Regular Session - June 4, 2002
3901
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
June 4, 2002
11:19 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
3902
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: 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.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: In the
absence of clergy, may we bow our heads for a
moment of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Reading
of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Monday, June 3, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Sunday, June 2,
was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
3903
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Would you lay
the report of the Judiciary Committee aside
temporarily.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
report will be laid aside temporarily.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President.
On behalf of Senator Rath, on
page number 14 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 322, Senate
Print Number 6048A, and ask that said bill
retain its place on Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
amendments are received and accepted, and the
3904
bill will retain its place on Third Reading
Calendar.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, on behalf of Senator LaValle, on
page number 28 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 652, Senate
Print Number 3017, and ask that said bill
retain its place on Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
amendments are received and adopted, and the
bill will retain its place on Third Reading
Calendar.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, on behalf of Senator Marcellino, on
page number 7 I offer the following amendments
to Calendar Number 136, Senate Print Number
4730A, and ask that said bill retain its place
on Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
amendments are received and accepted, and the
bill will retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Are there any
3905
substitutions to be made?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
are none, Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
at this time if we could adopt the Resolution
Calendar, with the exception of Resolution
5912.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All in
favor of adopting the Resolution Calendar,
with the exception of Resolution 5912, will
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Resolution Calendar is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could have the title read on Resolution
5912, by Senator Nozzolio, and then move for
its immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
3906
Nozzolio, Legislative Resolution Number 5912,
paying tribute to the late former New York
State Senator George R. Metcalf, in
recognition of his distinguished life and
career in public service.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All in
favor of adopting the resolution signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the noncontroversial
calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
164, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 2101A, an
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
the temporary discontinuance.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
3907
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 42.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
256, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 128,
an act to amend the Labor Law, in relation to
criminal penalties.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect in 30 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 42.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
289, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 4145, an
3908
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
consideration of prior disciplinary history.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 43.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
321, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print
5840A, an act to amend the Real Property Tax
Law, in relation to providing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
799, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 6401B, an
act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law,
in relation to land use.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
3909
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 43.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
835, by Member of the Assembly Weisenberg,
Assembly Print Number 2786B, an act to amend
the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in relation to
training.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect July 1, 2003.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 44.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
3910
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
836, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 2373A, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to the drivers of small school buses.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect 180 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
983, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 7144A, an
act to amend the Public Health Law, in
relation to establishing.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
3911
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1039, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 2372, an
act to amend the -
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Lay it
aside, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1055, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1127, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 3302A,
an act in relation to requiring state
agencies.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
3912
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1191, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 7065,
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to limited permits.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1247, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 6368A,
an act to amend the Real Property Law, in
relation to uniform forms.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
3913
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1252, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
7158, an act -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1256, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 7378,
an act to amend the Labor Law, in relation to
contracts for public work.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
3914
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1266, by the Assembly Committee on Rules -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1270, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 7456A,
an act to amend the Education Law and others,
relating to Subdivision 9 of Section 1727.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1271, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1272, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 5769A,
3915
an act to amend the State Finance Law, in
relation to appropriation to the Alzheimer's
Disease Assistance Fund.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 46. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1273, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 6089, an
act in relation to legalizing, validating,
ratifying and confirming.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a local fiscal impact note at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
3916
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1274, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
6818, an act to amend the Agriculture and
Markets Law and the State Finance Law, in
relation to enhancement.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the 180th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1275, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 7218,
an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to procedures.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
3917
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1277, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 7400A,
an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to designating.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1278, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
3918
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1279, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 7441,
an act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law and the General Municipal Law, in
relation to certain lung disabilities.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1280, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 7453, an
act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules,
in relation to the form of appellate briefs
and appendices.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
3919
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1281, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 7459, an
act to ratify, legalize and validate certain
actions and proceedings.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the controversial reading of
the calendar.
3920
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you. The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 14,
Calendar Number 321, by Senator Marcellino,
Senate Print 5840A, an act to amend the Real
Property Tax Law, in relation to providing a
tax exemption.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Marcellino, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Madam President.
This bill provides a tax exemption
on real property owned by members of volunteer
fire companies or volunteer ambulance services
in Nassau County.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: On the bill,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hevesi, on the bill.
3921
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. I haven't spoken on one of these
bills in quite some time, which is something,
because we've passed, I think, now ten of them
this year.
And I have nothing against Senator
Marcellino's idea to provide the exemption for
volunteer emergency workers in Nassau and
Suffolk or, for that matter, against anybody
else representing a county where volunteer
workers provide much-needed services.
But I don't know why we don't do
this for the state. I mean, it's insulting
already. And I stood on the floor of this
house last month and talked about a volunteer
ambulance worker from a volunteer ambulance
corps in my Senate district who died on
September 11th in the World Trade Center
tragedy, and I can't get this bill to be a
statewide bill so that New York City, if
fiscal conditions were appropriate, could
provide this exemption.
It's just wrong. I mean, it's just
flat-out wrong. It's unfair and unjust and
it's bad public policy to piecemeal, have a
3922
patchwork system where we provide for certain
counties and not for other counties the
ability to provide this tax exemption for
their own members.
I don't get it. I really -- I just
don't understand it, Madam President. This is
so simple. There is no reason not to pass the
statewide bill. I have the statewide bill in,
Senator Morahan has the statewide bill in.
Nobody in this house has given me a reason yet
why this is not a good idea to pass a
statewide bill.
It's insulting, embarrassing, and
bad public policy. And we continue to slide
down some path in this house of just horrible
governance. And though this is not the most
critical issue in that this is not something
of dire concern, this issue, the way the
legislative process has worked with this issue
this session, just underscores for me how
absolutely broken this process is, what a mess
it is.
It's really disgraceful. It's
insulting to every volunteer ambulance worker
and firefighter in the City of New York and
3923
for every other county, for that matter, in
New York State that doesn't have this option.
Maybe because their senator is of the wrong
party, maybe because their senator didn't ask
for it or what have you.
It's just wrong. How can you
justify giving this break to somebody in
Nassau County and not in Queens County, or in
Steuben but not in Bronx County? How? I
don't understand it. It's just wrong.
You know, I just -- we've got two
weeks left in session, Madam President. Just
in the name of fairness and equity. And New
York City doesn't have to do it. In fact,
I'll give you the irony here. The irony is if
I got the statewide bill and we were able to
pass it, I would recommend to Mayor Bloomberg
that he not provide this benefit to New York
City volunteer firefighters and volunteer
ambulance workers now. We can't afford it
right now.
But it's insulting to suggest -
and this is the one argument that has been put
forward -- that we don't want to put undue
political pressure on a municipality that
3924
can't afford it to go ahead and provide this
benefit. That doesn't give any credit to the
political will of those in power. I would
pass this bill, the statewide bill, and then
say to Mayor Bloomberg: We can't afford it
right now. When we can afford it, we should
go ahead and do it.
But to insult all of the people in
every county in New York State who do not have
this option right now, when they put their
lives on the line every single day every time
they go out on a run, is just wrong. And I
don't know why nobody understands it.
Actually, I do think people
understand it. In fact, I think the ten
Republican sponsors of the bills that have all
passed this year, they understand it very
well. And I mean them no insult by these
comments.
But the legislative process is
broken here. It doesn't allow a good bill, a
reasonable bill, a just bill -- a bill that
does not do any disservice to anybody, that
does not disenfranchise anybody, and that does
not unfairly burden any municipality cannot
3925
pass. If no bill passed, that would be one
thing. But now to go and pass ten separate
bills this session for different parts of the
state is just wrong.
And we do this in other areas of
public policy too. And I stopped talking
about it, Madam President, about the fifth
bill. And maybe that was my fault. I don't
know if it would have had any impact, but
maybe it was my fault.
But I can't remain silent any
longer. It's just insulting to New York City
volunteers who risk their lives day in and day
out and, last year, some of whom paid the
ultimate price for their heroism that we don't
provide them this benefit that is deserving of
the volunteers in Senator Marcellino's Nassau
and Suffolk counties, in Senator Kuhl's
Steuben County, in Senator Leibell, up in
Putnam County, where all these other bills
have come from.
It's wrong. Please, with two weeks
left in the session, let's do the right thing
on this. Don't do it for me. I'm a Democrat.
I know we don't want to pass Democratic bills.
3926
Give it to Senator Morahan. I don't need
credit for it. All I want is the respect paid
to volunteers in New York City and to every
other county in New York State for those who
sacrifice and risk their lives on a daily
basis.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51. Nays,
1. Senator Hevesi recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1039, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print -
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Excuse
me.
Senator Skelos.
3927
SENATOR SKELOS: If I could
interrupt for a minute, there will be an
immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Finance
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time return to the report of
the Judiciary Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Reports
of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack,
from the Committee on Judiciary, reports the
following nomination.
As a judge of the Family Court for
the County of Rensselaer, Catherine Cholakis,
of East Greenbush.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President. I rise at this time to move the
nomination of Catherine Cholakis, of East
3928
Greenbush, as a judge of the Family Court for
the County of Rensselaer.
We received the nomination from the
Governor. We examined the credentials of the
candidate; they were found to be perfectly in
order. She appeared before the committee this
morning and was unanimously moved by the
committee to the floor for consideration at
this time.
And I most respectfully yield to
Senator Bruno for purposes of a second.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
I'm proud to rise in the chamber and talk in
support of Catherine Cholakis, known to her
family and to her friends as Kiki Cholakis.
Kiki has all the qualifications
that anyone could possibly have to serve as a
Family Court judge. Our chair of Judiciary
moved Kiki through the process, reviewed all
of her credentials. She has experience at the
local level, the municipal level, general
practice, state level, serves as a town
justice in a large town in Rensselaer, served
3929
in the DA's office as a prosecutor with
juvenile delinquency and young people needing
supervision, working with families in that
regard. She works at the Higher Education
Department as the assistant counsel there
presently.
So she has a wide diversity of
public interest, public service, with really a
record that would be envied by so many that
would aspire to be in the court system.
Governor Pataki has submitted her,
in his great wisdom. And we are very
fortunate that she is willing to take on the
awesome responsibilities of a Family Court
judge.
Her father was Con Cholakis, Judge
Con Cholakis, who in Rensselaer County and the
Capital Region truly was legendary as a
district attorney who served with the greatest
of distinction, went on to the Supreme Court,
and was the U.S. district judge in this
district of the federal courts. And everyone
and anyone knowing him and his family could
only say the best things about his commitment
and the family's commitment to public service.
3930
So I truly am honored to place in
nomination the name of Catherine Cholakis for
the office of Family Court judge in Rensselaer
County.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Bruno.
Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I can only echo Senator Bruno's
remarks concerning Catherine, or Kiki,
Cholakis. I have known the Cholakis family
for over 30 years. Kiki's father sponsored me
for the federal bar. And it's a wonderful
legacy.
And to look at Kiki's now
experience as a lawyer at such a relatively
young age, working in the state level, working
in the Family Court itself in all the
different capacities, and working as a town
judge since 1996.
I know that the rest of her
family -- her brothers, who are lawyers, her
cousins, her uncles, Tom and Nick, are all
very, very proud of her. And I know most of
3931
all -- in addition to her husband, Richard -
her mom, who's up there, Dassie Cholakis, is
very proud of her.
And it's wonderful for me to be
able to speak for someone who will make
Rensselaer County and the State of New York
very, very proud to have her as a Family Court
judge.
Thank you very much, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator.
The question is on the confirmation
of Catherine Cholakis, of East Greenbush, as a
judge of the Family Court for the County of
Rensselaer. All in favor will signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Catherine Cholakis is hereby confirmed as a
judge of the Family Court of the County of
Rensselaer.
3932
The judge, the honorable judge, is
joining us in the chamber today. And may I
take this opportunity to say congratulations
to you on behalf of the New York State Senate.
And she is joined by her husband,
Richard Kemner, her mother, Dassie Cholakis,
and family and friends.
So may I say congratulations to
you, and welcome.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Court of Claims, Dorothy Ann Cropper, of New
York.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise once again to move the
nomination of Dorothy Ann Cropper, of New
York, to succeed herself as a judge of the
Court of Claims.
We've examined the record and the
credentials of the candidate. She appeared
3933
before the committee earlier this morning, was
unanimously moved to the floor for
consideration at this time.
And I yield to Senator Krueger for
purposes of a second.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
I'm very happy to rise to support the
Honorable Dorothy Cropper's reaffirmation to
remain a judge in the Court of Claims.
Judge Cropper has spent her entire
career working in public service in our legal
system. She started out with the Legal Aid
Society, in various roles. She continued her
role through the judicial system and has been
in the Court of Claims since 1974.
I'm very appreciative of the fact
that this fine judge is willing to spend her
entire career supporting our judicial system
and ensuring that in the state of New York the
people who go before our courts get the best
representation possible.
So I applaud Judge Cropper for
continuing her role in the Court of Claims,
3934
and I'm very happy to have an opportunity to
congratulate her and her husband on their
continued participation here today with us.
Thank you very much.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
question is on the confirmation of Dorothy Ann
Cropper, of New York, as a judge of the Court
of Claims. All in favor will signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Dorothy
Ann Cropper, of New York, is hereby confirmed
as a judge of the Court of Claims.
The judge is joining us in the
balcony today, along with her husband, Jean
Cropper.
And may I say congratulations to
you, and best wishes on behalf of the New York
State Senate.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
3935
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Court of Claims, Edward M. Davidowitz, of
White Plains.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President. I rise once again to move the
nomination of Edward M. Davidowitz, of White
Plains, to succeed himself as a judge of the
Court of Claims.
Judge Davidowitz has been on the
court since 1986, 17 years. He has an
excellent reputation as an acting Supreme
Court justice in Bronx County, handling
criminal matters pursuant to the drug laws.
Judge Davidowitz is also to be
congratulated for going through the
renomination process once again, although he
is unfortunately facing mandatory retirement
at the end of this year, pointing out a
problem that we have in our statutory and
constitutional law with respect to forced
retirement of judges at age 70. Of course,
this does not pertain to Supreme Court
justices.
3936
There are revisions to the
Constitution that have been proposed. But
because of the difficulty of amending the
Constitution of this state, it has become
virtually impossible to pass those. And we
are in danger of losing not only Judge
Davidowitz but other very competent judges who
sit on the bench who reach the age of 70 and
therefore are forced into retirement
unnecessarily while they have many more good
years to contribute to the people of the State
of New York. And that is surely the case with
respect to this distinguished jurist.
But in any event, I'm very happy,
on behalf of the Senate, to put forth the
nomination of Judge Davidowitz at this point
for reconfirmation. We of course received his
credentials once again from the Governor,
examined his record, found him to be an
excellent jurist in terms of all the years
he's devoted to the people of the State of
New York.
He appeared before the committee
earlier this morning, was unanimously moved to
the floor for consideration at this time, and,
3937
Madam President, I'm very happy to put his
name into nomination, consideration for a
final vote on the floor now.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
question is on the confirmation of Edward M.
Davidowitz, of White Plains, as a judge of the
Court of Claims. All in favor will signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Edward
M. Davidowitz, of White Plains, is hereby
confirmed as a judge of the Court of Claims.
His Honor is in the balcony joining
us today. May I say, on behalf of the New
York State Senate, congratulations.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Court of Claims, Ronald H. Tills, of Hamburg.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Lack.
3938
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise to move the nomination of
Ronald H. Tills, of Hamburg, to succeed
himself as a judge of the Court of Claims.
We've examined his credentials, his past
performance in the Legislature, and as a
member of the judiciary.
He appeared earlier this morning
before the committee, was unanimously moved
for consideration by the whole body at this
time.
And I most respectfully yield for
purposes of a second to Senator Rath.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Thank you,
Mr. Chairman, and Madam President.
I would say that I got lucky today
because the folks on the floor who might have
seconded Judge Tills are at a Finance
Committee meeting.
And as many of you don't know
Western New York, we break down into north
towns and south towns. Well, I'm from the
3939
north towns, but Judge Tills is from the south
towns. That does not mean we do not know each
other nor haven't known each other for a very
long time; we have. And I was so happy to see
the nomination move forward and advance today.
