Regular Session - May 8, 2001
6689
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
May 8, 2001
3:08 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
6690
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: In the absence of
clergy, may we bow our heads in a moment of
silence, please.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Monday, May 7, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Saturday, May 5,
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.
6691
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, at this time may we adopt the
Resolution Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the adoption of the Resolution Calendar.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The calendar is
adopted.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, are there any substitutions? If
so, can we make them at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there are,
Senator.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 4,
6692
Senator Seward moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Insurance, Assembly Bill Number
6481A and substitute it for the identical
Senate Bill Number 4024, First Report Calendar
724.
On page 4, Senator Hoffmann moves
to discharge, from the Committee on
Agriculture, Assembly Bill Number 3515A and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 3545, First Report Calendar 730.
On page 15, Senator LaValle moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Local
Government, Assembly Bill Number 4935 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 2559, Third Reading Calendar 198.
On page 18, Senator Lack moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Judiciary,
Assembly Bill Number 8357 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 2936,
Third Reading Calendar 249.
On page 21, Senator Morahan moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Aging,
Assembly Bill Number 2029 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 1376,
Third Reading Calendar 327.
6693
And on page 28, Senator LaValle
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Local Government, Assembly Bill Number 5992,
and substitute it for the identical Senate
Bill Number 3135, Third Reading Calendar 423.
THE PRESIDENT: Substitutions
ordered.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, we previously adopted a resolution
by Senator Stafford which is at the desk. I'd
ask that it be read in its entirety at this
time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Stafford, Legislative Resolution Number 1070,
congratulating the Plattsburgh State Hockey
Team upon the occasion of winning the NCAA
Division III Tournament Championship.
"WHEREAS, Excellence and success in
competitive sports can be achieved only
through strenuous practice, team play and team
spirit, nurtured by dedicated coaching and
strategic planning; and
6694
"WHEREAS, Athletic competition
enhances the moral and physical development of
the young people of this state, preparing them
for the future by instilling in them the value
of teamwork, encouraging the standard of
healthy living, imparting a desire for
success, and developing a sense of fair play
and competition; and
"WHEREAS, This Assembled Body is
justly proud to congratulate the Plattsburgh
State Hockey Team upon the occasion of winning
the NCAA Division III Tournament Championship;
this occasion marks the first national title
for the 'Cardinals' since the 1991-1992
season; and
"WHEREAS, The members of the
Plattsburgh State Hockey Team are Bobby Owen,
Tim McNeil, Peter Ollari, Corey Fleischer, Joe
Dolci, Jeff Marshall, Brendon Hodge, Mike
Daoust, Paul Dowe, Mark Coletta, Brian
Toussaint, Ryan Wilson, Andre Carriere, Chad
Kemp, Shawn Banks, Mark Cole, Jason Kilean,
Derrick Shaw, Brent Armstrong, Jeff Hopkins,
Guy Come, Sean Chaytors, Rob Retter, Niklas
Sundberg, Mike LaRocca, Frank Barker, Tyler
6695
Keenan, and Bryan Murray; and
"WHEREAS, Three Cardinals have been
named Second Team All-Americans: Goalie
Niklas Sundberg, defenseman Bryan Murray, and
forward Brendon Hodge all were named to the
All-American Second Team East; and
"WHEREAS, The athletic talent
displayed by the Plattsburgh State Hockey Team
is due in great part to the efforts of Coach
Bob Emery, a skilled and inspirational tutor
respected for his ability to develop potential
into excellence; also to be commended for
their efforts are Associate Coach Kevin Houle
and Assistant Coaches Steve Moffat and John
Wells; and
"WHEREAS, The Cardinals closed out
their sparkling season with an overall record
of 29 and 5; the team was loyally and
enthusiastically supported by family, fans,
friends and the community at large; and
"WHEREAS, Coach Bob Emery has done
a superb job in guiding, molding and inspiring
the Cardinals towards their goals; and
"WHEREAS, Sports competition
instills the values of teamwork, pride and
6696
accomplishment, and Coach Bob Emery and the
Plattsburgh State Hockey Team have clearly
made a contribution to the spirit of
excellence which is a tradition of their
university; now, therefore, be it
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative
Body pause in its deliberations to
congratulate the Plattsburgh State Hockey Team
upon the occasion of winning the NCAA Division
III Tournament Championship; and be it further
"RESOLVED, That copies of this
resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted
to the members of the Plattsburgh State Hockey
Team and to Coach Bob Emery."
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you,
Madam President.
It is not that often, and it's such
a pleasure and such an honor to rise today and
congratulate the Plattsburgh State Hockey
Team.
Everyone has to understand that we
do live in a relatively rural area up where we
live, but we have very, very good people. And
every single person is a fan of the
6697
Plattsburgh State Hockey Team. It becomes the
center of activity during the hockey season.
I do have to say, Madam President,
that we remember the hockey team winning in
the '90s the national championship, and
everyone was so excited. And this year it was
the same, if not more. Everyone was just so
proud.
And when you think that this team
took on teams from the entire nation and won
the championship. And as was mentioned in the
resolution, hard work, determination, a sense
of focus.
Bob Emery, the coach, with his
assistant, Kevin Houle, who are also here
today, they've just been such leaders, done
such a great job. And the assistant coaches,
Steve Moffat and Johns Wells.
We're also today joined by the
athletic director, Peter Luguri, and the vice
president for student affairs, Adam Disk, and
also Larry Cowan of the Office of
Institutional Advancement.
But we really wanted the team to
come here to the Capitol at Albany and to be
6698
honored, because they deserve that honor. And
when you see them play, as we watched them
this past season, you can really get an
appreciation for just how outstanding each and
every player is. I share with you that it is
real teamwork.
Now, all of you have seen hockey on
television. You've seen professional, you've
seen college, you've seen other high school
hockey, club hockey. I have to share with you
and I have to emphasize that when this team
plays, beating teams such as -- well, let's
take Middlebury. That's a good example. When
they take on a team like Middlebury and
Middlebury comes out second, you can see just
what a good job they've all done.
Some will be graduating; some will
be returning. But I finally say -- and this
is probably the most important thing that I'll
say -- this hockey team and this hockey
program in the Plattsburgh area adds so much
to our lives up in the northern part of
New York State. It teaches us ourselves what
hard work will do.
And I would also point out that the
6699
hockey team has gone out and done community
work throughout the community, helping older
people, younger people, helping others. And
finally, they give our young people really
something to look up to. And also, we all
enjoy the hockey program so much.
And, Madam President, thank you for
allowing us to honor the Plattsburgh State
Hockey Team and to congratulate all of them.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
As President of the Senate, I also
want to extend my congratulations on a
fantastic victory.
You know, I knew we had a star -
we all know we have a star in Senator
Stafford. But I'm beginning to think there's
something in the water in the Plattsburgh
area. The stars are radiating all over the
galaxy. And it's a fantastic victory, good
teamwork, and a good start for you in whatever
careers you may choose.
Congratulations. Best wishes.
(Applause.)
6700
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, may we return to reports of
standing committees. And I'd ask that we
recognize Senator Lack, from the Judiciary
Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: You have a report,
Madam President, of nominees.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack,
from the Committee on Judiciary, reports the
following nominations:
As a judge of the County Court for
the County of Allegany, Judith E. Samber, of
Alfred.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President. I rise to move the nomination of
Judith E. Samber, of Alfred, as a judge of the
County Court for the County of Allegany.
I should say, in speaking about all
three of our judges this afternoon, these are
all extraordinary appointments we've received
6701
from Governor Pataki. They were all eminently
received by the committee earlier today, this
morning.
And I'm very happy to move, as the
first judge, Judith E. Samber, for the County
Court for the County of Allegany. My
colleagues know that this is a -- what we call
a three-hat judge, probably the most important
judge in the system. Her credentials have
been examined by the staff of the committee,
they've been found to be extraordinarily and
certainly in order. She appeared before the
committee this morning, was unanimously moved
to the floor.
And I'm very happy to yield for
purposes of a second to Senator McGee.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you,
Senator Lack. Thank you, Madam President.
I really applaud the nomination of
Judith E. Samber. Judith is a prominent
citizen who brings a standard of excellence to
all her endeavors and sets an example for all
individuals by exemplifying what it really
means to give of oneself.
