Regular Session - May 15, 2001
7072
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
May 15, 2001
11:15 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
7073
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 each bow our heads in a moment
of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Monday, May 14, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Sunday, May 13,
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.
7074
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Madam President.
On behalf of Senator Balboni, I
move to amend Senate Bill Number 3084A by
striking out the amendments made on 5/8 and
restoring it to its original previous print
number, 3084.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered,
Senator.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: And on
behalf of Senator Johnson, on page number 66 I
offer the following amendments to Calendar
Number 862, Senate Print Number 5066, and ask
that said bill retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, and the bill will retain its
place on the Third Reading Calendar.
7075
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
On page number 32, I offer the
following amendments to Calendar Number 504,
Senator Morahan's bill, Senate Print 2791, and
ask that said bill retain its place on the
Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, Senator, and the bill will
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
SENATOR MEIER: Madam President,
on behalf of Senator Morahan, on page number
48 I offer the following amendments to
Calendar Number 672, Senate Print Number 1377,
and ask that said bill retain its place on the
Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, and the bill will retain its
place on the Third Reading Calendar.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
7076
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, are there any substitutions at the
desk?
THE PRESIDENT: There are,
Senator.
The Secretary will read.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Can we accept
them, please.
THE SECRETARY: On page 23,
Senator Seward moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number
4911A, and substitute it for the identical
Senate Bill Number 2406, Third Reading
Calendar 374.
THE PRESIDENT: The substitution
is ordered.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
Consistent with my usual practice,
I hereby give written notice, pursuant to
Rule XI -
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me,
Senator.
7077
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, thank you. There will be an
immediate meeting of the Transportation
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
Madam President, can we have some
silence in the chambers as well -
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it is -
there is -
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: -- some
order.
THE PRESIDENT: I request that
the members take their conversations outside
the chambers, please.
Senator Fuschillo, you would like
me to announce a meeting?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Of the
Transportation Committee, in the Majority
Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Transportation
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Dollinger, you may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
7078
I hereby give written notice,
pursuant to Rule XI, that I will move to amend
the Senate rules to add a new rule, XV, which
relates to the ethical standard of members,
officers, and employees of the New York State
Senate.
I would ask that that notice be
filed in the Journal.
THE PRESIDENT: The notice has
been received, and it will be filed in the
Journal.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, I believe there's a privileged
resolution by Senator Marchi at the desk.
Will you please have it read, the title read.
THE PRESIDENT: There is,
Senator.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Marchi, Legislative Resolution Number 1754,
commending Thomas R. Sullivan upon the
occasion of his designation as recipient of
the 2001 "Man of the Year" Award on May 17,
2001.
7079
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 Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, may we please have the reading of
the noncontroversial calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
172, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 870, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
342, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 704, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
7080
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
343, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 760, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law and
the Education Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
344, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 779, an
act in relation to requiring.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
345, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 878,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
7081
346, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 1238, an
act in relation to requiring.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
347, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 2372, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside, Senator Paterson.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
348, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 2373A, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
349, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 2376,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
7082
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
420, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 2594, an
act authorizing the Town of Islip.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Lay it aside
for the day.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
422, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 3098,
an act authorizing the assessor of the County
of Nassau.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
425, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 3258, an
act to authorize the West Babylon Church.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
426, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 3300, an
7083
act authorizing the assessor of the County of
Nassau.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
431, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 4064, an
act authorizing the assessor of the County of
Nassau.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
467, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 4233A, an
act to amend the Penal Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
508, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 3267, an
act to amend the Town Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
7084
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
867, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 398, an
act to amend the Domestic Relations Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
881, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 4530, an
act in relation to adjusting.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
Senator Fuschillo, that completes
the reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President. Can we now have the reading
of the controversial calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
172, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 870, an
7085
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to requiring.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR McGEE: Put that bill
aside temporarily, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
342, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 704, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to restricting.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Madam
President, this bill prohibits any person from
operating a bus or school bus during any
period of suspension or revocation resulting
from a conviction of an alcohol- or
drug-related motor vehicle offense that took
7086
place either in-state or out-of-state when the
driver was operating his or her personal
vehicle.
We've been informed, through the
Senate Investigations Committee, of instances
in which drivers who obviously had no business
being behind the wheel were permitted to
remain there after offenses involving alcohol
and drugs, and, due to the slowness of the
bureaucratic removal procedures, they were
permitted to continue driving buses and thus
jeopardizing schoolchildren's very lives.
So that our attempt here is to
close this loophole and to do so as promptly
as possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. If the sponsor would yield,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm curious, do
7087
you know if subway -- they're not subway
drivers. Subway engineers? Subway drivers.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Motormen.
SENATOR DUANE: Do they have the
same restrictions?
SENATOR GOODMAN: I don't know.
But if they don't, they should, Senator. I
can't answer that offhand.
As a matter of fact, Senator, let
me elaborate on that and say that they do, as
a result of legislation which we did pass
after a major accident occurred at the 14th
Street subway stop in New York within the last
three years.
SENATOR DUANE: And, Madam
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
will you yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Is this bill
going to change the current law that prohibits
a person from driving a bus for five years
7088
after their license has been revoked or
suspended as a result of a second conviction
for driving under the influence of alcohol or
drugs?
SENATOR GOODMAN: No, it's not,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
will you yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
the sponsor thinks that there should be any
notice requirements in the bill.
SENATOR GOODMAN: None other than
what's reflected in the present procedure,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
will you yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will.
7089
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Would the court
be responsible for notifying the bus company?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Say that again,
Senator. I'm sorry.
SENATOR DUANE: Would the court
be responsible for notifying the school bus
company?
SENATOR GOODMAN: The procedure
would be the same as it is for any other
offense of which someone is convicted,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
will you yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm just
wondering if the sponsor could expound just a
little bit on what that procedure is.
SENATOR GOODMAN: I'm not fully
7090
familiar with it, Senator. Therefore, I can't
respond adequately to your request.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
will you yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will.
SENATOR DUANE: Is there an
Assembly sponsor for the legislation?
SENATOR GOODMAN: I'm not in a
position to answer that right now. I'll find
out and let you know, Senator.
Excuse me, I see that -- excuse me.
I beg to differ with my -- make a correction.
A7575, by Assemblyman Sanders, is the Assembly
companion. It's been referred to Codes on May
the 1st in the Assembly.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
And my final question, if the
sponsor would yield.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm just
7091
wondering if, you know -- because we haven't
really had any hearings on this since I have
been here -- but if there are any studies or
anything on the issue or if there's anything
further -- I mean, it seems like a good bill.
I would just like to see some data which
justifies it. Does any data exist?
SENATOR GOODMAN: I would say
that this can be readily appreciated as a
matter of simple common sense, Senator, and I
think the procedure that you suggest would be
a waste of taxpayer money and a waste of time.
SENATOR DUANE: Then I do have
one final question, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR GOODMAN: I understood
the Senator to say his last question was his
final question. Does he wish to amend that
statement, Madam President?
SENATOR DUANE: Final, final
question.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a final question.
SENATOR GOODMAN: On the
7092
assumption that we can rely on that
representation, the answer is yes, I will
yield.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I'm just wondering whether the
sponsor is aware of any other states that have
passed this legislation or have a similar law.
SENATOR GOODMAN: No, I'm not,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, will the sponsor yield to a
question from me?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
will you yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator, I'm
just curious. Under the bill would a person
who had an out-of-state conviction for
operating a vehicle while under the influence
7093
be prevented from driving? How would we be
able to obtain that information for
out-of-state convictions?
SENATOR GOODMAN: That
information is, to the best of my knowledge,
available through the intelligence reporting
system of the State Police, Senator. And the
Department of Motor Vehicles has a database
that contains that information as well from
other states.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. If Senator Goodman would
yield for a question.
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly,
Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman
yields. You may proceed, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, given
the shortage of bus drivers -- and this is not
to say that we should actually give any undue
opportunity to someone who could be a danger
to children. But just pragmatically looking
at the situation a lot of school districts are
7094
facing, given the shortage of bus drivers, how
would we alleviate the fact that this might
diminish the number -- the pool of drivers
that we have?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Senator, first
of all, to the best of my knowledge, there is
no shortage of bus drivers. There's a waiting
list for those jobs, as far as I'm aware.
And secondly, I think I can answer
the question with a question. Would you want
your child to be on a bus that was being
driven by someone with a record of
intoxication due to alcohol or drugs? I
wouldn't.
And I think it's manifest that we
want to take every reasonable precaution to
keep such irresponsible or potentially
dangerous drivers off the road, especially
when it comes to conducting children to
school.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. I want to thank Senator
Goodman for answering that question and speak
on the bill.
7095
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Yeah, I agree
with Senator Goodman, Madam President, there
is -- really should be no correlation between
the number of bus drivers and the possibility
of impairment to a vehicle operator and
therefore transferring that loss of a license
to the denial of the privilege of driving our
children to school. So I think his point is
well taken.
Just for the record, there was a
Department of Transportation memorandum that
did focus on the shortage of bus drivers in
the upstate region, and that's what I was
actually referring to.
Coming from New York City, as I do,
Senator Goodman is also right that we have so
many people who are in need of jobs that we
really can replace these bus drivers very
easily. And I was just pointing out to
Senator Goodman that there are regions of the
state where they do have this shortage.
And actually, my suggestion is that
perhaps a standard-of-impairment testing where
7096
we actually test the individuals right before
they're going to operate the vehicle might be
a solution or something we might look at if we
want to continue individuals who have a stigma
attached to them because of the fact that they
lost their regular driver's license due to an
impairment or they were found to be bereft of
faculties in a test. So I think that that's
just a suggestion I have.
But in the end, Senator Goodman is
correct, that in any way to allow anyone to
continue driving at a time when there is
certainly a red flag point pointing up that
they could possibly be a danger to the
children who they would be transporting to
school and home is a value that we have to
favor over how we replace a shortage of
drivers in that particular situation.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
7097
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, to
explain your vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR DUANE: I am going to
vote yes on this legislation. But I am a
little concerned that I'm voting for it in a
vacuum.
As I previously mentioned, since
I've been here, there hasn't been a hearing on
this bill. It does look like there is a -
you know, a loophole in the law that allows
drivers to drive school buses, which seems
like a bad idea. But I'm wondering if the
history of this, if there was a reason or if
there was some procedure maybe put in place
that the punishment of having a driver's
license for personal use was revoked but it
was less so so a bus driver could make a
living.
That's the only reason I can think
that they might have done this in the old
days, unless it was just a mistake. And I
7098
don't really know. It would be interesting to
see if other states had anything similar to
the way the law would be without this
legislation having been passed.
I'm also a little concerned about
how it is that bus companies would get notice
of this, who's responsible for, after a -- you
know, a conviction of telling the employer
that this had happened.
And, you know, in the absence of
having any real idea of what those procedures
are, I'm concerned that, as sometimes happens
here, we would be passing a bill which is
basically unenforceable, and so even if a
driver or a bus company was breaking the law,
nobody would know. I mean, there's not much
point in passing a law if it's not going to
actually accomplish what it sets out to do.
So on the basis of it's being, you
know, something which seems common sense and,
sadly, lacking any knowledge to the contrary,
I am going to vote in the affirmative on it,
Madam President. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane,
you will be recorded as voting in the
7099
affirmative on this bill.
The bill is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, there will be an immediate meeting
of the Local Government Committee in the
Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Local Government
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, will you kindly call up Calendar
Number 172, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar 172.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
172, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 870, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to requiring.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Madam
7100
President.
This is a part of the package of
our school bus safety program, and I'm really
proud to talk about this bill. This
legislation strengthens the law concerning
breath tests for DWI administered to motor
vehicle operators when there has been a
personal injury accident involving a school
bus.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. If
the sponsor would yield, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee,
will you yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, I will.
SENATOR DUANE: Cannot a police
officer or a state trooper already require a
school bus driver to submit to a breath test?
SENATOR McGEE: Current law
requires motor vehicle operators who are
involved in an accident who are violating
traffic laws to submit to a breath test when
requested to do so by the police officer.
This bill requires that in a
situation in which there has been an accident
7101
involving a school bus engaged in transporting
pupils and the accident results in a death or
serious physical injury, the school bus driver
and all other operators of the motor vehicles
involved must submit to a breath test
administered by a police officer.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee,
will you yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: It seems to me
that if a school bus driver can already be
required to take a breath test, that if we
pass this bill we would be saying that police
officers and state troopers, et cetera, are
not doing their jobs by checking, you know, an
obvious potential cause of an accident by
administering a breath test.
So isn't this kind of a slap in the
face of our law enforcement people that they
are unable or we don't trust them to do their
7102
jobs?
SENATOR McGEE: I guess he wants
me to respond.
Through you, Mr. President, I'm not
clear that we're slapping anybody in the face.
I didn't understand -- or perhaps you didn't
understand what I said.
Presently the present law says it
can be requested to be done so by the police
officer. This bill mandates, if you will, the
term of requiring them to have a breath test.
Now, many, many times, Senator
Duane -- I don't know if you've been at an
accident scene ever before, but many, many
times accident scenes are very chaotic, and
particularly those involving a school bus.
And in most cases, the police would
make such a request. But under some certain
circumstances, a -- it's -- whether a breath
test or not is administered should not be
dependent upon the request of the police
officer, it should in fact be mandated.
And so I think that I've answered
your question. It's not a slap in the face to
anybody. I think it's the law enforcement
7103
agent at the scene of the crime to be able
to -- or the tragedy to determine whether a
breath test is needed or not. This bill says
that we'll take that right out of their
determination. This bill says there will be a
breath test taken at the scene.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Does
the Senator yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I understand that
the legislation -- the way the law is now is
that a law enforcement personnel can request
of a school bus driver that they submit to a
test. And I understand that what this bill
says is that the driver must submit to a
Breathalyzer test.
However, there is no way that I can
think of that you can actually force the
driver to take the Breathalyzer test. So the
difference between an officer asking the
7104
driver to take a Breathalyzer test, as
compared to saying the driver has to take a
Breathalyzer test, really is just more
forcefully shifting the burden onto the law
enforcement people and in fact saying we don't
really believe that you are following
procedures and asking the driver to take the
test.
So I'm wondering if what we're
doing is not just sort of piling on in a
situation where I believe a law enforcement
officer would want to do the right thing and
ask the driver to take a Breathalyzer test -
although no one in that situation has control
of whether the driver actually submits to the
test, whether the law says so or not.
SENATOR McGEE: I didn't find a
question in that whole diatribe. Would you
like to narrow that down to a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator did not recognize a question. Would
you restate your question in a question form?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
7105
you.
SENATOR DUANE: Although
"diatribe" is a stretch. I'm not saying I'm
not guilty of diatribes, but let me try to
rephrase the question.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you.
SENATOR DUANE: The question is,
how is it that this bill forces a driver to
take the Breathalyzer test?
SENATOR McGEE: Through you, Mr.
President, I certainly think that one of the
most important things that we can do is to
safeguard the safety of our children. And by
requiring a school bus driver to take a
Breathalyzer test, that is a step forward.
Present law says that they are only
required to do so if requested by the police
officer. If the driver refuses to take the
Breathalyzer test, then I believe that is
admission toward a DWI felony count.
So I'm suspecting that perhaps even
the driver himself or herself, if you will,
since we will be gender-neutral, at this point
would want to take the Breathalyzer test to
substantiate the fact that they were not a DWI
7106
test.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Does
the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
SENATOR DUANE: Under current
law, if a law enforcement person asks a driver
to take a Breathalyzer test and they refuse,
what happens?
SENATOR McGEE: I think I just
said that, Senator Duane. If a driver refuses
to take a DWI test, they are in fact open for
a charge of -- pardon me, if they refuse to
take a Breathalyzer test, they are in fact
open for a charge of DWI.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Does
the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
sponsor yields.
7107
SENATOR DUANE: And as I
understand it, in this bill, if the driver
refuses to take a Breathalyzer test, they can
be charged with driving under the influence?
SENATOR McGEE: That's the way
the present law stands.
SENATOR DUANE: And so through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Does
the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Absolutely, she says.
SENATOR DUANE: So then both the
way the law is now and under the proposed
legislation it's really the same thing, that
if the driver refuses to undergo a
Breathalyzer test, they could be charged with
a DUI?
SENATOR McGEE: Through you, Mr.
President, I don't think that this bill says
anything about whether they refuse to take it
or not. This bill says -- quite plainly, I
believe -- that present law states that a
7108
school bus is not required to take a
Breathalyzer test unless requested to do so by
the police officer. This bill states it is
mandatory, there will be a Breathalyzer test
taken at the time, any time a school bus is in
operation and there is a personal injury to
the driver, the students, et cetera, et
cetera.
This is saying they must do it.
The present law says it's only requested by
the police officer. It has absolutely nothing
to do with whether they refuse to take it or
not. That's another law, and perhaps we'll
review that sometime.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Does
the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
SENATOR DUANE: Then it is the
sponsor's concern that police officers are not
asking bus drivers to take the breath test?
SENATOR McGEE: Through you, Mr.
President, I don't have any idea where the
7109
Senator is coming up with that suggestion.
I would say that at the scene of an
accident it quite frequently is chaotic. I
would suggest that the law officer at the
scene of the accident would be in a much wiser
position to make a request as to whether they
should or should not. As the law stands right
now.
I am saying we are going to take
that responsibility away from the law officer
and say, Mr. Law Officer, if there's an
accident with a school bus and there's a
personal injury involved, the school bus
driver is required -- required, mandated -- to
take the test now.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Does
the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: I certainly will.
SENATOR DUANE: Do we have any
statistics available on how many bus drivers
have undertaken Breathalyzer tests?
SENATOR McGEE: Through you, Mr.
7110
President, no, I'm sorry, I don't.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Does
the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
SENATOR DUANE: Have district
attorneys or law enforcement people weighed in
on this bill or have a position on this bill?
SENATOR McGEE: We have not heard
from them. However, the bill is in fact
supported by the New York State School Boards
Association and the Medical Society.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Does
the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, sir.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering why
this bill is only limited to school bus
drivers and why not all accidents where
there's personal injury.
SENATOR McGEE: Well, at the
7111
present moment, Senator Duane, that's
certainly something that I can look at. But
at this present moment, we're working on
school bus safety, and this is a bill that
pertains particular to school bus safety and
school bus drivers.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Will
you suffer an interruption, please.
Senator Fuschillo, why do you rise?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, thank you. There will be an
immediate meeting of the Environmental
Conservation Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: There
will be an immediate meeting of the
Environmental Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes, through
you, Mr. President, will the sponsor of the
7112
measure accept a question and yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Will
the Senator yield?
SENATOR McGEE: For my learned
colleague, absolutely.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay. Would
your bill, Senator McGee, make this standard
for school bus drivers the same as the
standards that exist for train operators
throughout the State of New York?
SENATOR McGEE: Train operators?
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes, New York
State train operators, transit.
SENATOR McGEE: Crane or train?
SENATOR LACHMAN: T-R-A-I-N.
SENATOR McGEE: Train, okay.
I'm told that train operators fall
under the federal statute rather than state
statute.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay. Now, Mr.
President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Lachman, on the bill.
SENATOR LACHMAN: We have
historically in the State of New York held bus
7113
drivers, pilots of airplanes, and train
operators to higher standards than others.
And I must commend Senator McGee for now
allowing school bus drivers to reach a higher
plateau of standard in this area.
I will support this bill. Thank
you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President. If the Senator would
yield for a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator, do you yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you.
I will try not to make this a
diatribe, but what I would like to do is set
the scenario for the question that I will ask.
SENATOR McGEE: Sure.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you. Through you, Mr. President, in looking
7114
at a lot of the statistics that MADD and some
others have created, one of the things that
disturbs me about the bill is that there is a
lot of weight put on the accuracy of the blood
alcohol content when this Breathalyzer or the
breath test is taken at the scene of an
accident.
Because of the variables, which
include breath ratios, breath temperatures,
many factors within the way the testing is
even applied from person to person, what is it
that this bill will do as a follow-up to those
inaccuracies to ensure that, when a person is
arrested because the Breathalyzer has an
inaccurate high ratio, to ensure that the
cause of the accident is related to the
alcohol content?
SENATOR McGEE: Through you, Mr.
President. The equipment that's used, the
Breathalyzer equipment that's used is
calibrated as to the right degree. And that's
tested every -- very frequently. I'm not
exactly sure exactly how often it's tested.
As a matter of fact, we even have,
I believe, some legislation in that's moving
7115
that testing from the Health Department to the
DCJS, the Division of Criminal Justice, so
that those calibrations can actually be done
very, very well.
I know the State Police do them.
And I'm not sure exactly what you're talking
about as to whether you're saying the
equipment itself may be off.
But the idea of doing the
Breathalyzer test at the scene of the
accident, what this is really doing is saying
to that law officer: You probably have enough
to do right now at the scene of an accident
where there is a personal injury, et cetera,
et cetera. It's saying to the police officer,
You don't have to make a decision as to
whether this individual should or should not
take a Breathalyzer test.
This is saying to the law officer
that the individual must take a Breathalyzer
test so the determination can be made at the
scene.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:
Through you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Yes,
7116
Senator.
Will you continue to yield,
Senator?
SENATOR McGEE: Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: The
way in which you phrased your answer is
acceptable, but it still does not respond to
the concern raised in my question.
And that is, there is the
assumption being made that when the
Breathalyzer test is in fact administered,
that every person taking it within the
calibrated range is going to be accurate.
And what I have stated to you is
that there are many inaccuracies in the
testing -- not only of the equipment, but from
person to person there is a variation.
There's a variation from white males to black
males. There are other variations that can
change the calibration.
So that my concern, the concern
that I'm raising, with that inaccuracy, what
is the follow-up, what will then happen
7117
subsequently to be sure that the assessment
that is being made will support the inaccuracy
of the testing?
