Regular Session - May 7, 2001
6546
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
May 7, 2001
3:17 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
6547
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
please 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: With us today -
again -- we are privileged to have with us the
Reverend Peter G. Young, from Blessed
Sacrament Church in Bolton Landing, as
everyone knows.
REVEREND YOUNG: Thank you,
Lieutenant Governor.
Let us pray.
Dear God, as we assemble in Your
name to beseech Your blessing and wisdom for
our public service in this Senate session, we
turn to You for Your continued love for our
New York State citizens. The blossoms and the
budding of the trees express Your omnipotent
creativity.
As we gather in Your mission to
intelligently create legislation that will
6548
enhance the life of all of our New York State
people, we seek Your guidance for
compassionate collegiality for the benefiting
laws of our efforts in this chamber today.
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Saturday, May 5, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Friday, May 4,
was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, on behalf of Senator Wright, on
6549
page 51 I offer the following amendments to
Calendar Number 553, Senate Print Number 1327,
and ask that said bill retain its place on
Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, and the bill will retain its
place on the Third Reading Calendar.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President.
On behalf of Senator LaValle, I
move that the following bills be discharged
from their respective committees and be
recommitted with instructions to strike the
enacting clause: Senate Print Number 4501 and
Senate Print Number 4502.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
are there any substitutions at the desk to be
made at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there are,
Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could make
the substitutions, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
6550
will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 9,
Senator Marchi moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Water Resources, Assembly Bill
Number 7299 and substitute it for the
identical Senate Bill Number 3516, Second
Report Calendar 608.
On page 11, Senator Hannon moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Health,
Assembly Bill Number 2239 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 2517,
Second Report Calendar 628.
On page 15, Senator Morahan moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Veterans
and Military Affairs, Assembly Bill Number
5007 and substitute it for the identical
Senate Bill Number 4736, Second Report
Calendar 665.
On page 23, Senator Morahan moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Veterans
and Military Affairs, Assembly Bill Number
1632 and substitute it for the identical
Senate Bill Number 499, Third Reading Calendar
150.
On page 25, Senator Maltese moves
6551
to discharge, from the Committee on Elections,
Assembly Bill Number 6958A and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 2679A,
Third Reading Calendar 179.
On page 32, Senator Trunzo moves to
discharge, from the Committee on
Transportation, Assembly Bill Number 882A and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 1126, Third Reading Calendar 321.
On page 36, Senator Bonacic moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Civil
Service and Pensions, Assembly Bill Number
4612 and substitute it for the identical
Senate Bill Number 2640, Third Reading
Calendar 380.
On page 48, Senator Leibell moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Civil
Service and Pensions, Assembly Bill Number
4379 and substitute it for the identical
Senate Bill Number 2364, Third Reading
Calendar 525.
And on page 48, Senator Leibell
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Civil Service and Pensions, Assembly Bill
Number 6615 and substitute it for the
6552
identical Senate Bill Number 3323, Third
Reading Calendar 528.
THE PRESIDENT: The substitutions
are ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could take up the noncontroversial
calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
178, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 2006, an
act to amend the Election Law and the State
Finance Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
315, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 3737, an
act to amend the Insurance Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
6553
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
379, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
2566, an act to reopen the special retirement
plan.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
395, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 4029, an
act to amend the Public Service Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
400, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 847, an
act to amend the Racing, Pari-mutuel Wagering
and Breeding Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
465, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 3337, an
6554
act to amend Chapter 689 of the Laws of 1993.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
479, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3963, an
act to adjust certain state aid payments.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
481, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 3998, an
act to repeal Chapter 987.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
482, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 4084, an
act in relation to adjusting certain state aid
payments.
SENATOR HEVESI: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
6555
489, by Member of the Assembly Vitaliano,
Assembly Print Number 5116, an act to amend
the Executive Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
492, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 3760,
an act to amend Chapter 485.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
516, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print
2836A, an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic
Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
519, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 3357, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
6556
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
520, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 4388, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
532, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 1453, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President. If we could go to the
controversial calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
315, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 3737, an
act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation to
6557
risk-based capital requirements.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Farley.
Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Senator Seward,
yes.
Did someone call for an
explanation, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SENATOR SEWARD: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin
requested an explanation, Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Okay. Thank
you, Madam President.
The bill before us would apply
risk-based capital standards to the property
and casualty insurers of our state. These
risk-based capital standards provide what I
would best describe as an additional solvency
measure based upon the risks applicable to the
individual insurers.
Risk-based capital amounts are
6558
calculated on a formula. It's a rather
complicated matter, the formula itself, but
it's been developed by the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners, so
this is a national standard that would come to
the P&C companies of New York under this
legislation. And this formula may be amended
periodically by the NAIC to keep up with
current and ongoing changing conditions.
And it would also, in addition, to
apply the RBC standards to P&C companies here
in New York, it would, under this legislation,
allow the Superintendent of Insurance, based
on the financial solvency of the individual
P&C company, it would allow the Superintendent
of Insurance to take whatever appropriate
corrective action may be necessary, based on
the solvency numbers that are reported under
the RBC standards.
And that could range everything
from asking a company to provide a corrective
action plan to the Superintendent of
Insurance, or it could be as much as actual
liquidation of the company or the
Superintendent placing the company under
6559
rehabilitation.
So this legislation is designed to
provide an additional measure of some support
for the individual consumer in protection out
there by helping to insure that the P&C
companies in New York are indeed solvent and
able to pay the claims as they come in to help
our consumers of our state.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Madam
President, would the sponsor yield for a
question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Seward,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR SEWARD: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you,
Madam President. Through you, what other
types of insurance companies are currently
under these risk standards?
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, Madam
President, since 1993 the life insurance
companies of our state have been under this
standard in terms of their own risk standards.
6560
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again through
you, Madam President, would the sponsor yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for another question?
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Could you tell
us some of the factors that are -- some of the
factors -- the formula is complicated -- but
some of the factors that are considered with
each insurance company on the risk-based
standards?
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, Madam
President, the risk-based capital standards as
they're applied to an insurance company would
take a number of things into consideration
under the formula, such as industry
performance, individual insurance
characteristics, reserve and premium
allocations, all of these factors.
Those would be some examples of the
types of items that would be included here in
terms of meeting this standard.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again through
you, Madam President, one last question.
6561
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
Senator Seward does yield.
You may proceed, Senator Breslin.
SENATOR SEWARD: Certainly.
SENATOR BRESLIN: If the
Superintendent determines that a particular
insurer falls below the standards, what
immediate remedies does the insurance
commissioner have? The Superintendent, excuse
me.
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, Madam
President, that would obviously be determined
by the individual circumstances.
But the Superintendent of Insurance
would have a wide range of options open,
everything from just asking the insurance
company to provide a corrective plan of
action -- in effect, demonstrate how they are
financially secure enough to pay whatever
claims that may come in, perhaps upping the
amount of reserves this they would be required
to have.
And in extreme cases, the
Superintendent, if the financial condition of
6562
the company were to slip to the point where
this would be appropriate, the Insurance
Superintendent would in fact be able to place
the company in rehabilitation. Or the
ultimate extreme is of course a forced
liquidation of the company to pay the claims.
SENATOR BRESLIN: On the bill,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you.
It's my opinion that the bill is a
fair bill, a consumer friendly bill, and I
have every intention of voting in the
affirmative on it.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
6563
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
379, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
2566, an act to reopen the special retirement
plan.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
DeFrancisco, Senator Paterson has requested an
explanation.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. This
bill was brought before this house upon a
request from the town board of the Town of
Camillus.
There are three police officers who
did not participate in an optional retirement
program. They informed the town that they
were not aware of it. They're recent
employees. And the town indicated that since
they do want to participate, since they felt
it was not due to the negligence of the three
employees, that they would be willing to
underwrite the cost to allow them into this
optional retirement program.
The total cost to the town upon the
6564
first year is $3,600 that they're willing to
pay, and in future years, around $3,600. But
no more than 6.8 percent of their salaries is
the cost to the town.
The board asked us to do this, the
town board. It was a seven to zero vote. And
it's basically the town that's going to
underwrite the costs as a result of allowing
these people in the retirement program.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: All right,
Madam President. If Senator DeFrancisco would
yield for a question, I think we can clear
this up.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Paterson. You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I don't have a problem with the
amount of money -- it's really not a
particularly great amount of money -- in order
to bring the officers into the plan. This is
equitable relief that presumes the integrity
on the part of those seeking it.
I would just like if Senator
6565
DeFrancisco would inform myself and other
colleagues as to how these three officers
particularly did not know of the deadline in
which they were required to file.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I didn't
really inquire into that, primarily because
the town sent this resolution that was
unanimously passed indicating that the failure
to enroll was not due to their negligence in
any way. And if they've made that
determination and they're willing to pay, then
I thought that it would be appropriate to give
this equitable relief.
If the town thought they were
negligent, I would assume they would not be
willing to underwrite the cost of this
additional -- the additional cost to them by
allowing them into the retirement system.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, will the sponsor yield just to one
other question?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
6566
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, your
plea of behalf of this bill seems
well-founded. And I agree with you: if the
town thinks it wasn't negligent who are we,
170 miles away, 150 miles away, to say
otherwise.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: As a
result, you have no question.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Correct.
Well, here's my question.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Why is there
no provision in state law that would allow the
town to reopen the 20-year pension plan on its
own behalf? Should we look to a statewide
bill that would allow towns, communities,
school districts, other -- and I know the
police officers have special 20-year plans.
But should we look to a bill that
says to the State Comptroller if the community
is willing to pay the cost, and the individual
is willing to finance it through additional
deductions prospectively, why not just let
them open the plan by themselves without our
6567
having to be involved?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I think in
some of these cases, though not with these
police officers, since they're newly on the
force, only two to three years -- I think in
some situations, in some retirement plans
there actually is a cost to the state
retirement system by allowing people to get
into the system at a later date. And I think
that's why it's done on a state-by-state
basis.
But as far as whether we can do a
bill that one size fits all retirement plans
and all options, I don't think we can do that,
and that's why we're doing it this way.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
Just briefly on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I think
Senator DeFrancisco is to be commended. This
is the kind of local bill that we should be
doing for everybody in this house. I'm
certainly going to vote in favor of it.
6568
However, I would think that given
the circumstances of this bill -- that is, the
town say it wasn't their fault, the town is
willing to pay the back charges to get them
into the twenty-year plan and they're willing
to finance it as any twenty-year participant
would in the future -- it seems to me if you
met those three criteria, we should set up a
bill that says when those criteria are met by
any local community -- city, town, village,
wherever -- that they want to put people into
special plans like the twenty-year plan for
police, they should be allowed to do it.