6702
Although Judy started her law
career in the Bronx, in Family Court, her
roots in Allegany County and Western New York
begin at Alfred University, where she received
her Bachelor of Arts degree in history,
graduating cum laude in 1974. She then moved
on to Golden Gate University, where she
received her Juris Doctorate in 1977.
Her professional history is equally
as impressive, previously serving in private
practice for over twenty years, as Allegany
County assistant district attorney for three
yeard, and as Allegany County public defender
for 16 years. She is currently a member of
the Allegany County Bar Association and a
member of the Jones Memorial Hospital board of
directors.
I've known Judy for a number of
years. Judy has been very, very much involved
in community events. She is indeed a
community-spirited person. She is a fine
appointment. I really applaud Governor Pataki
for this appointment.
Judy is joined here today by her
family. And I might, as an aside, point out
6703
that the new judge-to-be's husband happens to
be the mayor of the city of Alfred, and so
we're very glad to have him and the family
joining Judy on this great occasion.
And I offer my best wishes and my
congratulations to this outstanding candidate
for a judgeship.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, you wish to be heard?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Just briefly, for this
nominee.
Senator McGee, the reputation of
this nominee has made its way up Route 390 to
Rochester. When one of my former law partners
called me and extolled the virtue of this
candidate, I promised him that I would take a
good look. He wanted me to promise him that I
would vote, and I said, "Well, wait a second,
let me just get an opportunity to meet her and
say hello and review her resume."
I have done all that. I will
report back to him that Allegany County will
be extremely well served.
And I congratulate you and wish you
6704
Godspeed.
And again, I've said this on this
floor, I've had any differences with the man
who occupies the second floor. I continue to
have my differences. But I commend him for
continuing to appoint top-quality people to
the bench in this state. And I think this new
justice in Allegany County will be a wonderful
addition to that legion of appointments that
he has made. And I commend him for this
appointment, and I recommend this candidate
for your vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you,
Madam President. I rise because, through the
years, I have sat and I have listened to
numerous judicial appointees come before the
Judiciary Committee and give their
qualifications and basically recite the places
they've been and the verdicts they've been
participating in.
This nominee, instead, gave a
history of her travels through the state,
formerly of Brooklyn, formerly of Nassau
County, having lived in San Francisco, and she
6705
created this tale of someone who was in love
with the law, someone who was in love with
New York, and someone who Allegany County is
very, very lucky to have.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Judith E. Samber, of
Alfred, as a judge of the County Court for the
County of Allegany. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
And we extend to the judge and her
family best wishes.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Court of Claims, Thomas H. Scuccimarra, of
Garrison.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
6706
President. I rise once again to move the
nomination of Thomas H. Scuccimarra, of
Garrison, as a judge of the Court of Claims.
This is another extremely credible
appointment we received from Governor Pataki.
Indeed, Judge Scuccimarra has been before us
once before. His credentials are as excellent
now as they were the last time we received
them.
He was completely vetted by the
staff of the committee. He appeared before
the committee earlier today and was
unanimously moved to the floor.
And it's with great pleasure that I
yield for purposes of a second to Senator
Leibell.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Thank you,
Madam President.
And thank you, Senator Lack, for
giving me the opportunity to speak in front of
the Judiciary Committee this morning.
And we thank Governor Pataki for
once again sending us an excellent name.
I had the opportunity to rise in
6707
this chamber some months ago to speak on a
nomination for Judge Scuccimarra. And at that
time I identified the qualities that I thought
we would all search for and look for in a
judge. Of course, foremost is integrity, the
highest ethical standards, judicial
temperament, a knowledge of the law, practical
experience, including private practice and
judicial experience.
Well, we found then and we can find
today quite safely that with Judge Thomas
Scuccimarra we have such a member of the
judiciary. He comes to us with a long and
successful career, both as a practicing
attorney -- one of the most prominent in the
Hudson Valley -- but also, I might add, as a
member of the judiciary, someone who has
served for many, many years on both local
village and town courts, and now has had
impressive and honorable service on the County
Court in Putnam County, which has been a
multi-hat court, which includes County Court,
Family Court, and Surrogate's Court.
We have here today to move Judge
Scuccimarra's name for the Court of Claims. I
6708
am greatly honored to have the opportunity to
move this nomination. We once again, as I
said, commend Governor Pataki for sending us
such a fine person.
And I can tell you that every
person who has appeared before Judge
Scuccimarra knows, whether they are a party to
the action or one of the attorneys or a
witness in the matter, that they get a fair
trial and he treats them with great decency.
I am very pleased to move this
nomination. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the confirmation of Thomas H.
Scuccimarra, of Garrison, as a judge of the
New York State Court of Claims. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
nominee is confirmed.
Mr. Scuccimarra is with us in the
gallery today, and he is accompanied also by
6709
his wife, Barbara, and by his mother, Eleanor,
and also by a number of friends who include
Mrs. Margaret Pataki, the mother of our great
Governor.
Judge Scuccimarra, on behalf of the
body, congratulations.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will continue to read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Surrogate's Court for the County of Suffolk,
John M. Czygier, Jr., of Remsenberg.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I'm most happy to stand up and move
the nomination of John M. Czygier, Jr., of
Remsenberg, as a judge of the Surrogate's
Court of the County of Suffolk.
One of my colleagues just asked
where Remsenberg is. Remsenberg, of course,
is in Senator LaValle's district, in the east
end, and I will be yielding to him in just a
moment.
6710
But I do want to take a moment of
the Senate's time to just personally speak
about John Czygier and John Czygier becoming
the Suffolk County surrogate.
This is a great confluence of both
merit and politics coming together. There is
no doubt that John Czygier is probably the
finest privately practicing trust and estates
attorney in Suffolk County. And the fact that
he's becoming the surrogate of our county
today is absolutely outstanding.
And for me personally, not only
does it mean that a friend is the surrogate of
the county, one that I totally respect for his
work as an attorney, but an attorney who I've
worked with not only in private practice but
since he was appointed by Chief Administrative
Judge Lippman to his Advisory Council on the
Surrogate Court -- in that capacity for a long
time, with the Suffolk County Bar Association,
and numerous appearances that he's come here
to Albany representing the interests of that
bar association, which of course I myself am a
member of.
But to have John Czygier as Judge
6711
Czygier the surrogate to me is an outstanding
appointment by the Governor, and I certainly
offer my personal congratulations to him and
thanks to the Governor for the nomination.
And if I haven't taken too much of
your time, Senator LaValle, I'm only too happy
to yield to you for purposes of a second.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you,
Senator Lack.
Mr. President, I have to start off
by saying once again, and we can't say it
enough times, that this is an outstanding
nomination that is sent to us by Governor
Pataki.
This morning when I was jogging, I
was thinking about what was I going to say on
the floor to support John Czygier's
nomination. And I thought I would relay a
little story and do it in story form.
John Czygier's predecessor, Justice
Prudenti, was an outstanding surrogate who had
impeccable credentials coming into that
position. She felt that she wanted to go back
6712
to the Supreme Court, was reelected, and is
also our administrative judge.
Now, usually when that happens,
there's a vacancy in any court and or any
position, people are scurrying around to find
a replacement. This was easy, because people
of all party affiliations could attest that
there was one candidate, John Czygier, who had
the credentials, whose practice in the
Surrogate's Court was probably 75 percent
Surrogate Court work. Not only practiced in
Suffolk County Surrogate, Nassau, Queens, and
other courts, has lectured for the State Bar
Association and the County Bar Association, is
a member of our Surrogate Court section.
But more importantly, when we look
at candidates for a judicial position, it's
temperament, what kind of person. John
Czygier is and has always been the kind of
person who is available. Whether you're at
the Surrogate's Court and have a question of
John when he is very, very busy, he will take,
has taken the time to answer a question. You
could call John up, and he would take the time
and be very patient with you and, of course,
6713
give you the best information.
John Czygier will follow in Justice
Prudenti's place maintaining the Suffolk
Surrogate's Court as one of the finest, I
believe, in the State of New York. Part of
the Surrogate Court responsibilities for the
judge is administrative work. John's
temperament, knowing the personnel and having
good administrative background, will mean that
Surrogate's Court will continue on the same
track.
