Regular Session - March 12, 2001
1814
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
March 12, 2001
3:08 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
1815
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 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,
Sunday, March 11, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Saturday,
March 10, 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.
1816
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Madam President. On behalf of Senator
Maltese, on page number 17 I offer the
following amendments to Calendar Number 179,
Senate Print Number 2679, and ask that said
bill retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, and the bill will retain its
place on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, has the chair received the
resolution message from the Assembly calling
for a joint legislative session at noon
tomorrow, March 13th, Tuesday, in the Assembly
parlor, for the purpose of addressing the
nominations of Regents?
1817
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
that was received in the Clerk's office this
morning.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there's a privileged resolution, 786, by
Senator Maziarz. May we please have the title
read and move for its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Maziarz, Legislative Resolution memorializing
Governor George E. Pataki to proclaim
March 16, 2001, as "Liberty Day" in the State
of New York.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
1818
adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could take up the noncontroversial
calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
43, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 858B, an
act to authorize the Congregation Shira
Chadasha.
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
130, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 1841, an
act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law, in relation to penalties.
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
136, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 1456, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
1819
relation to exemption.
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
138, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 1518A,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law, the
Public Authorities Law, and the Civil Service
Law, in relation to paid leave.
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
143, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 64, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to persons and officials.
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
146, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 587, an
act to amend the Family Court Act, in relation
to extensions.
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
1820
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
147, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 588, an
act to amend the Family Court Act, in relation
to procedures for the temporary removal.
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
162, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 1449, an
act to amend the Social Services Law and
others, in relation to penalties.
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
163, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 833, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
certain BOCES programs.
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
1821
if we could go to the controversial calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
43, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 858B, an
act to authorize the Congregation Shira
Chadasha, in the Village of Great Neck.
SENATOR CONNOR: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside
temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
130, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 1841, an
act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law, in relation to penalties for unlawful
taking.
SENATOR CONNOR: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maltese,
an explanation has been requested by Senator
Connor.
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Madam
President. This is an act to amend the
1822
Environmental Conservation Law in relation to
the penalties for unlawful taking,
importation, transportation, possession or
sale of endangered or threatened species.
The purpose is to increase the
penalties applicable to unlawful acts against
the endangered and threatened species.
This legislation would provide that
a violation involving the unlawful taking,
importation, transportation, possession, or
sale of endangered or threatened species are
punishable as follows.
A first conviction is a Class B
misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to
$5,000 and/or imprisonment up to 90 days. A
second or subsequent conviction is a Class A
misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to
$10,000 and/or imprisonment for one year.
This bill also provides for the
discretionary payment of rewards up to half
the fine, but not to exceed $2,500, to persons
giving information leading to a conviction.
Department employees, their relatives, and law
enforcement officials are declared ineligible
for such reward payments.
1823
The justification is that existing
payment for violations involving endangered
and threatened species, with the sole
exception of bald and golden eagles, are too
low to provide the level of protection
warranted. The penalties for bald and golden
eagle violations were appropriately raised to
their current levels in 1989.
This bill would provide the same
level of protection for the state's other
endangered and threatened species, including,
among others, the peregrine falcon, the least
tern, the osprey, and the humpback whale.
This particular bill was passed
unanimously in 1998, 1999, and the year 2000.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Maltese would yield for
a few questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maltese,
do you yield for a question?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Being that the
1824
bill may have passed the Senate for the last
three years, it never became a law. And my
interest is why that might be the case. And
specifically, I'm interested in how many
occasions would the law you're proposing
actually address this issue where the present
legislation does not.
In other words, I understand what
you've set forth here in the legislation. But
I don't understand how it corrects the present
law.
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, as to the first, why it was not
passed into law, obviously the omission or the
sin of omission was not that of the Senate,
which very prudently and wisely passed the
bill, but it was referred to Environmental
Conservation in the Assembly. It does have a
Democratic Assembly sponsor, Assemblyman
Seminerio, and it did not -- it was not taken
up on the floor of the Assembly.
As far as the specific instances
where it would be applicable, and where I
assume the question would say why -- where the
appropriate penalties were too low now,
1825
environmental organizations have approached
us, have asked us to put the bill in. I
assume that they are familiar with the
rationale as to why it's too low.
My own view would be that in order
to be a deterrent, the penalties should be
severe, and that's probably the idea behind
making these penalties more severe.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Maltese would yield for
another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
understand your point of view that it would be
better for the other house to pass the bill.
But I think you and I would agree that that
point of view is somewhat subjective.
And all I was laying out for you
was the necessity that we as the Senate take
this bill up and discuss it in such a manner
that perhaps it would weigh upon the Assembly
1826
the duty to actually pass the bill.
My question is related to what
environmentalists feel about this legislation.
And I can understand that there's always a
good reason to increase the penalties that a
violation of the law would produce.
But my specific question is, how
many instances does anyone estimate that this
would actually come up?
It covers an endangered species
that, while they may be endangered, I don't
think that we see them that often in New York.
And I'm just asking how many times has this
come up, so I can get an idea of what the
value of passing this legislation is.
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, I think wherever the Legislature
can act to protect endangered or threatened
species, it's a salutary act and sends the
type of message that we wish to to everybody
concerned with the environment and with
conservation.
It would seem that endangered or
threatened species don't come up that often in
the State of New York. But I'd like to -- we
1827
have consulted with the senior attorney for
the DEC Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources
Department, and they advised us that the state
agency has filed a list of their regulations
with the Secretary of State, and that their
list in New York State mirrors the federal
list.
And I am tempted to read the eight
pages of endangered species. And I will pass
over mollusks, insects, fishes, amphibians,
reptiles -- all of which have sufficient
subheadings -- and go right to birds, which
include the peregrine falcon, the spruce
grouse, the black rale, the piping plover, the
Eskimo curlew, the roseate tern, the black
tern, the short-eared owl -- as opposed to the
long-eared owl -- the loggerhead shrike, and
mammals, which include the Indiana bat, the
Allegany wood rat, the sperm whale, the shy
whale, the blue whale, the finback whale, the
humpback whale, the right whale, the gray
wolf, and the cougar.
Now, I have not gone in as yet to
threatened species, but I would be glad to go
into those in response to any questions.
1828
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you,
Senator Paterson.
I'm very, very supportive of this
bill. And some of those threatened species
are some of my best friends. But I can't
understand what -- I would need to ask a
question of the Senator, if he will yield -
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: -- as to
what is the problem with this bill in the
Assembly. Maybe we can do some lobbying on
your behalf in the Assembly.
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, all I can say is that I make it a
habit never to interfere in the internal
problems or relations of the Assembly, except
to say that there are some recent events that
have taken place in the Assembly where
Assemblyman Seminerio, while he is my hero, is
not the hero of the present Speaker.
1829
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer, do you have another question to
follow up?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you
for your concise and very accurate assessment.
If I may, on the bill.
We've been having some very fine
successes with some of the threatened and some
of the endangered species. For instance, as
many of you probably know, we now have
peregrine falcons that used to be -- they had
almost disappeared from this area. They are
now back nesting on our bridges across the
East River and across the Hudson River. And
we also have -- you look like you're about to
hit the gavel.
THE PRESIDENT: Not concerning
you, Senator. I'm just wonder if the buzz is
outside or in.
It's nowhere now, so you may
proceed.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I'll
continue.
We just -- we've had so many
1830
wonderful successes. And -- but we are still
losing specie at an alarming rate. I know in
my county where there was a time when one
would see many toads in our back yards, and
many turtles of all specie. They are no
longer there.
And I feel very strongly that any
protection we can offer to these species is
beneficial to all of humankind, because we are
all tied up in a very intricate web of
interrelationships. And if any one section of
that picture is pulled away, you find that, in
time, all the other levels of the chain or the
picture will dissolve.
So I think it's important that even
though sometimes we name these species and you
sort of sit back and chuckle and say, Well,
who really cared about that toad -- "toad"
being the animal -- I think we have to take a
more encompassing view of our environment and
the whole ecology by which we all live and
what we can do to maintain it, because we all
have a very direct importance in what happens
to any one specie.
Thank you.
1831
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if I could continue to ask Senator
Maltese to yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, ma'am -
yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, the
first promulgating of rules related to
endangered species occurred in the 1960s, when
the Secretary of the Interior had a list of
species that were thought to be threatened in
this country. However, there was a feeling
here in the state that a lot of these species
that were indigenous to New York were not part
of the list, and so in 1971 the first law was
proposed by Assemblyman Glenn Harris. It was
then known as the Harris Law, adopted in 1972.
And this augmented Section 11-0535 of the
Environmental Conservation Law.
But getting back to the question
that I asked you before, I'm trying to figure
1832
out what are the endangered species that were
not included nationally that are of specific
interest to New York residents. And you read
me a list of endangered species, all of which
were on the Secretary's original list in the
'60s.
So I'm just trying to find out
again what are the specific species that
you're referring to that might help us to
persuade the Assembly that this needs to be a
law. Because we're in our fourth year of not
persuading anybody other than this house that
it should be a law.
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, obviously the good Senator has
researched the law, and I certainly solicit
and welcome his support for convincing the
Assembly, where the Majority party in the
Assembly, with the wherewithal to pass the
bill, shares the same principles as my good
colleague.
At the same time, what we attempted
to do here is add a section to the law that
would cure one of the defects of the prior
legislation, which was where information is
1833
given, where people come forward and advise
the Department of Environmental Conservation
of a breaking of the law, there was a feeling
that the reward as such would somehow -- which
in many cases encouraged people to come
forward -- would not apply to employees of the
department, their relatives and any peace
officer, police officer, or other authorized
law enforcement.
So that, in addition to its
beneficial aspect as far as protecting
threatened or endangered species, that also
changes the law and makes the law better
because it prevents employees or staff members
who have the obligation to perform these
duties from sharing in the largesse of the
state on behalf of endangered or threatened
species.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
1834
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if -- we passed a bill in 1972, we
repealed it and adopted some amendments to the
bill in 1983. And even the Department of
Environmental Conservation admits that there
is a decrease in the worldwide number of
species.
So some of these species that we
are calling endangered are probably in
actuality extinct. In other words, we should
have done this years ago, but we didn't. Or
we tried to do it some years ago, and it was
ineffective. If the DEC doesn't know who all
the species are, I don't know that I can ask
Senator Maltese to actually know.
But, Senator Maltese, wouldn't it
be more appropriate at this time to perhaps
conduct a study of this whole situation and
determine what are the actual species so that
we know whether or not there really is an
impact that this legislation would have, so
that we're not back here in another 10 or 15
years debating another bill when perhaps what
we really need is some kind of curative action
taken by the DEC more than the Legislature?
1835
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, in this case I concur with my good
colleague. I don't know that I concur as far
as initiating a study, which would involve the
expenditure of possibly a great deal of money.
The New York State Legislature and
the New York State DEC apparently has come up
with a working system to ascertain what these
endangered or threatened species are, and they
follow or mirror the federal government. But
since the federal government apparently is
very much involved, the problem is that in
seeking to ascertain that the lists were in
fact filed, as required by other sections of
the law, with the Secretary of State, the
Secretary of State's office and the State DEC
gave us literally 15 pages of single-spaced
threatened and endangered species, as I
indicated, ranging from mollusks to insects
and what have you.
