Regular Session - April 4, 2001
5039
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
April 4, 2001
10:14 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
5040
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.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Tuesday, April 3rd, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Monday,
April 2nd, was read and approved. On motion,
Senate adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Could we please have order in the
chambers.
5041
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
I believe that there is a privileged
resolution at the desk by Senator Skelos. I
would ask that the title be read and move for
its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Skelos, Legislative Resolution Number 1197,
memorializing Governor George E. Pataki to
proclaim April 15 through 21, 2001, as
"Esophageal Cancer Awareness Week" in the
State of New York.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
5042
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
while we're waiting for some of the members to
get to their seats, it might be appropriate
for us to go through the noncontroversial
calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
164, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 1685, an
act authorizing the trustees of the
Steuben-Allegany Board of Cooperative
Educational Services.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
185, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 520, an
act to amend the Public Health Law, in
relation to mandatory reporting.
5043
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
189, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 224, an
act to amend the Correction Law, in relation
to requiring.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
196, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 2131, an
act to amend the Town Law, in relation to
permitting.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
242, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 3094, an
act to amend the Penal Law and the Highway
Law, in relation to violence.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
5044
259, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 2839, an
act to amend the Banking Law, in relation to
conforming.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
260, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 2964, an
act to amend the Banking Law, the Education
Law, and the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
268, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3089, an
act to amend the General City Law, the Town
Law, and the Village Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
5045
302, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 2774, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to salary.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
Senator Bruno, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
I believe I have a privileged resolution at
the desk. I would ask at this time that it be
read in its entirety and move for its
adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Bruno,
Legislative Resolution Number 1188,
congratulating the Hudson Valley Community
College Men's Ice Hockey Team and Coach Ron
Kuhl upon the occasion of capturing the NJCAA
championship.
"WHEREAS, It is the sense of this
Legislative Body to pay tribute to those
athletes whose participation in sports brings
5046
honor and prestige to this great Empire State,
distinguishing themselves through notable
achievement and representing their State and
school with pride and determination; and
"WHEREAS, This Legislative Body is
proud to congratulate the Hudson Valley
Community College 2000-2001 Men's Ice Hockey
Team and Coach Ron Kuhl upon the occasion of
capturing the National Junior College Athletic
Association Championship; and
"WHEREAS, The 'Vikings' traveled to
Bottineau, North Dakota, where they played a
two-game series March 10 and 11 at Bottineau's
Lumberdome against Minot State
University-Bottineau for the national title.
The Vikings won the first game on March 10 by
a score of 5 to 2 against the 'Lumberjacks';
Goaltender B.J. Sheehan made 48 saves for
Hudson Valley; and
"WHEREAS, The Vikings also won the
second game on March 11, 9 to 7, to claim the
college's first national hockey title. Mike
Paine had two goals and five assists in the
winning effort; and
"WHEREAS, Dean Vandervort, who
5047
scored in both tournament games, earned the
MVP status; he also was named to the Eastern
Juco All-Freshman First Team and the
All-Region III Second Team; Mike Paine earned
All-Freshman and All-Region First Team Status;
Jim Sturges was selected to the All-Tournament
squad, the All-Region Second Team, and the
All-Freshman First Team; Phil Usas earned
All-Region First Team status; and Kevin Graber
was named to the All-Tournament squad and the
All-Region Second Team. In addition, Jason
Vasco, who made 46 saves in the championship
game, earned All-Tournament status and
All-Region and All-Freshman First Team status.
He was also named All-Region and All-Freshman
MVP; and
"WHEREAS, Head Coach Ron Kuhl, of
Clifton Park, was named 'Coach of the
Tournament.' With 45 career victories, he is
Hudson Valley's all-time winningest hockey
coach; and
"WHEREAS, The team, with a 16-game
winning streak and an overall record of 24-4,
is outstanding, and the team members were
loyally and enthusiastically supported by
5048
family, friends, fans, and the community at
large.
"The hallmarks of Hudson Valley
Community College Men's Ice Hockey Team, from
the opening face-off to participation in the
championship, were a brotherhood of athletic
ability, of good sportsmanship, of honor and
of scholarship, demonstrating that these team
players are second to none.
"Athletically and academically, the
team members have proven themselves to be an
unbeatable combination of talents, reflecting
favorably on their school; and
"WHEREAS, Coach Ron Kuhl, along
with Assistant Coach Peter Carner, have done a
superb job in guiding, molding, and inspiring
the team members toward their goals; and
"WHEREAS, Sports competition
instills the values of teamwork, pride, and
accomplishment, and Coach Ron Kuhl, Assistant
Coach Peter Carner, and 18 outstanding
athletes have clearly made a contribution to
the spirit of excellence which is a tradition
of their school; now, therefore, be it
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative
5049
Body pause in its deliberations to
congratulate the Hudson Valley Community
College Men's Ice Hockey Team, its members -
Jason Vasco, Brian Dudek, Jim Corrigan, Nathan
Snow, Christopher Paine, Kyle Reddon, Kyle
Reynolds, Dean Vandervort, Michael Griffiths,
Kevin Graber, Jim Sturges, Joshua Cottrell,
Michael Santamoor, Adam Finkin, Michael Paine,
Aaron Chandler, Philip Usas, B.J. Sheehan -
Coach Ron Kuhl and Assistant Coach Peter
Carner, on their outstanding season and
overall team record; and be it further
"RESOLVED, That copies of this
resolution, suitably, engrossed, be
transmitted to the Hudson Valley Community
College Men's Ice Hockey Team and to Coach Ron
Kuhl."
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam
President.
You know, it's a great pleasure for
me to add my welcome and my congratulations to
the championship team from Hudson Valley
Community College that happens to be in my
Senatorial district, the 43rd. So they make
5050
me look good. They're champions, and we are
proud to have them here in the chamber.
But, you know, they're named the
Vikings. And like the people that traveled as
Vikings across the oceans, through the cold
and the wind and the storms, they traveled
18 hours to get to the playoffs in North
Dakota. On enemy territory, they won two
straight.
And the odds were very much against
them, where I think the average size of the
opposing team, like 3 inches taller than this
team. But we all understand that size is one
thing. And it just presented an additional
challenge to them.
And Coach Ron Kuhl, who is in
Clifton Park in Saratoga County, also part of
the 43rd Senatorial district, really
distinguished himself. He's been there four
years. The first season they had trouble
winning any game. And when you think in a
community college the players are there for
two years, they have to get it together, be
together, play together.
And we heard the names of the
5051
players. And I just share with you that the
resolution that you heard is really part of
the resolutions that will be part of the
history of this state. The resolution goes in
the archives, just like any law that passes in
this chamber. So when your children and your
grandchildren, fifty years from now, want to
review some of what you accomplished in your
life, as you go on to become senators and
governors and maybe president, or just
distinguish yourselves in business or in the
professions, in whatever way you want to, you
will have a personal record of your
togetherness, of your achievement as
champions, as a team.
And some of you get honors and
become, as Dean Vandervort, I believe, the
most valuable player of the tournament, Dean
is there. And Dean understands, just as Jason
Vasco, who did, you said, 46 saves; I'm told
by the coach it was 50. Congratulations.
B.J. Sheehan, 48 saves. Michael Paine, from
Saratoga, two goals in the last game, the
winning goal. Now, that's something that they
individually can be proud of, they as a team
5052
can be proud of. And, Madam President, you
being from Rensselaer County, you are as proud
as I am.
My colleagues join me in welcoming
this championship team and recognizing they go
on in life as champions.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
And as President of the Senate and
a lifelong resident of Rensselaer County, with
many affiliations with HVCC, I want to
congratulate you.
And as Senator Bruno mentioned, the
preparation you've received in your excellence
on your hockey team will carry you through and
be a solid foundation not only in your outward
community endeavors but in your personal lives
too.
So congratulations and best wishes.
5053
Team spirit all the way along.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time take up the controversial
calendar, starting with Calendar Number 242.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 242.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
242, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 3094, an
act to amend the Penal Law and the Highway
Law, in relation to violence committed on
school grounds.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno,
Senator Paterson has asked for an explanation.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we lay the bill aside temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Senator.
The bill is laid aside temporarily.
SENATOR BRUNO: And can we at
this time call up Calendar Number 302.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar 302.
5054
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
302, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 2774, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to the salary of full-time police
officers.
SENATOR HEVESI: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
Senator Hevesi has requested an explanation.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
This bill authorizes a municipality
to pay a full-time permanent police officer's
full-time salary while they work part-time and
attend a college or university seeking a
degree in the specific areas outlined in the
bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
will you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. Through you -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
5055
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
if the Senators will suffer an interruption,
I'd like to ask for an immediate meeting of
the Higher Education Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Higher Education
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Hevesi, you may proceed.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. Notwithstanding the fact that I am
on the Higher Education Committee and there
are important bills that are going to be
discussed there, the one on the floor right
now is important too. So I'd like to continue
and ask the sponsor if he would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: I believe Senator
Padavan said that he would yield. So you may
proceed with a question, Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. Through you, I was wondering if
Senator Padavan could tell us whether or not
there are any programs in existence right now
in the New York City Police Department that
5056
offers any kind of tuition supplement for
currently serving police officers.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Not that I know
of.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Madam President, would the Senator
continue to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: One more
question.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR PADAVAN: One more
question.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Madam President, my question for
the sponsor is my understanding is that there
is a requirement that all newly hired New York
City police officers have at least two years'
college education or a certain amount of
military experience as a prerequisite. And
that has had a significant impact on
recruitment of new police officers.
My question to you is, if this bill
becomes a law, would this in any way impact
recruitment efforts? In that if you are
5057
already a New York City police officer, this
program likely would not help you attain
educational requirements to get you on the
force. So just so that I'm clear on this,
this is only for police officers who already
have the requisite educational experience to
supplement that with additional education; is
that accurate?
SENATOR PADAVAN: If they're on
the police force, they've met the requisite
requirements. And this is to enhance their
academic professional status.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
would the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: No.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
On the bill, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
I have a lot of questions about
this legislation, though I supported it last
year. And, you know, with all due respect to
the sponsor, I think this is a piece of
legislation in a very important area, and I
5058
think it's unfortunate that we don't have the
opportunity to discuss the merits of the
legislation. So let me take it upon myself to
engage in a discussion of the merits of this
bill and some of the areas that it opens up.
I have a lot of questions on this
bill, particularly pertaining to whether or
not the municipalities with the police forces
who would now be empowered to provide this
benefit would do in a way (A) that in any way
hinders their own department; (B) can do it in
a way in which it is equally apportioned that
all individuals would have access to these
individual requirements; and, lastly, what the
costs might be for these municipalities.
Also, I would have asked the
sponsor why the three-day or three 8-hour tour
constituting 24 hours for the subsequent
service, and a slew of other questions.
But here's my main concern with
this legislation. It seems intended to
increase the amount of education that police
officers have. Which is a good thing. And I
think we should encourage that. I'd like to
know the extent to which additional education
5059
requirements or additional educational
attainment of police officers leads to greater
advancement, has an impact on their ability
for -- the police officer's ability to pass
the sergeant's test and lieutenant's test and
make their up through the ranks of the
department, so that we can better gauge
whether or not giving localities the ability
to do what this legislation seeks to do is
going to have a positive impact.
I think most of us would accept at
face value that if you give an opportunity for
police officers to have additional educational
attainment, that that probably makes them
better police officers. And there probably is
a correlation between the educational
attainment and some other important issues
that we're facing right now, particularly in
New York City right now, most notably with
police brutality.
But as this bill comes before us, I
notice in the sponsor's memo that there was a
tuition waiver program sponsored by the John
Jay College of Criminal Justice in the late
'70s and 1980s that was proven, according to
5060
the sponsor's memo, highly successful. And I
believe, from memory, that that program did
exist. I don't believe that program exists
now. And that we used to have a CUNY cadet
program that also fell victim to budget cuts,
and that's very problematic also.
But my biggest problem with this
legislation is the following. We have a
tremendous problem in New York City recruiting
new police officers. In fact, in the last
five or ten years, the number of new
applicants who are making themselves available
to take the police test to become police
officers in New York City has diminished
greatly. Part of the reason for that is
that -- and this is not necessarily a bad
thing, but part of the reason is that we have
increased in the City of New York the
educational requirement and the age
requirement for newly hired police officers.
It used to be years and years ago
if you were 18 years old and had graduated
from high school, you could become a cop in
New York City. That's no longer the case.
And it's probably a good thing that that's no
5061
longer the case. Now you have to be 21 years
old. And my understanding is -- and somebody
can correct me if I'm wrong, but my
understanding is that you need two years'
education, which is the equivalent of an
associate's degree, or a requisite amount of
military experience and training.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane,
why do you rise, sir?
SENATOR DUANE: I was hoping the
Senator would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi,
will you yield?
SENATOR HEVESI: Yes, I would
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
You know, while this seems like a
good bill, I'm wondering why you think that
the claim is being made that there are no
fiscal implications to the state.
SENATOR HEVESI: Maybe I
misspoke, but let me clarify. And thank you
for that question.
5062
Absolutely, there's a fiscal impact
to this. It's not that I don't believe that
there's a fiscal impact. It's that since the
sponsor refused to yield to additional
questions, I wasn't able to explore that with
him. But this is going to have potentially a
tremendous fiscal impact. You are taking
full-time police officers who are now required
to work, I believe, five days a week, 8-hour
tours of duty, and take them off of two of
those days, eliminating 16 hours of manpower
per police officer who qualifies under this
program.
And this -- according to the bill I
have in front of me, we don't tell the
municipalities who specifically is eligible
for this in terms of who's not eligible for
it. So the departments on their own would
come up with this plan. And I have a lot of
questions as to how much money this would cost
and the impact that this would have on
policing in New York City.
You know, Senator Duane, we already
have significant problems in terms of police
officers doing desk jobs and a push for
5063
civilianization that has been in the public
discourse for years and years now. And now -
and this may be a good way to do it, except we
haven't set out the parameters. But now we
are empowering local police authorities -- and
it may be a good idea, but with tighter
constraints -- to take police officers
potentially off the streets for two out of
five days a week. Granted, for a noble cause,
to pursue higher education.
But I'm very concerned about that
impact on patrol strength and the fiscal
impact that this would have, because
municipalities are going to act on this if
this is made law. So I'm very concerned about
the fiscal impact. I don't know what it would
be. It's one of my causes for concern with
this bill.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. If
the Senator would continue to yield, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR HEVESI: Certainly, Madam
President.
5064
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Do you think that
it's appropriate for the Senate to set a
policy that would make it so that some people
would be getting a full-time salary for
part-time work? Do you think that that has
implications for other state workers?
SENATOR HEVESI: Well, Senator
Duane, I thank you for bringing up that point.
You raise a very interesting question.
It may be worth it to do this if we
have a full explanation of what the benefits
will be for the police department in question
or for the citizens of the municipality which
are being policed. And let me give you an
example of what I'm talking about.
Were we creating a program or
authorizing a program here which would, for
example, provide a career-path opportunity for
young students in high school who are about to
graduate from high school, where we were
providing tuition waivers or some kind of
part-time work, part-time study supplement, in
order that more New York City residents could
5065
attain the educational requirements to become
New York City police officers at a time where
recruitment of New York City police officers
is a tremendous, tremendous problem -- and I
intend to explore that problem greatly, since
this bill brings up many of these questions.
If this legislation was focused in that
direction and we knew that there would be a
tangible benefit in terms of making thousands
and thousands of New Yorkers not only more
educated, which is a benefit, but more
qualified more, or qualified at all to become
New York City police officers -- and that has
all kinds of implications for the type of
police force that we want to see -- then it
may be worthy.
But your question raises some
serious concerns. Which is, why are we
bestowing a benefit only on this group of
individuals when there are other government
employees for whom additional education may
provide a terrific benefit for the residents
of their particular area? Firefighters could
turn around to us and say, you know, if you
want to become a chief or a battalion chief or
5066
a fire officer, a captain, lieutenant, that
additional education, which is not provided
for right now through the New York City Fire
Department, through the New York City
government, that they should have those
resources made available to them. And that
may be just as compelling an argument as it is
for the New York City Police Department.
So you raise a terrific concern.
There may be a slew of other municipal
employees for whom such a benefit is prudent.
But a fuller discussion of what exactly we're
trying to accomplish with this legislation
would go a long way to answering that specific
question.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR HEVESI: Absolutely,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
5067
As the Senator knows, in New York
City, in order to remain a teacher, you're
required to go on and do graduate work. And
that's coursework that's not paid for. The
teachers have to pay for that on their own.
Plus, despite what some politicians
have said about what an easy job it is for
teachers, how they only work a few hours a day
and they get the summer off, when we read, for
instance, the series in the New York Times
about what it's like for a teacher and what
their day is like and how many hours it is and
the physical taxing that the job entails, we
see that it might be difficult and, indeed,
almost superhuman for a teacher to be able to
teach all day, do their lesson plans, correct
grades, do parent conferences, deal with the
voluminous paperwork involved with being a
teacher now, and at the same time go to
graduate school.
I'm wondering if you think that
anyone has given any thought to making it a
little bit easier for teachers to go on and
get graduate degrees, which in fact makes them
a better teacher and is a good policy to have
5068
them do that.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Madam President, Senator Duane raises an
excellent, excellent point -
SENATOR DUANE: Can I just -- I'm
sorry. Madam President, there's talking in
the back of the chamber, and I cannot hear
what the Senator is saying.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Senator Duane raises -
SENATOR DUANE: I'm sorry, I
still can't hear, Madam President.