The citizens of our state, not only
in Suffolk County, but those coming before our
surrogate, will get fair, good and decent
attention.
Madam President, it's a great
privilege to move the nomination of John
Czygier as Suffolk County Surrogate Court
judge.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of John M. Czygier, Jr.,
of Remsenberg, as a judge of the Surrogate's
Court for the County of Suffolk. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
6714
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: I'd like to
acknowledge and welcome not only Judge
Czygier, but his wife, Rose, and family and
friends who have joined us this afternoon.
Congratulations, Judge, and best
wishes.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following nominations:
As state director of the Division
of Probation and Correctional Alternatives,
Sara Tullar Fasoldt, of Loudonville.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you,
Madam President.
It's a pleasure to rise and move
the confirmation of Governor Pataki's nominee
for Director of Probation. Sara Fasoldt is a
professional. She understands the field,
6715
she's compassionate, concerned, a hard worker,
an excellent, excellent administrator.
Sara was, in Clinton County, the
director of probation. For those of you who
do not know where Clinton County is, that's in
the province of Quebec -- no, no, it's on the
border of Canada. But in Clinton County, like
every county, we have problems, and Sara
Tullar Fasoldt did a tremendous job as the
director.
She came down to work in the Office
of Probation here in Albany, and she also has
demonstrated the fine work that she does.
She has studied and has done
graduate work in the field, and as a matter of
fact has studied at Russell Sage, which is not
that far from here. She also studied in
Switzerland and has her master's from the
University of Rochester, after graduating from
the college at Brockport, SUNY at Brockport.
I could go on and on, Madam
President, but as was pointed out in the
committee meeting when a number of Senators
read the background on Ms. Fasoldt, they were
impressed, as they should be, and I am, of how
6716
involved she has always been in every
community that she lives in. She cares for
people.
I'm sure, Madam President, just as
she has been doing an excellent job as Acting
Director of Probation, I'm sure that she will
continue to do this fine work.
And I do commend the Governor for
this fine appointment. And we certainly offer
our congratulations to a very deserving and
hardworking public servant.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Sara Tullar Fasoldt, of
Loudonville, to serve as the state director of
the Division of Probation and Correctional
Alternatives. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
And I'd like to acknowledge her
presence and congratulate her and wish her the
very best.
6717
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the State Board of Parole, Rosario Guy Vizzie,
Jr., of Leeds.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, it's a pleasure to yield to Senator
Bonacic.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you,
Madam President.
I'd like to move the nomination of
Guy Vizzie, Jr., to the State Parole Board.
He served for 25 years in Greene County with
distinction, 21 years being the Director of
Parole in that county. In 1999, he filled a
vacancy in the State Parole Board. With his
experience, he deserves reappointment for a
full term.
And, by the way, his son is -
serves as assistant counsel to Governor
Pataki.
And I ask that you move the
6718
nomination.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Rosario Guy Vizzie,
Jr., of Leeds, as a member of the State Board
of Parole, for a term to expire on February 6,
2007.
Senator Montgomery, do you wish to
be heard before we vote?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. Thank you for recognizing me.
I would like to rise to also speak
on the nomination of Mr. Vizzie. I met him
this morning. And in speaking with him, he
agrees with me and many others of us that
parole is a very important aspect as it
relates to public safety and as it relates to
adequate supervision of people who are
returning to communities who have been
incarcerated in our state prison system.
And so I think he has the kind of
experience that we need in a person who is
going to head that division. I'm happy to
know that he is going to be able to use his
experience, both from having been involved
with the probation and from that end of it and
6719
now, on the other end of the spectrum, that he
will bring some knowledge and understanding
and commitment to making sure that parole
works well for the people in the State of
New York.
So I'm happy to second his
nomination.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation, then. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
And I'd like to acknowledge the
presence -- his presence here, and wish you
the very best wishes.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Workers' Compensation Board, Robert M.
Zinck, of Henrietta.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
6720
SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you,
Madam President. And again, it's a pleasure
to yield to Senator Alesi.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Madam
President. Thank you, Senator Stafford, my
colleagues.
This is a great pleasure and honor
for me to speak on behalf of a good friend,
Bob Zinck, and someone who has been recognized
by the Governor. And I applaud the Governor
in that recognition of Bob Zinck's exceptional
talents.
Bob Zinck brings a rare combination
of experience in the building trades and
business in general, and combined with the
fact that he is an elected county legislator
in the town of Henrietta, which I have the
pleasure of representing in the Senate. I've
known Bob for quite a while now, and his
family.
And, in applauding the Governor's
choice, a very wise choice on behalf of our
Governor, which has become something that
we're very used to now, I would like to point
6721
out that Bob will give 110 percent to his
efforts. His experience in business and his
experience and willingness to work on behalf
of his constituents will make him an
exceptional person for this job.
And again, in applauding the
Governor for an exceptional choice, I would
say if there is any downside to the nomination
at all, it would be the fact that the people
in the town of Henrietta will be losing an
exceptional county legislator.
And I wish Bob Zinck very good luck
in this position and look forward to working
with him in the future.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Robert M. Zinck, of
Henrietta, as a member of the Workers'
Compensation Board, for a term to expire
December 31st in the year 2003. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
6722
hereby confirmed.
I'd like to acknowledge his
presence here this afternoon and wish you the
very best.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Industrial Board of Appeals, Gregory A.
Monteleone, Esquire, of Goldens Bridge.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, may I please yield to the Senator
from Northern Westchester -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR STAFFORD: -- Senator
Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Thank you very
much, Senator Stafford.
Madam President, I'm very pleased
to rise on this nomination. We have many
positions here that are being filled today,
but a member of the Industrial Board of
Appeals is certainly one of the more
significant.
6723
We always look in these positions
for people who bring to us certain
qualifications. And we're very pleased that
the Governor has submitted to us once again
the name of someone who has these
qualifications.
Greg has served as a -- worked as
an attorney, he has served in the Westchester
County DA's office, he's been active in our
local bar association in Westchester County.
And he has served and studied in the areas of
labor law.
I might add that he is also a
graduate of St. John's University School of
Law, so we know that he is very well educated.
I'm very pleased to speak in
support of this nomination. I would like to
move it. And I know that Greg Monteleone will
do a very fine job for New York State.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Gregory A. Monteleone,
Esquire, of Goldens Bridge, as a member of the
Industrial Board of Appeals. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
6724
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
And I'd like to acknowledge his
presence here this afternoon and wish him the
very best.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: As director of
the State of New York Mortgage Agency,
Christopher J. Cade, of Bronxville.
As a member of the New York State
Bridge Authority, Morton Marshak, of Monroe.
As a member of the Ogdensburg
Bridge and Port Authority, Mary M. Farley,
Esquire, of Gouverneur.
As a member of the State Board for
Historic Preservation, Charles D. Urstadt, of
New York City.
As commissioner of the State
Insurance Fund, Terence L. Morris, of Burnt
Hills.
6725
As a member of the Palisades
Interstate Park Commission, Barnabas McHenry,
of New York City.
As a member of the Veterans'
Affairs Commission, Herman G. Harrington, of
Rensselaer.
As members of the Advisory Council
on Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services,
James G. Cloonan, of Oswego, and Elaine Ellis,
of Tupper Lake.
As a member of the Continuing Care
Retirement Community Council, Craig A. Duncan,
of Averill Park.
As a member of the Public Health
Council, Francis J. Serbaroli, of East
Hampton.
As a member of the State Hospital
Review and Planning Council, Robert W.
Hurlbut, of Rochester.
As members of the Board of Visitors
of the New York State Home for Veterans and
Their Dependents at Oxford, Joseph J.
Benenati, Jr., of Norwich, and Mary Smack, of
Binghamton.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move
6726
confirmation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Stafford.
The question is on the
confirmations as stated by the Secretary. All
in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominees are
hereby confirmed.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President. Would you please recognize Senator
Marchi.
THE PRESIDENT: I certainly will.
Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: We have a
marvelous experience here. It's the annual
visitation by distinguished graduates of
St. John's University Law School.
You've gone so far without being a
St. John's graduate, but that is the ultimate
in achievement.
So we're very happy to have them
6727
here. And they're arrayed in back of me.
Judge Bellacosa. Judge Rubin. The others
didn't come in yet.
