objection, for members from Nassau
County the Nassau County charitable relief
bill, which we seem to do a bunch of every
single year, in which we give them the ability
769
to avoid the same restrictions that apply in
Buffalo, that apply in Westchester, that apply
in Brooklyn, that apply in Queens, every other
place in the state, which they're required to
meet the tax status date. If they don't meet
it, they have to pay real property taxes.
As I've often said on this floor,
this is a both-ways law that's currently now
in effect. If the same congregation that
Senator Balboni is now seeking to relieve
their tax burdens, if they had sold the
property halfway through the tax status year,
they buyer wouldn't have to pay taxes until it
was recalculated. That's what the assessors
do in this state.
I would just suggest that we've
done this a number of times, it's the wrong
thing to do. There's a bill sponsored by the
chairman of the Health Committee that will
obviate the need for any one of the members
from Nassau County to ever come back and take
up this house's time providing tax relief for
congregations of all different types and
varieties from Nassau County, and we will then
set up a fair system where the people in
770
Monroe County or Erie County or Westchester
get the same benefit. Which is when
charitable organizations buy property, the
property ought to be tax-exempt from the date
of closing. I agree with that as a concept;
I've urged my colleagues in this house to
bring that bill forward.
And I would suggest that what we're
actually doing every time we pass one of these
bills is we're creating an attorney
malpractice relief program for my brethren at
the bar in Nassau County. Because nobody
should be allowing a tax-exempt organization
to buy a property without the firm
understanding of when its tax status date is.
And I would suggest that -- we do
this for everybody in Nassau County year after
year after year, and we give them a special
tax status in this state for people in Nassau
county -- let's give it to everybody in this
state.
I'm going to continue to vote
against these bills. They're wonderful ideas
for Assemblyman DiNapoli and Senator Balboni
and all the members from Nassau County. It's
771
wonderful that we extend this tremendous,
properly motivated benefit to the people of
Nassau County. It's a great idea. If it's
such a good idea, let's give it to everybody
else.
Senate 7325, sponsored by Senator
Hannon, will allow everybody to do it. Let's
have that debate at the end of the session.
I'll stand up and congratulate all my friends
from Nassau County for bringing this issue to
the floor and making it statewide. But let's
do it for everybody and not just the select
few who may know Senator Balboni and
Assemblyman DiNapoli or my other colleagues in
Nassau County. Let's do it for everybody,
Mr. President.
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, 56. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
772
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
51, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 394, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to allowing regional state park
police access.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: May we have
an explanation, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President, this is a bill which
merely expands the existing number of law
enforcement agencies and law enforcement
entities under Section 422 of the Social
Services Law that would have access to the
central registry for purposes of child abuse
investigations. And what it proposes to do is
to add the regional state park police to those
other law enforcement agencies that currently
have that access.
773
It's a bill which, incidentally,
we've seen in this chamber I believe on at
least two and perhaps three prior occasions,
and it has passed handily, if not unanimously,
previously.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. If the sponsor would yield,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: To what end is it
to share this list with the park police?
SENATOR SALAND: To what end?
This is not a sharing. This is the
ability to gain access to information that is
not available to the general public, it's only
available to law enforcement and for some
other related purposes such as research. The
reason is to further investigations of alleged
774
child abuse or neglect.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
SENATOR SALAND: May I ask,
Senator Duane, if you'd just -- I don't know
if it's my being a little clogged -- if you'd
speak up a little bit.
SENATOR DUANE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Why would a park
police officer be involved in an investigation
of child abuse?
SENATOR SALAND: Well, park
police have jurisdiction that expands beyond
the parameters of whatever park to which they
might be assigned. They are law enforcement
personnel, they have jurisdiction that's
tantamount to the jurisdiction of the state
police. They deal with any number of people
within the parameters of a state park, whether
they be people who are there temporarily, some
who reside in the area permanently.
They are called upon to
775
investigate -- there are incidents where they
have investigated incidents of child abuse and
where they've needed access, have been
required to deal with whatever local district
attorney had jurisdiction in that particular
county to gain access to the central registry.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I still am not
sure why it is that these particular police
officers would need to have this kind of
information readily available to them. Why
would a park police officer be involved in an
investigation of child abuse?
