Regular Session - February 27, 2001
1055
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
February 27, 2001
11:07 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
1056
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of
clergy, may we each bow our heads in a moment
of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Monday, February 26th, the Senate met pursuant
to adjournment. The Journal of Friday,
February 23rd, was read and approved. On
motion, Senate adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Senator Skelos.
1057
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if I could interrupt, there will be an
immediate meeting of the Education Committee
in the Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Education Committee
in the Majority Conference Room.
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 Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, Madam
President. I move that the following bill be
discharged from its respective committee -
its committee and be recommitted with
instructions to strike the enacting clause.
The number is S1154.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered,
Senator.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
1058
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Excuse me,
Madam President. I just rise to make a point
of order.
Is that a motion to discharge that
was made by Senator Marcellino? And if so, is
the motion to discharge in order under the
revised rules of the Senate that were changed
a month ago?
THE PRESIDENT: No, Senator, it
was a motion to strike an enacting clause.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, again, with all due respect, I
believe the transcript will show that Senator
Marcellino said that he was moving to
discharge the bill. If that's the case,
although the motion, the subsequent motion,
once the bill is discharged, is a motion to
amend and recommit, the initial motion is a
motion to discharge.
Under the rules of the Senate as
adopted by the Senate, that motion I believe
is not in order without notice and other
1059
restrictions and cannot be timely made now.
It must be made -- I believe can only be made
by early February.
Madam President, if I also have the
floor, I'd be glad to be corrected if -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, if you
could wait a moment, please.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm conferring
with counsel on this issue.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
I believe the motion has been made by Senator
Marcellino, but it's been made on behalf of
the sponsor of the legislation, who controls
the legislation, so I think it's in perfect
order.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
that's exactly what we were conferring about.
And that is the interpretation of
the Senate at this time, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, could you quote the rule to
me that says that the -- on whose behalf the
1060
motion to discharge -- not the motion to
amend, because the initial motion Senator
Marcellino made -- again, I'll be corrected if
I'm incorrect on the language -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, I'm
going to interrupt you at this time. I've
made a ruling. If you wish to appeal it, you
certainly have the right to do that. I'd like
to proceed now with the business of the
Senate.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Marcellino, are you all
set?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, I concur with your ruling.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Can I appeal
the ruling of the chair, Madam President, with
all due respect.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment,
please, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: I just want to
point out that under our rules, it shall
require an affirmative vote of a majority of
1061
all members elected to overrule a ruling of
the chair.
THE PRESIDENT: That's correct,
Senator. And that's what we're proceeding
with at this time.
Senator Dollinger, I'm going to
raise a question for the members at this time,
pursuant to your appeal.
The question is whether the ruling
of the President of the Senate should be
overruled. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: First of all,
we'd like the chair to state what the ruling
is.
And, secondly, Senator Dollinger
has appealed the ruling. That's not just
something that he just gets up and says he
appeals. He hasn't been given the opportunity
to state to his colleagues what his objection
is, thereby giving all the members an
opportunity to know what they're voting for.
1062
So what I would like to request is
that the chair state for the record what its
ruling is. And then at that point, Senator
Dollinger would like to appeal the decision of
the chair. And an appeal is not just a
statement. He has -
THE PRESIDENT: One moment,
Senator Paterson, please.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, I'd like to clarify. I've already
stated my ruling. But pursuant to Senator
Paterson's request, I'll be happy at this time
to restate my ruling.
The ruling is that Senator
Marcellino made a motion to strike the
enacting clause. It was not a motion to
discharge. Therefore your appeal, my decision
on your appeal -- on your motion was denied.
I denied your motion.
Pursuant to your appeal at this
time, the house is -- will hear your argument
on your appeal at this time.
1063
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
I'm prepared to be corrected if I'm
mistaken. But what I heard Senator Marcellino
say -- and if I'm mistaken, I'll withdraw the
objection and we can get on with the Senate
business. But what I heard him say is that he
moved to discharge the bill, to bring it
before the house, and then made a motion to
strike the enacting clause. That's two
motions. First is the motion to discharge, to
bring it before this house so that this house
as a body can move to strike the enacting
clause.
My question for this house is,
where is the provision in the Senate rules
that allows a motion to discharge to be made?
There was such a provision for motions to
discharge in the rules prior to the amendment
of those rules by the Majority of this house.
There is no provision in the rules passed by
the Majority of this house, over the
objections of the Democratic Minority, to
allow a motion to discharge to be made.
Under those circumstances, Madam
1064
President, with all due respect, there is no
foundation in the procedure of this house for
a motion to discharge to be made by Senator
Marcellino. And I would add, Madam President,
we had an extensive debate over the rules in
this house. And those rules were passed over
by the Majority over the objection of the
Democratic members of this chamber.
But I would suggest, Madam
President, that having made the rules, the
last thing the Majority should do is now
disregard them completely when they remove the
power to do what Senator Marcellino wants to
do, which is to move to discharge bills. That
power does not exist under our rules.
With all due respect, Madam
President, you in your position as the
presiding officer cannot create it by
overturning my appeal. There is no motion to
discharge. Senator Marcellino was out of
order when he made it. And the ruling of this
chair seems to suggest that like, in Animal
Farm, there will be one rule for a particular
type of person in this house and another rule
for other types of people. And the
1065
differentiation will be made on the basis of
politics and not on the basis of rule-making.
I would strongly suggest, Madam
President, that we reread the rules and find
that there is no authority for a motion to
discharge. Even if it's for the time-honored
purpose for which Senator Marcellino did it,
which is to do something we've done forever in
this chamber: move to discharge, bring it
before the house, strike the enacting clause,
and send it back to committee, which is what
Senator Marcellino did.
But it is first and foremost a
motion to discharge, not a motion to amend.
And under those circumstances, there is no
authority for it in these rules. And I
strongly object to a set of rules that will
apply to Democrats and a separate set of rules
that will apply to Republicans, even if
they're done through the gloss of
decision-making in the chair rather than in a
strict application.
Madam President, I was fearful of
this when this issue came up in this chamber
and we talked about motions to discharge. I
1066
knew that we had done them as a routine
practice forever and that this would interfere
with our ability to do that.
I have no objection to Senator
Marcellino's motion except there's no
authority for it.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
party vote in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I concur with Senator Dollinger's
finding, with a slightly different
interpretation.
I think that what we have are
really two types of motions to discharge. One
is the motion to discharge where it is in a
sense an attempt to bring a bill out of
committee to have it voted for on the floor.
The latter would be what Senator Marcellino
was attempting to do, which was to bring a
bill onto the floor to strike the enacting
clause. And they are somewhat different, even
though they operate under the same name.
In the case of the latter, it's
1067
been our tradition to discharge bills out of
committee for purposes of maintenance rather
than immediate action. And that has been our
tradition in the chamber.
But Senator Dollinger raises a very
interesting point, and I think it's aptly
taken and brilliantly articulated, and that is
that what we have done in the past few weeks
is to change what would be termed the spirit
of debate here in the chamber. We have now
determined that we are going to have a very
scrupulous application of all rules here in
the Senate. And what Senator Dollinger is
saying is that that application has to apply
to this attempt by Senator Marcellino as a
motion to discharge. It's just another motion
to discharge, in its purest interpretation.
Unfortunately, the drafters of the
new rules didn't think of that at that time,
other than the fact that Senator Dollinger
suggested it when we had that debate. And
because we didn't heed his warning, he is in a
sense reminding us of the terrible truth of
what happens when you try to suppress a free
and open exchange of ideas and opinions.
1068
So whichever way we rule on this,
we'll all know that if we're going to have
this scrupulous interpretation of our rules,
we're going to run rampant with attempts by
different members to actually circumvent the
process around here. Which may in the short
term be inconvenient, but in the long term I
think reminds us of why we're here as public
servants in the first place and that our duty
is to steward the public's interest in the
law-making process.
I agree with Senator Dollinger:
Perhaps a slight inconvenience today, but of
long-term benefit to all of us in this
democracy.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: I want to point
out that yesterday there was a similar motion
by Senator Hassell-Thompson. And
unfortunately, Senator Dollinger, maybe you
weren't present or were out of the chamber
during the pendency of a quorum call
yesterday. I'm not -- but I didn't notice
your scrupulous objection to it yesterday.
1069
The point is what we have right
now, Madam President -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Point of
order. Point of order, Madam President.
SENATOR SKELOS: Are you asking
me to yield?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: No. I have a
point of order.