Well, we have a host of these
wonderful people here.
So I trust that you will welcome
them to the Senate and wish them all the best
for this day, because there are several
programs involving graduates of St. John's
University taking place today. So we're
honored by their presence.
THE PRESIDENT: On behalf of the
Senate, I'd like to welcome Dean Bellacosa as
well as the other officials from St. John's.
We are honored -- pun intended, Judge. I'll
always refer to Judge Bellacosa -- with your
presence.
Welcome and best wishes to each of
you.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President. Could we please have the reading
of the noncontroversial calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
6728
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
303, by Member of the Assembly DiNapoli,
Assembly Print Number 5691, an act to amend
Chapter 319 of the Laws of 2000.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
380, by Member of the Assembly Gunther,
Assembly Print Number 4612, an act authorizing
a transfer.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
394, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 3931, an
act to amend the Executive Law and others.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay that
aside, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
442, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 420, an
6729
act to amend the Correction Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay that
aside, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
447, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 1665, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would you lay that aside, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we will,
Senator. It is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
448, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 1933, an
act to amend the Education Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
476, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 1162, an
act to amend the Education Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
6730
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
497, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 850, an
act to amend the Family Court Act and the
Domestic Relations Law.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
507, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 3266, an
act to amend the Town Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
517, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 3127A, an
act to amend the Transportation Law and the
Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
533, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 2021, an
6731
act to amend the Not-for-Profit Corporation
Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
534, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 3203,
an act to amend Chapter 672 of the Laws of
1993.
SENATOR PATERSON: Could you
please lay that aside, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we can. The
bill is laid aside.
Senator Balboni, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President, could we please have a reading of
the controversial calendar.
But please lay aside Calendar
Number 442, Senate Bill Number 420, for the
day.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day, Senator.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
6732
303, by Member of the Assembly DiNapoli,
Assembly Print Number 5691, an act to amend
Chapter 319 of the Laws of 2000.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, talk about a technical amendment.
This is a chapter amendment to a law that we
passed last year authorizing the assessor of
the County of Nassau to accept an application
for retroactive real property tax exemption
from the Chabad of Port Washington, a
wonderful establishment, pursuant to Section
420 of the Real Property Tax Law.
And essentially, the parcel in
question, while meeting the criteria for the
tax exemption, is correctly covered by
Section 462 of the Real Property Tax Law, and
this bill would correct a very technical
reference to the law made in Chapter 319 of
the Laws of 2000.
That's all there is.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
6733
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would Senator Balboni stand for a
question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for a question?
SENATOR BALBONI: I'll yield for
a technical question.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, if I
understand, Section 319 of the Laws of 2000 is
not represented correctly as it's quoted in
the section of this law, and you just want to
correct that, Senator?
SENATOR BALBONI: That is
correct, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I am quite pleased with that
answer.
And there being no other Senator
who wants to speak on the bill, I guess we
should pass it, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
6734
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
380, by Member of the Assembly Gunther,
Assembly Print Number 4612, an act authorizing
a transfer into retirement plan.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Would you lay
that bill aside momentarily? I'm sorry, no,
we can proceed with that bill. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bonacic,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you,
Madam President.
This is legislation that authorizes
four full-time police officers in the Village
of Liberty, in Sullivan County, to transfer
their retirement status from Section 375(i) to
6735
384(d) of the Retirement and Social Security
Law.
In that department, there are 20
police officers, and they are all in 384(d) of
the Retirement and Social Security Law. And
it was a mistake by the Village of Liberty to
put them in a different category, and we want
to change it to where it should be.
The amount of the money to take
care of these four police officers will be
paid entirely by the Village of Liberty. It's
a cost of 120,000.
This bill passed the state Senate
last year 59 to zero. And this year it passed
the Assembly by -- and it's being carried by
Assemblyman Gunther, and that passed on
May 2nd by a vote of 147 to zero.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Bonacic would yield for
a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: Of course.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
6736
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, is
there a home rule message on this bill?
SENATOR BONACIC: There is.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
Madam President, if the Senator
would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, the
town will absorb the cost for these four
officers?
SENATOR BONACIC: The village
will.
SENATOR PATERSON: I mean the
village, I'm sorry.
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes.
SENATOR PATERSON: That's the
Village of Liberty?
SENATOR BONACIC: That's correct.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
Madam President, if the Senator
6737
would continue to yield.
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: We had a bill
yesterday just like this. That was the town
of Camillus, in Senator DeFrancisco's
district.
This bill basically does the same
thing. In other words, the officers were not
aware that they had the option to opt in; they
didn't. After the fact, they realized it.
And it's really ministerial, so
we're going to let them opt in. Is that
correct?
SENATOR BONACIC: That's exactly
correct.
SENATOR PATERSON: Finally, Madam
President, I'd like to inquire of Senator
Bonacic the same which I inquired of Senator
DeFrancisco, which is are you -- do you have
any knowledge or information about why the
officers were unaware?
SENATOR BONACIC: Why they were
what? Excuse me, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: How it came to
6738
be that they didn't know that they had this
option.
SENATOR BONACIC: If you'd just
give me a second, I will answer that question
for you.
Yes. The mistake initially was
clerical. They started as part-time officers
with the Liberty Police Department, and there
was confusion whether it was going to be done,
the paperwork, by the village administrator or
the police chief of the Village of Liberty
Police Department.
And as a practical matter, neither
of them did it. The one year expired, and
they were out in the cold.
SENATOR PATERSON: Excellent,
Madam President. Thank the Senator for his
answers.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
There is a home rule message at the
desk.
The debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
6739
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
394, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 3931, an
act to amend the Executive Law, the State
Technology Law, and the State Finance Law, in
relation to the Office for Technology.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam
President.
Senator Paterson will find this
most exciting, second only to Senator
Balboni's earlier bill before us.
We will transfer the powers and
duties of the Office for Technology from the
Executive Law to the State Technology Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Wright would yield for a
6740
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, I will,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, this
transfer of the Office of Technology from the
Executive branch, will it entail any real
substantive changes in how the office operates
now?
SENATOR WRIGHT: It will not,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would yield for one
more question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Then that
being the case, Senator, can you just explain
to me why they wanted to do this?
6741
SENATOR WRIGHT: Because by
putting all the pieces of technology together,
we'll have one section under "T" and be able
to find "technology." And that's as simple as
I can put it, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Good enough
for me, 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 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President. There will be an immediate meeting
of the Aging Committee in the Majority
Conference Room, an immediate meeting of the
Aging Committee in the Majority Conference
Room. Thank you.
6742
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Aging Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
447, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 1665, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to refiling.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin,
an explanation has been requested by Senator
Montgomery, I believe.
SENATOR LARKIN: Madam President,
this bill amends the Real Property Tax Law by
changing the events that require a veteran to
refile an alternative veteran's real property
tax exemption.
Under the current law, to retain a
veteran's exemption, a veteran need not refile
an exemption form unless the percentage of the
disability increases or decreases.
What this bill does is require a
veteran to refile a tax exemption form if
there are other changes that have occurred
which affect qualifications for the exemption
or the amount of the exemption.
6743
This bill is needed because the
municipalities that administer the alternative
exemption procedure cannot effectively do so
if they are not informed about the changes
that effect their veterans' eligibility for
tax exemption; i.e., change of ownership,
transfer of the ownership to a relative, new
spouse, or something of that magnitude.
This bill is supported by the City
of New York and has no known opposition.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Malcolm
Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank you
very much, Madam President. Would the sponsor
yield for a question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin,
will you yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Through
you, Madam President, do localities have an
option of not granting these property tax
exemptions?
SENATOR LARKIN: This is in the
6744
law. There's already procedures in the law.
And the only thing that we're doing
is to correct it so that when a veteran is
getting an exemption, we want to make sure
that he's entitled to it, whether it's an
increase or a decrease. And local governments
don't have the information. The intended
benefit receiver, the veteran, has that
information, and he has to give it to the
local municipalities.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Will the
sponsor yield for one more question, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Through
you, Madam President.
If the localities have the option
of granting the maximum amount, do you know
what percentage of the localities in New York
will be granting the maximum amount?
SENATOR LARKIN: I'm sorry,
6745
Malcolm, you'll have to speak up.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: If
localities have the option of granting the
maximum amount, do you know which localities
in New York will be granting the maximum
amount?