SENATOR SALAND: Why? The why
would be because he or she is a law
enforcement officer, they are called upon to
do anything that a city policeman, town
776
policeman, deputy sheriff, or state policeman
would do. They are called upon to accompany
CPS workers at times to sites where there are
reports of alleged abuse or neglect.
There could be relevance in
determining whether or not there had been any
prior reports filed with regard to a family,
to see whether or not the behavior that has
been alleged is similar, so as to establish a
pattern of prior similar allegations.
There's any number of reasons.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Why would a child
welfare worker not be the person investigating
an allegation of child abuse?
SENATOR SALAND: It's not
unusual, at least where I come from, and I
777
served as an attorney for a social service
department, for a child welfare worker in an
appropriate situation -- they deem
appropriate -- to bring in the local police.
And if you happen to be in a rural
area where perhaps the park police are the
only law enforcement agency that you can
readily access, I certainly would call them.
I wouldn't wait to get a deputy sheriff from
the other part of the county if time was of
the essence.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Even if it is the
case that a child welfare worker couldn't find
another police officer from the area and so,
you know, the park police officer lived next
door or whatever, why would that park police
778
officer need to have access to this
information? The prosecution is not happening
on the spot.
SENATOR SALAND: Could I -- I'm
not quite sure what the question was. But if
you could rephrase it, I might understand it a
little better.
SENATOR DUANE: Okay. I'm
accepting, although I'm a little surprised,
that a child welfare worker would not be able
to ask a police officer to come with them to
investigate a case of child abuse. But maybe
if, you know, they were in the other part of
the county or something and there was a park
police officer living next door, I could see
where a child welfare worker might ask the
park police officer to accompany them to the
residence.
However, I still don't understand
why that park police officer would need to
have this information, because the prosecution
is not happening on the spot.
SENATOR SALAND: In order to
effectively investigate under any number of
fact patterns, the relevance of conduct or
779
prior conduct or a determination as to whether
in fact this child had been the subject of
prior reports would be an appropriate law
enforcement function. It's done every day -
if not dozens of times, hundreds of times -
by law enforcement personnel throughout this
state.
And I would merely just add, we are
a very diverse state, Senator Duane. And what
occurs in the mid-Hudson or what occurs in the
city in terms of the ability to expediently
access your local police may be a bit more
challenging when you get into more remote
areas where you have significant expanses of
space and not a police precinct in close
proximity or not a sheriff's substation or a
state police substation in close proximity,
and you would seek whatever law enforcement
agency that you can get.
And certainly the park police -
and again, I would really reiterate what I
said previously. Your park police are duly
sworn law enforcement officers who have the
ability to do whatever else any of the
aforenamed law enforcement personnel could do.
780
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: As a living,
breathing example of our state's great
diversity, I think, I'm wondering -- again,
I'm yielding that you may need to have a law
enforcement person go with the child welfare
worker. I'm no longer disputing that.
However, I still don't understand
why, if a child is -- if there's been a report
of child abuse, why it is that that law
enforcement person would need to know anything
but that the report had happened at that point
to go and intercede in what's happening.
Why would they need to know? Or if
there's such an urgency that you can't get a
regular police officer, would the park police
officer then wait, look up the records, and
781
then go? I thought if time is of the essence,
shouldn't they just go and try to protect the
child?
SENATOR SALAND: This is not
merely contemporaneously with the
investigation of the incident. This follows
up subsequently as you do your investigation.
The central registry deals not only
with a child but also deals with the subject.
So the subject could be a parent, a custodial
parent. It could be somebody who had the
child in his or her custody, although not in a
parental relationship.
This does not require an instant,
on-site access to the central registry. This
is part of the normal police or law
enforcement process, the paperwork, the
investigation that ensues after you've had the
initial contact and if in fact you determine
that an arrest is appropriate.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you continue to yield?
782
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: We are talking
about increasing access to a confidential
list. And if we're going to be giving this
list to park police officers because they are
investigating child abuse cases, I'd like to
know what training park police officers have
in identifying and investigating child abuse.
SENATOR SALAND: Just one thing
before I respond to the question. One does
not get wholesale access to the names in the
central registry, if that's what your concern
is. You are requesting information based on
the subject of your investigation. You don't
get indiscriminate access. So I hope that's
not your thrust.