SENATOR McGEE: Well, I'm told
that this test, and I understand that to be
the truth, that the Breathalyzer test that is
being required here to be given to the school
bus driver is the same type of Breathalyzer
test that is given to any individual when they
do a Breathalyzer test in a suspected DWI
test. And that would be a separate issue at
this point.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:
Through you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Do you
continue to yield, Senator?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: It's
just kind of important -
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President, through you. It's just
kind of important that the sponsor understand
the nature of the concern -
7118
SENATOR McGEE: I understand.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: -
that I'm raising. I am certainly in support
of the bill. But I want all bills to be as
good as they can possibly be.
And while I am completely aware of
the statement that you just made, that's all
the more reason why, as we begin to apply this
test in a broader capacity, we need to take
into consideration that there are already some
errors inherent in that testing process. So
as we then apply it to bus drivers, then to
moms who pick up kids, or whomever we may
expand this to include, the Breathalyzer in
and of itself is given a lot of weight.
But due to its inaccuracies, my
concern is what else are we going to do as a
follow-up to ensure that we give credibility
to the possible inaccuracies and make sure
that when we add the penalties -- particularly
because, as I begin to hear us talking about
taking it out of the Health Department,
putting it into the penal department -- it
becomes a part of the penal law, criminal law,
then it then becomes a criminal act.
7119
And with each criminal act,
therefore, there are penalties. When we get
to penalties, we're very happy about putting
additional penalties on the criminal act. But
we're not really looking at how are we
assuring that we're achieving the accuracy
before we get to that point.
And that's all I'm asking your bill
to do, since it is hinged upon a Breathalyzer
exam that already has some fallacies in it.
SENATOR McGEE: Through you, Mr.
President, just to comment on what you're
suggesting.
I think the standards for
Breathalyzer tests are in fact in place right
now and something that may or may not have to
be looked at. Certainly moving, I think, the
Breathalyzer test from the Health Department
to the DCJS does indicate that it's going from
a -- into a penal, judicial area. And I think
we would all agree that a DWI, if you're
charged with a DWI, is in fact a criminal act,
I would think.
But the Breathalyzer test is in
fact a standard that's already set and maybe
7120
something that would be looked at in another
issue.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:
Through you, Mr. President, just on the bill.
Let's do this on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator, on the bill.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I
certainly am never going to be one who is
going to stand here and not support a bill
that looks at and supports the safety of our
children, whatever manner in which they're
being conveyed.
But I also want us to be prudent
and judicious in the way in which we look at
bills. If we're going to be the instrument
for expanding on the categories and the
numbers of people who are going to be captured
in a net, then I think that we have a
responsibility to be sure that the information
that we have as it goes forward and is carried
as a part of that bill has accuracy.
And I think that there are some
inaccuracies in a process that is already
being used. And as we continue to apply it, I
7121
think that we need to help to address those
inaccuracies, particularly as we begin to make
these criminal laws.
And also, to the Senator, I will
share with your staff the statistical
information that I have which I think they may
not be privy to. And I think that being the
responsible Senator that I know that you are,
you would want your information to be as
fluent as perhaps mine, if not better, as the
sponsor of this bill.
And so while I will support the
bill, I have to tell you that those are some
of the concerns and weaknesses that I think
that the bill demonstrates for me.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Mr.
President. Will Senator McGee yield for a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator McGee, do you yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, I will.
7122
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR BROWN: Senator, I too
certainly am concerned about the safety of our
children driving on school buses. But I'm
wondering what the genesis of this legislation
is.
I mean, have we seen a pattern in
accidents with school buses, when there are
either fatalities or serious injuries, that
the driver is often intoxicated or under the
influence of drugs?
SENATOR McGEE: Through you, Mr.
President, throughout the years there have
been cases -- and I'm not going to be able to
recite them for you -- where the school bus
driver has in fact had some alcohol
imbibement, if you will. And I think that no
matter -- I'm not going to be able to tell you
how many there is. But let's put it this way.
Even one is too many.
And I think that really what this
does is not only does it say that we're
looking out for the safety of our children as
they ride on school buses, but we're also
7123
saying that the law officer is not going to
have to make a split-minute decision as to
whether he has to request a Breathalyzer test,
but that he is required to do it at that
point.
So I think that takes that
responsibility off of him. And there have
been cases, as I say, where there has been
alcohol involved. And even one case is too
many.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you,
Senator.
Mr. President, would Senator McGee
continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator McGee, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, I certainly
will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator McGee continues to yield.
SENATOR BROWN: Senator, does
this legislation contain any provision for
drivers to be screened for drugs on a periodic
basis?
I think that potentially if we did
7124
something of that nature, it might weed out
problems before they began to develop, so we
catch a situation, catch somebody that is
using drugs or maybe abusing alcohol before
they get into a serious accident, you know,
which results in a fatality or a serious
injury.
SENATOR McGEE: I think that
periodic screening is in fact mandated by
federal law.
SENATOR BROWN: So that is
mandated presently?
SENATOR McGEE: By federal law,
yes. There is periodic screening done for
school bus drivers.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you.
SENATOR McGEE: You're welcome.
SENATOR BROWN: On the bill, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Brown, on the bill.
SENATOR BROWN: Certainly as the
parent of a school-age child who is concerned
about all of our children, as Senator McGee
indicated, I think anything that we can do to
7125
make sure that we protect the safety of our
children riding on school buses is important.
So even if one accident is
prevented or even if one driver who is
involved in the use of alcohol or drugs is
removed from the road -- unfortunately, after
their behavior results in an accident -- I
think it's an important measure to protect the
safety of children.
So I will be supporting this
legislation, and I will be voting in the
affirmative.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Does
any other member wish to be heard on this
bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
September.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Duane, to explain his vote.
7126
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I still have not gotten the
difference between mandating a police officer
submitting a Breathalyzer test and a police
officer, because a police officer is doing
their job, asking someone to take a
Breathalyzer test. I mean, the difference
here is that this law says that a police
officer must do it. But you know what? I
think police officers already do that. And if
they don't, putting into law that they're
mandated to do it is not going to change that.
Training is what would change that.
You know, it seems like, well, you
know, how -- this law makes it sound as if
police officers are not asking school bus
drivers to take a Breathalyzer test, which I
just don't believe is true. And if it is
true, as I say, this law is not going to
change anything on that.
I mean, you know, this bill -- you
know, it may make people feel better but it's
actually not going to do anything different to
change what happens at the scene of an
7127
accident. Chaotic though an accident scene
may be, a police officer is not going to say
oh, you know, ooh, I have to remember that
mandate that I have to apply a Breathalyzer
test. I mean, the police officer is going to
do that if he or she thinks there's any chance
that alcohol was involved anyway.
So I just -- you know, I don't
think that we should be putting these kinds of
bills on the floor which actually don't make
any difference. And I'm going to vote no on
this.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Duane will be recorded in the
negative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
7128
Senator Fuschillo, why do you rise?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: There will be
an immediate meeting of the Tourism,
Recreation and Sports Development Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Tourism,
Recreation and Sports Development Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
343, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 760, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law and
the Education Law, in relation to instruction.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Explanation.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Mr. President,
this bill amends the Vehicle and Traffic Law
7129
to provide that every school bus driver in the
state shall complete a course of instruction
on school bus safety practices, including
those employed by private and parochial
schools if they're not covered.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes. Will the
Senator yield for a question or two?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, do you yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Senator, if the
school bus driver completes the course after
he or she has already been disqualified from
the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, can he or
she be reinstated?
SENATOR TRUNZO: No.
Technically, she cannot be reinstated.
SENATOR LACHMAN: So that the bus
driver cannot be reinstated?
SENATOR TRUNZO: No.
7130
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay.
Does the current funding allocation
in the Executive Budget for the school bus
drivers' training program apply currently to
private and parochial schools, or will this be
a precedent in that area?
SENATOR TRUNZO: This will be a
precedent in that area, because now we will
include the private school and parochial
school bus drivers. They must take that
course to be qualified.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Through you,
Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Do you have any
information, Senator Trunzo, to use this as a
precedent for other changes in the law in
terms of applicability to parochial or private
schools, or is this simply on this bill?
SENATOR TRUNZO: No, right now
7131
it's on this bill. Because there is already
law that requires the Comprehensive School Bus
Safety Council to create these instructions so
that all drivers would have to pass it.
And from what I understand, it's a
two-hour continuing course that they have to
take as well as -- which has to be twice a
year. And, you know, so they -- and the
course itself has to be done within 18 months
or within one year of approval of the
appointment.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: As you've
mentioned, Senator, the bill requires every
school bus driver to receive two hours of
refresher training at least twice a year.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Correct.
SENATOR LACHMAN: In your
opinion, is this adequate for school bus
7132
drivers who are in charge of the safety of our
children? Should not the training be more
than just two hours?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Well, the
two-hour training course, which is twice a
year, I guess would give them all the coverage
that they would need in order to qualify as a
school bus driver.
I think it's adequate enough,
unless the council feels that it's not and
then requests further changes.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
on the bill. Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: On the
bill, Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yeah. I would
prefer to see this bill for more than two
years.
I look upon this bill -- and maybe
I'm wrong -- as a continuation of legislation
that your predecessor twice removed, one of
the outstanding members of this chamber, had
sponsored about five years ago, and that's the
late Norman Levy. And I was in favor of the
bill at that time.
7133
I know there have been tragedies in
Long Island, there have been similar tragedies
in the City of New York, in my district and
other districts throughout the state. And I
think we must do everything possible to avoid
these tragedies involving school bus drivers.
So though I'd like the penalties
and the requirements to be strengthened, I
heartily endorse this bill and endorse it also
in the memory of its original sponsor, Senator
Norman Levy.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you, Mr.
President. If Senator Trunzo would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, do you yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: Senator -
through you, Mr. President -- I'm just
confused on the wording of the bill and wonder
whether or not a bus driver must not only take
7134
this course but pass some type of examination
at the end of this course to either be
employed as a bus driver or to continue to be
employed as a bus driver.
SENATOR TRUNZO: I don't believe
there's an examination at this point.
SENATOR GENTILE: Through you
again, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator, do you yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: So that if
there is no examination or no testing after
the course itself, there's no measure by which
can be taken as to whether or not this
individual, or any individual, successfully,
successfully completed a training course,
other than just being there for the course.
SENATOR TRUNZO: It's an
informational course, Senator, that they would
have to apply for.
SENATOR GENTILE: Informational
only.
7135
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
SENATOR GENTILE: Through you,
Mr. President. Then so it has nothing to do
with the operation of the bus or the actual
running of the route? I'm curious as to what
we're talking about here.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Not in the part
of the legislation that we're doing today.
SENATOR GENTILE: I'm sorry?
SENATOR TRUNZO: I said not in
this part of the legislation that's being done
today.
SENATOR GENTILE: I see. So -
but in any case, if -
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator -- Senator, will -
SENATOR GENTILE: Will the
Senator yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President. So if I were a
7136
bus driver, just the fact of sitting through a
course would qualify me to continue in that
realm?
SENATOR TRUNZO: You'd have to be
licensed as a bus driver in order to qualify.
SENATOR GENTILE: Which brings up
another point, Mr. President. If I can just
quickly ask a question here.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: So, Senator, a
bus driver need not take this course in order
to become employed as a bus driver?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Within 18 months
they have to take the test. Or within one
year of actually being employed.
SENATOR GENTILE: And, Senator,
just one quick question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, one more quick question. Do
you yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Okay, I'll
7137
yield.
SENATOR GENTILE: Because of the
incidents we heard of, does this course
include instruction on how to survey the bus
to make sure there are no children sleeping on
that bus?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Our legislation
requires that they also check the bus at the
end of a trip that no child is left on the
bus. It's all in there.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Senator. Thank you.
Just quickly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Gentile, on the bill.
SENATOR GENTILE: I believe it's
a good bill. I hope to see that there would
be a mandatory examination at the end of that
time. But given the fact that we have what we
have, I will support the bill.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Gentile.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
7138
Mr. President, if the sponsor would yield for
a few brief questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, do you yield for a few brief
questions?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Is there any additional allocation
of funds for the implementation of this
program provided for in this bill?
SENATOR TRUNZO: It's funded
through the budget system. I don't think
there's any additional funds there, no. It's
part of the budget operation that we have now.
They get their money through that.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
7139
I note that the bill memo states
that there are no fiscal implications to the
state. And my question is, has any assessment
been made of the actual cost of this program?
We're talking about a program for
thousands of people to be supplemented by
additional miniprograms, two hours of
continuing instruction twice each calendar
year. And it seems to me that this will have
a significant fiscal impact. Has any study
been done or cost estimate calculated on this?
SENATOR TRUNZO: It's all part of
the appropriation that has been allocated to
that council during the course of the year.
And they should be able to do it within the
framework of the money that they already have.
That's why there's no additional cost.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Will the
Senator -
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President. We're speaking of the
Comprehensive School Bus Driver Safety
7140
Training Council. I must admit that it's not
an entity in this state that is a household
name. What other duties does this council
undertake with the money that we currently
allocate to it?
SENATOR TRUNZO: According to the
law, they have all kinds of driver safety
programs. The commissioner, consulting with
the state Comprehensive School Bus Drivers
Safety Training Council, they develop uniform
comprehensive school bus driver safety
training programs for school bus drivers
transporting students to and from school by
school buses, including instructions to such
school bus drivers -- I'm reading the law
right now -- concerning the latest safety
techniques used.
It includes within the safety
training program development of curriculum and
training materials included in the school bus
drivers safety manual. Develop and conduct
professional development school bus safety
training seminars statewide. Establish and
maintain database containing the data relative
to school bus accidents or fatalities reported
7141
within the state. Engage the services of
consultants on a current -- on a contract
basis for rendering professional and technical
assistance.
Those five items are in the law
right now as to the duties of the council.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Then if I
understand correctly, there are existing
requirements for getting a license to drive a
bus in New York State. And it occurred to me,
looking at this bill, and I think everyone -
I assume that everyone in this house agrees
with the purpose of the bill and the
intentions. But it strikes me that we're
creating a whole second layer of training
programs that may result in additional
expense.
Has any consideration been given to
the idea of including this training program in
the process by which you get a bus driver's
7142
license? That's to say if you have any
intention of driving a school bus, you have an
opportunity at that time to complete a
program. We already have the applicants
together, and that we have a system for
instruction and testing set up that might be
much more efficient than creating a whole new
system.
SENATOR TRUNZO: There are
programs in order for them to start. But this
is a continuing education type of program that
we're trying to do now in this legislation.
And we're standardizing the entire program so
that in the future all bus drivers would have
to -- be able to apply. Otherwise, they'd be
disqualified if they do not pass the various
tests that are being presented by the council.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: It's been more
than a few, but I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
7143
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
I guess it's -- I want to try and
make my point a different way. Are there
instructions specific to school bus safety now
in the test to get a bus driver's license in
New York State?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes, there are.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: So then -
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President.
Then is there any need to develop a
new curriculum, or are we simply taking the
curriculum that already exists and providing
for additional training through a continuing
education program?
SENATOR TRUNZO: The items that
are in the law regarding the training that's
required, this would guarantee that they must
take it. Because there have been incidents
7144
where evidently school bus drivers or school
bus companies did not take care of their
drivers or did not qualify and still made them
school bus drivers.
And also the fact that the
parochial and private schools, their bus
drivers didn't have to take any tests, and now
they do, in order to be able to qualify as
drivers. So that now this puts it into law
that they must do it right from the beginning.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. Thank the sponsor for his
answers.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I think
this is a well-intentioned bill, but it
strikes me that this is probably not the most
efficient way to ensure that school bus
drivers are well trained and qualified in
safety standards and safety techniques.
One of the things that -- I believe
this is to be the case -- that there is not
currently a requirement just to get a regular
7145
bus driver's license that you be trained in
school bus driver safety. Otherwise, all the
people who are driving buses for parochial and
private schools would have to complete that
course.
And I would suggest we would be
better off ensuring that anyone who is going
to operate any type of bus, whether they're
driving for a private or parochial school or
for a public school or for some other purpose,
have to take a class in school bus safety at
that time. And that that would meet Senator
Gentile's concern about not having an
examination, because you obviously have to
pass an examination to get your license.
I think the idea of having ongoing,
continuing instruction is a fine idea. I do
think it is -- it's either going to be a very
costly undertaking or it's going to be
something that is offered in a way that is
pretty inconvenient, since you have tens of
thousands of people scattered around the state
who are going to have to take this class.
So I do have a concern about the
fiscal impact. But all in all, I hope that
7146
those things can be worked out as we move
forward with the training council. And I will
vote for the bill.
But I would urge the sponsor that
we perhaps should take a look at an effort to
expand the training in school bus safety that
goes on at the time someone applies for a bus
driver's license.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Schneiderman.
Senator Oppenheim.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Er.
SENATOR ONORATO: Er.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Oppenheimer.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Why do
you rise?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: To correct
you.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
7147
Touche.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: No, I guess
I have a question. Which maybe I should have
been listening up and I would have had it
answered. But if the sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, would you yield for a
question?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator, the sponsor yields.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I request an
immediate meeting of the Civil Service and
Pension Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Civil
Service and Pensions Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
Continue, Senator.
7148
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Senator
Trunzo, this does not apply to private and
parochial schools, this bus training, the -
SENATOR TRUNZO: It will apply
now to private and parochial schools.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I see. So
this would make it apply.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay. That
was one question.
And then I can see -- if the
Senator would yield again.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: As I
understand, it's a two-hour refresher training
course every two years?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Twice a year.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Twice?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Two times a
year, yes.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Oh. Oh, so
7149
it's twice a year.
SENATOR TRUNZO: This is -
that's continuing education on top of the
actual course itself.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I see.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, I
just wanted to respond. I was reading it the
wrong way. I was about to say is that
sufficient training. But two times in one
year -- well, but it's an hour each time?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Two hours each
time.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Oh,
excellent. Excellent. That was another
question. And -
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Do you
wish the Senator to yield for another
question?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Yes, okay,
now I do have one more question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, do you continue to yield?
7150
SENATOR TRUNZO: One more
question, yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: And did
this program just start in 1997 when they
started -
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes, this
started in 1997, yes.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: The
requirement?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay.
Well, thank you very much, Senator.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Oppenheimer, on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: And I'm not
sure -- I mean, I would guess that driver
safety would include things like where you
drop off students, that it must be where there
is a sidewalk and not at certain corners where
there is no safe place for children to walk.
I mean, we have had in my Senate
district, sadly, a number of children that
7151
have lost their lives because of either a cord
on their parka or their jacket getting caught
in a door and getting dragged, or children
being dropped off in the wrong place and not
at a sidewalk.
And I just hope this is all a part
of the training program, that it not just be
keep your eye on the road and make sure that
there's, you know, a fair degree of sanity on
the bus so that children are not running
around.
And, I mean, there's so many
components to this. And I just hope the
program will address the whole variety of
issues which come up around children's safety
and how they board and exit a bus, just a
variety of elements.
So I'm going to support it. It's a
good bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Any
other Senator wish to be heard on this bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
7152
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 54.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
344, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 779, an
act in relation to requiring the commissioners
of motor vehicles.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes. Mr.
President, this bill requires the
Commissioners of Education, Transportation and
Motor Vehicles to develop a uniform definition
of school and school bus and to report to the
Governor and Legislature no later than
December 31, 2002, so there can be a definite
definition as to what a school bus is in these
various different parts of the law at this
point, which evidently there are different
connotations to that.
7153
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, will the sponsor yield to a
couple of questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, do you yield to Senator
Dollinger?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Trunzo, I understand that this proposal came
out of the report from the Commission on
Critical Transportation Choice; isn't that
correct?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And that
report -
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Does
the Senator continue to yield?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, Mr.
President, thank you, if Senator Trunzo will
continue to yield.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And what was
the date of that report?
SENATOR TRUNZO: I don't recall.
Sorry.
7154
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: It's my
recollection that that report was actually
dated in the early '90s, sometime -- Senator
Levy was here. He was the chair of the
Commission on Critical Transportation Choices.
I think I was a member of it at the time. And
we published that report.
And my question is why -- and I
know this bill has passed the Senate, I think
six years running. Why is it that we can't
get the Assembly to do something which seems
to be as elemental as agreeing to have these
commissioners work together to develop a
definition of what a school bus is, those big
yellow things that carry kids?
SENATOR TRUNZO: I can't
understand why. Because Assemblyman Steve
7155
Sanders is the Assembly sponsor of this bill,
and he's highly regarded in the Assembly. I
know that. I've worked with Steve on many
occasions in other areas. And why they don't
let it out of committee or why Gantt won't let
it out, I have no idea.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is it
possible, Senator Trunzo, that the confusion
that existed in the early '90s has been
cleared up and that we're no longer as
confused as we once were?
That confusion existed seven or
eight years ago. We've had a governor for
seven or eight years, we've had commissioners
for seven or eight years who have known -- as
I think this report properly points out and
the bill properly points out -- that there are
7156
different definitions of school bus in all
these various laws. Is it possible that the
confusion is now gone or been lifted?
SENATOR TRUNZO: No, probably
not, because there are three definite
definitions in the law right now. And that's
what we're trying to do, to get these three
commissioners -- to get them to come up with
one definition so all three laws can
eventually be adjusted to have that type of
language, whatever it's supposed to be.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Trunzo would
continue to yield.
SENATOR DUANE: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Trunzo, isn't this something that could be
done by the Governor by himself? He doesn't
need us to tell him to do this. He could
simply say to his Commissioner of
Transportation, his Commissioner of -- let's
7157
see who else is in the bill here. It's
Transportation, Motor Vehicles and
Education -- and simply say, do this school
bus -- reconcile these different definitions
of school bus. He could do that, couldn't he?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Well, the
Governor can't do it because it is in statute
and has to be changed in statute, which can
only be done by legislation.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, through
you, Mr. President, if Senator Trunzo would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The Governor
could do exactly what your bill is now telling
him to do. That is, he could convene the
Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, of the
Department of Transportation, and Education,
and say, Take a look at all these definitions
of school buses and make a recommendation to
the Legislature to put them into uniform -
7158
SENATOR TRUNZO: But the Governor
would have to make that recommendation to the
Legislature. We still would have to do a
bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Correct. So
through you, Mr. President, if Senator Trunzo
will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: So if the
Governor were so inclined, we wouldn't need
your bill, would we?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Well, evidently
past Governors weren't inclined either, so.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, I'll address the bill for just
a minute or two.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I understand
this is something that came out of an
7159
important piece of work, when Senator Levy
brought forth the report from the Commission
on Critical Transportation Choices about
transportation of children with disabilities.