SENATOR SKELOS: Well, then -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos
has the floor. I believe Senator Skelos -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Point of
order.
SENATOR SKELOS: Number one,
Madam President, I think we are on a point of
order right now. So what I'd like to just
comment is that the motion to discharge is a
motion to suspend the rules for the purposes
of getting a bill to the floor for a vote.
This motion is totally different.
It is not what would be considered the
traditional motion to discharge, in which
there had been a recent rules change.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, may I be -
1070
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I raise, again, two points of
order.
One is, could you explain to me -
and again, with all due respect, have we voted
on this bill? I understood the Deputy
Majority Leader to suggest that he had already
cast a vote in the affirmative to uphold the
voting of the chair. If so, then there is no
longer a provision for debate on this.
And if Senator Skelos was
explaining his vote, I can understand that.
But I couldn't understand why the vote would
be interrupted to allow him to talk.
And, secondly, I raise a point of
order, Madam President. Is Senator Skelos's
personal comment to me about the quorum call
yesterday inconsistent with the rule that
requires civility between members in this
chamber?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, we have
the vote of the Majority. I've asked the
question. We've had arguments. I'll repeat
1071
the question. The question is whether the
ruling of the chair should be overruled. We
do not have a vote of the Minority. Could we
have that at this time?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Correct.
Madam President, I'm not authorized to give
it.
I would like to know how Senator
Skelos got the floor in the middle of a roll
call.
THE PRESIDENT: It was a point of
order, Senator. We have a question on the
floor. The question is whether the ruling of
the chair should be overruled. All in
favor -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I'd like to explain my vote.
SENATOR PATERSON: Wait a minute.
Wait.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead,
Senator.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Excuse me,
Madam President. I don't believe he's voted.
He just stated he doesn't have the authority
to have a vote.
1072
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino, your point is well-taken. Senator
Dollinger, could we please have the vote.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Dollinger and Senator
Skelos would like to vote at this particular
time -
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if I could just raise a point of order.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Now, how does
Senator Paterson have the floor if Senator
Dollinger has indicated that we are on a roll
call? If he wishes to explain his vote, he
can by all means explain his vote.
But we are on a roll call, and if
we could have the vote at this time.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
are you standing up to vote? That was the
understanding of the chair. Why do you rise,
Senator Paterson?
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
1073
President, there is no member of the Minority
that indicated that they were voting.
The Deputy Majority Leader, as he
has a right to do, got up and voted in the
middle of a debate. I did not at any point
indicate that I wanted to vote. Neither did
Senator Dollinger. Senator Dollinger asked -
he asked why Senator Skelos would get up and
discuss the bill after he had voted. But no
one here voted.
And the point I'm just raising is
that there is a time that is granted to
explain why there is a need to appeal the
ruling of the chair. Because one member or
even a leader gets up and casts a vote on
behalf of his conference is an indication of
how that conference feels. It does not imply,
or I should not infer, that I have to vote at
that time, because I'm still trying to
persuade whoever else hasn't voted that my
point of view should be affirmed.
THE PRESIDENT: The chair is
going to state the question again, and the
vote will proceed.
The question is whether the ruling
1074
of the chair should be overruled. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Madam
President.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
rise to explain your vote?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: No, Madam
President. I'd ask that you recognize Senator
Schneiderman.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, to
explain your vote. That would the proper
reason for standing at this time.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Well,
Madam President, as we have not yet voted, I
can't explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the floor. I'm going to ask for order.
The question is on the floor.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: If I may
be -- if I may be heard, Madam President -
THE PRESIDENT: I would like a
vote of the members on the question.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: We wish -
1075
just because we wish to be heard -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, I'm
going to repeat my question to you. Do you
rise to explain your vote?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Madam
President, if I may be heard very briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: To explain your
vote?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: No, Madam
President, to explain why I don't think we're
at the stage of this proceeding where we
should be explaining our votes. We haven't
voted yet. We're trying to be heard on this
appeal.
THE PRESIDENT: The question has
been asked, and the chair has asked for a
vote. All in favor signify by saying aye.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Madam
President, I move to withdraw the roll call
for the purpose of being heard.
THE PRESIDENT: The voting will
proceed. And I'm going to ask the question
again. All in favor signify by saying aye.
Senator Stachowski, to explain your
vote.
1076
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Well, I
usually don't take a real big part in these
kind of debates on floor procedure. But being
an institutional person, I kind of find this
rather interesting.
Whether or not, when the rule
change was made, that they wanted these common
procedures where we discharge from committee a
bill to amend it or not, it's still a
discharge from committee. And unfortunately,
when they drafted the new rules, nobody
thought of it. It's not my fault; I'm just a
member. I care a lot about the way this
institution is run. But the fact is if you
change the rules and eliminate motions to
discharge, you eliminate all of them, even the
simple ones to amend rules.
I'm sorry that that's the way it
is. Unless you can -- maybe you can produce a
piece of paper now that will suddenly say
except these, but I'm sure it wasn't in the
rules as they were changed on the day that the
debate took place, or on the subsequent days
after until this day.
It's not anybody's fault that the
1077
new senator did the same thing yesterday and
that nobody called on it. The fact is it
shouldn't have been allowed, because it's not
part of the rules anymore. The fact is, there
are no more motions to discharge.
If the chair at its liberty wants
to do two separate rules, the ones that are in
the book and the ones that the Majority feels
like using today, that's her prerogative. And
it's just good that everybody will have the
right to understand when they vote now that
that is the way the chair will operate, that
the chair will operate in a fashion that says,
If my Majority made a mistake in making the
rules and they point it out to me, then we
should have an exception because they didn't
mean not to exclude these discharges from
committee, then she can make that ruling
anytime she wants.
And she can proceed to make those
kind of rulings every day on the floor on
different matters, just twist the rules when
it's convenient for the Majority, and that's
okay, I got to live by it. And the reason I
do is because you can do it and they can do
1078
it. Does that make it right? No. Does that
make it kind of a black eye on this
institution? Yes. And that's the only reason
I rose.
And I stand with the challenge of
the chair. I vote yes on the challenge.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Stachowski, you will be so recorded as voting
in the affirmative.
Senator Paterson, to explain your
vote.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, because the roll call has now
started and another member has explained his
vote, I will go forward. But I really wish
that had not happened, because my position is
that we had not called the question because we
still had members to speak. Senator
Schneiderman was trying to get the attention
of the chair when the question was called.
And I think this opens up a very
dangerous precedent. And that is that
whenever someone wants to curtail discussion
and truncate debate, that they call the
question. And then I don't even know why we
1079
have debates around here.
Now, this would be apt conduct
perhaps in Bosnia, but this is the United
States of America. There was a debate going
on, and there was an individual who decided to
get up and record the vote of his party, which
he has a right to do. Either that was a vote
or that was his opinion of what the vote would
be. But my position is that one whole half of
the room should not be impeded by the fact
that the other half wants to have the vote.
So my explanation is that I am not
voting. I absolutely refuse to vote on this
measure, because I don't think that Senator
Schneiderman was ever heard. There was no
time limit that had been violated. This whole
procedure, as far as I'm concerned, has been
violated. I can understand that people are
upset and that they're angry about process and
maybe people manipulating the process. But
that's something that we're all upset about.
So maybe sometime when we're not
here and we're not embarrassing ourselves in
public, we'll sit down and work this out.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
1080
are you asking to be excused from this vote?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes, Madam
President. I cannot vote on this issue.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Under our rules,
I'd like to object to Senator Paterson's right
to not vote, refuse to vote. I believe under
the rules of the Senate every member is
required to vote unless they're abstaining
because of personal benefit, potential
personal benefit from the vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
you are not excused from this vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, to
explain your vote.
SENATOR DUANE: First and
foremost, Madam President, I don't think that
anyone can force a person to vote. We don't
have any -
THE PRESIDENT: Pursuant to
Rule IX, Section 1, Senator Duane, each member
1081
shall vote unless excused.
SENATOR DUANE: And what is the
punishment for not doing that, Madam
President?
THE PRESIDENT: Are you rising to
explain your vote, Senator?
SENATOR DUANE: Point of
clarification, please. What is the punishment
for not voting in this body?
THE PRESIDENT: That hasn't been
determined at this time, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: So it seems like
it's the Senator's freedom to not vote if the
Senator doesn't want to vote.
THE PRESIDENT: I already quoted
the pertinent rule to you, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: If you wish to
explain your vote, you may proceed.