Judge Tills is not only a friend
professionally, because of being of the same
group of judges in the 8th Judicial District,
of which my husband is a member, but we've
known him personally much longer and in many
ways before that.
Judge Tills is a graduate of the
University of Buffalo Law School and has been
in the Court of Claims since 1995. What you
might not know about Judge Tills if you
weren't here the first time he was confirmed
was that from 1969 until '78, he was a member
of the New York State Assembly. He was a
member of the Codes Committee, a member of the
Judiciary Committee, chairman of the Select
Committee for Revision of Corporation Law.
I've heard judges say often when
they're puzzling, out socially: "What do you
suppose the Legislature meant when they passed
this piece of legislation?" And I have heard
3940
other judges say, "Thank goodness there are a
few judges around who have served in the
Legislature, because they have an
understanding of what the Legislature might or
might not have meant," as they're attempting
to figure out what was in the minds and the
legislative intent.
I know Judge Tills has served that
way not only personally, with his own personal
calendar, but I'm sure he's been helpful to
colleagues in attempting to sort out some of
the kinds of things that come from the
Legislature that the judiciary needs to sort
out. It's an urgent role for people to
understand.
His civic service and religious
organizations and fraternal organizations are
as long as both arms put together. And
besides that, he's a superb gardener. Anyone
who gardens knows a great deal about life.
And so I'm delighted to be able to
second your nomination, Judge Tills.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
question is on the confirmation of Ronald H.
Tills, of Hamburg, as a judge of the Court of
3941
Claims. All in favor will signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Ronald
H. Tills, of Hamburg, is hereby appointed and
confirmed as a judge of the Court of Claims.
Joining His Honor in the balcony is
his wife, Elizabeth Tills.
And on behalf of the New York State
Senate may I say congratulations and welcome,
Judge Tills.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Family Court for the County of Erie, Kevin M.
Carter, of Buffalo.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise to move the nomination of
3942
Kevin M. Carter, of Buffalo, as a judge of the
Family Court for the County of Erie. We
received the nomination from the Governor. We
reviewed the credentials of the nominee. They
were found to be perfectly in order. He
appeared earlier this morning before the
committee, was unanimously moved by the
committee to the floor for consideration at
this time.
And once again, I'm very happy to
yield for purposes of a second to Senator
Rath.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Thank you,
Chairman Lack and Madam President.
I rise once again to speak on
behalf of one of our Western New York natives
who is coming to a position in the Family
Court, hopefully, as he is confirmed, to show
great promise and great dedication down the
line of the future.
I think it's wonderful as we see
our young people having shown so much
dedication as they've come through the
3943
education system and through the community.
Kevin Carter is a graduate also of
SUNY Buffalo and has done some wonderful
things in his young life. He started into his
law practice around 1989, 1990, immediately
started in as an assistant professor in one of
our community colleges, working in the
criminal justice department. He went forward
to concentrate his practice in domestic
relations and family law in his professional
side.
But his community service is what
has always caught my attention and caught so
many people's attention. He began an attorney
internship program at both Erie Community
College and Buffalo State College, a student
legal forum program, worked with youth
basketball, mentor programs in the high
schools.
This young man, as he moves into
the courts and will serve there for many years
as a distinguished jurist, will bring pride
not only to Western New York but all of New
York State. I'm happy to second the
nomination of Kevin Carter.
3944
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Madam
President.
I also rise to support the
nomination of Kevin Carter to the Family
Court. I think Mr. Carter is an excellent
nomination.
I've had the pleasure of knowing
Mr. Carter personally and can speak to his
community service that Senator Rath previously
spoke to. He has worked with young people.
He has helped a large number of young people
get into law school.
I can think back to my own former
chief of staff, when I was a Buffalo City
Council member, who was a young man that Kevin
Carter had the opportunity to mentor: Craig
Hanna. He is now a successful attorney for
the City of Buffalo. And one of the things
that he said to me when he worked for me was
that he would not be an attorney today if it
wasn't for the influence and mentorship of
Kevin Carter.
Kevin is someone who cares deeply
3945
about the community. And I think Mr. Carter
will be a wonderful addition to the Family
Court. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Brown.
The question is on the confirmation
of Kevin M. Carter, of Buffalo, as a judge of
the Family Court of the County of Erie. All
in favor will signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Kevin M.
Carter, of Buffalo, is hereby confirmed as a
judge of the Family Court for the County of
Erie.
Joining us in the balcony today is
His Honor and his wife, Regina Carter, his
children, Cavina and Marcus Carter, his
parents, Edward and Carol Ann Carter, and
family and friends.
And may I say congratulations to
Judge Carter, and welcome, and congratulations
to you from the New York State Senate.
3946
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could return to the controversial
calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1039, 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 HASSELL-THOMPSON:
Explanation.
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside
temporarily.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1055, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 4606B, an
act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Law, in relation to licensed wineries.
SENATOR ONORATO: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
3947
Kuhl, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you, Madam
President.
This is a bill that is simply meant
to clarify a piece of legislation that was
adopted by this chamber back in 1984. The
clarification goes to the extent that wineries
and farm wineries which operate retail stores
off the premises of the winery or farm winery
retain the privilege of wineries or farm
wineries that operate on-premises retail
stores, including the right to operate on
Sundays.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 54. Nays,
2. Senators Hassell-Thompson and Onorato
recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
3948
Senator Andrews.
SENATOR ANDREWS: Madam
President, I request unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar 347,
S2372. Calendar 836, I'm sorry, 2372.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Andrews, is the Senate number 2373A and
Calendar Number 836, is that correct?
SENATOR ANDREWS: No, it's wrong,
I'm sorry.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: What
calendar number is it you're speaking of?
SENATOR ANDREWS: That's a good
question. I withdraw my request. I withdraw
it.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Andrews.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1252, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
7158, an act to amend the Civil Service Law
and others, in relation to updating certain
provisions.
SENATOR ONORATO: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
3949
DeFrancisco, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: As a result
of the census that was taken a while back -
about a year ago, I guess, is when it was
finalized -- the population of Syracuse
declined. What this bill does is keep the
various provisions that apply to cities of
150,000 people to 175,000 people in effect at
a lower population. That would be 125,000 to
175,000. And each of the areas that it
affects are listed in the bill memo.
And that's the purpose of the bill
and that's what it would do.
SENATOR ONORATO: Last section.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
3950
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1270, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 7456A,
an act to amend the Education Law and others,
in relation to a new system of governance.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation.
SENATOR ONORATO: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Velella.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could lay
that aside temporarily and perhaps complete
the balance of the controversial calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside temporarily.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1277, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 7400A,
an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to designating public safety
officers.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
3951
Skelos, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
this legislation, which was introduced at the
request of the Town of Hempstead, would grant
peace officer status to Town of Hempstead
public safety officers. They would exercise
their powers of peace officer while acting
pursuant to his or her special duties as a
public safety officer.
And it's very similar to other
legislation that we've passed and had signed
in this chamber.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. Through you, Madam President, if
the sponsor would just yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos, will you yield for a question?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
the sponsor could just enlighten me as to what
the difference is between the -- who the peace
3952
officers are as opposed to who the police
officers are and what kind of job categories
they have.
SENATOR SKELOS: The public
safety officers in the Town of Hempstead
protect the public buildings that are owned by
the Town of Hempstead. And parks also.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1278, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 7408,
an act to amend the Racing, Pari-Mutuel
Wagering and Breeding Law, in relation to
3953
payment.
SENATOR ONORATO: Explanation.
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside
temporarily.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside temporarily.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. If I could have unanimous consent
to be recorded in the negative on Calendar
Number 1055.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: So
recorded, Senator Duane, thank you.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could return now to Calendar 1270, by
Senator Velella.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1270, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 7456A,
an act to amend the Education Law and others.
SENATOR ONORATO: Explanation.
3954
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Velella, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, this is a bill whose time has come.
It is a next phase in the continuing efforts
of this body to try and improve the
educational system in the city of New York.
It follows many reforms that we have led the
way in the Senate for the City of New York,
reforms that started back with the Marchi
Commission, when John Marchi was a freshman,
School Custodian Reform Act, the 1996 school
governance changes that were made, elimination
of principal tenure, the Teachers of Tomorrow
and Teach 2 programs that the Senate led the
way on.
And now this program, which for
many years I -- when I was in the Assembly,
and while I have been here through Mayor
Beame, Mayor Koch, Mayor Dinkins, all of the
mayors, whether they be Republican or
Democrat -- I have supported and been the
sponsor of their legislation to have the mayor
of the City of New York take control of the
Board of Education.
3955
This bill is an outline of how that
would be done. As a former president of a
school board for three years, I experienced
firsthand how the city system worked and how
there were necessary to make changes. We made
some of those changes as I outlined,
especially in 1996 when we made major changes,
taking a lot of powers away from the school
boards. But this bill will make substantial
changes and improve the system.
I don't think we have a constituent
out there who is satisfied with the
educational system in the City of New York,
when you consider the amount of money that we
put into that educational system and the
product that we are getting out. This is not
what the people of this state, what the people
of New York City want from their educational
system. They want a better system than they
have, and this will accomplish that.
The bill will allow the mayor to
select the chancellor, it will give him all
appointments of trustees overseeing the New
York City School Construction Authority. The
central Board of Education will be eliminated,
3956
with all administrative and operational
functions and responsibilities going to the
chancellor.
There will be a Panel for
Educational Policy established with 13
members. Seven will be appointed by the
mayor, one by each of the borough presidents,
and the chancellor will be the chair of the
panel. The members will not receive a salary,
will not have cars, will not have perks, but
will be reimbursed for actual and necessary
expenses.
The Panel for Educational Policy
will have the authority to change school
district lines once every ten years, beginning
in 2004.
The superintendents of the
districts will serve at the pleasure of the
chancellor. However, local community school
boards still submit the names for
consideration to the chancellor.
The chancellor has the power to
reject principal appointments, which will be
made by superintendents at the district level,
and the salary and conditions of employment of
3957
the chancellor will be determined by the
mayor.
The chancellor will have the
authority to present to the City Council a
submission for a new five-year educational
facilities capital plan.
These are the basic parameters that
we are going to use to change the system, to
improve it. We have every agency under the
direct supervision of the mayor of the City of
New York except the Board of Education. And
those of us who live in the City of New York
know that when Election Day comes, the mayor
is always bombarded, no matter who he may be,
about the failures of the system.
And we've had in the city a big
circle. The mayor -- people say to the mayor:
"You're not going doing the job for
education." And he says, "It's not my job,
it's the chancellor's. I don't have the power
to change it. The chancellor changes it."
So you go to the chancellor and the
chancellor says: "No, no, I don't have the
power. It's the board, the members of the
board that have the power. I only can
3958
implement what they have."
And you go to the members of the
board, and they say it's the mayor.
So we have a big circle. Nobody is
responsible, but we pour a lot of money in,
and no accountability.
This changes that. This makes the
mayor responsible. And every four years, no
matter who that mayor is, no matter what party
he belongs to, the people of the City of New
York will have the opportunity to say: You
have delivered the educational services we
want or you haven't. They can vote him out of
office and get a new mayor in who will appoint
someone to do the job differently. The same
way we deal with our police commissioner, our
sanitation commissioner, and all of the other
essential services of the City of New York.
How much more basic, how much more
essential is it that we have accountability
for the education of our young people. This
bill will accomplish that.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam
3959
President. Thank you, Senator Velella.
Senator Velella described extremely
well why this bill is on the floor. I would
urge my colleagues to support what we are
doing here today. The time has come. We have
waited. This year we were hopeful that there
would be some agreement between the Assembly,
the Senate, the Mayor, the Governor. And we
are here today still hoping that that will be
the case.
We feel that by moving this bill
forward and by passing this bill, with the
support of the Mayor, with the support of the
Governor, that the Assembly will either
introduce their bill, pass a bill, so we can
then know what our differences are.
Apparently there are a couple of
major differences presently that exist. I
believe they can be resolved in very short
order. One of them is whether the chancellor
appoints the superintendents or not. And to
me, the Mayor has said it right. If you have
a CEO -- and that's what the chancellor is -
that CEO has to have accountability from the
people who run the business or who run the
3960
school system. And those people that run the
school system will be the superintendents.
And he has to -- the chancellor has to have
them accountable to him or her.
So that has to happen in order for
the Mayor to truly say that he can take
responsibility for the $10 billion worth of
school aid that flows through that system, for
the 1.1 million plus students who, presently,
50 percent of them don't meet the state
standards for reading or math. Shame on the
people who are running that system. Shame on
us if we allow that to continue.
It can't continue. And we're not
going to allow it to continue. And whatever
has to be done, we have to do. Twenty percent
dropout rate, compared to the state average,
in the city. Think about that. One out of
five don't graduate in the city. And we
wonder why we have the problems that we have
with delinquency, with crime, with people who
can't earn a living.
So we have to do something about
this. We have waited. And thanks to Senators
Velella and Padavan and Senator Marchi, who
3961
started this 11 years ago, Senator Maltese,
Pedro Espada, Senator Pedro Espada. And I
know the New York City members on the other
side of the aisle have a vital interest in
doing something about it.
The other thing this does is take
the capital construction fund that spends
billions of dollars and gives that mayoral
control, with the chancellor appointing one
member and the mayor appointing two.
So that's as it should be. The
mayor is elected by the people in New York
City. He wants the responsibility to fix a
system that doesn't work. And we, in all good
conscience, ought to take the politics out of
running the school system and leave it to the
elected representative of the people in New
York City.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Madam
President.
Let me echo Senator Bruno's words:
Shame on us. Shame on us. Read, my
3962
colleagues, the decision in the CFE case where
Justice DeGrasse found that this Legislature
has shortchanged New York City schoolchildren
billions, billions of dollars. Read that
decision. And look at the school-aid runs
every year where some suburban districts get a
disproportionate share.
And by the way, Madam President,
that Campaign for Fiscal Equity suit, it's not
just the City of New York. Poor rural areas,
upstate urban areas, shortchanged on
resources. Madam President, you can talk
management, management, management all you
want. But the fact of the matter is resources
matter in terms of education.
Madam President, I'm not against
the mayor taking responsibility for the school
system. Someone has to take responsibility.
But I think we fool ourselves if we think
tinkering with governance systems will produce
necessarily a better product in our schools.
Madam President, we've been there
before, decades ago. A dysfunctional central
board system was disbanded by this
Legislature, left in place only for the high
3963
schools, and we created community school
boards to give local communities and parents,
supposedly, a greater role. And we've had to
revisit that and change their powers because
it was abused because of political influence.
This fascination that you can
just -- with the idea that you can just change
the structure of governance and somehow or
other totally change an entire culture, an
entire culture that pervades this Legislature,
the culture of shortchanging New York City
schoolchildren.
And it's not just this Legislature.
Senator Bruno talked about $10 billion in
state school aid and we want to know that it's
accounted for in the schools. Well, Madam
President, I want to know it's accounted for
in the schools. I want to know it got to the
schools. Because I'm tired of going back to
my constituents year after year after year,
over the years, and saying we got more school
aid for New York City, and finding out that
the mayor and City Council used that money to
balance their books elsewhere.
I don't want our school-aid money
3964
going to repair the streets in New York City,
much as they may need it. I don't want our
school-aid money going to serve municipal
sanitation needs or parks or anything else.
Madam President, the school-aid
money that we give New York City should go to
the schools. And the city should maintain its
ordinary share of school expenditures just
like every other locality, just like every
other locality in this state, Madam President,
outside of the big cities, has its school
money, its local share, and also has to use
the school-aid money for the schools.
This bill doesn't guarantee that
maintenance of effort by New York City. Oh,
yes, the mayor can say, "Give us the
$10 billion, we'll give it to the schools,"
and then can lower the city's contribution.
We've never had the kind of home-rule school
system that many of the communities throughout
New York State have.
Madam President, resources matter.
Resources matter in our poorest,
underperforming schools; resources matter in
our best schools.