And the question was at that time,
as I best recall it, that we had children with
disabilities that were being transported in,
quote, buses, what were referred to as school
buses, but they were under differing levels of
regulation depending on which department
granted the license for the bus, whether it
was Transportation or Education or the
Department of Motor Vehicles.
And I understand that there was a
lot of confusion among supervisors about which
set of rules and regulations they had to
comply with.
What strikes me as so unusual is
that, as I recall that report, it suggested
that this was a critical problem, that this
problem was something that should be done
quickly. And I guess I'm disappointed that
the Governor has chosen not to do it by
himself.
This is the kind of bill that, in
7160
essence, we begin to micromanage the Executive
branch. We tell them that we want to see them
do something that we think is evident in that
it should be done.
This is something that should have
been done; the report, I think, was widely
disseminated. I think it may have actually
been drafted when the current governor was a
member of this body, so he knew what the
problem was. And I guess I'm just extremely
disappointed.
One, I'm disappointed in my
Assembly colleagues, because this bill should
have gone through the Assembly. In fact, it
should have gone through the Assembly in 1995,
and maybe we would have those changes in
regulation in place now and not be waiting for
them.
But I also have to acknowledge I'm
disappointed that the Executive branch has
chosen not to do. It seems to me this is just
the kind of bill that the Executive ought to
say to us: Gee, Senator Trunzo, it's a great
idea, I'm either going to steal your idea or
borrow it, whichever you prefer, but I'm going
7161
to take the initiative and solve the problem
of inconsistencies in our school bus
regulation. I'm going to do that myself. I
don't need the State Legislature or the
chairman of the Transportation Committee in
the Senate to author a bill to tell me
something that needs to be done.
And, Senator Trunzo, I'm going to
vote in favor of this bill to send a message
to the Governor that it ought to be done. And
I hope that whoever is listening to the
voicebox down on the second floor is listening
careful, not just to my pleas, Senator Trunzo.
As you know, the Second Floor hasn't always
been listening to the voice of the Senator
from the 54th Senate district.
But what I would like it to hear is
the voice of the Senator from Suffolk County
and the voice of the members in this chamber
who repeatedly say this is a good idea, do it,
do it yourself.
It seems to me that the goal that
was articulated by Senator Levy six years ago
is still a good goal. The problem is still a
problem. I don't know why the Governor
7162
doesn't take it upon himself to just issue one
of those things. It doesn't even have to be
an Executive order. Just a nice little memo
to the three chairs of the Education
Department, Commissioner Mills, the
Department -- Commissioner Boardman and
Commissioner DeFrancisco -- a little memo that
says here's an idea from Senator Trunzo, it's
backed by Assemblyman Sanders, for some reason
unknown to me and unfathomable to me, the
Assembly doesn't want to go along with a study
of buses and school buses.
And the Governor should send that
memo out tomorrow. Let's not wait any longer.
Let's not even wait for our Assembly
colleagues to be dragged reluctantly along,
Senator Trunzo. Let's just have the Governor
do this the right way, which is to handle this
as the Executive problem that it is.
And I would call on him to do it.
It's not necessary for us to, frankly, spend
our time putting the bill through the Senate,
getting our Assembly colleagues for some
unfathomable reason to come along with us and
join with us, and then to wait for another two
7163
years for the report to be done.
The report wouldn't be needed until
December 31st, 2002, which will be at least
eight years after the report was issued and
called this a critically important problem for
the transportation of children. We shouldn't
have had to wait that long. I appreciate you
bringing the bill forward. But this is really
an Executive problem. Let's not micromanage
the Second Floor. Let's have the Second Floor
do it by itself because it's the right thing
to do.
If anybody is listening on the
second floor, I would be glad to send my kudos
down there to the Executive doing this all by
its little old self and not waiting for us to
pass this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
will the sponsor yield to a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, will you yield for a question?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator Trunzo,
7164
under the current funding allocation by the
Executive budget for school bus driver
training, does it apply to private and
parochial schools as well?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Not now it
doesn't. Under this bill, under our bill it
would apply to private and parochial schools.
But right now it doesn't.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you,
Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Does
any other Senator wish to be heard on this
bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
The Secretary will read.
7165
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
345, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 878,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to requiring.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Fuschillo, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
The legislation before the house
would require certain information on disabled
children to be maintained on a school bus
transporting them. The purpose of this is to
enhance the safety of these children.
In summary, the provision would
require the student's name, address, telephone
number, the nature of the child's medical
disability, emergency health care information,
contact information in case of an emergency,
and any other information deemed necessary by
the local school district.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
7166
if Senator Fuschillo would yield for a
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Fuschillo, would you yield to Senator
Paterson?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, would
you please inform our colleagues as to where
the information is kept?
My concern in asking the question
is that sometimes we have fulfilled the spirit
of the law, in the sense that the information
is kept, but quite often we've found in
certain situations that it might not be made
available to the people who actually need it.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator, the
rules and regulations would be determined by
the local school district.
In speaking to some of my school
districts in my senatorial district who do
this currently, they provide it in a binder
that is in a school bus in a manner where the
school bus driver is the only one who knows
7167
about it and, in the case of emergency, will
notify the appropriate authorities of where
the book is and what is in the book, in case
they need it to respond to an emergency for a
child who is on the bus.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Fuschillo would yield for another
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Fuschillo, will you yield for another
question?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, what
is your advice to the school districts in
terms of a different type of information that
would be herein contained that might create a
stigma about the individual -- in other words,
certain types of medications that they might
take or that sort of thing -- which perhaps
the child and the family would want kept
relatively confidential?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator, I
don't see how that would apply to this. And
7168
it's certainly not to create a stigma to any
child.
The intent of it is to merely in
case of an emergency, if there was an accident
and an EMT or an AMT responded, or a police
officer, and there's an individual on the bus
who cannot speak and has a physical
disability, it is appropriate and it would
help the emergency personnel to go to the
book. It's used for that purposes only. It's
not used for any other purposes, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
will the sponsor yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Fuschillo, will you yield for another
question?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I will yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator, I
agree with the intent of the bill.
7169
I'd like some clarification on
Section 1, subdivisions 8 and 9 of the bill.
According to the bill, if a child requires
emergency care for an acute medical condition,
the driver is mandated to provide immediate
attention.
Will this establish some liability
concerns for the school district, since bus
drivers are not licensed EMTs?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: No, Senator,
it doesn't say they're mandated, it just says
they may require the driver's attention.
And the intent of that is if
there's a situation, we would hope that the
driver would pull over, call the appropriate
authorities, and when the authorities come to
the scene, advise them that there is the
medical information on the bus that's
available to them prior to going to the child.
Now, there was a case a few years
ago, an incident on Long Island, on the
Northern State Parkway, of a bus transporting
children from an autistic school, and a child,
because of his disability through autism, was
acting up in the back of the bus. The driver
7170
knew that he was transporting autistic
children but didn't know how to deal with the
situation. He pulled over, made a phone call,
what I see as an appropriate phone call to the
school district, who notified the family and
the emergency services who were coming.
But the driver walked out of the
bus and didn't know about any type of medical
condition that may affect the child, left the
child there, and the child subsequently died
on the bus.
But having the information would
allow the driver to more appropriately act
when contacting the authorities to advise them
that there is something going on on the bus,
the child has this condition, to better
prepare them when they come to the scene.
But in no way, Senator, does the
intent of the legislation require the driver
to do anything other than notify the
appropriate authorities.
SENATOR ONORATO: Through you,
Mr. President, just for a little clarity.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Are
you asking Senator Fuschillo to yield for
7171
another question?
SENATOR ONORATO: Yes, if the
Senator would yield.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: Assuming that
the bus driver does provide some emergency
assistance to the child, would he be covered
under the Good Samaritan Act? Would that
cover him?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I don't know.
He may, Senator. But that's certainly not the
intent, for him to provide any medical advice
or provide any medical care. It's just the
intent to have them pull over, contact the
authorities, advise the authorities of any
disability, so they can better prepare when
they reach the situation.
SENATOR ONORATO: Through you,
are the parents not required by law to provide
his or her medical records to the school
currently?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: They may be
to the school, but they're not currently -
7172
it's not currently required to be maintained
on the bus.
SENATOR ONORATO: In other words,
they are going to be -- each bus driver will
have a list of their particular students that
are on that bus, all of their medical records?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: It's not
necessarily all of their medical records. The
provisions of the law require the nature of a
child's medical disability, any information
that could better help and prepare emergency
personnel that attend.
There's only two states in the
country that currently require this when they
transport disabled children.
SENATOR ONORATO: One last
question, through you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Fuschillo, do you yield to one more
question?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: And, Senator,
the legislation, just a footnote, is supported
7173
by the United Cerebral Palsy, the Council of
School Superintendents throughout the state,
the Association of Students with Down
Syndrome, and other schools and organizations
that have children with disabilities.
SENATOR ONORATO: Currently, are
the teachers, school bus drivers, or
attendants required by law to do evacuation
exercises in cases of medical emergencies?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I don't know.
I don't know the answer to that.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Any
other Senator wish to be heard on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 180th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Announce the results.
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
7174
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Paterson, to explain his vote.
SENATOR PATERSON: This is a very
good bill, there's no doubt about it.
And there's no need to make this
part of the debate. It's just important, I
think, to point out that inasmuch as this is
really a benevolent gesture, particularly in
terms of health care and emergency health
care, the most information that can be
provided as possible is necessary. And
particularly if you are trying to evacuate a
bus and you want to determine who goes first
and that type of thing.
But I just wanted to point out that
I don't know if it's a good idea to require
the parents of a child to disclose information
sometimes that might be subjective as to
exactly what the inherent disability of the
child is; that it could, in some instances,
create a situation where there is
misunderstanding or confusion as to actually
what the disability is.
And so I just -- it's not really
related to this bill, but it came up in the
7175
conversation between Senator Onorato and
Senator Fuschillo that some of these cases are
not really as clear. And to put the family of
the child in a position of having to render a
specific judgment about that individual might
cause the family some difficulty.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Paterson.
Anyone else wish to be heard on the
bill?
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
346, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 1238, an
act in relation to requiring the Governor's
Traffic Safety Committee.
SENATOR BROWN: Explanation.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER:
Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, an explanation has been asked
for.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Okay. This bill
7176
requires the Governor's Traffic Safety
Committee to study the effects of mandating
the use of seat belts on school buses as part
of school bus safety.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If Senator
Trunzo would please yield for a few questions.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, will you yield for few
questions?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: You know,
Senator Trunzo, we've been looking at this
issue for like a hundred years now. And we
have passed a law saying that in the large
school buses that there has to be a seat
restraint, and yet we've left it up to each
individual school district, because there's a
lot of different feeling on the issue.
In this case, we would mandate the
use of both the lap and the side or just the
7177
lap?
SENATOR TRUNZO: This is merely a
study at this point to see whether or not we
should mandate that the safety belts, both
types, would be mandated to all school
districts, not leave it to their own option.
As you said, Senator, there are
certain feelings that some people want school
bus seat belts, which is either type, at this
point, which we evidently did pass legislation
years ago to permit that or to mandate that,
provided -- giving them the option of whether
they want to use them or not.
This would make it -- mandate it -
this would make a study that the traffic
safety committee has to study and make a
report on the feasibility of using them and
mandating them statewide on all school buses.
So it's a stronger bill than what
originally was passed, which allowed the
school districts to make their own decision as
to whether they wanted, you know, the safety
belts or not.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If Senator
Trunzo would yield for another question.
7178
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: It just
seems to me that we have spent a lot of time
studying this. There's the report out from
the NHTSA of three summers ago that they
continuously monitored and evaluated bus
crashes, and the data and research validated
the effectiveness of the existing restraint
system.
Then you had another report -- I
mean, we have a lot of reports before us, we
did have. We looked at this several years
ago.
Then there was another study of the
Transportation Safety Board, the national one,
that stated that seat belts would not have
prevented most of the serious injuries and the
fatalities that occurred.
And then we had another study of
the National Academy of Sciences that
concluded that the potential benefits on the
7179
large school buses were too small to justify a
federal requirement.
It just seems that we have had a
lot of studies done. And do you think that we
can come to a conclusion relatively quickly on
this new study?
SENATOR TRUNZO: I'd like to see
that it would become a very quick solution.
Because with all those other studies that were
done, there was no definitive answer as to
whether or not we should mandate them. You
know, they say they should be on the bus but
not mandate that it must be on all buses.
And what we're looking for is a
definitive answer to this particular question
and hoping that the study that we would have
done by this legislation will come up with
such an answer saying yes or no.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If Senator
Trunzo will yield again.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
7180
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: There are
large constituencies that say different
compartmentalization is preferable, relating
perhaps to the height of the seat, the padding
in front.
Are these things that will be
examined as well as the question of the seat
belt? Because it is felt that there are other
methods that would better protect our children
in the school buses.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Well, that's
what we hope that this legislation will do,
that we'd look at all forms of seat belts, you
know, and the feasibility of using them that
way, just as you're pointing out. I hope
that -- that's all part of this study that
we're asking them to do.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: And if the
Senator will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.
7181
When do you think this study might
be concluded? Is there a termination time?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Well, the bill
says that the act shall take effect
immediately. But unfortunately, in part of
the memo, the report must be filed no later
than December 1, 2002. But they must start on
this immediately so that we can get an answer
before that time.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Excellent.
And through you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Will we be
talking just about putting these restraints,
whatever they are, in just new buses? Of
course, our large new buses do have the belts
in them. But would we be talking about
retrofitting, or would we just be talking
about new purchase?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Well, I think it
all depends on how the report findings are as
to the restraining factors that would be
necessary in all types of buses.
7182
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I couldn't
hear the beginning.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Actually, for
them, the commission, that's what they're
going to be studying, to let us know just what
you're asking.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I see. So
they'll have some idea what the costs would
be.
SENATOR TRUNZO: There's so much
conflict in the matter of the general public
regarding seat belts, the utilization of them
or their nonutilization, that even the
national group, their report also couldn't
come up with a definite answer because there's
so much conflict around decisions regarding
seat belts.
Even though we have a law in the
state of New York regarding seat belts in your
car, you'll see many times people driving
without utilizing seat belts.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you,
Senator Trunzo. We have been -
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Is
this on the bill, Senator?
7183
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I'll be on
the bill now.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Oppenheimer, on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: This is
something that we have been studying, looking
at, thinking about, I think for the 17 years
I've been in the Senate. And there is a lot
of discrepancy in the results of these various
studies that have been made.
Some studies say that if the impact
is in a certain direction, that then the belts
don't help and can be more damaging. It
depends on how the crash occurs. The impact
of the crash, is it a train or is it just a
small car that -- there seem to be a whole lot
of variables.
And I'm not certain that after all
these studies that we have had, and they have
been very inconclusive, I'm not sure that
we're going to come up with anything that is
conclusive. But I think, on the other hand,
to sort of let this hang in limbo for all the
years that I've been here is a bit foolish.
We really should resolve, at least for our
7184
state, the direction that we want to go.
And so I think this is what we have
to do. And I support it, and I hope we do
come out with something conclusive, because
this issue has been hanging out there just
forever, and it's time we resolved it.
So I'll be voting yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Any
other Senator wish to be heard on the bill?
Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Yes, Mr.
President. Mr. President, will Senator Trunzo
yield for a few questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, will you yield for a few
questions from Senator Brown?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Depends what "a
few" is.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields for quite a few.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you,
Senator Trunzo.
Senator, I'm looking at the bill
memorandum of support, and it indicates that
7185
the fiscal implication of this will be
approximately $100,000. With some of the past
work and the data that's available, why is it
estimated that the cost of conducting this
study will be in the neighborhood of about
$100,000?
SENATOR TRUNZO: You say that's
in the memo?
SENATOR BROWN: Yes, Senator,
it's in the introducer's memorandum of
support.
SENATOR TRUNZO: I don't -- the
memorandum, I'm reading it. I don't see any
fiscal impact of a hundred thousand.
SENATOR BROWN: It's not -
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Yes,
Senator?
SENATOR BROWN: Yes, if I may.
Senator Trunzo, I apologize. It's
not -
SENATOR TRUNZO: There is no
fiscal impact on this memo.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Excuse
me. Excuse me. Will you address it through
the chair, please.
7186
SENATOR BROWN: Yes, Mr.
President, I'm trying to ask a question.
In the bill itself, it does not
indicate any fiscal impact. But in the
memorandum in support, which outlines the
purpose and the summary of provisions,
existing law, justification, it lists a fiscal
impact of approximately $100,000.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo.
SENATOR TRUNZO: I didn't quite
understand what your question is. That it
would cost a hundred thousand, or do I agree?
SENATOR BROWN: I'm wondering why
is it estimated that it will cost a hundred
thousand to conduct this study -
SENATOR TRUNZO: If I might ask
you a question.
SENATOR BROWN: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Brown, do you yield for a question
from Senator Trunzo?
SENATOR BROWN: Yes, I certainly
will yield for a question.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Who made the
7187
estimate that it's going to cost a hundred
thousand dollars? It's not in the
legislation.
SENATOR BROWN: I think probably
the staff that's put it together, that's done
the work, has estimated that to conduct the
research properly it will cost about a hundred
thousand dollars. But I'm just trying to
ascertain where that assessment comes from.
SENATOR TRUNZO: I just got a new
copy of the memo. Increased cost,
approximately a hundred thousand to the
Department of Motor Vehicles.
My memo didn't have anything about
that. They just handed me a copy of the memo
by Senate staff which indicated a hundred
thousand dollars. Sorry.
I think it's -- whatever it costs
to do, I think it's necessary to find out
whether or not the utilization of mandating
these seat belts in whatever form they decide
it should be done should be done in order for
the safety of the children.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you,
Senator.
7188
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Brown, on the bill.
SENATOR BROWN: Let me just take
a moment to thank Senator Trunzo for
responding to our questions.
And I agree with Senator Trunzo. I
think certainly $100,000, if it can get a
definitive answer as to whether or not seat
belts will make it safer for our children that
ride on school buses throughout the State of
New York, then it is a $100,000 that's well
spent.
You know, again, as I said before
when I spoke on Senator McGee's bill, I'm the
parent of a 10-year-old son and certainly
deeply care about my own child, but certainly
all of the children of the state of New York.
And there are conflicting schools of thought
as to whether or not seat belts and the
wearing of seat belts on school buses will
make our children safer.
There's some that feel strongly
that the wearing of seat belts will make
children safer, and other experts, to my
7189
surprise, that feel with school buses and
vehicles of that size, potentially, depending
on the type of accident, perhaps the seat belt
can do more harm than it does do good.
So through your legislation,
Senator Trunzo, if it does help us to reach
some kind of definitive answer that will help
make our children more safe and enable us to
reach a decision to the use of the seat belts,
then I certainly support that, will support
this legislation, and commend you and thank
you for introducing it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Any
other Senator wish to be heard on this bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
7190
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
347, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 2372, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to the disqualification of a bus
driver.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Fuschillo, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
This bill amends the VTL in
relation to the disqualification of school bus
drivers. Under present law in New York State,
school bus drivers who fail the alcohol or
drug test face a maximum fine of only $250.
This legislation would require the
mandatory revocation of a school bus driver's
license for drivers who have tested positive
for drugs and alcohol.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President, if Senator Fuschillo would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
7191
Senator Fuschillo, do you yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator,
where in the legislation, Part 382 of Title
49, does it explain the procedure for testing
the specimen? And where is the 72-hour
regulation in this section?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator, I
could read this to you, but it would be under
the mandate of the federal law. If you'd
like, I could provide you with a copy of it.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: It's the
controlled substances and alcohol use testing?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Fuschillo, do you yield to Senator
Montgomery?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator, you
said that you don't have that.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: No, I said I
have it in front of me. It's mandated under
7192
the federal law.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Oh, okay.
Yes, I would like to -
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I could
provide you with a copy of it if you would
like.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. What
section is it? Can you tell me?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Fuschillo, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Page 583,
subsection B of Section 40.25. Specimen
collection procedures.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Oh, that's a
different section than I have.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator, I'll
be happy to provide a copy of it to you for
your review.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Thank you.
Mr. President, if the Senator will
continue to yield.
7193
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, I do.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator, I
have a memo from NYSUT, and they say that they
feel it is inappropriate for the state to
permanently preclude someone from employment
based on one test. Would you tell me what
your response to that concern is? And I have
a similar concern.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I disagree.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: You
disagree.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: You know,
Senator, we entrust the lives of school bus
drivers to transport more than 2 million
children to and from school every single day
in this state. Give them a second chance if
they're found to be driving with alcohol and
drugs? I couldn't disagree more with NYSUT
than that.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr.
President, if Senator Fuschillo would continue
to yield.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
7194
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Senator, I do have some concerns,
as have been raised regarding other pieces of
legislation before us, that there are some
instances where false positives come up from
testing. What in the legislation protects a
person who might present a false positive for
various reasons? I.e., some people,
African-Americans, test positive, or people
who test positive because they've had other
kinds of medication that's not really an
illegal substance.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: That I think
was a concern of Senator Bruno's as well, but
the state follows the federal testing.
And, Senator, what I will provide
you in response to your question before about
the testing procedures under federal law, this
includes it as well. I believe the specimen
is split twice and sent to two different
laboratories to avoid false positives.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
7195
Thank you, Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes, Mr.
President, through you, will the sponsor
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, do you yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Is this the
same background check that is currently used
for other school employees such as
paraprofessionals or security guards, or is it
a different type of background check?