That's better. Thank you.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
This example, which Senator Duane
has just articulated for us, provides us with
a perfect example of how, if a piece of
legislation was specifically tailored, for
example, to teachers, who have as a
requirement of their employment the attainment
of a certain level of education, this benefit,
then we would have a much better understanding
of the need for it, the purpose, the efficacy
of the bill and whether or not we should
support it.
5069
And I'll go you one further,
Senator Duane. Not only do teachers now, in
order to be certified teachers in New York
State, not only do they have to have a
bachelor's degree, and not only do they have
to have a master's degree within a certain
period of time, but the amount of time within
which teachers are now required to attain
their master's degree has been greatly reduced
from where it was. So we are putting even
greater demands upon schoolteachers.
And so we don't provide, at the
same time, some kind of tuition supplement for
teachers. And you raise an excellent point,
because we have a tremendous, tremendous
shortage of qualified teachers in New York
State, specifically in New York City. And
we're getting to crisis level.
And there are a lot of reasons why
we aren't seeing a lot of people going into
the teaching profession. One of those reasons
is we ask a lot from our teachers. We ask
them to work at salaries that are less than
what their suburban counterparts are making,
in very tough environments. Many of the newly
5070
hired teachers work in some of the most
difficult school settings, where the test
scores are low. And as a result, the
attrition rate amongst newly hired teachers in
the New York City Board of Education is
exceptionally high. In fact, I believe within
the first five years, the attrition amongst
newly hired Board of Education teachers is in
excess of 60 percent.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President,
I'm very sorry, but there's still a buzz in
the back of the chamber, and I'm just totally
unable to hear what the Senator is saying.
And my hearing is pretty good. So if you
could please make it so that I could clearly
hear the Senator, and I do think this
debate -
THE PRESIDENT: Although I can
clearly hear him this far away, I will be
sensitive to your issues, Senator Duane, and
ask the members to take their conversations
outside the chambers if it's an issue for you.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi,
5071
you may proceed.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President.
As I was saying, newly hired New
York City teachers have an exceptionally high
attrition rate. And I've articulated some of
the reasons why that is. An additional reason
is, we put the requirement upon them that they
have to have master's degrees within a certain
amount of time. That is a major requirement.
And it's very costly, particularly if a
teacher is attending Teacher's College of
Columbia University.
For example, I know how difficult
it is financially to meet those obligations,
because I went to graduate school at Columbia
University, and my understanding is that the
tuition rates at Teacher's College are in
excess of a thousand dollars a credit right
now. And you juxtapose that with the amount
of money that a newly hired teacher is going
to earn, and you can see why it is
exceptionally difficult to attract new
teachers into the profession. Even if they
were going for master's degrees in education
5072
at some of our public universities -- which
offer tremendously good programs, by the way,
such as at Queens College -- it's thousands
and thousands of dollars.
So a problem benefiting newly hired
public schoolteachers, which would supplement
their graduate school education, which we know
would have a direct impact on increasing the
number of teachers who would go into the
teaching profession because -- and we know
this and we know it's a noble goal because we
do have Teachers for Tomorrow and we are
focused somewhat on this problem.
But if we offered this type of a
supplement to teachers -- and I don't know
whether it's a good idea, Madam President.
Because what it would mean for teachers is
that -- if we did something similar with
teachers, it would mean that if they were
required to work five days a week, I think
it's 6½ hours, under the current UFT
contract -- if we did something similar to
this, we'd be pulling the teachers out of the
classroom for an additional two days a week to
supplement their education.
5073
And maybe we want to just give a
financial benefit for the teachers to go in
the evening and require them to work during
the day. And if we do that and that's
acceptable, how is it no more acceptable to
make sure that our cops are working policing
the streets full-time all day and just getting
the tuition supplement and the benefit for
going to school at night?
So, Senator Duane, you raised a
very good question by specifically asking why
don't we provide this for other municipal
employs. And I would suggest to you that we
need to do more for teachers. And this bill
owns up the door for a discussion as to
whether or not we're providing sufficient
financial consideration and work flexibility
consideration for a series of employees -- New
York City teachers, firefighters -- whom we
know have a direct educational requirement
that is tied to their vocation, tied to their
occupation.
As far as I know, there is no
requirement for a graduate degree in the upper
echelons of the New York City Police
5074
Department. And in fact, if memory serves,
the current police commissioner doesn't have a
bachelor's degree. Now, the more education
you have, the better a police officer you're
going to be. So I support efforts like this.
But certainly if we're going to do it here,
let's know the reason why and let's know what
benefit this is going to have and see whether
this is applicable to any other types of
municipal employees.
It's a very good question, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
And through you, Madam President,
if the sponsor would continue to yield. I'm
sorry, the Senator would continue to yield. I
wish, in a perfect world.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi,
do you yield?
SENATOR HEVESI: Yes, I'd be
happy to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, if
you have a question, you may proceed.
SENATOR DUANE: You know, the
issue of authorizing a municipality or police
5075
department to do this raises the issue of
collective bargaining in the police
department. I know that many of us feel that
one of the things that needs to be eliminated,
though it was captured during the collective
bargaining, is the 48-hour rule for police
officers, which makes it so they don't have to
give a statement to the authorities regarding,
you know, an incident where there's been
violence or really, for that matter, virtually
anything.
Since that is a matter of
collective bargaining, and since this issue of
the full salary for 24 hours per week if
someone is in college -- I'm wondering if you
might be able to describe for us the impact of
collective bargaining both on this and on the
issue that many of us are very concerned
about, the 48-hour rule.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you. That
is another very good question. The -
SENATOR DUANE: So -- I'm sorry.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
I too am having difficulty hearing Senator
Duane.
5076
Thank you.
It's a very good point, Senator
Duane. The 48-hour rule is a real travesty.
And I think one of the things that that
does -- and you raise the issue of collective
bargaining and whatnot. One of the things
that the 48-hour rule does, in precluding
police officers from giving statements to
investigators following incidents, one of the
things that does, it completely undermines the
credibility of the police officers and the
police department.
And I believe that most police
officers, if they really had the question put
to them, would agree that doing away with the
48-hour rule is a good thing. It is in their
interests. The same way, I believe, that it
is in the best interests of the New York City
Police Department to have an entity such as
the Civilian Complaint Review Board have the
independent power and authority to discipline
police officers.
Because without that, without an
outlet and the mechanism for the public to go
to in order to seek redress from grievances
5077
that they have against police officers, then
the police officers will never feel that
they're getting a fair shake from the public,
and it will only increase the friction that is
currently felt between the police department
and minority communities in the city.
But collective bargaining is an
important issue. I'm curious as to why this
issue, the legislation we have before us, is
not part of the collective bargaining
situation, when I can give you an example of
issues that are negotiated in the collective
bargaining realm that are incredibly minute
and I believe sometimes run counter to what
we're looking to accomplish in New York City.
Let me give you one example. I had
a principal of a school in my district come to
me recently and say, "Senator Hevesi, we have
a parking problem for teachers." We were
talking about, before, teachers having a
tremendous difficulty and having very
difficult jobs. They can't park their cars,
and there are regulations right now
prohibiting anybody from parking adjacent to
this particular school. No parking. And he
5078
says, "Nobody gets to park there." And they
said, Senator Hevesi, make it, please, no
parking except for Board of Education
vehicles." And it sounded perfectly
reasonable. Those regulations didn't in any
way obstruct the street-cleaning, the
street-sweeping schedules that are currently
in effect.
So I went to the Department of
Transportation, and I asked them to do that.
And their answer came back to me that they
would do it, except they're prevented from
doing it because that's a collective
bargaining issue. A collective bargaining
issue. Which really struck me as absolutely
bizarre, ludicrous, and stupid, frankly.
Because the City of New York in this instance
should not have been withholding the ability
of teachers to park in a certain area, which
is at no expense to them. There's absolutely
no reason to do it.
So if we have issues such as that
one, which are so minute and detailed issues
that are the product of the collective
bargaining process, then it seems to me that
5079
other issues and the extent to which police
officers may be given the right or the
privilege to have tuition supplements and work
part-time and study part-time, that that too
probably should be within the realm of
collective bargaining.
You raise a very good point,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the Senator would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR HEVESI: Yes, Madam
President, I'd be happy to.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: One of the things
that occurred to me was what would happen if
in New York City, say, 25,000 officers at the
same time decided to take advantage of this?
I'm wondering whether or not that is something
that concerns you as well, Senator.
SENATOR HEVESI: Yeah, it
concerns me greatly. It was probably the
5080
ninth question that I was going to ask the
sponsor. And I now don't know the answer.
My read from the bill is that the
localities would have the complete discretion
to implement the program any way they chose to
do so. Which is pretty disturbing. Because
we don't know how they're going to implement
this program, and we are then authorizing the
expenditure of public funds, potentially
authorizing the use of or the taking away of
manpower resources from the prescribed duties
of these municipal employees, and we don't
have any discretion as to how the program
would be implemented.
And, Senator Duane, let me take
your question one step further. Okay? Not
just is it a question of must a municipality
then offer to all 25,000 employees or 30,000
or however many -- and there are in excess of
40,000 New York City police officers. That's
not the only question, although that's a
tremendously important question. And in fact,
on that question in and of itself, how do you
determine which of the 25,000 get it? Is it
people only in certain units? Do you have to
5081
tie in their performance into whether or not
they get this privilege? I mean, there are a
whole slew of questions as to who would get
this benefit.
But almost as importantly -- and I
was going to ask the sponsor this -- would
this enable rookie police officers to be
eligible for this benefit? Because it seems
almost as if they should. You want your new
cops to have as much education as possible.
But I submit to you -- and, you know, if we
had a hearing on this, we could have heard
some testimony from police experts as to what
the potential impact is of taking a rookie
cop, a rookie cop who has by definition not
spent a lot of time out on the street learning
his trade, and take them off the street. And
what's the implication of that?
And we know from examining our
statistics of police abuse and discourtesy and
misconduct that the highest incident of
complaints and the highest incidence of
substantiated complaints against New York City
police officers come within the second and the
sixth year that they're on the police force.
5082
It is those police officers with the least
amount of experience who are most likely to
get into those types of troubles.
So I want to know whether or not if
this legislation passed we'd be authorizing
local police departments to go ahead and say
to rookie cops, you too can go ahead and now
not work five 8-hour tours per week, you can
only work 3-hour tours, and what the potential
impact would be on policing in New York City
and on the law enforcement development of
those particular police officers.
Now, this is a very serious
concern. These new police officers I believe
are not trained adequately as it is. In fact,
there have been proposals that have been
floated that I endorse that we go back to the
way things were done several decades ago,
where all newly hired police officers are
required to be mentored for a certain amount
of time by higher ranking police officers -
sergeants and other officers of that nature -
for a prescribed period of time.
It is those youngest police
officers, those least experienced police
5083
officers who are in the most need of not only
direct supervision but more and more time on
the streets learning -- and, by the way, this
is not just for the protection of the
citizenry and not just for the protection of
individuals who may be abused by a police
officer who hasn't learned yet how to behave
himself in very tense and difficult
situations, but it's for the protection of
that very police officer.
And we've seen in the last few
years some tragic cases, such as the Patrick
Dorismund case and the Amadou Diallo case,
where the training of police officers have
been called into question. And in fact,
Senator Duane, one of the issues at hand in
the Amadou Diallo case was that the four
officers from the street crimes unit were part
of a street crimes unit that had been newly
reconstituted at the request of former Police
Commissioner Howard Safir because the street
crimes unit, which was a terrific and elite
unit, and was responsible for taking -- this
is a very small unit of the New York City
Police Department, but they had been
5084
responsible for in excess of 40 percent of all
the gun seizures in New York City. So the
commissioner, wanting to improve the crime
rates in the city, which is his job, greatly
expanded the street crimes unit over the
objections of a long-time commander of that
street crimes unit because that commander
recognized the extent to which it was
absolutely essential to make sure that street
crime officers who go into the highest-crime
areas and are put in the most dangerous
situations have the highest degree of training
and. In fact, the officers that go into those
types of units, that those officers are weeded
out in terms of psychological profile, their
background, their behavior, their ability to
deal with very difficult situations.
So there is a perfect example of
how the training of police officers directly
impacts on the behavior of policing and the
safety of police officers. If a police
officer is not adequately trained -- it works
two ways. If a police officer is not
adequately trained, that police officer may
compromise his or her own safety or the safety
5085
of one of his fellow police officers.
So if we had a proposal, if I knew
that this proposal -- let me amend what I was
about to say. If I knew that this legislation
would be used by any police department to
enable rookie police officers or police
officers with, let's say, less than five years
of experience -- and we probably could figure
out what the appropriate time frame is by
hearing testimony from law enforcement
experts, but we never seem to do that up here.
But if I know that rookie cops or cops within
the first five years would be eligible to be
taken off the streets to further their
education at the expense of direct on-the-job
training on the streets, I wouldn't vote for
this bill. I flat out wouldn't vote for this
bill.
And it's one of the series of
questions that I have on this legislation that
I was unfortunately not able to get answered.
But you raise a very good point, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. Madam
President, if the sponsor would continue to
5086
yield.
SENATOR HEVESI: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean Senator
Hevesi?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi
does yield. You may proceed with a question,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I need to preface my next question
with an anecdote, if the Senator would indulge
me with that.
SENATOR HEVESI: Sure.
SENATOR DUANE: I recently wrote
to Mayor Giuliani saying that I thought that
police officers deserved a raise. And in fact
the people who were for police department
reform, the group of people that got together
after the Amadou Diallo tragedy, one of the
points that we had on the list of things that
we thought would improve the police department
was to provide a raise and to try to make
their salaries commensurate with the -- or
5087
come closer to making their salaries
commensurate with the surrounding counties to
New York City.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you're
getting to a question soon, I hope?
SENATOR DUANE: Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: Please do so.
Thank you.
SENATOR DUANE: And the mayor
wrote back and -- actually, the mayor had one
of his deputies write back and say that he
believed that I had never done anything
supportive of the police. I quickly responded
and sent him several clippings of articles in
local and citywide newspapers where I had
praised certain actions by the police. And I
said: Not unlike you, I have praised the
police. But I also am calling for a raise for
them, which actually makes me more supportive
of the police than you, Mr. Mayor.
Now, that said, as you know, the
police do want a raise. This would be another
good benefit for them. I'm wondering if
you've given thought -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl.
5088
SENATOR KUHL: If the Senators
would suffer an interruption, I'd like to
announce that there will be an immediate
meeting of the Senate Finance Committee in
Room 332, the Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be
immediate meeting of the Senate Finance
Committee in Room 332, the Majority Conference
Room.
Senator Duane, you're proceeding
with a question now, sir?
SENATOR DUANE: And I'm wondering
if you think that these are all things that
should be discussed at the negotiating table
with the police department.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Madam President, if you'll indulge
me, another committee meeting was just called
off the floor, the Senate Finance Committee.
I am on the Senate Finance Committee. I've
already missed the Higher Education Committee.
Yesterday I missed the Senate Codes Committee,
where we were debating reform of the
Rockefeller Drug Laws.
Just for the record, I don't think
5089
this is the way we should conduct our affairs.
These very important committee meetings should
be taking place at a time other than that in
which when members are compelled to be on the
floor debating other pieces of legislation.
This is wrong.
So having said that, the answer to
your question, Senator Duane -
SENATOR DUANE: We could come
back to this. Other people may have questions
for the sponsor. So you could answer it
later, or do it when you speak on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Well, I'm going
to answer it -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi
has the floor to respond, Senator Duane.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you. I am
going to answer that question, because we have
a serious problem in terms of providing
sufficient salaries for New York City police
officers. It is one of the reasons why
recruitment levels are so low in the New York
City Police Department. In fact, in the last
contract that was negotiated with the PBA -
and the unfortunate slogan became popularized
5090
as a consequence of this contract -- they
called it "double zeroes for heroes," because
the first two years of that police contract
provided no salary increases for police
officers.
And I must say in terms of labor
negotiations, we're sending absolutely the
wrong message to New York City police
officers. And this is all very relevant to
this legislation, because we're talking about
potentially giving a benefit to these police
officers at the same time that we haven't
adequately compensated them. And it's
particularly striking that we haven't
compensated these police officers sufficiently
in light of the fact that it is almost an
expected or accepted American ideal that your
positive performance is going to reflect in
the compensation that you achieve.
And so we have a situation where
since really late 1992 -- this first started
to happen at the end of the Dinkins
administration, partly as a consequence of the
"Safe Streets, Safe City" legislation which
this body and the Legislature, with the
5091
acquiescence of the Governor, implemented,
which boosted the number of police officers in
New York City. But crime rates started to
decline in New York City. They absolutely
started to go down.
And what happened as a result was
that not did you see an increase in the
compensation of police officers, but what you
saw was a real slap in the face to these
police officers as they went about their
business of reducing crime. They were
productive and didn't receive the compensation
that they should have received. It is really
a tremendous, tremendous problem. And those
officers have a -- Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Espada,
why do you rise?
SENATOR ESPADA: Madam President,
with all due respect to the Senator, could he
yield for a question?
I think you've touched on a very
significant point.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi -
SENATOR HEVESI: I'd be happy to
yield.
5092
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Espada.
SENATOR ESPADA: First of all,
with all due praise, I think you're being,
again, quite eloquent in really examining this
bill in the absence of a full explanation by
the sponsor.
But let me just ask you, you
mentioned some things about the police
officers, their need for training and
obviously sensitivity in many areas, which
can't be taught at any institution of higher
learning. But under this bill, are there any
conditions or provisions in this bill that
would disqualify, say, for instance, the four
officers that were involved in the much-moted
tragedy with the Diallo matter, or in any of
the other well-publicized cases?
In other words, would anyone with
that kind of case before them or behind them
or anyone with an active case before the CCRB
be eligible, or would they be disqualified
from this benefit should this benefit be
enacted into law?