And it just seems to me that that
kind of bill giving the Comptroller the
ability to allow them into the plan that those
three criteria are met -- and I think the
criteria are all present here, and they're
good ones, that the community is willing to
pay the back charges, they're willing to pay
the prospective charges, and there's a finding
of no negligence -- I'd be looking forward to
the day when we could vote for a bill like
that.
Not because we would dissuade
6569
members from carrying these bills in the
future, but it just seems to me a much simpler
way to do it, to invest the pension system
with the ability to make those allowances when
conditions require it.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3 -
THE PRESIDENT: There is a home
rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
395, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 4029, an
act to amend the Public Service Law, in
relation to unauthorized changes.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
6570
Explanation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
Senator Paterson and Senator Schneiderman have
requested an explanation.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam
President.
The bill this afternoon amends the
Public Service Law and formally prohibits the
unauthorized change of a natural gas or
electric service provider, not unlike similar
legislation we passed in 1997 relative to the
telecommunications industry.
In the short version, it prohibits
the practice of slamming. It in turn
authorizes the PSC to establish requirements
of customer consent and authorizes the PSC to
punish violators, prescribing and authorizing
penalties that are currently reflected in the
Public Service Law. It strengthens the
consumer protection provisions. And it
further tracks similar provisions, consistent
with what we have done within the
telecommunications statute.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
6571
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. If the sponsor would yield
for a few questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
I'm familiar with the situation in
respect to -- that you referred to with
telephone service. With respect to natural
gas and electric service, is this something
that is occurring statewide, is it something
in particular service territories? I don't
have any sense of how broad the scope of this
particular problem is.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well,
certainly -- Madam President, through you,
it's certainly an issue that has statewide
implications. Perhaps the most recent case
that we're aware of involves, in the city
area, Keyspan and Brooklyn Gas & Electric with
6572
a company called Total Gas & Electric which
was accused of slamming literally thousands of
residential providers.
So certainly the practice has the
potential of existing statewide, the most
recent situation having occurred in the city.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, if
the sponsor will continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
will you yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will continue
to yield, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
I think this does point up another
aspect of a very difficult problem that we
will be grappling with here for the next few
years having to do with our failed
deregulation of energy in the state.
I'm not completely clear, though,
as to who is doing the slamming in these
situations. Is this utilities or brokers or
suppliers? Who is actually responsible for
6573
the slamming in a situation like the Keyspan
situation you just referred to?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I would describe
them as energy service companies -- ESCOs, if
you will, for lack of a better term -- that
are in -- and frequently they are a broker, as
opposed to the actual supplier or generator of
the commodity itself. So they are a middleman
and frequently work through telemarketing or
door-to-door sales activities that are very
conducive to slamming itself.
I would not concur with your
assumption, though, that this is any
reflection of the restructuring activities
going on within the state. In fact, the move
to competition in natural gas occurred a
number of years ago.
The move to competition within
electricity right now creates an environment
for this, which is why the Public Service
Commission has recommended it as a
departmental bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Do we have any reports or any
records on how much activity has been
6574
generated by the parallel provisions regarding
telephone service? Is this something that is
going to require a lot of work by the PSC or
have there only been a few instances in the
parallel situation?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I don't have
statistics to share with you, Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Okay.
Thank you, Madam President. Thank the sponsor
for his answers.
On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: This
sounds to me to be a perfectly sensible bill.
I think we have to look carefully,
though, when we're trying to give
responsibilities to the Public Service
Commission and others in the area of energy
regulation and enforcement, to make sure that
they have the resources and the ability to
actually follow through.
The administrative penalty here of
up to a thousand dollars per violation sounds
a little bit light to me, to tell you the
6575
truth, but I think it's worth starting at.
I must say I don't -- I'm not sure
I quite understand -- and I didn't ask the
sponsor this; there's no reason he would know
the answer to this either. I'm not sure why
this is not moving forward in the other house.
It seems like a very sound step, and I
certainly will be supporting it.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect 120 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
400, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 847, an
act to amend the Racing, Pari-mutuel Wagering
and Breeding Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside
6576
temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
465, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 3337, an
act to amend Chapter 689 of the Laws of 1993.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl, an
explanation has been requested by Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you.
This bill simply would extend the
opportunity for Ontario County to have
electronic appearances utilized in their
criminal justice system with regard to a
criminal action.
And it also would extend those
provisions that were previously granted to
other counties for an additional period of
time.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, the explanation is satisfactory.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
6577
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
479, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3963, an
act to adjust certain state aid payments.
SENATOR HEVESI: Explanation.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER:
Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee,
Senator Hevesi and another colleague, Senator
Oppenheimer, have requested an explanation.
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
The Whitesville Central School
District has received excess aid monies
totaling $240,000 during the 1998-99 school
year for which the district was not eligible
because of an untimely filing for building
aid. Due to the substantial amount of this
6578
overpayment, the recovery term has been
extended to six years, allowing for a feasible
repayment schedule for the already financially
burdened school district.
This bill directs the state to
recover excess state aid payments made to the
Whitesville Central School District in the
1998-99 school year over a term of six years.
The bill was requested by the Whitesville
Central School.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you,
Senator.
SENATOR McGEE: You're welcome.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: It's a
fair-sized amount of money. It's like almost
a quarter of a million dollars.
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I just
wondered how it happened.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, first of
all, Senator McGee, will you yield for this
question?
SENATOR McGEE: Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Oppenheimer.
6579
SENATOR McGEE: It says an
untimely filing, so I just assume they didn't
file it on time. They then received the state
aid, and that means that state aid has to be
repaid back to them.
They're asking, because it is a
very small school district, to be able to
extend that payment time out over six years.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.
I understand, you know, six years is really
the common amount of time that we utilize for
these things.
How did they finally find -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Through
you, Madam President.
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: How did
they finally discover this?
SENATOR McGEE: Well, I would
assume, Senator, that the State Education
Department found out that the -- looked down
6580
through and saw, hey, they hadn't received
this and the possibility existed they had
received the excess aid. Or perhaps even the
school district discovered it. So it's a
question of both of them being able to find
out or have found out that they were in fact
overpaid.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I think
it's more likely our state department found
it, since they were owed.
Through you, Madam President, if
the Senator would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I just
have -- following our prior discussion that
Senator Dollinger was engaging in, why do we
not as a state charge some interest penalty
for permitting them to utilize this money in
this period of time? And now we are being
accommodating, as a state, in saying we're
giving you six years to pay it back. I just
wonder why we are not asking for interest.
6581
SENATOR McGEE: I'm sure that I
can't answer that question for you right now
in the manner in which you put it.
I know that they will be paying
back, over the period of six years, one-sixth
of each one of those payments, so that they
pay the total amount back. Now, whether
there's interest included in it, I'm not sure,
Senator.
But I do know that Whitesville is a
very small school district. Any additional
amount to them would be extremely costly and
would, in fact, add an additional burden on
the taxpayers of that school district. It's a
very small school.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: No, I'm not
objecting to it. I was wondering.
Then the last question is -
through you, Madam President, if the Senator
will yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I have to
6582
assume the answer is yes. And that is, have
they taken steps so this accident won't happen
again?
SENATOR McGEE: I suspect that
might be the case, yes.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I think
that would be a yes.
SENATOR McGEE: Yes. Yes.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you
very much.
SENATOR McGEE: You're welcome,
I'm sure.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: This is
something that does happen fairly often, and I
often wonder -- may I speak on the bill, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Senator, you
may proceed on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: This does
seem to happen with a fair amount of
regularity. I think Senator Libous had a
school district that owed a half million
dollars. I sometimes wonder about our school
districts and how carefully they're looking at
their books.
6583
But this is certainly within the
realm of reason, and we want to help our small
school districts, so I certainly think we
should all support it.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor please yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee,
will you yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, it's
my understanding that the school district was
deemed ineligible for the $240,000 because the
building aid was filed late. Is that correct?
SENATOR McGEE: That's correct.
It's untimely filing, the bill being a request
for building aid.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Madam President, would the sponsor
continue to yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
6584
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
That being the case, how was it
that they received the $240,000 payment if
they were ineligible for the payment when they
submitted the aid claims?
SENATOR McGEE: I suspect that -
and again, I'm not sure, but I would suspect
that it was based on the previous years.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
would the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee,
you will yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR HEVESI: Let me clarify.
If the district or any school district submits
building aid claims that are not filed in a
timely fashion, how possibly could the State
Education Department pay out a substantial sum
of money to any school district?
SENATOR McGEE: I'm sorry, I -
6585
go ahead. I didn't hear you.
SENATOR HEVESI: Through you,
Madam President, my question is I don't
understand -- maybe you can shed some light on
this -- how it is that the State Education
Department, having received building aid
claims that were invalid because they were
late, wound up paying this school district
$240,000.
SENATOR McGEE: I certainly can't
answer that for you, because you'd have to ask
the State Education Department that.
The only thing I'm saying to you is
that Whitesville Central School was fully
aware of the fact they were overpaid in
excess. They have, in fact, requested to be
able to pay back that excess aid that they
received in six years.
Why the State Education Department
did, I can't answer that for you.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Madam President, would the sponsor
continue to yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
6586
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Is the sponsor aware that this is
probably the fourth or fifth bill we've done
this year? And I daresay we've done eight or
nine of them last year, and there's another
one on the calendar today, where the amount of
overpayment was $2 million.
Is the sponsor aware that this is a
regular practice of overpayment and that the
State Education Department, making these
overpayments, has failed repeatedly -- because
we are looking at another bill here today -
has failed to correct this problem?
SENATOR McGEE: Through you,
Madam President, I'm not -- there is another
bill on the calendar that requests basically
the same thing. And maybe because Whitesville
in the W's, that may be why it made it today,
we're down to the end of them. I'm not
possibly sure about that.
But let's put it this way. I can't
be responsible for what the -- am I aware of
it? I'm certainly aware of it when the bills
6587
come through. I'm not sure what else you want
me to say about that.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
will the sponsor continue to yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR HEVESI: I asked the
question -- and I understand you're trying to
do the right thing for your school district.
And notwithstanding the question as to whether
or not interest should be recouped on this
money -- and I'm beginning to believe that it
should be -- there have been many individuals,
many state Senators representing many
different school districts who have brought
the same legislation to correct a problem that
has never been corrected.
So I don't believe it's an unfair
question to ask of any sponsor who brings this
bill. And I'll ask the question this way.
Are you concerned that the State
Education Department is failing repeatedly to
make sure that they are only making payments
6588
that they should be making and as a result the
taxpayers of New York State are losing
thousands and thousands of dollars because the
SED does not recoup interest? Are you
concerned about that?