So I don't know, my good colleague,
Madam President, whether we should ask the
federal government to intercede or risk
possibly another 15 pages of regulations and
rules and regulations which would not have any
1836
beneficial effect as far as protecting
endangered or threatened species.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Maltese would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes. Yes,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I hope that you don't find this
question to be a little obtuse. But I'm
wondering if the definition of the taking of
endangered species or threatened species would
include the pollution of their habitat by
anyone whose actions would have a likely
result in their being harmed.
In other words, other than the
physical acts of individuals, does it in any
way address the environmental pollution?
Which is often probably the most tragic
catalyst of the fate of probably half the
1837
species on the list that Senator Maltese read
to us earlier.
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, this particular legislation doesn't
address those problems. I would be very
willing to discuss the further protection with
my good colleague, as far as the protection of
certain areas that would house these
endangered or threatened species.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Maltese would continue
to yield.
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I just noticed
here, Madam President, that in 1989 -- I was
only up to 1983 before. But in 1989, we
passed legislation that would increase the
penalties for the taking of endangered species
and threatened species six years after we'd
done it before, and we had a list of species
in that particular legislation.
1838
I wanted to know if -- Senator
Maltese I know must be familiar with that.
But in the 12 years that has elapsed since
that time, we have yet a new group of species
that we're adding to that list, Senator?
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, I'm advised that -- and as to the
1989 date, I prefaced my remarks with the fact
that that 1989 legislation was in fact passed.
I think that the DEC has advised us
that they do incorporate the federal
endangered species list with their state list,
that there is no specific time frame that they
need to file this list with the Secretary of
State. The last time the endangered species
list was updated was in 1999.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
1839
SENATOR PATERSON: Actually,
Madam President, that legislation related to
the taking of the bald eagles and the golden
eagles. And it brings me to my next question.
This series of laws that we have
passed from 1972 into the early 1990s, where
we have either expanded the list of endangered
and threatened species or we have increased
the penalties, have we restored any endangered
species to wildlife status since that time?
Has this legislation been effective in curbing
the illegal taking or harm to valuable
animals, mammals, and insects and other
members of the chordate population? Has this
been effective in restoring their status?
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, I don't have that readily -- I
don't have that information readily available
from the DEC. But I know from reading some of
the books and periodicals, my daughter, who
follows this very closely for me, has
indicated that there are a number of, I guess.
In what category, I know insects.
I know we have a category of butterflies that
has gone from threatened or endangered. And I
1840
imagine the same is probably true with certain
fishes. I don't know the birds -- certainly
some of the programs the federal government
has initiated with respect to falcons. And
since there was a movie called "The Maltese
Falcon," I particularly am interested in the
protection of certain falcons.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR MALTESE: And I
understand that the same is true of other
birds or insects or animals or mammals or
mollusks or what have you on the endangered or
threatened species list.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. Senator Maltese has been
very responsive. If he would yield for
another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, what
is the current fine that we're amending? I
understand the way you want it to be now.
1841
What's the current fine?
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, it appears to increase the fines up
to $5,000. But I don't seem to have readily
available the current fine. It speaks of
increasing the fine and increasing the
penalties.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Maltese would yield for
a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Then, Senator,
I would assume that you don't have readily
available what the penalties are for violation
of the similar section that follows the one
we're addressing today, Section 11-0536 of the
Environmental Conservation Law.
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, that is -- wait a second. What was
that section again, Madam President? If you
1842
could repeat the section.
SENATOR PATERSON: 11-0536.
SENATOR MALTESE: You are
correct. Madam President, the Senator is
correct. I do not have available the current
fine on the Section 11-0536.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: If Senator
Maltese would yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, Senator,
Section 11-0536, which follows the taking of
endangered or threatened species, covers in
effect the same issue except that it relates
to the importation of endangered or threatened
species. And it has the accompanying fine,
which I believe is $2500.
So if we're going to raise section
11-0535, Madam President, then I would think
1843
that to be inclusive we might amend this
legislation and raise the penalties for both
11-0536 and 11-0536, which relates to the
importation of these species.
And if Senator Maltese would yield,
I'd like to know what he thinks about this
idea.
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, I'd be glad to yield.
I think it's a fine idea. And
unless this legislation passes in the
Assembly, I look forward to next year debating
the increase in the fines as relating to the
section the good Senator spoke about, Section
11-0536.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin,
do you still wish to have the floor?
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you.
THE PRESIDENT: If you still wish
to have the floor.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Yes, I
do. Thank you. If the Senator will yield for
a question.
1844
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Madam
President.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Senator.
Madam President, the question I had
was, have the endangered species-related
crimes increased or decreased in the last five
years to warrant this kind of action? And if
it has decreased, do you have a sense of why
that may be so?
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, as I indicated earlier, I did not
have those facts and figures readily
available, but that I believe the passage of
this legislation is important to send a
message. And the message would be to protect
our threatened and endangered species.
So there does seem to be more of a
perception and more of a reality now that
people are more interested in protecting our
natural resources and threatened and
endangered species. And this, then, would
seem to be more of a deterrent to protect
those endangered and threatened species.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
1845
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Will the sponsor yield for a
question, please.
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Madam
President.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, the issue of taking of
endangered species has involved our Native
American compatriots. I know at the federal
level it has. Do you know if there's an
exception or an affirmative defense in this
bill or in this section of the Environmental
Conservation Law that deals with Native
Americans who have long held traditions
involving either the bald eagle or other
potentially endangered species?
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, we seem to have gone astray here.
And we can spend, I think, all the time of
this legislative body discussing many of the
problems of the Native Americans as they
relate to endangered species and the state of
this country at the time that it was inhabited
by Native Americans and the depredation and
1846
desolation that has been caused to the habitat
of so many of our wildlife in New York State
and the country.
But that perhaps is a topic for
another day. And I would decline at least at
this moment to respond to the question of the
good Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, I'll phrase it another way
with a different aspect to it, if Senator
Maltese will yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is there a
provision in this bill that requires an intent
to actually take an endangered species?
Because my question deals with what happens if
someone is involved in trading or bartering or
any one of the other acts in this statute but
they don't know that the particular animal is
1847
on the endangered or threatened species list.
Is there an affirmative defense of lack of
knowledge of their threatened or endangered
status?
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, the answer is no.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Final
question, Madam President, if Senator Maltese
will continue to yield.
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Madam
President.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I know that
there are federally imposed penalties for the
taking of endangered or threatened species.
Are these penalties more or less than the
penalties under federal law for the same
conduct?
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, I don't know the answer to that.
But I would guess that the original
legislation was probably patterned after the
federal legislation. And I believe this
increase would probably be, at this stage,
more. Since New York State is more of an
environmentally enlightened state, I would
1848
again feel that our penalties would be more
than the federal penalties.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Just briefly on the bill.
I'm going to vote in favor of this
bill, as I think I've voted for it in the
past. I know Senator Maltese raises the
question of maybe we've gone too far afield in
dealing with the Native American issue. I
would point out that I believe there are a
number of federal cases that deal with the
prosecution of Native Americans for the taking
of endangered species, from eagles to
rattlesnakes to whales, including -- Senator
Maltese's memo in support of this talks about
the humpback whale as one of those who is on
the endangered species list.
And it seems to me if we were going
to approach this in a holistic way and
recognize that Native Americans do have a role
here in New York State, that we would examine
that and make some kind of affirmative
defense.
Secondly, the question of whether
there's an affirmative defense for those who
1849
lack intent. Senator Oppenheimer talked about
toads in the back yard. Senator Maltese
mentioned mollusks in our freshwater bodies
here in this state. It would seem to me that
it would be enlightening to have some kind of
intent provision, to require some kind of
understanding on the part of the perpetrator
that when we charge them with a felony that
they knew that this was a species that was
either endangered or threatened under New York
law.
I don't think that that's an
unreasonable thing to require. We require
it -- through most of our criminal law, we
require an understanding that the goods you're
dealing in are criminal by their mere
possession. I think that an affirmative
defense should exist that allows someone to
suggest that they did not know that this
particular animal, like the least tern, which
I'm not familiar with, that that was on the
endangered species list.
I think these issues provide a
greater understanding of how we deal with the
problem of trafficking, illegal trafficking in
1850
endangered and threatened species. I think
the bill is a good idea. I think it's got a
ways to go before it will solve a problem that
needs to be solved and that probably will
benefit most of the people in this state.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. If the sponsor would yield,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. I'm
wondering if the Environmental Conservation
Law now, or as amended by this law, has any
kind of notice provisions.
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, I don't understand. Notice
provisions?
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if I may clarify.
1851
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I mean, how will
people know that these species have been added
to the list and that the law, the penalties
have changed?
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, like so many laws and statutes
passed by this body and other bodies, it is -
I've often argued that there are too many laws
on the books and too many statutes on the
books. But on the other hand, the list, as I
had mentioned earlier, goes on and on.
I think that the lack of knowledge
on the part of a potential perpetrator would
be taken into consideration by any judge that
would have the case coming before him.
So if the good Senator Duane's
argument is that somebody would be unlikely to
know about the list submitted by the DEC and
filed with the Secretary of State, I think
that's absolutely accurate. Until this
1852
morning, I was not aware of the procedure
myself as far as what was on the list.
And quite frankly, as a result of
our discussions, I'm going to seek to inquire
as to the method of inclusion or exclusion on
the list of endangered, threatened, and
special concern fish and wildlife species of
New York State. And I invite my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle to do the same
thing.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor continue to
yield, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Because as we now
all agree there isn't really a place for the
list of endangered species and the upping of
the penalties, I am concerned, then, about a
person being held accountable for wanton
disregard. I'm wondering if the sponsor could
1853
clarify more closely how, in a case like this,
when there isn't a way for someone to get
quick and accurate information about the
various species and the penalties, how you
would be able to prove wanton disregard.
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, through you, it would seem that
unless wanton disregard is specifically in the
criminal code or specifically in the statute
itself, common sense would prevail and that
common sense would be in the view of a
potential juror or jurist as to what would
constitute wanton disregard.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. Just a final question, if the
sponsor would indulge me, because I don't know
the answer to this.
And that is, I was wondering if he
could tell me -- I'm sorry -- what kind of
animal is a least tern. Because I've not
heard it before.
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, I didn't hear that.
SENATOR DUANE: What kind of
animal is the least tern?
1854
SENATOR MALTESE: It's probably
some type of a strange animal, but I have no
idea.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
SENATOR MALTESE: Senator Duane,
Senator Connor has indicated he knows. I
would be glad to yield to Senator Connor to
explain what a least tern is, if you care to
follow it up.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Certainly, Madam
President. Terns are those little
pointy-beaked birds that run around on
beaches. And they have pointy beaks because
they go for shellfish and other things.
And there are actually some -- the
differentiation within the species of terns is
such that you'll find a specific kind of tern
like on Long Island beaches and a different
one in southern New Jersey.