Secondly, these park police, as I
said earlier, are duly sworn. I could not
tell you with absolute certainty, but I
suspect that their training requirements are
at the very least the same requirements that
local municipal police have. And I would
783
assume that they would be comparable to if not
the same as the state police. These are not
peace officers, these are police officers.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: In light of what
you've just said, that means that park police
officers could make an arrest?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes. I think I
indicated that earlier in my remarks.
SENATOR DUANE: And finally, why
were park police officers not originally
included?
SENATOR SALAND: If I knew the
answer, I'd be happy to share it with you.
I do know that from time to time
there have been additions to the list of those
who have access to the records, and generally
784
they've been pretty specific and pointed and
narrow.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: I am concerned
about opening a confidential list to a new
group of people without a very high level of
discussion and scrutiny.
I'm also concerned and am going to
look into the kind of training that park
police officers get in the area of child
abuse. It seems to me that really the only
thing they need to know in a situation is that
a child needs to be removed from an
environment or a situation.
But I would be very concerned that
a park police officer would be that involved
in the investigation of such a matter. And if
a park police officer were that involved, I
would think that they should be working in
tandem with the district attorney, who could
then have access to these records.
So I am going to vote no on this
785
and hope that we have more time before this
goes through to really look at how these kinds
of cases are addressed both in terms of
investigation and prosecution.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Through you, Mr.
President, would the sponsor yield for a
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BROWN: I'm wondering if
it has been determined whether or not there is
any fiscal impact to passing this legislation.
SENATOR SALAND: I would not
think, if there was, that it would be of any
significant amount. To the extent that
somebody at CPS would be required to respond
to a call, it would be one of tens of
thousands that they receive.
786
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
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.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery, to explain her vote.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President, just briefly to explain my vote.
I've had conversations with Senator
Saland regarding this bill, and he understands
and I want it to be on record that I am not
opposing his intent to protect citizens in our
state by allowing access to this registry -
or access to information, I should say.
But the registry in fact is the
problem. I understand that -- I believe it
was Senator Spano has tried to make some
amendments to this registry so that it makes
more sense. But as it stands now, people who
end up -- whose names end up in this registry,
787
even if it's an unfounded accusation, their
names remain there for ten or twelve years,
based on the current law. Except for certain
circumstances; i.e., Senator Spano's bill.
So since that is the fact and there
are so many problems with that central
registry, it is not an accurate indicator of a
person's having some actual criminal activity
as it relates to child abuse.
So I'm going to vote against it,
because I think this is serious enough, I've
had enough people who have been denied
employment, denied all sorts of privileges
because their names appear in that registry
even though it's unfounded and they are not
guilty.
So that's why I'm voting no on this
bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery will be recorded in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
3. Senators Duane, Hassell-Thompson, and
Montgomery recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
788
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
57, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 358, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
providing for an additional annual
apportionment.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 57 by Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Mr.
President. This bill would amend the
Education Law related to contracts between
school districts, both in the duration and
also allowing the appropriation of the
building aid based on the numbers of students
going to the transferred-to school.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Morahan will yield
to a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan, do you yield?
789
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Could you
explain to me -- I mean, this bill seems to be
drafted with a specific pair of districts in
mind. Could you just explain the particular
nature of this bill? Is this designed to deal
with a problem that currently exists or a
situation that currently exists in your
district? And if so, could you explain the
background of that?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, it does
apply to two districts within my Senatorial
district. Although the bill is written
broadly enough that if any other districts
would find them themselves in the same
predicament, they could also avail themselves
of this particular act.
What happens here is we have one
school district, considered a poorer district,
that sends all of its high school students to
a neighboring school district that's
considered, under the formulas, a wealthier
790
district. This bill says that any school
district that does so do that -- and some of
these contracts are entered into in the state
of New York already between school
districts -- it saves one school district
building a whole new high school. Okay?
Now, currently they're only allowed
a five-year contract that they can make
between the districts. This says if a school
district is receiving in more than 50 percent
of its secondary-education students from
another district, they could use the other
district's building appropriations if that
indeed, if that appropriation is more -- in
this case, 40 percent versus 10 -- for the
building aid for the school.
It also expands the time in which
they can have this contract, so that the
receiving school district would have 15 years
that they can go into the contract, which
would allow them the time to amortize the cost
of building the new school and/or additions.
In the district of Tuxedo, the
school district of Tuxedo, they have to now
face one of two things, either rejecting the
791
school's students from the Greenwood Lake
district and/or building and expanding their
own high school.