And I have a reason for raising
that. When I was president of the Board of
Education, we began the fingerprinting of
security guards. And even though I was very
actively involved in civil liberties groups,
others felt it was an infringement on their
basic civil liberties. But after some
7196
security guards were found abusing children,
this was extended to the national FBI 50-state
analysis, because there could be security
guards coming in from Michigan and California
and people would not know their previous
history in other states other than New York.
Now, does this bill, dealing,
obviously, with schoolchildren in terms of
school bus attendants, is it comparable to
other measures that deal with schoolchildren
in other areas such as paraprofessionals,
security guards and other people as well? Or
is it a distinct, unique bill?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator,
you've jumped ahead two bills on the calendar.
And I'll be happy to answer the
question. It's the same criminal background
check that deals with school bus drivers
currently in New York State, but we are
currently on, and I am responding on behalf of
Senator Bruno, on legislation that deals
specifically with the permanent revocation of
the driver's license for school bus drivers.
SENATOR LACHMAN: And just the
driver's license for school bus drivers?
7197
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, sir.
SENATOR LACHMAN: On the bill,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Lachman, on the bill.
SENATOR LACHMAN: When one has a
conflict between the theory of what should
exist and the reality on the ground and the
dangers that that reality poses, I would favor
this bill, because there is a reality
throughout the school systems in the state of
New York that endangers minors and endangers
children and this will in some way, some small
way, attempt to correct that.
And I therefore am in favor of the
legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Any other Senator wishing to be heard on this
bill?
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Yes, sir.
SENATOR PATERSON: Would Senator
Fuschillo yield for a question?
7198
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, do you yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm sorry, Mr.
President, the light wasn't on, so I wasn't
sure if you could hear me.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I was
looking at the transcript -
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Which
transcript are you referring to?
SENATOR PATERSON: From last
year. And I'm looking at the conversation
between Senator Bruno -- I'm not looking at it
right now, I'm thinking about it -- between
Senator Bruno and Senator Schneiderman. And
they were talking about the federal
regulations implemented by the Department of
Transportation.
And under the Federal Highway Law,
Senator Bruno quoted Title 49, Section 382.
That was the one that I went and looked at
between last year's debate and this year's,
7199
because that was supposedly the section that
demonstrated what the actual procedures were.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Right.
SENATOR PATERSON: Now, just in
your discussion with Senator Montgomery, you
have a new section that you're citing.
Because you would be right, it's not in
Section 382. And yours is under Title 49,
Section 40; is that correct?
Would you explain to me what the
federal procedures are with respect to the
second test of a specimen where on the first
test the individual is found to have tested
positive?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator, just
let me look through the federal statute.
SENATOR PATERSON: No problem.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I'll give you
back your notes as well.
Senator, in trying to quickly give
myself some knowledge of the testing itself
through this, I'll refer to your own notes
that I briefly looked at. I believe they have
72 hours for the test, and the second test
will go to a separate place for a review and
7200
analysis of it.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Yes, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: That's very
helpful.
And, Mr. President, we put Senator
Fuschillo in a difficult position because the
Senator was not the person who was debating
Senator Schneiderman last year. Senator Bruno
was.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: And I'm sure
Senator Bruno did an outstanding job debating
Senator Schneiderman.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, would you please -- through
the chair.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I'm sure
Senator Bruno did an outstanding job debating
Senator Schneiderman last year.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I
thought I heard you say that. I just wanted
to clarify it for the record.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Would you
7201
like me to say it a third time?
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson, will you mercifully put this
to an end.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: In reading
these notes, Senator, just to give you a
further answer, the omnibus act under federal
law requires that the drug testing procedures
for the commercial motor vehicle drivers
include splitting the specimen procedures,
which you know in your asking me the question.
Each is divided into two bottles, labeled
"primary" and a "split" specimen, and both are
sent to the laboratories for the testing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President. If Senator Fuschillo would yield
for another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, I do.
SENATOR PATERSON: First of all,
I want to lend my voice to those who thought
that Senator Bruno's debate last year was
dynamic, articulate, quite perceptive, from my
7202
vantage point, and just ask if it would be -
if the issue, the chemical components that
created what could have been a false test in
the first place would be automatically cured
by having a second place just because you're
using an independent laboratory.
In other words, there was an
incident some years ago where a former senator
was tested for substances, and poppy seeds
from, I believe, a bagel created a false
positive test in that case. And so it's
likely that even an independent laboratory,
being as objective as possible, could be
triggered to induce a false positive test.
So my question is, isn't it a
little -- isn't it, you know, a rather harsh
punishment for this one test to create a
permanent revocation of a license when, in
fact, we're not even -- we're using just one
specimen to conduct the test, we're just
dividing it into two different, separate
tests?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator, I
believe there's a procedure under the federal
law that will allow for the clinic or the
7203
medical examiner to talk to the employer to
determine if there's any medical reasons that
the test may come back in a false manner and
may be subjected to providing some other
information.
Senator, is it strict? Is it
serious? Absolutely. As you and I know, my
children, your children mean the world to us,
and we entrust them to individuals like school
bus drivers. And I think that parents should
have a comfort level knowing that a school bus
driver is not on alcohol, is not on drugs.
And if they are on alcohol or they
are on drugs and they're found to be while
transporting the more than 2 million children
to and from school in this state of ours, then
they should lose the right of their commercial
driver's license to transport a child.
You know, we transport millions and
millions of cargo throughout this state on
daily basis. There's nothing more precious
than the life of our children. And it is
serious, and it should be taken serious. And
this would send a serious message to
individuals who would even think of attempting
7204
to put themselves in a situation to drive
while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I couldn't agree with Senator Fuschillo more.
If he would continue to yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, would you yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: One of the
reasons that Senator Bruno's bill is -- that I
was voting against this bill and then
eventually voted for it last year is exactly
the point that Senator Fuschillo made, that
this is an extraordinary situation where
you're dealing with the lives of children.
And if you're going to err at all, you want to
err in the direction of the highest degree of
protection for them. And again, it was well
stated by Senator Fuschillo.
But just to compare, we had Senate
Bill 704 earlier today, sponsored by Senator
Goodman. Now, here there is at least a
six-month mandatory revocation where a person
7205
is actually convicted of driving under the
influence of alcohol or substances. So here
you actually have a conviction where there is
a likelihood of appeal, if the defendant deems
necessary, the guilty party.
All I'm saying in this situation,
just as a matter of law, is we have this one
test, this one specimen which for some reason
is giving a false positive -- might be giving
a false positive. And what I'm just concerned
about is that a person now is permanently
revoked.
In other words, if we want to have
six testings within a year, as we have now -
Assemblyman Gantt has a piece of legislation
where he wants to have six testings up to five
years. And I think that the one out of three
recidivism rate for people who have drug or
alcohol problems is a factor. And so if we
want to have special rules just for these
individuals, I think we should actually do
that.
But I'm just saying that the appeal
process in the one test is just the second
test from the same specimen. And I don't
7206
think that that meets the threshold of what I
would call an appeal. Here, this person
hasn't even been convicted of anything.
So my question to Senator Fuschillo
would be, aren't there other ways that we
could accomplish the same goal as Senator
Bruno has set forth in this bill without, for
the rest of a person's life, banning them from
driving a school bus or losing a commercial
license to drive any vehicle?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator, I
appreciate your concerns. I always respect
your opinion.
But I think there are measures
under the federal law with the two testing and
the splitting of the test and the opportunity
for the employer to provide any necessary
information.
You know, I'll go back to my
original statement, Senator. We are
transporting children. And though it is a
serious penalty for it, no second chances.
You drive drunk, you drive under the influence
of drugs while transporting children to and
from schools, you don't deserve a second
7207
chance.
And again, I appreciate your
concerns. And that's something that, maybe
during negotiations with the other house as
this goes forward, could be raised.
But again, Senator -- I mean, I
want to express to you the seriousness of
this, and I know you appreciate that. As I
have stated, I think Senator Bruno's
legislation correctly addresses an offense
that can be very serious and life-threatening
to the children that are on those buses.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson, on the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: I think that
Senator Fuschillo was an excellent replacement
for Senator Bruno in this situation. If I
keep saying things like that, I may kill him
off over there. But I think that he was as
convincing as the Majority Leader was last
year.
The Majority Leader and I have
debated this bill for five years. And I
7208
finally did decide to favor the value of the
added protection over what I think is somewhat
of a misnomer in the legislation, which is I
don't think that there are two tests. It's
the same specimen.
So if you're testing something a
second time, you want to use some other
specimen other than the one that might have
created a false positive in the first place.
And just as there is a high degree
of recidivism in people who have drug and
alcohol problems, there's a very high degree
of false positives that are set off in these
tests, sometimes for chemical reasons unknown
to the individual who is tested positive.
And to eliminate that, I could
think of some suggestions. The one I raised
before, which is the test that's given
randomly right before the person operates the
vehicle, known as the impairment test. In
other words, I think there are ways beyond a
certain time to keep track of these types of
individuals.
But in the end, the merit of the
bill is unquestioned. And it's a situation
7209
that we often run into in the law where it's
difficult to have a black-and-white reading of
the law when the lives of children are in
jeopardy. And there have been a number of
situations where school bus operators were
impaired by excessive use of alcohol or
substances.
But I just think it's important to
recognize that that so-called second test is
just a readaptation of a chemical test that
was used in a first instance with a specimen
where the second specimen is coming -- was
extracted from the individual at the exact
same time. And I don't think that that's a
second test.
But I do understand why the
legislation is as important as it is.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: If the sponsor
would yield to just a couple of questions, or
the sponsor's surrogate.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, do you yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, I do.
7210
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, the surrogate for Senator
Bruno, yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I have a
question about the language on the first page.
The legislation talks about, on line 11,
"shall revoke the license to drive a bus." Is
this limited to school buses, or does it
include private bus lines, buses that have
contracts to carry other than children?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: School buses,
Senator, I've been advised. Just school
buses.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Even though
the language talks about a license to drive a
bus -
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
SENATOR STAVISKY: -- and doesn't
specify school buses?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: The intent is
school buses.
SENATOR STAVISKY: The intent is
school buses.
If the Senator would continue to
yield.
7211
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: This
presumably would apply to the City of New York
as well, where they contract out these bus
operations?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Throughout
New York State, yes.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Throughout
New York State.
And my last question, if the
Senator would yield.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, I do,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields. Proceed.
SENATOR STAVISKY: If we believe
in the ability to -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Excuse me, Senator. Can we have some order in
the house, please. It's very difficult to
7212
hear.
I'm sorry, Senator. Proceed.
SENATOR STAVISKY: If we believe
in the ability to rehabilitate individuals,
isn't it unreasonable to -- well, this bill,
doesn't this bill make the assumption that
people cannot be rehabilitated?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: No. No, it
does not.
SENATOR STAVISKY: All right. On
the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Stavisky, on the bill.
SENATOR STAVISKY: That's the
area where I have a problem, Mr. President.
And that's in the lack of faith in our
programs to resolve these drug cases.
It seems to me that making this a
one-strike-you're-out is unfair, the
permanency of the restriction is unfair. And
I intend to vote no on this bill for that
reason.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Any
other Senator wishing to be heard on this
7213
bill?
Seeing none, the debate is closed.
Read the last section, please.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Montgomery, to explain her vote.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President, thank you. I want to explain my
vote on this.
I'm voting no on this legislation.
I think that there are two -- at least two
very serious and important areas that trouble
me. One of them is the permanency of this
legislation.
The other is the fact that we do
have -- I have received on many occasions
complaints from constituents who have been
deemed to have a positive test result when in
fact they were not on drugs, were not smoking
marijuana, were not doing any of the things,
but their urine tested positive for other
7214
reasons. It could also be that people on
medication -- many medications also yield a
positive test for urine.
So I am going to vote no because I
think that this is a very drastic step to
take, to revoke someone's license permanently.
And I'm not convinced that this does not cover
any person with a commercial license to drive
any bus in our state.
So I'm voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Montgomery, you will be recorded in
the negative.
Announce the results, please.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 347 are
Senators Duane, Markowitz, Montgomery,
Santiago, Schneiderman, and Stavisky.
Ayes, 51. Nays, 6.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
348, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 2373A, an
7215
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to the drivers of small school buses.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER:
Explanation.
SENATOR ONORATO: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, an explanation has been
asked.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
Existing school bus driver
qualifications do not apply to drivers of
vehicles with a seating capacity of ten or
fewer passengers. This legislation will close
a loophole in the current law whereby drivers
of small school buses and other small vehicles
are not subjected to the same standards as
drivers of larger buses.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Oppenheimer, why do you rise?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If the
sponsor would yield for a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, will you yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
7216
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I
believe he yields, Senator.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Article
19-A doesn't apply to drivers of vehicles with
less than ten.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Right.
Senator Bruno's legislation will require that,
Senator. It will amend Article 19-A to
require exactly what is -
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: That it
would cover -
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Would cover
that.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay. Now,
if the Senator would yield again.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If the
drivers are exempt from holding the commercial
license, then how would the federal testing
standards for alcohol and drug abuse apply?
Because as I understand it, the drug -- it's
7217
the drug testing that's done under the
commercial license.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: You're
correct, Senator, in stating that.
But I believe this legislation will
put them in the category as school bus drivers
and the laws that are applicable to school bus
drivers of buses over ten.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Uh-huh.
What are the requirements that they're going
to have to meet under 19-A?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Well, I don't
have a compete listing, but there are some
training procedures, there is criminal
background checks. Drivers of small school
buses are exempt from certain safety
requirements under 19-A, such as periodic
driving tests and exams that are required as
regular procedures for school bus drivers.
So there are certain requirements
that they're currently exempt for. By passing
this legislation and ultimately becoming law,
they would be subjected to the same as the
school bus drivers.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: And if the
7218
Senator would yield again.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, do you yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Might I ask both Senators to just -- Senator
Fuschillo, when you turn your face away from
the microphones, it's very difficult for
people to hear.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I would
rather address Senator Oppenheimer than you,
Mr. President.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I
understand that. But the record must be
maintained, Senator.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: No more
questions.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Seeing no more Senators wishing to be heard -
(Laughter.)
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Senator
Fuschillo, would they then put the requirement
7219
for drug testing into the 19-A regulation?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Counsel
advises me, Senator, that we wouldn't have the
authority under the federal law, because it's
only applicable to CDLs.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Then back
to the first question.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Back to the
first question, in looking at this, although
it requires certain provisions of school bus
drivers to now be the same and applicable for
individuals for hire that are driving it, the
smaller vehicles, I believe there's no
requirement under the state law of the CDL
license for that type of vehicle.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: That's
something that will need attention.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: It's
something that we're probably going to have to
visit later and, as you said, give attention
to, absolutely.
Sorry, Mr. President, that I wasn't
directing it to you.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Oh, yes,
Mr. President, through you, if I could ask
7220
another question of the Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator Oppenheimer, for your
courteousness.
Will the Senator yield to the
courteous Senator?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I'll talk
through my ear.
It is now believed that with small
children, preschoolers, that the safety
restraints are appropriate. We still seem to
be in the dark or undecided for older
children.
Would that be considered a part of
the small vehicle operation, for the
preschoolers?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: No.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: That's not
a part of this.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Correct.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: But it
7221
might be a part of something to be visited
later.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes,
absolutely.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay, I -
on the bill.
Thank you, Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Oppenheimer, on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I think
that now that we're visiting the smaller
school bus issue for the preschoolers, I think
there's a variety of issues that we have to
address.
One of them might be at some point
some way to amend this bill in order to
require drug testing of our bus operators,
which is not available under this.
Another would be to visit the buses
themselves to see that these preschoolers are
restrained in the safest way possible. And it
now appears that seat belt restraints are
valid and protective of small children as they
are in our family cars. That information
seems to be somewhat cloudy as far as older
7222
children. But the smallest children should be
restrained by seat belts, because it is seen
to be the safest for them.
There are issues which we discussed
which I think might well be addressed in
future legislation. But this is a good bill,
and I certainly will be supporting it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Any
other Senator wish to be heard?
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
is Senator Fuschillo standing in for the
Majority Leader on this bill?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I
believe the Senator is sitting in for the
Majority Leader. Now standing in for the
Majority Leader.
SENATOR PATERSON: Oh, good. Oh,
then I have a whole different set of questions
for him.
But on the bill, if the Senator
would be willing to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, would you yield for a question?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
7223
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I
believe he yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, for
the life of me I'm confused by a comparison of
the last bill that we passed, Calendar Number
347, and this one, in that if we're not going
to require the commercial driver's license,
then -- and I understand what we're going to
do about convicted individuals. But how are
we going to stop the same people who we were
trying to stop in the last bill in this bill?
Because Section 19-A of the Vehicle
and Traffic Law is not going to provide that
same protection that you've set up for the
large vehicle drivers in the last legislation.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator, you
raise an issue that we should address at a
later date. And I'll be happy to discuss it
with you and, if need be, if we come up with
legislation to address your concerns, I'll be
happy to introduce it in the Senate.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Yes, sir.
7224
SENATOR PATERSON: If Senator
Fuschillo would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I'm
sure the Senator would yield for a question.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, it's nice to know that I can make
Senator Paterson speechless.
I'll be happy to yield for another
question.
SENATOR PATERSON: Then I'm not
exactly sure what we're accomplishing by
passing this bill, because the same people who
we just stopped from driving the large
vehicles are going to go down the block and
get in the small vehicles and drive the same
kids.
In other words, I don't mind
talking about it, I don't mind addressing it
in legislation later, but I want to say we're
really opening the door of the school bus to
the same people who have alcohol and substance
abuse problems that you persuaded me to vote
for the last time.
And so what I'm saying is I guess
my question, simply enough, is what are we
7225
accomplishing other than stopping convicted
felons from operating the small school buses
with less than ten seats?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Well,
Senator, other than allowing convicted felons
to operate this -- it's a serious "other
than." So you're accomplishing a lot. And
since we've enacted the criminal background
check for school bus drivers -- I think it was
dating back to 1985 -- more than a thousand
school bus drivers have been disqualified.
But as I was explaining in one of
my answers to Senator Oppenheimer, it's
requiring some other safety requirements,
instructional classes and exams that are
currently required for school buses of the
larger buses as well.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, will you yield to continue?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator continues to yield.
7226
SENATOR PATERSON: This is a very
serious subject, and I don't mean to minimize
the gravity of the impact this bill would have
on convicted felons. Senator Fuschillo was
right. I think I'm just saying it's so
serious that there's got to be a reason why we
just don't amend the bill right now and
include the commercial driver's license.
And I guess I just wondered if you
or your counsel were aware of why we're not
doing it. Perhaps it's because we are trying
to increase the availability of drivers,
particularly in these small buses.
Perhaps it's an issue of just
trying to get as much passed as we can right
now to satisfy the Assembly and then to come
back with this later on so we can at least
knock out the issue of the convicted felon.
So in other words, I'm just trying
to find out why are we not, as serious as this
situation is, addressing it right here at this
moment or just laying this bill aside and
putting it in and passing it tomorrow.
Because in spite of the fact that I have the
same concern as I articulated in the previous
7227
bill, I would vote for the bill.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Then I see no
reason to -
SENATOR PATERSON: Ah, amendments
coming through.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: That's the
school bus drivers. They want to talk to you.
-- to lay the bill aside. You
raise an issue and it's an issue, as I said to
you, we will address. And it's specifically
for for-hire for the smaller buses.
I know that in certain situations,
Senator -- last year I remember this issue
came up about individuals driving for camps
and other drivers that had raised a concern of
getting a CDL for them in a timely fashion, so
as not to disrupt any of the operation of any
businesses. And I don't know, Senator, if
that's the particular reason for this. I'm
just recollecting some conversations that may
have taken place.
But you raise a concern, and it's a
concern that I will be happy to address.
SENATOR PATERSON: All right, Mr.
President. I'm satisfied. I just have one
7228
last question, if Senator Fuschillo would be
willing to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, will you yield for a last question?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, I do,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: And the
question is, because of those situations where
we are bringing operators in to transport
children to camp and that type of thing, where
it's kind of an ephemeral situation that we're
going to try to ameliorate in this fashion, do
we have a standard now for the training of the
operators of these vehicles since we're not
using the commercial driver's license?
Do we have at least a threshold by
which perhaps the person doesn't have a
license but we want them to certainly know how
to operate the vehicle in a little more of an
extraordinary fashion than just somebody who
jumps in a van and drives children around?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator, are
you referring to what we just talked about,
7229
the camp counselors in this situation?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yeah.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: To the best
of my knowledge, no. But again, that is
something, an issue that we raised in this
debate that we should look at and, if need be,
introduce further legislation to maybe require
some training similar to 19-A.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Oppenheimer, why do you rise?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.
Just one elucidation, if the Senator will
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Before we do that, Senator, is Senator
Paterson yielding the floor? Are you
finished, Senator?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: When you're
finished, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes, I am, Mr.
President. And Senator Oppenheimer. And
anyone else who is concerned.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Fuschillo, do you yield to
7230
Senator Oppenheimer?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields, Senator.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: You know,
we're making a lot of suppositions on why
we're not requiring the commercial driver's
license. Would you be good enough to explain
why we are not going to be requiring the
commercial driver's license, why we are doing
this? I mean, several of us have made
suppositions.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator
Paterson has come over to answer your
question.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: And who was
on the phone?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator, the
legislation did not focus on that, as you
know. But the intent of it was the training
aspect and to require the safety procedures
and focus primarily on that, not on the
application of a CDL.
As I explained to Senator Paterson,
7231
that is something that I will -- I am not the
sponsor of this legislation, as you know, but
that is something that in my overall and the
Majority's overall school bus safety package,
which most of the legislation is on the
calendar today, that is something that I
personally will review.
But again, the focus of Senator
Bruno's legislation dealt primarily with
providing for the necessary safety
requirements and training for these
individuals.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If Senator
Fuschillo will yield again.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I
believe he yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Senator, I
understand that. But why couldn't we maintain
the commercial driver's license requirement
and go ahead with our state program as well?