And many of them end up on the
endangered species lists because they're so
rare. I know in Cape Cod they have a
particular kind of tern. So I couldn't tell
1855
you which exactly spots a least tern has, but
I know that -- I'm sure it's one of New York's
species. And it's less than other terns, I
suspect.
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, I'm afraid that this discourse and
debate has taken a turn for the worst.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Since I
believe one good turn deserves another, if the
good Senator would yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I was
wondering, if this were to appear before us
again next year, if the Senator would
entertain taking into account other species,
1856
the plant species. Because, as we all know,
we -- what I was trying to say earlier was
that there's a whole ecosystem out there which
involves plant life and insect life and fish
life and animal life, and we all are so
interdependent.
And I think the plant aspect of
this would be a good addition and make the
whole bill more holistic.
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, I share the concern of Senator
Oppenheimer. But at the same time, that's
somewhat limited by the concern of Senator
Duane.
It would seem to me that it is
difficult enough even for dedicated
environmentalists to follow the mammals that
are either endangered or threatened. When we
start going into mollusks and insects and then
plants, it becomes more and more difficult and
possible and more and more probable that
someone would inadvertently break the law by
rummaging around in his back garden, in his
backyard garden.
So I would be very cautious about
1857
criminal penalties involving plants and
raising them to the same level as mollusks or
insect or mammals.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay.
Thank you very much, Senator.
And on the bill just a moment.
We have seen the great value of the
laws back in 1989 and subsequent laws. And I
was thinking of another specie that we have
seen a remarkable return, come back really in
large numbers, also nesting on our bridges in
the Hudson River, and that is the bald eagles.
So I think anything we can do to
try and hold our ecosystem together is
certainly worthy of support, and I would be
delighted to support this bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, on the bill. Sorry, Senator.
I want to commend the Senator for
this legislation, on behalf of all of the
peregrine falcons who inhabit the bridges in
Queens County -- particularly the Throgs Neck
Bridge, incidentally. I think that this is a
very good idea, and I'm delighted to join in
1858
support with my colleagues.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Yes, Madam
President, if I may close for the Minority.
And I do appreciate, Madam President, Senator
Maltese's patience and his contribution by
answering questions.
And I have to say, I was joined by
my able assistant, and my first question to
her was the one I asked Senator Paterson,
Madam President, who through you asked Senator
Maltese. I said: "What are the current
penalties?" And she said, "I don't know."
So none of us seem to know what the
current penalties are, and I didn't mean it to
be a trick question.
I think we're missing a point here.
I think we're missing a big point here.
Protecting endangered species is not simply
about hunters afield and what they shoot at;
it's about big business and commerce and big
dollars.
Let me tell my colleagues something
they may not know. There are a number of
uniformed DEC officers assigned to the
1859
New York City office of the Department of
Environmental Conservation. And the reason
they're there, and the reason I know they're
there is because they spend a lot of time in
my district, because I represent the islands
in the harbor and a large portion of upper
New York Bay as well as the Hudson and East
Rivers. One of the things they do, of course,
is health-related. They patrol the harbor and
inspect boats that may be clamming and looking
for shellfish in closed waters where there's a
health problem, because we don't want them
getting into our food stream, obviously.
And there's money involved in that.
There are plentiful clam beds in New York
Harbor in polluted waters. If you were
allowed to harvest them, you could literally
fill sacks and sacks and sacks of clams and
introduce them in the commercial stream, at
grave peril to the health of consumers.
Besides patrolling New York Harbor
and Jamaica Bay, where there are actually,
obviously, wildlife, endangered species,
birds, terns -- my able assistant here pointed
out that there's also a common tern, but I
1860
thought that that collapsed with the collapse
of the Communist empire. But she's not
talking about the Comintern, which was their
trading system, but rather -- as you might
guess, the common tern is far more plentiful
than the least tern, but it does exist.
The common tern is endangered? So
it's not so common either.
The fact of the matter is, though,
these DEC officers patrol Jamaica Bay and the
national recreation area there and so on,
because there are, in fact, water birds who
once upon a time were slaughtered for their
feathers.
The other place they patrol, Madam
President, are some of the finest boutiques on
Fifth Avenue and throughout Manhattan where
very expensive furs are sold. Very expensive
furs, worth tens of thousands of dollars -
somehow or other, illegally imported. Why?
Because it's worth it if they can get away
with it -- from endangered species, from
species that are on the federal endangered
species list from around the world, from other
continents, from Africa and India and other
1861
places in Asia as well as in Latin America.
As we see rainforests, for example, in Latin
America receding under -- being burned for
agricultural purposes and other purposes.
So while we tend to look at this
as, oh, don't shoot the bald eagle -- and by
the way, frankly, even because of some of the
religious practices of Native Americans, it
had very little to do with the bald eagle and
the peregrine falcon and other species being
endangered. It was all about insecticides and
fertilizer runoff, mainly insecticide runoff,
that caused those species -- which happily are
rebounding, but, you know, nonetheless
remain -- you can still count the number of
nesting couples in New York, certainly, and in
the United States in many of these species.
But the real thing is about the big
bucks, the $150,000 fur coat from the
endangered species. And I respectfully
suggest that if the present penalties under
state law are less than Senator Maltese is
proposing, then we ought to raise them. But I
think in some cases we ought to raise them
even more.
1862
You know, this bill embraces not
just the taking of an endangered species, it
embraces the possession of an endangered
species, which would include any part of its
body, i.e., its furs. And I suggest that
somebody who pays $100,000 for a coat, a
genuine coat made from the fur or furs of an
endangered leopard, an endangered-species type
of leopard or whatever, knows what they're
doing. And frankly, a $5,000 fine is less
than the sales tax on that coat.
Certainly the people who import it,
the people who sell it know exactly what
they're doing. Its lofty price is precisely
because it is an endangered species, and rare.
Another type of enforcement against
the violation of the endangered species law
that comes from the -- and that we see
enforced in New York City are in various
cultures.
The ground tusks, for example, of
certain endangered species are valued in
traditional medicines or are valued as
supposed aphrodisiacs and other things. And
the ability of people in our state to buy
1863
this -- very, very expensive -- obviously
creates part of the demand for people on other
continents to take these animals, to poach, to
slay them. Everything from elephant tusks to
rhinoceros tusks to you name it.
So this just isn't about preserving
certain species in New York State. It's about
making sure New York is taken out of that
worldwide, high-profit market. People get
murdered. Gameskeepers in other continents
are murdered by these poachers because the
profits are so enormous from taking one of
these species.
It includes the alleged medicinal
and magical powers of the upland gorillas.
You know, earlier in this debate I
heard a couple of my colleagues on the floor
here say, Remember the Seinfeld episode about
the humpback whale and the golf ball? And I
said I actually didn't see it, because I've
never seen a Seinfeld episode, because I don't
watch a lot of TV. When I do, I tend to watch
things like Discovery.
And there are obviously gorillas
endangered. We all know the stories and
1864
movies of the people who have tried to protect
them, people who have given their lives.
Poachers have killed them, the naturists who
were out there, wildlife protectors. And it's
pretty grotesque, but to cut off the hands,
perhaps, of the gorilla because it's regarded
as having magical properties.
These things, believe it or not,
find their way into New York State and into
New York City, and people market them and make
great profit on it.
So what I suggest, Madam
President -- I'm going to vote for this bill.
But I suggest that passing this
bill year after year after year does
absolutely nothing. One, because it never
becomes law. And, two, I think the problem is
much greater than this.
Oh, sure, a $5,000 fine to a hunter
that shoots, mistakenly or otherwise, a
protected bird is significant.
But we haven't addressed the big
bucks involved in the people who are importing
the rhinoceros tusks or the forbidden furs,
the endangered species, the furs of endangered
1865
species and are, I can assure you, Madam
President, selling it at enormous profits in
New York City.
And I suggest real enforcement is
called for. These are dangerous people doing
this, because there's big bucks at stake. And
I suggest that the sponsor -- I most
respectfully suggest, because I know he is
sincere in wanting to do something about
this -- negotiate with his counterparts in the
Assembly, and let's come up with a bill that
really makes a lot of sense. There ought to
be different fines in here.
And, Madam President, not to
correct a colleague of mine who referred to
this as making something a felony -- as I read
it, we're talking about B and A misdemeanors
here. I would suggest that there ought to be
felonies in the bill, felonies for the
importers or sellers of these so-called
high-ticket items, which are in fact
endangered species.
So I'm going to vote for this. I
really doubt it addresses in a significant
enough way what the real problem is here. The
1866
real problem is this is not about a cute
little rare bird or an endangered mollusk.
This is about the big-bucks traders in furs
and other body parts of endangered species
which drive others in -- you know, a poacher
in some places in Africa and Asia can, with
one kill, make far more money -- and the
poacher being at the low end of this
distribution system -- far more money than the
average worker could make in years and years
and years.
We have to take the economic
incentive out of this trade. And we can only
do that if, when you catch somebody in
possession of one of these objects or selling
or bartering one of these objects or offering
it for sale, if the fine far exceeds any
expectation of profit they might have.
Madam President, I urge everyone to
vote yes on this. But more importantly, I
urge the sponsor and every one of my
colleagues who's concerned to sit down with
the Assembly and let's get real legislation to
catch up with what's going on here. This is a
very serious worldwide problem.
1867
Thank you, Madam President.
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 PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, to
explain your vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Yes, thank you
very much, Madam President.
I am going to vote yes on this
legislation because of the convincing
arguments that have been made about it. And I
agree that more needs to be done on the issue.
I also want to point out that
something that I agreed with the sponsor is
that he feels it's important to leave whether
or not someone is guilty of wanton disregard
up to judicial discretion. And I'm glad to
hear that, because we do spend so much time
with determinate sentencing here in this body.
And instead to focus on judicial discretion I
think is very important.
And as we move forward debating
1868
things like the Rockefeller Drug Laws and the
second-felony determinate sentencing, I think
that if we keep in mind that it's a good
policy for us to keep judicial discretion in
mind, that will be very helpful as we reform
those ill-conceived laws.
And I'll be voting yes, Madam
President. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded as voting in the affirmative.
Senator Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Thank you, Madam
President. I am going to support this
legislation. And I really want to thank
Senator Maltese for his patience during this
debate.
And what is fascinating to me is
that in dealing with species, endangered
species in this debate here today, I was
fascinated by the kind of little details and
information that were given here that, to tell
you the truth, I was happy to learn about.
Let me tell you that I have always
felt that I am an environmentalist at heart.
I still feel awe at looking at a mountain.
1869
And I am so happy that among the endangered
species, Madam President, the beetle that I
don't know its -- I don't know its scientific
name, but that beetle that is destroying all
those beautiful trees that we have in Central
Park and all over the City of New York, I am
so happy that that beetle is not an endangered
species, because we hope that soon we will
make it totally passe.
Thank you. I vote in the
affirmative.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be
recorded as voting in the affirmative, Senator
Mendez.
Senator Espada.
SENATOR ESPADA: Thank you, Madam
President. To explain my vote, please.
I would say shame on the Assembly
Majority if it doesn't take this matter up
with the seriousness that this chamber has
taken this matter up today. It's made it very
clear that the DEC -- that the citizens and,
for that matter, noncitizens of New York
State, obviously the entire legislative body
here, Majority and Minority, all take this
1870
matter to be very serious.