They have no problem taking in the
students, but they would like to do it with
the building aid from the sending-in district,
and they want to contract long enough so that
they would bind that district long enough to
pay off the amortization of the building of
the school.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President. Just so I understand this,
this would allow the district that has a
greater indicia of wealth, when they take the
students from the other district, to use the
formula for building reimbursement in the
poorer district to, in essence, buy the new
space to accommodate the students from that
district?
SENATOR MORAHAN: If they're
taking in -- if more than 50 percent of the
population of the high school comes from
outside the school. If Tuxedo takes in
over -- if the Tuxedo school district's
population, secondary population, is in excess
792
of 50 percent coming from another district,
then it would apply. If it was less than 50
percent, it wouldn't apply. I think that's
reasonable.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Morahan will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is there any
provision in this bill if the population that
they take in drops below 50 percent?
In other words, I understand the
logic that says the wealthier district,
because it's taking in a very significant
population, should be able to borrow the
poorer district's increased aid formula. In
other words, you'd use the higher rate of
reimbursement, because you're building new
space.
My question is, what happens if
793
during the 15-year period the amount of
students actually drops below 50 percent?
Does that affect the aid distribution or the
way the agreement would work?
SENATOR MORAHAN: I believe it
would. But because they're in for 15 years,
the receiving school district would still be
protected.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Mr. President, if Senator Morahan
will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Do you
yield, Senator Morahan?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Mr.
President, I certainly do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: You've
mentioned the two school districts that I
assume are in your district that would benefit
from this legislation. What other application
would it have in other school districts in the
state, do you know?
SENATOR MORAHAN: It would have
the same applications for those who fall under
794
the same criteria.
I do not know of any other two
school districts that fall under that
criteria. And that's why I think this is an
urgent bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Mr. President, just one final
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan, do you yield for a final question?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Mr.
President.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I've actually
been final when I've said final, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Don't
toy with us.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Could you
just tell us, Senator Morahan, what the fiscal
impact to the state is in the difference
between the lower reimbursement rate available
in the wealthier district and the consequences
of the higher reimbursement rate for the
poorer district? How much more does it cost
795
the state if this bill becomes law?
SENATOR MORAHAN: I don't have an
exact number. But the fiscal note says the
impact on the state would be minimal.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, I thank Senator Morahan.
Actually, again, I thought that was a good
explanation of the complications of this bill.
Just on the bill briefly, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: We always see
the notion that these fiscal impacts are
minimal. I guess if you have a $12.8 billion
investment in public education, a couple of
hundred thousand here, a couple of hundred
thousand there will always be considered
minimal. But nonetheless, as the old line
goes, when you add them all together you may
be talking about real money.
Despite that, I still am going to
vote in favor of this bill. I think the point
that Senator Morahan makes -- that is, that
the kind of regional cooperation necessary to
796
build what is probably going to become a
regional high school, I think it's actually
more efficient if two school districts combine
their student populations to create a regional
high school of sufficient size to make the
kinds of programs that we'd all like to see in
high schools available.
You need a certain size to do that.
If you're combining school districts and
creating a single building, I'm not troubled
by the notion that you in essence get to
finance that additional space through the
resources of an increased aid from a
neighboring district. If you're taking in
their pupils, you should be able to, in
essence, borrow their beneficial aid formula.
I would suggest, Senator Morahan,
that whatever model seems to be working down
in your neck of the woods, I hope this bill
has more statewide application, because I
think the principle is a good one. We've got,
in my judgment, far too many school districts
in this state. We ought to be encouraging
consolidation.
This is a bill that may move us
797
down the road to at least consolidating at the
secondary level. And who knows, if it works
and it's successful, you've reached that size
necessary to make a good high school, it could
apply in middle schools and grammar schools as
well.
So I'm going to vote in favor of
this bill. I think it's a good idea. I also
understand the reason why it's got to be 15
years rather than five, because we have that
artificial five-year limitation in the General
Municipal Law for contracts between different
levels of government. I've often thought that
that's an anachronism we should get rid of as
well across the board and simply require a
finding of the need for longer-term
intermunicipal agreements.
So I think doing it for 15 years, I
understand the logic. I would suggest we do
away with the five-year limitation completely,
because it doesn't conform with the modern
realities of long-term financing of these
kinds of debts.
I'll vote in favor.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
798
Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Mr.