SENATOR McGEE: Through you,
Madam President, at the present moment, sir,
I'm looking at Whitesville Central School.
That's the issue we're working on right now.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
would the sponsor continue to yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Let's talk about the Whitesville
Central School District. Whitesville
submitted late claims and then received
payment for the late claims that they were
ineligible to receive. Then Whitesville, my
understanding is, went and spent the money
that they had received for which they were
ineligible.
6589
My question is, obviously we have a
problem with Whitesville School District, too,
filing late claims, then receiving payments
that they shouldn't have received, then
spending the money that they shouldn't have
received. My question to you is, do we have a
problem with the Whitesville School District?
SENATOR McGEE: Through you,
Madam President, that's always possible, sir.
There may have been a change of personnel.
Quite frequently, business managers do change.
Whitesville is a very small school, very small
district. That's very possible.
Do we have a problem? Yes, there
is a problem. The problem has been discovered
and is in fact being rectified by this bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
will the sponsor yield to one final question?
I won't belabor this.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
6590
And I do appreciate your patience
with this. It's not your fault. But this is
certainly something that anyone who brings
this legislation has to take into
consideration in reference to the larger
picture here. And that's why I'm making these
points.
So my final question to you is a
very simple one. In the case that has led to
this legislation, isn't it true that both the
Whitesville Central School District and the
State Education Department made a mistake and
we have to correct their mistake with this
legislation today? Is that accurate?
SENATOR McGEE: Well, it
certainly appears that way, since I've told
you right from the very beginning that the
Whitesville Central School District did not
file in a timely basis to receive the state
aid.
They did receive the state aid,
they're aware of it, the State Education
Department is aware of it, the Whitesville
Central School is aware of it. They are now
making amends to try to be able to solve that,
6591
extend that payment time out to six years.
Because to pay it back in the following year
would be in fact a tremendous cost to the
taxpayers of Whitesville Central School
District, a very small district.
And so this bill will say to
Whitesville Central School District, you
acknowledge that you received the money, you
used the money, and it is in fact not yours,
so to speak. They will pay it back in a
six-year payment.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Madam President, one final question
if the sponsor will yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR McGEE: He said that last
one was the final one.
Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
I understand exactly what this bill
does, because I've debated every one of these
bills that's come before the house, and I've
voted for all of them.
6592
My question to you is -- and we'll
leave your school district out of it for a
second.
SENATOR McGEE: Sure.
SENATOR HEVESI: SED has been
negligent, repeatedly, and it's costing the
taxpayers of this state thousands and
thousands and thousands of dollars.
And so I'm now going to call on the
State Comptroller to audit SED's procedures
for paying claims that they receive for
building aid and any other type of aid for
which we have had to come and vote on
legislation like this.
My question to you is, since you
have now experienced SED's failures and it's
caused some kind of a hardship for your
central school district, whether you would
support the State Comptroller auditing SED to
make sure that this doesn't happen again to
any other school district.
SENATOR McGEE: I certainly would
have to look at any kind of legislation that
was proposed in that matter.
SENATOR HEVESI: No, I was
6593
suggesting an audit. Would you support an
audit of the SED by the state comptroller?
SENATOR McGEE: I would have to
look at what the process would be.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Madam President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
the Whitesville Central School District should
not be penalized by us not acting today,
although I would submit to everybody in this
chamber that it's time for the school district
to start paying interest on this money. And
the reason is because in addition to SED
having made a mistake in every one of these
cases, the school district has made mistakes.
And in this case, the school
district made two mistakes. One, they -- they
made three mistakes. One, they filed the aid
late. Number two, they accepted the payment
from SED without sending it back, knowing that
it was ineligible. And, three, they went and
spent the money.
And so we're left with a situation
6594
where six years are going to have to elapse
before the taxpayers of this state recoup the
principal on the $240,000. That means
thousands and thousands of dollars that would
otherwise have gone for other educational
purposes in the classroom -- reducing class
size, increasing teacher salaries, whatever
the case may be -- we lose.
And this is just one example.
Senator Bonacic has a bill where $2 million is
going to have to be repaid on a staggered
scale -- schedule. And this is just wrong.
It's time for us to ensure that we
don't find ourselves in the situation again
and again and again. One of the ways to do it
is to prevent SED from paying out claims that
are ineligible to be paid out.
And I am going to ask the State
Comptroller to audit SED, because he should go
take a look at why it is that they have failed
year after year after year and case after case
after case the people of this state. SED is
costing the people of this state thousands of
dollars.
And frankly, the local school
6595
districts who are receiving this money and
have to be bailed out here are getting a
benefit because of their own mistakes because
their legislators are very diligent
legislators. And if it happened in a school
district that I represent, I'd probably have
to go to bat for them too. But I certainly
would, at the same time, be trying to prevent
the situation from recurring.
So, Madam President, I'm going to
vote for this bill. But if we keep seeing
bills like this that have no interest payments
built into them, and there has been no effort
by anyone in the Majority -- anybody who's
brought one of these bills or anybody else -
to do anything about this problem, that we're
just going to keep putting a Band-Aid on it
and wasting our time here and wasting
thousands of dollars of taxpayer money, I'm
going to start voting no on these bills, and
I'm going to urge all my colleagues to do it
also.
And in the meantime, I'm going to
ask the Comptroller to go ahead and audit SED.
And you know what? We may want to do a review
6596
of some school district's procedures and have
a better procedure laid out for every school
district in the state so that we don't have
this problem time after time after time. And
I'm not belaboring the point or beating a dead
horse here, because the kids in the state are
getting cheated out of money here.
I mean, this is just wrong. It's
wrong, Madam President. So I'm going to
support this bill. I appreciate what Senator
McGee is trying to do. I don't want the
children in that district to be harmed as a
result of the poor performance by that school
district and by SED. But they shouldn't have
spent the money. Shouldn't have filed it
late, shouldn't have received the money,
shouldn't have spent the money.
And now we have to bail them out so
that they don't get hit in one year having to
repay it. But if they had to repay it in one
year, that would prevent everybody from being
cheated by their failures to have procedures
that prevent this from happening.
Now, how do we go and tell all the
kids in this state: Thousands of dollars
6597
could have gone to your district, but it
didn't because we have a problem that we don't
correct, ever. Now everybody knows about it.
They know about it because we've brought these
bills to the floor countless times.
I'm upset about this, Madam
President. And so, with objections, I'm going
to vote for this bill. But if we don't do
something about this in the future, I'm going
to do everything I can to bring as much public
attention to this as possible, that we are
squandering taxpayer money because we are too
lazy, or whatever the reason is, to correct
this problem. It's wrong.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just on the
bill, briefly.
Senator Hevesi, I'll sign the
letter to Comptroller McCall to ask for an
audit of SED.
And I guess I would add just one
6598
other thought. It seems to me that we're in
this anomalous situation where the Whitesville
School District got money it wasn't entitled
to under law, and now is getting an extended
period of time to pay it back. And yet as you
know, Senator Hevesi, I believe the City of
New York is owed about $900 million which it's
entitled to, which it's owed by the State of
New York, which it's got good claims for, and
they've been sitting there waiting for eight,
nine, ten years to be paid.
And as you, I think, are familiar,
since you advocated for it, one of the things
that we now do is we only pay the claims that
are about to go out of existence. We only pay
those that after ten years are going to expire
because we're not willing to pay all the other
claims. The $800 or $900 million more that
the state owes the City of New York school
system would be an enormous benefit to the
kids there. It would certainly improve the
quality of education.
Here we have the instance where a
school district owes us money, in essence.
And not only are we creating a diversion from
6599
the usual pay-it-back-in-two-years principle,
but as Senator McGee, properly representing
her district, has said, this ought to be a
delayed payback. Because otherwise, the
consequence is that they'd have to go out and
raise this $240,000 next year to pay back the
state.
What I would suggest is that those
who vote for this bill ought to apply the same
principle to New York City and say since the
City of New York has to find eight or
$900 million because we're not paying our bill
to them, the same principle ought to apply.
I would just suggest I agree with
Senator Hevesi. This needs another statewide
solution. We have countless districts that
fail to meet their transportation filing
dates, they fail to meet their building dates.
We preach accountability in education, but
apparently we don't have -- we cannot support
the people whose job it is to file these
applications on time to get it done on time so
that we can calculate how much money they
need.
That concept of accountability, it
6600
seems to me, would start by making sure that
everybody is accountable for the failure to
file these requests for building aid or
transportation aid.
And I would conclude, Senator
Hevesi, I have one other concern. And that is
unfortunately we may end up with a rule that
generally applies in the districts -- the
Senate districts of those who sit in the
Majority of this house but not those who sit
in the Minority.
That a Majority Senator could pass
a bill that says, Oh, you owe the state money?
We'll extend the period of time from one year
to six years to pay it all back, and we won't
charge you interest. And that will become the
rule for those who sit in the Majority in this
house, and the school districts that owe money
back to the state.
Whereas those who sit in the
Minority -- since I can't remember, in the
nine years that I've been here, that there has
ever been a late payment bill that's actually
been passed in this house that was sponsored
by a Senate Democrat.
6601
So we may have one rule that says:
You don't have to pay interest and you get six
years to pay it back if you owe the state
money and you happen to be a school district
in a Republican district. But if you're one
of those districts, like all of mine, in which
a Democratic Senator sits in the seat: Oh,
you have to pay it back next year.
It would seem to me, Senator
Hevesi, that that would be a result that is
completely unjustifiable. And so I would just
suggest if we're going to come up with a rule
that says you get a benefit when you owe money
back, that benefit ought to be extended to
every school district in this state and not
just those that are in Republican Senate
districts.
I would strongly suggest -- I'm
going to vote in favor of this. I've voted
for these kinds of bills in the past. But I'm
looking for a single, statewide standard that
will apply to every school district regardless
of the party affiliation of the Senator whose
district it sits in.
Thank you, Madam President.
6602
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
There is a local fiscal impact note
at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
481, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 3998, an
act to repeal Chapter 987 of the Laws of 1972.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LARKIN: Thank you, Madam
President.
This is a local bill that repeals
references to a school district named Sugar
Loaf Union Free School District, since this
6603
school district is no longer active, has no
students or no employees. The district was
created in 1972. It is a special school
district that serves the needs of young men
who had been in the court system, and was
operated by the Archdiocese of New York. A
few years ago, the Archdiocese decided that it
needed to close the school because it was not
ready to continue with the financial
expenditures.