3965
I'm privileged to be a
public-school parent. My son goes to what is
generally acknowledged to be certainly the
best high school in the state and one of the
best in the nation. It kind of appalls me
when I look at the piddling budget they get
for things like a debate team or academic
extracurriculars, which every fine high school
in America participates in. All the schools
in the suburbs do. The Board of Ed gives the
school exactly zero for that. Zero.
My colleagues, go back and ask your
best schools. Does your local board of ed
give them some money for those kind of
academic teams? I'll bet the answer is yes.
New York City gives none. Not to any of its
schools. Not to the best schools, not to the
middling schools, not to the worst schools.
Resources do matter, Madam President.
You know, in New York City for
those academic high schools where the kids
want to go to college, Madam President, they
absolutely limit the number of college
applications any student can put in. They
tell the student: Pick four. That's all
3966
we're going to process. Why? Not enough
money for guidance counselors. Not enough
money for college admissions counselors.
They're not there.
I know it's bureaucracy,
bureaucracy. Unfortunately, you can't run a
school system with over a million students
without some level of administrative
bureaucracy. I think it's bloated, I think
it's overblown, I'd like to see better
management. But, Madam President, this
mayor -- any mayor that thinks they can manage
their way out of the crisis in education in
New York City is deluding him or herself. I
don't point at just this mayor. Future
mayors, past mayors.
It's not simply a management
problem. Oh, we thought that when we put
community school boards in and community
superintendents, to make it smaller at the
grade school and middle school level, a
smaller system, 32 different systems. That
didn't work. That didn't solve the problems.
One of the problems, Madam
President, is the level of parental
3967
involvement in education. We have to
encourage that. This bill has no real
parental participation on the newly created
Panel for Educational Policy.
This bill also, Madam President -
under state law, the chancellor must have
academic credentials, a doctorate in
education, or a chancellor candidate must get
a waiver from the State Education Department
showing comparable academic educational
achievement and demonstrating the skills
necessary to manage the schools.
Madam President, this requirement
is suddenly waived. It will apply to every
other school system in the state, as well it
should. But to tell the mayor of New York
City -- who, after all, in the finest sense of
the word is a politician, whoever he or she
may be -- that not only you can pick the
chancellor but you can pick anybody you want
without any review by the State Education
Department to see if the academic and
educational credentials are there or
equivalent credentials are present, Madam
President, that's wrong.
3968
What if some future mayor decides
this is a great patronage plum and gives it to
someone whose credentials are solely
political? This bill would allow that. I
think it's the wrong way to go, Madam
President.
I think letting the mayor pick the
chancellor I'm comfortable with. But I think
that chancellor has to be someone who meets
the standards set forth in state law for who
can hold such a position.
This bill also basically strips the
community school boards of any role. And I
think we have to be more creative in terms of
how we ensure on that community level there is
an opportunity for parental involvement. This
doesn't do it.
But, Madam President, aside from
the fact that this doesn't guarantee that a
penny of school aid that we pass will get to
New York City schools, I think the most
nefarious part of this bill, frankly, is that
it's a back-door attempt to put vouchers in
place. Because this bill authorizes that
politically appointed chancellor to authorize
3969
vouchers to parents for attendance at private
schools.
And, Madam President, anyone,
anyone that appreciates the need for a public
school system, that appreciates what the
public-school free educational system has done
for this state, for New York City, for this
nation, has to be against vouchers. It will
suck the monetary lifeblood out of the public
school system.
One of the problems in New York
City, and I hope we can come up with a way to
counter this, is that large parts of the upper
middle class and wealthier people have simply
bailed out on the public school system in
frustration, and you have very, very
expensive, very, very fine private schools
throughout the city.
And frankly, that's what upper
middle class and wealthier people opt for.
It's not uncommon for people to pay $16,000 or
$17,000 a year tuition for first, second,
third grade. Believe me, Madam President, I
know, from personal experience, that's what
the tuition is. You have two kids, $32,000,
3970
$33,000 to send your kids to grade school.
Very, very few people can afford
that. And to take money -- and to those who
can, it's their prerogative. But to take
money out of the public school system and give
it to those parents who are doing that is
simply wrong, Madam President. It will be the
death knell of the public school system. It
will leave only the poorest of the poor
enrolled in the public schools.
If for no other reason, Madam
President, I would oppose this bill. If it
solved all the other problems I have with
it -- maintenance of effort, whatever -- I
would oppose this bill because of its voucher
provisions. New Yorkers don't want vouchers.
I'm certain of that. New Yorkers want public
schools that work. This bill would allow for
vouchers. And I think it's just simply a
back-door way to let a mayor usher in a
voucher system without any further
by-your-leave from anyone.
I am opposed to it for that reason,
Madam President. The magic solution of
changing the management system somehow -
3971
although a management system and
accountability is needed. As I said, I would
support mayoral control. But not with
vouchers. Not with the mayor free to take all
the education money and use it for something
else. That I will never support, Madam
President. I'm voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
There's much of what the Minority
Leader has said that I share, and there's some
things which not only I don't share but I
think he's totally in error on. And first let
me speak to the last issue he addressed.
There's absolutely nothing in this
bill that enhances any component of the
educational system by virtue of an authority
to implement a voucher system. Absolutely
nothing. The panel that's established, the
chancellor appointed by the mayor, none of it
are given any new prerogatives in that
particular area. Unless I have not read that
section of the bill properly. I would be
3972
happy to discuss it with Senator Connor.
Where he and I do agree is when it
comes to the issue of special needs. If you
had an opportunity to read the 98-page
decision that Judge DeGrasse rendered in the
Campaign for Fiscal Equity case -- and if you
have not read it, I urge you to read it -- he
points out that numerical shares are not the
answer to quality education, that need is.
Need as defined by those
circumstances that various children find
themselves in -- socioeconomic, foreign
languages. 70 percent of our children are
minorities, many of them come from foreign
countries. 184 different languages and
dialects. These are all defined in terms of
needs. And meeting those needs is very, very
costly.
Particularly -- and here again,
Senator Connor and I agree -- where there's no
support in the home to the extent that it
produces a better educational environment.
What I mean by that is parents make sure they
do their homework, help them with their
homework, if they have a problem go to school
3973
to resolve it. Unfortunately, in too many
parts of the city of New York, that just
doesn't exist.
And the only way you can address
those needs is by additional resources:
Smaller class size, after-school programs,
summer school, and so on.
Now, as a matter of fact,
approximately $5.5 billion in state aid goes
to the City of New York. If you want to do
the arithmetic, with a student population that
just went down this past year -- it's now less
than 1.1 million, about 50,000 less than
that -- we're in the 37 percent category. And
the funding is commensurate. But that doesn't
meet the need.
However -- and here again, Senator
Connor and I agree -- if you read Judge
DeGrasse's decision, he points out that over a
specific time frame that portion of the city's
commitment to education went from 41 percent
down to 37 percent. So indeed, as we have
been sending more money, as we did in this
budget we adopted a couple of weeks ago, to
the City of New York, they have used that
3974
money -- you can play games with the semantics
here, but what it boils down to is that was
not a net increase over the city's share on a
proportionate increase basis, meaning that
they maintained their effort as we increased
ours. The answer is no, they haven't.
And so we hope, it is our certainly
our goal that before we leave here, if we're
successful with governance, that we also
produce a maintenance of effort bill, as we
did in 1994, which will affect not only the
City of New York but the other four dependent
school districts in the state.
And some of you have talked to me
about that, in support of that initiative,
because you recognize this problem that I just
outlined about need and that Judge DeGrasse
addressed in his case, his decision, also goes
beyond the City of New York, it does go to
other cities in our state.
It is unfortunate that we're
dealing with a bill that is not in full
agreement with the Assembly. But on the other
hand, they haven't introduced a bill. We had
a public hearing -- some of you were there. I
3975
know Senator Montgomery was there, others were
there -- in April, April 5th. Everyone came
to that hearing who had anything to say, from
the mayor, the comptroller, the city
comptroller, the head of the City Council, the
speaker of the City Council, private sector,
public sector, school board members and so on.
And it was all -- it's all contained in the
report.
So we did it out in the open, let
everybody have their say. And much of what
was said at those hearings is embodied in this
bill in terms of, let's say, the majority view
of all those who came before us. Is it
everything the Mayor wants? No. It is
everything the Speaker wants? No. But I
think it does strike a balance.
And I would echo what Senator Bruno
indicated in his remarks. We are not that far
apart on many key issues, such as the
selection of superintendents. Our proposal
has this system. Currently the school boards
send five names on a list, and the chancellor
has to select from those five, one of those
five, or he can reject the entire list and say
3976
"Send me a new list."
That's cumbersome. In some
districts, it's not been effective and it's
produced undesirable results, such as District
29 that Senator Malcolm Smith and I represent.
What we have in this bill is that
school boards can recommend a superintendent.
They might choose perhaps a very good
principal in their district who they think
would make a good superintendent. But the
ultimate authority and decision would rest
with the chancellor.
So if you look at the proposals
from the Mayor, the comments, public
comments -- which we don't have a written bill
from the Assembly -- and ours, we're not that
far apart. That can be resolved. The powers
of the central panel can be, I think, adjusted
to meet everybody's needs and desires.
Now, Senator Connor mentioned the
need for more parental involvement. Well, in
'96, I remind you all -- because most of you
were here -- we created the leadership
councils in every school. Not just by
volunteerism, but mandated that they exist and
3977
that everything that goes on in that school
would be able to them for review and comment.
Well, we can't get any closer to
the kids than the individual school with their
parents and their teachers sitting on those
committees.
Now we might want to expand that.
If somebody's got some ideas how to do that,
great. But they do exist. And they vary in
terms of their effectiveness, as you would
understand they do. A thousand schools, some
of them are very good because the parents and
the teachers are very active, and some of them
are not quite as good.
You know, how you change all of
that by legislation I haven't the slightest
idea. But in any event, the framework exists,
and we can build upon it if we choose to.
I think on balance this is a good
bill. Ultimately, hopefully, we'll have a
bill that both houses can agree on and the
Governor can sign and we can get this
evolution -- and I view it as such, from '96
to now. The things we did in '96 I think were
all positive. This is another step. We've
3978
reformed custodians, we did away with
chancellor's tenure, we did the '96 reform,
and now I think it's time for this measure
also.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, could we announce an immediate
meeting of the Tourism Committee in the
Majority Conference Room, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Tourism
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam Chairman,
on the bill.
First and foremost, I want to
commend Mayor Bloomberg for making education
the signal issue of this administration, just
as Mayor Giuliani attempted to make the
reduction of crime the signal issue in his
administration.
I also believe with the Mayor that
the mayor should have more power, much more
3979
power. But the question I pose is: Should he
possess absolute power? And this bill gives
the mayor absolute power.
First of all, you just have to look
at the name of what was a Board of Education.
It's no longer a "board of education," it's a
Panel of Educational Policy, a Panel of
Educational Policy consisting of eight people,
one would be the chancellor, and five others
selected by the borough president.
There is almost no division here of
policy-making and administration. Everything
is in the hands of centralized authority. And
I had always thought that a good conservative
philosophy was the devolution of central
authority into smaller districts where people
can have a say in what they're doing.
I am also concerned with many of
the issues that Senator Connor raised.
There's no guarantee here of a maintenance of
effort. Now, someone might have said there
was no guarantee when Mayor Koch was mayor, or
Mayor Giuliani, or Mayor Beame, or Mayor
Lindsay. But there should be a maintenance of
effort.
3980
If we allocate $300 million
earmarked for educational use in the city of
New York, then if this is to be permanent
legislation, that money cannot be taken to
fill potholes in the city of New York. It can
only be used to fill the brains and the minds
of young people in the public schools of the
city of New York.
I'm also concerned that the
chancellor appoints all superintendents and
all principals.
And I want to also commend Senator
Padavan for making a change in community
school boards. They were supposed to be
eliminated. And I know because of his great
efforts they have not been eliminated. There
will be a hearing next year to decide what to
do with them. Why should there be a hearing
to decide what to do with them? Because as of
now, they have almost no power in terms of the
appointment or selection of superintendents or
principals.
And may I also add if there is
going to be a hearing next year on the future
of the community school boards, which
3981
represent local, parental, community
authority, there should be hearings about the
central Board of Education. We no longer can
take a bill as we did in 1996, when I was
here, or 1969, when I was not here, and say
this will resolve all the educational problems
in the city of New York.
There have to be hearings before
the bill is constructed, and there has to be a
regular review of what the bill is attempting
to do and what it does not do. And I'm very
concerned that there were no major public
hearings for this piece of legislation, which
is of great significance to the state of
New York.
Now, I'm also concerned that the
appeals process, the appeals process of
parents of children with disabilities no
longer flows through the Board of Education,
but through other agencies. And the question
I ask is why. Why has this change been deemed
necessary?
I would add at this point that
Mayor Bloomberg wisely looked upon Mayor
Daley's system in Chicago in order to regain
3982
mayoral control. Because many of the
children -- too many of the children in our
system are failing, and parents and educators
do not want them to fail. And the poor child
should have the same opportunity as the
middle-class child and the wealthy child has
in public education.
But what is not mentioned in the
bill is that the original Chicago bill was a
provisional bill for two or three years until
it was reviewed, reevaluated, and a permanent
bill was written into law. And that permanent
bill in Chicago, under Mayor Daley, is quite
different than this bill.
Why? The permanent bill appoints a
board of education, and it does not call this
board of education a panel of educational
policy. And the board of education becomes
a -- selects the chancellor and has control
over educational policy, operating policy, and
financial policy.
This is not the bill that we are
talking about where one person, whether he be
a Democratic mayor, he or she, or whether he
or she be a Republican mayor, has final
3983
control.
Now finally, ladies and gentlemen,
I think that in many instances this bill that
leaves out local community involvement and
especially parental involvement -- whether
it's District 21 in Brooklyn or District 31 in
Staten Island or District 29 in Queens -
fails because not only is it a working draft,
but it does not look at history and examine
history so the history can tell us the
mistakes and flaws of the past.
In 1805, the New York City Board of
Education was decentralized, and the reformers
said: Let's improve education, and we'll
centralize the Board of Education.
In 1842, the Board of Education was
centralized, with the mayor having absolute
power. And the powers that be, the reformers,
said: This is not a good governance system.
We have to decentralize the Board of Education
and give out more power to the local areas.
In 1896, the reformers said
decentralization has failed, and in order to
improve education in New York one must
centralize the authority of education in the
3984
hands of the mayor, who then appointed nine
people to the board of education selected from
panels. They in turn appointed a chancellor.
In 1969, the reformers said
centralization has failed; therefore, we need
decentralization. And a new decentralization
bill was passed in 1969 and lasted partially
until 1996, when I was here. And I remember
the debate by Senator Goodman and Senator
Leichter, who were very upset and distraught
that their concept for improvement, based upon
decentralization and local control, was not
working out.
Now, I posit to you, ladies and
gentlemen, that the improvement in education
in New York is -- yes, it is partially based
upon governance. But it is also based upon an
educational philosophy. It is also based upon
involvement of educators, administrators and,
most importantly, the parents of students that
occupy the classrooms in the community
districts of the city of New York.
The bill that we have in front of
us is a good working draft. It will be a
one-house bill. It can be improved. And it
3985
should be improved and enacted into law when
it is thus improved and the changes are made.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Madam President,
I think that of all of the remarks I've heard,
there are so many elements that struck a
responsive chord with each and every one of
us. And I think you made some very valid
points in your conclusion.
We are in the throes of not an
embarrassment of riches, but a tragedy which
is occurring on a daily basis. And a response
there must be. Senator Velella, who's
carrying the major responsibility, he's the
major sponsor, with good cosponsors -- of
which I'm not one of, since I aspire to see
Richmond County proceed virtually as a
quasi-independent district because of the
size, because of the circumstances that are
attendant on the type of community that we
have, that we would serve as an ideal model by
virtue of experience.
But Senator Velella is the only
3986
member in this chamber who has had hands-on
experience. And absent a major consensus -
and I think there's a consensus that we simply
cannot afford to go on with what we have -- I
think his counsel is wise.
And based on that, Madam President,
I think it's wise to carry and enact his
sentiments, along with those who affix their
name to it, coming as it does and flowing from
the experience of carrying that kind of
responsibility. And I don't think there's
anybody else in this chamber that can make a
similar claim, and with the numbers of people
that were involved. So I think it's incumbent
that we pass this bill at this point.