Indeed, I think we all benefited
from the embellishment that was provided by
Senator Connor in terms of the criminal
element that is present in this trade, in this
misconduct. And if anything, it makes it
clear that the civil penalties that are
attached to this bill may not be steep
enough -- ranging, I guess, from $2,500 to
$5,000 or so.
The bill does provide for the
protections that are needed, and I would urge
all members to vote in the affirmative. Thank
you very much. I shall vote yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Espada,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could return to Calendar Number 43, by
1871
Senator Balboni.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
43, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 858B, an
act to authorize the Congregation Shira
Chadasha in the Village of Great Neck.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please, Madam President.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, this bill would seek to permit the
Congregation -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
go ahead.
SENATOR BALBONI: I'm sorry,
Madam President, through you. This bill would
seek to allow the Congregation Shira Chadasha
to file an application for a real property
exemption pursuant to 420A of the Real
Property Tax Law, and ask that the County of
Nassau Assessor's office consider their
application for the exemption from
approximately $29,000 worth of real property
taxes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman.
1872
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes, through
you, Madam President, would the distinguished
Senator from Nassau County accept a question
or two.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay. Prior to
coming to the Senate, I was a member of a U.S.
Department of Education accreditation
committee called the Association of Advanced
Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools. And I would
always ask people who came for exemptions or
exceptions why. And I would also ask you not
only why, but when was this deadline missed
and for what reason.
SENATOR BALBONI: There are two
partials involved in this particular
transaction, Senator.
The first partial was closed on in
September of 1998. That was after the date
that the tax rolls were established.
The second piece, which was a
parsonage, which is why it's 420A of the Real
1873
Property Tax Law, as opposed to the other
section, was then closed on in September of
1999, once again after the closing of the tax
rolls for Nassau County.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Would the
Senator yield for an additional question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: What is the
fiscal implication of this for the county or
for the city of Great Neck?
SENATOR BALBONI: The period of
time in which the -- this congregation paid
real property taxes for which it has a prima
facie exemption is approximately $29,000.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Now, it would
appear to me that today's legislation, Shira
Chadasha, is similar to the exemption you had
requested and we passed last week for Chabad
Lubavitch.
SENATOR BALBONI: To the extent
that it is an application by a religious
1874
organization in my Senate district, yes, it
is.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay. Now,
this would appear to be a case-by-case
approach.
About -- within the same week, last
week, I believe Senator Wright asked us for
permission to do just the opposite in terms of
Oswego County, in a small town called Parish,
where the property tax should be applicable.
And he wanted an exemption for that issue.
And we granted that, as we granted the
Lubavitch and as we will probably grant this
congregation.
But I do know that in 1997 Governor
Pataki, in his approval message for one of
these exemptions, stated that he would prefer
to have an all-encompassing standard rather
than a case-by-case approach to these issues.
Now, I believe that two years ago
we passed 21 of these bills, last year we
passed 22 of these bills on a case-by-case
approach. Madam President, could the Senator
yield -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
1875
yield?
SENATOR LACHMAN: -- for another
question.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Are you aware,
Senator Balboni, that there is a bill known as
the Hannon-Abbate bill -- and Abbate does not
mean Catherine Abate, it means Peter Abbate in
the Assembly -- that would set statewide
standards that would be applicable to all such
cases, rather than our sending to the Governor
individual cases when it is necessary?
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator
Lachman, I am not aware of the particular
piece of legislation that has been sponsored
by the incredibly fine gentleman from Nassau
County, Senator Kemp Hannon, who as you know
is a star in healthcare and does many
wonderful things on behalf of his
constituencies.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Through you,
Madam President, will the Senator continue to
yield.
1876
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Could you in
the future, Senator Balboni, see yourself
reviewing the Hannon-Abbate legislation, which
for the last four years has passed the
Assembly, but not the Senate, and which looks
upon this not on a case-by-case approach but
in a broader approach for all such endeavors?
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator
Lachman, I appreciate this moment in time.
Because if this colloquy was continued on the
floor of the State Assembly back in 19 -- say,
'90 to '96, you'd be ruled as being
nongermane, which was often done to me.
We in this house, as you know, we
allow great latitude in having these types of
discussions. And therefore, in the spirit of
that, I will answer you.
This is a very easy litmus test for
your support or your opposition to this
particular measure. It should be three
1877
questions. The first is, did a religion
organization purchase a piece of property.
Secondly, was that purchase on or after the
date in which the tax tolls were fixed. And,
three, does that organization have a prima
facie right to an exemption.
If those answers are yes, then
there should be support for the bill,
notwithstanding an objection. Because I'm
sure, as you will know, that our laws today
are so complex, many of our constituents are
faced with what people of common sense would
refer to as ministerial obstacles. This is
one such ministerial obstacle.
What I'm doing today, hopefully
with your vote in the affirmative, is to
remove this ministerial opposition and
obstacle so that these people who deserve the
opportunity to have their application
considered on the basis of the fact that
they're a religious organization in fact get
the opportunity to do so.
To the extent that there's another
issue, another bill that may come before the
house, I'll reserve my judgment on that
1878
particular bill when it arrives before us.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam Chair, on
the issue.
Okay, we're not going back to the
future; we're in the present. And we have
always been proud of the fact that the Senate
is a different institution than the Assembly,
not only in terms of civility but in terms of
process and procedures. And I still believe
in that, and I think everyone in this chamber
believes in that. So I appreciate your taking
these questions and responding to them as best
as you could.
However, if we have legislation
that has been espoused and legislation that
has been prepared by a Senator in the Senate
and by an Assemblyman in the Assembly that has
passed one house four times in a row and has
not passed this house, I would urge Senator
Balboni, together with Senator Hannon, to, if
possible, come out with joint legislation with
the Assembly that would not pass such
exemptions on a case-by-case basis but via a
state standard that is applicable to all such
deserving institutions.
1879
And I do believe this is a
deserving institution, and I will vote yes.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Balboni would yield for
some questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Senator Paterson, you may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator
Balboni, I was listening to your exchange with
Senator Lachman. And he pointed out that in
the Governor's approval message in 1997 that
he discussed the idea of setting up a
statewide task force to try to eliminate these
types of things from happening on a
case-by-case basis.
And we passed 23 chapters such as
this in 1999, and another 20 last year. So I
don't know how they would have ruled you in
the Assembly, but I'm glad here in the Senate
1880
that you consider this germane. Because my
question is, with this being the case, isn't
it possible that we take more of a cursory
look at these types of legislation when in
fact, though the problem may only be
ministerial, we don't have a real standard
other than to look at them as we kind of do
relying on the local municipality and then
just passing the bills?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, I think there's a question in there
somewhere, so is it that we should take a more
cursory look?
SENATOR PATERSON: No, the
question is that before passing the bills case
by case that we should establish a statewide
law to pass them so that there will be a
standard that somebody else can review rather
than the Legislature.
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator
Paterson, have you gotten a chance to review
the actual terms of the legislation?
SENATOR PATERSON: Of this
legislation?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yeah.
1881
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes.
SENATOR BALBONI: Okay. So then
you are of course familiar with the fact that
what this legislation does is it allows,
permits the assessor of the County of Nassau
to accept the application. Nothing more. It
doesn't say you must grant the exception. It
doesn't say that you must certify that this in
fact is an eligible religious organization.
It merely says because of a
ministerial objection, this particular
application should be considered by the
assessing organization, which is in the County
of Nassau -- or I should say institution, the
county assessor.
Now, is that the type of analysis
that you wish this body to perform, as to
whether or not this particular religious
organization is in fact duly authorized, duly
incorporated and therefore eligible for a real
property taxation exemption? If so, I would
suggest that your -
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
1882
SENATOR BALBONI: Oh, you're
receiving advice from counsel? Would you guys
stop ganging up on me? This is not that hard.
This is not that hard.
I would really suggest that what we
have here is, like I said before, the removal
of a ministerial obstacle to allow a
governmental procedure that is so much better
equipped, every locality is so much better
equipped than we are at the state level to
actually rule on whether or not somebody has a
meritorious application for real property tax
exemption.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would yield for a
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, I do indeed.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I don't know how the individual
assessors and municipalities feel on granting
1883
or not granting the applications. I was
wondering if the Senator did.
SENATOR BALBONI: Which Senator?
Is that me?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes, Senator.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, I'm sorry, I do not understand the
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
could you clarify your question, please.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, Madam
President, it was Senator Balboni that just
told us that this was actually a simple
matter.
It was just to put this case, along
with the 43 others that we've done in the past
two years, in the hands of the local
municipality and assessor.
SENATOR BALBONI: Right.
SENATOR PATERSON: That presumes
that we have an idea of whether or not the
local municipalities or assessors feel about
granting or not granting an application that's
filed past the actual tax status date.
Now, I don't know how they feel
1884
about that. And so my question to the Senator
is did he know, not only what his own assessor
feels about this particular case, but what all
the other ones did about the other cases.
Which might have been the reason that even the
Governor of the State of New York said that we
should pass a statewide bill, and why two
other legislations at least, Senate Bill 7527
and Assembly Bill 2714, were introduced in the
past couple of years, because we don't really
know whether or not the local assessors think
that this is a good idea to put in their
hands, whether or not they think it's
ministerial or whether or not they think that
perhaps the issue should be carried over to
the next taxable year.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, that is certainly a compound
question.
SENATOR PATERSON: No, it's a
simple question.
SENATOR BALBONI: And I could
possibly answer by saying no. Of course, I'll
go on.
You're under a misimpression.
1885
First off, when you said that I felt that this
discussion was germane, please be advised it
is my opinion it is not germane. However, I
am going to answer it because it's the spirit
and the flavor of this house to do so. It's a
courtesy. So that's the first misimpression I
don't want you to have.
The second misimpression is the
fact that it's in any way relevant that in -
from my standpoint that I know what the local
municipal institution feels about a particular
matter that comes within their jurisdiction.
See, as you are very well aware, we have
multiple layers of government. And though we
can work with them, it's very often difficult
to try to prescribe to them matters that are
within their discretion. They are the
individuals who can examine the tax rolls,
they are the individuals who can take a look
at all of the extraneous matter that is on the
records, and they can make that determination.
This would truly be cumbersome and
inherently dangerous if we should try to
supplant, either with colloquy on the floor or
through statutory enactment, what the local
1886
municipality is charged to do.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: If the Senator
would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you continue
to yield, Senator?
SENATOR BALBONI: Sure, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Under the law
as it stands now, there has to be a
legislative action to supplant the matter of
government. It doesn't happen by itself.
That's the reason that we're here debating
this legislation.
And there are some prerequisites by
which the local assessor can act. One is the
understanding of what the nature of the
property is for, that it's either religious,
educational, related to hospitals and so
forth.
I assume that in this case the
1887
nature of the use of the property relates to
the religious institution the Congregation of
Shira Chadasha; is that correct?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes.