SENATOR DUANE: Well, I certainly
appreciate your close adherence to that rule.
I do want to point out that there
wasn't a person who was sitting in this body
that did not hear a motion to discharge. I
1082
don't think anyone in this chamber heard a
call the question. I don't think anyone heard
a call on the motion that was made by Senator
Schneiderman.
And I'd also like to say that for
the most part, most of us have been very
civil, but there has been a breach of the
civility rules here. So not only have the
rules just been generally breached, but also
has the civility of this body been breached.
I have to say that my eighth-grade
class followed better debating rules than what
happened here. And I really think it's
appalling that rules -- which I opposed -- are
not being followed. It's really a disgrace.
And at the point that the transcript is looked
at, I think that those of us who have objected
to -- I think that those of us that have
objected to the process here today will be
vindicated. The rules have been breached
continuously here since one of our senators
put on the table a motion to discharge.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you are
in excess of your two minutes. Please wrap
up.
1083
SENATOR DUANE: Actually, I don't
think I am in excess of two minutes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: It's been 2½
minutes, Senator. And pursuant to the rules
of the Senate, I'm directing you to wrap up
your argument.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President,
what time did I start speaking? I wasn't
keeping track.
THE PRESIDENT: It's now over 2½
minutes. Please comply with my directive,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Did that include
the point of order?
THE PRESIDENT: Please wrap up
your -
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President,
I have to follow my colleague, Senator
Paterson -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm unable to
vote, and I will take the punishment for not
voting.
SENATOR VELELLA: I'd ask the
1084
Senator to abide by the rules and stay within
2 minutes.
I would just like to point out to
the younger members or newer members of this
house that I as a member of this Senate, in a
session which we had and the issue went to the
Court of Appeals, my vote was casted by
Lieutenant Governor Krupsak on behalf of a -
when I tried to abstain from voting and the
Majority members of this house tried to
abstain from voting on a vote for the Regents
of the State of New York. And Lieutenant
Governor Krupsak was upheld by the courts when
it was said that if we were in the chamber,
pursuant to the rules, that she saw us, she
could cast our vote in the affirmative, and if
we wanted, we would indicate that that was not
the proper way.
I therefore feel that the chair is
justified, and I vote -- I therefore vote to
support the chair.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam
President -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger. Senator Dollinger.
1085
SENATOR DUANE: -- please take a
vote -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Dollinger
has the floor.
SENATOR DUANE: Point of order.
Was the Senator just casting his vote?
THE PRESIDENT: The Senator was
explaining his vote, sir.
Senator Dollinger, do you wish to
have the floor?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, since I started this, I'll rise and
address it once again. The sense I get
here -
THE PRESIDENT: You may be heard
to explain your vote, sir.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, I will
explain my vote and why I'm going to vote to
overturn the chair. Because I was afraid that
when we changed the rules this is exactly what
would happen, Madam President.
When rules seem to be disregarded,
when rules seem to be read to us and aren't
read to the other side and Senator Skelos can
stand up in the middle of a recorded vote and
1086
then attack me personally without a rebuke
from the chair, without enforcing the rule
against incivility in this chamber, it seems
to me, Madam President, that that's where
chaos comes from.
And I would suggest that to those
who impose the rules on us, then don't follow
them, have them read to us when we violate
them, I would suggest, Madam President,
without the rules in place, we're not going to
have order in this chamber.
And with all due respect to the
chair, with all due respect to my colleagues
on the Republican side, this is what happens,
Madam President. There are one set of rules
for Republicans, another set of rules for
Democrats.
I go back to the fundamental
premise. The motion to discharge to amend the
bill was not in order under our rules, it's
not under the new rules ever going to be in
order until the rules are changed.
And the fact that Senator
Hassell-Thompson did it and I didn't object
then, quite frankly, I was waiting for someone
1087
on the other side to do it so that we could
have this debate about the new rules and what
they mean to Democrats and what they mean to
Republicans. They're not fair, and I would
suggest there's no reason to follow any of
them in the future if this is the way they're
going to be enforced.
I vote aye.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman, to explain your vote.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, Madam
President.
I cannot state strongly enough my
concurrence in what Senator Dollinger just
said. You cannot -- your efforts to enforce
order, Madam President, will fail repeatedly
if we don't have a set of rules that are
consistent, consistently applied, that we can
all understand. Right now in this house we do
not have that. We do not have a set of rules
that apply consistently to motions to
discharge. There were members on my side
waiting to be heard on this debate. And
somehow or other by Senator Skelos, which he
has the right to do, announcing a party-line
1088
vote, he cut off debate. That's not within
the rules of the Senate.
You have to have a set of rules
that all can live by, or you will have chaos.
I look forward to a restoration of civility
here. I look forward to a restoration of the
rule of law in this house as regards our
procedures. But until that happens, I'm
afraid you're going to have a very, very busy
session trying to maintain order.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino -
SENATOR MARCELLINO: When we're
talking about restoring -
THE PRESIDENT: -- to explain
your vote.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Madam President.
I would explain my vote, but one of
the points that I bring up is my colleague on
the other side of the aisle has just issued a
threat. And I don't see that. To threaten
this house with disruptive behavior I think
violates the rule of civility. I personally
heard no attack on Senator Dollinger by
1089
Senator Skelos. He simply pointed out a fact
during the debate that went on yesterday
afternoon.
This point of argument that we
have, we can have a disagreement and
maintaining civility along the way is all well
and good. But to threaten this chamber with
disruptive behavior unless I get my way simply
doesn't make any sense. We deal with
3-year-olds when they do that. We don't deal
with New York state senators in that way. And
we shouldn't be talking to our colleagues in
that way.
Now, if we're going to maintain
civility, let's do it on both sides. I argue
that this motion to discharge was not a motion
to discharge, it was a motion to strike the
enacting clause first and foremost. It was
not a motion to bring a bill on the floor for
a vote in any way, it was to strike the
enacting clause for a member.
Senator Dollinger admitted he
waited, didn't call on Senator
Hassell-Thompson's point, he waited for one of
our side to do it for political reasons. I
1090
think that is an objectionable way to behave
in this chamber and should never be done.
I vote nay.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Madam
President, if I may respond to that personal
mention, this was not in any way -
THE PRESIDENT: You may rise to
explain your vote, sir.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, thank
you. This was not -
SENATOR MARCELLINO: He already
explained his vote once.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Excuse me.
If I might seek a point of personal privilege
to respond to a personal accusation of making
a threat.
THE PRESIDENT: You may respond,
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I in no way am making a threat.
I'm sorry if I was misunderstood by the good
Senator. It is a simple prediction that I
think has been true in many, many
circumstances that if you don't have rules
1091
that all sides can understand, you have chaos.
That's all I'm saying.
I look forward -- and I'm very
sorry about that. I mean, as much as we've
had disagreements over the last two years
since I've been here, we have had good
debates. Things have, by and large, proceeded
quite civilly in this chamber. And I would
look forward to a restoration of that degree
of civility.
I don't think that having rules
that are applied in an arbitrary manner
benefits the Majority or the Minority in the
long run, and that's all that I was saying.
There's certainly no threat involved. We will
continue to try and work within the framework
of the rules. But it's not easy to do so when
the rules are changed on the whim of the
Majority.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will announce the results.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 24. Nays,
35.
1092
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion to
overrule the ruling of the chair is defeated.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Finance Committee in the Majority Conference
Room. And if we could adopt -
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could
adopt the Resolution Calendar, with the
exception of Resolutions 519, 611, and 628.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
adopting the Resolution Calendar, with the
exception of Resolutions 519, 611, and 628,
please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Resolution
Calendar is adopted, with the stated
exceptions.
1093
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
may we please take up Resolution Number 519,
by Senator McGee, have the title read, and
move for its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator McGee,
Legislative Resolution Number 519,
memorializing Governor George E. Pataki to
recognize June 3, 2001, as "Cancer Survivors'
Day" in the State of New York.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I cannot explain totally to
everyone the importance of this bill. Cancer
Survivors' Week is indeed something that's
extremely important for us. Cancer does not
strike just women, and breast cancer, but it's
men and prostate cancer. Cancer is a
devastating, devastating disease.
I just had the opportunity to meet
with a young man who is of the age of 50. He
is now going to be a survivor. His wife, as a
1094
matter of fact, is a survivor from breast
cancer. Cancer Awareness Week is a most
important thing. Cancer has the opportunity
or the ability to strike each and every one of
us.
