Regular Session - March 7, 2001
1601
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
March 7, 2001
11:14 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
1602
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 all bow our heads in a moment
of silence, please.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Tuesday, March 6th, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Monday,
March 5th, was read and approved. On motion,
Senate adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
1603
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President.
On behalf of Senator Libous, please
place a sponsor's star on Calendar Number 181.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time have the noncontroversial
reading of the calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
44, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 859A, an
act in relation to authorizing the Chabad
Lubavitch of Old Westbury.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
1604
aside for the day.
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 PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
113, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 2015, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
definitions of criminal enterprise.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
115, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 106,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to the enforcement of the offense
of operating a motor vehicle.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
1605
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
118, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 1854, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to increasing the penalty for
obstructing access.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
119, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 2101, an
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
the temporary discontinuance.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
122, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 1360, an
act to amend the Administrative Code of the
City of New York, in relation to the
investment powers.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1606
125, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 2089, an
act to amend Chapter 164 of the Laws of 1907.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
129, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 1054,
an act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law, in relation to nonhazardous municipal
landfill closure.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
139, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 1533, an
act authorizing and empowering the village
board of the Village of Farnham, County of
Erie.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
140, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 1934, an
act to establish certain boundaries in the
1607
counties of Broome and Chenango.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
159, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 199, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to county responsibility.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
Senator Bruno, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam
President.
Can we at this time take up the
controversial calendar and call up bill -
Calendar Number 122.
And might I just add, while I'm on
my feet, that I see that the chairs in the
chamber are empty. And I want to remind
members that they are elected to be
representatives, and that our lives are one of
priorities. And the priority, while we're in
session, is to be in the chamber doing the
1608
work that we're paid to do and elected to do.
And we have a calendar that we did
not finish yesterday, and we are going to
finish that calendar today.
And we have a calendar for today,
and we are going to finish that calendar
today. And if we have to be here until later
in the evening to do that, we will be here
until later.
And if we can't finish our calendar
today, we will finish it tomorrow. And if we
can't finish it Thursday, we'll finish it
Friday.
And I see that we have some
youngsters here, and we welcome them to the
chamber. And what we're talking about is some
people who are supposed to be in school who
aren't in school.
(Laughter, applause.)
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Bruno, for those pearls of wisdom.
The Secretary will read Calendar
122.
1609
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
122, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 1360, an
act to amend the Administrative Code of the
City of New York, in relation to the
investment powers.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, this
is the same explanation that I gave to you
yesterday, but -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I did hear
your explanation. If you'd like, I would just
ask you to yield for some questions.
SENATOR VELELLA: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: My question
was, how would the economic state of affairs
be enhanced by the ability to use pension
money, as you said yesterday?
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, I
1610
think possibly my explanation was not adequate
to you. I didn't say that they were going to
be using pension money to invest in the life
insurance proceeds that the members of the
fire department are entitled to.
What it is is it will allow the
trustees of the life insurance company to
invest in same type of equities that the
trustees of the pension fund invest in.
Right now the life insurance part
of the package is limited to investing in
fixed-income items like a bond or some CD.
The pension funds can invest in equities, and
they have gotten a much larger return for
their money, similar to what other life
insurance companies do.
So we're just trying to make this
equal and give the fund the opportunity to let
it grow itself rather than become a burden on
the city or on the taxpayers.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I apologize.
That is exactly what Senator Velella said
1611
yesterday. His legislation was exactly that.
If Senator Velella would yield for
a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, how does this vary from the
practices of other life insurance companies of
the same kind? In other words, is this a
practice that is pretty straightforward and
one that is utilized throughout the industry?
SENATOR VELELLA: In substance,
it doesn't, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: It does?
SENATOR VELELLA: It does not.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Again, it's
probably my confusion. I'm saying that -
you're saying it does not in the sense that it
does not conflict with the same policies and
1612
the same investment powers of other life
insurance companies?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, that's
what I'm saying, in substance. There may be
some minor variation. But other life
companies are entitled to invest in these
equities, and they have to get legislative
approval.
So therefore, we're seeking to
allow the Senate and the State to give
approval to this firemen's fund.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President -
SENATOR VELELLA: Not the fund,
the company, the Firemen's Insurance Fund for
the City of New York.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Velella would yield for
another question.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I'm
curious as to the apprehension that people
might have, since we're investing in an area
where there's greater flux. As you reported,
1613
there's been a greater return over the past
few years -- well, there was a greater return
really over the past ten years, when the
Dow Jones average quadrupled from October 1990
to March 2000, as opposed to what's gone on
since then.
So is the option perhaps an
incentive that could seduce some of these life
insurance companies to invest in a way that
could actually inure to the detriment of the
funds?
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, if I might, through the chair, that
was rather a long, lengthy -- I'm not sure
what the question is. If we could get it down
to the point where there's a question mark at
the end, I'd be happy to respond. But I don't
know how to respond to the general statement.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
could you repeat and/or rephrase your
question.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. I think Senator Velella
wants me to repeat, rephrase, and restrict my
question. So let me reduce it to just this.
1614
The stock market is currently in
flux. If you have investments in areas where
you have the possibility of a wider return,
you also have the possibility of wider losses.
That might have been the reason that the fixed
investments were used previously.
And I'm just asking you, do you
have an apprehension that what would look like
a boondoggle in the mid-'90s is something
we're adopting as law and could actually be
detrimental in this decade?
SENATOR VELELLA: Thank you,
Senator. Madam President, I thank the Senator
for refining the question.
The answer to that is no, I do not
have an apprehension.
The members of that board for the
insurance company are the same identical
members that sit on the pension board. Their
investment policy has been very prudent and
very profitable for the pension fund. We
simply want to give the same opportunity for
the insurance part of the package that goes to
firemen to grow as well as the pension fund
has. And it is the same powers that other
1615
life insurer companies have to invest in these
equities.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Very good,
Madam President. If Senator Velella would
yield for another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes. But we're
getting to the end of the yielding, Madam
President. Let's marshal the questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you may
proceed with a question.
SENATOR PATERSON: Then,
Senator -- what I'll do, Madam President, I'll
take my last two questions and I will condense
them for Senator Velella.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
have an additional question? That's what
you're authorized to ask.
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes, I do, if
the Senator would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed
with an additional question. The Senator has
yielded for an additional question.
1616
SENATOR PATERSON: This is a
compound question, Madam President.
Number one, are the officials of
the fire department comfortable with this?
And, secondly, because of the presumption of
the investors, have they limited the amounts
of funds that could actually be invested in
this way?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, Madam
President. That is a good question.
Yes, the leadership of the fire
department and the city and the union
officials are all in support of this, and they
have limited it.
And it's a good question, because
we have built safeguards in, and I will tell
you what they are. No more than 50 percent of
the fund may be invested in securities. No
more than 5 percent of the fund may be
invested in any one corporation or its
subsidiaries. And no more than 2 percent of
the fund may be invested in a self-owned
corporation. These are the standards in the
industry. So these safeguards are there,
Senator.
1617
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, would the Senator yield for a
question from me.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator, when
we're dealing with the fire department's
basically pension funds, if there is a
sustained loss because of these investments,
how will that affect the pensions of those who
are currently receiving it if we diminish the
funds because of loss of investments?
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, I would just respond to say that
this bill has nothing to do with the pension
funds. Pension funds were mentioned as a
comparison as to the structure of the board.
The bill would not affect anyone's pension.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
1618
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Will Senator
Velella yield to a couple of questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for a few questions?
SENATOR VELELLA: I'll yield to
them one at a time, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: That's fine,
I'll deal with them one at a time.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you may
proceed with a question.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Velella -- through you, Madam President -- are
there currently bonding requirements for the
members of this board? And if so, by
expanding their power to invest, is there any
intention to alter, change or modify the
bonding requirements for members of the board
of trustees?
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, I
would respond yes, there is bonding
requirements as trustees and as officials of
1619
the fund. And no, there's no provision in
here to extend it. If there were, it would be
in the language of the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Velella will
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Are there
other parts of statute which prescribe those
bonding limits? Because we're giving them
additional authority to participate in
investments that they haven't been previously
enabled to do, which does carry a bigger risk
factor.
My question is whether there's a
statutory need to alter the bonding
requirements because of the greater risk to
raise the bonding requirements.
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, you
were out of the room when I mentioned that the
same individuals who sit on the pension funds
1620
board are the same individuals who sit on this
insurance company board. They are getting a
tremendous return on the pension funds, they
are getting a much smaller return on the
insurance funds because of the limit in their
availability to make prudent investments,
subject to the restrictions that I read a
moment ago.
We have not increased the bonding
because we felt that it was never an issue.
They are bonded by both the pension funds and
by the insurance company. And we have done
this many times for private insurers, allowing
the insurance companies to invest in broader
and more exotic financial instruments without
increasing the bonding.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, I agree with Senator Velella
that we have done that in the past where we've
increased their ability to place investments
in riskier funds, which of course can have the
upside potential of increasing return and have
the downside potential of lower return as
well.
The reason why I asked the question
1621
is because -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, are you
speaking on the bill?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I am. I have
one other question that I want to ask, but let
me ask that one other -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella,
do you yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President. Do we statutorily set the
amount that they're insured for errors and
omissions for trustees? And if so, because
this bill does create greater risk, is there
any intention to alter that requirement as
well, that the errors and omissions policy
that covers the trustees in their
administration of the fund, that we would
statutorily increase that as well?
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, the
response to that is there is no intention to
increase those provisions under this bill. If
1622
there were, it would be within the bill. It
might be a subject that you'd like to take a
look at for other possible legislation.
And I think we ought to be mindful
of the fact that the bonding and the security
factor is not to secure and to make sure that
the investment is profitable. We use a
prudent man test there. We have people who
are members of the fire department, officials
of the union sitting on these boards. Bonding
is there to make sure they don't steal the
money. I don't think that we have to really
worry about that. I don't think they're going
to steal the money.
It's not a guarantee. Just like
your pension and my pension, there's no
guarantee that the Comptroller of the State of
New York is going to invest and make a profit.
We have a guarantee that he's not going to
steal the money. And I'm pretty sure he's not
going to do that. And I'm pretty sure that
the people who sit on these boards are not
going to steal the money.
So I feel that the bonding and the
errors and omission policy questions all are
1623
something you may want to take a look at. But
I'm comfortable that we have people of
integrity sitting on those boards that are
going to make the prudent investments that
should be made.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: On the bill,
Madam President. I appreciate Senator
Velella. He's absolutely right about the
reasonable man test. He's absolutely right
about the difference between the E&O policy
coverage and the bonding coverage.
Madam President, the only point I'm
concerned about is that we have a history -
Senator Velella properly points it out -- of
allowing trustees of these funds to have
greater latitude in their investment measures.
That carries two risks with it, one of
which -- neither of which is actually covered
by bonding or by errors and omissions. And
that is the risk to the fund that it won't
produce a return or that the return will go
down. That, I agree with Senator Velella, is
all decided by a reasonable or prudent man
test.
But the bonding requirement is
1624
designed to prevent defalcation from the fund
or theft from the fund or embezzlement from
the fund, and errors and omissions is designed
to protect the trustees themselves and open up
a fund of money so that if the beneficiaries
of the fund find that those investments were
improvidently made or that there was
negligence in the administration of the fund,
that those funds -- the beneficiaries of that
fund would have access to a pool of insurance
funds.
I agree with Senator Velella. I
would presume that these representatives from
the fire department have the best interests of
their members at heart. I would point out,
however, that there is a legion of case law
all over this country where union members have
put their faith in their administrations of
trust pension funds where that trust has been
in some cases misplaced.
I'm not going to assume it here. I
simply want to make sure that the guy on the
street who's putting his money into this fund
has both errors and omissions coverage
statutorily created and a bonding requirement
1625
so that the individuals in the fund are
prevented from any malfeasance, whether
intended or otherwise, by the trustees of the
fund.
I don't mean to imply anything,
that anyone here has done anything wrong. But
generally when we do give greater flexibility
in investment decisions, we should as a matter
of statute require that the people who we give
that greater latitude with to play with other
people's monies, to invest other people's
money, that we simply require them to post
bonds of adequate measure and that we require
them to carry errors and omissions coverage
for the trustees, so that the beneficiaries of
those funds across the board are protected.
It's that simple.
I'm going to vote in favor of
Senator Velella's bill, but I would hope that
not only I would take a closer look at it but
certainly Senator Velella, who's been a member
and was certainly the chairman of the
Insurance Committee for a long period of time,
who knows these issues, knows them cold, would
look at this question of as we expand
1626
investment discretion in all of these funds,
that we statutorily require them to look at -
that we post additional bonds and that they
make sure that there's errors and omissions
coverage for the trustees in the
administration of the funds.
Thank you, Madam President.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, on the bill to close. Unless
there's other questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella,
on the bill.
SENATOR VELELLA: On the bill,
Madam President.
I think this is something that's
time has come. We have to give the
opportunity to this insurance factor in the
firemen's package of benefits the opportunity
to grow on its own, so it doesn't become a
burden to the members in higher premiums.
And I very honestly have taken a
look at the safety provisions. I would be
negligent in my duties if I didn't take a look
at the security of the fund and of the people
that are running the fund.
1627
And, Senator Dollinger, I have
100 percent confidence in the members of that
board. I don't think we have to raise the
bonding provisions. I don't think we have to
look at errors and omissions. I think they've
been doing a darn good job protecting the
firemen of the City of New York in their
pension funds, in their insurance package. I
have faith in the leadership of that group.
And I say that we have enough.
If you want to put in the bill to
increase the security factors because you
don't have the faith in them, fine. I'll vote
against that bill and I'll vote for this bill.
I move the bill, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, to explain your vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: To explain my
vote, Madam President.
1628
After the closing comments from
Senator Velella, which I appreciate -- and I
understand that he has extraordinary faith in
the representatives of the New York City life
insurance fund. I respect that. I respect
the individuals who are there. I think I have
no basis for doubting or, for that matter,
even suspecting that that wouldn't be the
case.
But I would just point out that the
faith placed in those who are there today can
change tomorrow when there are new trustees of
the fund. That faith -- circumstances change,
and that faith changes.
I would just point out, as I did
before, and reiterate, when we give broader
investment discretion to people involved in
these funds, there's legions of evidence -- my
gosh, the treasurer of Orange County in
California was a good guy who was trying to do
the right thing. He ended up, of course,
buying derivatives and costing the county
about $2.5 billion.
I'm just suggesting that to benefit
those who this fund was designed to protect,
1629
to make sure that their investments are
personality-proof, that they don't depend on
the particular individual in there, that
instead we set up a system in which we protect
their investment in the fund. The way to do
it is to increase the bonding requirement and
increase and provide for errors and omissions
policies. Just to add that extra level of
protection and make sure that no person is
going to be able to engage in nefarious
activities with these funds at any time in the
future.