The provisions of this bill address
the issues of transfer of all the records of
the inactive school to the Orange-Ulster
BOCES. Should a residue amount of any money
be left over once the school district has paid
all of is debts and dissolved, such monies
would go to the local BOCES to maintain the
school's records.
This legislation was requested by
the school district. The bill's language was
reviewed by the State Education Department.
There is no opposition from them to this bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: If Senator
Larkin would yield for a number of questions
6604
that I have on this bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, I'll yield
for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Has the Sugar
Loaf School District received state aid?
SENATOR LARKIN: They did receive
some state aid, as normally any one of those
schools would do, for the maintenance of
records.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, through you, if the Senator will
continue to yield.
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Then I assume
they received state aid for the fiscal year -
school year 2000.
SENATOR LARKIN: No. They've
been closed.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
6605
President, if Senator Larkin will continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Has there been
a local contribution of any sort towards the
maintenance of this school district?
SENATOR LARKIN: The Archdiocese
of New York.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, if Senator Larkin will continue to
yield.
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR STAVISKY: What happened
to the students who were attending the school
which was sponsored by the Archdiocese?
SENATOR LARKIN: They were
returned to their respective districts within
New York City.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Let me
6606
rephrase the -
SENATOR LARKIN: Let me explain,
if I may.
These students were brought into
the court system. And the court system said,
You'll either go here or go to reform school.
They in turn took the Archdiocese was paying
the bill, and it just got out of line with
what was costing. So the Archdiocese said,
we're closing it down because they weren't
being properly reimbursed.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Which leads
me, Madam President, to the next question, if
the Senator will yield.
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Why did these
students attend that school and not one of the
schools -- I believe it's the Division for
Youth that operates the educational system in
the -
SENATOR LARKIN: I don't know.
You'd have to ask the City of New York school
district. Because they referred them to the
6607
Archdiocese of New York because they had no
facilities available for them to be educated
in.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you,
Madam President. A couple of other questions,
if Senator Larkin will yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: How much money
is being returned to that school district in
the form of -- or do you propose to return to
the BOCES?
SENATOR LARKIN: According to
BOCES and according to the school district and
the state SED, it's peanuts. It's only -
what's left is the maintenance of the records,
of which they will be required to -- when this
is approved, they will go back to the State
Education Department with any monies that were
am allocated that were not used in the
maintenance of records and transferring the
records of the students to the New York City
6608
Board of Education.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, if Senator Larkin will continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin,
will you continue to yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I'm looking
for the term "peanuts" in the -- I don't see
the word "peanuts" listed in the bill. Do
peanut have a dollar amount?
SENATOR LARKIN: I am told,
Senator, that it's a very minimal amount and
it would hope -- they're hoping that what is
left there will be sufficient for the
Orange-Ulster BOCES to maintain these records
and do all the others that is required for
transfer of a student, a student who was a
student of the New York City school district
who became, in essence, a ward of the
Archdiocese because these students could not
function in the school district and had been a
6609
ward of the court and were sent there. Is
happening is that this school district is no
longer in being. The dollars that are left
are for maintenance of records.
SENATOR STAVISKY: $47.60?
That's a lot of peanuts.
If Senator Larkin will yield to one
last question.
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Senator
Larkin, with the computerization of records
and the ability to keep records so compactly
and so easily and so readily, make them those
so readily available, this is just a simple
ministerial effort on the part of BOCES.
Shouldn't the peanuts or the
minuscule amount be returned to the State of
New York and not to the BOCES school district,
since this is state money?
SENATOR LARKIN: Senator, the
records are not being maintained by the State
of New York. And also, when you talk about
the records, you're also talking about medical
6610
records. And there's the privacy aspect of it
too.
So this is not just here's two
papers off of a form. The requirements by the
State Education Department for the maintenance
of the records or maintenance of the
individuals' health records and the privacy of
it, the decision was that all of these schools
are a part of the Orange-Ulster BOCES, and
therefore the responsibility is assigned to
them.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you very
much for your explanation, Senator Larkin.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes, Madam
President. Through you, will the Senator
continue to yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for a question?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Senator Larkin,
6611
I am interested and intrigued that this
occurred in 1972. And with -
SENATOR LARKIN: Could you speak
up a little louder, please.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I am interested
and intrigued that this occurred in 1972. As
you know, I chair a national collaborative of
public and nonpublic schools. Do you have any
background as to the relationship between the
public school system and the Archdiocese in
selecting these students and in educating
them?
And as we all know, the Archdiocese
of New York private school system is not only
the three boroughs of Manhattan, the Bronx,
and Richmond, but seven upstate counties.
SENATOR LARKIN: I looked at this
from just where they're at -- they're located
on the Chester-Warwick border, the school
is -- and knowing the background of it as I
represented it. All of these students came as
a result of court action, came to the school
district.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam
President, through you, will the Senator
6612
continue to yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Were these
students all from the city of New York or the
seven counties of the Archdiocese of New York?
SENATOR LARKIN: New York City.
SENATOR LACHMAN: New York City.
Will the Senator continue to yield?
Through you, Madam President.
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay. Do you
recall the arrangement that was worked out
between the public school system in the County
of Orange and the Archdiocese of New York to
create what I think is a unique system of
collaboration between the Archdiocese of
New York school system and the County of
Orange?
6613
SENATOR LARKIN: Two things.
When this was done in 1972, I was not a member
of this body or any political body. I was a
hard-working civilian. And I don't know what
went on in that time.
The only thing I know in talking to
some of the people in the Archdiocese Office
on Education was that that setup was between
the courts of New York City -- and I'm not
trying to be rude. But the Archdiocese agreed
to open up a school in various grades, and
that the slots were to be filled by the city
of New York, the courts in the City of New
York to assign them to Sugar Loaf.
And these were troubled kids, kids
from broken homes, kids who had broken the
law. And I don't have any records and people
I've talked to have no records because the
school is actually closed, the people from New
York City have gone back to the city. And
that's it.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay. Through
you, Madam President, will the Senator
continue to yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
6614
yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Senator Larkin,
do you have any information as to the results
of this endeavor? Were there any longitudinal
studies? Did it, in its period of time,
achieve positive results?
SENATOR LARKIN: From knowing
what I do about the school and visiting it, I
think that there was a very positive effort on
behalf of the staff and faculty from the
Archdiocese. And there were a number of
youngsters there that I know that left there
and went to Siena, went to SUNY Albany, went
to Syracuse.
The bottom line was that the
reimbursement for operating the school, it
wasn't sufficient. And this wasn't an
isolated case to do this. In our papers
upstate, and you might have seen it in the
Times and others, in the Post two weeks ago,
the Archdiocese has closed three or four other
6615
schools for the same reason.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam
President, through you, for a last question to
Senator Larkin.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Would it be
possible, Senator Larkin, for my own research
endeavors, to receive more information from
you after you discuss this with the school
district and your staff? One, relating to the
positive or negative or no results or yes
results of this relationship with the
Archdiocese of New York and the public school
system in the County of Orange. And, two,
related to that is the actual legal means by
which this relationship was entered into.
I think it's a very interesting
precedent.
SENATOR LARKIN: I'd be more than
happy to, Senator.
6616
SENATOR LACHMAN: Thank you
kindly.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect July 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
482, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 4084, an
act in relation to adjusting certain state aid
payments.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bonacic,
Senator Dollinger is requesting an
explanation.
SENATOR BONACIC: I'm surprised
that you wanted an explanation, Senator
Dollinger.
6617
But having asked for one, this is
an act in relation to adjusting certain aid
payments to the Delhi Central School District.
What happened was they were building a new
school back around 1997, and it was estimated
to be over a $12 million project. And the
State Education Department gives aid -- at
that time, it was at the rate of 75 percent of
the estimated building project.
They made payments in the year
'97-'98 and '98-'99, so it went into two
years. In October of 2000, the State
Education Department determines that they
overpaid, in building aid, $2,166,720. Now,
that is a very heavy number. I've come before
you for mistakes that the school districts
have made in small amounts. Senator McGee,
earlier, it was 240,000.
And so we're here asking for a
six-year extension to pay the money back.
Right now, if I didn't come before you,
starting in the year 2001, there's a
three-year payback that that school district
would owe the State of New York, increasing
the tax burden by about 58½ percent.
6618
Keep in mind, now, this is the
taxpayers that we're trying to give some
relief to. If and when this legislation
should pass, the taxpayers still would be
paying a tax increase of 49½ percent over a
six-year period.
I asked the question how could this
happen. We have 735 school districts. We
have turnover. We have superintendents that
come and go. We have administrators that come
and go. And sometimes one hand doesn't know
what the other is doing, and mistakes are
made.
And they made a big mistake in this
school district, and now the taxpayers of that
school district are going to feel the pain of
paying it back, hopefully over a six-year
period.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Will the sponsor yield to a
couple of questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
6619
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Bonacic, as I understand this, the State of
New York paid more money to the school
district than they were otherwise entitled to;
isn't that correct?
SENATOR BONACIC: That's correct.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: If the State
of New York -- through you, Madam President,
if the State of New York had not paid them
that extra money, they would have still spent
the money on the project, they simply would
have gone out and borrowed; isn't that
correct? They would have increased the amount
of their borrowing because the amount of their
state revenue would go down.
SENATOR BONACIC: In all
probability, they would have borrowed unless
they had a benevolent donor to a foundation to
help them.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Correct. And
through you, Madam President, if Senator
Bonacic will continue to yield.
6620
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bonacic,
will you yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: If your bill
did not become law, the school district would
simply go out and borrow the $2 million to pay
back the State of New York; isn't that
correct?
SENATOR BONACIC: Well, as I've
indicated, if this did not become law, they
already have an arrangement with the State
Education Department to pay it back in three
years.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But through
you, Madam President, if the sponsor will
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The prudent
thing to do would be to simply borrow all the
money that you need, the $2 million, toss it
in with the other borrowing that you already
6621
borrowed to build the building in the first
place, and in essence you would have the
school district borrow the same amount of
money that they would have borrowed if the
State of New York had given them the correct
amount; isn't that a fair assessment?
SENATOR BONACIC: If I were the
superintendent of that school, that's exactly
what I would have done.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, then how is this school
district hurt by the nonpassage of this bill
if the effect of it is that if this bill
doesn't pass, the school district will end up
borrowing the exact same amount of money that
it would have had to borrow had this mistake
not been made?
SENATOR BONACIC: The school
district has elected to go to their public and
the taxpayers and have decided to increase the
tax levy and not go out and ask for an
increase in bonding. That's what they've
elected to do.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor will continue
6622
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: So in essence
it's not the fact that somebody made a mistake
in applying for these funds, but it's the
school board's election to do this through the
tax rate rather than through borrowing which
constitutes the reason why we're doing this
bill; is that a fair statement?