Will there be more legislation in
the future? I am not -- I'm rather inclined
to believe that we have not heard the last
comment on our status. But this does
represent, does offer some grounds for a
hopeful course of events that will flow from
its unanimity and make some positive
contribution to the education of our most
precious commodity, our children of the city
of New York.
3987
So I do hope this prevails with a
good vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, in the 45 pages of this bill, I
find it very difficult to find anything
constructive.
You know, sometimes you look at
legislation and you say, well, it's sort of
like chicken soup, it can't hurt. This bill
is not like chicken soup. It can hurt. To
say that things can get worse, they certainly
will, I think, under this bill.
I'm not going to repeat what my
colleagues have said. But one thought
occurred to me as I was listening to my
friends debate the merits of this bill. If
it's such a great idea, why don't we make it
statewide? Why don't we make it statewide?
I find what Senator Connor said
about vouchers to be very, very troubling.
Secondly, the lack of a role for parents I
also find a serious deficit in this
legislation.
3988
The fact that there is no
maintenance of effort I think is disgraceful.
I might have voted for this if it had a
maintenance of effort provision, although I
agree with very little in it. I think
maintenance of effort is so essential to the
solution of some of our problems. People say
money can't solve all our problems. Yeah, but
without funding, we can do very little.
I also want to emphasize the fact
that giving the mayor the power to appoint the
chancellor and the superintendents and, in a
sense, the principals and teachers, will
return us to the days of Boss Tweed. We have
had mayors who were strong, such as Mayor
Giuliani and Mayor Bloomberg. Do I trust
them? Yes. But I don't know what's going to
happen down the road. I don't know what kind
of mayors we're going to have. I don't know
that they're not going to appoint some
brother-in-law who needs a job.
I don't want to go back to the old
days of lack of a civil service system. At
the turn of the century, we didn't have a
civil service system for the appointment of
3989
teachers or principals. It was a political
system.
I happen to be a former high school
teacher, and my father before me was a high
school teacher. How did he get his job? He
walked into a superintendent's office on the
Lower East Side back at the turn of the
century and he said he was looking for a job.
There was such rampant discrimination at that
time, the fact is that although he was Jewish,
he did not have a Jewish name. He had red
hair. And they didn't know he was Jewish, and
they gave him a job. That's not the way to
select personnel.
The problem as I see it is one of
accountability, where they say "it's his
fault" and nobody seems to take
responsibility. Will this legislation resolve
that? I don't think so.
And lastly, Madam President, it
seems to me that governance is not really the
issue. The real issue is are the kids going
to do better in school, are they going to
learn. And what's going to help them? It's
been said: smaller class size, a licensed
3990
teacher in every classroom, parental
involvement. That's what's going to encourage
the kids to do better.
And, Madam President, I think this
is a very, very bad bill, and I will vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. On the bill.
I think we can all recognize and
agree on one thing, and there's going to be
some serious disagreement -- has already been
in this chamber -- about the merits of the
bill that's before us. But pretty much
everyone can agree that the system as a whole
in New York City is a mess.
There are, let me start out by
saying, some terrific success stories which
should be emulated. We have some of the
finest students, the finest schools anywhere.
But overall, the system is a mess. And
everybody has good intentions, everybody wants
to fix it, but there are dramatically
different approaches to it.
For me, there is one fact that
3991
leads to my conclusions about whether or not
this is a good idea, and it's the fact that
the system in New York City, the school
system, has been a mess for so long that you
have to really examine the root causes and why
no one seems to be able to change it.
And I kind of have, for myself, the
reason why I believe that's the case. I
believe it's the case because, to my
knowledge, there has never been an elected
official in New York City who lost his job
because of the horrible conditions in the
New York City school system. Never happened.
Why? Because if you said to me:
Senator Hevesi, set up a structure that is
destined to fail, I would have a difficult
time coming up with a worse structure than
what currently exists. To have the most
diffuse lines of authority -- there are
actually no lines of authority. That's a
misnomer to even say that.
Where you have a board of seven
members appointed by six different political
entities, one each by the borough presidents,
two by the mayor, hiring a person to run the
3992
school system, a chancellor, where budgetary
powers come from an outside source -- the
mayor and the City Council, by extension, the
state, and to a smaller extent, the federal
government -- where the SCA, the School
Construction Authority, is essentially an
authority controlled by the governor, where
the school facilities' maintenance is done at
the local level, within the school system. It
is just an abject failure. There's no way a
system like this is going to work.
And so at the end of the day you
can tinker around the edges, but what happens
is nobody ever gets blamed. And I know
Senator Stavisky just mentioned the blame
game. You need the blame game. Blame game is
how things get done or don't get done. You
need a system where somebody is in charge and,
if somebody doesn't do their job, they get
fired.
That never has happened, to my
knowledge, in the modern history of the
New York City school system. Just has not
happened.
And so everybody targets the Board
3993
of Education. It's one of the reasons why
everybody now concludes things are so
terrible. Because every politician points
their finger of blame at the Board of Ed.
Everybody says "It's not really my job, I
can't fix it, I'm not in charge, I'm not the
one." And they are actually right about that.
They are not the one.
Let's make them the one. And the
model that I like to use -- and my detractors
on this will say, well, you can't equate
education to policing. But in New York City,
in addition to the other seven reasons why
crime is down, the structure of the police
department, the operation of the police
department fundamentally changed with the
Giuliani administration, where the Mayor hires
a police commissioner, who hires his top
deputies, the civilian leaders of the
department. That individual or those
individuals then go and hire the chief of
patrol, chief of department. They decide who
the borough commanders are going to be. The
borough commanders select the precinct
commanders, with the consent of the
3994
commissioner and sometimes City Hall. And
those precinct commanders then determine the
makeup of their structure within the precinct,
the lieutenants and the sergeants.
And what happened under the
Giuliani administration, with John Timoney and
Jack Maple and Bill Bratton, is they said:
You are all going to be accountable now. You
come in once a month, and we're going to
determine whether or not you have
crime-fighting strategies and whether you've
implemented them, whether you've targeted
crime in your area, what you're doing about
it.
And I've sat in on those COMPSTAT
meetings. And if you don't perform, you don't
produce, you're gone. There's no democracy
within the New York City Police Department.
And that structure created
proactive policing. Which, if you talk to
police commanders and commanders who were
there, before Giuliani they said did not
happen. And as a result, crime was pushed
down in New York City further than in other
major cities throughout the United States.
3995
That's top-down management. We have to have
that type of accountability in the New York
City school system.
Now, some people say: Well,
listen, we don't want to politicize education,
and that's why we need a separate structure.
I cannot think of a more political structure
than the New York City Board of Education.
You cannot come up with a more political
system. It is by definition political. And
it has so distracted from what should be going
on, the discussion that should be going on,
which we will all agree is in the classroom,
that it is one of the things that has
habitually led to nothing getting done to
reach the kids on the level where they need to
be reached in the classroom.
When we have chancellor fights,
when there's a chancellor who leaves the
system -- and we've had four in the last I
think eight years -- when that chancellor
leaves the system, there is the most
outrageous discourse, a huge fight.
Alliances, this one and this one together.
In fact, Rudy Crew, who started
3996
out -- and it always seems that the school's
chancellor starts out in the public's eye as
being terrific and then fails miserably. And
I believe that's not because of the individual
but because of the structure. But Rudy Crew,
when he first came in, was a compromise
candidate after a really awful fight between
members of the board and the mayor and the
educational advocacy organizations. Huge
fight. Always distracts from education.
Always misses the point, misses the focus.
Really, really bad.
And this whole notion that you
can't politicize education by giving them
mayoral control I think is just silly, because
you can do no more worse than have a -- you
cannot have a more political system than what
you have now.
And, Madam President, the argument
has also been advanced that you don't want to
give the mayor complete control because you
don't want him making the decisions, these -
such important decisions about the education
of our children by himself. Okay? It's too
important somehow to make those decisions by
3997
himself.
Yet let's take a look at the
decisions that the mayor does make by himself
in New York City. Just about everything else,
including real life-and-death issues. I mean,
life-and-death issues that on a priority scale
are higher than educational issues.
The mayor can unilaterally cut the
size of the police department, reducing patrol
strength and diminishing or increasing
response times. He can do the same thing for
the New York City Fire Department and its
component parts, including EMS, which would
increase the amount of time it took for an
ambulance to get to your aid if you needed it.
The mayor can determine and has
determined in the past whether he wants to cut
the administration for children's services,
which can increase the caseload so we have a
worse supervision of children who may be
abused and neglected and may wind up dead as a
result.
The number of inspectors for
housing stock in the City of New York -- you
name it, we allow the mayor, through the
3998
political system, to make those
determinations. We allow him to do that. To
suggest that we cannot do that for education I
believe is just the wrong way to go. It's
just absolutely silly.
So what do we have here with this
bill? Is this a bill that I would have
drafted myself? No, but it's pretty close. I
got to be honest with you. Senator Lachman
was correct; this is a bill that gives the
mayor almost complete control -- which is
exactly what needs to happen.
And some people have said, well,
it's not about governance, it's about what you
do in the classroom. It is about what you do
in the classroom. But you cannot get there
until you stop having all of the structural
fights built into the system that we have
right now. You just cannot do it. Governance
is the key. You cannot move forward unless
you have a different system of governance in
place. This is the way to go about it.
And here's how I view this bill.
And by the way, I will point out I would go
further in some areas of this bill. This bill
3999
doesn't abolish the local community school
boards. I would abolish the school boards in
this legislation immediately. They are
completely dysfunctional. They siphon
millions of dollars out of the classroom and
into an administrative system that we have, in
the past -- in 1996, most notably -- we have
justifiably diminished their powers. But they
still present tremendous obstacles.
In my home Senate district, I have
one of the worst school boards in the City of
New York, School Board 24, where, because of
the current structure, the infighting on the
board, the interplay with the chancellor, the
inability for them to decide who the
superintendent should be, School Board 24 has
been without a superintendent for several
years now. The board just -- they fight with
each other. The issues are never about
education. They are always about who's
aligning with this one, what we're going to do
to get bad publicity for the chancellor to win
our fight because we want our guy in. It's
just ridiculous.
And so I would say the following.
4000
Because a lot of people have said to me:
"Well, you know, we don't know what Michael
Bloomberg's plan is for the school system."
And, you know, to be honest, I know what his
plan is. Not because I'm an insider in that
administration. I'm not. And not because
I've heard long, eloquent talks about what he
is proposing to do. But it is many of the
same things.
There's no silver bullet. There's
no panacea. This is not rocket science. It's
lower class size, it's more flexible work
rules, it's the ability to discipline teachers
more quickly and get the bad ones out of the
classroom. It is getting instruction
materials into the classrooms that we need.
It's having facilities that are good, that are
not crumbling. It's a whole slew of things
that we need to do. Okay?
But having said all of that, here's
the key. If Michael Bloomberg stood up today
and said "I have no plan," if he said "I have
no plan" -- well, if he has said that -- I
doubt he said that. But if he stood up today
and said "I have no plan," I'd vote for this
4001
plan anyway.
You know why? Because if he stood
up without this bill and says "I have no
plan," nothing happens to him. If we pass
this and he stands up and says "I have no
plan," he's history at the next election.
He's gone.
Give him a chance. This is why
Democrat Ed Koch supported mayoral control.
This is why Democrat David Dinkins supported
mayoral control. This is why Republican Rudy
Giuliani supported mayoral control. And this
is why Democrat-now-Republican Michael
Bloomberg supports mayoral control.
Now let's talk about one or two
other issues, and then I'll stop because I
know my colleagues want to talk about this.
On the maintenance of effort issue,
I support structural reforms to ensure that
money that Albany sends to New York City goes
where it's intended, for education in the
classroom, for its dedicated purposes.
In terms of a true maintenance of
effort for the City of New York, I understand
why Michael Bloomberg doesn't want that. This
4002
is a difficult issue, and so I want to nuance
it here. I understand why he doesn't want it.
He doesn't want it because he's facing a
$5 billion budget deficit. And if you look at
the projections, in the next few years that
budget deficit is going to increase by up to
about $6 billion in fiscal year '05. Okay?
There are even stories in today's newspapers
that he may be considering raising taxes.
If you lock in a required amount of
spending, an additional amount of spending on
his part, you may wind up in a system where
the mayor will be forced to do some things
that we wouldn't want if we were automatically
putting a maintenance of effort in here.
If the mayor proposed, "Well, I
have to make some cuts, I'm going to slash the
police force in half because I can't reduce
the millions of dollars that I'm now required
under a maintenance of effort to spend on the
school system," is that something that the
people in the city of New York would
necessarily agree with? I'm not so sure.
If there was a maintenance of
effort in this bill, I'd probably support it
4003
anyway. But it's not a poison pill for me.
It's certainly not a poison pill for me.
So what you have here is an
elimination of the Board of Education, a very
good thing. You have an educational policy
panel, which, if the mayor instructs it to do
so, can give its advice on a slew of issues.
That's a good thing. But the mayor now, under
this bill, will be able to hire a chancellor,
who can then go and hire district
superintendents, who can then go and hire
principals, who can then go and hire teachers.
And this Legislature -- let's be
consistent here -- we have embraced the idea,
most notably with the endorsement, the
structural endorsement of a contract with the
supervisors' union, which says essentially we
gave a big raise, the public gave a big raise
to these folks, and in response to losing
tenure, essentially, on behalf of the
principals, now the superintendents can have
much greater flexibility in moving principals
around.
You must have this kind of
flexibility in order to meet the needs of the
4004
school system. Put someone in charge. And if
they don't do the job -- and maybe Michael
Bloomberg doesn't have the answers. But if he
doesn't, he'll be voted out of office. That's
democracy. That's how the system should work.
No more nebulous system. No more ambiguous
system where you don't know who's in charge.
This may not be the perfect bill in
your eyes. It's not the perfect bill in my
eyes. And I do think it's a one-house bill.
And I hope whatever the Assembly finally comes
around with, we can hash out our differences.
Because I would accept less than this. I
think this is pretty good. Not perfect, but
pretty good. I would accept less than this in
order to get something done in this system.
The system right now is absolutely
broken, broken. Fix it. Put somebody in
charge. I find it admirable that you have
some elected officials out there who are
willing to say, when the public at large has
said in many instances this is an ungovernable
system, where a guy like Michael Bloomberg has
said: "Put me in charge, and then hold me
accountable if I don't do the job." That's
4005
what this bill does here today.
One final point, and then I'll
stop. The final point is on community
involvement and parental involvement. And I
know that this is an important issue for a lot
of people. It is not the primary issue for
me. Okay? This may be a little bit
controversial to say. Parental involvement in
the running of public schools in New York City
is not my primary concern.
My primary concern as it pertains
to parents is their involvement in the
education of their own children. That is more
important. I mean, you know, it's very nice
if we're able to have parents getting involved
and having a voice and having input. But the
notion that parents should be making budgetary
decisions of millions of dollars and overall,
broad policy decisions pertaining to education
I think is not the primary focus. The primary
focus should be to get parents involved in
their kids' education.
In fact, Madam President, in fact,
I believe if we were able to suddenly increase
per capita spending in New York City by a
4006
thousand dollars a student, I don't believe
that that would increase performance among
New York City public school students as
measured by test scores more than if you had
some way to get every parent constantly and
conscientiously involved in the education of
their children. Money is not the entire
object here, it is not the entire picture
here.
And to be honest with you, Madam
President -- and I sound like a right-winger
here -- I understand why mayors past, why
mayors past were reluctant to keep sending
money to the New York City Board of Education.
They said: I can't control the system, it
just disappears down this sinkhole in New York
City. I don't want to put more money into it.
That is how I believe the whole
maintenance of effort issue has come around.
That's why people are calling for the
maintenance of effort. But I'll tell you
this. If you don't have a maintenance of
effort and a mayor decides not to put money
into the educational system, if he has
complete control, him not putting money into
4007
the education system, he will pay a steep
political price for it. You almost have a
political protection in there that prevents or
precludes the outright need for a maintenance
of effort, which does have some potential
problems with it.