I trust the people today. I'm not
sure they'll be there tomorrow. And that's
what we have to plan for, Madam President.
I vote aye.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Dollinger
will be recorded as voting in the affirmative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1630
90, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 687, an
act to amend the Transportation Law, in
relation to disclosure by common carriers.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
Senator Duane and others have requested an
explanation.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Madam
President, this bill has as its purpose the
protection of a group of consumers who require
the services of moving companies. It's a bill
which was prepared pursuant to the preparation
of an extensive report on this matter called
"Abuses in the Moving Industry: Reforming a
Troubled Business," which was prepared in
December 1992 by the Committee on
Investigations, of which I happen to be the
chairman.
The purpose of this bill is to
provide protection in the area of insurance of
personal goods when a mover transports them
1631
from one location to another. The legislation
will require the common carrier of household
goods to provide the consumer with a written
statement which explains the extent of the
liability for loss and protection extended to
the goods which are being moved.
Additionally, the common carrier
will be required to disclose all protections
available under the law, and pursuant to any
insurance coverage carried by the common
carrier. Moreover, the common carrier would
be required to disclose options available to
the shipper for making other arrangements for
insurance coverage in excess of the minimum
liability offered by the carrier.
The carrier is required to present
this disclosure to the consumer at least one
day before the move, and must also obtain the
consumer's signature acknowledging the receipt
of the disclosure statement.
If the carrier fails to provide the
required disclosure and obtain the consumer's
signature, then it's subject to full liability
in the event of loss, notwithstanding any
limitations contained in the contract or law.
1632
The common carrier could avoid liability only
if it could prove that it presented the
required disclosure to the consumer and the
consumer refused to sign the statement.
Finally, the Commissioner of
Transportation is charged with providing
guidelines for the form and content of the
disclosure statement.
This bill has passed in the Senate
every year for the last six years but has
failed in the Assembly for reasons that are
obscure. When requesting an explanation from
their house, they informed us last year that
it was caught up in a traffic problem, and
that there'd been no substantive objections
raised to the bill in the Assembly, to my
knowledge.
At this point I think I've given
you a fairly full statement. I just would
like to find out whether the questioner,
whoever he may be, has had a chance to read
this report, which fully discusses this
question.
Is it you, Senator Duane? Have you
had an opportunity to read this report? May I
1633
ask you to yield for just a moment?
Madam President, may I ask Senator
Duane if he would be good enough to yield for
a moment.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
could you repeat -
SENATOR GOODMAN: Would Senator
Duane please yield for a moment, Madam
President.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President,
I don't have the floor.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane
does not have the floor, Senator Goodman. You
do.
SENATOR GOODMAN: I'm aware of
that. But -
THE PRESIDENT: You have the
floor.
SENATOR GOODMAN: -- I wonder, is
it necessary for him to have the floor in
order to yield at this point?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane has
not spoken on this issue.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Senator Duane
took the floor to ask me to make my
1634
explanation, Madam President, if I'm not
mistaken. Is that correct? I was informed
that Senator Duane was the one who raised the
question. Therefore, he could have the floor.
THE PRESIDENT: You would like
him to yield at this time, Senator.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I would,
if he'd consent to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane,
will you yield? Can we move along here?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Duane, for your cooperation.
Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: When you raised
the question -- was it you who raised the
question regarding this bill?
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, he asked
for an explanation. As I said, Senator Duane
and others asked for an explanation.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I
understand.
Senator Duane, I would ask you as a
1635
matter of courtesy whether you've had the
opportunity to read the report which covers
this matter which was issued by the
Investigations Committee. If not, I'd commend
it to you, because I think you will find it
most revealing.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, no
response is necessary if you don't think it's
appropriate.
SENATOR DUANE: I just -- Madam
President, could the author of the report tell
me what year the report is from.
SENATOR GOODMAN: I've already
said that, Madam President. 1992.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President. Well, I don't really know
what I'm doing, because I don't feel like I
have the floor.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have a
question, Senator Duane?
SENATOR DUANE: I just -- I
wasn't here in 1992. I know the years
traveling quickly, but -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you're
either speaking on the bill or you have a
1636
question.
SENATOR DUANE: I do have some
questions, if the sponsor will yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
will you yield to a question?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. I'm wondering why this bill is
limited only to household moves and not for
business moves.
SENATOR GOODMAN: If you'd read
our report, sir, you would have noted that it
points out there have been substantial abuses
recorded in the City of New York which our
committee analyzed in detail. And amongst
these is related to the shipping of
personal -
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President,
I just -- I can't hear, I'm sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, we're
having difficulty hearing you.
SENATOR GOODMAN: May I ask for a
little order in the house, then, Madam
1637
President. Perhaps it will be easier.
This relates to the report of 1992
to which I referred a moment ago which
indicated there were substantial abuses
relating to the moving of consumer goods.
Thus the bill deals with that area
specifically.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm assuming that
the legislation pertains to intrastate moves.
Does it also apply to moves that are
interstate where the moving company is
incorporated outside New York State?
SENATOR GOODMAN: It applies to
amy move that occurs within the State of
New York, Senator Duane, regardless of its
ultimate origin.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
1638
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
do you yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: And conversely,
does the legislation apply to moves by
companies which are incorporated in New York
State but which move to -- carry out a move to
another state?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Could you
repeat the question? I couldn't hear you,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Does this
legislation also pertain to moving companies
which are incorporated in New York State but
where the move occurs from New York State to
another state?
SENATOR GOODMAN: I just answered
that question in the affirmative, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. I
apologize. I'm having trouble hearing, and I
don't always like to acknowledge that. But
1639
I'll just be more forthright if I don't hear
in the future.
I'm wondering if the sponsor would
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Through the last
ten years I'm wondering if the sponsor has
updated the information.
SENATOR GOODMAN: The question is
in the last ten years have we updated the
information? Yes, that information is
current, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, then the version that the
Senator was holding up is the revised edition
of the '92 report?
SENATOR GOODMAN: The '92 report
is still applicable to the current
circumstances, Senator. There's been no need
no revise its fundamental thrust. It would be
1640
an unnecessary expenditure of printing costs
to the taxpayer.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: So the sponsor is
saying that the information is exactly the
same or without any substantial changes from
ten years ago?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Do you want to
let your friend clarify the question for you?
Because I'm not clear what it is you're
driving at, Senator. Maybe he can help you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, could
you clarify your question, please.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm still trying
to clarify whether or not the sponsor is
saying that nothing has changed in the last
ten years in the industry.
SENATOR GOODMAN: I did not make
1641
that statement, Senator. You apparently did
not hear my statement. That's not the
statement I made.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
SENATOR GOODMAN: I'll yield to
two more questions, Madam President, and I
think that should suffice.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane,
you may proceed with one or two questions.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
the sponsor could tell me whether the New York
City administration supports this legislation.
SENATOR GOODMAN: The New York
City administration has previously indicated
full support, and their consumer affairs
department realizes that there have been
substantial abuses in the moving industry.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect -
1642
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I believe
Senator Dollinger had a couple of questions.
I'm not sure.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, I do,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, do you wish to have the floor?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, Madam
President, if I could.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
do you yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, Senator.
What is your question?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, my question is relatively
simple.
Does this provision apply to claims
for breach of contract? I know that the
statute talks about the carrier's liability
created by statute. And I assume it applies
to negligence claims. But my question is,
does it apply to a contract claim, a straight
1643
contract claim?
I give you $10,000 worth of goods
under a contract that you're going to deliver
them. For some reason, they aren't delivered.
Can I limit my breach of contract damages by
that -
SENATOR GOODMAN: This has
nothing to do with that particular problem,
Senator.
What this says is anytime a move is
made and there's a question involving
insurance of the contents of the move, that
this insurance will be fully explained to the
consumer and that the consumer will have to
sign a statement stating that the consumer has
received that explanation, wherein failure to
do this will provide certain penalties to the
carrier.
And we're trying to avoid a
situation, of which countless examples have
been contained in our report, which indicate
that when an individual takes insurance out on
goods that are being moved and that an
insurance claim is ultimately made due to
damage to those goods, that they then discover
1644
various defects in the insurance which they
never knew existed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Perfectly
explained, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 120th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, to
explain your vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I'm going to vote yes on this
legislation, even though I'm disturbed, and
I'm glad that I found out as a result of the
debate, how old the information was in the
report.
Surely a body like the New York
State Senate would be able to update its
information from nearly ten years ago. Nearly
ten years ago, Curt Kobain was still alive and
there hasn't been a war in Yugoslavia. So
much has changed since 1992. And I just think
1645
it defies reason that things have not changed
in the moving business since then.
In fact, I moved shortly after 1992
myself, and I can tell you that the cost of
moving has dramatically increased to the
amount that I paid just last month to move my
household goods.
So I am going to vote yes, but I do
want to caution everybody here that times and
circumstances do change.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Rules Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
The Secretary will read.
1646
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
113, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 2015, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
definitions of criminal enterprise.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LACK: Gentlemen, could
you excuse me, please.
Who requested the explanation,
Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson
did, Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR LACK: This bill seeks to
overturn a decision in the case of People v.
Nappo with respect to the state's Enterprise
Corruption Act, wherein the court held that
the structure of the enterprise is not
distinct from the alleged criminal activity,
and therefore it didn't come under the
Enterprise Corruption Act.
1647
And this bill was introduced by me
in 1998 and subsequently passed the Senate
three times unanimously, and this year was
reported out of the Codes Committee by a vote
of 19 to zero.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. If Senator Lack would yield
for a few questions.
SENATOR LACK: Yes, Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you yield?
You may proceed, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, it
appears that in the People versus Nappo case
from April 14th of 1998 that what the court
did was that it over -- it limited the
interpretation of what would be the enterprise
corruption standard here in the state.
So I think it's a good idea to
rewrite the law, because in that particular
case it appeared that the 13 men involved, I
think they were illegally bringing fuel into
the state -- I think that's what they were
doing. But in that particular situation, the
court held that though they were a criminal
1648
structure, there wasn't a pattern of conduct.
So in other words, it's just that
they did it once. And that certainly is not
what we would want to have, and not what the
federal RICO law provides.
If the Senator would yield for a
question, the question is, what does an
"ascertainable structure of criminal activity"
mean under the legislation?
SENATOR LACK: Madam President,
we don't change the definition of the
structure in this bill, mainly because the
court in People v. Nappo found that the
appropriate structure to utilize the
Enterprise Corruption Act was present in the
pattern of alleged activity of the defendants
in the case.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would yield for
another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack, do
you yield?
SENATOR LACK: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
1649
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Then, Senator,
if we're not changing the definition, is it
the definition of pattern of conduct that
we're changing? In other words, how are we
structuring this subsection 4 in the Penal Law
460-10? How are we changing that to
accommodate what we want to achieve in your
legislation?
SENATOR LACK: Madam President,
you know, the manner by which we write bills
in the State of New York doesn't allow the
original pattern of activity definition to be
included in the bill.
But, Madam President, Senator
Paterson is correct, we are changing the
definition of pattern of activity as contained
in the Enterprise Corruption Act to allow for
the fact pattern in People v. Nappo, that it
would be part of the Enterprise Corruption
Act, by in effect saying that the single -
what the court alluded to as a single pattern
of activity in effect would qualify under the
Enterprise Corruption Act. And then we have,
as I said, unanimously passed that bill in
1650
this house three times.
SENATOR PATERSON: That's
perfect, Madam President. If the Senator
would yield for one final question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack, do
you yield?
SENATOR LACK: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator,
you've pretty much covered what that
subsection would do regarding that particular
case. Do you anticipate that there's anything
in our enterprise corruption statute that you
would further like to correct in future
legislation?
SENATOR LACK: Well, Madam
President, not at this moment. The Enterprise
Corruption Act, because of the complexity of
the statute and the cases normally brought
under it, rarely have opinions such as what
happened in People v. Nappo. And as a result,
we have structured this particular bill very
narrowly to handle the People v. Nappo
1651
situation and have no further problems with
the Enterprise Corruption Act.
Unless sometime in the future some
judge someplace in the State of New York makes
a ruling like in People v. Nappo in which that
judge assumes something with respect to the
Enterprise Corruption Act that, in my
opinion -- and I would assume the opinion of
this body collectively, as shown in the
unanimous vote the last three times -- is not
what was contemplated by the Legislature in
the original 1986 passage of the Enterprise
Corruption Act.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you very
much, Senator.
Madam President, on the bill.
When I first took at a look at
People v. Nappo, I was pretty shocked that the
interpretation of the court in that case
really was so narrow and really didn't favor
the value of the public interest, in my
opinion. Because this was clearly a criminal
structure operating, such as the feds
prosecuted under RICO. And it was obvious
that this was, you know, what I would call
1652
racketeering.
But interestingly enough, the way
the statute is written, the court's
interpretation was probably right. So we did
need a correction to Section 460-10 and also
to the subsection 4 of the aforementioned
statute, and we've received that from Senator
Lack, and I thank him for his effort.
THE PRESIDENT: 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, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
115, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 106,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to the enforcement of the offense
of operating a motor vehicle with a suspended
license.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
1653
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Madam President,
I'd like to announce an immediate meeting of
the Higher Education Committee in Room 324 -
332.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Higher Education
Committee in Room 334.
Senator Marcellino, an explanation
has been requested.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Madam President.
This bill amends Section 511 of the
Vehicle and Traffic Law by striking the
stipulation "upon a public highway" from
paragraph A of subdivision 1.
The bill also adds a new
subdivision 8 which makes operation of a motor
vehicle while a license is suspended or
revoked an enforceable offense when such motor
vehicle operation takes place on private roads
open to motor vehicle traffic, or a parking
lot.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would Senator Marcellino yield
1654
for -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a
correction. The room number for the Higher Ed
Committee is Room 332.
Go ahead, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would Senator Marcellino yield for
a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, in
this particular bill obviously the public
policy is that whether the offense takes place
on public or private property really doesn't
make a difference, because the absence of a
valid license can cause problems in either
jurisdiction. Is that not correct?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: No, it's
not, Madam President. Through you.
Apparently there are judges who are saying
that since the law has the omission or the
1655
loophole in it that it doesn't mention parking
lots or private roads, that you cannot ride a
motor vehicle in this area without having been
subjected to the offense of operating a motor
vehicle without a license as long as you're
driving on those roads.
So that if you get into an accident
in a mall, for example, and you're driving
through and someone backs up and you hit them
and whatever, and there are injuries, you
could suffer the insurance damage. And if
someone is injured seriously, you might get
involved with a vehicular homicide situation.
But they can't fine you or they can't give you
the charge of driving without a license once
you're on that. The cases have been suspended
on that, or at least those charges have been
dropped.
We are hearing that police are no
longer even issuing the summons because of
such a loophole. So we're just trying to plug
the loophole.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would yield for -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
1656
yield?