Why are we giving up the CDL? I'm
7232
just not understanding why we're giving up the
CDL. It isn't in conflict with what we want
done.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator, I am
not in agreement with you.
Again, this legislation primarily
focused that requiring the smaller vehicles
and the drivers -- and the focus was not on
the actual license itself, but dealt primarily
with the safety training. But that is
something that, again, we will review and, if
need be, introduce legislation to address that
issue of the CDL for the small bus drivers as
well.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay.
Thank you.
I just want to say that -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Oppenheimer, on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: On the
bill.
I just want to say that I don't see
these two as being incompatible. I think both
can be required of the small bus driver. I
was assuming, like Senator Paterson, that we
7233
were trying to attract a larger cadre of
potential drivers, because there are many
needed for these small buses. But I don't see
why we can't require both Article 19-A and the
commercial driver's licensing program required
for our small bus drivers also.
So I'd be happy to work with
Senator Fuschillo on this. I think school bus
safety has been an issue that has been of
vital importance to me, and I just want to
keep working on it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
any other Senator wishing to be heard on the
bill?
Seeing none, then the debate is
closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect 180 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
7234
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
349, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 2376,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to criminal history checks.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, an explanation has been
asked for.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President. This bill would require
criminal history checks on school bus
attendants. It would be similar to what's
under state law required for school bus
drivers.
As previously stated in another
debate, the school bus driver law, the
criminal background check, has been effective
since 1985. It has been very effective. More
than 1,000 school bus drivers have been
disqualified due to New York State
convictions, and about a hundred have been
disqualified due to out-of-state convictions.
We are just trying to strengthen
the law, weed out those who shouldn't be on
the buses, and move forward with the intent of
7235
protecting the children on the school buses.
And in most cases, school bus attendants have
a closer contact with children who are riding
on the bus.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President. I would like to ask Senator
Fuschillo a couple of questions about this
legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, will you yield for a
question or two?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields, Senator.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President. I would like to
know, of these 1,000 cases that have been
disqualified, on what basis are the
disqualifications made? And in other words, I
would like to know if there are any specific
criminal charges that are within this category
to disqualify a person, or does this cover any
7236
possible charge that a person may have had.
And related to that, I would like
to know if it covers any infraction that comes
up on a person's record at any age. If a
person has been charged with something at 14
and they are now 50 and they are looking to
apply to be an attendant, would that person
also be disqualified?
So I'm trying to find out what is
encompassed in the area of disqualification
and is there any statute of limitations in
terms of time or age when one may have
committed such an offense.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: You've asked
me many questions, and I'll to answer them to
the best of my recollection of your statement.
Our information, Senator, just
applies -- and I can look into it further -
from DCJS that these thousand or so have been
disqualified due to prior convictions. I
don't know exactly the specific convictions
that they have incurred.
The legislation as far as the
hiring and the determination is at the
discretion of whether the applicant is
7237
suitable for the qualifications, and that is
made based on the criminal background check.
Any information provided by the
criminal background check to the school and
the motor carrier is done through DCJS. So
any information -- Mr. President, through
you -- Senator, that is provided to them is
afforded them the opportunity to make the
determination whether or not they are suitable
for the qualification.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr.
President, if I may ask the second part of my
question again.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, will you yield again?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So does that
mean that there is no age limit either but
it's just based on the judgment of -- and
whose judgment is involved in determining
whether the applicant is suitable? Whose
judgment, who makes that judgment?
7238
Mr. President, that's my question.
Who makes that judgment?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: You mean the
judgment on whether to hire the applicant or
not?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Exactly,
yes.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: It would be
either the motor carrier or the school
district.
And again, it's discretionary,
Senator. And I'll repeat what I said. They
receive the criminal reports of the background
from DCJS. So it's at their discretion to
make the determination based on what is in the
report, the criminal report from DCJS, and
it's at their discretion.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Mr. President, if I may ask another
question. Senator, if you would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
7239
yields. Proceed, please.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Mr. President, I'd like to know -
I'm not exactly clear as to who pays and how
much, based on this. It says that the
applicant shall be -- no more than $5 over the
cost -- the fee paid shall be no more than $5
over the cost of the school district for the
criminal history check. And I'm not quite
sure what that means. What is the fee?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator, the
current fee I believe is approximately $79.
For school bus drivers, I believe the fee is
aidable under the state law.
Currently -- and let me just go
back to why we put that provision in there.
That's just to prohibit, Senator -- through
you, Mr. President -- any school district from
charging any potential applicant an exorbitant
amount for the background check.
Currently, in our research of some
school districts in my district and throughout
the state that require criminal background
checks for school bus attendants, in most
cases, the majority of the cases, if the
7240
applicant successfully completes a
probationary period, they are reimbursed for
the money that they had laid out for the
background check.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Just one
last question that I have, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you yield for another question?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Fuschillo, do we have any idea -- your memo
talks about 1,000 people who have been
eliminated or disqualified based on prior
convictions. How many people -- what percent
of our applicants does that represent? Is
that a fairly large number? Or is that just a
few, based on a hundred thousand people who
apply for these jobs?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator, I do
not know the percentages of that.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Nor do we
have the information on attendants either?
7241
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: No, we don't.
But through the state, maybe the
Department of Transportation or DCJS, I'm sure
you can find out how many applicants have
applied since 1985 and figure out the
percentage of -- and I believe it's a little
bit more than a thousand now.
But I don't have -- I don't have
the percentages for you.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: One more
question, I promise. I swear this is my last
one.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, will you yield for one more last
question?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields, Senator. Proceed, please.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay, thank
you.
I'm just wondering, Senator
Fuschillo, what is the impetus for this
legislation? Is it solely based on the fact
that you have disqualified 1,000 people who
7242
are applying for bus driver, or is there some
incident or number of incidents that have
occurred that leaves you with the urgency to
do this legislation?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator, I
believe that this will close what I perceive
as a loophole. Why school bus attendants were
never included in 1985, I don't know. I
wasn't around in the Legislature then. But
there have been incidences of sexual abuse on
the part of school bus attendants.
But these individuals have the
closest contact to children. And I think that
parents should have a comfort level while
their child is riding on the bus, if there is
a school bus attendant, that they know that
there's no prior criminal history associated
with that individual.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: On the bill,
Mr. President, just briefly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Montgomery, on the bill.
7243
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I have a
problem with the legislation, in that I'm not
sure -- and I don't have the answer, either
from the sponsor or from legislation or parts
of the law that may cover this, so I'm not
sure just how far back this goes in terms of a
person having been convicted of some offense.
I don't know which offenses are covered under
here. It's very, very broad.
And it's problematic because we're
talking about employment that people apply to
do who are not at the top of the food chain,
as they say, as it relates to employment. And
so here we are eliminating a very substantial
number of people, and I'm not sure that they
either are afforded a fair hearing and
opportunity to defend themselves or that there
is any limitation on just how far this goes in
keeping people from work.
So I'm voting no, not because I
don't want to see children protected, but I
think we have to begin to look at just how, to
what extent we are eliminating these kinds of
jobs for large numbers of people, many of whom
may do fine in that job if they just would
7244
have an opportunity to defend whatever they
have done.
Maybe they did it at a time when
they were particularly youthful, without
appropriate discretion. And maybe now they're
at a point in their lives where they really
want to work, they would never think of doing
something like they did at 14 or 15 or 16, and
we still would eliminate them from work.
So I'm going to vote no on this
legislation. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. If the sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, will you yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I'm wondering if the sponsor could
tell me what exactly bus attendants do, what
their responsibilities are.
7245
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, through you, to the best of my
knowledge, Senator Duane, they assist the
school bus driver with maintaining an orderly
conduct and fashion on the bus, provide any
assistance to putting a child on the bus, if
they require the use of seat belts.
But I would say just merely in a
capacity to be the eyes behind the school bus
driver.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. And,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Sponsor, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Are there any
statistics on how many crimes bus attendants
have committed on school buses in the past
year or past three, four, five years?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, through you. Senator, I believe
7246
that there has not, because there have been no
records kept as far as criminal background
checks. We don't know any prior convictions.
I have not seen any statistics, although they
may exist from DCJS or the Transportation
Safety Board or the School Boards Association
in the state. I have not seen any.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Why is it that
the state doesn't pay for the background
checks rather than having the person being
checked have to pay for the background check?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I'm sorry,
Senator, I didn't hear your question.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you
again, Mr. President, I'm wondering why the
state is not required to pay the cost or just
7247
swallow the cost of the background checks,
rather than having the bus attendant pay for
the background check.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, through you, similar to the school
bus drivers, we try to mirror that legislation
where they're required to pay. Although for
the school bus drivers -- Mr. President,
through you -- Senator, it is aidable.
In case of a disqualification, the
school districts may not feel it's appropriate
for them to pay. Plus it's a mandate that I
just did not want to put on the school
districts.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Does the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I may not have
heard the whole thing, but it's not the school
7248
district that I think should incur the cost,
but the state, through DCJS. Since they're
doing the background check anyway, why do they
need to be reimbursed for it at all by the bus
attendant?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, through you. Senator, just a
little point of clarification. Why does who
have to be reimbursed?
SENATOR DUANE: Why doesn't the
state just swallow the cost of doing the
background check?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, through you, I thought it was the
right move and the right way to go to require
the applicant who was seeking the job to pay
for the fee for the application.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, do you yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
7249
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
the sponsor knows the salary range for a bus
attendant.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, through you, we have seen -- I have
seen, Senator, salaries that are hourly wages
and salaried positions. And I have seen
variations from minimum wage up to -- I
believe the last figure, and this was last
year, Senator, so it's a year old, in the
$20,000 range.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Will you continue to yield, Senator?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Just for
clarification, is that $20,000 for working
during a school year or is it $20,000 that you
get for the whole year? In other words, are
7250
you paid like teachers are paid? Or are they
paid only during the times that they're
actually working on the buses, which would
probably mean not as much during the summer?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, through you, I believe it was for
the time that they actually worked.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, do you yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Are principals in
the State of New York required to undergo
background checks?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, is the Senator asking me are
principals of schools required? Mr.
President, this bill strictly deals with
school bus attendants on school buses, not
with principals in schools.
7251
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I understand the
bill has to do with attendants, bus
attendants. But I'm just curious as to who in
the education system is going to be required
or is now required to undergo background
checks.
So I'm just -- if the sponsor
doesn't know the answer, that's fine. But I'm
wondering whether or not he knows whether or
not -- because I don't know the answer -
whether principals have to undergo background
checks.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, unrelated to the legislation before
the house, through you -- Senator, Senator
Saland had -- and I believe you were in the
house last year, this house passed legislation
that would require, I think, and it's under
that legislation, principals, effective
7252
July 1st of this year, to have criminal
background checks. And that was signed into
law.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
coaches are required to undergo background
checks.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, getting off the topic -- I don't
know the answer to that. But I don't -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Yes, I was going to -- Senator Fuschillo, if I
could.
Senator, the bill does deal with
school bus attendants. And I think we should
be -- you know, we can go down this road of
every individual job in the school system, but
7253
I don't think that's relevant to this
particular bill. If you want that
information, I'm sure staff can find it for
you.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, are you speaking on the bill or are
you talking about -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: No,
I'm saying your question is out of the -
beyond the realm of this particular bill. And
I would prefer you would go back to the topic
at hand.
SENATOR DUANE: Could you an
little more specific in what you're saying?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I
don't think I have to be, Senator. I think
you understand my statement full well.
Please ask the question relevant to
the bill at hand.
Senator Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Point of
order, Mr. President. What is the ruling on
the floor?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
ruling on the floor is the question was not
7254
germane to the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Can we
proceed at that point, then, Mr. President?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I
have asked him to proceed twice.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: If you'd
simply ask Senator Duane to repeat the
question, perhaps we could clarify it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: No,
the question was ruled out of order. It was
not germane to the bill.
We're asking the Senator, if he
wishes any more questions, that they be
germane to the bill. Which is the procedure
of this house.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, Mr.
President, just to be heard on that issue, I
think that the issue is was there a point of
order made about whether the question was in
order. Then I think that ruling him out of
order is one thing.
But as I understand Senator
Fuschillo, he raised the question of whether
the question was germane. And I think the
advice to Senator Duane was if the question is
7255
germane, he may continue to proceed. So -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: No,
that was not my advice. That was not my
advice, Senator. My advice was that the
question was not germane to the bill. And
that I would suggest that he go on with
questions relative to the bill at hand.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Fine, Your
Honor. Or fine, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you.
Senator?
SENATOR DUANE: Mr. President,
I'm challenging your ruling.
He answered the question about
principals. I'm not sure why he drew the line
at coaches. It's the same line of questioning
and all of these personnel work with the
children in the schools or on the buses. They
all have to do with protecting the children of
the State of New York. I don't understand why
this question is not germane.
I am absolutely following a line of
questioning, and the line makes a tremendous
amount of sense, starting with discussing why
7256
the sponsor believes that school bus
attendants should be given background checks.
And then I asked the question about the
principals, and the sponsor answered that
question. And I have questions about some
other personnel in the schools as to whether
or not they undergo background checks.
Without tipping off what my
argument was going to be, I think it's a
perfectly appropriate line of questioning. If
the question is about protecting the safety of
the children of the state of New York, then
the question is appropriate as to whether or
not school bus attendants should have
background checks.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator. Senator Duane -
SENATOR DUANE: But then so too
is the question of who else.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Duane. Senator Duane, I believe -
well, I don't understand what we're going on
to right now. But if the question is should
the ruling of the chair be overruled, I will
put that before the house, we'll have a vote,
7257
and we'll proceed.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm allowed to
speak on the question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Until we put it before the house, we haven't
done anything yet.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, I believe that Senator Duane has
appealed the ruling of the chair, and he
hasn't -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: And
we haven't even put that before the house yet,
Senator. So let me do that, and then let him
appeal the ruling and he can speak on it and
then we'll go from there.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: That's fine.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
question is before the house should the
opinion of the chair be overruled. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I believe
Senator Duane would like to be heard on the
motion.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Duane, to be heard on the motion.
7258
SENATOR DUANE: I don't
understand why my question was ruled out of
order.
We're talking about background
checks, and so I would think that virtually
any question on the issue of background checks
would be appropriate. I don't think that we
should pass this bill in a vacuum of a
discussion about who in the state of New York
now is required to undergo a background check.
I think that's a perfectly legitimate
discussion. I don't know why we would want to
hide who is and who is not liable to have a
background check. I think that's something
people would probably want to know.
I bet if we went around this house
and asked people who was liable to a
background check, most of the people -
although there's not a lot of people here, but
the people who are here, I bet they wouldn't
know who is supposed to get a background check
and who's not supposed to get a background
check.
So I'm trying to frame for the body
who it is that we believe in the Senate in the
7259
State of New York, of those working with
children -- or, for that matter, working
anywhere -- who have to undergo a background
check.
In addition to that, I think that
it's perfectly appropriate to go through the
various people who work in the schools who now
undergo background checks to find out whether
or not everybody should undergo background
checks or just some people should undergo
background checks or whether we think just
low-income people should have to undergo
background checks. Because there's some
thought that people who don't make much money
are more liable to attack children.
I mean, what is the thinking behind
this legislation? That's why I'm wondering
what is good for a bus attendant is not good
for a coach or good for a teacher or good for
a lunchroom attendant or good for someone else
that comes into the school to make a
presentation, whether teacher's aides should
undergo this. I'm trying to frame the issue
to find out why it is that this bill has even
come to the floor.
7260
And because it has to do with the
children of the state of New York -- and
believe me, I feel very strongly about keeping
children safe -- I think we need to find out
why it is that we're going to require some
people to undergo background checks but not
other people to undergo background checks.
I could see that we wanted people
who are alone with children in an unsupervised
way to have background checks, but I don't
know whether school attendants fall into that
category. That's why I asked the question
about their duties. Are they ever alone with
children, or are they always with the school
bus driver and the parents when the children
are getting on and off the bus? If there's
one child on the bus, does that ever happen
that a school bus attendant is alone with the
child on the bus? I don't know the answers to
these questions.
I mean, if that's the case, then
perhaps they should undergo a background
check. But if it's not part of their duties
to be alone with a child, then maybe they
don't need to.
7261
But what is our rationale for
background checks in general? That's what I'm
trying to get at. I don't really know what
that is. Why is it that some professions and
some workers have to undergo background checks
and why is it that some don't?
So I believe that my question was
germane. If it's germane to ask why bus
attendants should have to undergo a background
check, I think it's fair to ask about
principals and coaches and others.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, just briefly on the motion -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- on the
floor, which is to overturn the ruling of the
chair.
I agree with Senator Duane. I
think that in order to properly frame the
issue in this debate, to talk about why we're
attaching these responsibilities to school bus
attendants, I think Senator Duane's point is a
perfectly pertinent one. That is, what's the
difference between a principal, a coach,
7262
people who because of their employment come
into direct contact with children?
Which raises the danger that
Senator Bruno's bill is designed to prevent,
which is having someone with a prior criminal
history, someone who may have prior criminal
adjudications, at least the employer should
know those circumstances prior to putting that
individual into contact with small children,
potentially alone with small children.
I think Senator Fuschillo has
answered the question with respect to
principals. If the answer to the question is,
as Senator Duane says, "I don't know," it
seems to me that's an appropriate answer based
on Senator Fuschillo's knowledge. But it
seems to me that the question of who is
covered by this provision, who are we now -
we are now going to single out school bus
attendants. I think it's perfectly pertinent
and germane to ask whether people who are
similarly situated are treated the same so
Senator Duane and, frankly, the rest of the
members who are going to vote on this issue
can figure out whether they're being singled
7263
out or whether they're being treated somewhat
consistently with other people that have
responsibilities with children in the public
schools.
So, Mr. President, with all due
respect, I think the question is appropriate.
If the answer from Senator Fuschillo to any
one of these inquiries is he doesn't know, I
think that's something that Senator Duane will
be bound by that answer. But I think asking
the question is still germane to this debate.
I urge the membership to vote in
favor of overturning the chair on this
question of germaneness.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Does any other Senator wish to be heard?
A positive vote would overrule the
motion of the chair; a negative vote would
support the motion of the chair. All in favor
of overruling the chair please indicate.
SENATOR PATERSON: Party vote in
the affirmative.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Party vote in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
7264
Secretary will call the roll on party vote.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 24. Nays,
34. Party vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
motion is lost. The chair is sustained.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Yes, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, would you continue to
yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Were there any
public hearings on this bill?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: No.
SENATOR DUANE: Do we have any
idea how much money would be needed by DCJS to
implement this bill?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: The applicant
is -- will be required to pay for the criminal
7265
background check.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Does the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: And the sponsor
is contending that that cost would completely
and totally cover all the administrative costs
of this?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I'm sorry,
Mr. President. Senator, I didn't hear your
question.
SENATOR DUANE: Is the Senator
contending that the background check fee would
cover completely and totally the entire cost
of the administration of the background check?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, through you, the fee is set by the
Division of Criminal Justice Services to cover
their costs for the review.
7266
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm, you know,
saddened, and this may actually engender the
diatribe that I was accused of going into
earlier today on the floor.
Here we are -- first of all, I
can't understand why anybody would not want to
answer questions about who it is in the
schools who are presently subjected to
background checks. It seems to me
potentially, if we had enough information -
but I'd have to think that there was some
embarrassment that we were going to subject
school bus attendants to a background check,
and the embarrassment, I think, was proven in
the unwillingness to discuss who else had to
undergo background checks.
I think we've heard many, many,
many more stories, for instance, of coaches
doing inappropriate things with children than
we have about school bus attendants doing
7267
inappropriate things with children.
And by the way, I don't think
anyone could doubt that most of the abusive
things that happen to children happen in the
home or with people that they know, as opposed
to people who work with children. I'm not
saying it never happens, but it certainly is
as likely to happen with a coach or a camp
counselor or a janitor or a custodian or a
secretary in a school or an assistant
principal as it would be for a school bus
attendant. It just seems to me that school
bus attendants probably are not as empowered
to be able to hold their own on an issue like
this.
I think that this issue needs a
discussion. I think the issue of who should
be entitled to and not entitled to a
background check is worthy of a full
discussion. I'm sorry that -- in fact, I
don't think that anything that has to do with,
you know, germaneness where it applies to the
schools and children and how schools are
treated -- I mean, I don't understand why it
is that we wouldn't want to talk about that.
7268
I really -- you know, I think it's
outrageous that someone would think it's
appropriate to ask whether a principal
undergoes a background check but it's not
appropriate to ask whether a coach has to go
through a background check or whether a school
bus attendant has to go through a background
check. It just -- the difference seems to
be -- well, I don't understand what the
difference is. I don't understand why it is
that we choose some and that we don't choose
others.
I mean, we're voting on this not
knowing -- there's been no needs assessment
about whether or not this is necessary. There
was no opportunity for DCJS to come before us
and say whether or not they thought this was a
good idea. We don't have any idea about what
other states have put into effect this
background check for school bus attendants.
We don't know, in the schools where that's
happened, whether or not, in the states where
this kind of law might or might not exist, who
else undergoes background checks.
As you know, most places now share
7269
their statistics with the FBI. I'd be
interested to see whether the FBI has any
statistics on whether or not school bus
attendants are more likely to abuse children
and therefore should have to undergo a
background check.
It's just unconscionable to me that
we would single out school bus attendants for
a background check and to do that in a vacuum.
And, I mean, school bus attendants tend to be
working hand in hand with school bus drivers.
And as I say, a lot of the time school bus
attendants are in close contact with the
parents when the children are getting on the
bus or getting off the bus. I don't know the
number of times that a child is alone on a bus
with a bus attendant.
So, you know, as I think more and
more about this bill that, you know, we didn't
really want to more thoroughly assess the need
for, it seems, you know, just not very
responsible for us. I think that the children
of the state of New York need the greatest
amount of protection. But is this the
investment we want to make? Is doing
7270
background checks more important than, well,
than making sure that we have enough school
bus attendants?