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
5093
Through you, Madam President. Senator Espada
raises a very good question. It's a question
to which I don't have the answer. Except I
suspect that part of the answer is part of the
problem in this particular piece of
legislation, which is it doesn't address it.
It doesn't address that, it doesn't address
whether rookie cops are offered this benefit,
it doesn't address any of those questions as
to whom is eligible, except to say with a
blanket provision that the municipality will
make the determination, presumably, as to
whether or not somebody is eligible for this
benefit.
And as we've discussed here before,
Senator Espada, that has all kinds of
implications. And I would agree with you that
there may very well be circumstances in which
certain police officers -- and we've talked
about some of them before -- should not be
eligible for this benefit.
I'm not sure whether or not having
a case pending before the CCRB should
automatically disqualify somebody or whether
or not if they have a particular CCRB
5094
complaint substantiated against them, whether
that necessarily should disqualify them. My
answer to you probably would be that that
should depend on the level of the offense that
was substantiated by the CCRB. Some of the
cases that are brought to the Civilian
Complaint Review Board -- and you know,
because you're very well versed in this
area -- are discourtesy cases. And they range
from very seemingly minor -- they're not
minor, because discourtesy has a really bad
cumulative effect on policing and on relations
between the police department and minority
communities and everybody else, for that
matter, and they range from small levels of
discourtesy to absolutely abuse of authority
to misconduct to levels of brutality. So you
have a tremendously broad spectrum there.
So I'm not sure. The answer would
be it probably would have to determine whether
or not a case has been substantiated and the
extent to which the offense is a high-level
offense. So that's a serious, serious
question, and I thank you for that.
If I could turn briefly back to the
5095
issue of salary supplements, since we are
talking here about providing an additional
benefit to police officers, it strikes me that
we are providing some small benefit to them
with all these open-ended questions at a time
when the New York City Police Department has
not been adequately compensated contractually
at the bargaining table. And the battles
between this administration and PBA are
well-known, and they've gone on for some time.
So I'd like to know from the
sponsor, and maybe the sponsor would yield to
some of my other colleagues on this question,
whether or not this bill comes with the
blessing or at the request or with any kind of
comment from New York City. I'd be interested
to know whether or not the Giuliani
administration thinks that this is a good
idea.
And if they don't, that raises
tremendous questions. If they do, it raises
tremendous questions in terms of why are they
picking around the edges instead of
negotiating a contract with police officers
that is going to do a series of things,
5096
including compensate police officers for the
unbelievable productivity that they've had and
taking efforts to provide a career that is
going to entice young people, highly qualified
young people who are dedicated to law
enforcement and who are good people, to get
into the New York City Police Department. I
mean, that is a real, real question. So we're
really picking around the edges here.
Madam President, I -- I'm sorry -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. I actually have not given up my
time on the floor, so I'd like return to it if
I may. If the Senator would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR HEVESI: I certainly will
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I'm having trouble reading the
bill. It says full-time police officers -
let me just double-check this -- police
5097
officers, and I'm having a hard time figuring
out who exactly that would cover. And I'm
wondering whether you had the same difficulty
or whether you, Senator, were able to figure
out what exactly was meant by "police
officers."
SENATOR HEVESI: Well, I believe
in Section 72-CC, subparagraph B, though there
is not a specific definition of a police
officer, this legislation does reference
another section of law, subsection 2 of
Section 209-Q, which presumably -- and I
haven't looked at that particular section of
law -- defines what a police officer is.
It's one of those questions that I
probably would ask the sponsor were I given
the opportunity.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the Senator would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi,
will you yield?
SENATOR HEVESI: I'd be happy to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
5098
with a question, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: We've recently
had a lot of discussions about how long it
should take someone to finish their college
courses as it applies to public benefit
recipients.
Now, while the bill does say
that -- and let me just find this section
again. At least 24 hours a week -- I'm just
trying to see whether -- how it is -- enrolled
in certain college courses.
I'm wondering if there would be -
you know, there was a lot of talk about
students had to get a B average and that sort
of thing. Now, I'm wondering, since that's
what's being used for public assistance
recipients, whether or not you think any
thought had been given to, for instance, grade
averages for police officers, how long they
would be able to be involved in this
coursework, whether there was equality in the
way it was looked at in terms of how long and
what grades officers would have to maintain
while they're taking these courses.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
5099
Through you, Madam President, it's an
excellent question.
One of the good aspects of this
piece of legislation, as I read it, is that
there is provision or there are several
provisions provided here in the event that a
police officer does not complete his course of
study, or terminates his employment with the
department, that the compensation benefit that
has been bestowed upon that officer, pursuant
to the authorization that this legislation
seeks to provide, would have to be paid back
by that police officer.
But I don't believe that there's
anything, Senator Duane, in this legislation
which discusses the length of time that an
officer must complete a certain amount of
coursework within or a particular
grade-point-average attainment.
And as you're asking me this
question, it actually raises another question
with the open-ended nature of this bill, which
is I don't believe that there is anything in
here which specifies who will be -- who would
receive preference -- given the fact that
5100
there obviously are manpower constraints
within the police department, would an
individual be more likely to be eligible for
this program if that person is seeking a
master's degree or some kind of graduate
degree, or are we going to give preference to
somebody who is going after their bachelor's
degree.
And that's a real concern for me
here too, because if we had the answer to that
question, I think we'd better have an
understanding of what this bill is really
designed to do.
Is it designed to bring the lowest
levels, the individuals with the lower levels,
only the associate's degree, up to
bachelor-level work, perhaps to get them more
ready to take and pass the sergeant's exam, or
is the purpose of this legislation to increase
the graduate-level work of the higher-ranking
police officers in order that they may more
rapidly rise up through the police ranks?
And that aspect, Senator Duane, has
serious implications when we start talking
about the levels of minority participation and
5101
inclusion in the police department. And I
intend to discuss that, because I don't think
that this legislation at all moves in that
direction, and that's a huge problem. And
I've got legislation that will move us in that
particular direction.
But your point is well-taken.
What's the extent to which we are requiring of
the students who would be participating in
this to finish their coursework within a
prescribed period of time?
Now, the issue that you alluded to
was a whole discussion that we've had recently
in the City of New York as to whether or not
we are going to permit workfare employees to
attend college to better themselves and make
themselves more prepared for higher levels of
employment, and whether or not we're going to
permit them to achieve or to fulfill their
workfare requirements while on the college
campus. And that's a whole big issue. It's
seemed like one of those issues where we were
cutting off our nose to spite our face a
little bit.
So I too am very concerned about
5102
that. But since we are also on this subject,
there has also been a push recently -- and I
speak with some authority on this, because I
was a part-time student for many years, that
we had a drive in New York City to shrink and
shrink and shrink and reduce the amount of
time that people would be eligible for tuition
assistance based on how long they were engaged
in their course of study.
It was one of the things that was
particularly troubling to me, particularly as
it pertains to students within the City
University of New York, because such a
tremendous share, a tremendous percentage of
those students are not full-time students.
They are working students, many of them are
working parents, they've got children to take
care of. And as a result, it takes them
longer and longer to achieve their education.
And so we were curtailing their financial
benefits as a consequence of the longer it
took them to reach their educational goals,
which I think was terribly shortsighted.
So I don't know the direct
implication on this legislation, but certainly
5103
the question should be asked, is this
open-ended, do they have to do the maximum of
16 credits? If the police officers did less
than the 16 credits, the 16 hours per
semester, is there a direct and parallel
relationship with the amount of time that they
would have to continue to serve as full-time
police officers? What's the extent to which
there's a reciprocal relationship between the
schooling that they attend and their work?
It's not spelled out in this bill,
and it's another question I have on the
legislation.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. If
the Senator would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield for a question?
SENATOR HEVESI: I certainly
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Forgive me if this has already been
covered, although I don't think it has been.
I'm wondering if you think that perhaps if
5104
someone takes advantage of this that they
should be required to remain with the New York
City Police Department for a certain period of
time afterwards.
Just to give some background on why
it is that I asked that question, it's been
said that a lot of police officers and
teachers, for that matter, get trained in New
York City and then go on to the surrounding
counties because the pay and the benefits are
so much better. So we're in fact paying for
all this training in New York City, but other
counties are getting the largesse of our
generosity with pay and training to go on and
get even greater pay and benefits.
So I'm wondering if you think that
there should be a certain commitment to the
New York PD if you take advantage of this.
SENATOR HEVESI: Yes, it's a good
question.
The legislation, from my reading of
it, actually attempts to address it. But I
probably -- were I drafting this, I would
draft it in a different way. Because the way
it works right now, according to this
5105
legislation, is that there is a requirement
built in that the police employee would agree,
prior to receiving this benefit, to fully
reimburse the municipal corporation or police
district on a pro rata basis for that portion
of salary received pursuant to this section
for any hours beyond the hours actually worked
if the officer fails to continue employment as
agreed in the specified subparagraph.
In other words, that they would
have to reimburse pursuant to termination of
their employment.
It seems to me that if I was
drafting this legislation, I would do it a
little bit differently and set out initially
the requirement of how long an officer would
be required to work in the New York City
Police Department -- or any other police
department, for that matter. Notwithstanding
the fact that they probably could leave
earlier and then still be subject to a
provision like this.
But just so that we were clearly
communicating a message to those who would
seek to take advantage of an opportunity like
5106
this that we are serious about them continuing
in their employment with the New York City
Police Department or any other police
department and instead not just going to build
in a stick but the carrot, which says, look,
come join us. If you stay with us for a
certain amount of time, here's a benefit
you'll accrue. It's another way of
communicating a message to individuals who you
are trying to entice presumably, ostensibly to
come into the police department.
So I would have drafted it
differently. And perhaps, Senator Duane,
since you have many good ideas on this issue,
had we had a hearing or had a full discussion
within committee -- and I'm not on the
committee that this bill went through, so I'm
not sure of the extent to which we had a full
discussion on that issue. But your insights
on this issue probably would have led to a
drafting of this bill that was better than
what we have before us today.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Madam President, if the Senator
would continue to yield.
5107
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi,
do you yield for a question?
SENATOR HEVESI: I'd be more than
happy to yield, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: There's a complex
and compelling discussion going on on the
issue of -- that New York City police officers
should live in New York City. Various ways of
achieving that have been discussed: requiring
it, incentivizing it by subsidizing mortgages
or providing apartments in New York City
Housing Authority developments, giving police
officers a better spot on waiting lists, those
kinds of things.
This bill seems to be talking about
what is a very good benefit, less work time to
go for college courses. I'm wondering if you
would put this in the same sort of incentive
package which might help police officers to
live in the city which they are working in,
maybe make it a benefit for them or some -- or
have a sliding scale, if you will, of hours
depending on where someone lived, that sort of
5108
thing.
Have you given -- I don't know that
the sponsor's given thought to that. I guess
you and I -- well, you certainly are not going
to find out in this debate, but maybe others
can ascertain that. But I am wondering what
your thoughts are on that.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you. That
is an excellent, excellent question. And let
me discuss why that's so pertinent.
The answer is yes, that this bill,
were it to be passed and were it to become
law, according to my reading of it, would
allow municipalities to bestow this benefit to
everybody participating in that municipal
police force. And as a result, it might
provide a greater incentive for more people to
apply to become police officers, particularly
in New York City.
What it certainly will not do,
Senator Duane, and which I think the reason
why you raised this issue is so important -
what it will not do, it will not in any way
increase the number of applicants that reside
within the City of New York. And that is why
5109
I have major concerns about this legislation.
Not so much is this a wonderful idea, but if
this is at all the intention, then why aren't
we taking the other steps that are necessary.
What are the other steps? As you
mentioned, we have had, for years and years, a
problem in New York City, and two days ago the
New York Times did a major expose on this,
that the number of minority police officers,
particularly black police officers in the City
of New York, is abysmal. I believe in 1974
the percentage of black officers on the
New York City police force was 7.5 percent,
and in the last 27 years it has only increased
by a dismal 1.5 percent. That is a tremendous
problem.
And here's why it's such a major
problem. Of course, when we have really bad
relations, as we currently do, with minorities
and the police department in the City of
New York, these things are going to be
highlighted. But the highlighting of these
problems have not led to the remedies that we
seek.
And you bring up residency, Senator
5110
Duane. Did you know, Senator Duane -- and
this is rhetorical -- that I am the sponsor of
the residency requirement bill in the New York
State Senate? This is the legislation which
would, in much the same way that Senator
Padavan seeks to authorize the City of New
York to bestow this benefit on certain police
officers, my legislation would authorize the
City of New York to impose a prospective
residency requirement upon its newly hired
police officers. And why is that important?
And incidentally, I should point
out that bill has gone nowhere in the last
three years. This is my third year here.
It's gone nowhere. I would have brought a
motion to discharge on it, but we're now
precluded from doing that under the new and
egregious rules of the Senate.
But that legislation is terribly
important. Here's why. New census numbers
show that the extent of the minority
population in the City of New York exceeds
that of any other population. And we've only
had that abysmally small growth in New York
City. And so one of the purposes -- not all
5111
of the purpose, but one of the purposes of a
residency requirement for New York City police
officers is to increase by a percentage the
number of minority applicants in the City of
New York.
Why is this such a problem? We
talked about the aggregate numbers. But when
you break it down -- and the New York Times
sought to do this two days ago in a very
compelling way -- you get a stark picture of
what's going on in the police department.
Here it is for you. In a city that is less
than fifty -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi, I
must ask you, with all due respect, to keep
your comments germane to the issue of the
bill, please. You may proceed with germane
comments.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you. Let
me clarify as to why this is germane, Madam
President, if I may.
This legislation seeks potentially
to bestow a benefit on police officers that
might entice additional recruitment of police
officers into a police force that has trouble
5112
recruiting new officers and has a tremendously
hard time recruiting minority officers. And
so the germaneness of the comments I'm making
now pertain to the lack of additional
legislation that I believe is necessary.
Having said that, the New York City
Police Department now is 70 percent white in
the lower echelons. Who am I talking about?
I'm talking about the police officers and the
sergeants in the police department.
If you seek to do an examination,
through an ethnic breakdown or a racial
breakdown in the police department, of the
higher ranks -- who am I talking about?
Lieutenants, captains, inspectors, deputy
inspectors, assistant chiefs, chiefs,
superchiefs, and then the civilian ranks of
the police department -- that number of all
white goes up to 80 percent. 80 percent.
And why is it such a problem now
that we are having a tremendous difficulty
recruiting new minority officers? The reason
is you don't become an inspector or a deputy
inspector or a captain or a chief or a
superchief unless you've worked your way up
5113
through the ranks of the department.
So that if we are not increasing
minority participation on the lowest levels -
and the New York Times alluded to this. By
increasing the educational standards -- and
this bill seeks to buttress educational
standards that are already in place. It
doesn't provide a benefit to enable additional
people to meet the educational requirements
that have already been set up. That's the
problem there.
So if we're acting on this bill and
not doing something to increase the ability of
minorities in the city and New York City
residents to hit that educational goal of
maintaining an associate's degree to get on
the police force, what happens is the
following.
You have a diminishment in the
ranks of the New York City Police Department
of qualified minority officers, and that is
perpetuated year after year after year,
because the only way that you rise up to the
higher ranks in the police department -- which
absolutely essential, rising up through the
5114
ranks -- the only way you do that is by
getting on board at the lowest levels.
So if we don't hit the target by
helping minorities and helping New York City
residents hit their education attainment -
and this bill misses the mark on that, Madam
President, very clearly misses the mark -
then what we're doing is we're really cutting
off our nose to spite our face. Because we're
going to perpetuate the problems within the
department.
And to go you one step further, the
reason why it's such a tremendous problem that
we don't have more minorities in this police
department is there is a crisis of confidence
of policing in the city. And while it's true,
and the mayor has discussed this on numerous
occasions, that minorities have experienced
more of a benefit than those in nonminority
communities, who are the lower-crime areas -
because just mind you, now, it's a very
logical jump. If you experience a 50 percent
crime reduction in an area in a police
precinct that has fifty murders a year, you
just cut the number of murders from 50 to 25.
5115
If you have a 50 percent cut in a low-crime
area, you just cut the number of murders from
six to three. A 25 percent drop in murders or
a 3 percent drop in murders.
But as much as this administration
can make the case that minority communities
have benefited more than anybody else, there
is a tremendous problem, because there is a
crisis of confidence between minorities in the
city and the New York City Police Department.
So much so that the main problem articulated
in that New York Times story was that the
number-one mechanism for recruiting minority
police officers -- namely, having minority
police officers who have had a positive
experience and positive career in the police
department -- their numbers are diminishing to
the extent to which that these officers, who
have been in for 10 and 15 years, these
officers don't have any credibility when they
go into minority communities anymore as a
black police officer and say to young kids,
Come join the police force.
Because they did some polling, some
statistical polling, and found out that young
5116
blacks in New York City would have ridicule
and scorn thrust upon them at the prospect of
joining an entity for which most black New
Yorkers would tell you that they've had a
negative experience with the police
department.
And I believe almost every one of
the black officers cited in the Times story
said that when they were not in uniform that
they had run-ins with white police officers in
New York City.
So if those black police officers
aren't going to recruit the minority youth,
then we are in a cycle, a perpetual cycle here
where we are cutting off our nose to spite our
face.
So there are a tremendous number of
things we could do. This bill isn't one of
them. The residency requirement is one of
them. And by the way, the residency
requirement is not just to get blacks or other
people on the police force. It's because I
believe, and I think most people believe, that
if you have more people from the City of
New York on the police force -- of course, not
5117
policing in the neighborhoods where they live.