SENATOR PATERSON: This is
perhaps a restatement of my question, but he's
actually answered it. That was actually my
question, Senator, that the fact that the
policy behind the intent of your legislation
is that the same types of problems that can
accrue from a person operating a vehicle
without a license are just as damaging on a
private property as they would be in a public
place.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: That's true,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Right. That
was my original question. The reason I asked
it was, does it -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
have an additional question?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes, I do.
I'm sorry, Madam President. If the Senator
yields.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You have the
floor for an additional question. The Senator
has yielded.
1657
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President.
Then, Senator, my question is while
we have plugged the loophole in this obvious
situation, have we not perhaps opened the door
where there is a distinction between what
would be private property as opposed to a
public place?
In other words, in your
legislation, absolutely. I'm going to vote
for this legislation. But what I'm saying is
in plugging that loophole, do we open up
another one when we include public and private
places under the Vehicle and Traffic Law?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Senator, we
tried not to, because we've exempted private
residences where the driveway, for example,
the private road might be a driveway leading
up to a one-or-two-family house. So we tried
to maintain an individual's right to privacy
and their private property rights in that
situation.
We are aiming at these roads that
may lead into cul-de-sacs where there are many
homes, where someone could, you know,
1658
rightfully say, if they got into an accident
on the road leading into it, might be a
private road leading into it and which exits
onto a main thoroughfare or a main street, and
the accident occurs and the police simply
cannot deal with them.
What they can deal with on these
private roads is a driving while intoxicated.
The DWI laws do come under that. They are
mentioned specifically in that section of the
law, but not the driving without a license
section. So we're just trying to close a
loophole.
But we did recognize your comment
about privacy and think it's well taken.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Senator.
On the bill, Madam President.
I think that this legislation is so
specific that it will not in any way touch on
the slight anxiety I have about the privacy
issue, and I think that Senator Marcellino
explained it.
Certainly the reason the loophole
had to be closed is we do not want to reward
1659
anyone through their own malfeasance of duty
for an accident or something, some other
situation caused by someone who was already
not abiding by the law, that they in that
respect are -- receive a protection that
someone who did abide by the law did not.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'll yield to
either Senator Duane or Senator
Hassell-Thompson, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. If the sponsor would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino, do you yield?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. I'm
wondering if the sponsor knows if one needs a
driver's license to drive on private property.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: To my
knowledge, you do not need a driver's license
1660
to drive on private property.
SENATOR DUANE: If the sponsor
would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Does this
legislation involve farms?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: I don't
believe so, Senator. But I do believe that if
you're driving on a road leading into a farm
that exits onto a subdivision or another
road -- a public street, for example -- then
the law would apply to that road.
If you're driving on the fields, in
and around the field, or you have a track on
the farm that you use to run a vehicle on or
whatever, no, it would not apply there.
But it would apply to the roads
that lead into, an entrance onto the -- I
believe that's the way the law was written.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
1661
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: My aide just
reminds me, and I'm to correct the statement
that I made to you just a few seconds ago,
that if the farmhouse has a one-family house
on it, under this bill it would be exempted.
I'll yield to another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane,
you may proceed.
SENATOR DUANE: Why weren't farms
included in the legislation?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: I'm sorry?
SENATOR DUANE: Why were farms
not included in the legislation?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: I don't
think they were excluded, other than the
exception that if there is a one-family house,
a dwelling, we try to recognize private
property on a one-family situation. So if the
farm is on how many acres, but it's one
family, it wouldn't be included by this bill.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
1662
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: What if it's a
rural property but -- with lots of acres but
without a working farm on it? Is that
included?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, it may well be excluded; it may be
included. We'd have to go into that. It's
something that -- we're talking about an area
here, we're trying to close a loophole for
areas where traffic normally occurs.
I don't expect to see traffic
occurring on that farm in that rural area that
you're talking about, Senator. I think we're
carrying it to an extreme on this situation
that probably would not include anybody. The
likelihood of multiple vehicles being on that
farm is next to nil.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
1663
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: It will be
my pleasure.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. I'm
wondering if the sponsor could help me define,
then, what a loophole is if it's not a place
where something is presently permitted but
which a law seeks to no longer permit.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, if I could define "loophole," I'd
be in your chair and you'd be down here.
Thank you.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if that's all it takes, I'll
come right on up.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
have a question?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, I'll
yield.
1664
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane, with a question.
SENATOR DUANE: Is there an
emergency provision in the legislation -- for
instance, if someone for, you know, an
emergency situation has to drive a car, is
there a way out?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: You're not
allowed to drive if you haven't got a license.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President. Not even in an emergency?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Call a cab.
Call a cab. That's my response.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. On the bill.
I guess the calling a cab comment
is what clarifies why farms were excluded,
because the cab service to farms isn't
generally that good.
I just think that if the -
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Pardon me, I
couldn't hear the last remark of the Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, could
you repeat your last sentence for the benefit
of the sponsor.
1665
SENATOR DUANE: I said, Madam
President, that I guess that we've now
discovered the reason why farms were excluded,
because farms traditionally have not had good
cab service.
Anyway, the -- I understand what
the intent of this bill is, but I don't think
it closes loopholes. And I think that we need
to have emergency provisions for emergencies.
And I think legislation of this sort should be
crafted to include those kinds of situations.
And I'm also uncomfortable with the
differences made between some kinds of private
property and other kinds of private property.
And I also don't really understand why it is
that a police officer, even though it was
briefly discussed, would be involved with
pulling over a driver on private property. I
just don't really see that many circumstances
arising that way, and I think it raises issues
of privacy and how it is that we define
private property.
So I'm going to be voting no on
this legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
1666
Hassell-Thompson I believe was next.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Yes,
thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple
of questions, if the Senator will yield.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: It will be
my pleasure.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you may
proceed.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Senator.
Would the penalties or fines that a
motorist would face be the same as those on a
public highway if the license is suspended?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: The answer
is yes, Senator.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: And
the other part of the question is, does in the
court, then, the motorist get the opportunity
to plead an affirmative defense in the same
manner as if they were on a public highway or
a street?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: My
understanding is yes.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay.
Thank you, Senator. Thank you.
1667
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, will the Senator yield for a
question?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: It will be
my pleasure to yield to the past president of
the Italian-American Legislators Association.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
Senator Marcellino, I notice in
here regarding the penalties for a licensee
who has been suspended, at what particular
time -- you know, there's generally a period
of time between the actual suspension and the
time that the motorist is actually informed
that his or her license has been suspended.
You know, what is the procedure to
be reassured that the individual motorist has
been notified that their license has been
suspended and the occurrence did not occur
prior to their notification?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: The section
of the law that we're pointing out, Senator,
reveals a person is guilty of the offense of
aggravated, unlicensed operation of a motor
1668
vehicle in the third degree when such person
operates a motor vehicle upon a public highway
while knowingly operating or knowing that your
license has been revoked or suspended.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, will the sponsor yield to
just to two questions? I'll do them one at a
time.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Senator
Dollinger, you have the floor.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you may
proceed with two questions.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
Does this apply to the use of other
vehicles in a parking lot? For example,
snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles that are not
allowed on public highways? Would the
operation of those vehicles in a parking lot
be the basis for enforcement of this statute?
1669
You understand I'm just saying that
there are certain vehicles which you can't
operate on a public highway. If you operate
them in a parking lot, would it apply?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: It would be
my understanding, Senator, as long as the
vehicle in question has a license requirement
to operate it, that this law would be in
place.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Madam President. So this bill
only applies to the suspension of a license
and the ability to enforce it in a parking
lot? None of the other vehicle and traffic
rules would apply, it's just that suspension
of license provision?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: We would not
exclude any other laws that are in place
currently. By this bill we are simply
plugging the loophole that we talked about so
that operating in a parking lot or on private
roads is in fact able to be enforced. That's
all we're doing.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just through
you, Madam President, one final question.
1670
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Sure.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: In devising
this bill, did you consider the implications
of allowing the police to in essence make
private property public with respect to issues
under the Labor Law, with respect to access to
public property for purposes of, for example,
union representation?
The only reason why I ask, Senator,
is that at least in my own practice, the
National Labor Relations Board and I think the
Public Employment Relations Board in this
state have had a huge controversy over the
course of the last 25 years about what
constitutes public property for purposes of
access by solicitors to public property in
order to engage in solicitation of employees
for other reasons. There's been a huge fight
over what constitutes public property.
And the general rule is that a
parking lot in a mall, for example, or a
parking lot in a supermarket, the parking lot
portion doesn't constitute public property.
It's only the sidewalk.
And my only question is whether
1671
you've given any consideration to the fact
that if we enforce the laws in a parking lot,
we're increasing what constitutes public
property for other purposes, labor law and
other purposes.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: No, Senator,
I don't see that as a factor. You open up an
interesting situation which might have to be
studied further.
However, most -- it's been our
experience, at least down where I come from -
and I don't think it's different in most
places -- most mall operators, most people who
operate strip malls or the like usually give
the police the right to come on and enforce
their traffic or enforce their own parking
restrictions. That's generally done by the
town boards when they issue the permits to
build and all the rest.
So we don't think we're changing
anything. We just think, as I said earlier,
we're allowing for a technical loophole here
to be filled, if you will, so that we can -
if a person is involved in an egregious act
and they operate knowingly, obviously they
1672
have to drive on the main roads to get to the
parking lot where the accident took place. So
they were committing a crime on the main road,
knowingly committing a crime.
Now they're in a parking lot. If
the accident had occurred two feet outside the
parking lot, they're liable for a traffic
felony for operating without a license. If
they go onto the parking lot, have the same
accident, you can't charge them. So all we're
trying to do is say yes, charge them.
And that, I think, further answers
Senator Duane's problem with private property.
Because most malls permit the police and
encourage and want the police to come onto
their lots to enforce the parking problems and
settle disputes that occur from them. They
don't want to have to hire their own police
force to go out and try to ticket people and
make them move when they don't want to move.
That opens up a whole host of problems. They
would prefer the local police to come on board
and do that job for them.
So we're not changing any rules
here, we're simply making the rules fair to
1673
everybody. Because right now if you operate
with a license, you're obeying the law, as
Senator Paterson said earlier, I believe. If
you're obeying the law, you're penalized on
that same parking lot where someone who is
breaking the law is not. I don't see how
that's a problem.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, just on the bill.
I appreciate Senator Marcellino's
explanation. I think it's right on the nose.
I agree that this is a loophole that deserves
to be closed.
The reason why I bring up the issue
of what constitutes public property for
purposes of enforcement of the law is that
there is a longstanding debate in the
enforcement of the National Labor Relations
Law and other laws about access to what
constitutes private property and what
constitutes public property.
And, Senator Marcellino, I agree
with you that most mall operators encourage
the police to come in and enforce and would
like to be able to enforce the suspension
1674
provision that you talk about. I think one of
the dangers, however, is that there may be
instances in which, for some reason, the
parking lot owner does not want the police to
come on the property. That may create a
problem sometime in the future.
But I agree with you. If this is a
violation of the law in the public streets, it
ought to be a violation on private property
that's open to the public, like a parking lot.
I just think it would be fascinating at some
point, Senator Marcellino, if this bill
becomes law, some crafty labor lawyer is going
to come up with the idea, Well, gee, they're
enforcing state law on this private parking
lot, and if that's the case, it loses its
identification as private property and becomes
more public and therefore should be accessible
to the public for other purposes.
It's one of those unintended
consequences of what we think is a good and
remedial legislation that may actually come
back to, at some point, haunt a landowner who
has let the police come in and enforce state
vehicle and traffic laws in his parking lot.
1675
That having been said, Madam
President, I still think it's a good bill, and
I'll vote in favor.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor
would yield for a couple of questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino, do you yield?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I'm
wondering how you came up with the exception
for property on which is situated a
one-or-two-family residence.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: It's not on,
the mike's not on. Thank you.
See, Senator Gentile, it's not just
you. I think it's some of us with names
ending in a vowel. We'll have to look into
that.
Because, Senator, we're trying to
1676
protect private property. We're just trying
to protect the private property owner, the
single-family dwelling, that two-family,
owner-occupied dwelling, so that the
imposition of -- police cannot come on the
private property. We're looking at that
limitation, that's all.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President, a concern I have that
unintentionally, I believe, this actually may
discriminate against low-income New Yorkers to
the extent they live in -- they're more likely
to live in multiple-family dwellings that
nevertheless have driveways around them, or
trailer parks. And -
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me,
Senator. Do you have a question?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes.
And -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, I
would. But I would also just indicate -- I do
yield to the Senator's next question, but I
would just like to indicate, as I am reminded,
1677
that this language is in the DWI section of
the statute. So we mirror Section 1192, I'm
told.
As you know, I am not an attorney,
I'm a civilian. And so I yield to staff on
the expertise on that. But this is mirrored
language that we took from one section of the
law to make it apply here.
So it already exists, that problem
you're talking about.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman, you may proceed with a question.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President.
Would you be receptive to
broadening this effort to address this
possible, unintentional discrimination that
exists, as you've kindly pointed out, in the
existing law, to try and accommodate more
low-income New Yorkers who live in
multiple-family dwellings, four-family homes,
or trailer parks?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: That's
certainly something we might look at. But I'm
not looking to amend this particular piece of
1678
legislation at this moment. But we'll look at
it.
Send us something -- quite
seriously, in all earnestness, if you can send
us something in writing, we'll be happy to
look at it.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Okay.
Thank you. Through you, Madam President, on
the bill.
I appreciate the sponsor's
courtesy, and I will follow up on that.
I do have a concern that in many
areas of the law, intended or unintended,
there exist many, many small instances of
discrimination against poor and working people
in our state. And I think that the difficulty
I have with the way this is drafted is that it
exempts property -- and it could be a huge
estate with lots of roads on it, but if
there's a one-family house on it, that's
exempt. Whereas a small area where several
people live in a four-family house or in a
couple of trailers that has a relatively small
area that would -- I would think would be a
more suitable target for an exemption from
1679
this rule, they wouldn't be exempt.
So I think that there is a -- if I
can put it this way, and I don't think this is
in any way intentional, there's a kind of a
class bias built into the way this is drafted.
I will take the sponsor up on his
offer to try and work with him to come up with
a solution to the problem. Because it's
clearly a well-intentioned bill that fills a
need that we have.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: To close debate,
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: If there
aren't any other questions.
But the -- I'm glad I listened to
the Senator's comments, because the further
explanation going into this class-bias
business bothers me.
If I lived in an apartment complex
where we had a parking lot, this bill would
apply. I think they would want it to apply.
Why should a person living in an apartment
complex or a trailer park, which may have
extensive roads leading in and around the
1680
various trailers, and to them, not be
protected from an individual who is driving
without a license?
Why should I be able to get in and
run somebody over in a -- I don't mean to make
light of this, but this is what you're saying,
I should be allowed to run somebody over and
not be ticketed for a felony because it's an
apartment complex.