So I think if we can be more aware
of this terrible disease, if we can say to
women, if we can say to men: Please guard
yourself, have your yearly checkups, talk with
your doctors. This is an extremely important
issue, I believe, and something that has a
bearing on us and our families and our
extended families.
So with permission, I would like to
open up this resolution to total sponsorship
by everyone, if I may do so. And thank you
for giving me the opportunity to speak of this
very important Cancer Awareness Week.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Thank you,
Madam President. I rise in support of this
resolution as a cancer survivor.
And I think early detection and
awareness of not only what to do to detect it
but how to live to prevent it I think is most
1095
important. And I commend my colleague,
Senator McGee, for her dedication to fighting
this very devastating illness. As one who has
gone through not prostate cancer, some more -
a cancer that may have been even more
life-threatening, I'm particularly mindful of
our obligations to ourselves to take care of
our bodies so that we can continue to protect
our families and to do those things that we do
so well, and maybe to do some of the things we
don't do so well.
So I stand in support of your
resolution. I commend you for your advocacy
for this awareness program. And I think it's
something that will join all senators together
regardless of political persuasion. And I ask
that my name be added to the resolution.
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
1096
adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
I believe I heard Senator McGee graciously
offer to open the resolution for sponsorship.
If the Minority would like to cosponsor, we'll
put all the members on the resolution. If
they do not wish to be on the resolution, they
should notify the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: All members who
do not wish to be on the previous resolution,
please notify the desk.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
could we take up my resolution, Number 611,
have the title read, and move for its
immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Skelos, Legislative Resolution Number 611,
memorializing Governor George E. Pataki to
proclaim March 2001 as Professional Social
Work Month in the State of New York.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
1097
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
thousands of our friends and neighbors across
the state depend on the critical care provided
by New York State's professional social
workers. New York's 23,000 members, some of
them who are in the chambers today enjoying
the proceedings, are members of the National
Association of Social Workers. They help men,
women, children of all walks of life.
As vital members of the health care
community, the impact of social workers can be
seen in virtually every corner of society.
From schools, health care centers, public and
private agencies, corporations, and all levels
of government, social workers provide direct
services and act as advocates to disadvantaged
and underserved members of our communities.
I ask my colleagues to join me in
recognizing the good work of all these fine
individuals, and would move the resolution and
would offer it up for sponsorship to the
entire membership.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
1098
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
All members who do not wish to have
their names on the previous resolution, please
notify the desk.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
on the Resolution Calendar, Number 627, which
passed, sponsored by Senator Marchi, honoring
the memory of Abe Beame, former Mayor of
New York City, Senator Marchi has graciously
offered to open up the resolution for
sponsorship.
So if we could put all members,
with the consent of the Minority, on the
resolution. If somebody does not wish to
sponsor the resolution, they should notify the
desk.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could take up Resolution Number 628, by
1099
Senator Rath, have the title read, and move
for its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Rath,
Legislative Resolution Number 628,
memorializing the Honorable George E. Pataki
to designate March 2001 as "Women's History
Month" in the State of New York.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Madam President -
and I'm proud to say "Madam" -- Women's
History Month needs to include not only the
designation as we are looking at it formally,
but for an understanding all throughout the
state of New York, and I'm sure as other
states are doing likewise during the month of
March, to point out that, I guess, the old
phrase "those who don't remember history are
doomed to repeat it."
And I think what we have as we have
looked at Women's History Month, lo, these
many years is a recognition of the
accomplishments of women down through the
ages. And although some of them might not
1100
have been what we might have considered major
and overwhelming breakthrough accomplishments,
they were the undergirding accomplishments
that allowed other people to go forward and
make breakthroughs.
The last 50, 75 years, women have
been making a lot of breakthrough
accomplishments. And as we recognize all of
those accomplishments in Women's History
Month, I would be honored to have all the
members of the Senate join me on this
resolution and ask for the opportunity for
cosponsorship for everyone.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted. And any member who does not wish to
be on this resolution, please notify the desk.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I hereby give written notice, as
1101
required by Rule XI, that I will move to amend
the Senate rules by adding a new rule, XV, in
relation to ethical standards for members,
officers, and employees of the Senate.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, that has been received and will be
filed in the Journal.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
I note that Senator Dollinger was very anxious
to make that motion. But I wanted to offer
Senator Rath's resolution up for sponsorship
by both sides unless Senator Dollinger
objects.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: We have no
objection, Madam President, and I thank the
Deputy Majority Leader for that courtesy.
THE PRESIDENT: And I will repeat
that any member who does not wish to be on
this resolution, please notify the desk.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
are there any substitutions at the desk? If
1102
we could make them at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read the substitutions.
THE SECRETARY: On page 8,
Senator Alesi moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Commerce, Economic Development
and Small Business, Assembly Bill Number 4446
and substitute it for the identical Senate
Bill Number 2241, Second Report Calendar 155.
And on page 15, Senator Volker
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Codes, Assembly Bill Number 1437 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 1083, Third Reading Calendar 106.
THE PRESIDENT: Substitutions
ordered.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could go
to the noncontroversial reading of the
calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
1103
President, just a point of order, ever so
briefly.
We've already had a debate. I
understand the ruling of the chair. I would
simply point out, as will happen again at some
point, those are motions to discharge, those
are motions to discharge bills.
And I again -- although we've had
this debate before, I don't want to bring it
up again, I would suggest we may debate this
some other day. But those are motions to
discharge that no longer have authority in the
rules, Madam President. I suggest the
drafters go back to work.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, for point of clarification, Senator
Marcellino did not make a motion. It was a
request. And these substitutions are not
motions, Senator Dollinger. There is no vote
taken on that type of an action by the Senate.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again, to
1104
continue the point of order, Madam President,
not to belabor it. But I believe you said
"without objection." That's because there's a
vote taken on that motion to make it happen.
And -
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think
those two words have been uttered by me this
morning, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And, Madam
President, Senator Marcellino started his
comment off -- I'll abide by the record.
Senator Marcellino knows it. It was read,
quite frankly, by the Secretary of the Senate.
Those were -- he moves to discharge. Those
are motions to discharge, Madam President.
That's what the point-of-order fight was all
about.
Again, Madam President, I don't
want to go through it again. But I would
suggest the drafters go back and look at their
own rules. Those are motions to discharge.
They have no foundation in the rules of this
chamber. We will debate it again.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us proceed,
members, to the noncontroversial calendar.
1105
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
60, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 1120A, an
act in relation to legalizing, validating,
ratifying, and confirming certain acts and
proceedings.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: A local fiscal
impact note is at the desk.
The bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
63, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 400, an
act to amend the General Business Law, in
relation to the possession, sale and use of
monomeric methyl methacrylate.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
84, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 1422, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to granting.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
1106
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
90, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 687, an
act to amend the Transportation Law, in
relation to disclosure.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
93, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 1137, an
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
designating.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
95, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 439,
an act to amend Chapter 912 of the Laws of
1920.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
1107
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
102, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 1679, an
act to amend the Eminent Domain Procedure Law,
in relation to acquisition.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you very
much. If we could go to the controversial
calendar at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
60, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 1120A, an
act in relation to legalizing, validating,
ratifying and confirming certain acts and
proceedings.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please, Madam President.
1108
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
I believe we're on Senator Seward's bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that's
correct, Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could lay
that aside temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
Senator Seward's bill was laid aside
temporarily.
If we could take up Calendar Number
63.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill will be
laid aside temporarily.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
63, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 400, an
act to amend the General Business Law, in
relation to the possession, sale and use of
monomeric methyl methacrylate.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
1109
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President. This bill, which passed the Senate
61 to nothing last year, would prohibit the
possession, sale and use of monomeric methyl
methacrylate, also known as MMA, in the
practice of nail specialty.
According to the FDA, MMA is a
poisonous and deleterious substance when
contained in nail products.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, on the bill very briefly.
This is a bill that we've passed
before. And I concur with Senator Skelos that
this is a public health consideration for
those who are involved in the nail practice
business as well as the clients that they
treat. I think it's consistent with our
continuing not only monitoring of the nail
profession, the nail practice profession, but
also to making sure that the public is not
1110
exposed to the kinds of dangerous chemicals
that are used in that business.
I'm not a user of those services,
Madam President, but I can understand the
people that are need to be protected. And I
encourage everyone to vote in favor of this
bill.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
84, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 1422, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to granting additional points.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
an explanation has been requested.