That is not a good idea -- but that those
police officers will have a greater stake in
the communities of the city, that they will
have a more visceral connection with the
communities in which they live, and that they
will be better police officers as a result.
And I remind everybody in this
chamber, because I believe that in the wake of
the Colin Ferguson shooting on the Long Island
Railroad, one of the first things that we
did -- and I believe it passed this house
unanimously -- is we bestowed a benefit on
police officers and peace officers that they
can ride for free on Metro North and Long
Island Railroad.
And why did we do that, folks? We
did that in recognition of the fact that if
you have police officers -- who are really
never off duty. Police officers are always on
duty. Many of them carry their guns with them
even when they're off duty -- that if they
were on that train that day, that some police
officer could have thwarted that tragedy.
Why am I bringing this up? I'm
5118
bringing it up because one of the reasons why
you want more -- a higher percentage of the
40,000 police officers being residents of
New York City -- thank you, Madam President -
is that the city is by definition a safer
place if you have more of these off-duty cops
on the streets, going to the shopping mall and
the supermarket. In much the same way that we
all recognize that the LIRR would be safer if
there were more off-duty police officers
traveling on there for free. That's why they
did it.
So there are a number of reasons
why you want to impose a residency
requirement, not the least of which, Senator
Duane, is the fact that New York City
taxpayers are paying the salaries of these
police officers. They're paying the salaries
of these police officers.
So you raise the question, Senator
Duane, who would get the benefit. Would we
have an exclusion of certain police officers
who don't reside within the city from getting
the benefit under Senator Padavan's
legislation. I'm not sure that they would. I
5119
don't believe that they would. But this
brings to light the question of should
New York City taxpayers be paying the salaries
and supplementary benefits of individuals who
don't reside within the City of New York.
I suggest to you that we need to
move to enable the City of New York to impose
a residency requirement and to do some of the
other things that you spoke about. I am not
the only one who sponsors residency
legislation. My bill is a stand-alone bill.
But Senator Ada Smith has a residency
requirement component within a larger piece of
legislation that is aimed at increasing the
number of applicants in the New York City
Police Department that reside within the City
of New York.
And some of the things that she has
in her legislation, I believe, Senator Duane,
you alluded to, including additional credits
for housing and things of that nature -
low-interest loans.
And I believe we really need to go
and take a look at that, at a time when the
police department has spent millions and
5120
millions of dollars on a recruitment effort
that has seen a drop in the number of
applications -- a drop in the number of
applications; it's almost counterintuitive -
until you start having a discourse on what the
problems are. The salary, the educational
attainment levels that you need, the low
morale. I mean, you know, there are
tremendous, tremendous problems here.
And I submit to you, Madam
President and Senator Duane, that until we
have a police department that more accurately
reflects the composition of the City of
New York, then even if policing didn't
improve, that the relations between the
minority community and the police department
in this city, which had been fractured and
exacerbated and provide the potential for
there to be a conflagration when we have
tragic incidents, such as the Dorismund and
Diallo shootings, which could propel the city
into unbelievable civil unrest, if we don't
tackle that problem, we are really doing
ourselves a disservice.
And finally, and I'll end this long
5121
answer, I do not believe that there is a
fundamental conflict between the type of
strong, productive, effective policing that
we've seen in New York City, largely as a
result of the COMPSTAT process -- which is
really just a product of TQM, total quality
management. It's a management mechanism -
between that type of aggressive policing and
having positive relations with every community
in the City of New York. Precinct commanders
are now being held accountable at COMPSTAT
meetings for exchanges that their officers
have on the streets, with individuals on the
streets. And that's good. We've got to send
that message out loudly and clearly, we've got
to do 17 other things in order to remedy the
problems that we have now.
It is so tragic that we have
experienced tremendous, tremendous drops of
crime that have benefited everybody, but not
everybody feels safe under the protection of
the police department, and that we don't have
peace and harmony amongst the people who are
being served by heroic individuals.
And cops are heroic individuals.
5122
They die with frightening regularity in the
line of duty. And they deserve benefits. And
one of the reasons why their morale is so low
is because they feel like they are being
treated as the enemy in certain communities.
And I'm not even blaming them for that. I'm
saying that everybody needs to resolve this
problem. We can't have a demonization that
goes either way, a demonization of the police
or a demonization of the people that they seek
to serve. It is counterproductive. And it's
going to lead to more and more tragedies and
problems.
So this bill that we have before us
doesn't address any of these issues. Doesn't
address any of these issues. It only raises
questions; specifically, questions as to why
we're doing this and we're not doing one of
the number of things that I and my colleagues
have raised on the floor today.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi,
do you continue to yield for a question?
5123
SENATOR HEVESI: I'd be more than
happy to yield, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I do want to preface that by saying
that I personally did not think that was a
long answer. Personally. And you could have
knocked me over with a feather about that bill
you have. However -- it's a good thing there
wasn't a feather here.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane,
I'm having trouble hearing you, perhaps
because you're not directing your comments
through me, in this direction.
And proceed with a question.
SENATOR DUANE: Absolutely
correct, Madam President.
I'm wondering if the sponsor
believes that while a lengthy debate on the
floor on this bill is productive and
important, if he also believes that a lengthy
hearing by experts might not have been as
valuable, as a complement to what's happening
today on the floor.
5124
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President.
I can't speak for the sponsor. I
don't know whether you meant for me to -
SENATOR DUANE: Did I say
sponsor?
SENATOR HEVESI: You did.
SENATOR DUANE: Oh, I'm terribly
sorry. I'm in fairyland.
SENATOR HEVESI: But I can answer
that question if you're directing it at me.
SENATOR DUANE: Yes.
SENATOR HEVESI: I certainly
believe that this bill, just like almost every
bill that comes before us, has not been
sufficiently vetted. And the reason is, there
is not inclusion of both sides of the aisle.
Which doesn't necessarily indicate
an ideological divide. There are many, many
occasions where I have supported
Republican-sponsored legislation in this
house. And many times I've diverged from the
opinions of my colleagues and even suggested
to the Majority that their legislation didn't
go far enough.
5125
But the missing element always
seems to be the same. The missing element is
we don't have hearings, we don't have a
discussion. And yesterday was the perfect
example. Madam President, we had a long
discussion on a bill in which the existence
and presence of this bill two years in a row
was direct and irrefutable, incontrovertible
evidence that the New York State Tax
Department is a mess. And unlike Congress,
which last year held massive hearings,
deliberative hearings and public hearings on
the problems with IRS and called in taxpayers,
and then, as a consequence of the testimony
that was presented there, tried to craft
resolutions to this problem, we never do that.
We never do that.
And we were just talking about the
residency requirement. For some reason, the
City of New York -- which incidentally, and
Senator Duane knows this all too well, because
he sat for a protracted period of time in that
body, and that body also passes a budget,
incidentally, on time every single year. But
that body holds hearings. They hold hearings,
5126
they call in commissioners, they grill those
commissioners on what they're doing in their
agencies, how they're spending their money,
and on the necessity of particular
legislation.
For example, I testified before a
New York City Council Committee on Residency.
I sat before that committee for about 45
minutes. And some members of the police
department, some members of the police
department came after me and refuted some of
the things I said. And it was healthy. And
there were one or two points that they made
where I was wrong. I was wrong. But the end
result, the end result was that we had a full
airing of the issues.
And that the drafting of any
legislation that comes pursuant to a full
hearing, with all sides included -- not just
divided by party, not just divided by
ideology, but maybe with gender inclusion,
maybe with inclusion of individuals of
different sexual orientations, of different
races and ethnicities -- that, I submit to
you, can never lead to a worse product than
5127
that which is the result of a process that
excludes certain individuals from
participating in the process.
So the answer to your question,
Senator Duane, is I would have had a hearing
on this. I don't know whether this is the
best thing to do. And all of the questions
that we've had here may have been answered, or
the questions tailored as a result of our
experience hearing what these police experts
say. For example, should the rookie cops be
taken off the streets.
So it's a real problem. It's
another example of us not having a full
hearing and having legislation that is
obviously imperfect put before us and asking
us to vote on it.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the Senator would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR HEVESI: I certainly will
yield, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
5128
with a question, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
you believe that the members of the New York
Police Department would want the person who
introduces legislation, I imagine on their
behalf, to be able to defend that legislation
and answer relevant questions about that
legislation? Do you feel they would have that
kind of ownership that they would want a
champion of theirs to defend their
legislation, to make sure that it was as good
a piece of legislation for them and the people
of the City of New York as it could possibly
be?
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, the answer is I
don't know. I suspect that they would. And I
don't want to ascribe any motive to anybody in
this chamber. But I think the fact that we
don't have answers to really pertinent
questions -- I mean, if somebody wants to
suggest this discussion, this debate is not
fruitful, I would disagree with them
vehemently on this.
But these questions are important
5129
questions. And I think it reflects badly on
this institution that we don't have those
questions answered.
But I do think that New York City
police officers would want to know that an
individual who was sponsoring a piece of
legislation that would presumably bestow a
benefit on them would be happy to discuss it
and chat about it.
And I know Senator Padavan has
brought a number of good pieces of legislation
to the floor before, and some not so good,
some not so good on behalf of police officers,
frankly. In fact, I believe it was last
session that Senator Padavan sponsored a bill
that would have given a benefit of not having
a pay a toll for any police officer traveling
on any of the toll bridges throughout the
city. And we had a full airing and a full
discussion on that, and it was healthy.
So the answer to your question -- I
was opposed to that legislation. I may wind
up supporting this. I haven't decided yet.
But the reason I haven't decided is there are
so many questions yet to answer on this.
5130
But I fully expect that if New York
City police officers really had a say, they
might ask the following question on this.
They might ask not whether or not this bill is
a good bill and is going to benefit them.
They might ask instead the question as to why
are we doing this when there are so many other
deficiencies with the compensation that they
receive in a whole series of areas. Why
aren't they getting paid enough? Why are some
police precincts in horrible conditions?
Which is a real morale problem.
They may have other contractual
issues that they want to raise. They may have
questions as to whether or not their uniform
should be the current color. They were
changed a few years ago, but police officers
seem to like that.
I think they would have other
questions in terms of this if the question was
put to them: Why are we doing this? I'm sure
most police officers in New York City are much
more concerned about salary than they are
about whether or not they can take some time
off to go and get a higher degree of
5131
education.
And if they are concerned about
this -- and I hope they're concerned about it,
I hope that they are concerned about it
because they believe and they know that there
is a direct and parallel relationship with the
amount of education they get and their
advancement up through the department. And
that has all kind of implications and
ramifications for us as citizens of New York,
because we want more educated people.
We want educated people. They make
better police officers. They are more
reasonable. They have a more intuitive
thought process. They are more deliberative.
They have more knowledge. They're bringing
more things to the table. It's good. And
they are more likely to pass the test that
will propel them to the higher echelons where
they are more able to effectuate policy
changes that are to the benefit of all the
citizens that they represent and protect and
serve.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Through, Mr. President, I would
5132
just like to thank the Senator for allowing me
to interrupt him while he was on the bill.
And I look forward to hearing the remainder of
his comments on the bill, and I'll have
questions later.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
I'd like to continue on the bill.
This has been a fruitful discussion
so far with Senator Duane. I think it would
have been more fruitful if the sponsor had
yielded to more than two questions that I
asked.
I'm not sure how I'm going to vote
on this. I believe I'll vote yes on this,
because I have some confidence that
municipalities who will become empowered to
bestow this benefit on their citizens will do
so -- I'm hoping they'll do so in a way that
doesn't do damage to the police department or
policing in their respective cities. And I
have some trust and confidence, but not every
trust and confidence. And that's why
5133
sometimes it's good to include more detail and
more constraints, and sometimes it's good to
leave things a bit more open-ended.
This legislation, as we've been
discussing, has many more questions that it
poses and arises than it answers. Because I
think it's a good idea. This is one of those
constant dilemmas that we face. I think it's
a good idea that we are encouraging police
officers to get an additional benefit. I
think it's a bad idea that our priority is to
give additional educational opportunities to
currently serving police officers at the
expense of providing educational opportunities
to individuals who need additional education
in order to qualify in the first place for the
police department.
I mean, that's just -- I don't know
why we're doing that. Why is that our
approach? It's much more clear to me that the
right way to go about this here is to (a) hold
a hearing and get everybody's testimony on
this, and then we'll make our discussions and
decisions on how to draft this; (b) is to
ascertain whether or not this is a benefit
5134
that we want to legislate. As Senator Duane
pointed out, this may be a perfectly
acceptable issue that should be negotiated
through the collective bargaining process, as
so many other issues -- and I alluded to one
very minute issue with the Board of Education
that's dealt with through collective
bargaining. And we want to determine that.
And then we want to take a look at
the larger issues, which is that we are not
achieving here what the number-one priority
should be to achieve, and that's to improve
qualitatively, and quantitatively in some
respects, the New York City Police Department.
We have a diminishment in the ranks of police
officers, of potential, prospective police
officers, applying to take the test. And many
of them we know don't take the test, don't
sign up because, in addition to all the other
reasons, because they don't have a two-year
associate's degree.
And to be honest with you, Mr.
President, if we're really trying to get at
the heart of the problem here, and you're
really trying to better prepare students so
5135
that they have an associate's degree, so that
the highest-qualified, the best-qualified
New York City residents can make it onto the
police department, I would even submit to you
we need to go further and further back within
the educational system, because so many of our
students don't even get to the point where
they are graduating from school. They're not
graduating.
And that's not even a problem in
high school. Those are problems that go all
the way back to elementary school. It's one
of the reasons why we made a major push to
move to universal pre-K. This stuff goes all
the way back to the beginning.
You can't pop in at the last minute
when a student is in 11th or 12th grade and
say to them, Here, we'll give you some
additional help, and this will encourage you
to increase your test scores and to work
harder so that you can now go on to even
harder work on a college level, when it's very
likely that nobody in your family ever went to
college, even if they graduated from high
school, hop to it.
5136
And what we're doing here instead
is we're saying, all right, if you already
have an associate's degree, here's the
additional education. This is missing the
boat. If it was ever our intention to have
more qualified police officers get on the
ranks in the first place, which is the more
pressing problem than the educational
attainment level of those officers currently
on the police force -- remember, this is not
like the Board of Education. As Senator Duane
pointed out, there is no -- my understanding,
and somebody can correct me if I'm wrong,
there's no educational -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Smith, why do you rise?
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Would Senator
Hevesi yield for a couple of questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi, do you yield for a question from
Senator Smith?
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
I'd be more than happy to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi yields.
5137
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Senator.
Are you familiar with a bill which
was entitled the CUNY Police Cadet Corps
Program?
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
I'm vaguely familiar with the bill, but I
would appreciate it if you would refresh my
memory.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you.
Let me just tell you a little about what that
bill would do. It directs, actually, the
Commissioner of Criminal Justice Services, in
conjunction and consultation with the CUNY
Chancellor, to create a police cadet program
which will be located at John Jay, as you know
which is part of CUNY. And the goal of this
CUNY Cadet Corps Program is to recruit on an
annual basis at least 1,000 qualified and
trained cadets for police service.
And the program, which existed as a
pilot program from '93 to '97, combined formal
education and training with hands-on NYPD
internships. And persons who would graduate
from the program would be well-equipped to
5138
serve as police officers.
Also, the CUNY students would live
in New York City, which would give us an
opportunity to hire city residents without
resorting to the residency requirement, which
some of us believe in. It would also produce
more officers, hopefully, that would be
reflective of the makeup of the City of
New York.
I heard you saying that you believe
as I do, that we should be putting our money
into recruiting and bringing in new officers.
Do you think that perhaps this would be a
means of doing some of that?
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. I very much appreciate Senator
Smith's expertise in this field. And as I
suggested before, she is the sponsor of a very
comprehensive piece of legislation aimed at
achieving some of the goals that we've been
discussing today.
Senator Smith, I had a comment or a
question for the sponsor of this legislation,
because he cites in his memo in support of the
bill that's before us that there was a tuition
5139
waiver program sponsored by John Jay College
of Criminal Justice in the late '70s and 1980s
that was proven highly successful.
And I not only had questions about
that program, but it was always my
understanding that the CUNY Cadet Program was
one of the finest programs that we had in the
City of New York, that this is a program that,
despite the current constraints of law, which
would enable us to recruit young New York City
residents who were students who would be
nurtured through the process in a city-funded
school that was an excellent school,
recognized throughout the country for its
criminal justice bona fides, and that these
individuals would be given an opportunity to
be channelled directly into the New York City
Police Department in much the way that many of
us believe is appropriate, and would have a
positive impact on the city police department.
I don't know what happened to that
program. And, Mr. President, if Senator Smith
would yield for a question.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Oh, gladly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Just a
5140
second.
Senator Hevesi, I believe that you
have the floor presently. So unless you want
to yield the floor to Senator Smith -
SENATOR HEVESI: I would like to
yield the floor to Senator Smith.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
right.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you.
And I will gladly take the question from
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Well, at
that point, Senator Hevesi has yielded the
floor.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Yes, and I
would like to say that I concur with Senator
Hevesi on his regard for the CUNY -- formerly
the CUNY Cadet Program which was housed at
John Jay. And I believe that through the
advent of something called politics, it may
have met its demise.
And it's about time that we moved
forward and put back some of these programs
that have been proven to be of benefit to the
5141
City of New York.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
would have I -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Give me
a second, Senator.
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: I believe that I
need to request Senator Smith to yield the
floor back to me so that I may ask Senator
Smith a question.
Mr. President, would Senator Smith
yield to a question?
SENATOR KUHL: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: I think I can
resolve this whole issue.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes,
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Could we just lay
this bill aside temporarily.