Maybe what we should be focusing on
is not background checks for school bus
attendants, but in fact what we should be
checking on is whether or not there are enough
school bus attendants.
Maybe one of the things that we
should provide for school bus attendances, if
this bill is going to pass, is to find out
whether or not they should have their fee paid
for to have the background check. I mean,
DCJS already has the capability to do
background checks. And so I don't understand
why it is that we couldn't just let them incur
the cost.
I mean, I understand that the
sponsor doesn't want to do an unfunded mandate
to a school district. But it seems to me that
what we're doing here is an unfunded mandate
to a worker that's not getting a particularly
large amount of money to do their job. I
actually think that most school bus
attendances probably are making closer to the
7271
minimum wage per hour than they are making the
$20,000 a year.
But I'd like to see -- and
actually, the question I didn't get to ask,
because my line of questioning was cut off,
was are principals required to pay for their
own background checks or do schools pay for
the principal's background checks. Who is it
that pays for the background checks of
principals or, for that matter, other people
who work with children? Does that differ from
county to county, from city to city, or is
there a statewide policy on these?
I think these are questions that we
need to know. And frankly, if we had a public
hearing or a committee hearing on this, I
could ask these questions to my heart's
content to experts in the field. But that
wasn't the case here. And so I find myself
only able to ask these questions on the floor
of the Senate.
And I think that, you know, the
children certainly deserve this kind of
attention. And I also think our policies in
general as it applies to -- our policies as it
7272
applies to background checks certainly bears
this kind of scrutiny. There are often
discussions and policies made about daycare
centers or childcare centers, about other
people who work with children. But, you know,
there I've been part of the discussions about
whether or not it's the directors of daycare
centers or the daycare center workers, who it
is that has to undergo a background check.
And so I think it's perfectly
legitimate to really have a fuller discussion
about where we're going in this state on the
issue of background checks. I don't think a
hearing in a committee would be complete
without a discussion of how the New York Civil
Liberties Union feels about background checks.
I have gotten a lot of information from them
on that issue, but there really hasn't been a
public forum in the Senate where they could
come and testify before the members so that we
could hear what their concerns are about
background checks.
You know, background checks are a
fairly intrusive thing to happen to a person.
A mistake can be made. I'd like to know what
7273
the record is for DCJS when they do these
background checks. Are there mistakes made?
I mean, how often is it with the Motor
Vehicles Bureau that there's a mix-up with
names? We saw what happened in Florida on the
voting when a lot of people were not allowed
to vote because it was alleged that they were
convicts or ex-offenders and they are weren't.
And so what happens with the
background checks? You know, the job of being
a school bus attendant is certainly not a
great job, but it's better than no job at all.
Do we really want to block people's access to
being able to get this job? In these days of
welfare-to-work, don't we want to encourage
people to go into the workforce?
I know that in the city of New York
they do either fingerprinting or
finger-imaging for people. And I would think
that if there were people who had been
convicted of a crime, it would be captured
there as well.
And so maybe there's a way when we
move people from welfare to work that we could
use whatever it is that was discovered while
7274
they were on a public benefit to find out
whether or not these people were eligible to
be a driver or not.
I mean, there also seems to me, you
know, an age issue here as well. You know,
it's more likely, I suppose, that someone -
well, maybe I shouldn't say that there would
be an age issue having to do with this. I
would really have to think that through. And
actually, I'd like to ask, as you go up
through the ages, whether or not, you know, a
background check, what it turns up.
And, you know, just because you do
a background check on someone -- say someone
committed a crime at the age of 18 but they
were 50 years old and they wanted to be a bus
attendant. Is there a statute of limitations
on when this would -- where would -- you know,
a statute of limitations on where and when
this would kick in or not?
So really, I would say there's lots
of food for thought. But unfortunately,
that's all it's going to be here today, is
just food for thought. Because we're not
really going to get the answers to all of the
7275
questions that we wanted to ask.
And as I say, when it comes to
background checks and the children of the
state of New York, I really think virtually
every question we could think of would be
germane.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Hassell-Thompson. I believe the
Senator has requested the time, Senator.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Just
on the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Hassell-Thompson, on the bill.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I have
listened to the discussion, and I think each
of you has some indication that because this
is a -- my husband is a bus driver, and we
have discussed over the years -- he's a school
bus driver, actually -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Excuse me, Senator. Senator, excuse me.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: -
having retired from the MTA in New York City,
and he is now currently a bus driver.
7276
But one of the things that disturbs
me about the bill is not the need for -- to
have background checks on bus drivers or
attendants. I think that the bill in and of
itself is discriminatory, because it
discriminates against the lowest-paid on the
rung of people who work with children.
In a school in my district last
week, we had a schoolteacher who was accused
of sodomizing children and was apparently
unattended and had been allowed to be
unattended with children, even in the face of
having apparently no history of having abused
children, and yet this incident happened. And
several cases like it have happened.
For those who may not know, there
are many times when bus attendants as well as
bus drivers are alone with children,
particularly when you get down to the last
child and the bus driver may not be on the bus
and the bus attendant is the only person who
is alone with the child.
So the question as to whether or
not we should be requiring background checks
on people is not really what our issue is.
7277
But we should take a look at why would we
require a bus attendant -- who, as I've said,
is the lowest-paid on the rung of all of the
people who probably will have contact with
schoolchildren -- should be asked to pay a
fee.
And no legislation that I have seen
come before these chambers have required that
anyone else be responsible for paying for the
cost of a mandatory criminal background
history. And I think that that's the weakness
in this bill, and I think that it is
discriminatory in its nature.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. Just on the bill briefly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I think that
the whole issue of fingerprints and background
checks for employees of our public schools
needs a rethinking, Mr. President.
I know last year, with much
fanfare, we did a bill that requires school
7278
district employees to submit their
fingerprints prior to being employed. I have
been approached by several school districts in
my district who have suggested that that
provision is going to be extremely onerous on
them because it's going to create an automatic
delay in their ability to hire. And, two, it
creates another hurdle for people trying to
get into the school district and find a job
and go to work.
I would just point out the example
that was pointed out to me, which is a junior
in high school who happens to be an
audiovisual whiz. He's apparently, according
to the principal of this high school, the best
audiovisual person they've ever seen,
regardless of age or skill level. But he's a
junior in the high school. So they've hired
him to work for the summer doing audiovisual
programs for the school district. He will be
the first person at Brighton High School to be
fingerprinted in order to be able to be
employed for the summer.
It seems to me that that is not
what we intended to do when we passed that
7279
bill last year.
And in addition, what we ought to
do is rethink the idea of what fingerprints
mean. And it seems to me that one of the
things to do is to go back and to revise that
law to provide that you can be hired for 90
days provisionally until the fingerprints are
actually delivered to DCJS and then brought
back to the school district as part of a
criminal background check.
I also agree with Senator Duane
that what we seem to be doing is creating a
one standard for people who make small amounts
of money -- $7 an hour, $8 an hour, $9 an
hour. They will work for school districts,
and they will be fingerprinted and subject to
background checks. School superintendents,
who come in who make $125,000 a year, will not
be subject to the same restrictions. And it
seems to me that the internal consistency that
Senator Duane was looking for remains elusive
in this chamber and in this state.
The last thing I would suggest -
Senator Duane mentioned the FBI and other
organizations, about the ability to provide
7280
accurate information and accurate reports. I
would suggest, Senator Duane, that the
activity of the FBI in the last week has
raised severe doubts about its ability to
provide accurate information about anything,
much less the most highly publicized death
penalty case in America's history.
So we look to our government
agencies, whether it be the FBI at the federal
level or the DCJS at the state level, to
provide us with accurate information so that
we can assess people's past as a prologue to
their current employment and their future
employment.
And I think Senator Duane raises a
good point when he says who's going to be
watching the watchdogs, who is going to be
carefully observing the people who are
performing these audits, these evaluations,
which are going to be happening by the
hundreds, by the thousands when school
districts hire school bus attendants in the
fall.
My sense is that we are going to
overwhelm DCJS, we're going to overwhelm the
7281
school districts. We're creating mammoth, and
I believe they are mammoth, logistical
problems with respect to the hiring of people
to work with our children.
It's critically important that we
find the right people. It's critically
important that we screen out those who have
criminal pasts. I would suggest, however,
that doing it in the somewhat ritualistic
fashion under which this bill and the bill we
enacted last year, I think the practicality of
watching these bills work is demonstrating to
us that we need to rethink this issue and
rethink the process by which we disqualify
people on the basis of background criminal
checks.
I think the other points with
respect to the costs of these services are
well taken. We're going to take people who
are going to make $7 an hour as school bus
attendants, and the very first thing we're
going to do is say you've got to pay $80 in
order to be apply to apply. There goes the
first week's employment check. I think those
points are well taken.
7282
But I would just urge this house to
take another look at the fingerprinting
process. It may be a good idea, I think it a
good idea for those who work with our
children. But the very tight straitjacket
that we placed school districts in last year
in the bill we enacted I think will turn out
to be impractical and illogical, and we ought
to rethink it.
I'm going to vote in favor of the
concept here, Mr. President. My hope is that
before this bill becomes law, we will go
back -- maybe even hold hearings, as Senator
Duane has suggested -- so that we can figure
out the best way to do this to make it work,
to reach the beneficial purpose that Senator
Fuschillo would like to get to and not run
into the shoals and the landmines that I think
Senator Duane properly predicts.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Any
other Senator wishing to be heard on the bill?
Seeing none, debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
7283
SENATOR PATERSON: Slow roll
call.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Do
I see five Senators rise?
Seeing five Senators rise, a slow
roll call has been called.
The Secretary will ring the bells
and call the roll slowly.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Alesi, to explain his vote.
SENATOR ALESI: There are times
when the voice of opposition offers us some
opportunity to reasonably ponder the nature of
that opposition, especially when it is spread
across a broad spectrum of argument as it
pertains to other topics that are related to
directly or indirectly to the legislation at
hand.
And after considering the
possibility that some of those broader
arguments might apply to this particular
legislation, I am convinced that even though
7284
others might consider that they might, that
they most likely do not.
And under the circumstances, at
least as it pertains directly to this
legislation, I would have to feel that the
safety of those students who are riding our
school buses should be first and foremost in
our minds when we are determining what is
relevant to a piece of legislation and what is
too broad for interpretation as relates to
background checks and other things that are
absolutely necessary for consideration but not
necessarily determined to the direct focus of
conclusion when it comes to background checks
for people on our school buses.
And keeping that in mind, and
keeping in mind my general tendencies to try
to keep a very narrow focus on the bill at
hand, I appreciate the concerns and the
evidents of the author of this legislation to
keep narrowly focused on background checks for
those people operating school buses. And that
is the essence of this legislation.
And with that in mind, I would
continue in my own personal embracement of
7285
what is necessary to protect our children by
providing background checks, that I will fully
support the efforts of the author of this
legislation to make available through
legislation those background checks and
whatever other necessary methods are
incorporated in the legislation to assure that
the safety of our children is manifested
through this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Alesi, how do you vote?
SENATOR ALESI: I think I vote
yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will record Senator Alesi as aye and
continue the roll call.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Breslin, to explain his vote.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
7286
I will be voting in the affirmative
on this bill because I think anyone who deals
in a fiduciary capacity with children or in a
trust relationship with children or a
vulnerability situation with children should
be totally free of any background that would
disqualify them to be placed in that position.
But I hope that the sponsor would
continue to look at the entire area to include
all those people who fit that definition of
contact with children and to make it
consistent, to make it nondiscriminatory in
terms of who pays for the test, and that we
bring a unity and consistency to the whole
process.
And I vote in the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Breslin will be recorded in the
affirmative.
The Secretary will continue to read
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Brown.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Brown -
SENATOR BROWN: To explain my
7287
vote, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: -
to explain his vote.
However, would you please take your
regular seat, Senator, as our rules require.
SENATOR BROWN: Sorry, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
That's okay. We've got time.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BROWN: I too will be
voting in the affirmative on this bill.
Like Senator Breslin, I agree that
people that come into contact with our
children on school buses and school settings,
it's important, with some of the things that
are going on now, to have background checks
for those individuals.
And while I have heard my
colleagues' concerns about potentially the
employees having to pay for their background
checks and perhaps some other employees in
school settings not having to do so being
discriminatory, I've also listened to Senator
DeFrancisco [sic] in talking about looking
7288
narrowly at the bill and what the bill
contains and what the bill is attempting to
do.
And based on my belief that school
bus drivers and people that work with our
children, we should know what their background
contains, I will be voting in the affirmative.
Thank you Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Brown will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
(Senator Bruno was indicated as
voting in the affirmative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
(Senator Connor was indicated as
voting in the negative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Dollinger.
7289
SENATOR DOLLINGER: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, I'm going to vote in favor of this
bill. But I still believe that the debate and
the issues that were raised by Senator Duane
and others about the pertinence of those who
we fingerprint and provide criminal justice
background checks, and whether we are singling
out a certain class of employees who may make
less than $8 to $10 an hour I think are
pertinent to the debate about this issue.
And I stand by my earlier comment.
My hope is that Senator Fuschillo, in
discussions with the Assembly if this bill
gets that far, will raise the issue of our
prior commitment to fingerprinting and
background checks and test that against the
reality of what school districts are
encountering this year as they attempt to
comply with the bill we passed last year.
I think this is an area that's
critically important to public safety. But I
7290
think that there are important issues of
equity and fairness as well as practical
implementation that require us to take a more
serious look at this issue and hopefully give
second thoughts to the bill we enacted last
year and include in that bill a provision that
says a school district may hire on a
provisional basis for 90 days while awaiting
the background check and the fingerprinting.
But I will nonetheless vote aye,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Espada.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you.
Mr. President. Just to briefly explain my
7291
vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, to explain his vote.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: This was a
spirited discussion, but I think the intention
should not be lost. As a parent, when a child
gets on the school bus, we should know and we
should have peace of mind that before a school
bus attendant, similar to a school bus driver,
steps on that bus, they should not have a
criminal background.
We entrust school bus drivers and
school bus attendants with more than 2 million
children on an annual basis. This is an
important piece of legislation to protect the
health and welfare and safety of children. I
vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo will be recorded in the
affirmative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
7292
SENATOR GOODMAN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: To
explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Hassell-Thompson, to explain her vote.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you.
I too am going to vote on this bill
with a tremendous sense of reluctance. And
the reluctance is the point that I made when I
spoke on the bill. And that is that I feel
that the only weakness in this bill is the
fact that we are asking people who are the
lowest-rung-paid to pay for a criminal
background check when no other area of people
who work with children, with schoolchildren,
are asked to make the same decision.
I am voting yes. I said I was
voting for it reluctantly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: You
are voting in the affirmative?
7293
Senator Hassell-Thompson, in the
affirmative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
SENATOR KRUGER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: On the bill,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Lachman, to explain his vote.
SENATOR LACHMAN: There are very
few bills that we pass in this chamber on any
issue that are always perfect. But there are
some bills that we vote on in this chamber
that are absolutely essential. This bill is
absolutely essential.
Throughout the state of New York,
there are background checks on
7294
superintendents, deputy superintendents,
teachers, paraprofessionals, security guards,
bus attendants. These are essential in the
real world outside of this chamber. That I
can say logically.
Emotionally, I can add that 15
years ago a child that was part of my extended
family was killed by a bus driver and an
attendant driving that bus who would not be
permitted, with the background check that
we're voting on today, to be either driving or
assisting or helping. That child would now be
in her early twenties. She died at the age of
six.
I strongly urge my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to reenter the real
world and support this bill. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Lachman will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Continue the roll call.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Aye.
7295
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Aye.
7296
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez,
excused.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr.
President -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Montgomery, to explain her vote.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- to
explain my vote. Thank you.
Just briefly, as I said when I made
comments on the bill, I have some problems
with this legislation. I think it is not
clear just to what extent we are excluding
people by disqualifying them when in fact it
may have been a charge that was totally
unrelated to a job as a bus attendant.
It is my understanding that a large
percent of these jobs are held by women who
accompany the driver and the children. They
are paid minimum wage, which is less than $6
an hour. We're asking them to pay for a
criminal background check.
And it just seems to me that it is
all out of proportion to either the job itself
or the consideration of the types of people
7297
who may in fact be applying and who may in
fact be perfectly good people as it relates to
their employment, notwithstanding an earlier
infraction. It doesn't say when it may have
occurred, under what circumstances, whether or
not it was in any way related.
So I'm going to oppose this. It is
not in any way to have a negative vote on
whether or not I am concerned about the safety
of children. But I certainly am concerned
about the process whereby we exclude a large
number of people who really need this job
despite the fact that it is such a low-wage
job.
So I'm going to vote no on this
bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Montgomery will be recorded in the
negative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: I'm sorry, I
meant to vote yes on that bill. I apologize.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
7298
Senator Markowitz's vote will be recorded in
the affirmative.
Please continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Morahan.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Morahan, to explain his vote.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Mr.
President. What we're doing here today on bus
safety and what we've done in the past on bus
safety and school safety and school civility
is all to protect our youngsters going to
school.
And I know no bill is perfect.
It's been my experience here, no matter what
bill we pass in this house or we create into
law, there's always some imperfection,
something that will make us revisit it,
something that will make us take a second
look.
However, in this particular case I
believe it's imperative that we push forward
with this legislation. I stand in support of
it. It ties into the school safety bill that
we passed last year, one that protects ours
young children, one that gives the parents of
7299
our children much solace and comfort.
And I think we have to start
considering the school bus as an extension of
the classroom, that school starts the moment
that a child steps on the bus. And I believe
the attendant who has access to those
children, as well as the driver, we must feel
secure in that that person is one suitable and
qualified to monitor the activity and the
safety of our children.
So therefore I believe that I want
to commend the sponsor, Senator Fuschillo, for
his activity and for his promoting this bill
and authoring this legislation. I know he is
a parent, also has the same concern as all
others. And therefore, I'm going to vote in
the affirmative.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Morahan will be recorded in
the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll, please.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
(No response.)
7300
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Onorato, to explain his vote.
SENATOR ONORATO: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I'm complimenting
Senator Fuschillo on this piece of
legislation. I know we don't have an
agreement yet with the Assembly. And I would
hope that when they get together on it, that
they would address the two problems that we
did find with it.
Number one was that they be
required to pay for their own background check
for such a low-paying job. I think we should
revisit that and waive that fee completely.
And perhaps if we spell out what it is on the
criminal background check that would eliminate
them from the job.
I vote yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Onorato will be recorded in the
affirmative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Oppenheimer.
7301
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson, to explain his vote.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I think that the issue of school
safety has impinged upon the concept of this
actual bill. We all agree about school
safety. I voted for all the school safety
bills.
But Senator Montgomery pointed it
out, this is an economic issue. Do we need to
have this type of testing? Absolutely. But
to ask people who are trying to get this job
that pays very little to suffer that type of
cost is really putting the onus of
responsibility on them when we, the society,
need to take it ourselves. That would really
amplify the seriousness with which all of my
colleagues have spoken on this subject.
I vote no, Mr. President. But I do
think the test should exist. And I think that
7302
we as a society should step up and administer
it. People should not be discriminated
against because they can't afford to take the
test and all they want is a job. But the test
should exist. We should pay for it.
I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson will be recorded in the
negative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator A. Smith.
7303
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Smith, to explain her vote.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Mr. President.
After close consultation with
Senator Lachman and Senator Smith, and coming
to the realization that our children are the
most important things in our lives, I've
decided that this year I will be voting in the
affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator A. Smith will be recorded in the
affirmative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator M. Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, briefly to explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Stachowski, to explain his vote.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I'm going to
support this legislation.
7304
I think it has a couple of
problems. I think maybe someone else other
than these poor people on minimum wage should
be paying for the test. But that being said,
I think the children should be protected.
But mainly I stood up to compliment
Senator Fuschillo on all the extra work he's
being doing today and congratulate him on that
effort.
I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Stachowski will be recorded in the
affirmative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
excused.
Senator Stavisky.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Stavisky, to explain her vote.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes. I concur
with everything that Senator Stachowski said,
including his comments about Senator
Fuschillo, with one exception. And that's his
final vote.
I vote no, Mr. President, because
while obviously children's safety is of
7305
primary concern -- the most important
concern -- I suspect that many of the bus
drivers are very similar to the people who
live in the 16th Senate district. And they're
the ones who are going to have to bear the
brunt of the cost of this background check.
And until such time as they are
relieved of this excessive burden, I'm afraid
I just have to vote no. I'm very reluctant to
do so, but I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Stavisky will be recorded in the
negative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the absentees, please.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
(No response.)
7306
THE SECRETARY: Senator Espada.
SENATOR ESPADA: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Please announce the results when they're
tabulated.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 43. Nays,
6.
7307
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
422, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 3098,
an act authorizing the assessor of the County
of Nassau.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, an explanation has been
asked for.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
The legislation authorizes the
assessor of the County of Nassau to accept an
application for exemption from real property
taxes for the Bellmore-Merrick E.M.S., which
is located in my district, in Bellmore, in the
Town of Hempstead, the County of Nassau.
The property was purchased in March
of 2000, after the filing date for that year.
As you know, this body has put
forth many of these bills which have been
passed by the Senate. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
7308
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, will the sponsor yield to a
question?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
sponsor yields, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Fuschillo, what was the date of the actual
transfer of this property? Do you know the -
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I believe it
was acquired, Senator, in March of 2000. I
don't know the exact date of that month, but
it was in March of 2000.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, as I understand -- if Senator
Fuschillo will continue to yield.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: As I
understand it, this is to seek an exemption
from the real property taxes due throughout
the remainder of the year 2000?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: No, this is
7309
to allow the assessor's department to accept
an application for the exemption.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The amount of
real property taxes that the assessor could
abate if this bill were granted is
approximately how much?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator, I
don't have the exact amount, but we were
advised that it was minimal. And I know you
will ask the next question, what is minimal.