1111
Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Would you lay it
aside temporarily, please, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
90, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 687, an
act to amend the Transportation Law, in
relation to disclosure.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
Senator Duane has requested -
SENATOR WRIGHT: Lay it aside for
the day, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
93, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 1137, an
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
designating.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
an explanation has been requested.
1112
SENATOR WRIGHT: We will be
joined momentarily by Senator Alesi, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: In the meantime,
would you call an immediate meeting of the
Aging Committee in the Majority Conference
Room, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Aging Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: If we could take
up Calendar Number 60 before Senator Seward
leaves, we'll have him deal with that.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
The Secretary will withdraw
Calendar Number 93 and bring up Calendar 60.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
60, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 1120A, an
act in relation to legalizing, validating,
ratifying, and confirming certain acts and
1113
proceedings.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Seward,
an explanation has been requested by Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR SEWARD: Certainly, Madam
President. I'll be happy to explain the bill
before I leave for the conference committee
meeting on the Women's Health and Wellness
bill.
This bill would allow the Oneonta
City School District to obtain the state
transportation aid for certain contracts which
were not filed with the Education Department
within the required 120 days of the
commencement of the service under the
contract. And because of this administrative
oversight, the transportation aid which is due
the district was not -- is not forthcoming,
and there's no statutory authority for the
state to provide this aid to them.
And this bill would make that
correction and allow the transportation aid to
flow to the Oneonta City School District.
1114
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Will Senator
Seward yield for a question, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR SEWARD: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, what was the nature of the
administrative oversight that you described in
this case in the Oneonta City School District?
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, Madam
President, my knowledge of the situation is
that the personnel who were in charge of
submitting the necessary paperwork to the
State Education Department just simply missed
the deadline. And this is a situation that
we're looking to correct under legislation.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Seward will
continue to yield.
1115
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: With all due
respect to Senator Seward -- and as a lawyer,
the issue of missing deadlines is something
that happens all the time -- I guess my
question is, can you tell me what specific
conduct caused them to miss this deadline?
Was there confusion in the office?
And the reason why I ask is because
our state transportation aid has yearly
deadlines that must be met by every school
district, and there's 729 of them in this
state. And every year, three or four miss
them.
And I'm just wondering, is there
any particular conduct, anything that happened
in this case that makes it unusual that would
justify us relieving them from their default?
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, Madam
President, I can simply answer the inquiry by
saying this. I personally am not aware of the
1116
specific circumstances. It's been described
to me as simply they missed the deadline. But
I can assure you I've had personal
conversations with the superintendent of that
school district, and believe me, he has taken
measures to make sure that this does not
happen in the future.
Now, the issue before us is this.
Should the taxpayers of the Oneonta City
School District not receive the state aid that
totals $238,000, should they be bearing the
burden of this because of an administrative
oversight? I think not. And it's very common
in this Legislature that when there is no
statutory authority for the Department and the
State to provide aid because of circumstances
such as this in the past, we have passed bills
that have been signed into law by the Governor
to allow the aid to flow.
And that's all I'm asking to do
under this legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. I'll yield to Senator
1117
Lachman.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Through you,
Madam President, I have one or two questions
for the Senator.
Are you saying that there are
precedents for this, when a school district
does not come in under the deadline, for the
deadline to be extended for that particular
district? Or is this a precedent for the
Oneonta School District?
SENATOR SEWARD: My point was,
Madam President, that this is not -- this is
unusual for the Oneonta City School District
under these circumstances.
My point was that for other school
districts, other municipalities that have
faced similar situations, there have been in
the past special bills presented and passed by
this Legislature to correct situations where
either a deadline was missed or incorrect
information was filed, that type of situation.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Through you,
Madam President -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman.
1118
SENATOR LACHMAN: -- if Senator
Seward is available for another question in
this area.
SENATOR SEWARD: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: He is so
available.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Thank you.
Do we have statewide standards for
Oneonta, New York City, Mount Vernon,
Long Island communities as to when and under
what standards precedents are granted and are
not granted? Or is this just an individual
decision made by an individual?
So what I'm saying -- let me
explain the question further, Senator Seward.
If this had happened in the school district of
New York City, the Inspector General would
probably ask for the head -- not literally,
but figuratively -- of the individual that
failed in the filing. Now, if this applies to
Oneonta, why can't it apply to other school
districts in the State of New York, whether
these are urban school districts or rural
school districts?
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, Madam
1119
President, I would say this. It's important
to have deadlines. In this case, these
contracts were to be filed I believe within
120 days of the commencement of the service
under the contract. It's important to have
these deadlines; it's important to meet the
deadlines.
When they are missed for a reason,
then it's -- I think it's important for this
Legislature to give the statutory authority
for the Department and the State to provide
the aid to help with the local expenses.
I have had no problems in my 15
years here in the Senate in voting in favor of
legislation to provide that statutory
authority. And I would just ask you to do the
same.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may be heard,
Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
1120
Madam President.
I think the point that Senator
Lachman makes on this bill is a good one. And
that is, we set up rules, we set up a statute
in which we fund transportation aid, I'm sure
to the Oneonta School District in the sum
of -- I think the bill says $150,000, which I
assume is a single year's payment. It may be
more than that; it may be a quarterly
installment. We didn't get that in the
debate.
But Senator Seward is doing exactly
what his constituents demand, which is he is
advocating for them to obviate the consequence
to the taxpayers of missing a decline.
And it seems to me that this bill
falls in the same category of all those bills
we do for Long Island when all those people
buy those tax-exempt properties, when churches
buy properties and they're tax-exempt, they
fail to file, they fail to meet the statutory
requirement to get a property tax exemption,
and this house has passed bills -- all over my
negative vote -- to in essence relieve them
from their mistake.
1121
Senator Seward I think is properly
saying, Gee, why should the taxpayers of
Oneonta pay for mistake of one of the
bureaucrats inside the city of Oneonta. I
would just suggest, Senator Seward, that my
colleagues from the City of New York have a
tremendous argument. Since there are
$800 million in claims by the City of New York
against the State of New York for unpaid money
under the education program -- I believe the
number is $700 or $800 million. I come from a
city and a community that has, I believe,
about $30 million in pending claims, all of
which relate to some mistake or some failure
to qualify, or in some cases just an overt
failure to actually pay.
And while, Senator Seward, I think
that $150,000 is critically important to the
people of Oneonta, and I applaud you for
bringing their concerns to this chamber, I
would suggest there are people out there who
are owed millions of dollars in extremely poor
school districts, that the State of New York
ought to pay them.
And while I'm one of those who
1122
believes that mistakes by public officials
should not have consequences, in some cases,
to taxpayers, nonetheless, that's the real
world in which we live. We're about to in
essence give a get-out-of-the-jail-free card
to Oneonta. And I would suggest that there
are lots of school districts in this state
that are owed large sums of money by the State
of New York who should be paid as well.
So my view is, Madam President,
that this -- I'm going to vote in favor of
this bill. I've voted in favor of these bills
in the past. I hope this is the start of a
trend where the State of New York will pay its
claims to school districts around the state in
a timely fashion.
And the other thing I would suggest
to Senator Seward, that I have suggested to
others on the tax-exemption bills that we do,
is why not simply introduce a bill into this
house, into the Assembly, that gives the
Commissioner of Education the ability to waive
those time limits for good cause shown. In
essence, Madam President, we wouldn't allow
that law office or administrative office
1123
mistake to punish the taxpayers.
I think it's a good idea. That's
what Senator Seward is doing. We should make
a bill of general application so that we give
to the Commissioner the ability to pay these
expenses which are justly due and which are
only before us because of the mistake of a
single individual. That, in my judgment,
would be a better way to do it.
And I just hope that the Majority
in this house comes to the conclusion we
should start paying all the claims of all the
school districts for whom money is owed by the
State of New York.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a local
fiscal impact note at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
1124
Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam
President. If we could take up Calendar
Number 93.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 93.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
93, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 1137, an
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
designating a portion of the state highway
system.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: An explanation
has been requested, Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Madam President,
this bill names State Route 441 as the "Korean
War Memorial Highway."
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
1125
President, I'm going to vote in favor of this
bill. And I congratulate Senator Alesi on
putting this bill before the house. The
Korean War veterans in the Rochester and
Monroe County area deserve this highway to be
named after them.