SENATOR LARKIN: It's strictly up
to the localities.
But the basic part of it is -
you've got to understand what the premise of
this bill was.
When it was first initiated, there
was an exemption given. And what we're doing
now is -- all we're doing is to say that they
must refile to ensure that what benefits
they're given they're entitled to. Period.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank
you, Madam President. That will suffice.
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.
6746
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
448, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 1933, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
expanding.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LARKIN: By who?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery requested an explanation.
SENATOR LARKIN: Senator
Montgomery, this bill amends the Education Law
to expand the types of education courses which
Vietnam veterans and Persian Gulf veterans
will be eligible to receive tuition
assistance, to include correspondence courses,
electronic distance learning courses.
Under the current law, Vietnam
veterans' and Persian Gulf veterans' tuition
award programs are already approved, and those
who are enrolled in this undergraduate or
6747
graduate degree training programs. And this
bill allows veterans to get tuition assistance
for distance learning, similar to what we do a
lot of times now in our high schools in our
rural areas, classes from a Regents-approved
postsecondary institution.
Distance learning includes classes
where the student is separated from the source
of instruction and communication occurs via
printed matters, correspondence, computers,
televisions or whatnot.
This legislation will not increase
the cost to the state, because about one-third
of the 3 million that is allocated to this
program is spent. A funding source already
exists to carry out this function.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. Would the sponsor yield for a
question or so?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
6748
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank
you.
Senator Larkin, this is a very good
program. I've certainly always supported it.
And I've advertised it in my own district, and
I think we've done outreach extensively.
But there still seems to be a
problem with veterans really seizing the
opportunity, based on this law. Do we have
any idea, have we tried to figure out why
there is such an underutilization of this
program?
SENATOR LARKIN: Well, that's one
of the purposes of why we put this bill in,
because we found a lot of people, especially
in the rural parts of our state, they just
can't get down to the community college or
they can't get up to Plattsburgh, to Senator
Stafford's place, or to Long Island.
They have a need, and the need is
for the distance learning. And what we found
out is when we looked at the high schools that
were doing the distance learning, we found out
that, for example, in some of the rural parts,
6749
in John Bonacic's case, and mine, they were
having a limited number of students
participate.
School aid had two or three
students that wanted to take French. They're
not going to hire a teacher just for French.
But now, by putting the distance
learning in, they can put three or four units
together and be focused from one central
point, and you can get 10 or 12 or 15
students. And that was the purpose here.
If this is approved, we will be
going out through the Veterans' Affairs to
start a New York-wide campaign to get this
done.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Madam President, if Senator Larkin would
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
6750
Larkin, do you -- is there any problem with
including another class of veterans -- i.e.,
Korean War veterans?
Is that something that we can also
do to try and expand the number of people
eligible and therefore maybe more people will
use it?
SENATOR LARKIN: Well, I believe
that this incremental movement on this part to
take from the Vietnam veterans and include the
Persian Gulf, in that area, we're making a
step in the right direction. And from the
numbers that we've looked at in the State of
New York, this will help us to fill that gap.
We may want to, next year, look at
the numbers in Kosovo. Right now, those
numbers from New York were limited.
And I think that this is the right
step at this time.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Madam President, just one more question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
6751
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank
you. Madam President, through you.
I'm just wondering why this bill
didn't pass in the Higher Education Committee
before. Or did it pass -- do I not have the
correct information -- in the Assembly? Is
there some reason why the Assembly won't pass
it?
SENATOR LARKIN: I don't know.
We've talked to them and they said -
Mr. Tocci said that he was very much
interested in it because he's been getting
calls from veterans' counselors. Because the
veterans' counselors are the ones that are
telling us across the state that we need a
vehicle to open this up.
This opens it up. You've got
$3 million that are appropriated. We're
spending about one-third of that.
We believe that by the extension
for the Vietnam and Desert Storm to the
distance learning we'll close that gap, we'll
provide the educational requirements that are
6752
needed. And the big thing is we're expanding
a program and yet we're not requiring
additional dollars.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Thank you, Senator Larkin.
Madam President, on the bill
briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes. It's a
very good bill. It's a very good program.
And I think Senator Larkin's approach is
definitely appropriate.
But I hope that we can also, if
Senator Larkin would be kind enough to
suggest, that we should perhaps investigate
whether or not there are any administrative
barriers to people actually accessing it. I'm
not sure. I don't think we know definitively
just why it's so underutilized.
But I would like to see, and I'm
sure that most of us, if not all of us, would
like to see our veterans take advantage of
this since it's available. We want to support
them in this way.
6753
So I'm all in favor of it, and
hopefully we can continue to look at ways in
which we can make it more accessible.
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 5. This
act shall take effect on the 120th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
476, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 1162, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
the establishment.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Marchi,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR MARCHI: Madam President,
this bill would provide for the establishment
of a quasi-independent board of education in
6754
Staten Island, Richmond County.
It would continue the fiscal
relationship between Staten Island and the
City of New York, the amount. And the funds
that are currently flowing to Staten Island by
reason of the present circumstances would
continue and would be dependent on the
continuance of that relationship. There is no
change in the employment, the people. That
would be preserved.
And it would also enable a locally
elected board of education with very specific
requirements for election and the procedures
attendant to put in place a board of
education.
This would be the ideal community
to essay that effort.
District 31 is the only district in
the city of New York which is wholly contained
within a borough. It fits exactly and would
be in conformance with the present
circumstances. So it would give them a
quasi-independent responsibility for the
operation of the school board, depending on
the local election.
6755
We have passed this bill on prior
occasions, but we have yet to engender a
kindred sentiment in the other house. But we
are hoping that that might take place.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes. Madam
President, through you, will the very
distinguished Senator from Staten Island
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Marchi,
will you yield?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Senator Marchi,
could you explain further how this
establishment of a Staten Island Borough
School District would relate to the central
Board of Education, would relate to the Mayor,
and would relate to the community school board
that now exists on Staten Island?
SENATOR MARCHI: Well, on a
funding basis, it would change really nothing.
But on an interior management, the
election of the school board would create the
6756
circumstances by which the administration of
that district would operate. And it would be
a locally oriented membership and
managerial -- exercise of managerial
responsibility within the county.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam
President, I have one final question, if the
Senator would yield, before I speak on the
bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Does your bill
eliminate the community school board that now
exists, and does it eliminate any relationship
to the central Board of Education?
SENATOR MARCHI: It does
eliminate for operational purposes -- the
control would be internal within Staten
Island. It would be up to the new board on
how they reorganized themselves locally, but
the decision would be made by the local board
of education.
6757
SENATOR LACHMAN: By the
borough-wide board, not by the local community
school board that now exists?
SENATOR MARCHI: Right. Right.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam
President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I seldom
disagree with my learned colleague, for whom I
have the highest respect. But unfortunately,
I have to disagree on this bill.
I think it's a bad precedent. It's
based upon a premise which I do not fully
accept, and that is that governance of a
school system or a school board is the major
ingredient in the improvement of education.
It's also based upon another
premise. I think the bill arose during the
time when Staten Island had this fever and
then this vote against secession from the rest
of the city of New York.
If you create a separate school
board for the Borough of Richmond, then why
not create a separate school board for the
6758
Borough of Brooklyn or the Borough of Queens
or the Borough of Manhattan or the Borough of
the Bronx?
And I don't think we have the full
understanding what relationship the Staten
Island school board would have with the
existing central Board of Education or with
the duly elected members of your community
school board in Staten Island.
So I regretfully, on this issue,
Senator, unlike other issues, have to part
company from you. And I will vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Just by way of a
brief commentary, this has widespread support
in the community of Staten Island.
I know that what you suggested
might eventuate. I remember Senator Galiber,
who was a very close friend of mine, when he
was a member of this house had introduced the
same legislation. It did not gain support in
the other four major counties, because they're
all counties of over a million population.
It would seem that that is the one
district that is easily distinguished from the
6759
rest of the city, both by way of geographical
location -- out there in the Atlantic
somewhere -- and the feeling of the people and
the relationships that exist on an island-wide
basis.
We have all the analogous
membership organizations. Where there is a
bar association, the medical society,
everything is predicated on a Richmond County
basis. You don't find that analogous in any
other area of the City of New York.