So let me just finish by saying I
think this is a really good idea. It may not
be perfect, but I commend those who have
worked on it. This is the way to go. We've
got to do something here on education. We've
got to have some kind of control where one
person is in charge.
And I'll tell you something. The
president is not an expert on defense. He
hires a secretary of defense. He hires a
secretary of agriculture and all these other
people. The notion that a mayor who is not an
educator can't hire expert people in the field
of education is wrong. That's what he does
for every other policy area.
Put somebody in charge. If they
screw up, throw them out. Nobody has ever -
no elected official, Madam President, to my
knowledge in modern times has ever lost his
4008
job in New York City because of the failures
in the education system. If this bill is
passed, that will change. Or, if it doesn't
change, it means the system is now performing
because there's accountability.
I support this bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, there will be an immediate meeting
of the Transportation Committee in the
Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
There will be an immediate meeting
of the Transportation Committee in the
Majority Conference Room.
Senator Krueger.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Krueger,
you have the floor.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Whoa, whoa, whoa.
I called on Senator Krueger. If she would
4009
like the floor, as she's in order -
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: If I could
yield to Senator Stavisky for a moment.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you,
Madam President. This, as far as I'm
concerned, is a crucial issue. And to call a
committee meeting while we're debating this
bill I think is unconscionable.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Krueger,
you have the floor again.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: I would
also like to yield to Senator Oppenheimer for
one minute, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer, why do you rise?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I would
like to be recorded in the negative on a bill,
but I've been in committees. And I'm afraid
the session will end -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer, we are in the middle of a debate.
I will call on you after we're finished.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Yeah, but
I'll be in the committee.
4010
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Krueger,
you have the floor.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Point of
order.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Krueger
has the floor.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I have a
point of order.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Senator
Oppenheimer has a point of order.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer, you have a point of order?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: My point of
order is should the session end while I'm in a
committee meeting, how do I then register a
negative vote?
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, point of order.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: I believe the
rules provide for Senators to cast their vote
if they've been out of chamber on other
legislative business. And we'll certainly
afford Senator Oppenheimer that courtesy if it
becomes necessary.
4011
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you
so much.
I would like unanimous consent
to -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer, as I stated before, we are in the
middle of a debate. I respected your right to
make a point of order, but I'd like to proceed
with the debate pursuant to the rules of the
Senate.
Senator Krueger, you have the
floor. Please proceed with this.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
In fact, I think that some of the -- to speak
on the bill, Madam President, excuse me.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
This is such an important issue and
such a controversial issue. This is a bill
that's 45 pages of detail. And in fact, we've
had one day to talk about this. And I think
that my colleagues' here point that they're
being asked to leave the floor to go into
committee and lose their opportunity to listen
4012
to debate and participate in debate is
reflective of the fact that the devil is in
the details.
This is a very, very complicated
issue that matters enormously to me and my
constituents in the City of New York and I
know matters to every representative who
represents the City of New York and I believe
the State of New York.
I will start by saying that I
believe that you can support mayoral control
of the education system in New York City, you
can support ending the Board of Education for
the City of New York, you can support mayoral
control of the School Construction
Authority -- because in fact I do support all
of those -- and yet find the devil is in the
details and not be able to support this bill.
Again, it's 45 pages of detail, and
yet so many things are missing. As many of my
colleagues have pointed out today, there's no
discussion of maintenance of effort. And it
is a fundamental issue in school governance
and improving the schools in New York City.
Because the issue is not mayoral control. As
4013
in fact my colleague, Dan Hevesi, spoke on,
the issue is are we going to get better
schools for our children. That's the
assignment, regardless of the title of the
bill.
And we won't get better schools for
our children unless we address what we all
know are the fundamentals for improving public
education, and that is having the resources to
have smaller class size in the city of
New York and good, qualified teachers and
adequate facilities to operate our schools in.
And what is, I suppose, most
disturbing to me in these 45 pages I've gone
through or tried to go through in detail while
listening to the debate, there's no discussion
of any of that.
Again, as I said, I can support
mayoral control, and I do. And I'm on record
of doing so. And yet I can't support a bill
that does endorse vouchers.
And Senator Padavan earlier
responded to Senator Connor, "There's nothing
in this bill about vouchers." But in fact, I
will refer him to 2590-G, paragraph 7,
4014
subsection B, which specifically says that it
would give the mayor authority to go into
arrangements for vouchers as well as
privatizing schools and charter schools.
And so I cannot support a bill that
allows for vouchers and privatization in the
City of New York school system.
And I don't understand how this
bill can go into pages of detail about the
requirements for superintendents to report in
detail, on a monthly basis, all kinds of facts
about their schools, which I believe are
important, but talks not once about the
additional resources we need to give
superintendents and principals in order to run
the kinds of schools that we need.
Those are the issues that you'd be
talking about in school districts throughout
the state of New York outside of New York
City.
I don't understand why we have a
bill that proposes to allow the transfer of
superintendents and principals without
participation by communities. I know,
speaking from my school district, that if we
4015
were to tell the parents in my school district
that the mayor would have the authority to
take away a superintendent or principals who
frankly are doing an amazing job at delivering
great educational services in School District
2, that we would have a war on our hands. And
even more important, they would quit. Those
superintendents and those principals would
pick up and move to other districts outside of
New York City in about ten minutes flat.
They've told me that.
So while we like to give the
example that if we give the authority to the
chancellor or the mayor to move everyone
around of their choice, that we'll have the
opportunity to get rid of bad principals and
bad superintendents -- and there's no doubt
that we have bad principals and bad
superintendents. One of the reasons that we
have bad people in our school system, or
vacancies, as Senator Hevesi was talking
about, is we can't get good people to come
into the New York City school system.
So giving the mayor and the
chancellor the right to automatically and
4016
without discussion with anyone move those
principals and superintendents I tell you
guarantees us that we will see a continuing
drain on the qualified people in the New York
City school system.
So I can't endorse a bill that
would simply lay that out as control of the
mayor, because in fact these are critical
issues for which whether school districts work
and individual schools work.
And in fact I don't understand a
bill that gives the mayor total control and
yet takes away any outside financial review or
fiduciary responsibility for other elected
officials.
There's no other agency in the City
of New York where there's not City Council
oversight on the budget or comptroller's
oversight over the fiscal situation. And yet
in this bill we're taking the council and the
comptroller -- sometimes explicitly, and
sometimes simply by not making any statements
about it -- out of the process completely.
One of the problems with the Board
of Education all these years -- and in fact as
4017
I have said and will say again, I do not
support the existing Board of Education or the
continuation of it. The answer is not to have
no fiscal review or financial oversight. The
answer is to ensure you've got a model that
includes participation and review of how the
dollars are spent in the City of New York.
And simply stating that the mayor
and the chancellor will have full authority is
not the model we should have in government.
We should ensure that the city comptroller has
review and oversight of how the dollars are
spent and that our City Council has
participatory oversight in the budget process
for the schools, to ensure to all the citizens
of New York City that we have real
accountability.
And in fact, it's a question of
checks and balances, as we have here in our
own legislative structure with two houses and
a governor and a state comptroller. And
there's so much money that does go through the
New York City education system that we have to
ensure that we have the same checks and
balances there.
4018
In fact, this bill explicitly, and
I do not understand why, removes the
comptroller of the City of New York from
having a role in the New York City Teachers
Retirement Board decisions. In fact, it is
the model of the City of New York for the city
comptroller to have financial oversight and
review of other pension and retirement plans.
So I don't know why someone would go into so
much detail to pull out that responsibility
for the city comptroller.
Again, the details go on and on and
on. And it frustrates me because in fact I
want this issue resolved. We've been
discussing it since Ed Koch. I think there is
general agreement that we need to do something
to fix the broken New York City school system.
And I'm frustrated that it is so late in this
legislative year and there's been so much
debate and that today we end up with a 45-page
bill for the first time with so many details
and so many important issues we should be
discussing.
I would like to be able to vote for
this bill, but I don't see how I can, absent
4019
the fact that it does not deal with a
maintenance of effort.
I have only been in this house now
for 14 weeks. Upon getting to Albany, I
almost immediately started to talk to
individual Republican and Democratic
legislators about what was, to me, one of the
most obvious questions: Why can't we get fair
funding for education for New York City?
And I was constantly told
individually by legislators: "Well, let's
face it, if we give New York City another
dollar of state money for education, they're
just going to pull a city dollar out, so
you're not going to win anything for your
children." I hear it all the time in this
chamber from individuals.
So I say how can we responsibly
move forward with a bill to change the
structure of school governance in New York
City and not address our own problem? I don't
want to have to come back here next year,
fight for more education funding in our budget
and be told "What's the point? If we give you
another state dollar in New York City, you'll
4020
simply take a city dollar out."
I agree with Senator Hevesi. We
have a serious fiscal crisis at the budget
level. And much of that responsibility lays
right back here on our shoulders for failing,
year after year after year, to invest a fair
share of state funds in the City of New York,
given the proportion of the people who live
there and the amount of tax revenue that year
after year comes up to Albany from the City of
New York. So we're in fact partially
responsible for the fact that Mayor Bloomberg
now has to fix a $5 billion deficit in a
matter of days.
And yet we still have the
responsibility, I believe, to the children of
the City of New York and to their parents and
to ourselves to ensure that we move
immediately towards a fair educational formula
statewide and that we do hold the City of
New York accountable for ensuring that they
put in their fair share for public education.
And if that means that Albany and
the Legislature and the Governor have to in
fact then do their job and also give the City
4021
of New York its fair share of education
funding out of the total state budget, we
would be in a win-win position, not a
lose-lose position, if we pushed for a
maintenance of effort requirement. And I
believe we cannot pass a bill without a
maintenance of effort requirement.
I have so many details, Madam
President, I could speak, I think, for hours
just on the questions I could ask about what
is and what isn't in this bill. But I suppose
I will close with one more concern I have.
Again, as I have said, I support
ending the Board of Education. And I think
the concept of this Panel of Educational
Policy is an interesting one. But again, the
devil is in the details.
And in fact, when you look at the
bill, the language specifically says that the
role of the panel will be to consider matters
referred to them by the chancellor and the
mayor of the City of New York. Well, the
problem with that statement is you end up in a
situation where you're only asking the
questions you want to hear the answers to.
4022
I would argue that for this to be a
true policy panel, the role has to be for them
to come up with the issues that they feel need
to be brought to the mayor and the chancellor,
not simply to be a responsive body to the
issues brought to them by the mayor and the
chancellor.
It would be as if I had 22 major
problems as the chancellor of the education
system -- and I would guess on any given day
any chancellor of the City of New York
education system would argue they have 125
major problems and issues. It would be as if
I would only bring to you, my policy panel,
five issues that I didn't care about because I
didn't want your input on the 125 issues that
are really needing your attention.
So I think that, again, this is a
start. It's a start that I cannot support. I
am frustrated that we are having this start so
late in the game. Again, following the
reference of my colleagues, it is a one-house
bill. And I hope that the bill we finally can
pass very, very soon will address the concerns
I have about what's in here and what's not in
4023
here and finally ensure that the City of New
York has the opportunity to make the major
structural improvements in our public school
system that we so desperately need.
So again, in closing, this bill has
to have maintenance of effort, it has to
address fair funding formulas, it has to
ensure that we address, in the governance
restructuring of the New York City school
system, the issue of smaller class size,
better qualified teachers, participation by
communities.
I don't know that I know what the
perfect answer is -- community school boards
with certain roles, borough boards. But I can
tell you that the absence of explanation of
how we would really address those concerns in
this bill will end up resulting in a model
that none of us would look back on and say we
did our jobs correctly if we passed the bill
as is.
So I will vote no on the bill. I
urge my colleagues to vote no on the bill.
And I hope that we very soon have a different
bill to deal with and to come to agreement
4024
with the Assembly and the Governor on.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Gentile.
Excuse me, Senator Paterson has
risen.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President -
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: -- I just
wanted to bring to your attention that this is
a highly controversial bill, and it's very
difficult going forward with the interruptions
from committee meetings.
Because some of the members are
notifying me, as the floor leader for the
Minority, that they do want to vote on the
bill, some of them want to speak on the bill,
and they don't want to interfere with the flow
of the debate -- in other words, restating
issues that were stated before.
So I just wanted to suggest that in
the future when the -- I think at all times,
but at the least in these situations where
everyone has an opinion and everyone wants
their opinion on the record, I think we have
4025
to be a little more sensitive to the feelings
of the members at times like this.
THE PRESIDENT: And we're going
to proceed with the debate, which is exactly
what you're saying, Senator Paterson. I
couldn't agree more.
Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
If we look at the overall
situation, and I believe we have here today,
it is clear that changes in the Board of
Education are in order. Certainly, given the
history and the record of the Board of
Education, that is clear.
I'm not sure, though, that what is
or should be clear is the fact that we have
taken a broad brush here and have painted the
whole system in one way. And that, I believe,
is unfair and certainly unjust in several
ways.
One way is in the fact of the
community school boards. Certainly community
school boards vary from neighborhood to
neighborhood. But I think it needs to be said
4026
and it should be said that in the areas that I
represent and the areas I will represent, the
community school boards are functioning,
active, involved and workable units. Each of
them has done a tremendous job in each of the
schools. And I visit schools very, very
often.
Particularly the one I'm most
familiar with, the District 20 school board in
Bay Ridge, Bensonhurst, and Dyker Heights in
Brooklyn, is a board that should be a model,
should be a model for the rest of the city of
New York, for the type of school board that
they have, for the superintendent, which they
chose, who is a leader not only in District 20
but has been chosen as a senior superintendent
to oversee four other school districts, three
in Brooklyn and one in Staten Island. And
certainly he is an educational visionary,
someone who a leader and someone who
ultimately one day might actually be a
tremendous chancellor of the City of New York.
That type of functioning unit, that
school board, along with School Board 21 and
School Board 22 in Brooklyn, are functioning,
4027
active, and involved school boards who have
the support of the parents and the faculty
members in those areas.
And it's shown in the educational
achievement of the students in those three
districts. Those three districts -
District 20, District 21, and District 22 in
Brooklyn -- have among the highest math and
reading scores not only in the county of Kings
but in the entire city of New York.
That being said, and that being the
case in my area, it is my concern and it is my
role, as the representative here in the Senate
on behalf of those school boards, to be
certain that any kind of change in governance
would not affect the functioning of those
school boards. It would make no sense for us
or for me to support a plan by which the
control and the functioning of school boards
is removed from those districts and placed
either with the chancellor at 110 Livingston
Street, or ultimately placed in Manhattan with
the mayor.
Now, mayoral control is something
that I am certainly not against. It's
4028
something that I am open to. But to take
control from the community school boards at
this level in those districts and lump them in
with those districts that are not working well
I think is a mistake.
Obviously, if I represented areas
in this city where the school boards are not
working well, areas where the school boards
are always infighting, where educational
policy is not the primary issue that they talk
about, then, sure, I would stand up here and
say it's time to do something with the school
boards.
But I don't represent those areas.
I represent areas where the school boards are
active and they are models for the rest of the
City of New York, particularly District 20 in
Bay Ridge.
So for those boards to face the
possibility of the control of the local
schools now being taken from those school
boards and being handed here either to the
chancellor, at 110 Livingston Street, or
ultimately to the mayor, in Manhattan, would
not be a good thing for the schools or the
4029
children or the people of my district.
And I understand, I understand my
colleagues who talk about the dysfunctional
system that may be present in their areas. So
maybe I think we have too broad of a brush
here, and legislation may be crafted whereby
the chancellor may or the mayor may take
control of certain schools in certain school
districts that underperform on a certain
level, but allow those school districts and
those community school boards that are
functioning and are doing the job and are
serving the students, are serving the school
community, to continue to act in their
interest, in their own best interest, and not
take that power away from them.
That is my concern. And my concern
in this bill is I'm afraid that this bill is a
precursor to the elimination of community
school boards across the city. It requires
the Legislature to conduct public hearings on
proposals to replace community school boards.