President. I too don't have a problem with
this. But did I hear the sponsor say
correctly that this only applies to one school
district in the state?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Do you
wish the sponsor to yield for a question?
SENATOR BROWN: Yes. Yes, if he
would.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan, do you yield for a question from
Senator Brown?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes. It is not
written for one district. In other words,
they don't specify in the bill this district
and X district and Y district.
What this says, it sets up a set of
ratios which happen to fit only one school.
And that criteria is that they would have to
be taking in 50 percent of their secondary
799
students from another district.
So any district in the State of New
York, as Senator Dollinger pointed out, that
did combine, then they could have the same
benefit of the bill. But it would have to be
the criteria of 50 percent or more -- or more
than 50 percent, actually, would have to be
going from one school district to another.
When we talk about the impact on
the state finances being minimal, the
alternative to this bill is that the school
district that's now sending its children to
another high school, their only alternative is
to build their own high school and get the
same aid. Therefore, I believe it's a minimal
impact.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
800
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
71, by Senator Velella -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Did you
say for the day, Senator Skelos?
SENATOR SKELOS: For the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
75, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 384, an
act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to
permitting.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, an explanation has been requested of
Bill 75.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
this would permit the parent, parents, or
legal guardian of a minor to be present during
any proceeding involving sexual harassment.
801
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. If
the sponsor would yield, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. I
feel as if we've been here before.
But I wanted to know why we haven't
made it so that a young person could choose
any adult to be with them during one of these
hearings.
SENATOR SKELOS: You asked that
question last year, and I'll give you the same
answer. I have parent, parents, or legal
guardian.
SENATOR DUANE: But through you,
Mr. President, if the child is a foster child
or, you know, a ward of the state and the
parent can't be found, what would happen in a
situation like that?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Do you
802
wish Senator Skelos to yield?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes, please. I'm
sorry, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR SKELOS: Was that a
question?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes.
SENATOR SKELOS: Then I'll repeat
my response. Because the legislation
specifically says parent, parents, or legal
guardian, I feel that's appropriate.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: In a case where a
parent or a guardian is someone with whom the
child does not feel safe to be in the presence
of to discuss one of these issues, would the
child have recourse to not have a parent or
guardian present but a different adult?
803
SENATOR SKELOS: The legislation
would require the notification of a parent or
both parents or the legal guardian.
SENATOR DUANE: So through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: So the child
would have absolutely no discretion about
whether or not notification of a parent or
guardian would happen under any circumstances?
SENATOR SKELOS: We're dealing
with minor children, so it would be the
parent, the parents, or the legal guardian.
SENATOR DUANE: Mr. President, on
the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm going to vote
no on this. I continue to think that this is
804
just too sweeping.
I think that there are many cases,
or there could -- and even if there's just one
case of a child who didn't feel safe having a
parent or guardian present after notification
to hear about something that may have been
happening at school, there is no way out of it
in this case.
And I think that we need to allow
for a situation where a young person could
explain to their counselor why they didn't
want their parent or guardian involved, and
that just can't happen under this legislation.
So I'm going to vote no on it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. Through you, Mr. President, if
the sponsor would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
805
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Picking up
on the point Senator Duane was making, I think
that we're talking about anyone under 18, and
I believe there are circumstances where it
would be a friend of the parent who was
accused of sexual harassment, or perhaps even
a relative of a parent, and a child, a 16- or
17-year-old, may not feel safe or comfortable
or able to express themselves in the presence
of the parent.
And I was wondering if any
consideration was given to a judicial override
provision such as exists in the area of
parental consent for abortion, where parents
sometimes are notified but in those statutes
there's almost always a judicial override
provision where, in a very difficult situation
where the parents really may not be helpful
and may in fact impede this, the child is able
to proceed without them.
SENATOR SKELOS: If there was a
problem within the family, then that's what a
legal guardian is for.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will
806
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: The
difficulty arises in situations where there
is -- no parental guardian has ever been
appointed, it's a troubled family, and the
child has actually been victimized by someone
who is close to one of the parents. And if
there's no legal guardian present, this
statute provides no out for a child in those
circumstances.
And I'm afraid that while it's
well-intentioned, it might have the effect of
actually damaging the proceedings in certain
cases like this.
SENATOR SKELOS: If you had a
serious problem, I imagine the child could
make an application to the Supreme Court and
have a guardian ad litem appointed.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Well,
through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
807
will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Are there
any provisions for legal assistance for
children to make such an application in these
circumstances provided by this legislation or
any companion bill?