So we have distinctly different and
distinguishable qualities. We have a
newspaper that is read by the entire island,
along with some other publications. But just
the newspaper reporting birth and our
departure from this vale of tears is something
that this is -- there are more people that
read the daily newspaper than all the other
newspapers of New York City combined. And
that has always been the case.
So that the intensity of the
feeling and the desire -- this board does a
pretty good job anyway. Irregardless, as they
may say in Brooklyn. They do a pretty good
6760
job, because the grades are good. But there's
every consideration and evidence that this
opportunity would be seized upon to embrace it
and to enhance the whole educational process
on Staten Island.
I did have -- I had once exchanged
correspondence with Lani Guinier, who has a
very disputatious kind of reference to make.
She has asked for something like that in other
areas, but it was not a prevailing
consideration. And we could not adopt
cumulative voting, which was her -- which
undergirded her plan, to the ballot that we
have today. And we could harness that very
easily into present ballot system.
So there are a host of
considerations, and the feeling back home that
this would be a positive step forward. And it
has been the existing situation in Staten
Island for many years.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President, if Senator Marchi could yield to a
couple of questions.
6761
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Marchi,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Senator Marchi, I was looking
through the bill and I don't see the section
that talks about how the new district would be
financed. And I'm just wondering if this is
an independent school district to be financed
based on property taxes, as other school
districts outside of the New York City area.
SENATOR MARCHI: Well, the funds
would come from the City of New York, Madam
President, in response to the inquiry by the
Senator.
They would come from the City of
New York, and they would be measured by the
usual criteria, the number of people involved
and the resources that are available. And
we're perfectly happy to have that continue.
So the fiscal aspects are covered.
Nothing would really change. It would be a
question of internal management. And
that's -- that sums it up completely.
6762
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. Thank
you. Just on the bill, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, I do
have a problem, although I think that Staten
Island certainly has every right to want their
own independent school district.
But I certainly do have a problem
with the fact that here we will create an
independent school district without any
connection to the school district in New York
City -- the chancellor does not have any
authority, essentially it's creating almost a
private, separate district. But we're all
funding it.
And so if the Borough of Staten
Island and the residents of Staten Island feel
that they want an independent school district,
then I feel that it should be established
under the state law that every other school
district is established under.
And certainly the Big Five is very
different from every other school district
that's independent, and I think that this one
6763
should be treated in the same way.
So I'm going to vote no on this,
although I want to make it very clear that I
certainly respect Senator Marchi's intent to
establish a school district for his district,
his borough, and that is fair. But I don't
think it's fair to ask for New York City to
pay for -- you know, in terms of local
education dollars while it is a totally
independent and separate school district.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator March.
SENATOR MARCHI: Madam President,
I just want to reassure the Senator. I
respect your feelings and your response to it.
I will point out that the State Commissioner
of Education has a very -- it must meet with
approbation there every step of the way.
It doesn't alter the fiscal
relationship, because we are a plus factor in
the contribution of taxes and whatnot. That
is not altered in any way.
What would happen is that the
internal management would continue on the
semi-independent board, but fiscal dependency
and fiscal relationships and their
6764
subordination to the judgment of the State
Board of Education and the Regents of the
State of New York would continue.
And they -- they're not invited to
take a free ride or anything. I mean, they're
under the same strict regulation that is the
experience of the board itself, the central
board. However, it does -- is responsive to
the specific question of the altered feeling
that we have by way of separation and the
existence of a different climate.
When I first came up here, I had a
farm colony that I represented. I believe
that there is still one farm left in Staten
Island. And I know that you appreciate Staten
Island, because I know you come down there
often to some of our facilities and
structures.
So I do hope that it -- I'll have
to work very hard with the Assembly, however,
since I've been passing it since 1994.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
6765
Senator, on the bill.
SENATOR GENTILE: Madam
President, I am the only member of this house
that has the privilege of representing both
Brooklyn and Staten Island. And in that, I've
come to certainly know the views of my learned
colleagues from Brooklyn but also have come to
learn the views of Staten Islanders, and
particularly Senator Marchi, on this piece of
legislation.
And I must say that having
represented Staten Island and knowing about
the issues and the problems and the virtues of
Staten Island schools, certainly I understand
where the Senators from the other boroughs may
be coming from. But I must say that having
represented Staten Island, the fact is that
Staten Island and their schools, the schools
on Staten Island, are unique in many different
ways.
One way particularly is in the
transportation issue. And as you know,
Senator Marchi, we always have that concern,
that concern particularly about the lack of
transportation to the schools, public schools
6766
throughout Staten Island.
Now, that issue doesn't reverberate
around the rest of the city. And therefore,
the central Board of Education is not as or
not always as responsive as it should be to a
particular issue that's particular to Staten
Island.
And given your legislation, if we
had a separate school district, I would
surmise and anticipate that that issue about
student transportation, only that one issue of
student transportation, would be better
addressed because of the local school
district.
Certainly we still pay -- Staten
Islanders still pay city taxes and all the
taxes that they're required to pay to the City
of New York, so the funding stream should not
be different. It should remain as is, because
Staten Island is still a part of New York
City.
Your proposal, Senator Marchi, I
believe just addresses the fact that among
many issues, there are issues that
particularly affect Staten Island schools
6767
that, by experience, the central Board of
Education has not been able to address
sufficiently because it is particular to that
borough.
And you make a good point, Senator
Marchi, that if we are ever, in the City of
New York, to try and do separate borough
school districts, Staten Island is ideally the
one to use as a pilot project. Because, as
you point out, Staten Island has only one
school district. The entire island of Staten
Island is one school district.
That is not the case in Brooklyn
not the case in Manhattan, not the case in
Queens, not the case in the Bronx. It is
almost impossible under the current structure
in any of the other four boroughs to do a
similar project, because of the multiplicity
of school boards and school districts in the
other four boroughs.
That's not the case in Staten
Island. We have only one school district. So
to convert that into its own -- one school
board, to convert that into its own school
district, it is rather a logical next step to
6768
try a project by which a borough has its own
school district that is more sensitive to the
needs and issues of that individual borough.
So while I appreciate the words of
my learned colleagues from Brooklyn, and
having been born and bred in Brooklyn, but I
am an adopted son of Staten Island, I believe
this is a good bill, a bill that at least we
should give a run and try.
So, Senator Marchi, I congratulate
you and applaud you for this. I will be
voting in the affirmative.
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 5. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 476 are
Senators Brown, Dollinger, Duane, Espada,
Hevesi, Kruger, Lachman, Markowitz,
Montgomery, Onorato, Oppenheimer, Santiago,
6769
Schneiderman, A. Smith, M. Smith, and Senator
Stavisky. Ayes, 42. Nays, 16.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
497, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 850, an
act to amend the Family Court Act and the
Domestic Relations Law, in relation to the
issuance of orders.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President. Thank you.
This is a bill that builds on the
success of a chapter that we passed in 1998
which allowed judges in County Court to issue
orders of protection on behalf of witnesses
during the pendency of a domestic violence
trial or hearing.
Previously, the law did not permit
a judge to do that, only to issue a order of
protection on behalf of victims of the
offense.
6770
In the Governor's approval message
in 1998, he stated the need to extend this
ability to other courts, specifically the
Family Court. And it is from that veto
message that this bill was born.
And I'd like to note that the
original chapter was sponsored by myself and
supported by every single member in this
chamber, as was this particular amendment,
which passed last year.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, will the sponsor yield to a
question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
Senator Balboni, will you yield for
a question?
SENATOR BALBONI: I yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just so I
understand it, was that a veto message from
the Governor of the earlier bill that gave
rise to this legislation?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
6771
President, through you, if it had been a veto
message, I would have referred to it not as a
chapter but as a bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, I thought Senator Balboni
referred to a veto message that he had picked
it up in.
Let me ask the fundamental
question. Does this bill -- through you,
Madam President, if Senator Balboni will
yield.
SENATOR BALBONI: I yield, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Does this
bill prevent a lawyer or an investigator on
behalf of a lawyer from contacting a witness
during a Family Court proceeding?
SENATOR BALBONI: Maybe.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor will continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
do you yield?