That is something that concerns me because of
the areas that I represent. It concerns me
that this is a precursor to that elimination
4030
of the school boards.
And certainly I'm pleased that I'm
here to talk about the good community school
boards -
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me,
Senator. Senator Gentile, Senator Padavan has
been standing, and I must ask him, why do you
rise?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Senator
Gentile, would you yield to a question?
SENATOR GENTILE: Sure. Yes, I
will yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: I preface my
question by telling you that I have two school
boards that are also, by virtue of reading and
math scores, the best in the city if not, on
the best relative comparison, any school
district in the state.
As I understand your comment,
you're saying don't throw out the baby with
the bathwater; right?
SENATOR GENTILE: Exactly.
SENATOR PADAVAN: However, I
4031
would ask you the simple question -- in
reading the bill, you see that we have
maintained community school boards. What we
changed was the method by which they could
recommend rather than mandate a selection
process for superintendents.
Currently they submit five names,
the chancellor accepts one or rejects the
list. He can keep doing that. Under this
proposal, they can recommend, as they probably
do in your area, a good principal to be
superintendent. But the ultimate decision is
the chancellor's.
Do you have a problem with that
process?
SENATOR GENTILE: Senator, I have
a problem with the possibility that having -
taking the process by which our current
superintendent in the one district that I
spoke of in particular, District 20, should he
have been subject to this new process, that
the chancellor may not have chosen him because
he came from within the district. And
certainly -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Madam
4032
President, will the Senator yield?
SENATOR GENTILE: Let me finish
my answer, Senator.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Will the
Senator yield?
I'm sorry, I thought you had.
SENATOR GENTILE: Let me finish
my answer.
So therefore, Senator, my concern
is that this person, who is a great visionary
and a great educational leader, might be
buried because the chancellor's level would
not see the possibilities that the local
school board and the parents saw in this
person to make him the superintendent.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Again, Senator,
we have a parallel situation. District 26,
that superintendent came about just as you
described. Different part of the city,
obviously. But the school board recommended
that person to be a superintendent, as they
did there and they did in 26 and many other
districts. And the chancellor, whoever he was
at that time -- I think it was Chancellor
Crew -- appointed them.
4033
Under the current proposal in this
bill, could not that same result have been
achieved vis-a-vis a recommendation and an
acceptance by the chancellor?
SENATOR GENTILE: There is a
possibility of that, yes. Yes, Senator, there
is a possibility.
But there's also a possibility of
the chancellor appointing his or her own
person in the position of community
superintendent without the input of the
community school -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Keep in mind
with regard to the school districts today, he
can keep rejecting that list. We have one
school district Senator Smith and I share
where that's been going on for years and they
don't have a permanent superintendent.
So at least this eliminates that
possibility.
SENATOR GENTILE: Well, it
eliminates the possibility to the detriment -
it could be to the detriment of the community
school board.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Okay. I
4034
appreciate your answer. But do you yield to
another question?
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Are you aware
of the fact that the Speaker of the Assembly
is demanding, although they haven't put a bill
together, that we eliminate school boards in
law, to expire on June 3rd of next year when
their term is up? Are you aware of that?
SENATOR GENTILE: I can't speak
for the Speaker of the Assembly.
SENATOR PADAVAN: No, I said are
you aware of it. I didn't want you to speak
on -
SENATOR GENTILE: And what his
plans are, I will see when a bill comes forth
in the Assembly. I have to see what -
SENATOR PADAVAN: But you read
what -
SENATOR GENTILE: Excuse me. Let
me finish my answer.
SENATOR PADAVAN: -- I read. Did
you hear him say that?
SENATOR GENTILE: But, Senator,
let me finish my answer.
4035
My point is that I want to stand up
and speak for my school boards that I
represent that work well. That needs to be
said, that needs to be put on the record, and
I think that needs to be part of the
discussion. And that's why I'm saying it
here.
What the Assembly ultimately does
in their bill, what the Speaker ultimately
says doesn't necessarily mean that I will
agree with. I think we have to say something
about the school boards that work.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Madam
President, would the Senator yield?
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes. Yes.
SENATOR PADAVAN: We agree,
Senator. But I just thought you should be
aware, if you were not already, that we're
fighting against their stated position with
this bill. We're opposing that notion. And
you should support it if for no other reason.
SENATOR GENTILE: Senator -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Now, one more
question. Now, how would you, citywide -
citywide -- keeping in mind, as you said, and
4036
I agree, there are a number of very good
school districts. But there also are a number
which are dysfunctional.
SENATOR GENTILE: Granted.
SENATOR PADAVAN: How -- we can't
have two governances. We can't have two
cities. Unless you do what Senator Marchi
recommended, and we passed in the Senate back
in '96: have borough boards. We're not going
to do that. The Assembly would never agree to
it. They said so then; they would say so now.
But without doing something like
that, how would you come up with a system of
governance in the City of New York that
allowed the chancellor to deal with districts
that are not working well and not make the
changes we have made? Which frankly do not
hurt those districts that are doing well,
because they'll continue to do well.
SENATOR GENTILE: Senator, I
believe transferring control from the local
school board to either the chancellor or the
mayor will hurt control of the local schools,
because it has worked well because we
understand the needs of those local schools.
4037
I am in favor and I have worked
with Senator Marchi over the last several
years in advancing the idea of the borough
boards. And I think it's a good idea for
Staten Island, I think it's a good idea for
Brooklyn, and I would recommend it to you,
Senator, for the county of Queens also. But
certainly that is one way we can try to
address, on a smaller scale, the issue of
governance.
Now, the other way would be to
formulate some system whereby the chancellor o
the mayor, through the mayor, would have some
control over those districts and over those
schools that are dysfunctional.
I'm saying -- and you need to hear
this, too -- that I'm not against change. I'm
not against some type of more direct control.
My concern is that let's not affect those
school districts and those community school
boards that have shown a record of
achievement. And that's what we need to hear
today as part of this debate.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: So I will -
4038
getting back, in closing, Madam President, let
me just finish off by saying that Senator
Padavan is right. I am concerned that in the
rush to change our governance system in the
City of New York schools that we are throwing
the baby out with the bathwater.
And I think what we need to do is
slow down a little bit and take a look, a more
comprehensive look, and not hurt those
districts by which this system, the current
system of community school boards and
community control has worked.
I believe that this bill, because
it's silent in many ways, may be the
precursor. All it indicates is that there
should be hearings concerning the abolition of
the local community school boards. I think
that would be a detriment to my districts,
District 21, District 20, and District 22.
So I'm not against change, but I
have to be against this bill because of the
concern I have for the good community school
boards in my district.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
4039
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President. On the bill. Just let
me just make this one comment as a precursor,
Madam President.
It is as important for each of us
to be in this chamber to speak on the bill as
it is for us to hear the discussion that is
exchanged with colleagues. And so it is very
concerting to have had to leave for two
committee meetings in the middle of what I
think, next to our budget bill, is the most
important bill we pass this year.
And it disallowed me from hearing
the exchange of ideas on this bill. So I will
probably be redundant, but that has never
stopped me.
My concern about this bill, and I
need to just address it in four quick points,
is the issue of vouchers, it allows for
privatization of schools, there is no
maintenance of effort, and it diminishes and
almost at some point will probably extinguish
the role of parental and community
participation.
Having said those four points -
4040
and I'm sure that everyone else has already
spoken very eloquently on all of them -- I
would still like to reiterate. And I'd like
to piggyback on a comment that I heard my
colleague Senator Hevesi make as I was leaving
the chambers.
And that is to the effect that when
monies are allocated for education, there is
the assumption that those allocations are made
predicated on what has been described as need.
And so with a maintenance of effort, the
assumption is that -
THE PRESIDENT: If the members
will please take their conversations out of
the chambers.
Excuse me, Senator. You may
proceed now.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President.
We have all very eloquently talked
about and we certainly have been lobbied over
the last several months by teachers and
organizations representing teachers and
administrators. And everyone has said that we
need more money, we need more money to pay for
4041
education, through our teachers, through our
state aid, that there's a problem with the
formula, that our schools are in serious
disrepair, that our classrooms are
overcrowded, and a variety of things. So all
of these are issues that have driven us to put
more money into the school system.
But I have a major concern when any
of us stand and talk about the fact that money
is to be earmarked based upon a need that has
been identified, but it is allowable for that
money to actually be, in a sense, commingled
with other funds in the city for such things
as street repairs, as much as they need
them -- certainly in the Bronx, with the
potholes, we could cook in the depth of the
holes that we have there, and disrepair of our
streets.
But that's not where I as a
taxpayer, who believes that my tax dollars are
going to support and advance the education of
our children, to see that money diverted. And
if in the event that we have a -- I don't want
to leave with the assumption that anyone, no
matter how good a manager, is going to make
4042
sure that that money does not go anywhere
other than where it should go.
But I would like to see this
legislative initiative direct city dollars,
state aid, only to go for the education of our
children. Because everyone has articulated
what the severe need is. And based upon that
need, this money should never go anywhere but
except where it's been prescribed to go.
Secondly, the issue of
privatization of schools and certainly of
vouchers. Vouchers disallow -- again, when we
talk about where money should go, every time
we allow for vouchers, that is a depletion of
an overall formula of where those dollars
should go. And a percentage of each of those
dollars goes to pay for teachers and
administrative costs.
So when a block of money is taken
from the school system, overall we diminish
the ability of our classrooms to be totally
manned and to -- manned or personned -- and it
disallows us from having in the classroom the
formula of teacher to student that is going to
advance the education that we all say we want
4043
our children to have.
We have heard many of our
colleagues talk about the success and in
others the failure of school boards to work in
their district. In the districts that I
represent, I have a combination of both. But
I certainly have some school districts where
there is excellent participation and
involvement on the parts of parents and the
community as well. And that involvement
includes extra programs -- Building Bridges is
one that parents have developed, along with
the teachers in the district, to provide for
training and education of parents that allows
them to be able to be helpful to their own
children within the school district. Very
successful programs.
But I would not advocate that we
would maintain school districts if the
findings are, and they seem to be, that there
is a greater detriment to allowing our school
boards to make the determination about how
monies are going to be spent in individual
communities.
But what I would not like to see is
4044
us completely abolish the participation.
There's nothing in this 13-member board that
speaks to community people. And I know that
people will jump and up and say, well, you
know, the people that would be appointed will
come from the community. Not necessarily so.
Because it doesn't say where the people have
to come from in certain ones of the
appointments. The only ones that I get the
sense that would be regulated would be those
that come out from the borough presidencies.
So my concern is that somewhere in
here parents and communities need to continue
to have a level of involvement in what
happens. Not necessarily in how the dollars
are spent from a dollar and cents perspective,
but at least have input into the planning and
the concept of where and how monies are spent
and curriculum designs that are going to be
used to teach their children.
And I think I've covered the four
issues very, very clearly as I understand
them. But I certainly know that the whole
issue of privatization of schools, allowing
schools to be privatized -- we have a formula
4045
now that many people still don't agree with.
And to give the chancellor the ability to
privatize other schools within our public
school system when we have not really talked
about what the long-range success of
privatization or charter schools is on the
education of all children, I am not prepared
to do that.
So I will be voting no on this
bill. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, I
believe, is next, and then Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
A lot of important points have been
raised here and reraised. And I'm just going
to again repeat the most crucial issues, I
believe. That is the issue of maintenance of
effort. Funding is perhaps the biggest issue
that we debate here in the Legislature at
budget time. And so for this legislation not
to address that is just on the face of it
absurd, and makes this legislation dead on
arrival to passage in the Legislature.
4046
The idea that the Majority and I
guess Mayor Bloomberg want to sneak vouchers
in in this way is totally unacceptable. The
same having to do with the treatment of
charter schools. One need only look at what
happened with the Edison Schools fiasco when
parents were asked how they felt about that in
Upper Manhattan. Also, Edison Schools has
been shown to be a very, very problematic
private corporation of which there is no
evidence that students do better as a result
of the Edison way of educating as compared to
what could be very good in public education.
The most important issue having to
do with what happens in the schools is
instruction. Instruction is it. I am
fortunate enough to represent a large part of
a district in Manhattan, District 2, where
when the emphasis has been placed on
instruction, grades and achievement improved
dramatically. Reading scores, math scores.
Entrance into good high schools, entrance into
good colleges.
I know that not every part of New
York City has that. But what it proves is
4047
that if there is political will, every school
can succeed. But it takes political will.
Every mayor has said "I need control of the
schools," but none of them have actually ever
tried to exert the kind of political will to
make the schools reform.
Political will is what is going to
make our schools perform. Emphasis on
instruction and emphasis on professional
development of those involved in instruction,
teamwork, parental involvement -- those are
the things that are going to improve our
schools.
None of the mayors have ever made
it their absolute primary focus to improve
education. And now for the idea -- well, the
idea that a mayor could now choose someone who
could do that job who doesn't have experience
in education, who doesn't have experience in
instruction, in what works, is just
wrong-headed.
I think that we have it all wrong.
What we need is the head of the schools should
be someone who knows about instruction, and
then there should be a chief operating
4048
officer. If the mayors say they want control,
doesn't that make them the chief operating
officer?
I don't understand why there's no
emphasis on instruction, resources,
professional development, and parental
involvement. None of that is in this bill.
Also, for the last mayor, you'd
have to be not paying any attention at all to
think that he actually didn't have control of
what happened on the Board of Education. He
was running the show. He had the will to run
the show. I disagree with how it is that he
did that. But he actually had the will to try
to get in there and run the show -- I don't
think to good ends, but he was in charge of
what happened there. He had the votes. And I
don't think he did a very good job. And I
don't think he had the focus, and I don't
think he had the will to make New York City's
public educational system work.
Now, if we're going to hand over
control that kind of control to the mayor and
if we're going to tell the mayor that he
should put in some kind of a businessperson
4049
instead of someone who is knowledgeable about
instruction, then maybe we should make the
criteria for who the mayor is someone who has
experience in education. If they're going to
be running the show that way and they're going
to be choosing the chief operating officer to
head up the schools, then maybe they should be
the person who knows about instruction.
But somewhere up there, and in a
very independent way, you have to have someone
who focuses on instruction, who focuses on
getting the resources exclusively, who focuses
on professional development, who focuses on
parental involvement.
And that is the reason that people
who I think know far more than, with all due
respect to the mayor, the mayor and some of my
colleagues in the Majority, that's why there
has always been in public education a desire
to keep it above the politics of one person
who doesn't know anything about instruction.
So this bill, you've heard in so
many different ways on the merits and the
details, is flawed. But just on the basic
philosophy of how it is that public education
4050
needs to be accomplished in the city of
New York, this bill is a bad bill.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I have a few comments to add to all
that has gone before. Most fundamentally,
there's been a lot of discussion of the lack
of accountability for New York's public
schools, the confusion over who's in charge.
Well, in fact, I don't think there
is any confusion on that issue. The
Constitution of the State of New York says the
Legislature shall provide for a system of
common schools. It does not even say the
state government. It says "the Legislature."
And we complain about all of these
problems with the Board of Education and the
school boards. Those weren't given to us by
the federal government. Those were not
created by God. They were created by the
New York State Legislature.
And we have to finally face up to
4051
the fact, I think, in light of Justice
DeGrasse's opinion in the Campaign for Fiscal
Equity case, that we, the New York State
Legislature, are responsible. This is -- it's
up to us. The Constitution is not vague on
this issue.
So I think we have to take
responsibility for the fact that the problems
in New York City's school system are due to
our refusal to take legislative action over
the last twenty years to fix those problems.
We are empowered to do so. We are mandated by
the Constitution to do so. And it is time
that we stop passing one-house bills and enact
laws.
Now, I realize that sometimes you
can get away with telling your constituents:
Oh, we passed a bill, but the Assembly
wouldn't pass our bill. This year, we have to
enact some laws to make people's lives better
in our districts. I respectfully submit that
the voters will not be satisfied with a
one-house bill, which this clearly is. It
doesn't include the maintenance of effort
provision that's central to the Assembly, and
4052
it does include this privatization provision
that the Assembly will clearly reject. This
is a one-house bill.