Madam President, I would suggest to
the distinguished Senator that what might be
of use in this particular debate is a review
of the administrative law doctrines as it
relates to the actions by municipalities. As
you are aware, the enactments by the State
Legislature are not subject to Article 78
review. That's because -- and we're also not
subject to mandamus.
However, reviewing jurisdictions,
and particularly in the local municipalities
that have discretionary aspects or
discretionary components to their enactments,
are in fact subject to Article 78. Why?
Because if they act arbitrarily or
capriciously, their decision can then be
reviewed.
That is relevant because the action
here is one of a discretionary nature upon
review of the particular facts and
circumstances in the individual case.
1888
What we are doing here is extending
a deadline that is statutorily enacted. What
they are doing is a making a case-by-case
analysis predicated upon the facts and
circumstances surrounding this particular
application. There are two different
standards; we have two different roles to
play. That's why this bill needs to be done
today.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: I continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, what
I'm getting from what you just said, based on
what the administrative law provides the -
what it defines as the duties of the assessor
and perhaps the law as it stands now, am I not
correct in stating that the municipality
really doesn't need an application on the part
1889
of the congregation that's before us today to
go in and inspect that property, does it?
SENATOR BALBONI: I don't know
what authority you cite for that. There is a
statutory requirement that if the tax rolls
are closed at a certain date, they're closed.
By way of this Legislature and amendments of
Section 420A of the Real Property Tax Law, we
allow that application to be considered.
And it is in our purview to be able
to do that. It is not in the purview of the
local municipality. They cannot amend state
law; we can.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, it's
in the exact section that you just referred to
that permits me to ask you this question.
Because it says right in the section -- I
1890
can't see it, so I won't try to read it to
you.
SENATOR BALBONI: Do you have the
section in front of you?
SENATOR PATERSON: I do have the
section in front of me.
SENATOR BALBONI: Okay, would you
like to tell me what line you're reading from?
You want to continue this over
coffee later in your office? Would you like
to do that?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
have another question?
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay, it's
Section 11 of Section 420A of the Real
Property Law. And -
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator, might
I add that at this point in time you have me
at a disadvantage. I don't have Section 11 in
front of me. And I have failed to commit it
to memory, I apologize.
You're going to hand it to me?
SENATOR PATERSON: I don't know
if this is proper service.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yeah, is this
1891
propers service? Your Honor, is this proper
service?
SENATOR PATERSON: Now, I think
it's line 11. If you take a look at it, to
me, what I -- you know, when it was read to me
earlier, what I thought I heard was that it
said that the local municipality or the
assessor can inspect the property of the party
of this particular institution without need
for an application, whether it was before or
even after the tax status date.
SENATOR BALBONI: I'm not sure
where you're getting your advice from, but
that's not how I read this.
I read this as the -- I'll read it.
"Where the assessor receives no such
application, the assessor may nevertheless
grant the exemption, provided the assessor
personally inspects the property and certifies
in writing that it satisfies all the
requirements for exemption set forth in the
section."
Well, that does not satisfy the
requirements set forth in this exemption -
and I'm speaking to your counsels now -
1892
because you haven't made the roll date by
which the rolls are closed or set. That's a
requirement for the section. And therefore
that is a legal precedent that must be
established prior to the acceptance of the
application.
What this speaks to is the ability
of the assessor to do an independent review of
the property, notwithstanding any extension of
the real property roll date, roll
establishment date, whatever the heck you call
that. Here you go, Senator. Status date,
thank you.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Balboni would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, I will continue to yield if you can
give me some idea as to the breadth of your
inquiry. Is this going to be twenty questions
more, five questions more?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
1893
President, point of order. Senator
Balboni's -- I do believe that response is out
of order. His answer is either yes or no. He
yielded to a question. I'd just ask Senator
Balboni -- to confine him to that answer.
SENATOR BALBONI: I'm sorry,
Madam President, I don't understand what the
point of order was.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, would you please wait to be
acknowledged. And I will acknowledge you now.
Would you like to have the floor?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I believe
that Senator Balboni's response to a yield to
a question is either yes or no. And with all
due respect, I think that that's consistent
with the order and practice of this house, and
I'd simply ask him if he'd continue to be in
order in that respect.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, I'd just point out that that is not
a valid point of order.
1894
THE PRESIDENT: Your point is not
well-taken, Senator Dollinger.
You may proceed, Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you very
much, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
could you clarify your -
SENATOR PATERSON: Do I have to,
Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
have a question?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes, I already
said that. But you asked me if I wanted to -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Sure, if the
Senator would give me an indication as to how
long he intends to go with this. Just an
indication. That won't hurt you. Is it five
minutes, ten minutes, how long?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I believe
1895
Senator Balboni is out of order if he doesn't
answer the question either yes or no. He has
a clear right to say no if he so chooses.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: I believe -
thank you for recognizing me. I believe there
is a legitimate debate going on between
Senator Paterson and Senator Balboni. I don't
believe we need members popping up like tops
every 30 seconds unless they have a legitimate
point of order.
So if we could proceed with the
debate, I think we're doing a great job. And
I would urge members to come into the chamber,
because this debate will someday go down in
the annals of the New York State Legislature
as one of the finest that we've ever heard.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
do you yield for a question, please.
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator, got
any idea? Five questions, two questions?
What do you think?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
do you yield for a question, please.
1896
SENATOR BALBONI: I yield for one
more question.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
Senator Paterson, you may proceed
with a question.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator,
there's administrative relief, there's
judicial relief, and there are other ways in
which the entity can seek remedy other than
coming to the Legislature. That's what I read
the current law to be.
Now, you may disagree with that.
But since the bill is now before the house,
then are you aware of any outside involvement
in any activities that would be profit-making
related to the same cause by any board members
of the entity or officers of the
not-for-profit corporation?
SENATOR BALBONI: No.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you. If
the Senator would yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield for a question?
SENATOR BALBONI: One more.
1897
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
have a final question, Senator Paterson?
SENATOR PATERSON: Oh, I have
plenty of questions. It depends on how many
of them he'll answer.
THE PRESIDENT: I believe Senator
Balboni has yielded for a final question.
SENATOR PATERSON: All right.
I'll leave Senator Balboni alone, Madam
President, if you want me to.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: But my final
question is if there were such violation of
Section 420A of the Real Property Tax Law,
then it's likely that this decision to go
forward and grant this application for
consideration by the local assessor, or by the
local municipality in this case, would really
rest on an action taken by the Legislature
where we don't have any of the ability, we
don't have any of the propriety, we don't have
any of the opportunity to look at the property
the way the assessor would.
And so, Senator Balboni, don't you
1898
think it would be more prudent for us to pass
a statewide law on this issue rather than
involving ourselves in matters that we don't
have requisite knowledge and in a sense
allowing for the granting of applications that
really only an assessor or a municipality
should consider?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, through you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: The particular
measure before us has one function and one
function only. It is to address, as I said
before, a ministerial obstacle. Nothing more,
nothing less.
We retain within the office of the
county assessor the ability to discern the
facts and circumstances surrounding this
individual application. We retain within the
office of the assessor the discretion with
which to either grant the application or deny
it. It would be the discretion that is
exercised by that office that would in fact be
reviewable either by an Article 78 or by a
lawsuit by other interested parties, not the
1899
act of the Legislature.
Senator Paterson, I will end with
these comments. You are free to vote as you
will. However, I would suggest that you take
a look at this not so much as a poster child
for a statewide exemption standard bill, but
rather on the congregants of this particular
religious organization that deserve a real
property tax exemption based upon their
religious activity.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: I want to
thank Senator Balboni for his responses and
his granting me a free vote on this issue.
But I think that Senator Balboni to
some degree has misapplied the connotation of
the term "ministerial," which to me means that
an action was taken beyond a certain
prescribed limit but that the damage of
1900
granting something after the fact is somewhat
incongruous, that there really is no
difference as to whether or not we did it
before the deadline or after the deadline.
What Senator Balboni is using the
term in this particular case is to address
something that I think is a little more
meticulous and a little more serious than just
the fact that this particular institution,
which I am sure is completely in compliance
with all of the regulations, which richly
deserves the $29,000 tax exemption because
they purchased property after the tax status
date.
But what I think the issue in this
particular legislation is, Madam President, is
the fact that this goes on all the time. That
we've had to come back to the Legislature over
and over again to put the local assessors and
municipalities in the position where they can
perhaps grant favorably these particular
applications.
So it isn't that this particular
institution made a mistake. And I apologize
if their individual case being analyzed today
1901
is in any way inuring to the detriment of
their character and integrity. It should not.
They apparently have great character.
But what is really the issue at
hand is the fact that they didn't make as much
a mistake as much as the law doesn't provide
them with a remedy other than to come back to
the Legislature.
My reading of the statute is that
perhaps the law does require -- would have a
remedy if they went right back to the
municipality and sought judicial review if it
was not granted. Senator Balboni doesn't see
it that way.
But nonetheless, if we as a
Legislature are going to consume a great deal
of our occupation looking at these particular
situations, relying on information that we
have no idea whether or not it is or isn't
true in other cases -- not like this one,
which has a very dedicated local Senator who
I'm sure wouldn't bring it before us unless it
should be granted -- then it is my position,
Madam President, that it is a little more than
ministerial.
1902
It is really what is in a sense a
misapplication of the law. The formulators
didn't realize that so many times after the
tax status date that these properties would be
bought and that the entities would be assessed
taxes at that particular time.
What we need to do is to change the
law, to change the standard, rather than to
sit here, as we too often do, forcing
organizations, not-for-profits and entities,
to come back to us over and over again for the
proper remedy that they may deserve.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I wonder if
the sponsor would yield, in the spirit of the
forthcoming Passover season, to four
questions.
SENATOR BALBONI: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with four questions, Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Four
questions. And I'm not going to ask why this
bill is different from all other bills.
My first question, through you,
Madam President, what is the fiscal impact of
1903
this bill? How much tax revenue is Nassau
County, considering its current fiscal status,
foregoing?
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator, as you
may or may not be well aware, there is
multiple jurisdictions that tax on a real
property basis.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I understand
that.
SENATOR BALBONI: Therefore, it's
not just the County of Nassau.
In fact, there is a general tax -
I do not have the county breakdown.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I'm talking
about the property tax.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes. A general
tax and a real property tax, and the school
tax, the town tax, the village tax and the
county tax.
I don't know how much specificity
you want, but the overall number is $29,488.86
is the entire amount of both.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Per year?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, per year.
And 65, 66 percent of that is the
1904
school tax. Of that are the remaining
jurisdictions, including the village, town and
county.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you.
And I would assume that it would be a large
percentage for the school tax, since this is
obviously a high-tax area.
My second question deals with the
county legislature, where I see in the bill it
requires approval by the county legislature.
Madam President, if I may inquire,
has the Nassau County Legislature considered
this bill yet?
SENATOR BALBONI: No, it has not.
SENATOR STAVISKY: All right.
And my third question deals with -- I'm just
curious. My third and fourth questions, I am
curious. Why, Madam President, are so many of
these bills in Nassau County? And as part of
that, I am curious, more than anything else,
as to why so many of them are synagogues.