I don't see that. We restrict the
one-family and the two-family house because
that's usually a local driveway, and it's
small and short. You're not going to get too
many other people on it but the owner. But
when you get into multiple-dwelling areas,
other people drive on those roads, and those
internal roads.
So, yes, this law definitely should
apply. That's not class warfare. It would be
class warfare to do it in the reverse, in my
opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
1681
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, to
explain your vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much, Madam President. To explain my vote.
I'm hopeful that the sponsor was
not implying in the debate that if someone
gets run over in a parking lot now there is
nothing in the law that would make it possible
to prosecute the person that did the running
over. Far from it. There already is -- there
already are laws in place to prosecute.
You know, I know that some would
say that debates are a waste of time. And I
disagree. I think that we've gotten a lot of
good information by having this debate on the
floor. I might say that it's a waste of time
in that this sort of discussion should go on
in committees, but that very rarely happens in
this body that this kind of discussion goes on
in committees.
So to have the debate on the floor
here today I think was helpful. We found out,
for instance, that you don't need to have a
driver's license to drive on private property.
1682
We discovered that there might be some class
bias in the legislation. You know, many
things. Debates are very good. Perhaps
we've, you know, encouraged people to update
ten-year-old information and that sort of
thing.
So I'm a big fan of having debates
on the floor, particularly when we're debating
bills that really should have had this kind of
discussion in committees but unfortunately
don't have this kind of scrutiny in
committees. So until that changes, I think
that it behooves us to make sure that all of
our questions are answered before we actually
vote on any piece of legislation.
But I will be voting no on this
legislation. Thank you, Madam President.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, to explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane,
you will be recorded as voting in the
negative.
And we need the Secretary to call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
1683
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, Madam
President, to explain my vote.
I'll state it again, there is no
class bias in any way, shape or form within
this bill. I don't think we discovered there
was. I think we in fact discovered there was
not.
The fact that we cannot run
somebody over on private property is clear.
We argue that that is true. What we're
saying, Senator, is that -- and through you,
Madam President, is that we would like to be
able to punish that person with the traffic
violation in addition to those other charges
that would be brought against them for
committing that heinous act. Right now they
get away with it.
You as an honest citizen who keeps
your driver's license current would not get
away with it, but someone who is careless and
just doesn't give a darn can get away with
that section. We don't think that's correct.
We think everybody should be held equally
1684
under the law.
Madam President, I vote aye.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino, you will be recorded as voting in
the affirmative.
Senator Stachowski, to explain your
vote.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Madam
President, to explain my vote.
I enjoyed listening to the debate.
And if there is in fact a loophole for people
with suspended licenses, then I'm going to
support Senator Marcellino's effort to close
the loophole, because I don't think people
should be driving around with suspended
licenses. I know that in some cases they do,
and they do it intentionally.
I mean, once in a while you have a
rare case where the wrong person's license
gets suspended by accident, and they obviously
still have their right to a proper defense in
the court situation, so that that would be
rectified.
But there are far too many people
driving with their license knowingly suspended
1685
because of either too many violations, no auto
insurance, or they lost their license because
of DWIs that they previously had and they're
currently driving without it, knowingly, and
someone else had got them their plates,
oftentimes the wife in the family. Or vice
versa, the husband got the plates and the
wife's driving without a license because she
had lost it.
So I'm not being -- I'm being
equitable in my gender disbursement of who's
driving without licenses because of losing it
because of driving either drunk or impaired or
whatever the charges were that finally caused
them to lose their license.
But there are a large number of
those people driving around. And if they were
getting away once in a while by being on a
private parking lot, this will stop that from
happening. I'm glad to see it happen, and I
vote yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, to explain your vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. I'm going to vote in favor
1686
of this bill.
And I just want to applaud Senator
Marcellino for including the home driveway
exception. I think every kid in my
neighborhood when I grew up who was between
the age of 13 and 16, we had the only house in
the neighborhood that had a little turnaround
in the back yard. And I think everybody
between the age of 13 and 16 drove my father's
car up and back and performed the K-turn,
including, at one point, Senator Marcellino,
my unlicensed 11-year-old brother.
So I think it's the right thing to
do. I think Senator Schneiderman's question
raises the broader issue of what do we do for
families that weren't in that situation. But
I know a whole group of people who learned to
drive in my father's car in our back yard
without his authority, without his approval,
without a license, and we're all still here
today.
I vote aye, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman, to explain your vote.
And Senator Stachowski and Senator
1687
Dollinger will both be recorded as voting in
the affirmative.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President, to explain my vote.
I am going to vote for this bill.
I think it's a good piece of legislation. The
issue that I was trying to raise before was
not intended to suggest any animus behind the
bias. I just am concerned that there's a sort
of a loophole left within the loophole that's
being closed.
And I wasn't thinking of -- listen,
a multiple-family dwelling, a 40-family
apartment house, of course this should be
enforced there. I'm thinking, though, that if
you have a large estate that has servants
coming and going and lots of activity, that
would be exempt under this rule, whereas if
you have three people living in trailers on a
piece of property, they wouldn't be. There
are many places in this state where you have
houses that have been converted to four-family
occupancy.
And I do think that there may be
room to adjust this with regard to the actual
1688
use of the property or, you know, some other
parameter other than just it being a one- or
two-family residence. I can understand,
listening to the sponsor, why that was
selected. I think, though, it does leave some
places out that should be included in and
includes some areas of driveways in that
probably should be excluded.
But overall, I can't disagree with
the intent and the thrust of this, and I will
try and make some suggestions for how to
improve it. I vote yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman, you will be recorded as voting
in the affirmative.
Senator Lachman, to explain your
vote.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes, on the
bill.
I want to commend Senator
Marcellino. Within the parameters of the
legislation, this does fill a loophole and
improves what has to be improved, especially
with people, whether they're young people or
middle-aged people or older people, who are
1689
driving around without a license.
So I vote aye.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
118, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 1854, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to increasing the penalty for
obstructing access.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maltese,
Senator Paterson has requested an explanation.
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, this bill is an act to amend the
Vehicle and Traffic Law in relation to
increasing the penalty for obstructing access
by a fire vehicle to a fire hydrant during the
time of emergency operation.
1690
The bill provides, as it states,
that during a time of emergency, if access by
a fire vehicle to a fire hydrant is impaired
by a vehicle left unattended by a licensed
operator, such person shall be in violation of
a traffic infraction and shall be the subject
of a fine of not more than $300.
Essentially, the change is adding
the fine of not more than $300 to the present
fines. And the stipulations are such that
there has to be actual access hindered by, and
the vehicle has to be a fire vehicle engaged
in an emergency operation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would Senator Maltese yield for a
few questions.
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, do we
have a fine for emergency situations where a
fire-fighting vehicle needs access currently?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes.
1691
SENATOR PATERSON: How much is
that fine?
SENATOR MALTESE: Well, that fine
is set out in the present statute. And a
first conviction shall be punished by a fine
of not more than $100 or imprisonment of not
more than 15 days or by both. A second
violation -- a second conviction within 18
months would be $200 or 45 days. And a third
conviction would be $300. And that of course
would be added -- that would be added to the
$300 that this legislation would add.
This legislation is not simply for
a hydrant being -- the space in front of a
hydrant being occupied within the foot
limitation. This is actual -- if an actual
emergency take places and the hindrance
actually takes place.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. If Senator Maltese will
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Madam
President.
1692
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
appreciate that you drew up the legislation
with the intent of an emergency situation in
mind, because normally, with the overcrowded
parking conditions, particularly in New York
City, with which you and I are both familiar,
a technical violation could be a car whose
wheel exceeds the limitation. And that kind
of a fine I think would be prohibitive.
But because it's an emergency
situation and because there is actual limited
access, I think the bill is drawn up very
well.
My question relates to the vehicle
itself. Do we tow the vehicle and then also
pass that cost along to the operator in
addition to the fine? Or have you any
suggestion for what happens to the vehicle
when the access is limited?
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, it's not set forth in the law, but
I am familiar with what the fire personnel do.
As a matter of fact, I have actually seen them
1693
with the hose, the nozzle of the hose, break
through the glass on one side of the vehicle,
break through the glass on the other side of
the vehicle, and take the hose through the
vehicle. Which is not necessarily beneficial
to the vehicle itself, but certainly makes a
good point.
In addition, I assume all the
normal towing rules would apply and the
vehicle, when towed, would be subject to the
increased fines.
SENATOR PATERSON: And a final
question for Senator Maltese.
You haven't changed the likelihood
of imprisonment that exists in the law right
now, have you?
SENATOR MALTESE: No, I have not.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Senator.
Madam President, on the bill. I
don't have any further questions. This is
fine. I'm sorry we don't have a fire hydrant
in the chamber. That way maybe I could get
some water right now. I've been debating for
a long time.
1694
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
Senator Onorato, to explain your
vote.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, will the Senator yield to a
question?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator
Maltese, just for clarification, what defines
obstruction of the fire hydrant? You know,
sometimes there's markings that are not
visible. Some fire hydrants are actually
marked with the amount of feet that you're
supposed to allow for clearance.
Now, are you referring to strictly
that if they're directly in front of the
hydrant that they cannot actually get their
hose to it without going through the
windshield or through the side window -- say
if it's five or six feet or eight feet, rather
than the current law, whatever that happens to
be, 18 feet, which I'm not completely familiar
with. I'd just like a clarification of that
aspect of it.
1695
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, the normal distance required by the
signage at the location would apply. It's
normally within 15 feet, as set forth in the
law, unless there's another sign at the
location itself.
So in this case I believe the law
would apply, depending on the signage at the
location. And it would not put it -- impose
any new requirement as far as a hindrance or
impairment of access.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
119, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 2101, an
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
the temporary discontinuance.
1696
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl, an
explanation has been requested by Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President.
The purpose of this bill is very,
very simplistic. It is to save monies and an
additional requirement currently on towns.
Currently in law there is a
designation for what are called seasonally
limited-use highways. And there's an
exception that's provided to towns to allow
them to discontinue snow and ice removal and
maintenance from the first of December until
the first day of April. And -- or, excuse me,
May. December, excuse me.
And what the bill does is it
changes the designation from the first day of
December to the first day of November and from
the first day of April to the first day of
May.
With changing weather patterns, it
1697
seems as though we have snow earlier in the
fall and we have it later in the spring. And
so this is an attempt to try to provide some
fiscal relief to town governments across the
state.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Kuhl would yield for a
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, is
there a significant savings? I know that it
has snowed in November and also in April -
definite evidence of global warming. But the
question is, is there that much savings? Have
there been that many incidents that it's going
to benefit us to expand the time period by two
months?
SENATOR KUHL: Well, what's
interesting, Senator, is that there's no way
to estimate what the savings will be, simply
1698
because you don't know whether it's going to
snow in April or November.
But if it does snow, there is
currently a requirement of these towns to
actually plow these roads. Now, these roads,
keep in mind, are roads that are designated as
temporarily seasonal. They provide paths of
journey really for ease. There are no
residential units on them, there are no
commercial establishments on them. So there
is no service to any kind of an individual or
constituent within these towns. But there
would be an additional requirement all of a
sudden, under the law, to go and plow these
roads when it would be of virtually no use.
So the law currently is kind of
nonsensical, if you will, in a way. And it
would definitely provide savings and certainly
would, if you want to think about it in longer
terms, would provide an ease of liability.
Because if a town was not -- if there was a
snowstorm, say, in April or in November and
they didn't plow and for some reason somebody
ran out, and all of a sudden there's a
requirement now in the law for them to plow
1699
and they haven't, well, you don't know what's
going to happen. And so there's a two-sided
prong of savings in this particular bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. I have one last question for
Senator Kuhl if he would so yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, the
law as I see is it is also difficult to
understand. And could you clarify for me what
happens right now if the towns are not within
compliance of the statute? In other words, if
it snowed this April and a township didn't
plow, what are the penalties for failure to do
so?
SENATOR KUHL: I don't know as
the towns really are neglectful of their
responsibility, Senator. I think that this
bill came about as a result of a requirement
that they do in fact plow.
And what you find is that -- again,
1700
as I said, it's kind of a useless exercise and
a costly exercise, because the law requires
them to plow these roads that aren't being
utilized and haven't been utilized, but the
law says that they shall, unless it happens to
be from the first of December through the
first of April. So if you have those
snowstorms, they are doing that.
And they brought this to my
attention and said, Look, that's a requirement
that we don't think makes a lot of sense,
because there are no constituents being
served. And if we have to use our personnel
to plow those roads, then it takes them away
from roads where people actually live. And
you're costing us money to do that, and time
and expense, from being away from actually
providing the service to the people who are
demanding the service, those people who live
on town roads and have residences there or who
have commercial establishments.
So it's one of those things that I
guess, just as you mentioned, whether it's
global warming or whether it's just the good
grace of God who's trying to have us enjoy
1701
winter a bit longer, I do not know. But in
any case, it's a requirement that I think
doesn't really fit its purpose at this point,
and we should amend the law to relieve these
towns from this responsibility.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President, on the bill.
I didn't mean to imply that the
towns would be derelict in their duty. I was
just asking what was the current penalty if a
town did not plow those particular roads.
My suggestion actually is to leave
the time periods out, period, and to just put
into the statute that when it snows -- I think
that would be the simplest way to do it, when
it snows -- that the townships can have these
low-access roads that they are not required to
plow, in favor of plowing the more utilized
roads to make sure that there is activity and
commerce and movement during those snow
periods.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, if
the sponsor would just yield for a brief
1702
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl, do
you yield for a question?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I don't
have any sense of this, because I must admit
this is relating to areas that are mostly far
different from my district. What do you
estimate the fiscal impact, if any, of this
will be?
SENATOR KUHL: I don't think we
know, Senator, because you're dealing with an
unknown. Is it going to snow tomorrow? Is it
going to snow on Friday?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I hope
not.
SENATOR KUHL: On Saturday? We
may still be here debating this bill on those
occasions.
But I'm just saying to you if it
snows, not this month but next month, then
there's a requirement for those towns to
actually eliminate the snow from roads that
1703
aren't used at this time of year.
These roads that you have to
mind -- see, Senator, your district is just a
little bit different from mine. And just to
expound on this a little bit, I have 74 town
units in my six counties that I represent all
or a portion of. There's 74 separate
municipal governments. Okay? This doesn't
include the cities, this doesn't include the
counties, this doesn't include other villages.
There are many of those too.
But the towns, their major
responsibility is to provide a road network.
Many of these town roads link farms. Okay?
Or they're back access across one hill to
another. There's nobody living on them, but
they are shortcuts in or around the
geographical territory.
Just to give you a better
perspective, the 74 towns that I represent
areawise, geographically, are more than 3,000
square miles. That's larger than the state of
Rhode Island, larger than the state of
Delaware, about half the size of the state of
Connecticut. Land is everywhere. And so
1704
there's this communication, this network of
roads that links it. But many of them are not
traveled during the winter.