And it's time -- it's June 4th -
time to finish with one-house bills and pass
some laws. We have to deal with the Women's
Health and Wellness Act. It's not good enough
to go home and tell our constituents we tried.
We have to raise the minimum wage, with
indexing, or we will pay the price at the
polls. We have to reform the Rockefeller Drug
Laws.
And, finally, it is absolutely
clear that we have to do something about
school governance. And it would be
inexcusable and everyone who runs against an
incumbent senator in this body should make a
big issue of the fact that we do not address
school governance if we close this session
without a law.
One-house bills on any of these
issues are no longer acceptable. It's time
for us to step up and take responsibility
given to us by the Constitution. We can fix
the school governance system in the City of
4053
New York. We have to do it through a
two-house bill signed by the Governor. This
does not advance the process.
I am voting no in the hopes that we
will have a bill that actually can become a
law before this session finishes.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator.
The next speaker is Senator
Onorato -- Senator Montgomery. Senator
Montgomery, I'm sorry, Senator.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I'll yield
to Senator Onorato.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
You're the next one on the list, Senator.
SENATOR ONORATO: She wanted to
close. She wants to close.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Okay. Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
just briefly on the bill.
Most of the comments have been made
by my colleagues. I want to emphasize a
little bit -- I want to say a little bit but
4054
mean a whole lot. And it deals with the
maintenance of effort.
We've been hearing that constantly
throughout our debate here, but nobody has
actually spelled out just exactly what the
maintenance of effort is. There's no formula
around. We've had a lawsuit in the State of
New York, which was won by private citizens
stating that the state was shortchanging the
City of New York. But I think they missed the
boat, because they didn't include the City of
New York in that lawsuit. Because no matter
what we gave the City of New York, it wasn't
enough. And the City of New York relinquished
its own power of adding their own funds to
what we added to them.
I think we have got to come up with
the formula. We have the means and the
wherewithal to pass the legislation and spell
out exactly what it is. I've been in this
legislative body almost 20 years, and for that
time we've increased aid to education every
single year. It was never, ever matched in
the City of New York by our maintenance of
effort.
4055
The rest of the state has their own
means of funding the education. The people of
the City of New York do not have a direct say
in raising the funds for education. We pay
our income taxes and the City Council and the
mayor decide where that money is going.
I think it's high time we stepped
in. We relinquished our power over 25 years
ago on regulating the Board of Education. Now
it's time to take it back and let them know
exactly what it is that we want done with the
money that we are providing for them.
And I ask you to vote no on this
bill until that particular problem is
addressed.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Montgomery, to close for the Minority.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank
you, Mr. President.
I hope that I will not repeat
absolutely everything that has ever been said
about this legislation. But I would like to
ask one question of Senator Velella, if he
would yield, Mr. President.
SENATOR VELELLA: I yield.
4056
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Velella yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right,
thank you. Senator Velella, I'm just trying
to figure out how we got the bill on our desk
today. Did this come through committee, or
was this a special one of those special
provisions for -
SENATOR VELELLA: Was it Rules?
Rules. It came through the Rules Committee.
There was a Rules Committee a little bit
earlier. I believe you're on Rules, aren't
you?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: No, I'm not.
SENATOR VELELLA: Oh, I'm sorry.
It was reported from Rules yesterday.
I might also point out, Senator,
that some comment was made a little bit
earlier in the debate about the fact that we
only had one day to look at this bill and
examine it. But it's been in print since May
21st.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right,
thank you.
Mr. President, can I ask another
4057
question of Senator Velella, if he will
continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Certainly,
Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator, did
we have prior to this, the legislation coming
out -- or at least since it's been out, have
you had an opportunity to hold any hearings
with any groups at all regarding the
provisions of this legislation?
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator -
Senator, this is the result -- as I started
out when I outlined the bill, this is the
result of a long pattern of trying to address
the educational needs of the City of New York.
Senator Padavan put together a
group under his direction who held hearings,
who had the Mayor come, who has held numerous
hearings investigating all of the
possibilities.
And you know what? We don't have
4058
all the answers in this bill. So what we did
was postpone some of the things that we
couldn't solve, like do we keep the school
boards or don't we. There's a mixture of
opinion on that. So we've put that off for
about a year, and we're going to hold further
hearings to decide what should be done about
school boards. So that you will have an
opportunity, I will have an opportunity to
decide whether we should do away with them,
keep them, or change their powers.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Thank you, Senator Velella, for that.
SENATOR VELELLA: You're welcome.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Let me say,
Mr. President, that the -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Montgomery, are you on the bill?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Montgomery, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
The things that the bill does are
troubling. That's one aspect of the problem
with this legislation. But the other, even
4059
more unsettling aspect of our debate today is
that none of it, as I can see, based on this
legislation or anything that we've said,
relates at all in any way to improving the
quality of education in the City of New York.
So that is the saddest comment, I think, of
all.
Now, let me just point out a couple
of things. One, we are eliminating the Board
of Ed as an independent voice that speaks
solely on behalf of the children and
education. So we now have the mayor, who
essentially controls every single decision
that will be made as it relates to education
and the system that we will be left with.
The reason that I say that is
because in rearranging -- reestablishing
this -- whatever we're calling the panel, the
mayor has seven members that he appoints, plus
he appoints the chancellor, and the rest are
appointed by the borough presidents. It seems
to me that every decision, therefore, since it
requires a majority vote -- the mayor clearly
has the majority, the mayor controls who is
appointed to any position in the board -
4060
essentially, the mayor will always, in every
instance, control every decision.
So it really doesn't matter if we
can call the borough president's member or we
can try and reach out to any person in that
system. It will depend on whether or not the
mayor allows any communication to flow from
top to bottom. So that's a problem,
obviously.
Obviously, we -- some -- one of our
members talked about, oh, the mayor controls
the fire department and the police department
and all of these other departments. And yes,
he does. And yes, he does say to each
commissioner "You must reduce your budget by X
number of dollars." And that commissioner
works for the mayor, is required to respond
based on the mayor's wishes.
We're now setting up a situation
where the exact same process is in place for
educational funding. And so we have education
funding going into the city, being controlled
by the mayor, with no accountability to those
places -- i.e., state, the state's funding,
the federal funding, even the city's own
4061
funding.
There is no transparency, there is
no accountability to those funds based on the
fact that they are intended solely for
education. They do not have to be spent that
way, and they will not be spent that way.
And the Mayor has -- in his
actions, certainly -- essentially said: I do
not intend to spend education dollars solely
for the benefit of those schools. And I think
it's very clear.
So that's what we're doing. We're
giving up any small amount of accountability
that we may have. And I say it's very small.
The second thing I just want to
make sure that everybody understands very
clearly, in Section 13, on page 13, under
Section 13 on page 13, the following wording
is in this bill underlined. It is definitely
to be established. "The following may be
entered into by the chancellor only with
approval of the panel" -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator -- just
4062
tell me the lines she's reading from on page
13.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I'm reading
on Page 13, line 3.
SENATOR VELELLA: Thank you.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: "The
following may be entered into by the
chancellor with the approval of the panel,
decided by majority vote" -- which we have
already established that the mayor controls -
"and after the panel shall conduct hearings:
Any contract designed to lead to private
operation of an entire public school, any
contract for assistance in converting a public
school to a charter school that will be
operated by a private school, private
contractor, or any contract or other
arrangement offering to reimburse parents by
vouchers." Or anything else that you call
vouchers.
So that this bill essentially
establishes a privatization process for public
education in New York City. And obviously
4063
that is totally and completely unacceptable.
I also would like to point out that
in this bill on page 24, line 3, it says this
sentence, this portion, this section is
eliminated: "No person who is related within
the third degree of consanguinity or affinity
to the chancellor or to any member of the city
board or to any community superintendent or to
any member of a community board shall commence
employment with the city or community district
of which such relative is a member."
It reopens, reopens, reinstates
nepotism, that which we all know was the most
destructive aspect of the school systems from
the community school board on up. So I cannot
imagine why that would be happening at this
point in time.
To make this legislation the
centerpiece of our legislative initiatives, in
light of the fact that we know that we are
going to be losing hundreds of teachers,
hundreds of superintendents -- we have schools
with no science labs, schools that are
dilapidated. We have teachers who are
teaching without certification or out of
4064
certification. We have so many children who
speak languages that no one in that system
speaks. There are so many issues that should
be central to our discussion on this.
And yet we come with a piece of
legislation, with a bill that is, first of
all, presented without due time to deliberate
on the merits and demerits of different parts
of the bill. Though we may agree with some,
we certainly can't agree with many of them.
And we should have an opportunity to discuss
this. It is a major policy issue for millions
of children in the next few years, and
possibly decades.
So I, Mr. President, would hope
that we could be statesmen and -women enough
and have enough integrity as legislators and
have enough commitment to the people that we
serve, especially the children, to be more
deliberative and to be more accountable for
what we do here as it relates to the education
of our children.
And lastly, Mr. President, what we
really need, what would improve the
accountability, I believe, to us, to the
4065
children, to the citizens of New York City -
and, by the way, the Mayor hasn't listened to
the citizens of New York City, because the
citizens do not want this. This is not their
major issue. That has been proven in poll
after poll. And people have written to me and
written to all of us and they marched on City
Hall and they have said, in a unified voice,
this is not what is the most important thing.
School governance and the mayoral takeover is
not going to improve education.
The New York State School Boards
Association, that's the first thing that they
said. The Association of the Big Five. All
of the groups that really care and understand
what it is we need to do for children, none of
them talk about school governance as being a
major issue. So this is shameful.
But the other thing that I think we
need to do, and hopefully we will talk about
and come to an agreement on, is how do we
create transparency so that New York City, the
Mayor and the City Council don't steal the
money that we send. We cannot hope to improve
the system because the money is never really
4066
used for its purpose. Before it gets to the
classroom, it is taken by the New York City
municipal interest. And obviously that's what
any mayor is going to do.
We should be talking about creating
a system, a lockbox system, a system of some
sort where all of the funds that go into the
city, as they do in every other district
besides the Big Five -- all of the other
school districts are independent of any mayor
and any of the local municipal politics that
we all know is part of New York City's
government.
Let's create a system of funding
that is -- that provides accountability, that
is clear and transparent, that we know every
single dollar that comes from the state, from
the city, and from the federal government for
education in fact goes for that purpose.
That would, I think, improve this
system as it relates to the funding. And
maybe we could get more money into the system
and begin to address some of the real needs
that we have, that we know are the case, that
we know will improve education in our city.
4067
So, Mr. President, I'm certainly
voting no on this. This is bad policy. It is
not put together with all deliberation, with
the input of the broadest possible citizenry.
Most people -- how many people have seen this
47-page document? And certainly many of us
have not had an opportunity to deliberate and
to have input. So I'm certainly voting no.
And I hope that we can come
together with Senator Velella -- I know he is
totally committed. He has been a school board
member, so you know the issues from firsthand.
I've been a school board member. I know. I'm
a parent now; I know some of the other side of
it.
So let's all come together and put
all of our expertise and experience together,
put aside our politics, and try to do
something that makes sense and that is right
and correct for the children of New York City.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator Montgomery.
Senator Velella, to close for the
Majority.
4068
SENATOR VELELLA: Mr. President,
I'm going to be very brief in closing. We
have already, as a courtesy to Senator
Montgomery, exceeded the two-hour time limit
in debate by 15 minutes. So I'm not going to
stand here and try to rediscuss every issue
that's been brought up.
I would only wish that we could get
a videocassette of this debate and produce it
to everyone who asks the question "Why don't
you get things done in Albany?" We have had a
recitation of everything that's not in this
bill and very little debate about what is in
it.
I would rather light one candle to
help start to brighten up the system and give
some guidance and some leadership than to
stand here and point to everything that's not
in this particular bill.
There are problems. There are a
lot of things that were omitted. There are a
lot of things that are taken care of. I was
going to quote, in closing, a great Democratic
president who talked about the buck stopping
somewhere. But I would rather quote a good
4069
Democratic senator, Senator Hevesi, who said
it's time for somebody to be held accountable
for the dollars that are being sent to the
City of New York, to the educational system
that is not producing what we pay for.
We need to have accountability.
Can every mayor across the board, Republicans,
Democrats and in-betweens, can they all be
wrong? Can they all be, the mayors that are
saying the system isn't working because
nobody's accountable?
One of your colleagues on that side
said the problem is everybody's pointing past
each other. Absolutely true.
This stops the buck. It lights a
candle. It gets the job done. And let's stop
nitpicking. Let's get to work on solving the
problem. I move the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Any
other Senators wishing to be heard?
Seeing none, debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 43. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
4070
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR PATERSON: Party vote in
the negative.
SENATOR VELELLA: Party vote in
the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Stavisky, you wish to explain your
vote?
SENATOR STAVISKY: To explain my
vote.
Mr. President, I generally see the
glass as being half full. I'm an optimist. I
don't think this bill accomplishes anything
close to what Senator Velella and most of us
would hope it would do. I think it was Robert
Moses who said that he can get any system to
work. And I happen to agree with him. And he
was a Republican, not a Democrat. But Robert
Moses said he can get any system to work.
I don't believe school governance
is really the problem. I think the problem
can be resolved with smaller class sizes,
licensed teachers, parental involvement, and
so on. That I think is the key.
4071
And I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Announce the results, please.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37. Nays,
24. Party vote with exception.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could return to reports of standing
committees, I believe there's a report of the
Finance Committee at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: We
will return to the reports of standing
committees.
The Secretary will read the report
of the Finance Committee.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following nominations.
As a member of the State Board of
Real Property Services, Ifigenia T. Brown,
Esquire, of Ballston Spa.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Farley.
4072
Senator, excuse me one second,
please.
Can we please take conversations
out of the room. We've got a lot of work to
do. Give a little attention, please.
Senator.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you very
much, Mr. President.
Let me just say the candidates that
are up in the gallery, they deserve a special
prize for patience, sitting up there.
And it is with regret that Senator
Bruno cannot be here to nominate Ifigenia
Brown, of Ballston Spa. But as the senator
that shares Saratoga County with him -- and I
share a little piece of the village where
she -- as a matter of fact, the village is
split. She's in the town of Milton, which is
Senator Bruno's district.
And Senator Bruno has said it's
with honor that he -- to nominate Ifigenia
Brown, a distinguished attorney.
Incidentally, she's been happily
married for 45 years -- she must have been
married as a child -- to her husband, Paul,
4073
who's an electrical engineer and a good
friend.
She's earned her bachelor's degree
from Syracuse University, attended Syracuse
Law School. And she's a member of the
Saratoga County Bar and the New York State
Bar, and she's served as treasurer.
She has been involved in the
practice of law. She was an acting police
justice in the village. She's on the board of
the Charlton -- or was on the board of the
Charlton School, which is in my district. And
she served so many years also as president of
the Zonta Club, and is a very distinguished
Saratoga County resident.
And it is with enthusiasm and honor
that I congratulate the Governor on this
appointment of Ifigenia Brown as a member of
the State Board of Real Property Services.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
motion is on the confirmation of Ifigenia T.
Brown as a member of the State Board of Real
Property Services. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
4074
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
ayes have it. Ms. Brown is confirmed.
Congratulations.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Ms.
Brown is joined today with her husband, Paul.
Congratulations again to both of you.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the State Board of Parole, Marietta S. Gailor,
of Gansevoort.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you. It's
with enthusiasm that I nominate Marietta
Gailor, of Gansevoort, or Wilton, either one.
She is a reappointment, having served on the
Board of Parole since 1996, and appointed by
Governor Pataki.
Let me just say that Marietta is
somebody that has had a great deal of
experience with probation and parole since
4075
1970. She's a person that has been eminently
qualified, in training and in education, for
this job.
She has served her state well. And
that's the reason that the Governor has seen
fit to reappoint her. She's a graduate of
Russell Sage College right here in Troy,
New York. She is married and an outstanding
resident of Saratoga County, and somebody that
has truly been eminently qualified in this
because she has worked for a number of years
in this field and has served with distinction.
It is with enthusiasm that I urge
the nomination of Marietta Gailor to serve on
the Board of Parole for the State of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
motioning is on the nomination of Marietta S.