And what time did the debate start
on this bill?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
debate started at 10:28, Senator Kuhl.
5142
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you very
much. Could we lay this bill aside
temporarily.
I believe there's a report of the
Senate Finance Committee at the desk, so I'd
ask that we return to reports of standing
committees. And could we have that report
read.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
will be temporarily laid aside.
The Secretary will return to the
order of reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following nominations:
As a member of the Workers'
Compensation Board, Ellen O. Paprocki, of
Liverpool.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
once again, we had a delightful morning and we
had two fine appearances before the Finance
Committee. And the first appearance -- both
did so well. The first appearance was Ellen
Paprocki, nominated for the Workmen's
5143
Compensation Board.
And it's a pleasure for me to yield
to the Senator from Onondaga.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Thank you,
Senator. It's my pleasure and privilege to
stand in support of this nomination. Governor
Pataki again has outdone himself.
You know, in order to be in a
judicial-like position like the Workers'
Compensation Board is, you need various
characteristics. You need good judgment, you
need unquestioned character, you need
compassion, and you need a sense of fairness.
And there's no question that Ellen Paprocki
does have each one of those qualifications and
more.
If you look at her resume, it's
absolutely incredible the broad range of
experience she has at such a young age. She
was with the U.S. Department of Labor, Office
of Labor Management Standards. She was with
the Agency for International Development. She
volunteered at the Peace Corps.
And most recently she's been in a
very important managerial position as deputy
5144
director of the New York State Fair and has
really helped Peter Cappuccilli, who is the
director of the fair and who's present here
with her, along with her family, to make this
fair bigger and better every year.
She has management skills, she has
fairness, she has character, she has judgment
and compassion.
So the Governor has done a
wonderful job in this appointment, and I urge
all of my colleagues to vote unanimously for
this appointment, and I congratulate Ellen in
advance.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the nomination of Ellen
Paprocki as a member of the Workers'
Compensation Board. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
nominee is confirmed.
Ms. Paprocki, welcome to the Senate
5145
chambers, and we congratulate you.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will continue to read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Industrial Board of Appeals, Evelyn C.
Heady, of Poughquag.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Like Ellen, Evelyn C. Heady did an
excellent job. It's a reappointment to the
Industrial Board of Appeals. I believe she is
chairman of the board.
And it's a pleasure for me yield to
the Senator from the mid-Hudson.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Leibell.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Senator
Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Thank you.
Thank you, Senator.
Mr. President, I am particularly
pleased to rise on this reappointment to the
5146
Industrial Board of Appeals. I had the chance
a few moments ago, through the graciousness of
Senator Stafford, to speak in front of his
committee on this appointment and to note at
the time that I have known Evelyn Heady over
the course of over two decades now. I knew
her from local government, as a supervisor in
the town of Beekman. And the question came up
how do you correctly pronounce Poughquag. It
is Poughquag. And she continued to serve
there with great distinction and has continued
to serve at the state level in our state
government.
I can tell you that she has been
much loved by the residents of not only her
hometown of Beekman, but by residents
throughout the Hudson Valley and in particular
in Dutchess County.
For me, as a new member of the
State Assembly many years ago, she was as
close a counsel and ally as I could ever ask
for, and for that I am very grateful.
I'm very pleased that the Governor
has once again sent us a person of this
caliber and such qualifications as Evelyn
5147
Heady, and I'm particularly pleased because
she's such a good friend.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I too rise in support of Governor
Pataki's nomination of Evelyn Heady. It would
be very difficult for me to say in any
different fashion what has already been said
by Senator Leibell about Evelyn. Suffice it
to say -- excuse me, he's correcting me, any
less eloquently. Any more eloquently, I
apologize.
Suffice it to say that Evelyn has
not only served her community well, her town
and her county, but she is a prime example of
some of the absolutely superb appointments
that Governor Pataki has seen fit to appoint
to the various boards and agencies that are
such an integral part of New York's daily
life.
I want to join with Senator Leibell
in thanking Evelyn for her past support, which
5148
certainly was instrumental to me as a
fledgling Senator. I look forward to her
continued presence on the part of the people
of the State of New York and, more
importantly, look forward to seeing her back
home on the rare occasion that either of us
are back home, Evelyn.
Best regards, best wishes, and keep
up the fine work.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the nomination of Evelyn C.
Heady, of Poughquag, as a member of the
Industrial Board of Appeals. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
nominee is confirmed.
Ms. Heady, congratulations on your
important duties, and best wishes.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will continue to read.
5149
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Long Island State Park, Recreation and
Historic Preservation Commission, Edward P.
Kane, of Rockville Centre.
As members of the Niagara Frontier
State Park, Recreation and Historic
Preservation Commission, Donna M. Goia, of
Buffalo, and Susan B. Schoellkopf, of Buffalo.
And as a member of the State
Athletic Commission, Jerome M. Becker,
Esquire, of New York City.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
confirmation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the confirmation of the above
named nominees. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stachowski.
5150
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: On the
Jerome Becker nomination, in committee I voted
no. But on the floor, I'm going to support
him.
But I want to put in the record the
fact that I hope he takes this reappointment
as an opportunity to try to clean up some of
the problems that have been publicly noted,
and not only by the press but also by members
of the Legislature, with a lot of the problems
with the Athletic Commission and the fact that
they have some severe lacking in the boxing
area and the people that are running the
boxing area, and that he would take this
opportunity on this reappointment to try to
address those problems and make sure that all
the problems that were cited in the past will
never be cited again, and hopefully clean up
that whole area.
With that, I'll vote yes. Thank
you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stachowski, your vote will be recorded in the
affirmative and your comments noted for the
record.
5151
The nominees are confirmed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time return to the calendar and
take up Calendar Number 242.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 242.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
242, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 3094, an
act to amend the Penal Law and the Highway
Law, in relation to violence committed on
school grounds.
SENATOR CONNOR: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
thank you.
The bill before us has been and is
being referred to as Suzanne's Law. And you
will recollect that we have passed this bill
in the chamber before. And it pertains to
Suzanne Lyall, who on March 2nd, three years
ago, disappeared from the SUNY campus, and her
whereabouts to this day are unknown.
Suzanne's parents, Doug and Mary
5152
Lyall, are here with us today. And they have
been in this chamber a number of times. They
have been in the Capitol. They have been on
the streets in New York State doing everything
that they can to help prevent similar
occurrences from happening again here in
New York State.
Violent crimes, assaults are going
up -- while crime goes down generally, they're
going up on school grounds and on college
campuses. So Suzanne's Law increases the
penalty for a felony committed on a school
ground. And that includes athletic fields,
daycare centers, 1000 feet surrounding any
activity, any school activity. We think
that's appropriate. We think that's what
should happen.
The Lyalls, through their activity
in getting support from others, have collected
over 25,000 signatures that they will be
delivering to the Assembly. Because to this
day, the Assembly has not seen fit, for some
reason or other, to pass this law that would
make it safer for young people and others to
be in a school environment.
5153
So we hope that with the passage of
time, and their reflection in the other house,
that the leadership will see fit to get this
bill to the floor this year.
So I want to thank Doug and Mary
Lyall for all of their activity, all of their
hard work. And we know how difficult this
must be for you to continually revisit the
pain and the suffering that goes on when
anyone is missing a loved one.
April 6th is Suzanne's birthday.
We passed a resolution in this chamber some
weeks ago petitioning the Governor to name
April 6th, in honor of Suzanne's memory,
Missing Person's Day in New York State. I
have before me the Governor's proclamation,
from the Governor's chamber, designating
April 6th here in New York State throughout
this state Missing Person's Day.
So this will be a reflection on
everybody in their memory of Suzanne and doing
everything and anything that can be done to
prevent similar occurrences, things like this
happening in anyone else's life.
So I urge my colleagues to give
5154
this bill, Suzanne's bill, your support. And
we'll send it to the other house, and then
hopefully together we can encourage them to
pass it. The Governor is prepared to sign it.
And Assemblyman Tedisco is here
with us, Assemblyman Tedisco who shares the
district with me and is carrying this
legislation in the other house. And we
appreciate his support and his persistence in
assisting us in getting this to become
reality.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President. To Senator Bruno, the
loss of a child, as we all know, is one of the
most tragic events that any parent should ever
have to experience. And my heart goes out to
the Lyall family, and I commend them for their
efforts to protect the children of New York
State. I only wish that we were able to meet
them under better circumstances.
This legislation sends an important
message, like our hate crimes bill that we
5155
passed last year, that our schools are sacred
places of learning and that violent behavior
will not be tolerated on our school grounds.
Therefore, I join you, Senator
Bruno, in supporting this legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Mr.
President. The Lyalls are -- I also share the
county and the community, almost, that Senator
Bruno and Assemblyman Tedisco have. The
Lyalls are friends.
And, you know, for anybody to even
consider the loss of a child is just something
that we don't even want to think about. But,
you know, I taught at that university when
Suzanne was taken. And, you know, for the
Lyalls to go through this, and it has been
quite some time now, the pain doesn't go away.
There's been no closure here for them.
But their effort on behalf of this
legislation, their effort on behalf of Suzanne
Lyall, their daughter, who they'll probably
never see again, still lives on with this
effort.
5156
And you're to be commended. And I
have told them that several times.
And for Senator Bruno and
Assemblyman Tedisco, and for all of us that
are interested in something happening here -
because, you know, when your child goes off to
school, whether it be elementary school or
college, this isn't a unique situation. We
have had several people right from this area,
two from the University at Albany, one is
Senator Stafford's constituent, and also one
from over in Rensselaer County, one of the
schools, these are young women that have been
just obliterated, if you will, from the face
of the earth. It's terrible.
And the time has come for this
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to
support it. And I also would like to pay
tribute to the parents of Suzanne Lyall, Doug
and Mary.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I too commend Senator Bruno for
5157
this legislation. The State University of
New York in Albany is in my district. And as
the father of three, the tragedy of a loss of
child to me is just beyond comprehension,
beyond comprehension. And we send our
children to colleges and universities
expecting them to be protected there, that
somehow that place should be something that as
parents we can all feel comfortable that our
children will be all right.
And it's sad that the Lyalls are
here visiting with us under these
circumstances. But their dedication and their
perseverance to effectively bring this
legislation together is to be commended.
So it is with great hope that this
legislation will pass here today unanimously
and will be then carried in the Assembly and
entered into law.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President, I rise to also express my sincere
concern to the Lyalls for the loss of their
5158
daughter.
Certainly, as a mother, I can
imagine how painful it must be to have a child
just disappear and you not know. And no one
knows more the love for a child than a parent,
so I certainly understand that.
I do, however, have some concerns
about this legislation. And I must express to
you, Mr. President, and to my colleagues why I
will be voting no on this bill.
I'm concerned that in an attempt to
address the issue of Suzanne Lyall, we are
reaching very far. And there are a number of
actions in this legislation which are not
necessarily related to an abduction or the
disappearance of someone. It's much more than
that.
And it increases the sentencing for
many other areas, and simply because they take
place on a school campus, school grounds.
That means high schools, that means elementary
schools, that means junior high schools and
that means colleges.
And I'm always reluctant to support
legislation like this because the criminal
5159
justice system is so disparate in the way that
it impacts on certain communities as opposed
to others.
So I'm going to vote no, despite
the fact that I certainly understand and join
the Lyalls in mourning the loss of their
daughter. I think we must be careful at the
same time that we do not enact laws that will
ultimately cast the net in a way that it
really hurts a very large number of people, or
it has the potential of engaging a larger and
larger number of very young people in the
criminal justice system for very, very long,
extended sentences for an action simply
because it takes place on school grounds.
But again, I say I mourn the loss
of Suzanne Lyall, and I certainly support the
resolution that has been submitted by our
Majority Leader.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. On the bill.
I hear the concerns expressed by
5160
Senator Montgomery, but I would urge that
there are a lot of the children that I believe
she cares the most about, and that I care the
most about, who actually would be the
beneficiaries of such a law. The 1.1 million
children in New York City public schools -
which include my daughter, who many of you
have met -- it's overwhelmingly a population
of black and Hispanic children. And we have
had incidents in my area where there have been
assaults on children in the school areas, and
it is every parent's worst nightmare for what
happened to the Lyalls to happen to our child.
The only thing that if I could make
a comment -- and I heard our leader's comments
about the other house. I'm not sure they are
going to come to the table this year. The
only thing that I would add to this, if I
could, is that in the final section of the
bill where it talks about setting up
assault-and-abduction-free school zones, I
think something even a little more aggressive,
by way of putting up signs and calling to the
attention of the local police department that
this is something that should be more
5161
deserving of police presence.
Because that's something that we do
on a case-by-case basis, and I've had to make
calls to my local precincts about the lack of
police presence in certain schools. And that
is something that I think should be a part of
this overall package. And we may have time to
address that later this year.
But I do think this is a bill worth
supporting, and I think that children are
deserving of whatever we can do to attempt to
avoid any future occurrence, any future
tragedies like those that have affected the
Lyalls.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
September.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
5162
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53. Nays,
1. Senator Montgomery recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time return to Calendar Number
302.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: We will
return to Calendar 302.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
302, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 2774, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law.
SENATOR CONNOR: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is back before the house.
We have a list, and in regular
order, Senator Espada was next.
Senator Espada, you have the floor.
SENATOR ESPADA: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Firstly, let me thank Senator
Hevesi for his many insights on this bill. A
5163
number of us had a great many questions. This
is an important bill, one that I should add
that I certainly was not predisposed to vote
against.
I guess I'd just like to, in
proffering these brief comments, just start
with the basic proposition that we stand for
equal access to -- broad and equal access to
education. The question must be asked, who is
really asking for this benefit? And that
question I think was somewhat answered through
the question-and-answer session that was
sponsored by Senators Hevesi and Duane. And
that, on its face, is rather awkward, since
neither of them sponsored the bill.
But I'll tell you that the people
that I know that have been asking for
educational assistance, that have been asking
for us to pay attention to tuition assistance
programs, most particularly the ones that the
Governor's budget wants to slash once again,
the TAP program, were here yesterday, and they
were asking for us to get involved.
When Senator Hevesi and Senator
Duane really penetrated the essence of this
5164
bill and the many questions that remain
unanswered, then that moved me to really move
against supporting the bill, if only because
of their so many questions.
But I wanted to rise and take the
floor just to say that, coming from a largely
Latino and African-American community, it
should be made perfectly clear that their
State Senator and a great majority of the
constituents are not antipolice, they're not
anti-incentivizing and creating good
recruitment and retention programs to keep
good police officers on the force and to give
them the kind of educational enhancement
opportunities that most of the constituents in
my district would also like to have.
And so I would be terribly remiss
if I didn't focus in on that. You know, that
with the many cutbacks that we have had to the
Tuition Assistance Program, with the many
hikes in tuition at SUNY and CUNY
institutions, people in my district that
average $21,000 to $40,000 in income have been
denied access to those very institutions that
this benefit would allow police officers to
5165
gain.
I cite, for instance, statistics
which indicate that since the enactment of
many of our budgets with the aforementioned
cuts, we have seen a decrease in enrollment by
people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds
that are within the income group $21,000 to
$45,000, or what we would otherwise refer to
as working-class families.
The debate was most interesting
with respect to the many questions about what
this bill would do if enacted in its current
form. And I know that I'm running out of
time, Mr. President. I appreciate your
indulgence. But the fact is that there are so
many questions about how this gives an
unfunded mandate to municipalities to deal
with. As raised in the dialogue, how this
invades what is usually a matter for
negotiation between the municipalities and
unions. How we could have improved it had we
focused in on the greatest need that we are -
certainly reference was made to the New York
Times article.
But I think we all know that there
5166
is a real crisis in recruitment in the police
department, and we know what is lacking in
there. It doesn't take much to really extend
this benefit to where it's needed. The
contours and underpinnings of that were
established not in the bill, but through the
question-and-answer period.
Thank God for transcripts and the
Journal, that could live to another day and
hopefully be incorporated.
So it is not because, as a mindset
or as a precondition or a predisposition that
we vote against this, but really because there
are so many questions that have to be asked
that haven't been answered, and that must be
answered if this bill is going to go anywhere.
Thank you so much for your
indulgence, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes, Mr.
President, through you, would the sponsor
yield for a question?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
5167
Padavan yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Thank you,
Senator Padavan. If this question has been
asked already, please let me know, because I
was in the Higher Education and Finance
Committee meetings.
Your bill specifies that a police
officer who works 24 hours must have a minimum
of 16 credits to be acknowledged as a
full-time student. My question is based upon
the fact that many universities now require
only 12 credits rather than 16 credits to be
recognized as a full-time student.
And the reason why I think this is
relevant is in my own background as a
professor, and my wife's current job as a
professor, we find 16 credits is being taken
less and less by full-time students. They
take 12 credits. And I'm concerned that
having a police officer on duty 24 hours,
taking the maximum number of credits available
might create problems both in his police
duties as well as in his academic program.
The question is, would you consider
lowering it from 16 credits to 12 credits?
5168
SENATOR PADAVAN: That's a
possibility.
I might add in response to your
question that this is not a unique program.
It's been implemented in Massachusetts for a
number of years, with the 16-credit-hour
requirement.
It's obviously there to ensure that
this program is being entered into seriously
by the applicant, by the police officer. We
put a time limit on the amount of -- period of
time he can do this. We require that he work
during -- when the college is on vacation,
that he work full-time. We require a payback
if he should cease his employment as a police
officer of the benefit he received.
So we're trying to put this in a
framework of not being abused by virtue of its
intent.