SENATOR BALBONI: As you know,
the County of Nassau is one of the few
remaining jurisdictions that has countywide
assessing. I'm not sure that that has an
1905
impact, but it's an individual characteristic.
And you would have to ask the
temple as to whether or not its particular
board -- or how it works with its attorneys.
I am not sure why it is.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Okay. Thank
you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Brown was
next.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Madam
President. Madam President, through you,
would the sponsor yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Senator
Brown.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Madam
President. Madam President, has this
congregation paid any taxes at this point?
SENATOR BALBONI: I'm sorry,
Madam President, I couldn't hear the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, could
you repeat your question.
1906
SENATOR BROWN: Has the
congregation paid any taxes at this point?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, they have.
SENATOR BROWN: So then they
would be reimbursed for the taxes -
SENATOR BALBONI: That is
correct, Senator.
SENATOR BROWN: On the bill,
Madam President.
I certainly support Senator
Balboni's efforts here. I believe that when
we get a request of this nature from our
constituents, we should try to honor that
request.
From listening to the debate,
though, I think the deeper question is why
don't we just move to a process -- and the
legislation was referred to by Senator
Lachman -- where we wouldn't have to have
these bills come before us, you know,
throughout the course of the legislative
session.
It's my understanding that a
similar bill in the Assembly has not passed
yet. I don't know why it hasn't passed in the
1907
Assembly. But earlier in this legislative
session, we talked about trying to change
rules in this house to make our operations
more efficient. It seems to me that if we
could pass the legislation that Senator
Lachman referenced that we would be more
efficient, because these bills that come up
periodically during the course of the session,
that I'm sure perhaps each and every one of us
from time to time will get a request from a
group in our district, we would then not have
to bring to the floor of this Legislature if
we were able to pass such legislation.
To me it's a commonsense measure
that should be able to be passed. We talk
about the frustrations that citizens have in
trying to get things done at the state level.
And to me, just in listening to this and
recognizing the fact that we have to
continually deal with these issues that come
up -- and certainly they are of no fault to
any Senator that brings them, that is trying
to respond to a legitimate request on behalf
of a constituent -- it seems like it would
just make common sense for us to be able to
1908
pass legislation that would give the
municipality the ability to respond to such
matters at the time a congregation or other
tax-exempt entity purchased a piece of
property and then goes to the municipality
requesting an exemption.
And to me, that's the larger
question that has been raised based on Senator
Balboni's legislation that we are considering
today that I think we all support. But the
larger issue is why don't we remove this
ministerial impediment that Senator Balboni
has described in this case.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, will Senator Balboni yield for a
question -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I will,
Madam President.
SENATOR ONORATO: -- from a
nonattorney.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
1909
SENATOR ONORATO: Based on what
I've been hearing here so far, this is going
to give the congregation permission to apply
retroactively; they might have missed a
deadline on it.
SENATOR BALBONI: That's
absolutely correct.
SENATOR ONORATO: In the event
that this legislation does not pass or the
Governor refuses to sign it, as he has
indicated he didn't want any more of these
bills coming up periodically, will they be
eligible to reapply in the next calendar year?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, they
would, Senator. But they would lose the
ability to do a retroactive application;
therefore, would lose the money that they've
already paid.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Just on the bill.
Most of my colleagues have asked
Senator Balboni all the critical questions
1910
that I would have asked, including Senator
Brown, who asked the question about whether
they had actually paid the taxes.
Because it would seem to me that if
they hadn't paid the taxes and they had done
what oftentimes not-for-profit groups do,
which is just ignore the tax bill, then what
in essence we'd be doing, Senator Brown, is
we'd be encouraging institutions like this to
avoid one of the fundamental rules of property
taxation, which is you pay the tax first and
then you protest and get it back. Which I'm
sure you're familiar with in your work in the
city of Buffalo.
But I'm going to vote against this
bill, Madam President, as I have done
repeatedly. Because every time a bill comes
up for a Nassau County institution, not for
profit, Senator Balboni and Senator Marcellino
and others who have brought these bills up
always give the following rationale: They
engage in charitable activities that makes
them tax-exempt and they've done everything
that they're required to do in order to get a
tax exemption.
1911
Except, Senator Balboni, that just
isn't true. The last comment, the third point
that you made isn't true. They didn't do what
was required to get a tax exemption. They
didn't file for a charitable tax exemption on
the taxable status date, which is what our law
requires.
And with all due respect to Senator
Balboni, saying that that's merely ministerial
is like saying it's merely ministerial that
you file your income taxes on April 15th. I
would suggest, Senator Balboni, when one of
your clients goes into the IRS and the IRS
says, You're being charged with tax evaluation
because you didn't file your tax returns on
time, and you suggest to them, Oh, that's a
merely ministerial error that they didn't file
their income taxes on April 15th, I would
suggest that the tax court and every court in
this land would say: No, no, that's a statute
of limitations. That's something you must do
on that date or you lose the right to do it
forever.
And what's happened here is we are
in essence creating a religious, charitable,
1912
malpractice get-out-of-jail-free card for
every institution in Nassau County that
forgets what the law is, doesn't consult with
legal counsel, doesn't ask when the taxable
status date is, and when they miss it, through
the good efforts of their State Senator,
whoever it may be from Nassau County -- it
only seems to happen there, although it
probably happens all over the state, and I'm
convinced it does -- but nonetheless, we come
up and we say, It's okay, you can forget the
law, you don't have to apply, just bring it to
the attention of your Republican State Senator
at some point and it will be taken care of.
I've suggested for the better part
of the last two years that that doesn't make
good public policy. What it actually does,
Senator Balboni, in my personal opinion, is it
encourages more institutions who would
otherwise qualify to simply not file on the
exemption in the hopes that somehow the
intervention of the State Legislature will
resolve this and take them off the hook.
That's not good public policy,
Madam President. It encourages something that
1913
we would like to discourage. We would like to
discourage charitable institutions from simply
disregarding their tax bill and not filing for
an exemption. That's what we want them to do,
they're entitled to do it, they're entitled
not to have to pay property taxes. And the
best message we can send to them and their
lawyers is to simply file for your tax
exemption before the taxable status date, do
it on that time frame and you will be entitled
to relief from any property taxes that you've
paid.
I continue to vote against this.
The reasons articulated by Senator Brown and
others, and Senator Lachman, about let's do a
statewide bill, let's give every single
assessor the same power that we're giving the
assessor in Nassau County through this bill -
that is, the ability to provide a partial
property tax exemption when the property is
traded part of the way through a calendar year
so that they can get the benefit from the day
they buy it forevermore, as long as they hold
it.
I go back to one other point,
1914
though. If we do this bill, it has to be a
both-ways bill. Because if you sell a
charitable piece of property after the tax
status date, it should immediately go on the
tax rolls. Instead, under the current plan,
if a charitable institution like this
religious organization sells a property midway
through the taxable status year and it is used
for a profit-making activity, it enjoys the
not-for-profit tax exemption through the
remainder of the tax year.
That's the best way, make it a
both-ways bill. Senator Lachman has talked
about it. These kinds of bills don't need to
address our time and attention. And I would
suggest that the better approach is to do a
statewide, both-ways bill for a property tax
exemption for charitable institutions. I will
vote for it then.
Until then, I'm going to vote no on
this bill and no on all bills like it.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
will Senator Balboni yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
1915
yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Just to clarify,
Senator Dollinger mentioned that if you fail
to file in a timely basis that all you have to
do is go to your Republican Senator and you'll
get the exemption.
SENATOR BALBONI: That's correct,
Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: Is there a
sponsor in the Assembly?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, there is.
SENATOR SKELOS: Who is the
sponsor in the Assembly?
SENATOR BALBONI: You know,
Senator, I'm glad you brought that up. It is
Assemblyman Tom DiNapoli.
SENATOR SKELOS: Is he a
Republican or a Democrat?
SENATOR BALBONI: Last -- let me
check. He is a Democrat, in the Democratic
Majority in the Assembly. Thanks for bringing
it up.
1916
Because I'll tell you what, it's
one thing to disparage me in this chamber,
saying that I provided a religious
organization with a get-out-of-jail-free card.
But it's another thing to take on my good
friend Assemblyman Tom DiNapoli, a good
Democrat from the other house who is not here
to defend himself. That's really outrageous
conduct. I object to that.
And the other thing is, what has
this congregation ever done to you?
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section, please.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. 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 just briefly.
I want to thank Senator Balboni for
giving Assemblyman DiNapoli's campaign speech,
which I have no doubt he may use at some point
1917
in Nassau County.
But I think the issue that I simply
want to point out to Senator Balboni, I think
Senator Balboni is doing something good for
his community. I don't deny that that's the
right thing to do. I think faced with the
same circumstances, we would do that here.
But we go back to this issue of -
and it's true, a Republican Senator in this
chamber, a Democratic Assemblyperson in the
other chamber seem to get these bills passed
all the time. I would suggest if that's the
pattern, then there are other people in this
state, 42 percent in this chamber who aren't
going to have that possibility.
I would suggest that if we're going
to do these bills as a matter of course, we do
them for everyone, regardless of whose name
appears on the bill, Madam President.
But I will vote in the negative, as
I have on all these bills in the past and, as
I said, will continue to do so in the future.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, you will be recorded as voting in
the negative on this bill.
1918
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58. Nays,
1.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
136, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 1456, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to exemption.
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
138, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 1518A,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law, the
Public Authorities Law, and the Civil Service
Law, in relation to paid leave.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
an explanation has been requested by several
members.
1919
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you,
Madam President.
This bill would authorize state and
local government employees who are certified
by the American Red Cross as disaster
volunteers to take paid leave from their jobs
for a limited period of time to volunteer for
Red Cross disaster leave assignments.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor yield, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Surely, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, are there any instances where
state and local officers have refused to grant
this leave during a Red Cross disaster?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: None that I'm
aware of, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
1920
Madam President, if the Senator would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
do you yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, I do,
Madam President. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Would the sponsor
then describe the genesis for this bill?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: This bill was
actually proposed by the Red Cross American -
American Red Cross chapters across the state
of New York. Every American Red Cross chapter
in the state of New York has endorsed this
bill. Their statewide association recommended
this bill. It is currently in effect in 41
other states.
And in 1995, Senator, this
Legislature -- Assembly, Senate, and Governor
Pataki -- signed similar legislation
authorizing New York City firefighters to
receive this particular benefit.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
1921
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: In light of the
fact that the Red Cross themselves asked for
this, did they supply the sponsor with
circumstances under which state or local
agencies had refused to grant this leave? Or
did they just do it to be in concert with the
rest of the states in the nation?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I believe that
they would like to see this bill adopted in
all 50 states, Senator. That's why they
brought it to my attention.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President. So
this bill would then be considered
anticipatory?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President,
if the sponsor would continue to yield.
1922
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
do you yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Could the sponsor
tell me how one goes about becoming a Red
Cross disaster volunteer?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Certainly,
Senator.
The Red Cross chapters across this
state hold various training programs, I think
the most popular one of which is a CPR
training. But they hold lifeguard
certification training, and they hold disaster
relief training. And these are open to the
public.