SENATOR BONACIC: No. The reason
we're doing this bill is that they had a
building project that they overestimated the
costs to be. They submitted cost estimates to
the State Education Department. The building
project came in less than what they estimated.
So the State Education Department paid them
75 percent on the estimate, and they're only
entitled to 75 percent of the actual cost of
the building.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, then -- but if -- let me go
back to the scenario. If they had to pay back
6623
the $2 million this year, they could borrow
the money; is that correct?
SENATOR BONACIC: Well, I
don't -- I assume they could. I mean, I don't
know the debt burden of that school district,
what other debts they may have. I'm not
familiar with that.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But my
question is -- let's use a round figure. The
amount that the State of New York reimburses
this school district was for $12 million. All
right?
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes, that's
correct.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And it turns
out that they should have only reimbursed them
10 million. That's the scenario. That's
where the $2 million differential comes
through.
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes. Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: If the total
project costs 20 million, that means that when
they did it the first time around, they only
borrowed 8 million, because they got
12 million from the State of New York, so
6624
therefore they only had to borrow $8 million.
Is that correct? I mean, just to, again, sort
of using the -
SENATOR BONACIC: Generically,
they didn't have to borrow as much.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Now, in order
to pay the school district back, they have do
go borrow 2 million more. Which is what they
would have had to borrow had they not gotten
the state money in the first place. Correct?
SENATOR BONACIC: The answer is
yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: My
question -- through you again, Madam
President, is -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for a question?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- what then
is the practical effect of doing this bill?
Because as I understand it, if we don't do
this bill, they'll be in exactly the same
position that they should have been in to
start. They'll have to borrow and pay, over a
6625
longer period than a year or two years or
three years, they'll pay it out over 30 years.
They'll pay 2 million more, which is what they
should have paid in the first place. Isn't
that correct?
SENATOR BONACIC: My answer to
you is that the school board and the present
administration has already gone to the public
and has apprised them that it's necessary to
increase the tax levy to pay the State
Education Department. That's the avenue they
have chosen and gone for the support of their
taxpayers to do it this way.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, just on the bill briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I appreciate
Senator Bonacic's candor in assessing this.
But, Senator Bonacic, with all due
respect, this -- what we are doing is not, in
essence, shielding the district from the
consequence of some failure of an
administrator. What we're doing is we're
basically bailing out a political choice made
6626
by the school board to put all the costs into
the first year.
The sensible way to do this, Madam
President, is to simply borrow the $2 million
and pay it out over the term, the longer term
of the original financing for the
reconstruction.
Under those circumstances, we're
not in the same situation we were with Senator
McGee's bill, where in essence we had a
failure to meet a time issue. In essence,
what we're doing is we're giving this school
district a special way to deal with a problem
that is entirely of its own making.
And my suggestion would be to go
back to the school board and say: You want to
shield your taxpayers, the way to do it is not
go to your taxpayers and say, oh, we've got to
pay back this $2 million all in one year for a
capital project. No. What we're going to do
is the same thing we do with the financing of
the remaining portion of the building, which
is borrow the $2 million and pay it out over
30 years, when the effect on the taxes would
be substantially less than the 49 percent that
6627
they now face because of the school board's
decision.
Madam President, I'm going to vote
against this bill. I appreciate Senator
Bonacic's efforts, and I understand how this
may be a scenario that as a Senator
representing a district he wants to stand up
and defend. But at the same time, it seems to
me that this problem has a very eminently
reasonable solution, and it's one that we
shouldn't be in the position of being an
insurance policy for a bad choice made by the
school district.
The right choice here is to borrow
the money, pay it out over the same period of
time that you would have in the original
construction, and then the taxpayers will be
made whole. They'll be financing exactly what
they should have financed in the first place,
which is the true cost that is not reimbursed
from the state.
Senator Bonacic, I think you're
doing the right job for the people of your
districts, and my guess is you will convince
the majority of this house to do it. But in
6628
this particular instance, based on your
explanation, I have to vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: If Senator
Bonacic will yield.
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: My sheet is
scribbled with arithmetic mentioning exactly
the points that Senator Dollinger made. But I
have a number of other questions.
I was intrigued when you said that
the State Education Department is permitting
them three years in which to pay off the
$2 million that is owed. Can you tell us a
little bit about that?
SENATOR BONACIC: What I can tell
you is that the State Education Department has
accepted an arrangement, if the school
district was so inclined, to pay them -- pay
the money back over a three-year period. And
the school district feels that that's very
onerous on the taxpayers. They came to me
with a home rule message and asked could I get
6629
it extended.
I would have preferred more than
six years, but it's been the custom and
practice of this house to do six years, so I'm
here proposing legislation to allow them to
pay it back over a six-year period.
SENATOR STAVISKY: If Senator
Bonacic will continue to yield.
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senator does
yield. You may proceed, Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I find that
fascinating. They're forum shopping. And
they're figuring that they can get a better
deal from the State Senate. But the worst
that will happen is that they'll pay it out
over three years.
Question. The first payment, if
this bill passes, will be due in June of the
year 2001; is that correct?
SENATOR BONACIC: That's correct.
SENATOR STAVISKY: How can they
determine what's going to happen so promptly?
In other words, why was that effective date
selected for the legislation where we don't,
6630
for example, have a budget, they don't have a
budget, and so on?
SENATOR BONACIC: There's two
points I would like to respond to. First, the
State Education Department discovered the
problem in October of 2000. The prudent thing
to do when discovering that a mistake has been
made, to immediately commence payments the
next year irrespective of what the state aid
package is.
Number two, the administrators and
the superintendent made a terrible mistake for
the school district, and it's the taxpayers
that are going to suffer, irrespective of this
legislation that we're going to -- that's
going to have the burden of paying it back.
So I'm trying to buy them a little
more time, six years instead of three. But
it's still a heavy hit on them.
SENATOR STAVISKY: And I have one
last question, if the Senator will yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bonacic,
will you yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
6631
Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I'm taking a
look at the memo that you attached to the
bill. And under "Purpose" it says to adjust
certain state aid payments made to the
Delaware Central School District.
SENATOR BONACIC: No, Delhi.
SENATOR STAVISKY: It's a
mistake, it's a typographical error?
SENATOR BONACIC: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mine has Delhi.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Okay. Thank
you very much, Senator Bonacic, for your
patience.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor please yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President. I
just want to be clear on this, because I -
this is -- from what I understand from Senator
6632
Dollinger's questioning and your responses,
this really is same genre, different category
as Senator McGee's bill and some of the other
ones that we've done.
My question is, very simply, why
should the taxpayers of New York State
essentially give an interest-free loan of
$2 million to this school district when they
could right now go out and borrow
$2 million -- which is, as Senator Dollinger
pointed out, what they would have done had
they not made the mistake in the first
place -- and they'd pay interest on that loan?
Why should the taxpayers have to subsidize
their mistake? I don't understand.
SENATOR BONACIC: Well, is your
question why is it interest-free? That's a
different question than the bonding question.
SENATOR HEVESI: Well, I think
they're related, but if you want to -
SENATOR BONACIC: Well, I think
we've had a policy, and until it changes -- we
have tried to help the taxpayers in school
districts where superintendents and
administrators have made mistakes and we
6633
didn't want to punish the taxpayers for their
mistakes.
It would be nice if we could go to
those superintendents, administrators, and
take that tax deduction out of their payroll
and have them pay the interest, but we don't
do that. We try to run our government with a
little compassion, with a little heart.
Because when we do interest-free, we're trying
to help the children in that school district
by not bankrupting that school district.
And you can make an argument for
interest, because it was a mistake. But we've
elected, as a state policy, not to do that up
to this point.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
would the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
I just -- this one is different.
And it's different because had they not made
the mistake, this school district would have
borrowed an additional $2 million, and they
6634
would be paying interest on it that the
taxpayers in that locality would be paying.
As it is, we are now, instead of
having them go back and borrow the money to
pay the interest, which is what they would
have had to do, we are subsidizing their
$2 million. It just -- I don't know how else
to phrase it as a question.
SENATOR BONACIC: I believe,
Senator, that the problem we have here is that
the price that the school came in was low.
And when you got the state money, to go out
and get another $2 million would be bonding
the project more than the market value of the
building. That's one of the problems we have
with this particular facility.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
would the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bonacic
yields.
You may proceed, Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: So you're
suggesting, then, that based on that cost
estimate, that this solution is the only
6635
solution that is fair and just for the
taxpayers in the district?
SENATOR BONACIC: That's the
solution that they have come in a home rule
message.
Obviously, Senator Dollinger's
proposal is less painful. Spread $2 million
over 30 years, it has a much smaller minimum
impact on taxpayers. But I don't believe that
election was available for this school
district.
They have Delhi University in their
school district. 73 percent of the land in
that school district is tax-exempt. So
there's just not a big base to go out and
borrow more money on top of a school facility
that came in a lot less in market value than
the money that was advanced against it.
That's the explanation.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you. I
thank Senator Bonacic for his explanation.
6636
One point before I begin speaking
on the bill that I'd like to make is during my
previous questioning with Senator McGee, I was
a little bit harsh in my questioning, though I
maintain on the substance that I was on point.
And I apologize to Senator McGee for that; it
should not be that tone. And so I apologize
for that.
On this legislation, this bill is
different than Senator McGee's bill and the
other bills that we've done in this house.
And I understand what Senator Bonacic is
trying to do here; I just don't agree with it.
I think that this school district,
which made a mistake, should go out, borrow
the money and pay interest on that money. And
therefore, since they have essentially gotten
what I believe to be an interest-free loan,
they are getting a benefit that they should
not be getting, number one.
And, number two, that benefit is
quite analogous with the benefit that the
Whitesville Central School District will be
getting if Senator McGee's bill becomes law,
and what all the other school districts that
6637
have gotten interest-free money have gotten.
And it's wrong.
And Senator Dollinger pointed
out -- and it's somewhat ironic that my
distinguished colleague from Rochester raised
the point, prior-year school aid claims owed
to the City of New York. But that's the
point. The point is that at the same time
we're providing interest-free money in
overpayments to school districts in other
areas of the state, New York City is owed
close to a billion dollars -- that's a billion
dollars -- in prior-year school aid claims.
And what's particularly galling for
me is that there is a law, a section of the
State Education Law which says that of any
money to be spent to repay prior-year school
aid claims, that only 40 percent of that money
make available in any one year can go to any
one municipality.