I do have to acknowledge some
interest in the fact that this highway almost
dead-ends itself right at the front door of my
house in Brighton. And I guess I find it
continuing with the unusual things that
sometimes happen in this chamber that this
bill would come into the town of Brighton
virtually at my front door and doesn't have my
name on it, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you will
be so recorded as voting in the affirmative.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
1126
Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Can we take up
Calendar Number 95, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
95, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 439,
an act to amend Chapter 912 of the Laws of
1920, relating to the regulation of boxing and
wrestling.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: An explanation
has been requested, Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: First of
all, Senator Dollinger, I can't believe your
front door could be the dead end for anything,
so -
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: But in any
event, this bill is a bill to increase the
possible penalties for violations of the State
Boxing Commission rules and regulations.
Presently the law says the maximum
penalty is $5,000. This penalty came into
1127
effect in 1930 when FDR was President and Max
Schmeling was the heavyweight champion. We're
proposing to raise it to $50,000 for the first
offense and not to exceed $100,000 for the
second and each subsequent offense.
The purpose behind it is to put the
penalty in some kind of perspective, in view
of the changes in boxing purses from 1930 to
the year 2001. And it was really first
brought up after the Lennox Lewis-Evander
Holyfield fight, when there were some
questions raised about the relationship of one
well-known promoter with some of the officials
or at least one of the boxing officials.
That's what the bill is for, and
that's what it's intended to do.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Would Senator
DeFrancisco yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
DeFrancisco, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
1128
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, how often has the Boxing
Commission imposed this penalty in the past?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I have no
clue.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam -- Mr. President, I apologize.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Will Senator
DeFrancisco yield to another question.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator,
do you yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Do we know
how often or how much money has been collected
by the Boxing Commission because of these
fines in the last ten years or so?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No, we
don't. And I didn't think it was relevant,
1129
insofar as the point of a penalty is not to
raise revenue for any agency of the state,
it's to provide a realistic penalty for a
violation.
And $5,000 is not a realistic
penalty in this day and age. New Jersey has
penalties, the first one not to exceed
$25,000, the next, $50,000. And Nevada has a
$250,000 fine.
So it -- what we've collected in
the past I didn't think was important to find
out, and I didn't.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator DeFrancisco will
yield to one more question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does the
sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, how often has the Boxing
Commission actually found a violation of state
boxing rules in last five or ten years?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Once again,
1130
I don't know that either. But I do know that
if there was a violation in the
Holyfield-Lewis fight, the maximum penalty was
going to be $5,000. And I think they pay the
water boy $5,000 to bring in water during the
rounds. That was the reason for trying to
change this at this present time.
I don't know the amount of fines,
the number of times. I just think a penalty
should be commensurate with the seriousness of
the offense.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, just one more. Senator
DeFrancisco's comment brought up one other
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
DeFrancisco, do you yield for one more
question?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And again, I
don't know this, other than to find out. Was
a fine or a violation found in the conduct of
the promoters in the Lewis-Holyfield fight?
1131
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I don't
think so.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Just
on the bill briefly, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: This bill, I
think Senator DeFrancisco properly points out
that Max Schmeling was the heavyweight
champion of the world when we imposed this
fine. But it would seem to me that before we
can figure out whether the fine is a deterrent
or not, we should know whether the Boxing
Commission has ever imposed such a fine or
ever actually ever found such a violation.
And I would be concerned that -- I
know the Governor and others have had an
interest in promoting title fights in New York
City, either at Madison Square Garden or other
places, which I appreciate, understand and
think is a good idea. But it seems to me I'd
like to know whether the Boxing Commission is
really doing anything to enforce the law at
all with respect to violations of the rules
and regulations of the State Boxing
1132
Commission.
And it would seem to me that
increasing the penalty without knowing whether
they've ever actually found a violation is to
put the cart before the horse. If there was a
sense that we were imposing fines and that the
fines weren't deterring the conduct, then the
suggestion would be that maybe we need to
increase the fine to deter the conduct. But
without knowing whether we've actually found
violations, it seems to me we're enacting a
bill that substantially increases, brings it
up-to-date -- I don't oppose that. But we
don't know whether the Boxing Commission
itself is actually doing the job of
investigating and finding violations.
I'm going to vote in favor of this
bill, because I agree with Senator
DeFrancisco. We should come in line with the
other states so that they don't forum-shop and
come here because this is a place where you
can violate the rules of the Boxing Commission
with impunity. But I would suggest that
before this becomes a law of this state or is
considered by the Assembly or reviewed by the
1133
Governor, I think somebody should find out
whether the Boxing Commission is actually
imposing notices of violations in any case.
And without that evidence, I think
increasing a fine, not knowing whether the old
fine worked, not knowing whether the
commission works, that we're really putting
the cart before the horse.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Read the last section, please.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Wright, why do you rise?
SENATOR WRIGHT: If we could, Mr.
President, continue with the controversial
calendar, with Calendar Number 102.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 102.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1134
102, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 1679, an
act to amend the Eminent Domain Procedure Law,
in relation to acquisition of land by the
state.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Trunzo, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Thank you, Mr.
President. I have a bad cold and can't talk.
But at any rate, what this bill
does -- it's a very simple bill. It merely
provides that whenever the land is going to be
acquired by the state, there should be 60-day
notification to the local towns or cities,
villages, regarding the fact that those -
that the state wants to take over this
property.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I just a
have a question. In that 60-day -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Trunzo, do you yield to a question?
1135
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Would you
please yield to a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.
In that 60-day period, does the
local government have any option if this is
being taken by eminent domain?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Well, in eminent
domain they have the right to condemn. And as
a result -- you know, they've been doing it
many, many times. Currently the law permits
them to just come in and condemn a piece of
property without any notification to any of
the local municipalities that may be involved
and any kind of planning that may be going on
in that particular community that it could
affect.
So that at least there's got to be
60-day notice where a town or a city or a
village or whatever, or the county, can, you
know, contest and try to, you know, talk them
out of it, I guess, as far as that goes.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Through
1136
you, Mr. President, if you would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Trunzo, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields, Senator.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I couldn't
hear in the beginning what you were saying.
And I was just wondering what the options were
of local government during that 60-day period.
SENATOR TRUNZO: During that
60-day period, I would think that would give
the local government an opportunity at least
to be prepared for the fact that the state is
going to condemn the land. I don't think -
you know, they still have the right to
condemn. But the thing is that it has
happened in the past whereby the state did
come into a community and just condemn the
land, and that was it, without any notice.
And suddenly your town supervisor, your county
executives didn't know what was going on and
as to why they were condemning it and even
couldn't object to it even if they wanted to.
So basically that's what it is.
1137
It's merely a very simple bill to try to get
some semblance of order to have that happen
within your community.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you,
Senator.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Thank you.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Just on the
bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Oppenheimer, on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I see
nothing harmful with this bill. It just
doesn't seem to do a heck of a lot. But I see
no reason to oppose it, so I'll be supporting
it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, will the sponsor yield for one
question, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, would you yield for a question?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
1138
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
Senator Trunzo, could you explain
why you didn't include villages and other
districts like water districts, lighting
districts?
SENATOR TRUNZO: It's any level
of the government, really. Which are special
districts, commissions, authorities, all would
be involved.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But again
through you, Mr. President, I apologize, I
just want to clarify that question to Senator
Trunzo.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Trunzo, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
continues to yield, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The bill says
that prior notice of acquisition shall be
given to towns, counties, or cities. My
question is regardless of who's doing the
condemnation, why shouldn't they notify
villages if it occurs in a village or in
1139
lighting districts, pure water districts, fire
districts? As you know, I'm sure, there are
all kinds of other municipal-like governments
that might want to know about the condemnation
of the property.
SENATOR TRUNZO: There are many,
many special districts, as you know,
throughout the state. We are an entity of
local government in many cases. And
therefore, I think it would fall under that
category. When you say a local government,
the towns, the villages, the counties in the
state, they're all a part of local government.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Again
through you, Mr. President, just so I make
sure I'm clear. If Senator Trunzo would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I
believe he continues, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The bill as
it's drafted says that the condemnor, the
party taking the property, only has to give
1140
notice to the town, the county, and the city.
And I'm just trying to find out why you
wouldn't include villages, which are like
towns -- you know, they're municipal
governments -- water districts, pure water
districts, fire districts. They would have
the same level of interest.
Certainly I think in your neck of
the woods, Senator Trunzo, where you have
bigger towns, bigger villages than we do in
upstate, those districts have municipal-like
qualities about them. I'm wondering why you
wouldn't include those in the bill so that
they get notice too.