And so what you'll find is in
dealing with town governments, the road
operation is probably 80 to 90 percent of
their total budget. And if all of a sudden
they're required to plow roads that have no
use during -- connecting farms, getting,
moving commerce around, during the times of a
harvest or planting, okay, then in fact you're
requiring them to expend resources that can be
better spent in other areas.
And that's what this bill is. It
just simply says, you know, take the
responsibility off for snow and ice removal a
little earlier in the fall and extend it a
little later in the spring. And so the fiscal
impact, there's an implication, but it all
depends on how many times does it snow in
April, how many times does it snow in
November.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor
would yield for another question.
1705
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl, do
you yield?
SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Then do I
understand it will be up to each of these
jurisdictions to designate the roads that
would be subject to this provision? Or how
are the roads that are plowed as opposed to
the ones that are not plowed designated?
SENATOR KUHL: The roads are
designated now by the municipalities as to
whether or not they're temporary seasonal
highways. They have to meet certain criteria.
The criteria are that there are no residences,
no commercial establishments on those
highways. That's the only way that they can
designate those. And they have to do that by
local declaration. Each one of those towns
sets that out in that pattern.
If they don't designate them as
seasonal highways, then they have to provide
annual maintenance to them. Which means they
have to plow the roads, they have to maintain
them, pave them, or whatever it happens to be.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
1706
Madam President. When you're right, you're
right.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
125, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 2089, an
act to amend Chapter 164 of the Laws of 1907,
relating to the incorporation of the Queens
Borough Public Library.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maltese,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes. Madam
President, this bill would -- relates to the
incorporation of the Queens Borough Public
Library and authorizes the Speaker of the City
Council to serve ex officio on the board of
1707
trustees. At the same time, we took the
opportunity to change the reference to the
President of the City Council, which was the
title at the time, up until 1994, to Public
Advocate.
This bill was introduced at the
request of both the executive director of the
Public Library, Queens Public Library, Gary
Strong, and the Speaker of the City Council.
It's fair that since the other
three citywide officials are represented on
the board of trustees of the Queens Public
Library, that the Speaker also be represented.
And it brings the terminology of the
legislation up-to-date with the change in the
title of the Public Advocate.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Will the
Senator yield for a question?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What is the
current composition? How many members are
1708
there currently on the library board?
SENATOR MALTESE: I'm not aware
of how many members are on, but the -- I'm
aware of the fact that the compensation is
nil. It is a pro bono board. And it is a
board in the finest example of public service.
They spend a great deal of time on the
activities of the Queens Borough Public
Library.
As the present legislation
indicates, all five ex officio officers are
the President of the City Council, the Mayor,
the Public Advocate, if this legislation is
passed, and the Comptroller. In addition, the
President of the Borough of Queens serves ex
officio.
The trustees, so far as I know, I
believe there are approximately 12, since I
have participated in events and functions of
the board and do not recall more than 12. I
believe, like any board of trustees, this may
not be set forth in legislation and may be up
to the board that does all governing for the
Queens Borough Public Library.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
1709
Madam President, if Senator Maltese would
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maltese?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The reason
why I asked the question about what the
current composition was, how many members, is
that most boards that are chartered by the
state have an odd number of members to prevent
that situation in which a tie would occur,
that there would be either nine members or
seven members instead of eight or 10.
The reason why I asked the question
is because not only are you changing the
title, but you're adding one more member to
this board. And my question is, will there
now be an even number of members on this
board, which carries with it that possibility
of a tie vote?
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, I've been involved in civic and
community affairs for many years. And
fortunately, the Queens Borough Public Library
is not an arena of confrontation. And
1710
ordinarily, all proposals are fairly unanimous
and they have a very harmonious atmosphere at
the meetings.
Should there be a real question
that would be in peril of being decided by a
close vote, I don't think that would outweigh
the fact that the Speaker of the City Council
should be excluded from appointing a
representative, especially in this case, while
he is presently seeking other office. The
President of the City Council is a Queens
resident. So we have the situation that a
Queens resident who previously served as the
city councilman from Astoria, who was very,
very active in civic and community affairs,
would be denied the right to have any real
input by serving as a member of the board of
trustees.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Maltese will
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Madam
President.
1711
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Maltese, your last answer brings up my next
question. Currently, the Mayor, the
Comptroller, the Public Advocate all run
citywide. So they're all elected by citizens
of Borough of Queens. In addition, as you
properly point out, the current Speaker of the
City Council is also from Queens.
But what happens and would it be
appropriate for the Speaker to have a
designated representative on the Queens
Borough Library if the speaker comes from
Staten Island or Brooklyn or some other place?
I mean, I understand your need to
include public elected -- officials elected
citywide should have a representative. But
the Speaker of the City Council may come from
some other borough, unlike -- well, next year
may well come from some other borough, since
Speaker Vallone faces term limits.
And my question is, is it
appropriate for the Speaker of the City
Council, who is not elected in the Borough of
1712
Queens, may not even be from Queens, to have a
voice on the Queens Borough Memorial Library?
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, first of all, I do not -- I am not
aware of other legislation that would or would
not deny the power to vote to these ex officio
members. Ordinarily, ex officio members would
not vote. I don't -- so whether or not there
could be a tie vote or they would be the
deciding vote in a tie, I'm not aware of.
But certainly the fact that they
are residents of Queens or the City of
New York -- while in this particular case, I
wanted to give the opportunity to Peter
Vallone, as a resident of Queens who has had
considerable input, to serve. This is not a
case where they delegate responsibility. They
themselves serve as members of the board.
At the same time, the City of
New York funds a major portion of the Queens
Borough Public Library. And the
representatives, the elected representatives
of the City of New York have control over at
least that considerable portion of the
funding. And at the same time, we see, for
1713
instance, during the tenure of Mayor Giuliani
and Borough President Claire Shulman that we
have seen a considerable increase in the funds
available to the Queens Borough Public
Library.
And because of the efforts of the
Queens delegation in both the Senate and the
Assembly, we have seen not only member items
enhancing the prestige and influence and
spread of the Public Library, but also capital
grants that have enabled us for the first time
to expand our Queens Borough Public Library,
which I'm told is the largest -- next to
Manhattan, the largest public library system
in the entire United States. Certainly the
most diverse culturally.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, just briefly on the bill.
I commend Senator Maltese for
hitting my softball well out of the park.
It's on its way out of Queens and well into
Brooklyn, on its way to the ocean. He struck
it with authority.
But I think the only question I
raise here -- and I think, first of all, my
1714
experience would be ex officio members do have
the power to vote. The only difference
between ex officio and regular members is that
they sit there by virtue of their office. So
my guess is when you add another member to the
board, you may run into the possibility of a
tie.
And the second question is,
allowing the Speaker of the City Council to
make an appointment, because Speaker Vallone
is from Queens currently, it seems to work.
If that Speaker comes from Manhattan,
Brooklyn, the Bronx, or wherever, it may not
work as well in the future. And if this bill
goes to the Assembly and if there's some
difference of opinion with our Assembly
colleagues, I would suggest that the Queens
delegation to the City Council have the power
to designate that person that sits on the
board of the library.
But other than that, I'm not
opposed to increasing public officials'
participation in libraries. I'll be voting in
favor, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith.
1715
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you
very much, Madam President. On the bill.
Since the Queens Public Library's
main office is housed within the 12th
Senatorial district, I stand to support my
colleague in this wonderful bill. Not only
the fact that our Speaker, Peter Vallone,
comes from Queens, but I think that this would
enhance the opportunity for our next Speaker,
whoever he or she may be, or wherever they may
come from, to continue what has been started
by creating funds and giving funds to the
Queens Public Library, which is so very
necessary.
And I beg to differ with my
colleague who thinks that this will make an
even number. I believe that we have an even
number, and this addition would make it an odd
number of board members. So that would
eliminate any problems of a tie vote.
And I'm very pleased that this
legislation has been introduced, and I will be
most supportive.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
1716
President, on the bill.
I'd like to commend Senator Maltese
for this piece of legislation. You know,
Queens County, outside of Manhattan, does have
the largest library system in the City of
New York, and has the most usage of -- and
this is probably why Queens County rates one
of the highest scholastically in the City of
New York, because they do use the public
library.
And I think by adding an additional
member to that board, especially in view of
the fact that Councilman Vallone, who is from
my own district, would be a member of that
board, would certainly add a lot more luster
to the board. And perhaps we'd get the
equivalent funding that we justly deserve for
the amount of use that we have for the second
largest borough in the City of New York.
So I will be voting 100 percent in
favor of this piece of legislation. Perhaps
we can get two members from Queens on the
board, which would make it doubly good.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yes,
1717
thank you very much, Madam President. On the
bill.
I just rise to speak on behalf of
my Christ the King colleague, Senator Maltese,
who I believe, as Senator Dollinger said, has
clearly hit a home run, possibly a grand slam.
Because in my experience, being an ex officio
member of the board of at least the public
library system in New York City, it actually
affords you the opportunity to be of
assistance to.
So by virtue of giving the access
to our current Speaker -- and if in fact down
the road it becomes the Speaker is from Staten
Island, even having an ex officio member
there, I would assume that my colleague
Senator Gentile would make sure that Queens
would still be taken care of. So I'm not too
concerned about it.
But I would say of my colleague
that I think he's actually hit the mark on
this one. It's something that will be very
helpful to us in Queens. And I look forward
to voting in favor of this and am hoping to
endear all my colleagues on this side to do
1718
the same. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, to explain your vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just to
explain my vote, Madam President.
The debate is always enlightening.
I appreciate Senator Ada Smith's comments
about balancing of the board and eliminating
the possibility of a tie. I'd asked that
question of how many members there were.
And I think this is a good bill
that the members from Queens have stood up -
and these are your three base runners, Senator
Maltese when you hit that grand slam. I would
add that it would be a game-ending grand slam
home run, Madam President, were the names of
all the members of the Queens delegation in
the Senate on the bill.
I vote aye.
1719
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, you will be recorded as voting in
the affirmative.
Senator Duane, to explain your
vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I was tempted to recuse myself,
because I spent a lot of time in the Queens
public libraries. My particular branch was
the McGoldrick branch of the Queens system.
And what was most unusual about the McGoldrick
branch is very few -- in fact, I think there's
only two in the library system, only two
branches are named after an actual person. So
the McGoldrick really stands out in that way.
And while I now rarely use the
services of the McGoldrick branch, I can
assure you that my mother, on a very regular
basis, is a customer at the McGoldrick branch.
Of course it's a new branch now, it's been
rebuilt. It's next to McDonald's now. It
used to be on Crocheron Avenue, but it's not
there anymore. But it still has the same
wonderful selections of books for people of
1720
all ages.
And I'm glad that the Speaker of
the City Council will be able to be involved
in the furtherance of literacy and reading in
the wonderful borough of Queens.
Thank you, Madam President. I'll
be voting yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative on this bill.
Senator Schneiderman, to explain
your vote.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President, to explain my vote.
It's hard to argue with this bill.
I think it corrects an outdated error in the
current law. However, I would like to urge my
colleagues that the current Speaker of the
City Council actually did raise the issue of
our failure in the State Legislature to
provide the funds for these libraries in a
speech two months ago or so that I was
privileged to attend.
So I hope that in addition to doing
these more cosmetic pieces of legislation we
1721
will, when the budget battle heats up in the
next month, address the crying need of many
libraries in New York City for additional
funding for them to update and be as good as
our communities deserve.
Thank you. I vote yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman, you will be recorded as voting
in the affirmative on this bill.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
129, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 1054,
an act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law, in relation to nonhazardous municipal
landfill closure.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: May we have
an explanation, please, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford,
Senator Dollinger is requesting an
1722
explanation.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr.
President -- Madam President, excuse me.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I said I'd
never make that mistake, and I haven't done it
this year until just then. It will never
happen again.
THE PRESIDENT: I won't take it
personally, Senator.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Excuse me.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, this bill passed in 1994, '95, '96,
'97, '98, '99, and 2000. No opposition.
What this bill does is rather than
having municipalities reimbursed for closing
landfills, 3,500 population or less, this
moves it up to 10,000 population or less.
It's very important for the
municipalities. It's a bill we need. And we
appreciate it being considered today.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
1723
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, if Senator Stafford will yield just
for one question from me.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I think I've
voted for this bill every one of those years.
My only question is, why won't the
Assembly pass this bill if the apparent
beneficial impact -
SENATOR STAFFORD: Good question.
And I made -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- is to make
more communities eligible for these landfill
closure reimbursement funds?
SENATOR STAFFORD: It's an
excellent question.
And as I mentioned the other day on
another bill, I'm sure it's the staff of the
Assembly, the staff is giving very poor advice
to the members. And I would hope that the
staff would see the light, so to speak, and
1724
make sure that the right information is
provided to the members.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again through
you, Madam President, just -- if Senator
Stafford will yield just to one other
question.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I had -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I know, but I
didn't get the rationale of why the Assembly
won't do it. I assume -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: All right, I
will go over it again. The rationale is -
that's the correct pronunciation, by the way.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Absolutely.
SENATOR STAFFORD: The rationale
is that members of the Assembly of course get
advice from their very able staff. And I
would suggest that the staff is giving advice
less than correct. And I hope they will do
some research and provide the correct
information to the members.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
1725
Madam President. It's always an interesting
question and answer with Senator Stafford
about why bills won't pass the Assembly. I'll
just address it on the bill, Madam President.
We have done this bill for I think
almost every year since I've been here. And
every year, I think, with -- Senator Stafford
we had a couple of conversations way back in
the mid-'90s about the merits of this bill and
why increasing it from 3,500 to 10,000 was
appropriate. Because we're obviously
expanding the number of communities that would
qualify for reimbursement of these funds.
But my understanding is these were
1986 Bond Act funds. I'm not sure how much of
the 1986 Bond Act is left. I'm not sure that
there are actual applications filed by
communities between 3,500 and 10,000 and how
much it would cost to cap or remediate the
landfills that are subject to closure.
And quite frankly, it seems as
though there's something driving this bill but
the Assembly doesn't seem to want to go along
with it. And I would suggest until we get a
better explanation for what the Assembly
1726
position is, it's difficult for me to make a
judgment.
I've voted for it in the past; I'm
going to take Senator Stafford's word for it
this year again. But I'd love to know why the
State Assembly couldn't simply expand the
available funds for landfill closures in small
communities in this state that is -
apparently there's some fund that says only
little tiny communities, those that have less
than 3,500 people, qualify. And Senator
Stafford is now suggesting that that small
size should be revised upward to 10,000.
There are obviously some fiscal
implications. There may be some significant
fiscal implications if one of those
communities has a very expensive landfill.
But frankly, it's 14 or 15 years after the
Bond Act, and I just wonder whether the funds
are needed, whether the concept still has
viability eight years after we first debated
it on the floor.