I do not have that.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to
yield.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
7310
sponsor continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Does the
County of Nassau, county legislature, are they
prepared to abate the taxes, to grant the
property tax exemption and therefore reimburse
Bellmore-Merrick the amount that they paid?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, I'm not a member of that body. I
can't answer that question.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, do you yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is there a
home rule message attached to this bill?
Through you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I
don't believe there is one. I don't believe
we've been -- one is required, apparently.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Are you
7311
asking me?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, that was
my next question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
There is none at the desk.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: No, there is
not.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Does the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: This bill
authorizes the Nassau County Legislature, upon
the filing of the application, to grant the
exemption. Is that correct?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: No. It
authorizes the assessor to accept an
application for review purposes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
7312
Senator Fuschillo, do you yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The bill in
line 20 through 22 talks about the assessor
accepting the application, and then it says
that the Nassau County Legislature may grant
the exemption, beginning from the date of
acquisition and taking such forward.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: That's
correct. But if you look further up, to 9-11,
if accepted, the application shall be
reviewed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
will continue to yield.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I think the
key word there was "may".
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Correct.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, I will
continue to yield, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
continues to yield, Senator.
7313
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, we're giving the Nassau County
Legislature the ability to grant the property
tax exemption. I believe, with all the other
bills that we've done, we allow the assessor
to accept it and we give the Nassau County
Legislature the ability to abate the property
taxes.
My question is, why wouldn't we
just pass a single uniform bill that gives the
Nassau County Legislature, which seems to be
the only county -- well, perhaps with the
exclusion of Suffolk, which occasionally rolls
in. But whatever problem exists in Nassau
County, why not just create a bill that says
if the county legislature wants to pay this
money back, they can do it without our
approval, without our authority? Let's give
them the authority to abate these property
taxes all by themselves.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, through you, I know from previous
debates on the floor where Senator Dollinger
has raised this issue, and just through his
debates, that Senator Hannon had a bill
7314
previously in this house which would do
exactly that. I am not opposed to that at
all.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Mr. President, I'll just speak on
the will. I appreciate Senator Fuschillo's
patience and understanding.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I would point
out that Senator Hannon did have a bill and it
was in the house last year, but the bill
hasn't come back to the house this year. And
I would strongly suggest that Senator Hannon
or -- my guess is you could make this a Nassau
County delegation bill, since this seems to be
a particular form of real property tax mistake
that most often manifests itself in Nassau
County.
What have this bill does -- and
again, I come back to it. I will continue to
rail against these bills and vote against
these bills so long as we refuse to solve the
problem. Let's give to the Nassau County
Legislature, if that's the only place the
7315
problem exists -- it's a big county, they can
make up their own mind as to whether these are
properly adjudicated property tax exemptions.
They're big boys. They can figure out -- now,
mind you, they have had some financial
problems recently that would suggest that
maybe they're not as big a group of boys and
girls as we once thought, but they're big boys
and big girls. They can make up their own
mind. Let them decide whether to give these
partial property tax exemptions.
I find it anomalous that the
New York State Legislature has to put its time
and effort into, in essence, obviating the
problems of the Bellmore-Merrick E.M.S., Inc.,
which seems to be a charitable organization.
They qualify for a property tax exemption. At
the time they closed this deal, I'm amazed
that one lawyer didn't say, Oh, by the way,
what are we going to do with the property
taxes that are still owed and that will
continue to accrue until the next taxable
status date, when we can then change the
property tax status from a taxable property to
an exempt property?
7316
But for some reason the lawyers in
Nassau County, the bar in Nassau County seems
to be asleep, because these deals close and
suddenly a not-for-profit entity gets a tax
bill, and that tax bill says: You owe us real
property taxes. They go back to their lawyer
and say, Wait a second, we're tax-exempt, we
shouldn't be paying this bill.
And the lawyer has to admit, Oh, by
the way, I forgot to tell you at the time of
closing that the real property tax exemption
that you're entitled to isn't triggered until
you file an application and therefore is not
effective until the next taxable status day.
Mr. President, I'm going to vote
against this bill. I have a feeling that the
bills from Senator Johnson, which I'll ask a
couple of questions about, Senator Skelos,
he's got a couple -- that the continuing
problems of Nassau County and Suffolk County,
which for some reason don't seem to be
manifest many other places in this state, but
nonetheless this is a home rule problem we
ought to create a home rule solution for.
I would just urge Senator
7317
Fuschillo, Senator Hannon, Senator Skelos,
Senator Balboni, Senator Marcellino, Mr.
President -- we've talked about this bill
before. I would just urge the Nassau County
delegation, let's do ourselves a favor. Let's
pass a bill that gives Nassau County the
ability to, on its own, like the big boys and
big girls that they are, let them make this
choice as to whether an applicant has laid the
proper foundation for a partial property tax
exemption. If they can establish it to the
satisfaction of Nassau County, we don't need
these bills to be here. Let's pass a
countywide solution.
I would suggest the Hannon bill,
which I believe Assemblyman Abbate carries in
the other house, that bill will solve the
problem. Instead, we continue to go through
this, much like a broken record. I hate
sounding like one. But something is broken in
Nassau County. It needs a permanent fix.
Let's pass a permanent fix.
I'll be voting in the negative,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
7318
Any other Senator wishing to be heard?
Seeing none, debate is closed.
Please read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
425, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 3258 -
SENATOR JOHNSON: Lay it aside
for the day, please.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Lay it aside
for the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is laid aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
426, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 3300, an
act authorizing the assessor of the County of
7319
Nassau.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, why do you rise?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: This
legislation would authorize the Nassau County
assessor to accept an application for
exemption from real property taxes for the
Baldwin Fire District.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, the explanation is sufficient.
I'll simply address the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I appreciate
Senator Fuschillo, who has been doing yeoman's
service on behalf of several personages who
have not been in the house. I will report
favorably back to Senator Bruno and to Senator
Skelos, Senator Fuschillo.
This bill highlights to what I
believe is almost an absolute absurd degree of
the problem that I've been addressing in
Nassau County. Here's a member from Monroe
7320
County, 300 miles away from Nassau County, who
continues to rail about wasting the time of
the New York State Senate on doing bills to
cure problems with the property tax assessment
rolls and the apparent difficulty of people in
Nassau County recognizing that they're
entitled to a real property tax exemption.
Here is the absolute folly of what
we're doing. We are saying to a taxing
entity, the Baldwin Fire District -- it's
another level of government. They bought a
piece of property. One level of government is
going to pay over taxes to another level of
government. This is the anomalous situation
where someone who represented a government
closed a real property tax deal and forgot to
ask, Oh, by the way, is the property
tax-exempt so we don't have to pay property
taxes?
That's like the State of New York
paying property taxes to the City of New York,
or the City of Rochester paying property taxes
to the County of Monroe.
I mean, someone in Nassau County,
whoever represents this fire district,
7321
committed what in my opinion is an absolute
legal boo-boo. This is a mistake. And here
we are spending the time in the New York State
Senate to obviate a mistake made by counsel in
Nassau County.
We continue to have these problems.
My views on it are well known. I know that I
sound worse than a broken record, since I'm
doing it for the second time today. But why
can't Nassau County figure out a solution to
this problem? Why is it so difficult?
Is it such a difficult thing that
we don't get to go back to our friendly
neighborhood fire district and say, Oh, by the
way, I saved you $20,000 that you shouldn't
have had to pay. If you had a good lawyer,
you would never have paid it. But instead, we
have to go back to our school districts, our
fire districts, and say that we saved them
$20,000 that they mistakenly paid.
I will continue to vote against
these bills, I will continue to talk against
these bills. I apologize to my colleagues for
the perhaps somewhat monotonous nature of what
I continue to say. But until I see a
7322
solution, I'm going to continue to vote
against these and talk against these bills.
And who knows, maybe I will
continue to try the patience of my colleagues
from Nassau County to such a level that when
they do come up with a solution, maybe the
name "Dollinger" might appear in the list of
its sponsors. Maybe pure monotony, pure
repetition would drive some of my Republican
colleagues to that desperate, truly desperate
measure.
Mr. President, I'm going to vote
against this bill. I just think that we have
to send a message, and the best message to
send is to give to the Nassau County
Legislature the power to tell its assessor to
take late-filed applications and then to abate
the taxes as needed. It's a simple bill. It
can be simply drafted. Senator Hannon carried
it last year. The Nassau County delegation
should warmly embrace it this year.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Would the
surrogate sponsor yield to a question or two?
7323
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo, do you yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Through you,
Mr. President, are there any financial
implications for this bill?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I'm looking
through my paperwork, Senator. Just give me a
minute.
Senator, about $5,000.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Mr. President,
if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Will you continue to yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Were there any
reasons given for the failure to file timely?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator, I
believe the property was purchased at a time
after the filing date, because you have to
file for the previous year. So that was the
7324
reason why.
I believe it was acquired on
May 15th of 2000, and they missed that filing
period for the taxable year.
SENATOR BRESLIN: On the bill,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Breslin, on the bill.
SENATOR BRESLIN: I would just
echo the remarks made by Senator Dollinger
that we continue to see bills that correct
situations, particularly in Nassau County and
also in Suffolk, and that there ought to be
some uniform bill passed or a local law passed
that would enable us to stop taking an
inordinate amount of time up on these local
bills that should have been done properly in
the first place.
However, deferring to legislators
on their local issues, I will vote in the
affirmative on this bill. Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Any
other Senator wishing to be heard on the bill?
Seeing none, debate is closed.
7325
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just briefly,
Mr. President.
I just would remind my colleagues
from Nassau County that there is a benefit to
doing a statewide bill -- or, for that matter,
a Nassau County-wide bill -- and that is, you
could implement the both-ways doctrine.
That is, you could grant partial
property tax exemptions to not-for-profit
organizations and religious organizations that
buy properties in the middle of a tax status
year, which would give them the benefit of the
property tax exemption for a partial year.
But you could also implement a
provision that says that if a for-profit
entity buys a piece of property from a
not-for-profit entity, that it would be taxed
7326
for the second half of the year.
I would strongly suggest -- and I
don't know whether the Hannon bill is a -
what I would call a both-ways bill, but that
is clearly the way to do it. If we're going
to grant partial exemptions, we should equally
demand that there are partial assessments.
That during the period of time that a
for-profit entity owns the property during the
year, it would be subject to real property
taxation.
I strongly urge my colleagues from
Nassau County, if for no other reason than to
perhaps silence the member from Monroe County,
do a bill that solves this problem.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Very tempting offer, Senator.
Senator Dollinger will recorded in
the negative.
Announce the results, please.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
7327
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
431, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 4064, an
act authorizing the assessor of the County of
Nassau.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: On the bill,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'll waive
the explanation. I think I discern a pattern
here.
The only point I would make about
this bill, Mr. President -- and it bears a
striking resemblance to the prior bill that we
just did, which is a bill in which we said to
one level of government you don't have to pay
real property taxes to another level of
government, in the fire district bill.
This is a bill that says -- here's
a village that buys a piece of property, it
buys a piece of property during the taxable
status year, and sure enough, it has to pay
real property taxes. Probably becoming one of
7328
the few villages in New York State ever to pay
property taxes to another entity.
Why does that happen? That happens
because they acquired the property during the
period of time when its taxable status
required that it be subject to real property
taxation. I would point out that this bill
covers a two-year period. This covers 1998
and '99, the '99-2000 school year, the '98 -
and the general tax of 1999 and 2000. It took
the village two years to figure out that they
were paying property taxes to another
government entity.
I just -- I find it almost
astounding that whoever is doing the legal
work for this village sat there, got a
property tax bill for two consecutive years,
and never bothered to call and find out why
are we being subjected to real property
taxation, why don't we file an exemption. And
I would point out that this isn't even an
exemption for a not-for-profit organization,
this is an exemption for government. It isn't
supposed to pay property taxes.
What we have done is we have
7329
created a system under which, if you run into
this anomaly in Nassau County, you can sit on
your rights for a couple of years. And lo and
behold, Senator Skelos or one of the other
members from Nassau County will come in riding
on the white horse of a special bill to
obviate the need to pay real property taxes.
Mr. President, I will vote against
this bill, I will continue to vote against
these bills. I would strongly suggest that
there's no reason why Nassau County can't do
this all by itself. And again, I would
strongly suggest that whoever represents the
Village of Mill Stream or the Village of
Valley Stream, they ought to get a new lawyer
and they ought to wake up when they get a
property tax bill that says you owe property
taxes to Nassau County, someone ought to sit
down and say, Why are we paying property
taxes? We're a government. We don't have to
do that.
That happened in this case, but
only after a couple of years. And I just
think that Nassau County should be given the
power to grant these exemptions.
7330
As I said before, Mr. President, I
don't even need to be the chief sponsor of
this bill, but perhaps for the price of
silence my name somewhere on the bill from
Monroe County as kind of an honorary member of
the Nassau County delegation, because this is
a problem we ought to leave in Nassau County
and not bring even to our attention again.
I'll vote in the negative, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Any
other Senator wishing to be heard?
Seeing none, read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
467, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 4233A -
7331
SENATOR BRESLIN: Explanation.
THE SECRETARY: -- an act to
amend the Penal Law, in relation to the crime
of aggravated harassment.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Saland, an explanation has been
requested of your bill.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President, this bill is an
attempt to deal with the situation that has
occurred by way of the interpretation in
several courts of Section 240-30 of the Penal
Law dealing with the subject of aggravated
harassment.
Unfortunately, what has happened is
that while the law is pretty clear, the
statute is pretty clear with respect to the
initiation of a telephone call by one party to
another, harassing that person in the course
of that conversation, what is unclear and what
the courts have defined as unclear and in fact
have dismissed complaints is where the person
being harassed in fact may have initiated the
phone call.
7332
So that person, for instance, may
have gotten a phone call from a significant
other or some third party, wasn't there, the
call perhaps was picked up by voicemail or an
answering machine, the party returns the phone
call, and that person to whom the call is
returned then engages in a course of conduct
that would otherwise be considered aggravated
harassment -- only to find out that because
the call was not initiated by the person who
engaged in that conduct or misconduct, but by
in fact the innocent person himself or
herself, that the grounds to prosecute that
person under the Penal Law does not exist.
This bill would correct that by
making it clear that it is the communication,
not the initiation of the communication, that
in effect is the predicate to enable you to
successfully prosecute such a person.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Mr. President,
would the sponsor yield to a question or two?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Saland, do you yield?
7333
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Through you,
Mr. President, have there been any reported
cases that have interpreted the prior statute
that we could see?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, there have,
Senator. The one that is the most recent that
we're aware of is People versus Monroe. And
that's reported in 183 miscellaneous 2nd, 374.
That's a 2000 case. And I believe there have
been other cases, whether reported or not
reported, that have similarly dismissed such
actions.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again through
you, Mr. President, have there been any -
besides miscellaneous cases, have any of these
cases been taken to an appeals court for an
interpretation of the existing statute?
SENATOR SALAND: I am not aware
of anything to that effect, any cases that
have gone up on appeal.
But what we are being advised is
7334
that the practice now among prosecutors, in
light of these miscellaneous cases, is not to
attempt to advance prosecutions where the
complainant would have initiated the phone
call, such as in the example that I gave you
earlier.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again, through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Does the sponsor yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: How does the
text of this bill differ from the prior bill?
SENATOR SALAND: Well, if you
take a look at the bill, Senator, what we've
done is we've taken a section of the law that
I believe went back to the late 1960s, the
intent of which was to deal with
telemarketers, people who would bombard you
with phone calls, which there was a great
desire to bring an end to. And that
7335
effectively was, by way of definition, made
into the crime of aggravated harassment.
We removed that from subsection 1,
made it into parts A and B, dropped B in its
entirety to the language dealing with the
telemarketers. And then we amended, as I
mentioned earlier, the language in the
original bill or the existing law that talks
in terms of initiating a communication so it
talks purely in terms of "communicates."
So that whether you place the call
yourself or you receive the call, if the other
party or any party engages in conduct that
would constitute aggravated harassment, the
fact that you may have been the party who
placed or initiated the call will not be a
defense that could be used against you
resulting in the dismissal of what would
otherwise be a criminal case.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again, one
clarification question through you, Mr.
President.
Then what you're saying is you are
taking out the initiation of the phone call as
any part of the prospective statute?
7336
SENATOR SALAND: Correct. So
that, again, the easiest example is you return
somebody's call, get thoroughly harassed or
abused over the telephone, to the extent to
which it would otherwise be aggravated
harassment; it will no longer be a defense
that you returned the call.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Mr. President,
on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Breslin, on the bill.
SENATOR BRESLIN: I think it was
a very good example of having what I believe
to be legitimate questions and having Senator
Saland have the background, the ability, and
the research on this statute to present and
give me information sufficient to vote in the
affirmative.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President. Would the sponsor answer a
question or two?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
7337
Senator Saland, will you yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Saland -- through you, Mr. President, Senator
Saland, I was just wondering if this bill
would include people who received the call,
the communication, rather than just the person
who initiated it. Is that correct?
SENATOR SALAND: What's intended
by this bill, Senator Montgomery, is to make
the conduct of either threatening or
obscene-type phone calls that would otherwise
constitute aggravated harassment into being
the basis to proceed in criminal court against
somebody and not base it upon who initiated
the process.
If I place a phone call to someone
in response to a call that person made to
me -- perhaps they left a telephone message
for me, perhaps they left a verbal message on
my answering machine or voicemail -- and that
person proceeds to engage in vile and abusive
7338
language to me, that person should not be able
to have as a defense "I didn't place the call,
Senator Saland placed the call, he effectively
opened himself up for this type of
misconduct."
We don't want that to happen. We
want the conduct itself to be what is punished
and not to have some technical defense of "I
didn't initiate the call." Under the language
in the existing bill, that word "initiates" or
"initiation" is there, and that's what causes
the problem.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. To
continue my question to Senator Saland.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Saland, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So
therefore, to use an example, you mentioned
the calls that are made by telemarketers. If
a telemarketer calls me and puts pressure on
me and I -
7339
SENATOR SALAND: If I can
interrupt you, we're doing nothing to change
that. All we've done is shift the existing
language from where it is in the bill today to
another section. If that telemarketer calls
you and engages in repeat phone calls and you
just don't want to be bothered and they
continue and persist, there's nothing that
could have been prosecuted yesterday that
couldn't be prosecuted tomorrow if this law is
enacted.
The real issue that we're
attempting to deal with here is the abusive
call by one individual to another, due to the
fact that we've had some reported court cases
in which courts have dismissed criminal
complaints because of the technicality that
the person who was the victim of the nasty,
abusive phone call initiated the call.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: If I may
pursue my question to understand, Mr.
President.
So if the person calls me and I
feel sufficiently harassed and I use abusive
language back on them, is it not so on your
7340
bill that I'm now -- I can be prosecuted or I
would be charged with an A misdemeanor or
aggravated harassment by that person who
called to harass me?
SENATOR SALAND: Nothing changes.
If you are the recipient of the phone call and
you respond in kind, I will leave it to the
district attorney to determine how he or she
would wish to handle that.
What we're trying to do is just
avoid a situation in which, by reasons of
process, you never reach what I'll term the
merits of whether in fact you've had an
instance of aggravated harassment. You can't
get through the door under the existing law to
have your day in court, so to speak, if you
place the phone call.
And generally we're talking about
cases in which the individual who places the
call is obviously responding to either a
telephone message or a telephone call and then
is subjected to some rather ugly, grotesque
language which would rise to the level of
aggravated harassment had they not placed the
phone call.
7341
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Thank you, Senator Saland.
On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Montgomery, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I'm just not
clear that this legislation, as it is written
by the sponsor, will not in fact be used
against a person who is simply being defensive
of -- based on the fact that someone has
called or contacted them with a harassing
language and dialogue or whatever and the
person responds in kind, you are now being
placed in a position, because you have
defended yourself, vis-a-vis this bill, you
will be -- you could be dragged into court,
charged with a misdemeanor and dealt with as
if you in fact initiated this harassment
rather than responding to it because someone
else has called you and harassed you.
SENATOR SALAND: Mr. President,
on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Saland, on the bill.
SENATOR SALAND: I probably am at
7342
a distinct advantage in terms of the product
that I have in front of me, and perhaps -- I
wouldn't expect that Senator Montgomery would
have the full text of Section 240-30 in front
of her.
And were you to look at the bill
print that's currently before us, you would
have no reason to know, unless you were
familiar with the criminal law, that the
paragraph that precedes this numbered
paragraph and several other numbered
paragraphs reads as follows: "A person is
guilty of aggravated harassment in the second
degree when, with intent" -- with intent, and
that's the key word -- "with intent to harass,
annoy, threaten or alarm another person, he or
she" -- and then you would go to this language
about communication.
So in the example that you gave, I
would tend to think that if a district
attorney was presented with cross-complaints,
the likelihood would be that were you
responding in kind -- and I know you're too
ladylike to do that -- but were you responding
in kind to that type of a call, the likelihood
7343
would be that the prosecutor I would think
would say that Senator Montgomery may have
been responding in kind in a manner of
speaking defending herself, but she did not
intend to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm
that other person.
So I think you have to look at the
prefatory language, and unfortunately that is
not in the bill print that you were looking
at.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Any
other Senator wishing to be heard?
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Saland would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, will you yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
want to go back to what Senator Breslin was
talking about with you, Section 240-30,
subdivision 1. What you've done is you've
7344
taken what was in the original law the
complete sentence, separated by "or," "a
communication or causes a communication," and
you've put it into two subsections, I guess A
and B.
And what I'm saying is, from
Senator Breslin and Senator Montgomery, it
seems to me that in the overwhelming cases
that the judges read the law correctly, it was
just in some -- you described one right
here -- that there were those who chose to
look very ambiguously at what that section of
the law meant. It seems to be clear to you
and it seems to be clear to me, but other
people read it in a way that is not helpful to
what you would be trying to do in a
prosecution under that statute.