SENATOR TRUNZO: I guess the
reason for that would be the fact that those
districts, special districts, are created by
the towns, the people in the town. Therefore,
they are a part of the town government. Even
though they may be a separate level of
government, they are still -- they were
created by the town boards involved.
And therefore, you know, it's a
question of they could notify and continue the
notification to those various districts that
1141
are involved, the special districts.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay, I thank
Senator Trunzo for his explanation.
I'm actually going to vote against
this bill based on the explanation -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
Senator Trunzo, I understand the
need to provide for the condemnor, the party
taking the property, to give notice to other
levels of government. I agree with that as a
principle for intergovernment communication,
and a requirement that that notice be given.
But I'm going to vote against this
bill because I think it would be narrowly
construed to only require the condemnor to
give notice to the town, the county, and the
city. Independent villages that are
separately incorporated would not be included.
The special districts may be created by
counties, they may be created by us. As you
know, there are a number of districts in
Nassau and Suffolk where we have big towns and
big villages where we actually created the
1142
special improvement district and where the
actual people who sit on it may not be
coextensive with the town board.
So I'm going to vote against this
bill because I don't think it goes far enough
to give enough information to all the levels
of government necessary to achieve the
beneficial purpose of Senator Trunzo's bill.
I would suggest if it came back amended to
include towns, special districts, lighting
districts, water districts, pure water
districts that are within the area to be
condemned, then I would be in favor of it.
After all, when we condemn property
and the State of New York takes it, as Senator
Trunzo well knows, it becomes exempt from
taxes. And that's I'm sure the reason to do
it, is to let government know that we're
allowing the condemnor to take property off
the tax roll. And it seems to me before that
happens, all the entities that derive
revenue -- water districts, ambulance
districts, fire districts -- they should all
know of the impact of this before it happens.
I'm going to vote in the negative.
1143
It does a good thing, but it doesn't go far
enough.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Read the last section, please.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect in 30 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Oppenheimer, to explain her vote.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I'm voting
in favor of this bill.
But I would like the record to show
that villages are independent entities of
towns. It is true under the State
Constitution that we have to lie inside of
towns, but we are totally independent
entities. And in the future it would be
appreciated if the bill were to include
villages.
As a past village mayor, I can tell
you our government is large and encompasses
all the various elements of town governments,
and is totally and 100 percent independent of
1144
towns.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Announce the results, please.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr.
President. Could we lay aside for the day
Calendar Number 84.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is laid aside for the day.
Senator Wright, please.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr.
President. I believe that completes the
report of the controversial calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: It
does.
SENATOR WRIGHT: We should return
to reports of committees, and I believe
there's a report from the Finance Committee at
the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
1145
There is, Senator.
May we please return to the reports
of the standing committees.
SENATOR WRIGHT: I ask that the
report be read, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you. The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following nominations:
As a member of the New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority,
William G. Howell, of Rockville Centre.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Move the nomination. Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Mr. President,
I'll move the nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
question is on the nomination of William G.
Howell, of Rockville Centre, for a term to
expire April 1, 2006, as a member of the
New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
1146
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
nominee is confirmed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As members of the
State Fire Prevention and Building Council,
John H. Flanigan, of Slingerlands, and Robert
G. Shibley, of Buffalo.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Mr. President, I
would move the nominations.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
question is on the nomination of John H.
Flanigan, of Slingerlands, and Robert G.
Shibley, of Buffalo, for a term to be members
of the State Fire Prevention and Building
Council.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
nominees are confirmed.
1147
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a trustee of
the Power Authority of New York, Joseph J.
Seymour, of Glenmont.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Recognize Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Mr.
President. Thank you, Senator Stafford.
I just want to rise and support
Commissioner Joe Seymour. Just about a month
ago, we were here discussing and reviewing a
lot of what had happened with Clarence "Rapp"
Rappleyea, a colleague in the Assembly, as he
was leaving his service as chair of the Power
Authority in New York State. And we're here
today confirming the Governor's recommendation
and appointment in that position of
Commissioner Joe Seymour.
And all of us can be proud, and the
Governor certainly does himself proud by
recognizing how important energy is to the
people of this state and in this country. And
we have been reading and listening to all the
failures in California and in other states,
1148
but not in New York. But we recognize that
power creates a crisis if it's not there
sufficiently and at a moderate cost.
So the Governor in his wisdom is
taking an accomplished individual with high
energy, 30 years of public service, literally
from Yonkers, Rochester, across this state.
Serving as the city manager of Peekskill,
starting ground level, grassroots, everywhere,
including the Motor Vehicle Department, OGS
most recently. Everywhere Commissioner Joe
Seymour has been, it's an improved place, it's
a better place, and the constituency of that
municipality or of this state benefits.
So the Governor again is to be
commended for choosing an individual to lead
us through these next several years as it
relates to energy, power, and all the things
that that makes possible that accrues to the
benefit and the quality of life of all
New Yorkers.
So I congratulate and commend
Commissioner Seymour for taking the time,
having the will, having the desire to continue
his distinguished career in public service.
1149
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Thank you, Mr.
President. If I may, just to echo what our
leader has said here, that we thank the
Governor for sending us an appointment of this
caliber.
I've had the good fortune to know
Joe for a number of years, from down in my
neck of the woods. And we are most fortunate
to have a person of this experience, his
talent, of his caliber come forward to
continue to serve this state in a most
challenging and difficult area.
So I extend, with my colleagues and
the Majority Leader, congratulations, and once
again praise for the Governor for sending us
such a fine appointment.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Wright, please.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr.
President.
1150
I rise to join my colleagues in
moving the nomination of Commissioner Seymour.
As chairman of the Energy Committee, I've had
the occasion to spend some time with the
Commissioner in preparation for assuming the
leadership of the Power Authority.
And I think we all recognize the
important role that the Power Authority plays
in New York State, not only as a supplier of
energy to our businesses, our industries, and
our homes throughout this state, but, equally
important, as a leader in energy efficiency
and energy conservation. The Authority plays
a very prominent role in the state's efforts
to address those issues.
The Commissioner, as has been
pointed out, brings a strong managerial
background to the position of trustee and the
Governor's designation as chairman. The
Governor should be commended. He's had a long
personal working relationship with
Commissioner Seymour, he knows firsthand the
Commissioner's managerial capabilities and the
expertise that he brings to the job.
Looking for someone to provide the
1151
necessary leadership at this critical time,
the Governor could not have made a better
choice in designating Joe Seymour. If you
look at the responsibilities he has performed
over his 25-plus-year career in public
administration, he's worked at the local
level, worked at local government, and he will
be dealing with many local governments across
this state, and municipal -- munies.
He in turn has served in a
commissioner capacity in state administration,
and in that job has done a very admirable job
of governing and administering the Office of
General Services. And there are several
examples in his tenure as Commissioner that I
believe will speak to the expertise he brings
to this job as Power Authority chair.
For example, the Commissioner is a
proponent of clean fuel vehicles and has
chaired the state's Clean Fuel Vehicle
Council, implementing that first statewide
program and doing it very effectively, and
will continue to promote those initiatives
through the Power Authority.
As the Commissioner of OGS, he's
1152
worked very closely with the Power Authority
on energy efficiency programs, having reduced
OGS's electric bill by $3.5 million annually,
an example that all of us can benefit from.
And of course most recently as OGS
Commissioner, he's been working closely with
the Department of Environmental Conservation
in the construction of its new downtown
facilities, the first major green facility in
New York State, under the state's new statute.
So I think the Commissioner
certainly brings the background, the
managerial experience, the credentials to
serve as the next chair of the New York State
Power Authority. And as we move forward
addressing the energy concerns of this state,
we will need the strong leadership and
direction that the Commissioner will be
providing.
I'm very confident that the
Governor has nominated the right chairman.
I'm very pleased to endorse that nomination
and move for its support among my colleagues,
and wish to extend my congratulations to the
Commissioner. I look forward to a strong and
1153
long working relationship.
Best of luck.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Onorato, please.
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
I rise too to congratulate the Governor on his
wonderful nomination.
Now, I represent Queens County, and
I've gone over the Mr. Seymour's background,
and it's very, very impressive. He has
certainly a great expertise in the planning
and development of major real estate
properties.
And we are currently faced,
Mr. Chairman, with a situation in Queens
County where the New York Power Authority is
currently contemplating siting ten new
generating plants. I'm speaking specifically
of one which creates a major problem in the
Long Island City area, on Vernon Boulevard,
because it would interfere with the
development of the Silvercup Studios' plan to
develop a major television and perhaps movie
studio, and also in the development of further
residential community along the waterfront.