So New York City, which has
88 percent of the claim money in for
prior-year claims, can only get 40 percent of
whatever small amount of money is put into
that category every year. And as Senator
6638
Dollinger rightly pointed out, when the oldest
of the claims age to 10 years, because of
accounting mechanisms they have to be written
off. In my first year here in the Senate, we
had to do battle to get $39 million restored
to the budget so that we wouldn't blow a hole
in the Board of Ed's budget.
And the City doesn't recover any -
and all those claims from New York City are
legitimate claims and not mistakes that the
City of New York made. Most of those
prior-year school aid claims come as a result
of a lack of computerization that resulted in
building aid claims not being late, but filed
years after they could have been had there
been computerization set up between the Board
of Ed of the City of New York and SED.
And so it pains me every time we
have a bill like this that denies the
taxpayers of the City of New York access to
their money, which could be used for
educational purposes. And in the case of this
bill that's before us, the Delhi Central
School District, that's thousands of dollars
in interest on a $2 million-plus loan.
6639
In Senator McGee's case, the
Whitesville Central School District, $240,000,
we're denied any interest payments on it for
six years. Earlier this year, the Greene
Central School District got $500,000 in an
interest-free loan for six years.
Last year, the Berkshire Falls
School District, $458,177 in an interest-free
loan, I believe for six years. Last year,
Greenville School District, $343,900.
Schenectady, $946,808.
Cobleskill-Richmondville, $189,522. Nyack
Union Free District, and on and on and on.
And that count that I just listed
here, it was close to $5 million over six
years. How much interest is that at the going
rate? It's thousands and thousands of
dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars that
we're just denying to people who could use
that money, like the City of New York, which
is rightly owed the money and never gets paid
on it.
I mean, it's really outrageous.
It's really outrageous. Not even taking into
consideration the fact that the City of
6640
New York already gets shortchanged on the
education runs, and a judge just told us
legally what we all knew and have been trying
to rectify for years and years. And so we're
giving gifts now to other school districts.
And I want to help the other school
districts, but I don't want to do it at the
expense of the children in New York City. And
that's how I see it. I really don't see any
other way to view it.
And in this one particular case of
the bill we're speaking about here today, it's
a mistake not by SED, evidently, but of the
local school district. And again, I'll just
reiterate the contention that I made earlier
that there need to be uniform procedures both
for local school districts and for SED in
making sure that we don't have this problem in
the future.
I'm not going to vote for this
bill. I voted for Senator McGee's bill
because we haven't yet established whether or
not all bills pertaining to those types of
overpayments should be recovered with
interest. I'm now beginning to think that
6641
they should be. I still voted for that bill.
This bill I believe is wrong,
because this is essentially an interest-free
loan to a school district that could right now
go out and borrow the money and pay it back,
as they should. I don't know why the
taxpayers of the state should have to
subsidize it.
These are two different bills
within the same general area. I will support
Senator McGee's bill, as I did earlier, and I
may not support similar bills like that in the
future unless they have interest built in back
to the state. But I cannot in good conscience
support Senator Bonacic's bill, though I very
much appreciate what he is trying to do for
his school district.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
6642
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, after hearing all of the discussion
here this evening on these aid to school
districts, I am definitely going to be voting
no this particular time, only because of the
unfairness that I have been recalling here.
And I think that in the future we
shouldn't be paying off debts for other school
districts before the State of New York
actually pays what is owed to the City of
New York, to the tune of $900 million.
We are continually subsidizing
other school districts, interest-free, who got
money that they didn't deserve, and we're not
paying the City of New York money that is
deserved and owed to them. So in all good
conscience, I cannot support anything that is
going to continue to bring injustice to the
students and children of the City of New York
I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky, to explain her vote.
6643
SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes, Madam -
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: That's
okay, we changed quickly.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I wish to be
recorded in the negative.
I too believe that this is a form
of welfare. And we all agree that welfare
ought to be reformed, and a good place to
start is in that school district.
There is a very specific
distinction between this bill, Senator McGee's
bill, and the other bills that we have passed
in the last couple of weeks. This is wrong.
It's wrong, and I urge all of my colleagues to
vote no. Money is owed to the City of New
York. $2 million would be a good start. And
I just think it's wrong.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky will be recorded in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 482 are
Senators Dollinger, Gentile, Hevesi,
Montgomery, Onorato, Paterson, and Stavisky.
6644
Ayes, 50. Nays, 7.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Regular order.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read in regular order.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
489, by Member of the Assembly Vitaliano,
Assembly Print Number 5116, an act to amend
the Executive Law, in relation to designating.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marchi, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar Number 489 by Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR MARCHI: Well, I believe,
Mr. President, that a cursory examination of
the events that took place in Bastogne, in the
Ardennes, in the Belgian-Luxembourg area, will
commend all of you to support this
legislation.
It states very mildly that they
want to designate December 16 as Bastogne Day.
6645
And if it meant only that and we didn't take
into account the larger implications,
historical implications, of the victory that
the United States and the Allied powers were
able to gain in Bastogne, it would not be
enough.
This was a very critical area
coming at a most anxious moment in the history
of the world, one of the historic -- perhaps
greater than the episode at Pearl Harbor,
greater than almost anything in ancient
history. But in terms of its impact on the
martial division of strength, this was
decisive.
And back in World War I, when the
Italian troops had overcome resistance in
Austria, Ludendorff buzzed off to warn,
notwithstanding the fact that German troops
were still in France, although the lines were
static.
This time the southern flank was
secure, and there was a titanic battle going
on in the east with the Russian -- advancing
Russian armies. So this was a surprise
attack. Nothing wrong with that, because they
6646
were involved in very, very high stakes.
But they launched this great
attack, and the nexus had come to Bastogne, in
this very critical area, where at the juncture
of 101st Airborne Division, maybe between
20,000 and 30,000 men stood before 40,000
German troops and against much larger forces
behind them.
And they had offered the Americans
the privilege of accepting a surrender to end
the further loss of life. And Brigadier
General Anthony McAuliffe said "Nuts!" That
was his response, the one response that he
sent back. And it galvanized the spirit of
the American troops, reversed the pattern that
was developing. And ultimately the Battle of
the Bulge became part of the history of
probably the demise of Europe as a major
factor in military adventure.
I know at the time I was out in the
Pacific, and we were besieging Okinawa, and we
had the heaviest loss of life ever. But the
Japanese at that time were bargaining and
attempting to get and obtain a cessation of
activity. But we insisted they had to
6647
surrender first. But it would not have come
about.
We don't know what would have
happened if McAuliffe had not prevailed, along
with the brave troops of that period. And
it's very important that we recognize this,
not only for memorializing and saying this day
is important -- and I believe they mention
December 16 as Bastogne Day -- but also in our
history books and in our knowledge of what
happened and how this was so significant in
the ultimate collapse of the forces that faced
Europe and the United States.
And that was the tripping stone.
When that happened, it was a very serious blow
to them, and it ultimately resulted in our
prevailing.
I know that my good friend the
Senator is going to speak on it somewhere
along the line, because he has a very lively
apprehension and realization of the historic
event of this.
But the bill was -- it did survive
the Assembly, and it's here now, and I believe
that we would be well-served in advancing
6648
this, but being fully aware of what was
involved and the significance it had in the
end of World War II and the hope it engendered
that we would know a period of peace from that
day on.
So there will be others, I assume,
that may want to speak to this. I know
Senator Dollinger, we had a very exciting
discussion of the event.
And when you realize what happened
and what the effect has been, it explains a
great deal about our circumstances today. Of
course we had the atomic bomb, we had a lot of
things happen. But at that time it was
tenuous. We didn't have that assurance, and
it could have gone either way. It came just
within a gnat's eyelash of the defeat and the
slicing in half of the Allied forces in
Europe, the European continent, cutting across
the fuel lines and other areas of supply in
Europe from north to south.
So this was a very historic battle,
and not one that we should just adopt with a
casual yes, but with the hope and realization
that we will be sensitized to the importance
6649
of the event.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. I rise -- I'll be very brief.
I appreciate Senator Marchi's eloquence in
support of this resolution or this bill to
commemorate Bastogne Day.
And Senator Marchi couldn't be
clearer in his subscribing the importance, the
military importance and frankly the historical
importance of the Battle of the Bulge and the
great confrontation at Bastogne.
Because, Senator Marchi, I think
that this battle will be known as the last of
a number of critical military events that
occurred through eastern Europe -- or, excuse
me, western Europe. It's really the final
battle of the Holy Roman Empire, the final
collision between the Gauls and the Franks,
with the Picts and the Scots and the Angles in
England and all of those forces coming
together, as they had on the plains of
northern Europe for centuries, from the
attempt by Charlemagne to unify the Empire,
6650
the Holy Roman Empire, to the collapse of that
empire, the battles at Agincourt and Arques,
certainly carrying into World War I. The
entire range of military history, the clash of
the world's major powers occurred within a
200-mile radius of Bastogne.
This is their final battle. It's
the final battle in which weather is an
amazing, a supreme factor -- the weather at
Bastogne on those December days, of course,
grounding the American air force. And the
last great battle in which infantry will fight
the major portion of the battle. Now, with
modern technology, of course, air support and
naval support has really assumed preeminence
in the military history.
It's also the end of military
domination in the technology. It's the last
great battle fought with European technology,
the tank and the airplane. Of course, the
focus of military technology shifts after this
battle in the United States with the
development of intercontinental ballistic
missiles, Trident submarines, and other forms
of delivering the devastating weapons that we
6651
now use in warfare.
The Battle of the Bulge and
Bastogne is also a tremendous testament to
America's organizational strength. I'm always
reminded, Senator Marchi, that between June 6,
1944, a day in which there was no Allied troop
in Europe, six months later, on December 16,
when the counteroffensive occurred, there were
1.9 million American and Allied troops in
Europe. 10,000 men a day came from England or
from the United States to Europe to fight.
Think of the organizational effort that that
required -- from lawyers, from doctors, from
nurses, the whole gamut of Americans that
participated in this great battle.
The last point I would just make,
Senator Marchi, is in why this should be
commemorated. It's really the end of the era
of the great land battles. Now we fight
battles in terms of strategic supremacy around
the globe. The weapons that we fight with are
no longer pointed at people across a trench,
they're now pointed at nations across oceans
because of the advance of our technology.
And I would just conclude my
6652
remarks on this battle by saying there are two
American cemeteries in Belgium that honor the
9,000 men and women who died in the Battle of
the Bulge. They are part of America's soil a
long ways away. And I would just suggest that
by commemorating this, we recognize that there
are New Yorkers who gave their lives in this
last great battle for European supremacy.