My question relates to the fact
that since I think that the new law is just as
ambiguous as the old one, aren't we going to
have that mistake made again by someone who is
ruling on this type of issue that's going to
go right back and do exactly the same thing as
they did in the example that you cited?
Because in my opinion, we're just
7345
not clearly delineating that the cause of
communication could be a return phone call or
response to an initial communication.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you,
Senator Paterson. I would respectfully
disagree with you.
Again, going to the existing
language, the existing language in what is
currently Section 1 talks about "communicates
or causes a communication to be initiated."
We've made clear that we're dealing
with initiation only with telemarketers by
dropping that down into a new subsection B.
That seems to be the language that the courts
have relied upon where they have dismissed
these complaints where a phone call was
initiated by the person who was the
complainant.
I can't tell you that there may not
be an instance in which some court may cry out
for greater clarity. I think we will
accomplish that by doing the amendment that
we're proposing and discussing right here
today.
And I would certainly think that
7346
the intent of this Legislature, as would be
found in the bill jacket, would certainly be
clear. Otherwise, there would be little or no
reason to even propose this amendment.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Saland would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: Facetiously,
Senator, I'm dying to ask you, were the
printers charging by the word?
Because -- in other words, I'm just
saying I just think you need the slightest bit
added language. You have the exact same
language in the amended proposal than in the
original bill. And I just like the concept, I
like what you're doing, and I'm just afraid
that we might have to come back here.
I will rely on your research and
what you feel was the dicta of the courts in
cases where they dismissed the complaints.
7347
But I just want to ask you, how can the court
rule differently if the language is just the
same but the positioning of the complaint is a
little different?
Other than that, I'll -- you know,
I'll go with what you think.
SENATOR SALAND: Well, I thank
you for that, I think, vote of confidence, but
I'm not absolutely sure that it was.
This represents the end product of
some negotiations with our friends in the
Assembly. I think the consensus arrived at
was that this addresses a problem that is
viewed as being a real problem.
I certainly would be more than
happy, Senator Paterson, should its
application or experience dictate otherwise,
to apologize to you, here in this chamber,
acknowledge your wisdom, and try and do it yet
again.
But I do believe that this will do
the trick, and I don't expect to have to
revisit it.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Senator.
7348
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Any
other Senator wishing to be heard?
Seeing none, debate is closed.
Please read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
508, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 3267, an
act to amend Town Law, in relation to
exemption.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator LaValle, an explanation has been
requested by Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes. Senator
Stavisky, you will recall that last week we
passed a bill in this chamber, 58 to nothing,
7349
that would exempt the cost of leased telephone
lines in order to maintain an adequate fire
alarm system from fire district spending.
As you will recall from that
debate, the Town Law places spending limits
upon fire districts. And fire districts may,
without the adoption of a proposition, expend
annually for fire district purposes up to
$2,000.
You will recall in last week's
debate I talked about that there were 14
separate exemptions and that we were, by the
recommended amendment, adding number 15 to
subdivision 18 of Section 176 of the Town Law.
And what we are merely doing is adding to that
the cost of fuel for fire district emergency
vehicles and also fuel tax carryovers.
And that specifically, Senator
Stavisky, means sales tax, motor fuel tax, and
petroleum business tax. That's what we mean
by those carryover taxes.
And I had mentioned this very
precisely in last week's debate on the
exemption of the leased telephone lines to
maintain an adequate alarm system. And I had
7350
indicated that, certainly with the cost of
motor fuel, that fire districts would be
pushing beyond their limits and would have to
go to a proposition.
So this merely is a mirror of last
week's bill. It substitutes leased telephone
lines for alarm systems for motor fuel oil and
carryover taxes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: If the sponsor
would yield to a number of questions.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Senator
LaValle -- through you, Mr. President -- how
many fire districts are there in the state of
New York?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Many.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Many. And
presumably they're spread -- through you, Mr.
President -- throughout the state of New York?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
SENATOR STAVISKY: We have many,
7351
many fire districts.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, Senator
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
if the sponsor will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator LaValle?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: You mentioned
the 14 exemptions. Aside from the telephone
lines that we spoke about last week, most of
these exemptions are for reserve funds for
bond payments, workers' comp, other sort of
fixed costs.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Why, then, are
we including the fuel as that type of
exemption?
SENATOR LAVALLE: I think, if you
will recall, Senator Dollinger brought up in
the debate that the changes in the law, we
really haven't kept up, and why are we, you
know, doing this in a piecemeal system.
7352
And we took that very seriously,
his comments and so forth, and really for
another day are looking at doing something
that really meets the 21st century and what
our fire districts are going through in terms
of items like maintaining an adequate alarm
system by leasing telephone lines.
That was something, years back when
this section of law was created or limitations
were created, the $2,000 limit was fine,
putting up propositions were a rare thing.
But today we're finding that fire districts
need a little more latitude than we give them
under current law.
But what I had said to Senator
Dollinger when he said why don't we just
completely lift this, I think even the fire
districts, members who are commissioners on
the fire districts, really, while they want
more flexibility and would like to come to the
Legislature from time to time, really don't
want a carte blanche system because it is
something that they themselves might run up
the bill.
So they'd really like a
7353
check-and-balance system on one hand, but not
so tight as to have to come to the Legislature
all the time.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
I assume, then, that's why the repair reserve
fund can cover the repairs, as an example,
that do not occur annually. And that repair
fund is exempt from that constitutional -
that so-called -- in a sense, the debt limit
that we have throughout governmental entities.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes. Yes.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
if the sponsor will continue to yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR STAVISKY: You mentioned
that the administrators of the fire district,
the commissioners, who are, I believe,
appointed -
SENATOR LAVALLE: No, no, they're
elected, Senator. Fire district commissioners
are elected by the people in their fire
districts.
SENATOR STAVISKY: All right. I
7354
accept your correction.
But they don't want to be tempted
to become extravagant in their expenditures.
But if this legislation passes, aren't we
going to see an increase in the property tax
as it affects the local property taxpayer?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Certainly that
could happen. But we're doing it -- the
answer is that could always happen. It could
happen when we allow an additional exemption
for leasing of telephone lines to maintain
alarm systems. It could certainly happen if
we allow an exemption for motor fuel.
But, Senator, as a matter of public
policy, we as a Legislature are carefully
weighing, putting on a scale the equities of
should we allow this to move forward in terms
of an exemption for motor fuel in light of
where gasoline prices are today, and, on the
other side, would it affect in some way, if we
didn't pass this legislation, fire emergency
services to our constituents.
So as I had answered Senator
Dollinger last week, I myself as a legislator
am always leery when we go around a process
7355
that does not include the people to vote on a
proposition, which is what is current law.
SENATOR STAVISKY: That's
correct.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Which is
current law.
SENATOR STAVISKY: That's the way
it was explained to me.
I have a couple of other questions,
if the Senator will yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: How many of
these fire districts are at their spending
limit? In other words, how many fire
districts would be affected by this
legislation?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, I
don't know that. You know, I couldn't give
you a number.
But what I do know is that this
legislation is -- and we've spoken to the
statewide Fire District Association, and this
is something that is supported, that there is
7356
a general problem across the state. And I
couldn't quantify it by giving you a number,
but that's why we have the legislation before
us.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I thank you.
And I just want to be sure that the property
taxpayers in Nassau County in particular are
not unnecessarily overburdened by this
legislation.
And my last question, if the
Senator will yield -
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
SENATOR STAVISKY: -- presumably,
or at least hopefully, at some point, gas
prices will go down. Will you then move to
reduce the sort of enforced spending that this
section of the Town Law requires?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, this
legislation has been introduced and has been
requested beyond 2001, in previous sessions.
So this has been a problem that has existed
but certainly is exacerbated by what is
currently happening.
I would also like to just comment,
because you made a comment about Nassau
7357
County, I don't think any area can be or
should be singled out. Because I think that
our fire district commissioners, who are
elected, try and do a good job in holding down
expenses.
On the other hand, they have a
responsibility, because they take the same
kind of oath that we do. I'm sure that, you
know, many of us who represent districts
outside of the City of New York, outside of
the urban centers, where we have volunteer
departments, I mean, we attend many of the
functions where the commissioners are sworn in
and so forth. And so they have an oath to
protect our constituents from harm, and also
they have an obligation to the people who
elected them.
So I believe that this
legislation -- you know, we talked
theoretically -- could, you know, increase
taxes. But chances are that it would be, if
anything, quite, quite small.
Very few fire district budgets,
Senator, are voted down, because people
understand the billions of dollars that are
7358
saved to the taxpayers by the volunteer fire
service. And the commissioners, the
commissioners do not receive compensation.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Stavisky, on the bill.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I thank
Senator LaValle for his explanation and for
his discourse on the need for this
legislation. I know it's very similar to the
bill last week that dealt with the leased
telephone lines.
And I certainly intend to support
this legislation. And again, I thank the
Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
would yield for a few questions.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: When I
heard the earlier debate, I believe it was
stated that the spending limit for fire
7359
districts is $2,000. My understanding is that
in fact there's a variable factor there above
$2,000 based on some other factors of the size
of the district. Is that correct?
SENATOR LAVALLE: The only other
factor is if a district, I believe, Senator,
is at full market value in terms of property,
then there's a formula that allows an
additional leeway.
And then, as Senator Stavisky
brought up, there are certain exempt
categories. And even the law has 14 exempt
categories that they can be exempt from having
to go to a proposition.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President. Has there been
any attention paid -- and I realize that, you
know, we work on things as they come before us
in situations like this from requests from
local governments. Has there ever been an
effort, as we keep adding exemptions, to take
a look at the formula itself, which may in
fact be too low?
A formula that has too many
exemptions reminds me of the Ptolemaic theory
7360
of how they explained that the sun goes around
the earth by constantly making corrections
over five hundred years. And it still works,
but it wasn't right.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Last week's
debate, again, Senator Schneiderman, Senator
Dollinger brought up an issue that I on the
floor said, you know, he made a good point in
terms of we keep adding exemptions.
And what we've set into progress is
to, off session, bring parties together to
look at this section of law to see how we can
balance, as I had indicated, giving an
additional room to accommodate some of these
things of the leased telephone lines, the
motor fuel oil, but at the same time not
opening the floodgates where the taxpayer
would not be protected, and try and balance
that.
And we're going to have a dialogue
with the stakeholders who are involved in this
kind of legislation. So hopefully at another
time we might have an additional approach to
solving this problem, and have a formula. I
said to my counsel that we might look at this
7361
very point of lifting the cap to a higher,
more acceptable limit and look at some other
things.
So I think your point is well
taken.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Thank the sponsor for his answers.
Through you, Mr. President, on the
bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: You know,
I think this is a -- what Senator LaValle just
described is a perfect approach to this kind
of situation. I hope we will be able to
revisit the formula.
And I just want to mention that one
of the things that concerns me about the
operation of the existing formula is that it
appears -- my understanding of it is that
there is -- additional funds over the $2,000
limit are made available based on the amount
of the property valuation in a district. And
what I think that means is that if you're in a
wealthier district, you may be getting better
7362
emergency services than if you are in a less
wealthy district.
The additional funds are not
available based on need, as far as I can
tell -- population, complexity, size, distance
that has to be covered. And I would just urge
that in looking at the formula we take a look
at the equities involved in this.
I think there are some things that
should be available to all the people of the
state of New York on an equal basis. And I
think we have a judge who's just told us that
public schools fit into that category. Well,
I can't think of anything that should be
something that is available equally that is
more -- you know, an argument that is more
compelling than for emergency services.
So I would urge that when we're
looking at the formula, we also make an effort
to deal with the fact and take a look at the
fact -- the facts relating to the provision of
these services in different types of
communities. I would hate to see a situation
where we're not paying attention and we wake
up all of a sudden, as we've done with schools
7363
and with some other areas of the state, and
say, well, you know, if you're poor you're
much more likely not to get emergency services
effectively if you live in the wrong
community.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Any
other Senator wishing to be heard?
Seeing none, debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President, just briefly.
I appreciate Senator LaValle's
comments in response to Senator Schneiderman's
questions with respect to the future of this
cap on the spending for fire districts. As I
said last time when we debated another bill to
7364
add an exemption for other costs, it seems to
me that the cap on fire district expense is an
artificial one that's been placed there by us
in an attempt to control those expenditures.
But in an era of home rule, with
growing sophistication on the part of these
fire districts, it seems to me it's time to
reevaluate do we need a cap, first of all,
and, secondly, what should be the cap be.
And I appreciate it. I think that
one of the good things about the process of
legislating this year is because of additional
dialogue on some of these bills. I hope we
come up with other ideas. And I hope that
this conference has expressed a willingness on
the part of our Republican colleagues to
support a reexamination of the caps so that we
can end up with a system in which fire
districts have the necessary flexibility to
make their own minds up on what are
appropriate expenditures for their
constituents.
I appreciate Senator LaValle's
willingness to do that. I wish him success.
And I am certainly, I think, speaking on
7365
behalf of Senator Connor if I would suggest
that members of the Minority would be very
happy, willing, able, and might have something
to contribute in the process of coming to that
conclusion. We'd welcome the chance to
participate.
I vote aye, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Senator Oppenheimer, to explain her
vote.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: No, just -
thank you. I just want to second what Senator
Dollinger has said.
Costs have gone up so much in the
price of the wagons we buy, the ladders we
buy. To have caps that date back to God knows
when still in existence makes no sense at all.
To either we have to elevate the cap
considerably, or we have to get rid of it.
After all, each fire district knows
perfectly well what its needs are. And its
needs now are much more costly than they were
years ago.
7366
I'll be voting yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Oppenheimer also in the affirmative.
Announce the results, please.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
867, by Senator Skelos -
SENATOR MORAHAN: Lay it aside
for the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Lay
the bill aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
881, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 4530, an
act in relation to adjusting certain state aid
payments.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Seward, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes, Mr.
President.
This bill would allow repayments
7367
for a $126,488 overpayment which was made to
the Cincinnatus school district, which is in
Cortland County and western Chenango County,
during the 1998-1999 school year, to be
distributed over a six-year period so as to
alleviate the impact of this repayment on this
small, rural school district.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, will the sponsor yield for a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Seward, do you yield?
SENATOR SEWARD: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, what was the amount of the
annual budget for the Cincinnatus school
district this year, for the year 2000-2001?
SENATOR SEWARD: Mr. President, I
don't have that information with me. I would
estimate, however, that it would be in the
neighborhood of $5 million.
7368
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, I just didn't hear the answer, if
Senator Seward would indulge me.
SENATOR SEWARD: Mr. President, I
would repeat my answer. I do not have that
exact information. I could only give you an
estimate based on the size of the school
district. I would say it would be in the
$5 million to $6 million range.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Seward will continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: If the
Cincinnatus school district were to borrow the
$126,000 and repay that over ten years, do you
know what effect that that would have on the
property taxes charged by the school district?
SENATOR SEWARD: I have -- Mr.
President, I have not computed that number,
those numbers, and I do not have that
7369
information before me.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, through
you, Mr. President, if Senator Seward will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SEWARD: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: If the
$126,000 were paid back over a ten-year
period, through a bond -- through a bond -
then the cost would be about $12,000 a year,
throw some interest on the top -- I'm sure, as
the chairman of the Insurance Committee, you
probably can do those interest calculations
much quicker than I. But my guess is it's
something like $15,000 to $17,000 a year.
And my question to you is, is that
a significant amount of money under a
$5 million or $6 million annual budget?
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, Mr.
President, I would answer by saying yes, it
would be, in my estimation and in the view of
the local school district and the school
7370
board.
We're talking about a district that
is hard-pressed to offer an education to the
young people there. It's a small, rural
district. I do not have details in terms of
the per-capita income of the people in that
area, but I can assure you, Mr. President and
Senator Dollinger, that it is well below the
statewide average in terms of per-capita
income.
And even though $12,000 per year,
or whatever the number Senator Dollinger may
want to use, may not be a lot of money in
suburban Monroe County, it is a greet deal of
money in this small, rural school district.
It's half a teaching position. It is two
teacher's aides. It's significant in a
district like this.
We have a process in place that has
been used for many, many districts to stretch
out the repayments to alleviate the financial
burden on districts. I believe that that
process is in place to serve people. And
that's all we're trying to do under this
legislation, is to serve the people and, more
7371
importantly, the children of Cincinnatus.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Seward
for his -- I think his proper comment about
what this bill is designed to do. I
certainly -- Senator, I've said this, I think,
to all the members -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger, are you speaking on the
bill?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, I am,
Mr. President. I apologize.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I've said
this to all the members who have carried these
kinds of bills in the past. I would point out
a couple of things.
One, however, is that the people of
this school district in essence got $126,000
tax benefit. Because in the year that they
were given this overpayment of $126,000, the
Cincinnatus school board did not have to raise
property taxes by $126,000 to pay for it. So
in essence, they got a benefit from us to
7372
which they were not entitled. That is, they
got an overpayment. So in essence, they've
already saved $126,000, because the school
board didn't have to tax for it to pay for
this.
Now the question becomes, how do we
pay that money back? And I would suggest, as
I have suggested before, that I'm not opposed
to the notion of this bill. But it seems to
me that what we need is an evenhanded approach
to school districts that are either paid more
money and have to pay it back and to the
school districts that are owed money by the
State of New York, like my friends in the City
of New York who are owed to the tune of about
$900 million -- which I would suggest is a lot
of teachers, rather than just a partial
portion of a teacher's salary, or $126,000.
It seems to me that we need to come
up with a plan under which the school
districts that are owed money will be paid
that money and, when those districts owe us
money, what's a fair way to make it paid back.
Senator Seward, I am going to
suggest exactly what I've suggested to Senator
7373
LaValle on the fire district bill, that I
suggested to the chair and to my colleagues
from Nassau County: Let's do a statewide
bill. Let's eliminate the temptation that we
would end up in a system in which certain
communities -- certain benefits would be
extended in Nassau County or certain favorable
payback schemes would be extended to districts
which happen to be in Majority Senators'
districts. Let's come up with a plan under
which every school district, when it gets the
benefit of an overpayment, can have a six-year
repayment period.
I agree with you, Senator, the
problem we have now is that if we overpay a
school district and they have to pay us back,
we require that they do it in a single year.
But if we short them payments, if we underpay
them and we owe them money, for most school
districts in this state the state gets six
years to make the payments back to the
community.
That's not fair. Let's have a
both-ways rule. If they owe us money, they
can take six years to pay it back. If we owe
7374
them money, we should take six years to pay
them. But my colleagues from the City of New
York I'm sure would say it's unconscionable
that they wait for ten years to be paid what
they're owed.
Senator, I'm going to vote in favor
of this bill. I don't mean to discourage your
advocacy on behalf of this district. I
understand that this is fair and just and
especially in small school districts what may
seem like a small number to most of us, that
126,000, can be a big bite.
But let's solve this problem for
everybody. Let's come up with a fair and
evenhanded rule for every school district, a
both-ways rule, that whichever way the state
wants to have it -- six year payback? Fine.
You pay us back in six years. If we underpay
you, we'll pay you in six years.
Let's come up with a both-ways rule
that applies across the state so we don't end
up with this notion or this sense that only
favored districts in particular areas in
particular Senators' districts or
Assemblymen's districts will end up with this
7375
fair treatment, Senator Seward.
I think it's fair and evenhanded.
I'm going to vote in favor of it. But let's
come up with a better way to make it statewide
for everyone.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I have one
question, if the sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Seward, will you yield to a question?
SENATOR STAVISKY: One question.
SENATOR SEWARD: Certainly, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He
yields, Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Senator
Seward, I was listening very carefully to
Senator Dollinger just now, and I could have
sworn I heard the same comments when Senator
Bonacic had a bill involving the school
district of Delhi.
Can you tell me how this
legislation differs from the one we passed,
and I believe I voted no on, involving the
7376
Delhi school district? Do you remember that
bill?
SENATOR SEWARD: I remember the
issue, Mr. President, but I haven't -- I know
the general concept was similar in terms of
this bill before us today. But without some
research, I could not elaborate in terms of
what the similarities or differences are in
terms of the bills.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Any
other Senator wishing to be heard?
Seeing none, debate is closed.
There is a local fiscal impact
statement at the desk.
Please read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
Senator, that completes the
7377
controversial calendar.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Thank you, Mr.
President. May we please return to the
Resolution Calendar, please, with the
exceptions of Resolutions 1755, 1756, and
1821.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
motion is to adopt the Resolution Calendar,
with the exceptions as mentioned. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Resolution Calendar is adopted.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
I believe there's a privileged resolution at
the desk by Senator Connor and Senator
Maltese.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senators
Connor and Maltese, Legislative Resolution
Number 1833, honoring the memory of the late
7378
Martin P. Soucie.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
ayes have it. The resolution is adopted.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Mr.
President. On behalf of Senator Libous, would
you please remove the sponsor's star from
Calendar 309.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: It
will be done.
SENATOR FARLEY: On behalf of
Senator Rath, Mr. President, I wish to call up
her bill, Senate Print 1811, which was
recalled from the Assembly, which is now at
the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
7379
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
194, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 1811, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law.
SENATOR FARLEY: Mr. President, I
now move to reconsider the vote by which this
bill was passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
SENATOR FARLEY: I now offer the
following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
amendments are received.
SENATOR FARLEY: Also on behalf
of Senator Rath, Mr. President, on page 40 I
offer the following amendments to Calendar
596, Print Number 3423, and I ask that this
bill retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill will retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
SENATOR FARLEY: On behalf of
7380
Senator Rath, on page 73 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 136, Senate
Print 1456, and I ask that this bill retain
its place on the Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
amendments are received, and the bill will
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
SENATOR FARLEY: On behalf of
myself, on page 51 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 704, Senate
Print 4634, and I ask that that bill retain
its place on the Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
amendments are received, and the bill will
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
Senator Morahan, the house is
clean.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
There being no further business, I
move we adjourn until Wednesday, May 16th, at
11:00 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: On
7381
motion, there being no further business, we
adjourn until Wednesday, May 16th, at
11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)