With respect to -- because of my
respect for Senator Stafford, if he tells me
it's still a good idea, it's still the right
1727
thing to do, I'll take his word for it. But I
would love to hear what the Assembly has in
their mind when they don't bother to progress
this bill.
And if one thing, Senator Stafford,
my guess is we may bring closure to the
landfills before we bring closure to the
landfill debate in this house over this bill.
Closure seems to be eluding us both here and
other places.
I vote yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
I just would like to make a comment. And I
think this is a fine bill.
My strong suspicion is that the
problem with this bill in the Assembly is that
it's sponsored by Assemblywoman Betty Little,
who is a Republican. That might be part of
the problem, a Minority sponsor in the
Assembly. Just a thought.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
Senator Stafford has the floor.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Now, that's
1728
how the advice of the staff ties in.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Madam
President, would the distinguished Senator
yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford,
do you yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I'll yield.
THE PRESIDENT: He yields. You
may proceed, Senator Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH:
Notwithstanding the intellect of the staff,
allow me to ask one question -- two questions.
And I will do two.
The first question, that is -- and
I believe the bill talks about the amount of
individuals living in a particular area, be it
3,500 or 10,000, that there's an amount to be
expended for that particular nonhazardous site
of up to about $2 million. Is that correct?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Your research
is excellent. And $2 million is the correct
figure.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Through
1729
you, Madam President, if the sponsor will
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford,
do you yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Is there
a particular formula or means by which to deal
with a particular site if it happens to -- if
the cost for that particular site goes beyond
what this particular bill allows?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Very good
point. It makes a great deal of sense.
We have had those situations, and
we have been able to work through them. And
in some cases additional funds have been
provided, and in other cases the funds haven't
been provided. And you can imagine that it
was extremely difficult.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Mr.
President -- Madam President, excuse me, if
the sponsor would continue to yield, just two
more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield for -- was it two, Senator Smith -
additional questions?
1730
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Two more.
They tend to grow.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: If in
fact the -- when the situations have been
difficult and additional money has been found,
perhaps could the sponsor just elaborate on
where that particular money comes from or
what's the source of that.
SENATOR STAFFORD: It has come
from the state.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Well, I
had two more questions -- well, I have one
more question. I'll leave that one alone.
Is there, Madam President, a means
by which to prioritize these particular sites
when they get on the list? Perhaps the
sponsor could respond.
SENATOR STAFFORD: The Department
of Environmental Conservation has done an
excellent job. They have realized the
necessity.
Having very few people in the room
as old as I am, I remember when places where
1731
you placed your refuse were not the same as
they are today. And in many rural areas, up
until just a few years ago, we did not have
some of the improvements that we needed. The
Department, I think, has really prioritized.
And sometimes some of the local officials have
found it rather difficult when they
prioritized in a rather direct manner. And
they of course enforced the closures.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Madam
President, on the bill.
I believe I'm going to support this
bill. However, I do share some of the
concerns of my colleague Senator Dollinger as
it relates to why a certain amount of this
money hasn't been expended to date, in
addition to the fact that it has sat around
the Assembly for quite some time.
I would suggest to the sponsor that
some thought be given to how it is
prioritized, notwithstanding the local debate
that may go on. And I who in particular have
a site or two in my district, one of the
fights that I have, beyond being on the list,
is getting the site actually cleaned. And a
1732
lot has to do with it being prioritized based
on need and the extent of the hazard that
exists or the nonhazardous site that exists.
So I'm going to support this bill,
but I would hope that we do something about
the staff in the Assembly and try to convince
them to move forward as well.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President. If the Senator would
yield to a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford,
do you yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Senator.
I heard the question that Senator
Smith asked you about where the money would
come from, and I heard your answer, which said
from the state. It didn't quite answer -- I
thought he was asking the same question that I
1733
wanted. Could you possibly be saying that
with the expansion of the language of the
Environmental Protection Law that it might
come from somewhere in the state other than
the Bond Act? Because that was -
SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay.
Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, will the Senator yield to another
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you,
Senator.
Senator Stafford, we know that the
1986 bond funds for these issues have not been
fully expended as of this date. Now, while I
intend supporting your legislation, by
bringing in communities of 10,000 it will open
up even more hazardous waste sites to be
1734
cleaned up. What are we going to use in this
law to trigger -- if we haven't expended the
money in the past 14 years for the smaller
communities, what are we going to do now to
take care of the larger communities to
ensure -- to trigger that the monies do go
forth and that those particular hazardous
sites be cleaned up? What can we do to
trigger the motion to get them going?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Having a
respect for you and us being together for this
many years, I'm going to answer the question,
although I suppose I could raise the
germaneness issue.
Obviously, we'll have to follow the
law. It will have to be up to the DEC
officials to follow the regulations.
And I also would point out that I
believe, and I've been here long enough that
you can correct me -- and I've been corrected
many times -- but I think this is the 1993
Bond Act, if I'm correct, rather than '86,
that we're working with at the present time.
SENATOR ONORATO: Again, just for
clarification. What I was referring to was
1735
that we also had one from 1986.
SENATOR STAFFORD: That's right.
SENATOR ONORATO: And those
monies that were appropriated in that
particular one have not been expended as of
this date. So if there's money not spent in
the 1986, there may be a great deal of money
still available in the 1993.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I certainly
would be pleased to sit down with you and see
if we can move things in the right direction
if monies haven't been spent.
SENATOR ONORATO: Maybe we can do
it over a cup of coffee. I believe they just
opened up the lounge. Thank you.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I stopped
drinking coffee because I find that it -- I
don't answer the questions that well.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If Senator
Stafford will yield. And he knows how well he
answers questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
1736
yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I certainly
will yield. Now we're going to have the
environmental debate.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Through
you, Madam President, I just have to say I
sort of miss our conversations of the last few
years, because you haven't been putting out
those same terrible bills. So I haven't had
the opportunity to have our continuing
dialogue.
SENATOR STAFFORD: You said it, I
didn't.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: But it's
always a pleasure to question you -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, state
your question.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: -- because
you can answer in a way that's very
obfuscating.
Okay, here's my question, if you
will yield. This is going to give assistance
for nonhazardous municipal landfill closures.
1737
I guess I was outside of the chamber on a
phone call, and I guess I don't understand why
we're doing this for nonhazardous. We have so
many sites that need remediation that are of
serious concern to us. Why are we doing this
for nonhazardous?
Did someone already ask that?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I didn't hear.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay, I'll
speak up.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I often find
it difficult hearing what you're saying. And
I find -- is it you're being reticent? I
don't understand why.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, I'll
try again.
My question is really simple. This
is for nonhazardous sites. And in light of
the fact that we have so many hazardous sites
that we haven't remediated -- literally
hundreds in the state -- I don't understand
why we're going after nonhazardous. Is this
merely to help out the municipalities pay for
these?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, Madam
1738
President, we have a very complex state. And,
you know, there are places other than Vermont
that are rural. Now, I know you're very
familiar with Vermont and you spend a great
deal of time there and give them a lot of
business over there. And I'm sure that you
enjoy doing that.
But if you were to go in these
communities that need to have this done, you
would not be asking the question. Yes,
hazardous, it's very important. But in the
rural areas, this is very, very important to
the local areas. And if you traveled
upstate -- and, you know, we ski at Whiteface,
we have all sorts of areas in upstate
New York -- you would find this is true.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If the
Senator would yield again.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Also, Madam
President, I also have to say I very seldom
rise to a high point of personal privilege,
but I don't think this is a terrible bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: No, I would
1739
agree with you. This is not a terrible bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford,
will you yield for an additional question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I certainly
will, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer, you may proceed.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: No, I'm
very pleased to see the bill. I'm just trying
to understand it. Because if we are going to
be giving monies from our various funds, which
are certainly being reduced -- I mean, we're
at the point now where we need to do something
very quickly for our Superfund, because we are
totally committed on that fund.
I'm just saying we have only a
finite amount of resources, and those
resources should be applied to those toxic
waste dumps and those serious hazardous sites
that we have around our state. And Lord knows
I know from nonhazardous sites, because I have
one in my own village. But I just don't feel
that our state money should be going for that
kind of remediation, since we have so many
really serious toxic sites to remediate.
1740
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, Madam
President -- oh.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Stafford. Madam President has changed.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Now I've made
another -- two mistakes in a day. That's
never happened -- well, it has. It has.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Stafford, you have the floor.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I didn't know
that this was such a terrible debate that
Madam President would have to leave. But I
would not blame her.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: She's
hungry.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
thank you for joining us.
On one final serious note, all you
would have to do is be in a community where
the landfill closure has been mandated -- it's
been mandated, they've been told they have to
do it. That's obviously a problem.
Therefore, there has to be funding.
Secondly, it is -- it is, I
1741
suppose, enjoyable for some people to go to
the dump -- that's what we used to call it,
the dump, you know -- and watch the bears at
night. That was the thing to do. But we also
have found that it's not sanitary and it's
serious business as far as having them closed
because they are affecting people, and it can
be just as serious as hazardous. I would just
share that.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.
Thank you very much.
On the bill for a moment.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Oppenheimer, on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I see that
the -- I think I understand where this is
coming from now. And it's less of an
environmental issue than it is an issue of
what do we do with small municipalities that,
under order, have to close their, quote,
dumps. And we do know about that in suburbia
as well as in rural New York State.
And so we are looking at
communities with populations of less than
10,000. And I think what this bill is saying
1742
is we have to help those small communities to
meet the mandate. And they really don't have
the funds, because they are small communities,
to do that.
And therefore, that since this is
not a large expense item -- I don't think it
will be -- I think we probably should support,
should support this. But not as an
environmental issue, but as a way to assist
our smaller municipalities in the State of New
York. I'd be voting yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Mr.
President. If Senator Stafford would yield
for two questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Stafford, would you yield to Senator Brown for
two questions?
He will yield, sir.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Senator Oppenheimer asked a series
of questions about these nonhazardous
municipal landfills. And my question has to
1743
deal with what are the expenses that are
associated with the closure of these
nonhazardous landfills.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
it is very detailed, and it's very scientific.
And I will just give you, as a layman, having
seen many of them close.
Usually they put a clay lining, I
believe -- and I'm just giving you roughly
what's involved -- and usually there's some
gravel. And first you have to dig it, of
course. No, it's already dug. This is
closing. You have to make sure that there's
no leaching. You have to drill wells. You
have to put over -- and if there is seepage,
leaching, that has to be corrected by digging,
which is very detailed. And then the lining
on the top is usually gravel. Sometimes
there's a plastic liner, then there's material
they put on that, then there's gravel.
And it's interesting, like any
other field, I've noted that it's progressed
in how it's done, through experience and
science and engineering.
And then you'll see they put a
1744
regular covering on, and usually grass. Then
if you've noticed, passing some of them, they
drill and you'll see these pipes sticking up,
and that's to let the gas out. In some areas,
they capture the gas and use it for fuel.
So it's quite detailed and
expensive.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Through you, Mr.
President, if Senator Stafford would yield for
a final question.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Stafford, Senator Brown would like you to
yield.
He will yield, sir.
SENATOR BROWN: Senator
Stafford's answer to my first question was
very helpful. I'm wondering what are some of
the reuse options of these closed landfills,
if there are any reuse options.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, I know
one landfill -- and there's a good bit of
debate over it, and you probably would see
why -- they are considering having a park and
1745
actually an athletic field. And the engineers
and scientists have -- some engineers and
scientists have determined that it's safe.
Others, of course, are questioning.
Many of the landfills you'll just
see, really, grass. I'm trying to think of
any other uses that they're using for the land
right now. I know there are. I know there
are.
SENATOR BROWN: Mr. President,
through you, I want to thank Senator Stafford
for answering my questions. I think -- if I
may, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Brown, on the bill.
SENATOR BROWN: I think this is a
good bill. And I think it's important, if
municipalities are mandated to close
nonhazardous municipal landfills, that the
state provide them some relief and some
assistance in being able to do that.
I think also, if these landfills
are nonhazardous, this potentially is one way
to reclaim land throughout the State of
New York in these communities, and perhaps and
1746
hopefully have some kind of reuse for this
land that the residents of these communities
can safely enjoy.
So hopefully that will be an
element of the monies that are expended
through the remediation of these properties.
From reading the legislation, it's my
understanding that remediation costs can go up
to as high as $2 million. And hopefully
through that kind of expenditure we will be
able to sufficiently clean some of these areas
so that the land can be reused, so that there
can be public access to the land. And I think
that can only inure to the benefit of the
residents of the state.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President.
I was going to ask a question, and
I don't want to really fumble this. But I
think that when we talk about nonhazardous, we
also need to remember that while we're not
talking about biohazardous materials, we are
1747
talking about areas that -
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS:
Senator, are you speaking on the bill?
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, on the bill.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Last
summer, and into the fall, we were very
concerned around the state about incidences of
the West Nile virus. And many of these areas
would hopefully be included, as we looked at
clips of the areas of the Bronx and other
areas where stagnant water and some other -
perhaps considered nonhazardous, but yet
hazardous to the quality of life to the people
in their communities.
I see this as a good bill that goes
a long way toward helping to correct those
issues. So while we might not be talking
about biohazardous, there are still some
nonhazardous conditions that speak to the
quality of life of some of our communities.
So I think from that perspective, this makes
it an excellent bill for us to support.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Read
1748
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator
Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
Again, I think the debate is
instructive, as it always seems to be -
whether it's Senator Oppenheimer asking
questions, Senator Brown asking about use of
nonhazardous landfills and how the closure of
that works, what alternative uses there are.
It seems to me that that discussion will get
ideas germinating in all of our minds about
what uses we should put these to and
communities across the state and how they
should use them.
I've vote for this bill in the past
because Senator Stafford has stood here and
said there are lots of the communities up in
the Adirondacks, the cost of landfill closure
1749
can be enormous, it can be a huge drain on a
relatively minor tax base. Especially if, as
we know in the Adirondack Park and other
places, large amounts of land are owned by the
State of New York and hence exempt from
taxation.
And I think that the notion that we
expand, in essence, the small landfill
exemption from 3,500 to 10,000, which would
include communities in the western portion of
this state, smaller communities, is a good
one.
That having been said, I'm going to
vote in favor of this bill again, because I
think that the debate and the discussion
produces not only good discussion of the issue
at hand but allows us to think in more detail
about this issue of landfill closure, where
we're going to go and whether it's time to do
another bond act, as we did back in 1996 when
we did the Environmental Quality Bond Act.
Maybe it's time to look again at
landfill closure and landfill protection and
enact a -- give the voters an option for more
landfill closure money to do the kinds of
1750
alternative uses that Senator Brown talked
about, to encourage communities to close
landfills in a fully environmentally secure
way so that we can recycle this land.