SENATOR SKELOS: No, this
legislation specifically speaks to who must be
notified in the event there is sexual
harassment against that minor.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Thank you for your answers.
Through you, Mr. President, on the
bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I think
the -- I understand the intent of this
legislation. I think, though, that we have
808
raised a very troublesome area. There are a
lot of 15-, 16-, 17-year-old children here who
would be forced to have a parent notified of a
proceeding that they may not feel comfortable
speaking honestly at if the parent is there.
And, unlike other statutes that have been
drafted in this area, there is no override
provision.
And I would urge that -- I think
before we can make this into a law and deal
with an area that is of concern to a lot of
us, that sort of a provision would have to be
provided for. And I think that we should
really be looking for that before we pass a
piece of legislation like this.
So I will be joining Senator Duane
in voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I want to
reiterate what my colleagues -- the issue
809
already raised. And that is in some
instances, unfortunately, a parent or
guardian -- or a child who was in foster care,
the foster parents, stepparents -- these
people are the ones who are involved in cases
of sex abuse, very often, and harassment.
And what we certainly don't want is
to establish a situation where a child cannot
report this in the absence of the person
perhaps who is involved in the activity.
So I did legislation a few years
ago which would specifically allow youngsters,
children below the age of 18, to be questioned
regarding instances of sexual harassment and
sex abuse. So I think that we would be
cutting off the opportunity for the
authorities involved in the questioning to get
answers from youngsters and get testimony from
youngsters if we require that the parents or
guardians are present.
So I would vote against this for
that reason.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
810
act shall take effect in 30 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, would you recognize Senator
Hassell-Thompson, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, to explain her vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Would you
withdraw the roll call, please.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:
Through the President, I was trying to ask a
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, the roll call is withdrawn.
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President.
If the Senator will yield to a
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you yield?
811
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President. The question has to do
with how sweeping this bill is in terms of
parental permission. And I wondered if this
covers schools or just employment situations.
SENATOR SKELOS: It involves the
Executive Law -- amends the Executive Law and
it involves minor children who would be
employed by companies or entities that are
covered under the Executive Law.
Library districts -- for example,
in my home community there was a minor who was
sexually harassed by an employee. And the
library board and the attorney said, We have
absolutely no obligation -- this was the
president of the library board, the members of
the library board -- said, We have no
obligation to inform the parents that this
occurred. And they obtained a statement from
the minor child and the employee was told, Go
away. You know, the silent resignation. Go
812
away.
So all this legislation would say
is in this type of situation, that library
would have to notify this young girl's parent,
parents, or legal guardian that there was -
of the sexual harassment so they could
participate in any legal documents or at least
be notified about what occurred.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:
Through you, Mr. President, if the Senator
will yield to another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you. What sort of proceedings for sexual
harassment are covered? Are they only court
proceedings?
SENATOR SKELOS: No. This would
be a situation where the minor reported an act
of sexual harassment. It would then be the
obligation, in this instance, of the library
to notify the parents that the child had
813
complained to them of sexual harassment. And
they would then participate in any types of
proceedings that would occur from that point
on.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: But
report it to -- I'm sorry, Mr. President, if
the Senator will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you.
Report it to whom? Who would they
report to?
SENATOR SKELOS: Again, I'll use
the example. The library would report it to,
in this instance, this young lady's, this
minor child's parent, parents -- in this
instant, parents -- or guardian, legal
guardian.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: One
final question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
814
Skelos, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I'm
getting better at this than I thought I would.
I'm trying to be clear as to
whether this legislation would also include
school incidences as well. Or is this just in
the area of minors in employment?
SENATOR SKELOS: It would involve
anybody under the age of 18 employed by an
entity that's covered by the Executive Law.
So if it was a minor child working, for
example, as a summer intern in a school
district and they were sexually harassed, they
would be covered, yes.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect in 30 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
815
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 75 are
Senators Duane, Hassell-Thompson, Montgomery,
and Schneiderman. Ayes, 55. Nays, 4.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: No,
there is not.
SENATOR SKELOS: There being no
further business, I move we adjourn until
Tuesday, February 13th, at 11:00 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Tuesday, February 13th, at 11:00 am.
(Whereupon, at 4:31 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)