6772
You may proceed, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Isn't it in
fact the case that oftentimes when a lawyer
becomes aware of a witness list from an
opposing party, and he wants to know -- since
oftentimes, as you know, the Family Court
pretrial disclosure process may be
significantly limited in that he may not be
able to get deposition testimony or subpoena
witnesses prior to trial -- wouldn't it be
appropriate for an adversary, a lawyer, to
hire an investigator to contact the witnesses?
And my question is whether this
protection order would prevent a lawyer or his
investigator from having access to an
impartial witness, which of course they would
like to know what their testimony is before
the moment of trial so that they can determine
whether a negotiated settlement is appropriate
or, for that matter, just to be prepared.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, through you. Senator Dollinger, as
you are well aware, the court is in the
position to fashion this order of protection
and determine to whom it shall apply and in
6773
what context. That is the only way we could
try to put together a safety net for
individuals testifying in domestic violence
proceedings.
But the law has been in effect
since 1998, and there has been no complaint
from the bar or from any litigants that the
law that we passed in 1998 that allows this
protection to be afforded to witnesses during
the pendency of a domestic violence trial has
in any way deterred the ability of defense
counsel to interview or examine a witness to a
domestic violence proceeding.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Balboni will
continue to yield to a question.
SENATOR BALBONI: I continue to
yield, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senator does
yield.
You may proceed, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President. Senator Balboni, how often
has this process been used in other courts
other than the Family Courts?
6774
You've suggested that there haven't
been any complaints. Do you know how many
times this provision of providing a protection
order for a witness in a trial, how many times
it's actually been utilized so we can then
evaluate how frequently or how possibly
frequent the complaints might be?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, the Office of Court Administration
has not been able to do a monitor of this type
of a process, as it is on a case-by-case
basis. And we've not been able to track the
actual numbers or the orders of protection.
However, I am sure that if there
were complaints in any way, shape, or form
that we would have heard about it.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Balboni will yield
to just one other question.
SENATOR BALBONI: I yield, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Where in the
bill does it provide that this witness
6775
provision, witness protection provision will
apply only during the pendency of the actual
trial?
Could this not apply, would this
not apply if the witnesses were designated
during the pretrial proceeding, and therefore
the order of protection would last for a
longer period of time?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, through you. As you are aware,
Senator Dollinger, an order of protection can
be fashioned for an individual during any
proceeding should there be a realization by
the court that the individual is in physical
danger and there is a possibility of physical
danger.
Procedurally, whether or not this
actual statute will apply in a pretrial
proceeding or during the actual trial or
hearing itself is up to the court.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just on the
bill briefly, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I commend
6776
Senator Balboni for following up the approval
message of the prior statute, with the
Governor, in his legal judgment, making a
conclusion that we should expand this bill to
protect witnesses who testify in these
proceedings as well.
However, I would caution Senator
Balboni, although I'm going to vote for this
bill, that I would examine a possible
exception. I would use my own license, I
guess, in my approval vote to send a little
message.
And that would be that this
provision, there be a specific direction to
the courts of this state that this should not
interfere with the administration of justice,
that a lawyer for a litigant should be able to
hire a private investigator and have them
contact a witness who, again, has been
identified previously, who has no role other
than that of a witness in the case, and
therefore it would be important that counsel
have access to them through the power of
subpoena or through an investigator. A common
practice certainly in upstate New York, and I
6777
assume throughout the rest of the state as
well.
So with my approval vote, Madam
President, I would suggest that the next
amendment that we do to a chapter like this
would be to make it very clear that it's not
designed to restrict the practice of law and
the vigorous representation by a lawyer of a
client which may, in some cases, require that
they get statements and information from an
independent witness prior to the time of
trial.
Under those circumstances, Madam
President, I am going to vote in favor of the
bill.
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 8. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
6778
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
507, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 3266, an
act to amend the Town Law, in relation to
exemptions.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Madam
President, what we are doing is adding to
subdivision 18 of Section 176 of the Town Law
another exemption for fire districts.
There are already 14 exemptions.
We are adding a 15th that would allow the
payment of charges for leased telephone lines
in order to maintain an adequate fire alarm
system.
Under the present law, there is a
blanket exemption of up to $2,000. It varies
by formula if a fire district is in a township
that has a full valuation system.
If they do not have an exemption,
as is the case for the leasing of telephone
lines to maintain an adequate alarm system,
they must go by proposition, which means that
6779
during each year, during the time when members
are chosen to the board of fire commissioners,
a proposition would be put up for all the
people in the fire district to vote on.
We believe that this -- having an
alarm system is very important item that
should join the other 14 exempt items under
the Town Law. And just to give you an example
of some of the exemptions, just three of the
already 14 exemptions, things such as payments
under contracts for water supply and for the
furnishing, erection, maintenance, and care of
fire hydrants. Compensation -- another
exemption is the compensation of paid fire
district officers. A third one is
contributions to the New York State Employees
Retirement System and New York State Policemen
and Firemen's Retirement System on account of
past and current services of paid fire
district offices and employees.
So these are some of the
exemptions. There are many others; there are
11 others that already are in law. We are, by
this legislation, adding a 15th exemption to
the Town Law.
6780
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, will the sponsor yield to
just one question?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
LaValle, we have exceptions to this rule that
seem to be swallowing the basis for the
restraints on expenditures by fire districts
and commissions.
My question is, why not just
abolish these what appear to be anachronistic
legislative controls from Albany on all the
expenditures made by these fire companies?
We -- I think -- I would assume you share this
opinion that -
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- these are
organizations that have volunteer bases, they
have community bases, they have community
support, and yet we have this anachronistic
system in which we still cap their
expenditures and to which we continue to make
exceptions.
6781
My question is, why not just
abolish this anachronistic system of control
of by the State of New York and Albany of
these kinds of expenditures?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, that
is really a good question. Because I know, as
one legislator on behalf of the fire
districts, I have several bills that, you
know, want to add to the list because we have
not kept it current.
There is, I gather, a suspicion on
the part of people locally that they would
rather fire districts, rather than lifting the
$2,000 figure or changing the figure,
eliminating it entirely, that it would be too
easy for fire districts to maybe go hog wild.
On the other hand, what we have
created is handcuffs on the fire districts
that have them come to Albany, filing bills to
deal with 21st century policy issues such as
this. Or I think I have a bill dealing with
the exemption of fuel oil and so forth. And
many of us, with the price of gasoline going
up, that may come to bear and cause great
problems for our fire districts.
6782
But it's -- as you can see from my
discussion, on one part, one hand, people are
afraid of giving the fire districts carte
blanche to go ahead and move forward. On the
other hand, we have put handcuffs on them that
is too restricting, there is no doubt about
it.
And maybe there is a middle road.
But until we carve that middle road out, they
are coming before the Legislature to receive
help and attention.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, just briefly on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Once again,
Senator LaValle, always a studious and
thorough response to questions.
I understand the point that Senator
LaValle makes. It just seems to me that if we
believe in mandate relief -- and I know
Senator Rath and I have debated the big
mandate relief bill -- here's the best kind of
mandate relief that we can do.
This is a -- my guess is this is a
6783
series of controls on expenditures of fire
districts probably finding its roots in the
'30s and '40s when, because of lack of proper
communication, they were considered a long
ways away, they were somewhat independent from
towns and villages, they didn't have that
direct oversight.
So we decided we would put
expenditure controls, we would in essence
provide them with the accounting -- in many
cases I'm sure they didn't have the
sophisticated accounting tools and the
sophisticated budget and money management
tools, because they were small fire districts.
Now here we are stuck with an
anachronistic system of control where we
continually provide exemptions through the
diligent work of Senator LaValle, we provide
exceptions. We say, well, we've got this
control in place, but we're now going to
exempt this, this, this, this, this.
And we finally get down to the
point where we're exempting the payment of
charges for leased telephone lines in order to
maintain an adequate fire alarm system. Could
6784
there be anything that's more at the heart of
a fire district than maintaining a fire alarm
system? And yet we have to write in a
statutory exemption for them to be able to do
this.
I would suggest to those on the
other side who share my passion for mandate
relief, this is the mandate relief that we
ought to do. Let's let the local fire
districts decide where they're going to spend
their money, let's give them all the options
they want. And we can pass a bill at some
point, Senator LaValle, which will
unfortunately eliminate all 15 exemptions but
at the same time give the fire districts carte
blanche, because as we know, they are
accountable because they're directly elected.