Nonhazardous landfills deserve the
same treatment as even our more hazardous
landfills. And it seems to me that our goal
should be to try to get as many of these
cleaned up as quickly as possible. Senator
Stafford's bill I think would get us there
quicker than where we are today, and I'm going
to vote in favor of it on that basis, Madam
President. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, you will be recorded as voting in
the affirmative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could return to reports of standing
committees, I believe there's a report of the
1751
Rules Committee at the desk. I ask that it be
read.
THE PRESIDENT: Reports of
standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bill direct to third reading:
Senate Print 2962, by Senator Larkin, an act
to amend Chapter 398 of the Laws of 2000.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept
the report of the Rules Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Rules report
is accepted.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could take up the Rules report at this
time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
1752
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
202, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 2962, an
act to amend Chapter 398 of the Laws of 2000
relating to creating.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LARKIN: This bill is a
chapter amendment to Chapter 398 of the Laws
of 2000 where we authorized a public
referendum for a library because there were
people that were underserved and, according to
the State Comptroller, they could not continue
to pay a fee for utilization of the library.
After we got all the parties
together for the bill, the bill was passed,
there were certain entities that thought other
people should be included in the library.
They wanted a few other things to be
straightened out -- i.e., the trustees, the
funding of it.
And what happens is we're doing
this now because, based on what they want and
what State Ed gave us, they want to change the
referendum date from March 30th to April 24th.
1753
That will give the library and its entities
adequate time for discussion and knowledge of
what it was all about.
We also want to remove some
ambiguity in the delineation of the existing
board of the trustees. Under the old system,
the boards would have all had to resign and
run again. This will preclude that from
happening.
We want to clarify that the new
library district will begin operation on
January 1, 2002, if approved by the voters.
It permits for library inspectors and for the
paying of them and insures that the old
library district shall transfer all of its
liabilities and obligations, including
agreements, collective bargaining agreements
for their employees. And it alters the fiscal
year to comply with the conformity of the town
fiscal year.
Now, this new entity has been
supported by the Pine Bush Central School
District, the Valley Central School District,
the City of Middletown, the Town of Wallkill,
the current Thrall Library, the
1754
Ramapo-Catskill Library System, and the
New York State United Teachers.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Madam
President, if the sponsor would yield for a
question or two.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin,
do you yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Senator, I
was trying to find out both in Local
Government and then today in Rules, since it
was sort of a drawn-out process, I was -
SENATOR LARKIN: Excuse me, Bill,
I can't hear you.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Okay. Since
it was sort of a drawn-out process, I was
trying to find out in both committees that
this bill passed through in the last few days,
since it was a drawn-out process to put this
original library district, how was this part
1755
left out and why didn't they come forward at
the time? And nobody seems to be able to
answer that, or at least they couldn't in the
last two days.
SENATOR LARKIN: Well, Bill, I
went to about three or four meetings back
home, and we couldn't get all the parties
together. And last year when we were doing
the bill, the Ramapo-Catskill Library, which
was doing the engineering -- that individual
isn't there anymore -- he couldn't get to
agreement with the Thrall Library, the Thrall
Library couldn't get to agreement with them.
It was decided that the bill that
we were doing at that time met the needs of
about 90 percent of the people. After we put
it together, some of the school districts felt
that there was a failure to include -- at
their request, not our request -- the
documentation that they sent to us. It was a
failure on their part. They were of the
opinion that they didn't need to belong to it
because they could go and pay a fee. The
Comptroller's decision is that they couldn't
charge a fee for utilization of that library.
1756
So that's why we had to amend it or
we would have had people that were
underserved.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Madam
President, one last question.
This chapter amendment doesn't cost
any additional money or just includes more
people that are allowed to use the library?
SENATOR LARKIN: More people that
are allowed to use it. And it creates the
atmosphere that we think we should have had a
year ago.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I wonder if
the sponsor would yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin,
do you yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I'm reading
the last section and it says that, from my
reading, that it's retroactive to when the law
1757
passed last year.
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Is that
commonly done, to make something retroactive?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Have the
people who are eligible to make this
request -- not the board, but the people who
live in that area -- done the necessary
preliminary petition work and so on?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you,
Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Will the sponsor yield? I
have just one question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin,
do you yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Why does the
1758
bill include, on page 4, revenue anticipation
notes as within the scope of -- I understand
tax anticipation notes.
SENATOR LARKIN: There's just a
reversal of the words in there.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Oh. Through
you, Madam President, just so I can clarify.
So that when it said "anticipation revenue"
you just -
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: That's fine,
Madam President. Just on the bill, briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
Again, I think this is a good bill.
I think Senator Larkin has obviously done his
homework with the people back in his
communities to help put this together. I'm
pleased that the Senate can quickly come to
the assistance of the people in these
communities who have worked hard to put this
project together.
I think that this body at times has
to take bills and take concepts that are
1759
sitting in committee or sitting in hard work
in the communities that they come from, bring
them to the floor of the Senate, put them out
for debate and pass them. I would point out
to everybody in the chamber that that's what
the old motion to discharge procedure was all
about, that if a bill like this was sitting in
committee, one that was valuable, one that was
critically important to the constituents of
Senator Larkin or Senator Stafford or Senator
Marchi or, heaven forbid, someone on this side
of the aisle, like Senator Hassell-Thompson,
you could make a motion to discharge it, bring
it to the floor, and get a vote in the Senate
to make the bill into a law.
I commend Senator Larkin. It's a
good thing to do. I'm pleased that he can
bring this bill quickly and get a prompt
response from the Senate and do it in time to
change the referendum and make it all work.
It's the kind of good legislative work that
should be rewarded by this chamber regardless
of which side of the aisle you happen to sit
on.
Again, I don't say that in any way
1760
to derogate from what Senator Larkin has done;
he deserves to be commended. But in a real
elected body that really works like a
democracy, it would be a privilege extended to
everyone, Madam President.
I'll be voting in the affirmative
on this bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could return to the controversial
calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
139, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 1533, an
act authorizing and empowering the board of
1761
the Village of Farnham.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
an explanation has been requested, I believe
by Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
if you were one of the I think it's 280 people
that lives in the village of Farnham, which I
think is the smallest village in Erie County,
I think you'd be in favor of this bill.
What has occurred here is that the
village of Farnham has had one justice as long
as anybody can remember. He was elected two
years ago for a four-year term. But what
happened was he resigned last year, I believe
it was, and his term would continue for
several more years. His clerk then resigned
October 31st. The village board got together
and said, you know, I don't think we need a
justice.
And by the way, the village of
Farnham is part of the town of Brant, which of
course does have two justices.
At any rate, they had a discussion
1762
back in January and they said that they had
given this project to Assemblyman Smith. But
then somebody said, You know, we should do
something with those guys in the Senate. They
said, Along with the new law being presented
in the Assembly, it must also be presented and
voted on in the Senate.
So the mayor said he was going to
State Senator Dale Volker and see about the
Senate. That was on January 18th. So on
January 23rd, I put this bill in. And that's
what the bill is that you see here.
The village board has given a home
rule message, even though you don't need one
for this. Because what happens is we don't
abolish it, all we do is give them the
authority to abolish it. The town of Brant
has also given -- which is the town that now
will take all the business, although they've
been taking all the business anyways, because
there hasn't been a judge there for a while.
The town of Brant will pick up the other part
of it, and they have given a home rule
message.
The savings will be a minimum of
1763
$6,000. Now, that may not seem a lot to you
people, but for a little village like Farnham,
that's a lot of money.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, just briefly on the bill.
Senator Volker, seldom I guess in
my history in the Senate have we actually sat
here and said we're saving each taxpayer $30.
That's $30 per capita, $6,000 over 254
residents.
Again, I commend Senator Volker.
This looks like prompt, responsive government
at its finest, even for our smallest
community. And I would suggest that the
people of the town of Farnham or the village
of Farnham are well served when their State
Senator can produce a bill like this that
cures a local problem with the speed that
Senator Volker has done it. I think that's a
good thing.
I continue to, however, suggest
that that ability, that power, that
responsiveness that characterized both Senator
1764
Larkin and Senator Volker's action is one that
should be accorded to all the members of the
Senate. So that the problem of Senator
Volker's earlier comment with respect to
Assemblywoman Betty Little in the Assembly
will not handicap all of our abilities to
perform the services that the people elected
us to do.
Again, Senator Volker, I don't know
that I've actually sat in this chamber and
said that I actually saved the taxpayers of a
community $30 apiece. I guess I'll get a
chance to do it here when I vote in favor of
this bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I wonder if
Senator Volker will answer a couple of
questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
will you yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: The $6,000, is
that per year?
1765
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, I guess.
I must point out that the only
reason that they came up with that figure is I
think that is the salary of the judge and I
think the salary of the clerk. I mean -- so,
you know, are you -- I was wondering, are you
going to ask me if we could abolish the city
court judge, maybe, and save some money, or
what?
SENATOR STAVISKY: Only if I can
choose the judges to be abolished.
SENATOR VOLKER: Right, I thought
you'd say that.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I have one
other question. Will the Senator yield for
another question?
SENATOR VOLKER: Certainly.
Sure.
SENATOR STAVISKY: For $6,000, we
have a judge and a clerk. How were they
able -- how could we have justice served? Was
this a traffic situation where the motorists
will also be saving a considerable amount of
money?
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, see, the
1766
local courts -- and the local courts, by the
way, serve a real genuine purpose. And what
really was happening here, this is a very
little village. I mean, most of our villages
are quite substantial. But this is one of the
villages that is very, very small and didn't
have much business anyway. It's virtually all
traffic. Anything of any consequence would -
well, I don't want to be -- I don't want to
sound as if I'm criticizing it, but the town
would certainly take anything of any -- and
what normally happens with justice courts, it
is mostly traffic, misdemeanors. And what
happens is you do hearings and then -- in
preparation for sending it on to a higher
court where it's a felony or whatever.
They serve a genuine purpose,
frankly. And I think what happened here is,
though, that the village is so small and has
had, by the way, a series of problems. I'm
well aware of it. Assemblyman Smith and I
have been helping to fund their sewer system
and some other things. They've had some
disasters that have occurred. Their public
water system came up through the street, and a
1767
few things have happened. So what they're
really looking for, in all honesty, is they're
trying to save anything they can save.
Because they really have a problem.
I think the next step may well be,
very honestly, that the village is seriously
thinking of cashing it in and becoming part of
the -- just becoming the town, if you know
what I mean. I'm not so sure the town is
excited about that, but I think -- and I say
that. That could well be the next step.
SENATOR STAVISKY: My next
question, Madam President, if the Senator -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Why, sure.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR STAVISKY: The town
justice who was paid the princely sum of
$6,000 -- that has to be probably split with
the secretary -- was this gentleman or lady an
attorney?
SENATOR VOLKER: No, I can assure
you that on that -- I should remember, but -
I know most of these people. Who was this? I
1768
don't believe that -- almost invariably in
these very small places they're not attorneys.
In the bigger towns, most of them are
attorneys now today. Not all of them. But
I'm pretty sure that this is not an attorney.
He's probably maybe a grocer or a, you know,
whatever.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, on the bill.
In my opinion, I know Senator
Volker is being far too modest in saving the
residents of the town of Farnham the $6,000.
I think he also should take credit for saving
the motorists, I suspect, a great deal of
money for what might be left in the town of
Farnham after they drive through it.
So I intend to vote for the bill.
And I congratulate both Assemblyman Smith and
Senator Volker for, as Senator Dollinger
indicated, being so prompt and so expeditious
in dealing with this situation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: On the bill,
Madam President.
Senator Volker is the dean of the
1769
State Senate delegation in my district and
cochair of the Western New York delegation.
And certainly I am very happy to indicate that
I will be supporting this bill.
Senator Volker was asked to put in
this bill by the local community. They did
present a home rule message. And as Senator
Volker said, the home rule message was not
necessary in this case. But as Senator
Dollinger said, I think it's always good when
Senators can respond expeditiously to the
requests of constituents that they represent.
And in Erie County, one of the
things that we have been discussing is
regionalism and consolidating unnecessary
areas of government and trying to reduce
duplication of services. And I think this
helps to accomplish that. Obviously, this
community itself made the decision that this
additional layer of government was not
necessary and has asked that this layer of
government be abolished, and I wholeheartedly
support Senator Volker in responding to the
local community.
Thank you, Madam President.
1770
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery, I believe you rose first.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. I would like to ask Senator Volker
a question, if he would yield.
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Volker, you know, we have a community justice
court in Brooklyn. And I believe there's also
one in the Bronx, I'm not absolutely sure.
And the idea is to bring the court to the
community and make it a local justice center.
It includes a youth court, which
works very well, and offers a number of other
kinds of services and programs to the
community and involves the law enforcement
community, the police department, the district
attorney, and et cetera.
So I'm just wondering -- I'm not,
certainly, opposed to this bill. I think this
is not -- you're not taking something away
from a community that hasn't requested it.
But I'm just wondering if this is the same
kind of court that we have in Brooklyn.
SENATOR VOLKER: No.
1771
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: And if so,
should we be supporting this court as a
state -- as part of our court system
generally.
SENATOR VOLKER: Entirely
different. The village and town justice
courts are formal creations of the State of
New York, with the approval of the local
jurisdictions.
The courts I think you're talking
about are -- although they're structured
through the court systems, they're sort of
informal courts, and I think they're funded by
grants, usually justice -- or juvenile grants
from DCJS. In some cases, you also have drug
grants also. That is, oh, burn money grants
that in fact this Legislature just last
year -- and we tried to explain that to the
media, that we made a great expansion in the
drug courts last year. And it didn't really
get through, apparently, that they kept saying
we ought to do more about drugs.
And that was a rather substantial
expansion of the powers in -- formal but
informal powers. In other words, it's not a
1772
totally structured kind of thing. But the
local people set up their own structures, in a
sense, as to how these would be -- with the
approval of the DA and all the rest of the
people. They're in Buffalo, they're in
New York City, they're -- and they're
expanding. And I happen to think that they're
doing a good job.
There's some people that criticize
it, because there are some people that think
everybody ought to go to jail. I'm not one of
those persons. Deep down, I'm a flaming
liberal. And -
(Laughter.)
SENATOR VOLKER: But anyways -
no. But we have expanded it, all those -- but
that, I think, is the kind of things -- I'm of
course being facetious. But that's the sort
of thing you're talking about. You're not
talking about -- these are formal structures
that have been in place for a long time.
I've appeared before justice courts
in my younger days when I used to do a lot
of -- I did trials in justice courts, and I
used to love it. You'd go out and, you know,
1773
appear before somebody, you know, and the
troopers would be in there, and -- but more
and more of these cases are coming into the
bigger -- the more populated areas, so to
speak.
And I think, fortunately or
unfortunately, depending on your position,
you're going to see more of these justice
courts, I think, in the really small areas
probably disappear. Because the local people
just don't want to, you know, spend the money
to continue them.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Madam President. I certainly will be
supporting this legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Just
briefly, to speak on the bill.