And I might add, parenthetically,
this is an authorization, not a mandate, on a
municipality. And obviously, in authorizing
them to do so, to implement this legislation,
it would and could be part of collective
bargaining, should they so desire. And I
5169
think that's important for everyone to
understand as well.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I thank you,
Senator. I'm glad that you would consider
lowering the number of credits for this
particular piece of legislation.
Mr. President, through you, would
the Senator yield for another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I'm concerned,
Senator Padavan, about the discrepancy in
terms of tuition that is paid by a full-time
student at a public university in New York and
a private university or college. In New York
State, it varies, leaving CUNY out of this,
just SUNY, from about $15,000 to $30,000 a
year for a private college. And that's a
tremendous change, a tremendous variation.
Would not the bill perhaps or the
sponsor of the bill consider reimbursing the
students on the credits they are taking rather
5170
than allowing them to have their full-time
salary as police officers?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well, Senator,
you know, there's a presumption here that the
majority of these applicants, particularly in
the urban centers like New York City, would be
utilizing City University, where the tuition
costs are less.
But in order for the recruitment
aspect of this legislation to have its maximum
effect -- and as you've heard mentioned here,
recruitment of police officers is now a very
serious problem. And if we can recruit young
men and women into our police force by giving
them this opportunity to get their degree or
master's degree and to pay them while they're
doing it, I think the benefits in the long run
are not only real in terms of numbers of
qualified individuals who would be in the
police department, but also it would be
cost-effective and would provide greater
opportunities for all our citizens, minorities
included, to not only gain the education that
maximizes their potential but puts them in a
greater position for promotion and advancement
5171
within the department.
So if you put all of those benefits
together, I think the approach taken here
makes a great deal of sense.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Briefly, Mr.
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you yield to yield?
SENATOR LACHMAN: And what I'd
like to do is two questions -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Wait,
wait a minute. Senator Lachman, wait. I'm
waiting to see if Senator Padavan will yield.
SENATOR PADAVAN: One more
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay. Senator
Padavan, in yielding, I appreciate -- I'm
putting two questions into one at this point.
Would you consider sponsoring
legislation in this area for other civil
servants -- members of the fire department,
sanitation department, and other civil
5172
servants who need this type of aid?
And a corollary to that, have you
reviewed the possibility of tax benefits to
police officers if tax credits are given to
them rather than the full-time pay of police
officers for taking these credits?
SENATOR PADAVAN: The second part
of your question first. We feel that this
approach maximizes the potential of the
program. Yes, you could go in other
directions, such as paying the tuition, giving
them tax credits. But this produces the best
result in terms of recruitment, professional
development, opportunity within the department
for advancement, all the things we want to see
happen.
Now, the first part of your
question relative to other types of government
service, I think we should consider all.
However, this program, which is already in
effect in another state, is one that was
brought to my attention, and I chose to
introduce the bill.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Thank you.
Mr. President, I want to thank you
5173
and Senator Padavan. And I hope to make use
of the six questions I did not ask when
Senator Padavan introduces other legislation
in this area.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President. If the Senator would just
yield for a couple of very brief questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: A couple of
questions? Did you say couple?
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Three
is a couple.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Two. Two is a
couple.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:
Through you, Mr. President, my first question
really had to do with how are you defining -
I don't get a clarity in the bill as to how
you're defining police officer and whether or
5174
not each officer -- which officers would be
eligible for the benefits of this bill.
That's my first question.
SENATOR PADAVAN: A police
officer is defined by law. And if you look at
line 8 -- no, excuse me -- yes, line 8, which
outlines a section of law where we define what
a police officer is. For instance, a
correction officer, who's a police officer,
would qualify for this bill.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: A
correction officer -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Would qualify
for this bill.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay.
Thank you. And the second part of that first
question?
SENATOR PADAVAN: I'm sorry, What
was the second part?
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Which
officers would be eligible?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Anyone who is
defined under that section of law as a police
officer.
Now, I don't have the whole list
5175
here in front of me. But they are a specific,
categorized group of individuals. And I gave
you an example, a correction officer is a
police officer, of one who would on that list.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:
Through you, Mr. President. Senator, are
there any restrictions regarding longevity of
services before a police officer is eligible
for these benefits?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Senator, if you
look at the bill, it says salary of full-time
police officer enrolled in certain college
courses. There is no time -- there is no
prerequisite as to the number of years that
individual is a police officer. Line 1 says
"a police officer."
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I
guess those are my two questions.
SENATOR PADAVAN: All right, one
more question. Did you have a third question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan is indicating he'll yield for a third
question.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Senator. Through you, Mr. President,
5176
just a last question -- and I wasn't sure if I
had missed this. Is there a residence
requirement for police officers before
eligibility?
SENATOR PADAVAN: No.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
if Senator Padavan will yield a question.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator
Padavan, I'm in favor of this bill. My one
concern is that in prior times we've given tax
credits to a lot of our business community.
They took the tax credit and moved out of the
state.
I hope that this is not the case
with this particular bill, that they make use
of the tuition assistance and get an upgrade
in their education and then wind up going out
to join the Nassau or Suffolk County police
force, that has a much higher salary than we
are providing.
5177
Is there anything in the bill that
if they do take advantage of this that they
must remain on the force?
SENATOR PADAVAN: They must
remain on the force -- it's specified in the
bill on page 2, beginning somewhere around
line 4, where they sign an agreement that they
will work in that police department for the
same period of years that they were enrolled
in the educational enhancement program.
Now, we cannot hold them forever,
obviously. That would probably be
unconstitutional. But we do require that they
stay within the department for that comparable
period of time. And if they should leave,
they have to pay back the total cost that was
incurred by the municipality.
SENATOR ONORATO: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Padavan -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator,
do you yield? Do you yield for one more
question.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
5178
SENATOR ONORATO: Just to make
sure I understand, in other words, if it takes
them four years to accomplish what they're
trying to accomplish, then they must remain an
additional four years or be required to pay
the tuition money back to them?
SENATOR PADAVAN: That is
correct.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Yes, through
you, Mr. President, would the sponsor yield
for some questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you yield to a question from
Senator Sampson?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Through you,
Mr. President, I just want to know from the
sponsor if in fact does the coursework that
they have to take in these institutions of
higher learning have to have some sort of
5179
relationship to their job duties?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Line 17, it
gives the credit hours of at least 16 in a
police, law enforcement, criminal justice, or
police-career-oriented course of study.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Through you,
Mr. President, another question for the
sponsor.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SAMPSON: In that
legislation, is there a certain grade-point
average that the student must maintain in
order to get the opportunity of this benefit?
SENATOR PADAVAN: No. Obviously,
they must pass the courses and maintain the
credit hours and meet the requirements of at
that institution. But there's no minimum
grade-point average required.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Ada Smith.
5180
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Mr. President. Would the sponsor be kind
enough to yield to a question from me?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you. I
finally found my notes.
When the student takes these
courses, will they be reimbursed by the police
department for taking the courses also?
SENATOR PADAVAN: No.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Okay.
Because it was my understanding -- and you
correct me if I'm wrong -- that the majority
of police departments do have a student
reimbursement program.
SENATOR PADAVAN: This does not
preclude any other program that may be in
existence or be offered by any institution or
be provided by any state program of tuition
assistance.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Would the
5181
courses that they are taking be courses that
would be -- have to be something that relates
to their job?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well, you're
asking the same question Senator Sampson asked
just a moment ago. And I directed him to line
17 of page 1 of the bill, where it
specifically indicates that the courses in a
police, law enforcement, criminal justice, or
police-career-oriented course of study. It
specifies in the bill it must be in this area,
this academic area.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: That could be
broadly interpreted.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well, I don't
know how you would broadly interpret in a
police, law enforcement, criminal justice, or
police-career-oriented course of study that is
offered by a college.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Would that
not include criminal justice, law?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes, it does
include criminal justice. It says so.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Yes, but also
legal studies?
5182
SENATOR PADAVAN: Legal studies?
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Yes, your
undergraduate or your master's in -- towards
becoming an attorney.
SENATOR PADAVAN: If the courses
meet the definition specified in the bill,
seeking a bachelor degree or master's degree,
they would qualify.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you.
I too will be supporting this
legislation. But as one of my colleagues has
stated earlier, I believe that the money could
be -- well, that we should be putting our
money in the front end and providing ways and
means of diversifying our police department,
finding ways and means of enhancing our
minority participation on the police force,
and getting the best-qualified officers.
And if -- even in doing this, we
should have some criteria for who attends,
more so than having it openly available to the
person who just comes on the force and has not
made a real commitment to the police force.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
5183
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I have only
one question, if the sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: On page 2,
lines 18 to 20, there's a limit of 32 weeks in
a 12-month period. Is there any time limit on
this legislation, or could you have sort of a
professional student taking advantage of this
for an extended period of time?
SENATOR PADAVAN: First, you must
maintain 16 credit hours towards your degree.
Obviously, that's not going to be forever.
You're going to get your degree when you
complete the course requirements. You must
maintain 16 credit hours.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Including
graduate credits?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Including
graduate credits.
However, you must also read another
5184
part of the bill which deals with the
discretion that the municipality has at its
disposal in implementing this program. So
obviously they would preclude anyone from
milking it, if that's what you're suggesting.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, on the bill, very briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill.
SENATOR STAVISKY: As one who
attended graduate school over a protracted
period of time because I was working
full-time, the Board of Education did not
allow full-time teachers to take more than six
hours of graduate credit. And as a result, I
felt for a while that I was a full-time
student.
And while I will vote for this
bill, I am concerned with the point that
Senator Onorato made, that we've got to tie in
a requirement -- and there is in this bill a
requirement that the recipient of such -- of
the state's largesse has an obligation to
continue to work in the New York City police
force.
5185
We I think ought to do this with
student loans and other professional
requirements. When we are using taxpayer
money to guarantee loans or to provide tuition
reimbursements, we ought to have some lengthy
requirement that the recipient continue to
work in the state that provided the tuition
reimbursement.
Now, I'm delighted that this bill
has it on the second page, and I would hope
that this trend will continue in additional
bills.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR BROWN: On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: I listened to all
the debate and read the legislation. I'm a
little bit concerned about this piece of
legislation for many of the reasons that have
been raised today.
5186
I'm certainly going to vote for it,
because I don't want to be perceived to be
anti-police officers or anti-law enforcement,
because I am not. But I do think that right
now, across the state, police officers get
tremendous benefits. I know a lot of guys
that are police officers that have gone back
to school while as police officers and earned
master's degrees and law degrees. So I don't
necessarily know why this is needed as an
incentive to go into police work.
People right now very easily earn
these advanced degrees while as police
officers. Police officers have a
20-year-and-out provision where they get full
benefits of their pension before they reach
retirement age. So while it is a tough job,
it's a job that we need to have these people
protecting and serving our community, I just
don't know if this is a benefit that is needed
to recruit good people to police work.
In addition, I think if someone is
motivated to further their education as a
police officer, this isn't required to do
that.
5187
Madam President, if I may, there's
talking in the chamber, and I'm having a
difficult time -
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me,
Senator Brown. Could you repeat your last
statement?
SENATOR BROWN: I just wanted you
to request some order in the chamber.
Thank you, Madam President.
In addition, the issue of diversity
and minority recruitment was raised. I don't
know if this will have any positive impact on
diversity or minority recruitment on police
departments.
There was a lot of talk about the
condition in New York City and the lack of
black males in supervisory roles in the New
York City Police Department, and the same is
true in the Buffalo Police Department. In
fact, in the City of Niagara Falls, I don't
know if there is even one black police officer
on the entire police department.
These things are of concern. And I
think as we look to diversify and improve
police service and deal with issues such as
5188
police brutality and citizens' concerns about
police not being fair, we need to look at ways
that we can diversify our police departments
and make sure that citizens throughout our
community have the ability to serve as police
officers and bring unique and different
perspectives, particularly in larger
metropolitan areas where they are not
homogeneous, where they are more diverse,
bring those perspectives to that police
service.
Another thing that troubles me a
bit -- and I know that there are different
opinions about this in the chamber -- and
that's one of providing this benefit to people
that can work as police officers in
communities that they don't actually reside
in. And I know that a lot of the New York
City police officers do not reside in New York
City, and a lot of Buffalo police officers
don't reside in the City of Buffalo. And I
kind of believe for this kind of intimate work
where you have to work with citizens, you
should have an understanding of those citizens
that you work with. And I think that
5189
understanding comes from living in the
communities that they live in, experiencing
the problems that they experience, not having
the ability to flee from the issues and
problems of the community that you work in and
the community that you serve.
So I'm a little concerned that
there is no provision to tailor this to people
at that actually live in the municipality
where they will be doing the police work.
Like Senator Padavan, I do support
the work of our police officers. It's
important work. It's dangerous work. And I
do support recognizing that work. I'm a
little bit concerned about this bill, but I
will be supporting it.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor,
did you wish to have the floor, I understand?
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you. Yes,
if I may -- well, I'd let Senator Montgomery
go. I can explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Connor.
Senator Montgomery, you are
5190
recognized.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Senator Connor. I appreciate that.
I just wanted to ask the sponsor a
question, if I may, if he would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
do you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes, I would.
May I also inquire as to when the
debate on this bill began?
THE PRESIDENT: Shortly. To be
more specific -
SENATOR PADAVAN: How many more
minutes do we have?
THE PRESIDENT: We're
ascertaining that right now, Senator.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, at this time I move to close
debate. The two hours, as I understand it,
has elapsed, and I move to close debate.
THE PRESIDENT: That's what we're
checking on right now, Senator.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well, while
we're checking, maybe I could answer the
question.
5191
THE PRESIDENT: Gentlemen, if you
could wait, I'm getting an opinion from
counsel on that.
Two hours has elapsed for debate.
SENATOR PADAVAN: That means
we're out of time.
SENATOR CONNOR: Madam President,
I know that counsel is an expert in the law.
I didn't know he was an expert on time.
THE PRESIDENT: We perform many
roles here, Senator. Timekeeper, counsel, et
cetera.
The motion on the floor is to close
debate. All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
SENATOR CONNOR: Party vote in
the negative.
SENATOR VELELLA: Party vote in
the affirmative.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 32. Nays,
22. Party vote.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is
5192
carried.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on January 1, 2002.
SENATOR CONNOR: Slow roll call,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll and ring the bell.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Could we ask
that the members of the house be called and
the bells be rung so that members in their
offices will know that there is a slow roll
call.
THE PRESIDENT: I've asked that
the bells be rung, and I will also ask that
the members be called in.
Will all the members please return
to the chamber.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes.
5193
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Despite the
obvious intention of the sponsor to stifle or
limit debate, I think many positive parts of
this bill were brought out.
But I certainly would have liked to
have heard more, particularly as it relates to
the cost, why other public employees aren't
included -- fire -- why New York City doesn't
have as much diversity on its police force as
we should expect.
But overriding all of that is the
obvious need to further educate our police
force so that they can better police. And so
for that reason and that reason alone, I vote
in the affirmative.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin,
you will be so recorded as voting in the
5194
affirmative on this bill.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Madam President,
to explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Brown, to
explain your vote.
SENATOR BROWN: I agree that we
need to better educate our police force, and I
also agree that we need to support our police
officers.
I just wonder if there's any
correlation to a better police force and a
police force that more respects its citizenry
and the diversity of the citizenry. I would
have liked to seen some provision in this bill
where there would be some kind of sensitivity
training or diversity training for police
officers.
Because clearly, particularly in
large metropolitan areas that are not
homogeneous in terms of the population, there
are issues with police service and there are
concerns that citizens have, particularly
minority citizens, about a lack of sensitivity
of the police, concerns about the potential
5195
for police brutality.
In fact, just yesterday I read a
story in one of the New York papers about an
African-American detective who, during the
commission of his duties, was stopped and a
gun was put to his head by other police
officers, just because he was driving a Lexus.
I think those kind of incidents
have to be looked at. We need to find ways to
address them. But at the same time, we should
be supporting our police officers and the
important work they do. I vote in the
affirmative.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Brown,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative on this bill.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
(Senator Bruno was indicated as
voting in the affirmative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Madam
5196
President.
I've voted for this in the past.
But now that I read it, I have problems with
this bill on a lot of technical-legal grounds,
and I'm going to talk fast because I have a
lot of problems with it.
Number one, it's discretionary. It
allows a locality to do this. It doesn't say
on what criteria. Does discretion mean that
the chief of police likes this officer and
doesn't like that officer, so that officer can
go to college and this one can't? It doesn't
give any rights to police officers who want to
pursue their education, it's so discretionary.
Two, it says full-time salary. It
says nothing about benefits or pension. So
does that mean you get 24-hours-a-week pension
credit and a full-time salary? It doesn't
address the other benefits that you accrue
when you're on a job. The bill has to do
that.
Secondly, my question would be what
says they can't do it anyway if they want to
do it in a municipality? They can
certainly -- the union can bargain for it.
5197
This law is not necessary.
Secondly, there's no requirement
that the police officer pass the courses. So
does that mean they could go back for 16
hours -- it actually says 16 hours of study,
it doesn't say 16 hours, Madam President, 16
hours per semester. It just says 16 hours.
And there's no requirement that the courses be
competed. An officer could presumably flunk
all the courses and go back the next semester
and get paid.
The bill is a good idea. It's
totally deficient, Madam President. I'm
voting no this year.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor,
you will be so recorded as voting in the
negative on this bill.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Dollinger.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, to
5198
explain your vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR DUANE: You know, I
usually get -- you know, I sit here and I hear
people say, you know, This is a terrible bill,
I vote yes. I find myself that I might be in
that position this time.
I think this is a dumb, incomplete
bill. I think it's a dumb, incomplete process
by which it arrived here on the floor today.