As I stated, I think I stated
earlier, every chapter conducts them. And one
would simply sign up, see an advertisement in
a newspaper or in some other form of media, go
and sign up and go down and take the course.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, I need to get a qualification
1923
from the sponsor, if I may.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Surely, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Did the sponsor
indicate that -- I know there are separate
courses for CPR, lifeguard. Is there a
separate course, did he say, for disaster
relief training?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, there is,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, Madam
President.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
the sponsor has any idea how many state
workers presently have this classification.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I have no idea,
Madam President. Through you, Madam
President.
1924
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, does this legislation have
the support of the Governor and his
commissioners?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Through you,
Madam President, in response, Senator Duane, I
have not spoken directly to the Governor or to
his commissioners. But one would have to
assume, since he signed a similar bill in 1995
granting this benefit to New York City
firefighters, that he would be receptive.
I know that Governor Pataki is
certainly extremely sensitive to providing
necessary relief during periods of disaster.
We've seen that recently during the
weather-related disasters, during the
disasters on Long Island and so forth.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
do you yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Surely, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
1925
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Do employees of
the state or local governments now, or as a
result of this legislation, will they have to
file a notice with the state that they are
designated Red Cross disaster relief
volunteers?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: No.
SENATOR DUANE: Then through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
do you yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: If there is no
way to file such a designation with the state,
how would an employer then be able to prove
that an employee is going to the disaster and
not, for instance, taking a trip someplace
else?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Through you,
Madam President. The Red Cross must request a
particular individual, in writing, to the
1926
chief executive officer of a municipality or
to the head of a particular state agency.
And of course the Red Cross will
maintain the records. They know who is
certified and who's not, and in what regions
of the state that they're located in.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Is the Red Cross
required to provide that the state employee
actually fulfill their work requirement as a
disaster relief worker? Or is the onus on the
state agency to check with the Red Cross to
make sure that the state worker has fulfilled
their duties to the Red Cross?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: The onus is on
the Red Cross, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
1927
Madam President. In what format does the Red
Cross make its report to the state agencies?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Through you,
Madam President, I'm not sure I understand the
question. The Red Cross keeps a roster of
individuals that it has certified in its
various categories, one of which is disaster
relief.
SENATOR DUANE: Then through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Surely, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Then there really
is no way for the state agency to know for
sure that that state worker fulfilled their
duties unless the state agency asks the Red
Cross if in fact that person showed up on the
disaster relief job; is that correct?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: No.
SENATOR DUANE: Then, Madam
1928
President, would the sponsor continue to
yield.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
SENATOR DUANE: Then I don't
understand how it works. If the sponsor would
please again go over how it would work that we
would prove that the worker had actually
performed their disaster relief duties.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: The Red Cross
would have to submit in writing to the chief
executive officer of a municipality or to the
head of a state agency or public authority
that they require the services of employee
X,Y,Z for a particular disaster relief. Of
which employee X,Y,Z has been certified in.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: But what I'm
trying to get at is while a worker may be
1929
certified to do the job and in fact may have
led the agency to believe that they had gone
on the job, I still don't understand how it is
that you could prove that that worker actually
did the disaster relief and didn't, for lack
of a better term, play hooky and get off with
free time from their agency.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Through you,
Madam President, the onus is on the Red Cross.
The Red Cross knows who they have as being
certified. It's up to the Red Cross to
request, in writing, to the particular agency
or municipality for the services of a
particular individual.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President,
if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
SENATOR DUANE: Does this bill
cover legislative employees?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
SENATOR DUANE: If an agency or
an office was understaffed due to, say, a
1930
hiring freeze or sudden attrition, is the
agency required to allow the disaster relief
worker to go and work? Or does the agency or
the office have the right to request that
their employee not leave to work on disaster
relief?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Through you,
Madam President, it is completely
discretionary on the part of the agency head
or the head of the municipality.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: And does that
also include high-security jobs like state
correction officers, state police, et cetera?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes. Through
you, Madam President.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
1931
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: If an employee is
granted a leave to volunteer with the Red
Cross and they're injured while providing that
disaster relief, how would benefits such as
workers' comp be dealt with in a situation
like that?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Well, it would
be the responsibility of the Red Cross.
SENATOR DUANE: So through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do
you -
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: So the Red Cross,
then, is paying workers' compensation taxes
for situations like this?
1932
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Actually,
Senator Duane, in a very serious way, this did
come up during the negotiations of this bill.
And the Red Cross does carry insurance on all
of its disaster relief workers.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Is it a similar
situation with long-term disabilities that are
due to an injury, that the cost of that or
covering the disability insurance would be
covered by the Red Cross?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senator
continues to yield.
SENATOR DUANE: Are the disaster
relief workers only to be assigned within
1933
New York State, or could they be deployed
anywhere in the nation?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Well, depending
upon their abilities and their training, they
could be assigned anywhere within the nation.
But that is an extremely rare occurrence.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Surely, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: What about out of
the country, Canada, Mexico, and even beyond?
It is possible that the workers would be
deployed to those areas?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Through you,
Madam President, I would think it -- and it
really never came up during the discussions on
this bill, Senator. But I would think that
wherever there's a disaster and the Red Cross
needs assistance, I would think that this
1934
would apply.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, I asked previously about the
Governor and the state agencies, but I'm
wondering whether NYCOM or any combination of
municipalities have weighed in on this
legislation.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: There have been
no memos in opposition that I'm aware of,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you,
Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I think
Senator Hassell-Thompson was first.
THE PRESIDENT: You're yielding
to Senator Hassell-Thompson?
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I'm
yielding -
THE PRESIDENT: She was next, in
my mind, but -
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you,
1935
Madam President. I just have a couple of
questions.
Through you, Madam President, what
about some of the organizations that may wish
to provide disaster relief other than the
American Red Cross? Would the employees be
permitted to work through other organizations,
or does it have to be through the American Red
Cross?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: No, this has to
be through the American Red Cross, Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: The reason,
Madam President, that I asked the question is
I remember when there was a disaster in
Mexico, if I'm not mistaken, or Honduras,
there were Latin American or Hispanic
organizations that wanted to send aid and
wanted to send workers to help with the
disaster relief when the earthquakes occurred
down in Central America. And I -- so they
would not be permitted, Madam President?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: No. This bill
deals strictly with the American Red Cross.
SENATOR STAVISKY: And if I
should choose -- if there were a problem in
1936
Israel, for example, the Federation of Jewish
Philanthropies could not send disaster
workers, Madam President, is that correct?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I mean, they
could. But a public employee in New York
State could not get time off to assist.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, a couple of other questions.
The legislation talks about a
municipal corporation. Are teachers included?
Through you, Madam President.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes. Yes.
Yes.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Teachers would
be included.
How about EMS workers who may not
have taken the Red Cross training but at the
same time would certainly be qualified, Madam
President, to participate? If the Senator
would yield to that question, would answer
that question.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I'm not sure I
exactly heard the question. But if they're
not certified by the American Red Cross,
they're not covered under this legislation.
1937
SENATOR STAVISKY: They would not
be covered by this legislation.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: No. No.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, if the Senator would yield for
another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Certainly.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Since teachers
would presumably be included, who is going to
pay the cost of providing a substitute teacher
for the day or for the twenty days, which
turns out, I suspect, to be a month?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: The particular
school district would. Much like they do now
for jury duty or the City of New York does for
New York City firefighters.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, we have exempted many people from
jury duty.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: No. No. No,
I'm sorry, Senator Stavisky, to correct you,
but -
SENATOR STAVISKY: I'm not
1938
talking about teachers, I'm talking about -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
wish the Senator to yield for another
question?
SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes. Yes, I
do.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Nobody is
exempt from jury duty anymore, Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: That's what
I'm -
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Not even the
Governor. He's served on jury duty.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I did too.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky,
do you wish Senator Maziarz to yield for
another question?
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, yes, I have one other question
that -- as a matter of fact -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, wait a
minute, please.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, I do,
1939
Madam President. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with another question.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: We get off on
these tangents, Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: No, I'll tell
you, Madam President, where I'm going. What
would be the fiscal impact, Madam President,
on the localities if the employees took
advantage?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Actually,
Senator, again, I think some of these
questions aren't asked in a very serious vein,
but that is one issue that we talked about
with the New York State Conference of Mayors
and the New York State Association of Counties
and some of the state agencies, some of the
executive branch agency heads.
And it -- we suspect that it would
be very, very minimal. But it would all
depend, of course, on the number of disasters
and the number of people that the American Red
Cross required at a particular disaster.
But right now, there has never been
an instance that the American Red Cross could
1940
give us where an individual covered in a
different state under the similar legislation
took off more than 18 days.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you,
Madam President.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: On the
bill, Madam President.
I would like to commend the Senator
on this particular bill. As someone who has
served on the Red Cross board and also who has
been fortunate enough to have had firefighters
become certified by the Red Cross and to
participate two years ago in the upstate ice
storm, and some other employees, I think that
it is totally something that we should be
supporting.
It is incumbent upon us also to
understand that the Red Cross continues to
reach out to all groups who want to become
certified and who want to become a part of a
disaster relief program. And unfortunately,
there just are not enough people who are
1941
willing to volunteer. I mean, that's the
heart of this issue.
And so that when we have the
opportunity to make it possible for those
employees who choose to go and who choose to
be trained, I think that it is incumbent upon
us to look upon that as something appropriate.
So therefore, Senator, I commend
you and give my support to this legislation.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Will the sponsor yield just
to two quick questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for two questions?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Certainly,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with two questions.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, the
first question I have deals with the phrase
used in the bill of "specialized disaster
relief operations." Is that a defined term of
1942
art in this portion of the General Municipal
Law, and why did you pick the phrase
"specialized"?
I mean, are you assuming that these
are going to be something other than normal
services provided in disaster relief?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes. The Red
Cross actually provided and helped us with
that language, Senator. And the reason that
they did it is because they would look for a
different type of disaster relief volunteer
for a TWA-800-type crash than they would for
an ice storm disaster in the North Country.
So they actually suggested that
language.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: So it's my
understanding that this bill would not apply
to all disaster relief operations, such as
putting sandbags to hold back the water; this
would be specialized disaster relief services.
You're talking about the particular types of
water recovery or underwater recovery of the
type involved in the 800 flight operation?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes. Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
1943
Madam President. And just one other question,
if I can have Senator Maziarz yield.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Surely, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Does this
determination about a disaster, does it depend
on a declaration by the Governor that there is
a natural disaster or a disaster relief area?
Is that a necessary predicate to invoking this
provision, that the Governor actually declare
it to be a disaster?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: It's not
covered in this section of the law, but it is
covered in another section of the law where,
yes, it is, the Governor or the chief
executive officer of a municipality can
declare a disaster.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. So
just so I'm clear, Madam President, as a
condition for this period of leave you would
need one of those, either of the state -
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Both.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- to declare
1944
it to be a disaster area and therefore call in
the Red Cross?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes,
absolutely.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Just on the bill briefly.
I concur with Senator
Hassell-Thompson, both in her commendation of
Senator Maziarz -- this is a good bill. It
does have restrictions on when natural
disasters occur, you're going to require the
Governor to declare them.