I support Senator Volker's bill. I
used to represent Farnham before he did. The
mayor was, I believe, either in her late 70s
or early 80s at the time. And she's still
alive, but I think she retired from being
mayor. She's still there, though.
1774
And this is a very tiny village.
And, Velmanette, just for your edification,
the town of Brant is not exactly a thriving
metropolis either. It's a small, rural town
also, located south of Evans, which is a
little bit larger town. That's about 50,000
people. So these two are much smaller than
that.
And so that the people still have
their hands-on court, but it's in the town
court now. And it's probably a savings to the
people because they only have to pay the town
tax for the justice part and not the village
part. And as Dale said, Senator Volker said,
$6,000 in their budget is a sizable amount.
So I'm happy to have stood up and
supported my colleague Senator Volker on this
worthwhile bill. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Volker would yield for a
question or two.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
1775
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, if
you answered this question before, just let me
know, because I was out of the chamber for a
moment. There is -
SENATOR VOLKER: I did.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PATERSON: He did.
My question is, you have given us a
fiscal impact note on this bill. But there
was apparently no requirement. And I'm just
wondering why there wouldn't have been a
requirement, given what we're doing here.
SENATOR VOLKER: I'm sorry, there
was no requirement for what?
SENATOR PATERSON: A home rule.
I'm sorry, I said a fiscal impact.
You gave us a home rule message,
but apparently there was no requirement for
it.
SENATOR VOLKER: That's right.
SENATOR PATERSON: And I just
wanted you to explain how that was the case,
because I just would have thought there would
have been.
1776
SENATOR VOLKER: I'm not exactly
sure. I think the reason is because this has
to go back to the village -- this does not
abolish the court. In other words, the
Governor signs this bill, this bill then goes
back to the village and they have to vote to
get rid of the justice themselves.
And there's apparently some sort of
a rule now that if the same body that -- if
it's a state structure where there's a local
initiative -- in other words, the locals can
decide -- and if they still get to decide,
then you don't necessarily need a home rule
message.
I have a policy, and I think -- I
know all of us in Western New York have, we
get home rules from everybody. Because, for
one thing, it's safer, if you know what I
mean. I mean, you can get yourself in a lot
of trouble with some of these little places
here if you don't -- if you're not careful.
And one of the things about it is
you do have to be careful too that you might
have a small group of people -- and that's why
we would not do what some people have
1777
suggested, give everybody authority, blanket
authority, maybe, to just abolish their
courts. Because you don't really want to do
that unless you're sure that you've got
everything, you know, in place.
So that's the story. The town of
Brant that would, in effect, assume this
jurisdiction also gave us a home rule, even
though we didn't need it.
SENATOR PATERSON: We appreciate
the home rule message.
Madam President, one final
question, if Senator Volker is willing to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, what
was the impact that created the township
reaching out, the town of Brant? Were there
hearings or just an ad hoc decision by the
officials there? In which way did they
demonstrate that it's the feeling of the
1778
citizens of the township that -
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, the
previous judge actually resigned back last
year. And so there was nobody who was a
justice for a considerable period of time
anyways. And then the clerk resigned. So
that the actual fact is that there was nobody
there. And everybody was going to Brant
anyways. And, you know, they didn't -- so
they really didn't care.
And then the village said, You
know, why should we pay for this justice when
the Town of Brant is taking care of it
anyways. And apparently the village officials
talked with the town officials, and they said
fine. So that's what happened.
So that's exactly the way -- I
mean, you know, democracy is a funny thing. I
mean, on a local level, people talk to each
other and, you know, we try to accommodate
them.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Senator Volker. Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
1779
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
140, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 1934, an
act to establish certain boundaries in the
counties of Broome and Chenango.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, Madam
President. I'm pleased that there's an
explanation asked for, and I'll be more than
happy to give it.
This bill will establish a definite
border between the counties of Broome and
Chenango.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
Senator Schneiderman.
1780
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor
would yield to a few questions.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I'm
interested in this issue because I don't know
if the sponsor is aware of it or not, but
there is a debate that's been going on and a
dispute that's been going on for a long time
between the two counties I represent, the
Bronx and Manhattan, over an area of land
called Marble Hill.
Some years ago my predecessor,
Senator Leichter, actually was a part of a
group of Manhattan politicians that went and
planted a flag of Manhattan on Marble Hill to
symbolize their reluctance to cede this piece
of land to the usurping empire of the Bronx,
as they described it at that time. I do not
see it that way, of course.
How did you end up, if you were
involved -- or how was this dispute brought to
fruition? Because this is something that's
been going on since, I believe, the early part
1781
of the 19th century.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
the dispute started back in 1806, and it then
went to court in 1992. In upstate, we do -
you've probably heard of the Hatfields and the
McCoys. Things do tend to go on.
But it was settled by the two
counties and their lawyers out of court. And
therefore, they needed us to put this piece of
legislation in so that it could be rectified.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President. And will this
involve -- how significant an adjustment in
the boundaries does this involve? Is it many
miles or a few feet?
SENATOR LIBOUS: We're looking at
about 900 acres, Madam President, that has
been disputed since 1806. And that -- now
that it has been settled between the two
counties, that it is exactly 900 acres that
will be resolved through this dispute.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
I thank the sponsor for his
answers. And this does provide an inspiration
1782
for those of us in other parts of the state
where these sorts of disputes exist. I look
forward to us one day reaching such a peaceful
resolution to the dispute over Marble Hill.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, this might raise an interesting
issue for the members who represent Brooklyn,
because the actual -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, are you
on the bill or explaining your vote? Which -
where are you?
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm on the
bill, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. You
may proceed on the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
Because the low-water mark of the
East River is actually the designation of
where Manhattan ends, which is actually in
Brooklyn. And in spite of Senator Smith and
now I see Senator Montgomery's attempt to
1783
protest that, we may just adopt some of what
Senator Libous has suggested here and go and
take our land back, particularly since we lost
land to that empire of the Bronx some time
back.
But if Senator Libous would yield
for a question.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I'm
wondering if this was a similar case where
land -- where the actual title of the land was
not known and there was, in a sense, a belief
that it was possessed by one county but was in
fact geographically designated to another and
that was the basis. In other words, I'm
trying to figure out what the basis of the
dispute was.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
we believe that it was stated somewhere in
1806. Unfortunately, through research, we
have been unable so far at this date to come
up with anyone from that era who recalls
exactly what took place. But the dispute was
1784
not documented properly.
Therefore, once it was settled out
of court, the interesting thing about this,
Madam President and Senator, is that Chenango
County brought the lawsuit on but,
unfortunately, in the end they lost. They
settled to give the land to Broome County.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Libous would yield,
would you inquire as to whether -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. You
may proceed, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: -- whether or
not this bill required a home rule message.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Did not. Did
not, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: And the reason
was similar to what Senator Volker was saying
prior? If the Senator would continue to
yield.
SENATOR LIBOUS: I'll continue to
yield.
1785
I was not paying attention to my
colleague Senator Volker, at least at that
particular point in his debate. What was
his -
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, just in
the sense that if the same body is making the
decision within its jurisdiction on the same
issue, that there isn't need technically for a
home rule message.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
Senator Stavisky, excuse me.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I'm sorry.
Madam President, I just have a question or
two.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Senator Libous, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky,
you may proceed.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR STAVISKY: The 900 acres,
Madam President, is anybody living on those
1786
900 acres?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Quite frankly, I
do not know.
SENATOR STAVISKY: So we don't
know if there are any structures or if there
are property taxes being paid on the 900
acres.
SENATOR LIBOUS: I'm not aware at
the present time, Madam President.
SENATOR STAVISKY: The reason I
ask, Madam President -- on the bill -- is that
back in 1898, as long as we are being somewhat
provincial, the residents of the county that I
represent, Queens County, decided to join the
City of New York, along with Kings County.
However, there were many parts of northern
Queens which wanted to maintain their
independence and voted against the
consolidation with the other boroughs of the
City of New York back in 1898.
I know this is not 1806, and I know
justice moves very slowly. However, the
reason I inquired about the 900 acres and any
people living there is I think we ought to
take into account their considerations and
1787
feelings about whether they would like to live
in either Broome County or Chenango County. I
think they should be given that option.
And despite my misgivings, I'm
delighted that Senator Libous has resolved
this dispute in such a manner, even if it has
taken almost 200 years. Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
159, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 199, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to county responsibility.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Morahan,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes. This
1788
bill, which passed two times in the Senate
without debate or negative votes, merely adds
more facilities to the current law covering
hospitals and nursing homes that receive -
patients who receive Medicaid. It adds adult
homes and enriched housing programs to the
current definitions of the current
institutions that are now covered, such as
hospitals.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would Senator Morahan be willing to
yield for a few questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I'll be
happy to.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Now, Madam
President, I'm wondering if the counties that
are counting the Medicaid reimbursement
against the counties for which the residents
of these enriched homes or these facilities
are indigenous is at the same time claiming
1789
those individuals on the census every ten
years.
SENATOR MORAHAN: I believe they
would, absolutely.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Morahan,
do you yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, then,
Senator, if they're claiming them as a matter
of population for census, which almost
automatically brings back resources, as it
would for any other citizen, why do they then
at that point get to exempt them from the
Medicaid cost when even a county that has
Medicaid recipients receives special federal
monies for Medicaid?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Well, Senator,
currently the Medicaid issue on the current
facilities cover the max of two months. This
would now add two months for the enriched
1790
housing programs and adult facilities.
So we're talking a period of
maximum 60 days where the cost is reimbursed
by the sending crown. No different than we do
now. This does not -- this is not in
perpetuity.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would be willing to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, Senator,
can you give me an example of the other
aspects of reimbursement that are accomplished
in this same fashion?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Well, it's my
understanding, Senator, that hospital patients
that come from another county, that for the
first 30 -- for the balance of the month that
they come out that they're transferred in is
picked up by the sending county, and the
second month is picked up -- the Medicaid
1791
costs are picked up by the sending county.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator is willing to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, what
happens after the two-month period has
expired?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Then I believe
the host county would pick up the cost.
That's my understanding.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator is willing to yield.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, my question at that point is, does
just the data and the, I would presume,
paperwork of these transactions for an
admittedly short period of time not exceed the
value of the cost reimbursement to the county
that is housing the resident?
SENATOR MORAHAN: I don't really
1792
know if there's an exact figure of whether
it's burdensome. However, but it would be no
more burdensome than we do now.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I believe
Senator Schneiderman is trying to get the
floor.
THE PRESIDENT: If Senator
Schneiderman would like the floor, I'll wait
for him to rise, Senator Paterson, rather than
yourself.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I'm sorry,
I don't want to interrupt.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
do you wish to be heard?
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
1793
President, the only reason I pointed it out is
that under Rule 9.3, subsection C, of our
Rules, it is the duty of the Temporary
President to seek out the members before
reading the last section. In fact, it doesn't
even say anything about reading the last
section.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm perfectly
aware of that section, Senator. And Senator
Schneiderman was already on his feet. Let us
proceed, please.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. If the sponsor would just
yield for a few short questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Morahan,
do you yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I
certainly do.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
I'm intrigued by this proposal, and
I'm just curious as to what analysis, if any,
has been done of the net impact on the
counties. Some jurisdictions have invested in
facilities, have facilities, and I'm concerned
1794
about the net impact and whether or not this
will have an effect of discouraging some
counties from going forward with building
facilities if they feel that they can -- it
will have that sort of result.
Has any impact study been done
about which counties will gain or lose from
this bill?
SENATOR MORAHAN: We believe
there will be some shifting of costs.
However, I have no definite figures to outline
to you at this particular time.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President, if the sponsor will
continue to yield.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Madam
President.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Are there
any particular counties that have identified
this as an issue?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Rockland
County.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. A fine county it is.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Absolutely.
1795
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Has there
been any sort of a hearing or analysis as to
how this would affect the ongoing construction
of adult homes, enriched housing programs, or
residences for adults?
SENATOR MORAHAN: I believe the
construction would be a matter of investment
by the private sector and the zoning would be
under the jurisdiction of the local
municipalities, not the county. Therefore, I
believe the counties would have minimal to
say, pro or con, about the encouragement of
more facilities.
I suspect it probably would help
the counties out who happen to be subject to
many developments like of adult housing.
We're having many adult housings built in
suburbia, especially in Rockland County,
because we have the space.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Morahan,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do,
Madam President.
1796
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I believe
the sponsor's answer to that last question
really sort of gets to my concern. Wouldn't
this be a particular burden on rural counties
that do not have many of these facilities?
Senior citizens in those counties go to the
suburbs, usually -- sometimes the cities, but
the suburbs certainly -- and this will impose
quite a significant burden on some rural
counties -- and, as has been pointed out in
debate earlier today, many of which are not
exactly in flush times.
SENATOR MORAHAN: It could be.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. Thank you for the answers.
On the bill.
I think -- I understand the intent
behind this bill. This is an issue that a lot
of us with aging parents and relatives are
concerned with, how we continue to develop
these facilities in New York State.
I do have a concern with the lack
of any analysis of the fiscal impact, because
1797
I do think there are some counties that could
end up with a very sudden and very substantial
fiscal burden as a result of this
modification.
Nonetheless, I do think this is
something we have to work on, and I commend
the Senator for bringing this issue forward.
I hope we will come up with a more
comprehensive approach to the problem of the
delivery of housing programs for senior
citizens, especially the development of a
better quality of adult homes in New York
State.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, will the sponsor yield to a
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Morahan,
do you yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
1798
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, in
reviewing this bill I note that there's a bill
of very similar language that was filed by
Senator Meier on January 22nd which seems to
include somewhat different language about the
unique or specialized function of an adult in
these homes. I'm wondering whether you're
familiar with the Meier bill and the
differences between the two bills.
SENATOR MORAHAN: No, sir, I'm
not.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
SENATOR CONNOR: Last section.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Bruno, that completes the
reading of the controversial calendar.
1799
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam
President. Is there any housekeeping at the
desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Senator
Bruno, we do have a motion.
SENATOR BRUNO: Can we take that
up at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, on page 9, I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 114, Senate
Print Number 2118, and ask that said bill
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I rise as I have, I think, for a
dozen consecutive days to hereby give written
notice, as required by Rule XI, that I will
move to amend the Rules to add a new rule, XV,
which will relate to ethical standards for
1800
members, officers, and employees of the
Senate.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, it has been received and it will be
filed in the Journal.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam
President. There being no further business to
come before the Senate, I would move that we
stand adjourned until Monday at 3:00 p.m.,
intervening days to be legislative days.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: On motion, the
Senate stands adjourned until Monday,
March 12th, 3:00 p.m., intervening days being
legislative days.
Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Madam President,
if you could just announce an immediate
conference of the Minority. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: There is an
immediate meeting of the Minority Conference
in Room 314. You're welcome.
1801
So adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 2:21 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)