Now, as the supreme power in this
world, we carry the responsibility to make
sure that those battles and the terrible cost
that they extracted do not occur again. It
means that we must be strong, we must be
decisive. All those characteristics that
American troops exhibited at Bastogne, we have
to be as a nation.
And I would just strongly suggest
this is a tremendous testament to New Yorkers,
a tremendous testament to what I hope will be
the last great battle in which carnage of that
nature carries on. It is now our
responsibility to avoid the next Bastogne.
And by making it a day of
commemoration, we maybe consign forever the
notion that men will kill each other in an
6653
attempt to gain political advantage and
instead will talk about those issues and try
to resolve and maybe even bring Europe
together through discussion rather than by
gunpoint.
I'll vote in favor, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other member wish to be heard on the bill?
Hearing none, debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
The Secretary will continue to read
in regular order.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
492, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 3760,
an act to amend -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Alesi.
6654
SENATOR ALESI: Mr. President,
will you lay this bill aside for the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside for the day.
SENATOR ALESI: Mr. President,
would you go to Calendar 400 and lay that bill
aside for the day as well.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Calendar
Number 400 will be laid aside for the day.
SENATOR ALESI: And then proceed
to Calendar 516.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 516.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
516, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print
2836A, an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic
Law, in relation to increasing penalties.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino, an explanation has been requested
of Calendar 516 by Senator Stachowski.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
This bill increases penalties for
the first and subsequent convictions for
6655
leaving the scene of an accident resulting in
personal injury or resulting in serious
personal injury or death.
Leaving the scene of an accident
resulting in personal injury or serious
personal injury is, as we all know, a grave
crime. During this time when such an accident
goes unreported, the people injured at the
scene could become more seriously injured or
even die as a result of the lack of reporting.
This bill will bring the penalties
for leaving the scene of an accident more in
parity with those of vehicular assault or
vehicular manslaughter. Under the current
law, for example, an intoxicated driver
causing an accident faces a more severe
charge -- second degree manslaughter, a Class
D felony -- than if the person left the scene
and sobered up, which would only be a Class E
felony.
This bill obviates the problems
with the current law, which in essence reward
an intoxicated driver for fleeing the scene.
In fact, they actually encourage him to do so.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
6656
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, if Senator Marcellino would yield
for a few questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator,
do you yield?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President.
Senator, I know you said this will bring this
in line with current law for vehicular
manslaughter and vehicular assault. What is
the difference in the penalties? I'm just
curious.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Well, for
example, in this particular case the -- let me
just check and make sure I got it all correct.
We would be raising -- for a
serious personal injury, we would be raising
it from an E to a D felony. And for physical
injury, from a Class B to a Class A
misdemeanor. And in the case of the
misdemeanor section, where it's physical
6657
injury, if you did it a second time, it would
come up to a Class E felony.
So we're basically upping the
penalties on all levels.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, if Senator Marcellino would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: This bill
has been introduced every year since '93-'94,
and it passes the Senate every year and dies
in the Assembly. Is there any way that we can
make this bill more acceptable so that it will
pass the Assembly, or is it just a matter of
because you're increasing the penalties that
the Assembly just doesn't seem to want to deal
with it?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: I thank the
Senator for the softball, but I'm going to try
6658
not to hit it too hard.
The bill is carried in the other
house by Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg.
Harvey is an Assemblyman of long standing and
seniority and is well-respected. He's carried
this bill each and every year. He can't get
it out of committee in the other house.
I've asked many times is there any
way we could talk about it, discuss it. There
is no discussion coming from the other side.
We can't seem to bring them to the table, we
can't seem to get a response, the answer is
simply no.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stachowski, on the bill.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, I've voted for this bill every year
that it's been brought up. I'm going to vote
for it again.
And I hope that somehow Assemblyman
Weisenberg finds a way to jar it loose, so to
speak, from the committee that it finds itself
stuck in, and maybe this year we can do
something about increasing the penalties for
6659
somebody that leaves the scene of the accident
with injuries in particular, because it leaves
the injured party at a terrible predicament
and sometimes causes death.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Not to belabor the point, there was
a circumstance in my district that was exactly
what this bill is speaking to. We call the
bill hit, run, and hide, because that's
exactly what happened.
The perpetrator, the man who was
driving the vehicle that killed the man in the
road, went home and did not announce until
three days later that it was indeed him who
had hit the gentleman who had died at the side
of the road.
And so to increase the penalties
for this kind of a circumstance and to
foreclose the possibility of the loopholes is
one of the most appropriate things that we can
do. Because to hit, run, and hide is not
6660
something that this state can countenance.
And I applaud Senator Marcellino
for his leadership on the bill and am happy to
be a cosponsor.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, would Senator Rath yield for a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Rath, do you yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Rath yields.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Senator
Rath, I seem to recall that incident and the
story. But can you correct me if I'm wrong?
Wasn't that individual an attorney, a lawyer?
The driver, I mean.
SENATOR RATH: Yes, he was. The
driver was an attorney, which makes it even
more of a frightening circumstance, because
someone who is sworn to uphold the law, to
manipulate the law that way was just without
its double in my recollection of seriously
6661
deviant behavior, let's call it.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: If the
Senator would yield for one more question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield.
SENATOR RATH: My colleague from
Erie County, how could I not yield to my old
friend Billy Stack.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Well,
you could. But I'm willing to bet that you
won't.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: So
Senator Rath yields.
SENATOR RATH: You'll have to
forgive me, Mr. President.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Senator, I
think that -- and I don't want to put words in
the President's mouth or ideas in his head. I
think just the lawyers are getting a little
edgy on this conversation.
But, Mr. President, through you,
isn't that particular lawyer also now trying
to get his license to practice back at this
current time, or something of that nature, if
6662
I'm not mistaken?
SENATOR RATH: You're correct, he
was attempting to. I believe it has been
denied. And I think that that's a perfectly
appropriate action to happen to someone who is
manipulating what should be a sworn-to
circumstance of his life, to uphold the law.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you,
Senator. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other member wish to be heard on this bill?
Hearing none, debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
519, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 3357, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to authorizing.
6663
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you very
much, Mr. President. The sole purpose of this
legislation is to allow the Atlantic Beach
Fire District to lease for up to a 30-year
period a vacant parcel of property owned by
the Nassau County Bridge Authority, located on
the southeast side of the Atlantic Beach
Bridge, for the express purpose of
constructing a building to be used by its
rescue squad.
This legislation merely changes the
lease period from 20 to 30 years. It's
supported by the Atlantic Beach Fire District,
the Nassau County Bridge Authority, the
Village of Atlantic Beach. And we have a home
rule message by the Nassau County Legislature.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President. If the Senator will
yield.
6664
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Senator.
Through you, Mr. President, just a
couple of questions. The sponsor's memorandum
refers to the fact that the Nassau County
Bridge Authority needs this lease extender for
the purpose of constructing this facility to
be used by the Atlantic Beach squad, but
there's no reference to that in the bill.
My question is, what other projects
will qualify under this bill?
SENATOR SKELOS: Well, it would
be any other -- first of all, this is the only
intended project at this time. They have not
requested any other project.
If they did come up with any other
project, it would have to be approved by the
Nassau County Legislature.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:
Through you, Mr. President, if the Senator
6665
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: So
that each project, then, that could possibly
qualify would have to come back before the
Legislature for approval.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: If the
Senator would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Senator.
Is there anyone in the Nassau
County Legislature that has any objection to
the construction of this facility?
SENATOR SKELOS: Is there any -
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Any
6666
objection or opposition.
SENATOR SKELOS: Not that I know
of. I mean, it's -- we have letters in
support from the Village of Atlantic Beach,
the Nassau County Bridge Authority, the
Atlantic Beach Fire District. And the Nassau
County Legislature has sent us a home rule
message that was adopted unanimously.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: If the
Senator will continue to yield, just two more
quick questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Senator.
I have read your sponsor's
memorandum and I have a sense, but I would
appreciate if you would just give me a little
bit more information as to what in fact the
Atlantic Beach Rescue Squad is going to do
with this project that's going to be on this
6667
facility.
SENATOR SKELOS: Well, really
what they're doing is they're going to build a
new facility in order to rescue people that
are drowning.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Is
this a "Baywatch" kind of thing?
SENATOR SKELOS: Well, not
exactly "Baywatch." We could work on that.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR SKELOS: But the men and
women of the Atlantic Beach Rescue Squad do a
wonderful job in patrolling not only the area
that leads out into the Rockaways through the
Rockaway Inlet, but also the ocean area. And
many times you have vessels or boats that are
disabled, people that perhaps are caught in a
drift and pulled out to either the ocean or
towards the ocean.
And they are situated in such a
spot, by the Atlantic Beach Bridge, where they
are available to rescue these individuals.
And I believe they have roughly 150 of these
rescue calls a year.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay.
6668
Then you just answered my last question, what
was the rationale for this extension.
Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other member wish to be heard on this bill?
Hearing none, debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
520, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 4388, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to exempting.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, an explanation has been requested of
6669
Calendar 520 by Senator Paterson.
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This bill has a very isolated
application. Several years ago, in the wisdom
this Legislature, the wisdom of then the
Governor of the State of New York, we mandated
that all children who ride bicycles under the
age of 14 wear helmets.
At that time we put into conflict
some children whose religious tenets require
them to wear headdress. And so this bill
would just simply allow these people who in
fact are required and expected to wear some
head cover, as a continuance and following of
their religious beliefs, in a position where
they do not and are not required to wear
helmets.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes. Through
you, Mr. President, will the sponsor of the
legislation yield for a question or two?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you yield to a question from Senator
6670
Lachman?
SENATOR KUHL: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Senator Kuhl,
this impacts upon, I believe, a few hundred or
thousand members of the Old Mennonite faith in
your community?
SENATOR KUHL: The number I'm not
certain about at this point because the
community seems to be growing because of a
variety of different reasons. And
predominantly located in Yates County, which
is part of my Senate district. But that's
correct.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
will the Senator continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Senator Kuhl,
the wearing of black hats to the Mennonites is
similar to the wearing of black hats of the
6671
Amish or of the Hasidim in New York City; is
that correct? It's part of their religious
tenets?
SENATOR KUHL: I believe that's
correct.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Thank you,
Senator Kuhl.
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lachman, on the bill.
SENATOR LACHMAN: This bill is a
very intriguing and very interesting bill, and
it does have two sides to it. It involves the
issue of safety and security, which we all
want to have for our children, but it involves
in my mind an even greater issue, which is the
separation of church and state.
Now, America's greatest
contribution to world religion, in my opinion,
has been the separation of church and state.