I think the provision of
specialized disaster relief services is
critical too, because otherwise you're going
to have people just going out and putting up
sandbags. That's an important service in
times of a natural disaster, but it's not the
kind of specialized services that we take
somebody out of the state service, with skills
in disaster relief, and in essence have the
government pay for their services while
they're performing disaster relief.
I think with those kind of
restrictions on the bill, the bill makes
1945
eminent sense and is a good idea. I'll be
voting in the affirmative, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I had
just one comment on the bill, and I wanted to
answer a question also that Senator Duane had
asked, if I may, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
have a question?
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: No, I
don't have a question, I wanted to answer the
question that Senator Duane had asked on the
bill. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you'd
like to speak on the bill, then.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: On the
bill.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, you
may proceed on the bill.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I'll
get this right.
Senator Duane was concerned about
how would we know whether the employees
1946
actually performed on the job and were not -
and the answer to that is they are put
together as part of a team. They are
monitored. And at the end of that team
period, they receive a certificate and a
commendation for their participation.
So it is not -- you know, they
don't -- this is not absenteeism. There is a
strict monitoring. And people who choose to
do this also know that they're going into some
very dangerous territory, and so that people
do not just willy-nilly volunteer and then
don't show up for these.
And so in answer to that, I can
vouch for the fact that there is a monitoring
that does occur.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
1947
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
143, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 64, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to persons and officials.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella,
an explanation has been requested by Senator
Duane and Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR VELELLA: The bill
requires that emergency medical technicians
report instances when a child who appears
before them in their professional capacity
appears to be an abused or maltreated child.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Velella would yield for
a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella,
do you yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, you
1948
don't think that the pressure of becoming one
of the -- the newest profession that we've
added to the list of others who are obliged to
report these cases of child abuse or
maltreatment to the statewide registry for
child abuse, that this would not distract them
from the major responsibility that an EMT has,
which is to treat the medical situation, would
you?
SENATOR VELELLA: You're correct,
Senator, I do not believe that.
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay.
Senator, what do the emergency medical
technicians and others in that field where
they have first-line contact with victims feel
or any concerns that they've had about this
bill that you may have addressed?
SENATOR VELELLA: We've gotten
strong support of this bill from the EMT
community. They are very much in favor of it.
And they would like to be able to make these
reports in a formal capacity.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
1949
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
want to distinguish the EMTs in this
legislation from legislation similarly first
passed in 1973 -- it was originally an
Assembly Bill sponsored by Assemblyman Duryea,
who later became the Speaker. And since that
time, we've amended the legislation eight
times and added five professions -- this would
be the sixth -- to those that have this
obligation to report these issues.
But in the latest case, I see a
distinction that I find to be somewhat
significant and wanted to get your reaction to
it. Because the EMTs often go into the home,
and, similarly, there is a certain percentage
of cases in the home where the victim can be
treated right on-site, does not have to go for
any hospitalization at that point, where then
the questions that the EMT might ask to
ascertain some of the information that we want
1950
referred along would presumably be asked in
front of the abuser.
Do you not think, Senator, that
this puts the EMT in a rare, unique kind of
situation, unlike that of many of the other
professions involved?
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, let me
first correct you. I know Perry Duryea. He
was a friend of mine. And he was not the
Speaker after 1973. He was the Speaker prior
to that.
SENATOR PATERSON: You're right.
You're absolutely right.
SENATOR VELELLA: I was a member
of that house at the time.
And let me just say that exactly
the point you were talking about is one of the
reasons why they should be included. Because
very often those type of people who will abuse
children tend to rely on the emergency
services and not bring them into hospitals,
not bring them into formal settings where they
will have more professional staff and a better
opportunity to have someone analyze and look
at and assess the situation.
1951
But an EMS worker can maybe do that
a little easier out in the field, and pick up
someone that may be abused and report it,
rather than having the parent or the person
doing the abuse not bring them to an emergency
room and rely on the on-the-spot, in the house
emergency services that might be given.
So I think you make a good argument
for the bill in making that point.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yeah.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Actually,
Madam President, Senator Velella is right.
And I'm likely to vote for the bill. And the
point is that we would want those who would be
in the best situations to examine child abuse
to be able to report it. So you're absolutely
right; somehow we've got to find a way to get
the EMTs into this legislation.
1952
But my concern was for the safety
of the EMTs, being that they might be asking
these questions in front of a potentially
violent person. Do you have an opinion about
that?
SENATOR VELELLA: Well, you know,
I think it's like any other person who has to
inquire into these type of sensitive, either
family or potentially dangerous situations.
The technician would have to use
some discretion. I mean, if somebody's
standing there with a baseball bat ready to
hit you in the middle of the head, you don't
antagonize them and ask them questions that
are going to infuriate them. So you just use
discretion, and that's the better part of
valor, and you leave the room and you make
your report.
Now, remember, this is the
initiating process. This is not the
evaluation, the determination. This is
"reasonably suspect." They may be wrong.
They may be right. But at least what we want
to do is have these technicians make that
initial start, that initial point to begin.
1953
So that if in fact there is abuse there, it
will be detected.
We certainly don't expect them to
put themselves in danger personally by asking
foolish questions. Because sometimes when you
ask foolish questions, foolish things happen.
More people ought to be aware of that.
Foolish questions get foolish results.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'll take
everything Senator Velella has said under
advisement, and ask if he'll yield for a
question that he may determine whether it's
valid or not.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella,
do you yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, I
always assume your questions are valid and
will yield to you.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: So what we're
doing, Madam President, is we're understanding
1954
now that the EMTs are going to have to use
some discretion. They may not be able to ask
all the questions that we would like them to
ask. But if they see something that is awry
or get a feeling about a situation, we're
mandating them to report that to the registry.
Just to make sure that they're
equipped even to make that determination, is
there anything in this legislation or any
suggestion you would have eventually related
to the training of EMTs? I don't know how
long they're trained now, but perhaps
additional training in that particular area.
SENATOR VELELLA: I'm sorry,
Senator, could you repeat the question?
SENATOR PATERSON: It just
relates to the training of the EMTs, since
we're having them go into areas that
previously we have not required of them.
SENATOR VELELLA: You make a very
good observation. It is not mentioned in the
bill before you because it's already in other
parts of the statute. For those people who
are covered and required to make these
reports, there are guidelines within the
1955
statute to show them what to look for and what
the criteria should be.
So we are just incorporating them
by reference into those guidelines. It
doesn't appear printed on the bill, but it is
printed in the law that we're inserting them
into.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, what I will assume is that once the
legislation passes, that that would then add
to the training that these workers receive.
And with that pretty
straightforward issue, I ask Senator Velella
if he would yield to another question.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, I will.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
read recently that less than 40 percent of
hospital attendants -- attending physicians,
techs working in the emergency room, nurses,
and the like -- are asking women who come into
the hospital with questionable injuries the
four questions that they are mandated to ask
them related to the possibility of abuse. And
for some reason, these medical personnel are
not asking these questions. And that's
1956
something that is right now a matter of
research in institutions in the New York City
area.
My question to you is, since we're
now adding the EMTs, those technicians, to
that list of people who are supposed to be
asking these questions -- and now assuming
that they're not in a dangerous situation and
they could ask these questions -- do you have
any suggestion as to what we might be able to
do in order to encourage the professionals who
are mandated to do so to actually ask those
questions?
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, I
don't have to tell you that our role here is
to establish the laws, the criteria, and
enforcement goes out to another branch of
government.
I think that you and I have a
responsibility as legislators to champion the
cause and, when possible and whenever we can,
to call attention to those people that are
responsible and do their job probably as best
they can under stressful conditions. That
these are not issues that are taken lightly by
1957
the State Legislature. That abuse, whether it
be of a child, of a spouse, whatever it is,
abuse is not going to be tolerated. That's
why we pass these laws. And we expect
professionals to respond to the laws that we
set down.
And if in fact we find that they
are not, then we'll have to just do something
to impose professional criteria so that they
will take it more seriously. I don't know
what these criteria might be. But certainly
when we get the results of this evaluation,
you and I ought to sit down and decide how we
can help encourage professionals to act
responsibly.
I'm sure it's not by deliberate act
that they don't ask them. I'm sure it's
because they're overtaxed and it's the
pressures of work. We have to make it be a
serious thing.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would yield for
another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
1958
yield for a question?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Yeah, that
would be hard for you or I, Senator. And I
apologize if I put you in the situation of
trying to make a determination before the
adequate information is there.
But the question I have -- and I
guess this is my final question -- is what
right now is the criteria for treating a
situation where in this bill an EMT or in the
existing law other professionals are not in
compliance and it is shown that they knew but
withheld information about the abuse or
maltreatment of children?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yeah, there is
a provision in the law for failures to report,
and there are penalties in the law. It
becomes an A misdemeanor for knowingly,
deliberately -- and that's in the law now,
Section 420 of the Social Services Law, under
the Child Protective Services Act. And that
section makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly
1959
and willfully fail to report something that
you know happened in terms of abuse.
Now, that does not mean that you
should have known. It means you willfully
decided not to. You see the child beaten,
bloody, and you see obvious signs of abuse -
burn marks, whatever they may be, those are
prescribed in the statute, in the main
statute, that those would be the warning
signs -- and you choose not to report that,
you deliberately fail to report it. Not
negligently. Deliberately and intentionally.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Senator Velella. Madam President, on the
bill.
I think that this bill is worthy of
passage and this classification should be
added to the others that mandate that the
professionals working in this particular area
pass along the information to the child abuse
hotline or proper authorities of maltreatment,
of child abuse, of something that they sense
is suspicious.
I just want to again raise that
caution that because of the fact that the EMTs
1960
are often in situations where they are not as
well protected or armed as the police might
be, where they are not distinctly at a
distance from the potential perpetrator as the
doctor may be, that they are nonetheless in a
situation where there could be some harm.
And I hope -- it certainly is not
Senator Velella's intent, and I certainly hope
no one in the future would ever intend that a
questioning of the situation or something that
might lead people to think that the EMTs did
not follow procedure would not be construed
that way if the EMT thought that they were in
some kind of danger.
Otherwise, there's certainly very
good reason to pass this legislation because,
as Senator Velella said, there is immediate
contact and very close contact with the
victim, sometimes in situations where the EMT
may observe some kind of criminality that some
of the others would not have had that
opportunity.
So I'm going to vote for the bill,
but just with the caution that this is a group
of people sometimes going into very dangerous
1961
situations to treat the -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato.
Excuse me, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, excuse me. If I might, since the
hour is getting late, we can continue this
debate tomorrow. I'd ask that we lay the bill
aside for the remainder of the day and we'll
go back to it again tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: On your request,
Senator Velella, the bill is hereby laid
aside.
SENATOR VELELLA: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Madam President,
may we lay aside the balance of the bills on
the active list.
THE PRESIDENT: The balance of
the bills are laid aside, Senator.
SENATOR MEIER: Madam President,
there being no further business, I move we
adjourn until Tuesday, March 13th, at
3:00 p.m.
THE PRESIDENT: On motion, the
Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday,
1962
March 13th, at 3:00 p.m. Senate is adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 5:37 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)