And so from my point of view, so
long as we have that direct election
accountability, we ought to take the handcuffs
from the 1930s and '40s off our fire
districts. Let them spend what they can
justify to their voters for adequate fire
protection.
I would suggest to those who might
6785
be listening that warm up the mandate relief,
this is one place to start. I'll vote in
favor.
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 on the first day of
January.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
517, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 3127A, an
act to amend the Transportation Law and the
Vehicle and Traffic Law, in relation to
penalties.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR RATH: Madam President,
6786
it's a very simple technical amendment to a
bill that we passed and was chaptered last
year, commonly called -- in our office,
anyway -- the steel coil bill.
And in one place the word "loan"
was written in instead of "load." We're just
doing a spelling correction there.
And we're also identifying a
license endorsement for drivers hauling steel
coils and defining a scope for such
endorsement. This was also in the bill last
year, but what happened, the specifics and the
technicalities of that endorsement had already
been given by way of numbers to another
category.
And so what we're doing is just
making it possible for the DMV to move forward
and give that kind of identification to the
steel coil haulers.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, will the sponsor yield to just one
6787
question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath,
will you yield?
SENATOR RATH: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Why do we
need a specific license provision for someone
who drives something involving the
transportation -- it is the transportation,
the hauling of steel coils? What is unique
about steel coils that requires us to have a
specific regulation for that?
SENATOR RATH: Senator Dollinger,
we have some roads in our community that have
some pretty sharp carves, some portions of the
throughways and expressways. And a steel coil
rolled off of one of these trucks recently, in
the last two or three years ago, and crushed a
car -- and the inhabitants, of course.
And the requirements here that will
be written in will have to do with how these
coils are secured and making sure that the
drivers are trained properly, that they're not
going too fast on these curves. Because all
6788
of us have driven next to these trucks with
these coils, and as you're going past them,
you're looking and thinking -- particularly if
you come from where our news media has been,
where we know that one of these just rolled
off and rolled onto a car that was going past
it.
So that's what this is all about.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, just briefly on the bill.
And again, I appreciate Senator
Rath's answer to my question.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: It seems to
me that -- and we do this perhaps all the time
here, which is I look at steel coils being
transported on the back of a flatbed truck
much the same way that they would transport
lumber or steel rods or coaxial cable with the
big round spools that they spool all this
stuff on. And I guess I look at this and say,
Do you need a specific steel coil endorsement?
I mean, does it take an endorsement
to realize that when you're transporting stuff
6789
on the back of an open flatbed truck you have
to tie it down, you have to secure it, you
have to put up barriers so that it can't roll
off the back of the truck?
I would suggest, and with all due
respect to Senator Rath, that the steel coil
endorsement may end up like the mattress tag,
if you recall our debate about the mattress
tag which was attached in the '30s and '40s to
certify this -- that the steel coil
endorsement may end up one of those little
regulations that we put onto business which is
really not all that different from other
things transported which have -- and, Senator
Rath, I don't deny the danger of these things
falling off the truck to other motorists, that
there's a danger there.
But it just seems to me that to
make it so specific to steel coils is that
this, 30 years from now, may end up like being
the mattress tag that we debated a couple of
years ago.
So I guess I'll vote in favor of
it. But as we mandate more and more
endorsements and more and more restrictions,
6790
some future senator may look at this little
bill and say, Ah, there's something we can do
in mandate relief, let's get rid of the steel
coil endorsement. It may be the right thing
to do today, but in the future people may look
back at it and say it's government going just
a little too far and a little too specific.
I'll vote in favor of it based on
Senator Rath's comments, but we ought to keep
that in mind.
THE PRESIDENT: Does anyone else
wish to be heard on this bill?
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, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
533, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 2021, an
act to amend the Not-for-Profit Corporation
Law.
6791
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, would you please lay that bill
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day, Senator.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
534, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 3203,
an act to amend Chapter 672 of the Laws of
1993 amending the Public Authorities Law.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino, an explanation has been requested
by Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Madam President.
This particular bill would include
the Harborfields Public Library among the
public libraries eligible for construction and
financing through the New York State Dormitory
Authority.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
6792
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. If the sponsor would yield
for a few brief questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino, will you yield for a question?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I wonder
if -- I see the list in the legislation. What
is the criteria for the libraries that have
landed on this list as opposed to most of the
libraries in the state, which have not?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: They're all
public libraries, Senator, and they all own
their own facility.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President, if the sponsor will
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: So the
6793
distinction is that they own the building as
opposed to rent? Is that what I gather from
your answer?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Apparently
that's one of them, yes.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And for
libraries where the municipality owns the
library, instead of the library district
itself or an independent library authority,
would those also be covered, if a municipality
owns a library?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: The
libraries that are covered are the ones that
are specifically listed in the particular
bill, in the particular part of the law.
They're the only ones eligible for this
financing.
The purpose of this particular
situation is the Harborfields people would
like to take advantage of the lower financing
capabilities by going through the Dormitory
Authority and save some money for their
taxpayers.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And
through you, Madam President, what's the
6794
estimated cost of this?
SENATOR MARCELLINO:
Approximately $8 million is the cost of the
project that they wish to engage in. If
everything were to work out, the library might
save some significant amount of money to that
and keep the interest payments to
approximately $7.8 million.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Sounds good to me.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just briefly
on the bill.
I listened to the colloquy between
Senator Marcellino and Senator Schneiderman.
It seems to me that there's ample basis to
conclude that every public library in New York
State should be able to take advantage of the
Dormitory Authority financing.
Could you think of anything more
valuable and more directly related to the
education of our children, which is what the
Dormitory Authority was designed to do, than
6795
to use it to fund the construction of public
libraries, irrespective of whether they're
owned or maintained or on loan?
We ought to be using the savings
devices that Senator Marcellino is going to
use for this library, we ought to use it for
every single library. That seems to make
better sense.
And my sense would be -- I would
again ask Senator Rath, who has led the fight
on mandate reform, one of the mandate reforms
to do would be eliminate these artificial
barriers to public libraries utilizing the
beneficial financing available through the
Dormitory Authority, Madam President.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: If I may, I
just had a fantastic thought. I'm going to
have my staff research the possibility of
having all public libraries with the
capability of taking advantage of Dormitory
Authority financing capabilities.
6796
I don't know where it came from,
but it just hit me as I was sitting here that
this would be a great idea to study that. My
staff is more than willing to get right to it.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
Senator 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.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Yes,
Madam President. I would like to request
unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 476.
THE PRESIDENT: Hearing no
objection, Senator, you will be recorded as
voting in the negative on Calendar Number 476.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
6797
you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President. Could we please return to the
motions and resolutions calendar.
Apparently there is a privileged
resolution at the desk by Senator Goodman. I
would ask that the title be read and then move
for its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Goodman, Legislative Resolution Number 1694,
congratulating Gertrude Hess Parker upon the
occasion of her designation for special
recognition on May 9, 2001.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Balboni.
6798
SENATOR BALBONI: Please
recognize Senator Dollinger.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
I believe at the desk there is a
written notice of an intention to, pursuant to
Rule XI, to move to amend the Senate Rules and
add a new rule, XV, to create ethical
standards for members, officers and employees
of the New York State Senate. I would simply
ask that it be recorded in the Journal, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: The notice has
been received, Senator Dollinger, and will be
recorded in the Journal.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, thank you,
Madam President. Is there any housekeeping at
the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
SENATOR BALBONI: Oh, goody. Can
6799
we do that, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Madam
President.
On page number 20, I offer the
following amendments to Calendar Number 304,
Senate Print Number 3328, and ask that said
bill retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar, on behalf of Senator Saland.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
received, and the bill will retain its place
on the Third Reading Calendar.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President, does that conclude the housekeeping
for the day?
THE PRESIDENT: That concludes
the housekeeping, Senator.
SENATOR BALBONI: There being no
further business, I move that we stand
adjourned until Wednesday, May 9th, at
11:00 a.m.
THE PRESIDENT: On motion by
6800
Senator Balboni, the Senate stands adjourned
until Wednesday, May 9th, 11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 5:05 a.m., the
Senate adjourned.)