The sponsor is more concerned with the
minutes, not the merits of the bill. And -
THE PRESIDENT: So you can be
heard, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I just -- I think
it's terrible that the sponsor is more
concerned with the minutes and not the merits
of the bill. This bill raises more questions
than it answers.
And I want to -- you know, I want
to support police officers being able to get
their education, but this is just a really
pathetic piece of legislation.
5199
I'm going to vote for it and hope
that it doesn't go any further than this today
and that we get a chance to have a hearing and
actually hear what it is that would really
improve our police departments and the
compensation provided to police officers.
So I find myself saying this is an
outrage, but I'm going to vote yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And you will be
recorded as voting in the affirmative, Senator
Duane.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Espada.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Gentile,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Madam President.
I have to congratulate my
colleagues on this side of the aisle,
5200
particularly Senator Hevesi, for bringing to
light many of the issues that at first, at
face value, you wouldn't see by just reading
the legislation.
It's unfortunate that we had to
have a discussion among ourselves and not with
the sponsor of the bill to any great extent,
although the sponsor did yield toward the end
of the debate. But it would have been
interesting to hear some of the answers that
were raised -- some of the issues that were
raised by Senator Hevesi and, frankly, some of
the issues that were just raised by Senator
Connor.
Certainly this bill has many holes
and many -- and many things that should be in
it that would cover some of those issues.
Unfortunately, this is the bill we're dealt
and this is the bill that's on the floor
today. As a deliberative body, we could have
probably made this a better bill. But
deliberation here sometimes is wanting. And
so we're dealt with a bill that is wanting in
its -- on its face.
I'm going to vote yes, Madam
5201
President, for the concept and the principle
that this bill tries to address, and that is
education for New York City police officers.
On that basis, I will vote yes, but with some
trepidation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Gentile,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative on this bill.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez,
excused.
Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, to
explain your vote.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: On
this particular bill, I am of two minds. One
of the things that I have encouraged and one
of the things that I have expressed as a major
5202
concern was that we do not offer enough
opportunities, incentive for police officers
to learn as much as they can, not only about
policing, but broadening their own scope. And
I happen to be one that believes that
education translates into the elevation of the
mind and spirit.
And so I would not be comfortable
voting against any bill that would offer the
opportunity for police officers to be
enlightened, particularly because I have been,
over the years, one of the -- in some
instances, one of the worst critics but in
others the greatest supporter, because I know
of the vital importance of police officers to
our communities.
We can't sit and say that we want
the ability and the capabilities of our police
officers to improve and then not support those
opportunities that we have to put forth a bill
that would do that. To say that this is a
perfect bill would be far from the truth. I
think that there are many, many things that
have been suggested in terms of the criteria
being a little bit more specific and more
5203
concise, which have been recommended and I
would that -- I would have hoped that they
would have been accepted and amendments could
have been made to make this bill a better
bill.
But as Senator Gentile says, you
know, sometimes we have to take the hand we're
dealt and play it. And I would hope that
should this bill not pass in the Assembly,
that we have an opportunity to review this and
offer those types of amendments that we have
suggested today to make this into a bill that
more of us could be proud of.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, you will be recorded as
voting in the affirmative.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: In the
affirmative.
THE PRESIDENT: Correct.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hevesi.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President, to explain my vote.
5204
I'd like to thank my colleagues on
this side of the aisle for participating in
another very fruitful discussion which I will
remind everybody has resulted in a changed
vote from at least one member of this house,
Senator Connor, from the vote that he took
last year on this issue.
I don't want to rehash the series
of issues that I raised earlier. But there
are all kinds of problems here with equity and
implementation and appropriateness of this
legislation. And almost more importantly than
what's in this bill is what's not in this
bill, the fact that we are not addressing the
real problems that we have in terms of
providing benefits to prospective members of
police departments throughout the entire
state, which we're just not addressing at all.
So I hold this bill, as I hold all
bills, up to my own test, which is if the
potential for harm is minimized and the notion
is proper and there is a potential for a
positive impact, then I'm going to support it.
In this case, that's a very close call, Madam
President. Particularly because I believe
5205
that a lot of police officials are going to
get this, if we pass this into law, and say,
Oh, God, how do we implement this thing, what
a nightmare.
This probably should have come
through collective bargaining, because then
the appropriateness of implementation would
have been party to the discussions with the
unions representing the officers.
But I'm going to take a leap of
faith that we can implement this if it's
passed in a way that benefits people. But
please, everybody, let's keep our eye on the
larger prize. I vote aye.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you will
be recorded as voting in the affirmative on
this bill.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson,
excused.
Senator Kruger.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Aye.
5206
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: To explain my
vote, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman,
you may proceed.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I'm voting for
in bill even though I think it's an imperfect
bill, because I have voted for it in the past
and it has some very good features to it.
I'm glad that Senator Padavan said
he would consider certain changes in the bill
that could improve it in the future. Some of
the changes were mentioned by colleagues on
both sides of the aisle.
But we have this bill before us,
and I think it's absolutely essential that we
upgrade the education of all civil servants,
uniformed and nonuniformed, and this is a
start in the long process to those objectives
and goals.
I will be voting yes on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative on this bill.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
5207
SENATOR LACK: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz,
excused.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Aye.
5208
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez,
excused.
Senator Montgomery.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery, to explain your vote.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Madam
President, to explain my vote.
I have some questions -- I did have
some questions that I would like to have been
able to ask. But just briefly on this bill.
I've heard a lot of debate which has clarified
for me some of the issues involved here.
I just want to remind my colleagues
that the bill does not cover solely police
officers, but it also, based on the definition
of police officers as referred to in the bill,
it covers detectives or rackets investigators
employed by the offices of the district
attorney, and as per Senator Padavan's answer
to a question that I raised in last session's
debate, it also will cover correction
officers. So it's much broader than just the
police force that we're talking about.
And as far as I can tell, 16 hours
is a full-time college load of courses. So
5209
we're really talking about if a person is
going to carry 16 hours, that's really
full-time, and they're going to be attempting
to work part-time on a very stressful job
situation. So that clearly is a problem. If
people do, as we normally do, those of us who
have to go to school and work at the same
time, we take far less than 16 hours, it's
probably going do take 8 to 10 years. And so
that's the amount of time that theoretically
could be spent by one person vis-a-vis this
legislation.
There's no residency requirements.
There's no residency preference even
expressed. There's no time restrictions. A
person just coming on the force would have
just as much right, based on the legislation,
to participate as a person who had been there
a long time and what have you.
So I agree with the Minority
Leader, Senator Connor, I think there are some
basic problems and flaws. I did vote no last
year. And I certainly will be vote no again.
Although -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
5210
Montgomery, you will be recorded as voting in
the negative.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yeah. Even
though I must say, as I've said many times, I
have an excellent relationship with some of
the police officers in my district, and
certainly some of them would benefit from
this.
But I'm voting no on this
legislation.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio,
excused.
Senator Onorato.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR ONORATO: To explain my
vote, Madam President.
I intend voting for this bill, but
I'm very happy about the discussion that took
place earlier on the floor. Because it
certainly opened up a lot of avenues that have
to be addressed regarding some of the benefits
of the police department.
5211
And also, I don't know why it
hasn't passed the Assembly yet, especially a
police bill. But perhaps you could also look
a little further about amending it to require
them to put in more time when they take
advantage of their education. If they go for
four years, let's make sure that they stay at
least another two for one. Because if you go
on strike, the penalty is two days' pay for
every day that you're off. So if you're
taking advantage of the education portion of
which is being paid for, you should give twice
the amount of time that you receive as a
benefit.
I vote yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
5212
to explain your vote.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, Madam
President, I was sorry that we didn't spend
more time on the bill, because the Senators
who voted no last year -- Senator Montgomery
and myself -- never got to speak on the bill.
And Senator Connor, who voted no this year,
never got to speak on the bill either.
And I wish some of us had, because
perhaps we could have persuaded some of our
colleagues to vote no on this piece of
legislation.
The police commissioner, when it
was Mr. Safir, was questioned in March of last
year at a hearing by the councilman who
represents the same area that I do, a New York
City councilman named Bill Perkins. And he
asked the commissioner where did the $10
million go for minority recruitment,
particularly a million dollars that was
designated for diversity training. And the
commissioner said that they didn't want to put
the committee together to examine diversity,
because they didn't want to be accused of
reverse racism.
5213
But at the same time, we are
seeking officers from all over the state when
at the same time some of towns in which they
live have residency requirements on their own
police officers.
And so we have a situation where no
one wants to take responsibility for
inequality in the police department. And
that's what Senator Brown was referring to
when he talked about those two articles in the
New York Times this week about the low number
of African-American men on the force. 649
captains, only seven -- seven -
African-American males in the New York City
Police Department.
Yes, the police officers do deserve
to go to school while they're on the job. But
the proper venue for that is to negotiate it
in their contract with the city. And I would
support that as part of the negotiation.
But to legislate and mandate, or at
least to authorize these different areas to
have what really were not clearly defined
rules for who's going to school -- and as
Senator Montgomery pointed out, you've got
5214
people going to school in their first couple
of years of service, they are actually
spending most of the time being trained or
going to school, but it all counts as pension
time. When so many other professions around
the city are not given that opportunity, and
so many people around the city who are trying
to get education are actually forced to work
while they're getting an education, and they
can't go to school.
And so I think it's just furthering
the denial of the existence of inequality of
our society, and taking no responsibility -
Madam President, I'm finished talking. My
vote is no.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. You
have good counsel there, Senator.
Senator Paterson, you will be
recorded as voting in the negative 3.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Aye.
5215
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
SENATOR SANTIAGO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Schneiderman.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman, to explain your vote.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I also join with my colleagues in
recognizing the importance of the debate we've
just had. And I think it does point to the
need to vet the legislation that comes before
us, even one-house bills, much more fully.
I'm compelled by several arguments
that have been raised that I have to vote
against this bill. One is that in terms of
the fiscal impact and how this would apply to
cities and municipalities, I note that in the
debate last year, Senator Padavan, in response
to a question from Senator Montgomery, stated
that it's possible that this could include
corrections officers.
The fiscal impact of that would be
such -- and I notice that this is opposed by
the New York State Conference of Mayors and
5216
Municipal Officials. It could be a huge
fiscal impact. And I think that would create
pressure on the police commanders whose
consent -- the chief of police or equivalent
appointing authority -- for this to apply to
any individual police officer could easily
just be denied based on these fiscal problems.
Moreover, it would increase, I'm
afraid, the ability of such commanding
officers to continue the prejudices that are
on full display in the New York City Police
Department. I'm not sure that this is going
to not end up hurting the efforts to recruit
and promote more minority police officers.
I think also, as has been pointed
out for other reasons, the addition of this
college requirement and what it may do to
encourage other -- and I'm not saying we have
to have a police force that doesn't have a lot
of fine white members. But I'm not sure that
this wouldn't also undermine our efforts to
diversify the police force in New York in that
way.
I think that it's a good -- I
support trying to get police into college,
5217
trying to keep them there. I think we have
more of a crisis, quite frankly, in New York
to efforts to keep teachers. And I would
suggest that any legislation like this that
would be introduced should look to teachers
before it looks to any other groups.
But I certainly think that when we
go beyond police officers to correction
officers, we have to step back and take a look
at the fiscal impact, at how a municipality
will respond to that fiscal impact. And I'm
afraid that as far as I can understand it, in
the discretionary aspect of this that Senator
Connor pointed out, I don't think that it
would help us, and it might actually have a
serious negative impact on our efforts to
recruit and promote members of minority groups
in our police department.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, how do you vote?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: So, Mr.
President, I will vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman will be recorded in the negative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
5218
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator A. Smith.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Smith, to explain her vote.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you
very much.
I too would have liked to have had
the opportunity to hear some of the other
debate, especially the comments made by
Senator Connor. I have made a commitment to
vote yes. However, after hearing some of his
brief comments, I would have really considered
voting no and would have enjoyed hearing his
other arguments.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Smith to be recorded in the affirmative?
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Smith, in the affirmative.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator M. Smith.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
5219
Smith, to explain his vote.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank
you, Mr. President.
I heard quite a few compelling
arguments for and against this bill. And
while both have offered what I could consider
convincing arguments in favor or against, what
has compelled me to vote in the affirmative is
basically two things.
One, I would hope that Senator
Padavan, when the bill comes back -- and I
understand on good authority that it will be
back, because the Assembly is going to take up
several of the suggestions that we offered
here today -- that he would bring the bill
forward and ask for it to be brought forward
in an expedited manner.
And, secondly, what it also does
for me, is as an individual who is of the
school of precedent-setting, it sets a
precedent for us to come back and do similar
legislation for other branches of individuals
who work for the government, be they in the
education field, criminal justice field, or
health field.
5220
And I would hope that when the time
comes and we do bring those bills forward to
assist them in enhancing their education, that
similar focus and energy is placed on it as
well.
I'd like to be recorded in the
positive for those reasons.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Smith, in the affirmative.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Stachowski.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski, to explain his vote.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, briefly to explain my vote.
I'm going to support the concept
and vote for the bill, even though I believe
it will come back. I think Senator Connor
pointed out many of the flaws in this bill,
and actually gave you almost enough reason to
5221
vote against it.
I believe that it will cause a
problem for the police departments in trying
to decide who would get the educational
benefits and who won't. I think with the fact
that the federal government's announced it's
going to cut back on the COPS program and
therefore a lot of those policemen won't be
available, or they'll have to find money to
pay for them, that with a lot less policemen
if this thing passes and is taken advantage
of, it could prove to be real problems for
many of the municipalities in our state.
And although those things are
available, since it's an optional program and
I support policemen, I'll vote for the bill.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski, in the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky, to explain her vote.
5222
SENATOR STAVISKY: To explain my
vote.
Mr. President, this is a bill, it
seems to me, where we could vote either yes or
no and justify the position. I'm concerned
with the fiscal impact. I'm also concerned
with the permissive nature of the bill. It
allows a great deal of discretion to the
municipalities.
It's very difficult for a police
officer to work 20 hours and go to school for
16 hours in addition -- or take 16 credits, I
should say.
It seems to me that it ought to be
extended to other municipal service employees,
particularly when many of them in the City of
New York do not have a contract. But at the
same time, I think it encourages
professionalism.
And for that reason and for others,
I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky, in the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
5223
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker,
excused.
Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
absentees.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Dollinger.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Espada.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Announce
the results.
5224
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45. Nays,
4.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Mr. President,
can we go to Calendar 259 now, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
259, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 2839, an
act to amend the Banking Law, in relation to
conforming.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Farley, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar Number 259, by Senator Paterson.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This bill was passed unanimously by
the Senate in 1999 and 2000. It's really not
controversial. And it's a positive bill.
It conforms the personal lending
authority of foreign banks to the personal
lending authority of commercial banks.
5225
Existing Section 202 of the Banking Law, which
governs the personal loans of foreign banking
corporations, would be repealed and replaced
by a new Section 202. This new section would
simply cross-reference the personal loan
powers authorized in Section 108 for
commercial banks. This will ensure
consistency and conformity.
Now, the personal loan powers of
foreign banks are based on the personal loan
powers of commercial banks and were intended
to be the same. As a result, the provisions
of Section 202 for the most part are nearly
identical to the provisions of Section 108.
However, over the years a number of
discrepancies have arisen between these two
laws.
This has occurred mainly as a
result of inadvertently neglecting to make
corresponding changes to Section 202 when
amending Section 108.
This bill will ensure that the
foreign banks may operate on the same terms
and conditions as their domestic counterparts.
This preserves and promotes the continued
5226
existing policy of both the United States and
New York State in providing foreign banks that
operate in our country with the same powers
and authority as domestic commercial banks.
Now, this policy is referred to as
equal treatment or national treatment. It
continues to be important for maintaining
New York as an international banking center.
The foreign banking community is a very
important contributor to the economy of
New York State and to New York City in
particular, whose reputation is the financial
center of the world.
Now, New York's policy of, quote,
national treatment helps foster a hospitable
and attractive business environment for
international financial institutions. Now, do
these foreign banks make a lot of personal
loans? No, not necessarily.
This bill reconfirms New York's
commitment to the national treatment policy.
Although personal lending is a relatively
minor business activity for most foreign
banks, this legislation sends an important
signal to the foreign banking community by
5227
reiterating New York's favorable policies
towards international banking.
By cross-referencing the personal
loan powers of foreign banks to the personal
loan powers of commercial banks, this bill
will help maintain the competitive quality,
equality, ensure consistency, and simplify and
clean up the Banking Law. A cross-reference
is simpler, it's more efficient, and a more
effective way to ensure consistent treatment.
Now, the only question raised by
this bill is whether or not we should continue
to provide foreign banks with the same powers
as commercial banks. As I mentioned, both the
federal government and New York State have
answered a resounding yes to this question.
I believe that we should continue
this to be our policy. Equal treatment has
helped foster a vibrant international banking
community. It is an especially important
position for New York State and New York City,
as I said, the financial center of the world.
Why hasn't this bill happened?
I'll anticipate your question. Basically
because the foreign bankers don't have a
5228
lobbyist, it hasn't been a high priority.
There's no objection to this in the Assembly.
And I'm confident that the Banking Committee
over there will pass it and pick up this bill
and pass it, and this will be signed into law.
It's a good piece of legislation
with really no downside.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Breslin, why do you rise?
SENATOR BRESLIN: If the sponsor
would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Farley, do yield to a question from Senator
Breslin?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Through you,
Mr. President, why was it originally necessary
to separate these different kinds of loans?
SENATOR FARLEY: It wasn't
originally necessary to separate, it just was
inadvertently separated through changes that
we've made to the Banking Law.