1154
We have not stated that we do not
want the generating plant. We have offered an
alternative site in a very, very close
proximity to the current location. I've
spoken with Senator Schumer, and he has
assured us that he is willing to participate
in providing additional funds for the
additional cost of moving the generating plant
from the Vernon Boulevard area to an area on
Borden Avenue which is approximately one mile
from its current location.
Now, I notice that you've -- in
your resume that you currently have situations
that you have been able to use your
imagination to solve these particular
problems. I and several of my colleagues are
currently involved in a lawsuit to prevent the
location and siting of that facility. There
is a temporary restraining order for that
particular site, and I am currently awaiting
the decision of Supreme Court Justice Joseph
Golia for his decision. And while that
decision is pending, he has urged both sides
to engage in possible remedies so that it
should not be necessary for him to render this
1155
decision.
So again, I commend the Governor on
this nomination. And I commend to you, with
your background of expertise, to be involved
in this new process. I know you're the new
man on the block, and this is your first
challenge. And I will do everything that I
possibly can to work with you to accomplish
these facts.
And again, congratulations.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Mr.
President. I rise to support this nomination.
Joe Seymour took over one of the
toughest agencies to operate, in my judgement,
in the State of New York, one that was under
many times criticism and so forth. And he ran
it beautifully well, without criticism, and
particularly all the work that he did with the
Schenectady -- trying to get all of those
people on the same page. I'm terribly
grateful to him and very, very proud of the
job that he's done.
And let me just say this, as a
1156
great supporter of our Governor and a close
confidant, I know that he is appreciative of
all that you've done for the State of New
York. Joe, we wish you well in your new
assignment. I know that this is an area,
particularly in the area of power, that is a
national crisis, if not international.
And we wish you well, and I know
that you're going to do a great job with the
Power Authority. All the best to you, Joe.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I rise to echo the comments that my
colleague Senator Onorato made as they pertain
to a particularly potentially harmful
situation that's going on right now in our
home borough.
And I brought this issue up during
the Finance Committee hearing on this nominee,
and I have every expectation that Mr. Seymour
will be a terrific NYPA trustee. And should
he be elevated to the chair of NYPA, he will
be in an even more impressive position to
1157
impact the quality of life and the quality of
economic development in Queens.
Senator Onorato is a hundred
percent on the money when he suggests that the
siting of one of NYPA's temporary generating
facilities is absolutely misguided. And we'll
be the first to tell you that we recognize the
need for additional generating capacity in
New York City, and particularly the short-term
generating capacity which we need by this
summer to prevent rolling brownouts and
blackouts.
But you don't cut off your nose to
spite your face. And to put this site in this
particular location, in an area that's already
overburdened -- not to mention the fact that
we have been in a lengthy process to redevelop
the Queens waterfront. And we know that
directly because the plaintiffs, one of the
plaintiffs in the lawsuit of Silvercup
Studios, that they may not participate in an
expansion of their facility as a consequence
of the siting of this facility. You just
don't do this.
Now compound the situation with the
1158
fact that there are additional sites which
have been offered, and Senator Onorato
referred to them. So this is not just a case
of NIMBY. This is not a "not in my back yard"
situation.
And, furthermore, Senator Schumer
has suggested that he can secure federal
funding to incur additional costs, should they
be necessary, in order to locate this plant on
an additional site.
And, finally, I have not heard any
evidence that the failure to site this one
44-megawatt facility by this June would lead
to catastrophic shortages of power this summer
in the City of New York.
This is a situation where
unfortunately we have to litigate it, and
there are some burdens in terms of putting up
a bond in order to prevent the construction
from moving forward. And it's going forward
right now. But this is one of those
situations that NYPA really needs to
reconsider this and do it immediately, because
we're hurting ourselves.
There's no reason to do this
1159
generator in this site. We've got other
sites, better sites, that will provide us with
the requisite power we need and at the same
time not compromise the residential
neighborhoods in that location and not
compromise the nice momentum that we've built
up in the development of the Queens
waterfront -- which is not just commercial
development, but it's residential development
working in concert with each other. We're
making progress finally, after years and
years, in that location, and this threatens to
hamper that progress.
So I wish Mr. Seymour great luck in
his new endeavor and strongly urge him to take
a look at the new sites that have been
proposed for this generating facility. And
with that in mind, that NYPA should reconsider
and just stop their momentum to put this site
there. This will be a wise public policy
decision, and one in which I think all parties
agree that the folks who are advocating not
putting the site here are not just saying we
don't want it in our back yard, they're saying
it doesn't make sense to put it in our back
1160
yard, here are the 15 reasons why.
So I wish the nominee luck, and I
am sure, after this thorough airing of the
issue, that he will take this back to other
trustees. And should he be elevated into a
capacity where he can directly influence the
process, we trust he will give this a thorough
airing.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Very briefly,
Mr. President. I too wish to echo what my
colleagues have said.
This is a remarkable piece of
property along the East River, along the shore
front. And to have an inappropriate power
plant would be economic disaster, both for
Silvercup and for the other potential
developers of the shore front property.
Nobody underestimates the need for
power plants. Others have been suggested.
And I certainly hope that the Power Authority
members will take into consideration the needs
of the community as expressed by Senator
1161
Onorato and Senator Hevesi. And I am
optimistic that the message will be heard and
that something will be done.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you.
Senator Stafford, can we move the
nomination.
SENATOR STAFFORD: It's a
pleasure to move the nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you. The question is on the nomination
of Joseph J. Seymour, of Glenmont, as a
trustee of the Power Authority of New York.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
nomination is approved.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Mr. Seymour is joined by his wife, Susan.
And we wish you well in your
1162
endeavors, sir.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Workers' Compensation Board, Mona A.
Bargnesi, Esquire, of Snyder.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
it certainly is a pleasure to move this very
fine nomination. And before I move this good,
excellent nomination, I have to mention -- Joe
Seymour is just leaving. I wouldn't want him
to leave without my mentioning what a
tremendous nomination his is. And we
certainly do wish him well.
Thank you so much.
And it's a pleasure to nominate or
move the nomination of Mona Bargnesi, who has
just a tremendous record. She graduated from
one of the fine colleges in the nation, and
she graduated from one of the fine law schools
in the nation. She's had a tremendous
experience in litigation. She in a very short
time has proven her ability. She has worked
for the Attorney General. And she also has
1163
worked in the private sector.
The Governor, as has been mentioned
earlier here, has made tremendous nominations.
He certainly has. And I have said it before,
and I'll say it again. These two nominations
that we're considering, Joe Seymour and Mona
Bargnesi, are the type of excellent
nominations, excellent individuals -
dedicated individuals, capable individuals -
that have proven that they're going to do a
fine job. It is a pleasure to move the
nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Mr. President, I
just want to also second the nomination of
Mona Bargnesi.
She's actually a resident of
Senator Rath's district. Senator Rath is now
down -- I believe over in wherever it is that
they're doing the conference committee on
women's issues and wellness. And so she
couldn't be here, but she asked me to speak in
Mona's behalf.
As Senator Stafford said, she is an
1164
excellent attorney and former Assistant
Attorney General, has a great background -
she's also fluent in Spanish and French, which
could be useful in some cases on the Workers'
Compensation Board. She has an excellent
education background. And I know that she'll
make an excellent member of the Workers'
Compensation Board.
And I congratulate the Governor for
the nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
question is on the confirmation of Mona
Bargnesi, Esquire, as a member of the Workers'
Compensation Board. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: All
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
nomination is confirmed.
Ms. Bargnesi, we wish you well in
your endeavors for the people of the State of
New York. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
1165
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could turn to motions and resolutions, I
believe there's a privileged resolution at the
desk by Senator Seward. I ask that the title
be read and move for its immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
We'll return to motions and resolutions.
The Secretary will read the
privileged resolution of Senator Seward.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Seward, Legislative Resolution commending
Alexis Saba upon the occasion of her
designation as a Distinguished Finalist in the
Sixth Annual Prudential "Spirit of Community"
Awards program.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: All
in favor of the resolution signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
1166
ayes have it. The resolution is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: No,
Senator, the desk is clean.
SENATOR SKELOS: There being no
further business, I move we adjourn until
Monday, March 5th, at 3:00 p.m., intervening
days being legislative days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
There being no further business before the
Senate, the motion is to adjourn until Monday,
March 5th, at 3:00 p.m., intervening days
being legislative days.
The Senate is adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 12:51 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)