America has been a veritable greenhouse for
the birth and growth of religions, from the
Disciples of Christ to the Mormons to the
Christian Scientists, and our two largest
Protestant denominations -- which, though born
6672
in Britain, really grew in America -- and
those are the Baptists and the Methodists.
Here we have a small religious
group. They're in a sense related to -- you
can say religiously they're cousins of the
Amish. The difference is the Amish cannot use
electrical or mechanical facilities the way
the Old Mennonites can. But in other ways,
they're very similar.
In 1972 there was a U.S. Supreme
Court decision called Yoder versus Wisconsin.
And in this decision there was an important
group of people coming together. It was a
nonpartisan decision. It involved then Chief
Justice Burger, who was a moderate
conservative, and the flaming liberal of the
U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Brennan.
And they held, in the case
involving the Amish where the Amish refused to
obey the law of the State of Wisconsin that
insisted that their children after the eighth
grade attend public school, the U.S. Supreme
Court, in a near unanimous decision, ruled
that because of the First Amendment, they will
permit in this nation that the Amish community
6673
not attend public school beyond the eighth
grade because it would be an infringement upon
their religious rights.
Now, some of us don't realize -
most of us do, especially in this chamber -
that the First Amendment involves two major
provisions. One is Congress shall make no law
in regard to an establishment of religion.
And the second is that Congress nor this
nation shall prohibit the free exercise
thereof.
As in the case with the Amish, if
they were forced to send their children to a
public high school, it would be in violation
of their free exercise thereof of the First
Amendment. Similarly, in this situation,
which is not education, but vehicular
traffic -- and safety, I admit -- I say that
if one prohibits the small Mennonite community
in Senator Kuhl's district from wearing their
black hats, it's an infringement on their
religious rights.
And all of us in this chamber are
members of religious minorities. And we have
to sensitize ourselves to the needs of other
6674
minorities, even in western/northern New York
State, where Senator Kuhl comes from, and even
if it only involves a few hundred members of
the Old Mennonites.
So if I have to choose between the
safety issue and the freedom of religions
issue and the First Amendment issue, I
strongly support Senator Kuhl's legislation on
the basis of the First Amendment.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President. I rise to oppose this legislation.
And I do that because while I
certainly agree with my colleague's strong
opinion as it relates to freedom of religion,
I think that we have an obligation to protect
every single child in our state. And I just
do not accept that the religious issue should
lead us to eliminate certain protections that
we know are important for children who are in
fact too young to make that decision for
themselves.
So while I absolutely respect a
6675
person's right to their own religious belief,
I think that I am equally concerned that every
single child in our state should be protected.
And therefore, I am going to vote against this
bill -- not because I'm against anyone's
religion, including my own, but I am
absolutely opposed to removing protections
from children because of religious principles.
I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you yield for a question from Senator
Hevesi?
SENATOR KUHL: Be happy to.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
I have a practical question,
because I'm concerned, as Senator Montgomery
is, and I may wind up voting no on this bill,
though I voted yes for it last year.
It is not possible in the Mennonite
6676
community to either wear a helmet under the
hat or wear a helmet over the hat? Is that -
why is that a practical impossibility?
SENATOR KUHL: Well, Senator, if
you were to see the garments that the
Mennonites use, whether they're bonnets or
hats, they're very wide-brimmed. And to
properly cover that, you'd have to have a
helmet that was probably two feet across,
which would make it totally impossible.
Certainly a person would be totally top-heavy.
But there is no way -- and they're very high
hats.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
would the sponsor continue to yield? Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Thank
you for noticing. And -
SENATOR HEVESI: With all due
respect.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you yield for another question from
Senator Hevesi?
SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
6677
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
In the Jewish religion, for
example, on Yom Kippur, the holiest day on the
Jewish calendar, where observant Jews are
supposed to fast, if that observant Jew is
sick or elderly or would otherwise have their
health in some way compromised, they are
entitled to eat.
Is there nothing in the Mennonite
religion that would provide an exemption for
the requirement that they wear the headdress
if wearing the headdress would compromise
their safety?
SENATOR KUHL: Not that I'm aware
of, Senator.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
one final question for the sponsor.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you yield for a final question?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: If someone in
the Mennonite community came to us and
6678
suggested that they should also be exempt from
the requirement of wearing a helmet while
riding a motorcycle, would you support that?
SENATOR KUHL: No -- well,
actually, I probably would, Senator, because I
don't happen to believe currently that people
should be required to wear motorcycle helmets.
I support the ABATE group in removal of those.
I think that's another abuse. But that has
nothing to do with this situation.
As you may know, the Mennonites and
the Amish, depending on what order you are,
really don't -- are not inclined to use
mechanized vehicles. About the only vehicle I
ever see them utilize is a tractor, which
they're not allowed to have rubber tires on.
They don't go on the normal roads. So I don't
think that you would ever see anybody who was
practicing the faith, as these people are,
requiring them to wear actually hats and
bonnets, to actually ever purchase or much
less ride a motorcycle.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you. One
final question, Mr. President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
6679
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KUHL: I take it that
this is a follow-up to the final question?
I'd be happy to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: This is
the penultimate.
SENATOR HEVESI: I'm having
difficulty with the concept of finality. This
will be the last question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Is it currently legal in New York
State, if an individual has as one of his or
her religious beliefs that they cannot have
their blood transfused, if that individual is
in need of a blood transfusion, for a doctor
to fail to perform the transfusion on that
individual, thereby respecting his religious
belief? Is that legal in New York State?
SENATOR KUHL: I can't speak to
that, Senator. I don't know the answer to
that question.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
6680
On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: I voted for this
bill last year, but I don't remember that
there was a big discussion about it last year.
I'm going to vote against it today.
Because though I do believe that we have to
respect religion in many, many different ways,
when it comes to the safety of an individual,
particularly somebody who can't render
decisions for themselves, I believe that
that's where the line gets drawn in our
country.
And in this particular instance, I
can almost guarantee that some child will be
riding a bicycle without a helmet in the
Mennonite community and be more severely
injured than he would have been were he
wearing a helmet.
And for that reason and that reason
alone, I believe that the safety of a child -
or any person, for that matter -- comes ahead
of respecting an individual's religious
beliefs. Just in the same way that we decided
6681
in New York State that individuals don't have
a right to hurt themselves by failing to wear
a seat belt and we require that of all of our
citizens, and it is illegal to commit suicide,
government has to draw a line somewhere. And
where children are concerned, that's of more
paramount concern, in my view, than is their
religious beliefs.
And I would respectfully request
that somebody approach the Mennonite community
and ask them, in a very similar way to the
exemptions that are often made in other
religions, such as the one that I articulated,
whether an exemption could be made in this
case that respects the health and safety and
protects the child -- that that wouldn't, in
the eyes of the religion, do something counter
to the religious beliefs of that community.
I think that that should be
explored by the leaders in that community,
assuming that there is not a strict
fundamentalist interpretation of some text
which would absolutely preclude that. In the
absence of that, I can't vote in good
conscience, because I know some kid is going
6682
to get badly hurt not wearing a helmet.
I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you, Mr.
President. Just briefly on the bill.
Senator Hevesi, I'm disappointed
you decided to take that position, because I
think that you're not thinking about the other
side of the argument. And you weren't here
when the law was passed that required young
people who were under 14 to wear helmets.
You should know that if you were to
drive throughout the Mennonite community, you
would not see any helmets on these children.
Their parents and themselves have made the
decision not to wear them. So in essence,
what the Legislature did was, 14 or 10 years
ago, whenever that was done, was it made
criminals of them.
Now, I have not seen any statements
and have not heard of one bicycle accident in
which any Mennonite child has been killed as a
result of not wearing a helmet. As a matter
of fact, we don't read about accidents because
6683
they don't have them. They're their means,
their mechanism for transportation back and
forth from their church to their home. They
don't ride around needlessly, aimlessly at
night or whatever. They're very well
protected by their parents, by their family.
And so what you are doing by
continuing to vote no is you're saying to
these kids, we know better than you, number
one; you should discard your religion, number
two; and, number three, you're entitled to be
a criminal simply because you do not wear a
helmet.
I think that's wrong, and that's
why we've asked for the exemption.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other member wish to be heard on the bill?
Hearing none, debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
6684
Marcellino, to explain his vote.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, Mr.
President. I'm going to vote yes on this
bill, because I believe, like what Senator
Lachman stated before very eloquently, there
is a separation between church and state.
And we have no right to judge
another person's religion or faith. We have
absolutely no right to do that. That's the
slippery slope to making a religion subject to
all kinds of laws; therefore, you have no
religion. Any religious belief we do not
approve of in Albany is automatically struck
down for whatever very good reason we can come
up with.
Mr. President, that's a bad, bad
precedent to set. I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino will be recorded in the
affirmative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 520 are
Senators Hevesi, Libous, Montgomery, and
6685
Stachowski. Ayes, 54. Nays, 4.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
532, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 1453, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law and
Chapter 579 of the Laws of 1999.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Rath, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 532 by Senator Paterson.
SENATOR RATH: Yes, Mr.
President. This bill is a very simple bill.
It's just expanding the authority of the
Monroe County Water Authority to take title to
lands in Genesee County, in furtherance of the
agreements that the Monroe County Water
Authority has had for the last year or two
with Genesee County to develop the countywide
water system in Genesee County.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other member wish to be heard on the bill?
Hearing none, debate is closed.
Read the last section.
6686
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
1. Senator Padavan recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Mr. President, is
there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: We have
one motion, I believe, Senator.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President,
on behalf of Senator Leibell, on page 40 I
offer the following amendments to Calendar
Number 436, Senate Print Number 3297, and ask
that said bill retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received and adopted, and the
bill will retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
6687
Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Mr. President,
would you recognize Senator Dollinger, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Senator Alesi.
I hereby give written notice, Mr.
President, pursuant to Rule XI, that I will
move the Senate for an amendment to the Rules
to create ethical standards for the members,
officers, and employees of the New York State
Senate. I ask that that be recorded in the
Journal, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: That is
at the desk and it will be recorded in the
Journal.
Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Mr. President,
there being no further business, I move we
adjourn until Tuesday, May 8th, at 3 o'clock
p.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Tuesday, May 8th, at 3:00 p.m.
6688
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Can we delay
the proceedings just a moment for me to
announce a conference of the Minority to be
tomorrow afternoon at 2 o'clock Eastern
Daylight Time, in Room 314, the Minority
Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Conference of the Minority, tomorrow at
2:00 p.m. in the Minority Conference Room.
The Senate stands adjourned until
Tuesday, May 8th, at 3:00 p.m.
(Whereupon, at 5:28 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)