By doing what I'm doing here, now
5229
any changes that are made, they will just
automatically apply to the foreign banks.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Farley, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yup.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Is there any
reason to treat a foreign bank differently
than a domestic bank?
SENATOR FARLEY: No.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Farley, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yup.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR BRESLIN: With these
kinds of loans, could you -- and I don't need
an exact -- but what are we talking about with
5230
the ratio between domestic versus foreign
banks?
SENATOR FARLEY: Foreign banks
don't make many personal loans.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Are there any
additional areas that -- again through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Farley, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR FARLEY: I continue.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Does this
complete all the amendments necessary to make
domestic and foreign banks equal?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yup it makes
it -- this amendment will take care of any
changes coming down the road.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you, Mr.
President. Thank you to the sponsor.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky, why do you rise?
SENATOR STAVISKY: I have some
questions for the sponsor if he will yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
5231
Farley, do you yield to a question from
Senator Stavisky?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I heard
Senator Farley mention the Assembly, he
thought the Assembly would have no problem
with this legislation. But I note that last
year and in 1999 that identical bills passed
the Senate but not the Assembly.
Has the Assembly had an epiphany,
or have they been lobbied by the foreign
banks, or how do you account for the sudden
change of heart?
SENATOR FARLEY: Basically, this
bill came along -- this has not been a high
priority of the foreign banks. And -- but it
is one -- I think this sends a very positive
message to them.
We're going to approach the
Assembly about this bill. They've never
expressed any concerns. Last year we were
focusing on Wild Card, if you can remember,
and a few other things that were very
5232
important in the banking community. And I
won't say trust me, but I suspect we're going
to be able to get this bill passed this year.
It's a good bill. And I know that
particularly people from Queens and the City
of New York realize that foreign banks are a
big employer and they're a positive economic
generator, and it's just sending the right
message.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Whenever
someone says "trust me," I get very nervous.
SENATOR FARLEY: I didn't say it,
I said I won't say it.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Okay. The
reason I asked the question -- and I have a
couple more questions for Senator Farley.
But, Mr. President, the reason I
asked the question is specifically because I
have a great many foreign banks, both from
Asia and from the subcontinent of India, in my
Senate district. And I want to be sure that
everybody will benefit from this legislation.
You talk about Section 202 in the
bill, and it conforms to Sections 103 and 108.
What -- if the Senator would yield for another
5233
question.
SENATOR FARLEY: Yeah, I'll
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: What kinds of
institutions are covered in Sections 103 and
108?
SENATOR FARLEY: All commercial
banks.
SENATOR STAVISKY: All commercial
banks.
I think that ends my questions.
But I certainly appreciate this information.
On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky, on the bill.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Foreign banks
are becoming an increasingly large part of our
commercial structure, and nowhere is this more
evident than in Queens County. We have had a
large, large influx of new Americans, and many
of them prefer doing their banking with
institutions with which they are familiar,
which may have branches in New York City and
5234
New York State while they're based elsewhere
in the world.
And as we are recognized as the
commercial center of the banking world, I
think we have to take into account the needs
of the foreign banks that have moved to Queens
and to the rest of the city and the state.
And I'm delighted to speak in their behalf and
to recognize the influx of non-Americans, of
new Americans into Queens County. We've had
a -- Queens County has a population of 2.2
million people, larger than many states.
And for this reason, I do commend
this legislation to my colleagues and hope
that it will be passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Farley will yield for some
questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Farley, do you yield for a question from
Senator Paterson?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
5235
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I'm a
little concerned about Section 103 and Section
108. Isn't there a possibility that we might
at some point legislate changes for the banks,
the commercial banks here in the state, and
there might be a difference between them and
the foreign banks? Would we want to
automatically cross-reference? Or after we've
made the correction in today's legislation,
wouldn't we just be mindful of the next time
we check 103 and 108 to make sure that we're
not in some way merging concepts with respect
to foreign banks?
SENATOR FARLEY: I think we want
to automatically do it. The Banking
Department, this was part of their omnibus
bill, this particular thrust. And the omnibus
bill had several things in there that were
controversial. It didn't happen. That's why
we pulled this out of the omnibus bill.
There's nothing wrong with automatically doing
it.
They are a commercial bank, they're
treated like a commercial bank, although they
5236
have a different thrust. And I see nothing
wrong with -- I think it's the best way and
the most efficient way, and so does the
Banking Department, to make this an automatic
adjustment. If there is something, I'm sure
that we'll carve it out and say that it
doesn't apply to them.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President. If Senator Farley would continue
to yield.
SENATOR FARLEY: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: But I just
want to take a little step back a little. I
didn't see the Banking Department -- actually,
you must be clairvoyant. That was a question
I was going to ask you. I didn't see the
Banking Department Listed as being on the
bill.
I assume this was part of their
omnibus bill, and did they have any comment
about this whole idea?
5237
SENATOR FARLEY: The Banking
Department I'm sure supports this, because it
was part of their legislation in their omnibus
bill. And the omnibus bill didn't happen. I
don't think it's going to happen. It's a
rather sweeping bill that is not on the
agenda, and I don't think will be there in the
near future.
But this was just a facet of it
that I pulled out of the omnibus bill because
I thought it would send a nice message to the
foreign banks.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay.
Mr. President, if the Senator would
yield for another question.
SENATOR FARLEY: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm wondering
about the savings and loans. They just aren't
mentioned. And maybe it's just my mistake or
there's something I'm not understanding. Are
they in any way compensated under this
5238
legislation?
SENATOR FARLEY: There is a
cross-reference in the law right now, as we
speak, that they are treated the same way.
They're already covered.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator would suffer another question.
SENATOR FARLEY: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Now, last week
we were looking at a bill that was introduced
by Senator Balboni, and he was making some
changes to Section 103 with relation to
foreign banks, he wanted to augment that in a
way through 202. And it had to do with a
certain number of resources that had to be
designated to the Superintendent of Banks in
order to establish a foundation for the bank
in the state.
And they were expanding the number
of institutions that could be listed. I think
Sallie Mae was one, and I don't remember the
other.
But there is a difference between
5239
the foreign banks and the domestic commercial
banks, and it's one of the reasons that we
have different sections of the law for this.
Speaking of legislative intent -
and Senator Breslin touched on this a little
while ago -- I'm just curious as to why we did
not do this when we were making the changes
sometime back. But -- that was his question.
But more specifically, isn't it somewhat
speculative to do it now?
Because the same way that we didn't
expand our thinking when we first passed the
bill, are we not perhaps overexpanding our
thinking and not considering the ways in which
we might want a little tighter clamp on the
foreign banks? The same way, as much as we
want New York to be the financial epicenter of
the globe and we want to enhance the foreign
trade that goes through New York, we feel the
same way about the U.N. But we all know that
the U.N. brings great encumbrance to the state
and specifically to the city by their being
there.
And I just wanted to make sure that
we're not giving the foreign banks, who we
5240
want to support, an advantage over our banks
here in New York State, Senator.
SENATOR FARLEY: In 1978,
Congress passed the International Banking Act.
The effect of this law established our
country's policy of a national treatment of
foreign banks. This policy provides that
foreign-owned banks shall be granted the same
powers and be subject to the same regulations
as domestic banks.
This policy has promoted open entry
of a financial institution, and it has
fostered the free and efficient flow of
capital. This particular law has really
inured to New York State's, and New York City,
in particular's, advantage.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Farley?
SENATOR FARLEY: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
5241
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, do
you have any information to buttress the point
that Senator Stavisky was making about how
this has inured to the benefit of New York
State?
In other words, any numbers in
terms of the numbers of foreign banks that are
coming into the state or the increase over
perhaps 1978 when we first established this
national policy with respect to foreign banks?
SENATOR FARLEY: I think I have
some stats on that one.
As of December 1999, the Banking
Department regulated 111 foreign bank branches
with $600 million in assets, 35 foreign bank
agencies -- this is in New York -- $52 million
in assets.
By way of comparison, New York
regulates 126 commercial banks and trust
companies which have assets of $823 million.
Of course, a significant number of these banks
and trust companies are foreign-owned. In
addition, there are 42 licensed foreign bank
branches in New York, with assets of
$76 million.
5242
They are a significant employer and
actually have been a great asset to the
financial community of the nation and in
New York in particular.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Farley?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes, sir.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
don't want to take you too far away from this
particular area. But I think it does relate
to this legislation. And that is simply to
ask you about our policy of nationalization as
it regards the foreign banks, that we do want
to give them this equal protection, as you
pointed out before.
But I want to talk about the
consumer, and specifically the consumer right
here in New York State. If you have a problem
with a bank and you're trying to exact service
5243
on a bank, isn't it more difficult to do that
with a foreign bank, particularly given the
large numbers that have come into the state -
and I assume at the same time some of them are
closing at the same point.
How can we have a policy of
nationalization -- and I guess there is an
answer to this question, I just wanted you to
give it to me -- and at the same time afford
protection to our citizens right here in the
state from a bank that may not have done
business in a particularly prudent way and at
the same time cannot be located for purposes
of service of process because one of our
constituents might want to actually bring an
action against the bank?
And the way it relates to 103 and
108 and 202 is to try to bring specificity to
the point that when we pass this legislation
and we automatically are promulgating laws
that are going to be cross-referenced, that we
might not in many ways restrict protection to
our own citizenry when we are thinking
primarily of our own commercial banks and
don't recognize the difficulty, just based on
5244
geographic location, of having access to some
of our foreign competitors.
SENATOR FARLEY: Like a domestic
bank, foreign banks are subject to New York's
Community Reinvestment Act, they're subject to
truth in lending, they're subject to all of
our consumer laws.
And incidentally, last year I think
we passed legislation strengthening oversight
of all of these banks.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay, I have a
final question for the Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Farley, do you yield?
SENATOR FARLEY: I'll yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: My question
relates to just do we have any agreements -
based on the fact that New York really is a
primary location for foreign banks, does the
Superintendent of Banks have any understanding
with the foreign banks that in spite of the
5245
fact that we're going to grant them these
protections under the law, that just acting in
good faith that there are certain assurances
or agreements that the Superintendent has with
these banks to make sure that assets don't
just evaporate from the state when an action
is brought against the bank or that the bank
itself is unavailable for service?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes, we examine
them. The New York State Banking Department
examines them like any other bank. They get
equal treatment. They get equal oversight.
And we examine them.
We have not had problems, not only
with -- in New York State, we have the finest
Banking Department, in my judgment, in the
world, and we haven't had any problems with
them. And they've been very good citizens.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. President. On the
bill.
I'm assured by Senator Farley's
explanation that we will not in any way lose
5246
any of our standing with the banks based on
the passage of this legislation.
When a sort of ancillary issue -
but applied to banking -- came up last week,
Senator Balboni talked about the
Superintendent, Ms. McCaul. And it was ironic
that she did come to my neighborhood, to the
State Office Building in Harlem, on Friday,
and met with a number of local businesses
about bringing more banks into our particular
neighborhood.
And Senator Farley on occasion and
Senator Balboni on the floor have commended to
me that I should meet the Superintendent, and
I'm sorry I wasn't there that particular day,
because that's the kind of inclusion and
expansion that I'd like to see from the
Banking Department. It certainly was done so
with a real effort to try to get domestic and
foreign banks to consider some of our areas
that really need banking.
And so many years they stayed away,
and they finally talked Chase into coming into
Harlem in 1995. And they said if they could
do $6,000 worth of business a month, that they
5247
would stay there. They did $19,000 of
business in the first month.
So this is an area that means a lot
to me. And to just make sure if the foreign
banks are coming in, that they are treated
equally, because we really enjoy the
competition. There are many centers around
the state that could certainly utilize the
greater resources and availability of the
banks.
So I support the bill and thank
Senator Farley for his responses to my
questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
The Secretary will read the last
section.
Senator Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I would just
like to know if the Senator would yield for a
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Farley, do you yield to a question?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes, I will.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: And if
5248
somebody asked you this, then just correct me
and say you already answered that, and that
will be sufficient. Okay?
Mr. President, through you, in
Section 202 there's a reference to branches
and agencies of foreign banking institutions.
Do you know what an example of a foreign
banking agency is? That was the only thing
that -- and I don't know if anybody asked you
that before, while I was out.
SENATOR FARLEY: We've got a list
of them.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you.
SENATOR FARLEY: I don't think
you want to hear all of these.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Well, no, as
long as you have it -
SENATOR FARLEY: I've got -- I'll
just read you a few. American Express Bank,
Limited. Banco Atlantico. Bank of Taiwan.
These are foreign agencies.
There's a -- it's a -- I have pages
of them. You're more than welcome to look at
them. I'm looking, they're all in New York
City. I don't see any in Buffalo.
5249
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, if I could ask another question,
then.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Farley, do you yield to a question?
SENATOR FARLEY: I certainly
will.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: What you
were reading off to me sounded similar to
banks. Are the banks and agencies the same
thing, or are they similar in nature?
SENATOR FARLEY: In essence. But
you have to realize that foreign banks that
we're talking about are not like the average
commercial bank that -- they're not heavily
consumer-oriented. They're more
internationally oriented. And they're in the
international trade. Although they are
somewhat involved with our basic consumer
things that we think of.
But they're, generally speaking,
5250
internationally focused.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, if Senator Farley would yield to
one more question.
SENATOR FARLEY: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Basically,
then, as we seem to find out in the Banking
Committee also, pretty much all these foreign
banks are located in New York City, as far as
New York State goes?
SENATOR FARLEY: Pretty much,
yes. I think so.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you
Senator.
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski, on the bill.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Basically, I
don't see what harm passing this legislation
does. As a matter of fact, I think it may
again help us to keep all these foreign banks
5251
and agencies, so to speak, in our -- and keep
their presence in New York City, and therefore
in the state.
And also by having them there, we
continue to be the banking capital of the
United States and possibly the world. I think
that anything we can do that doesn't hurt our
consumers or our businesspeople as consumers
in dealing with these foreign banks -- and if
they do some business in New York and
therefore in the United States and it's good
for us, then if it's just a minor technical
change, like this bill seems to be, then I
don't have any problems supporting it and
voting for it.
I just can't understand why the
Assembly won't pass it. I would hope that
this year they will. Hopefully it was one of
those bills that got caught in the lateness of
the session or late in the mix where some
bills were going back and forth, and a few
things I recall got caught last year in that.
And Senator Farley is nodding, so I believe
this might be one of those kind of bills.
Hopefully, that's the case and
5252
hopefully this year we can get this done and
it will do what it says it does and actually
enhance the economic institutions in New York
City.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Smith, why do you rise?
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Just if
the sponsor would yield, Mr. President,
through you, to one question.
SENATOR FARLEY: I will yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: I just
wanted to know from the sponsor would this
particular piece of legislation also manage
and have the same type of type of influence
over a particular foreign bank, assuming the
bank purchased or merged with an insurance
company? There are instances where some of
our lending institutions have sort of
back-doored some of the banking regulations by
acquiring insurance companies and, through the
insurance companies, they been able to provide
loans to individuals and somehow have managed
5253
to, as I said, back-door some of the
requirements of the State Banking Department.
And I'm just wondering, would this
particular legislation also cover the
Insurance Department or, if in fact the
company merged with an insurance company or a
trust company, would it still apply?
SENATOR FARLEY: That's a valid
question. They would have to comply with all
the laws involved in insurance, laws that
involve banks that may try to get into that.
They're covered by the same requirements.
They can't go in through the back door at all.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank
you, Mr. President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Smith, on the bill.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: I
congratulate Senator Farley on a very decent
bill, one which I think purely benefits the
consumer. There's no question about it,
competition is always to the benefit of the
consumer.
It is clear that we are currently
in a society where the influence of cash and
5254
having the ability of cash to move through our
society, move through our state is one that
offers a benefit not only for the bond rating
of the state, but also for the particular
consumer, in that he is trying to acquire
certain physical assets for his own personal
wealth.
So I think this is a good bill. I
think it's one that I would hope all my
colleagues support. And I thank the sponsor
for bringing it forward.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 54.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
SENATOR VELELLA: Mr. President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Nothing
at the desk.
5255
SENATOR VELELLA: If we can
return to motions and resolutions, I believe
there's a privileged resolution by Senator
Onorato. Can we have the title read.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We will
return to the order of motions and
resolutions.
The Secretary will read the title
of the privileged resolution by Senator
Onorato.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Onorato, Legislative Resolution Number 1181,
congratulating Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Arena upon
the occasion of their 50th wedding
anniversary.
SENATOR VELELLA: I move for its
immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: All those
in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
resolution is adopted.
5256
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Mr. President,
I believe we have two privileged resolutions
at the desk, by Senator Hassell-Thompson. I'd
ask that the titles be read.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the titles.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Hassell-Thompson, Legislative Resolution
honoring Kathryn Elizabeth Irene Gibson,
Founder and Director of the Grandparents
Advocacy Project, Incorporated, upon the
occasion of her designation as recipient of
the "Carter G. Woodson Award."
SENATOR VELELLA: I move for its
immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
resolution is adopted.
5257
The Secretary will read the title
of the second privileged resolution by Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Hassell-Thompson, Legislative Resolution
commending the Aaron A. Lewis Post Number
6396, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States, on the dedication of its 55th
Anniversary Dinner-Dance to the memory of Past
Post Commander James T. Wilson, on April 6,
2001.
SENATOR VELELLA: Mr. President,
I move its immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Mr. President,
there being no further business, I move we
5258
adjourn until Tuesday, April 17th, at
3:00 p.m., intervening days to be legislative
days.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, the Senate stands adjourned until
Tuesday, April 17th, at 3:00 p.m., intervening
days to be legislative days.
(Whereupon, at 1:59 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)