Gailor to serve on the State Board of Parole.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
confirmation is affirmed.
4076
Congratulations, Ms. Gailor, and
much success.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senators, if you would, we've got people up
there who have been waiting for quite a while
to get confirmed. If we could just go through
these.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I just
wanted to register my -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I
know. Well, they've been sitting up there for
hours, and their confirmation we have to go
through. Just let us go through that and
we'll do the other business as well. Thank
you.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the State Board of Parole, G. Kevin Ludlow,
Esquire, of Clayville.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Meier.
4077
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Mr.
President. It's with great pleasure that I
move the confirmation of G. Kevin Ludlow, a
resident of Clayville, in my Senate district,
as a member of the State Board of Parole.
The Parole Board is an organization
that really does require a great deal of
balance in the way one looks at complicated
issues. Parole Board members are charged with
both protecting society and with carefully
examining the records of persons who are in
the state correctional system to determine
their progress and indeed if it is warranted
to release them back into society.
It requires someone with experience
in many features of life. It requires someone
with almost, indeed -- or with a judicial
temperament. And Kevin Ludlow, I'm confident,
because I've known him for so long -- almost
25 years -- has these qualifications.
Kevin, like myself, has spent a
great deal of time as a small-town lawyer
engaging in general practice. That is one of
the professions in this life where one gets to
see many aspects of life. You're with people
4078
during the proud and happy moments of their
life, when they're closing their homes, when
they're adopting their children, when good
things are happening to them, and you're with
them through the bad times in their life.
And that's the kind of law that
Kevin Ludlow has practiced and where he's
gained the respect of people in his profession
and of people in his community.
And I might add that among his
broad experience as a practicing attorney has
been service to my two distinguished
predecessors in this body, to Senator William
R. Sears and to Senator James H. Donovan,
where he certainly learned the legislative
process here as well as the criminal justice
system.
As I say, he has a deep experience
in a lot of aspects of life. And it's always
encouraging to know, when we deal with
appointees, that they have activities outside
of legal or political life. And in addition
to his legal service and his service to his
political party, Kevin Ludlow readily gives of
his time and talents to community
4079
organizations, to his church, and to others
around him.
He is well-respected. I am proud
to say that he is my friend. I am confident
to say that he has the kind of judgment and
discernment that will serve him well as a
member of the Board of Parole.
And, Kevin, good luck to you, and I
am very proud to move your nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President and my colleagues, I
rise to compliment Senator Meier for his
assistance in making this nomination happen.
Senator Meier, as a member of the Crime
Victims, Crime and Corrections Committee, was
a key advisor to Governor Pataki in making
this selection. And that I compliment both
Senator Meier and the Governor.
Many years ago -- it seems not so
long ago, but it was over twenty years that I
first met Kevin Ludlow, worked with him in the
Assembly and in the Legislature. That he
4080
certainly deserves this. And I want to
compliment Senator Meier again for moving this
nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
motion is on the nomination of G. Kevin Ludlow
to serve on the State Board of Parole. All in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
ayes have it, and Mr. Ludlow is confirmed.
Congratulations, and we wish you
well.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the State Board of Parole, Vanessa A.
McCarthy, Esquire, of Albany.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
4081
Mr. President and my colleagues, it
is with special pride and honor that I rise to
place in nomination -- for renomination to the
Parole Board Vanessa McCarthy.
That Commissioner McCarthy has been
exemplary of a great American success story.
As a young girl emigrating with her family
from Jamaica -- that's Jamaica the country,
not Jamaica, Queens -- coming from Jamaica
with her family to build a better life in
America. A graduate of our own State
University of New York, the first college
graduate coming from her family. Worked hard
through college and into law school. Worked
with us in the Legislature, both in the Senate
and in the Assembly.
She is up for renomination, was
nominated and confirmed by this house in July
of 1996. That she has served with great
distinction as a member of the Board of
Parole.
Also, utilizing her expertise and
knowledge of criminal law, Governor Pataki
appointed Commissioner McCarthy to be a member
of the Megan's Law Task Force. That she has
4082
served with distinction on the Parole
Commission and certainly deserves
reappointment.
Accompanying all this professional
work, she is a working mother of two young
children. She also has the cross of being a
golf widow; but nonetheless, she is bearing
that extremely well.
That, Mr. President, I move the
nomination, a nomination that we all should be
very proud of voting for. Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator.
The motion is on the confirmation
of Vanessa A. McCarthy to serve on the State
Board of Parole. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: All
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
ayes have it. The nomination is confirmed.
Congratulations, Ms. McCarthy.
4083
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Ms. McCarthy is here with her husband, Justin;
daughter, Meredith; and son, Justin the 3rd.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the State Board of Parole, Gino Michael Nitti,
Esquire, of Rochester.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
before us is a new nomination to the Parole
Board, Gino Nitti, from Rochester, in Monroe
County. From my own region, as I represent,
with Senator Alesi and Senator Maziarz and
Senator Dollinger, the Monroe County area.
That Governor Pataki reached out to
find someone who is on the front lines of
criminal justice in seeking Mr. Nitti to serve
in this capacity.
Mr. Nitti, Gino, has served as the
district attorney, assistant district
attorney, with great distinction for Monroe
County for many years, over a decade. That he
is currently the chief prosecutor of the arson
4084
division, responsible for screening and
prosecuting all arson crimes in Monroe County.
He also has served for many years
as a major felony prosecutor, one who's
entrusted with the most significant crimes to
prosecute, and has done that with distinction.
He too is a graduate of the SUNY
University system, which we can be very proud
of, a graduate of the Albany Law School, and
one who has certainly deep roots in New York
State. He's served with great distinction on
very important prosecutorial tasks and will be
an excellent component to the Parole Board.
With that, Mr. President, it is
with honor that I move his nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator.
The motion is on the nomination of
Gino Michael Nitti to serve on the State Board
of Parole. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
4085
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
ayes have it. The confirmation is approved.
Mr. Nitti is here with his wife,
Joelle, and his children, Giana and Louis; his
parents, Louis and Adele; and his in-laws,
Jean and John DiMartino.
Congratulations, Mr. Nitti.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the State Board of Parole, Edward R. Mevec,
Esquire, of Peekskill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Senator Leibell is out of the
chamber at another meeting, legislative
meeting, and he asked me if I would move the
nomination of Edward Mevec, who is eminently
qualified for this job.
He's a new appointment and has a
significant legal background. And I
compliment the Governor on this appointment.
4086
And Senator Leibell wishes him the best of
luck and wishes.
And with that, I'd like to move his
nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator.
The motion is on the nomination of
Edward R. Mevec, to serve on the State Board
of Parole. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
ayes have it. The nomination is confirmed.
Mr. Mevec is joined by his wife,
Barbara Vines; his two sons, Benjamin and
Daniel; his mother, Margaret Mevec; and his
mother-in-law, Carolyn Vines.
Congratulations, Mr. Mevec.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
4087
the State Board of Parole, Brion D. Travis, of
Garrison.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Again, Senator
Leibell is still out of the room, and he's
asked me to move the nomination of Brion
Travis, who is the big cheese in parole here.
He is the chairman of the New York State
Parole Board.
This is a reappointment. He's
served with distinction and has done an
outstanding job.
And again, it is with enthusiasm
that Senator Leibell and myself move the
nomination of Brion Travis.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you, Mr.
President. Mr. President, I again rise to
speak on the confirmation, the nomination of
one of the members of the Parole Board.
As we have confirmed today
individual members, they are certainly with
4088
great notoriety and distinction each and every
one of them, but come together and serve as a
board to do extremely important work on the
front lines of the criminal justice system.
Earlier today I had a meeting with
Governor Pataki about some issues related to
crime and corrections. And that the Governor
certainly has taken great strides over these
last eight years -- with the Legislature's
support, in most cases -- in fighting the war
on crime. And in many cases we have seen
tremendous successes, particularly the area of
the reductions of violent crime.
Key to the success of the
legislation that we produce here is having
good people on the front lines in the police
work, in the prosecution work and, yes, in the
work relevant to parole. Brion Travis, as
chairman of the Parole Board, has served in a
double capacity. Certainly as a commissioner
himself, he's served with extreme distinction.
But he should be very proud of the
fact that he has put together, in conjunction
with Governor Pataki, a wonderful team working
at Parole, a team that is a dedicated team,
4089
one that works extremely hard, and one that
the chairman of the board, Brion Travis,
should take a special pride in.
I did not want his confirmation to
go by without making a special mention of his
efforts, that he has worked extremely closely
with key members of this house to fashion
legislation that will help and does help
reduce crime, establishes a zero tolerance for
violence in this state.
And that, Brion -- I can call you
Brion because I'm very proud to know you and
call you as a friend -- that you have done
great work as chairman of the Parole Board.
And it's a confirmation that each and every
member of this body should be very pleased in
confirming.
Thank you very, very much, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator Nozzolio.
The motion is on the nomination of
Brion D. Travis -
Senator Stafford, I'm sorry.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
4090
I'm going to stand here and I'm going to talk
a half hour about all seven nominees that
appeared this morning. But on second thought,
I guess I better not do that.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Bless you, sir.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you.
Thank you.
But I do want to say, once again,
all seven appearances, all seven appearances,
fine individuals -- some who were
reappointments, others initial appointments -
that I am sure will do a tremendous job in
their responsibility.
And I do have to say, as I've stood
here so many times, fortunately, that the
seven appearances that we had today in front
of the Senate Finance Committee certainly
augurs well for New York State. And I commend
them all and certainly join in moving their
confirmation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator Stafford.
The motion is on the confirmation
of Brion D. Travis as the chairperson of the
4091
New York State Parole Board. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: All
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
ayes have it. Mr. Travis is confirmed.
And we congratulate you, sir.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the New York State Financial Control Board,
Elizabeth Weir Factor, Esquire, of New York
City.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Thank you, Mr.
President. I rise in support of this
nomination and advance the confirmation for
Elizabeth Weir Factor.
Elizabeth is a noted attorney who
started at Phillips Academy in Andover, Maine,
where she graduated in June of 1986. She went
4092
to Columbia University for her master's and
received her juris doctor's degree from Yale
Law School in 1994.
She currently serves as a tax
counsel and investment banker and advisor to
Fortune 500 and Fortune 100 companies on tax
and accounting base structures.
I believe that Ms. Factor will be a
true asset and a valuable asset to the
Financial Control Board of the state, and I
would thank the Governor for sending us such a
highly qualified nominee.
And therefore I vote yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator Morahan.
The motion is on the nomination of
Elizabeth Weir Factor, Esquire, to serve on
the New York State Financial Control Board.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
ayes have it. The nomination is confirmed.
4093
And we wish her congratulations.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge
Authority-Peace Bridge, Paul J. Koessler, of
Buffalo.
As a member of the Niagara Frontier
Transportation Authority, Theodore Katra, of
Lackawanna.
As a banking member of the State
Banking Board, Clifford M. Miller, of Hurley.
As a public member of the State
Banking Board, Jeffrey Hwang, of New York
City.
As a member of the Small Business
Advisory Board, Kevin M. O'Bryan, of Troy, and
Ross M. Weale, of South Salem.
As a member of the Allegany State
Park, Recreation and Historic Preservation
Commission, Dalton J. Burgett, Esquire, of
Bemus Point.
As a member of the Veterans Affairs
Commission, Karl W. Kristoff, of
Williamsville.
As a member of the Board of
4094
Directors of the New York Convention Center
Operating Corporation, Joseph E. Spinnato, of
Muttontown.
As members of the Advisory Council
on Agriculture, Charles P. Bailey, Jr., of
Williamson; Philip Herrington, of Troy; and
Frances M. Moore, of Malone.
As members of the Advisory Council
on Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services,
James G. Cloonan, of Oswego, and Brian Dale
Ingraham, of Binghamton.
As a member of the Advisory Council
on the Commission on Quality of Care for the
Mentally Disabled, Elizabeth Wickerham, of
Saratoga Springs.
As a member of the Minority Health
Council, Jose A. Goris, M.D., of New York
City.
As a member of the Public Health
Council, Jose A. Goris, M.D., of New York
City.
As a member of the State Camp
Safety Advisory Council, Douglas W. Pierce, of
Roslyn.
As members of the State Hospital
4095
Review and Planning Council, Michael H.
Barnett, Esquire, of New York City, and J.
Patrick Sheehan, of Larchmont.
As a member of the State Fire
Prevention and Building Code Council, Robert
Hankin, of Poughkeepsie.
As a member of the Board of
Visitors of the Capital District Psychiatric
Center, Myrna Sanders, of Albany.
As a member of the Board of
Visitors of the New York State Home for
Veterans and their Dependents at St. Albans,
Elizabeth R. Carr, of Glen Oaks.
As a member of the Board of
Visitors of the Staten Island Developmental
Disabilities Services Office, Robert McCarren,
of Staten Island.
As a member of the Board of
Visitors of the Taconic Developmental
Disabilities Services Office, Joan E. Klink,
of Fishkill.
And as a member of the Board of
Visitors of the Western New York Children's
Psychiatric Center, Nancy Rogers, of Darien
Center.
4096
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
motion is to approve the nominees as read by
the clerk. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: All
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
ayes have it. The nominees are confirmed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Is there any
housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Yes, there is, Senator. We have some votes
that want to be changed, and Senator McGee has
a motion.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President, on
page number 50 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 1026, Senate
Print Number 7146, on behalf of Senator
LaValle, and ask that said bill retain its
place on Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
amendments are received and adopted, and the
4097
bill will retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President, I
move that the following bills be discharged
from their respective committees and be
recommitted with instructions to strike the
enacting clause: On behalf of Senator Volker,
Senate Bill Number 2581A.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: So
ordered.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
I request unanimous consent to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 1055, Senate Bill
4606B.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Without objection, so ordered.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I request
unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative for the same bill, 1055.
4098
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr.
President, I would like to announce a
conference of the Senate Minority members
immediately in the Minority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
There will be an immediate conference of the
Minority in the Minority Conference Room.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: For all of
those who are listening -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: For
all of those who are listening or not
listening, they should -
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- would
they please -- all of the members, will they
please -
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: All
four of us that heard you, we'll be there.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: It's my
understanding that the conference is going to
be a half hour. So the Senate will stand at
ease until 3:15.
4099
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senate will stand at ease, on motion, till
3:15.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 2:45 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 4:13 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT VOLKER: Senator
Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, thank you,
Mr. President. I just want to announce
there's going to be an immediate meeting of
the Rules Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
And the Senate will continue to
stand at ease.
ACTING PRESIDENT VOLKER: The
Senate will continue to stand at ease.
A Rules Committee meeting in the
Majority Conference Room. Thank you, Senator
Morahan.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 4:14 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 4:29 p.m.)
4100
ACTING PRESIDENT VOLKER: The
Senate will be in order.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President, on
behalf of Senator Stafford, I wish to call up
Print Number 7001, recalled from the Assembly,
which is now at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT VOLKER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1231, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 7001,
an act making certain findings.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President, I
now move to reconsider the vote by which this
bill was passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT VOLKER: Call
the roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 61.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President, I
now offer the following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT VOLKER: The
amendments are received and adopted.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
4101
ACTING PRESIDENT VOLKER: You're
welcome, Senator McGee.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, may I have unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
1055.
ACTING PRESIDENT VOLKER:
Unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative, Senator Dollinger, on 1055?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VOLKER: Without
objection.
Senator Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Mr. President. I too wish to have unanimous
consent to be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 1055.
ACTING PRESIDENT VOLKER: Without
objection, Senator Smith in the negative on
Senate 1055.
Senator Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. I also would like unanimous
4102
consent to be recorded in the negative on
Senate 1055.
ACTING PRESIDENT VOLKER: Senator
Krueger, without objection, negative on
Calendar Number 1055.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
could we return to reports of standing
committees. I believe there's a report from
the Rules Committee at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT VOLKER: Yes,
there is.
Read the report.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 870, by Senator McGee,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
1167, by Senator McGee, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
1328A, by Senator Wright, an act to
amend the Tax Law;
3175A, by Senator Maziarz, an act
to amend the Executive Law;
4068, by Senator McGee, an act to
4103
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
5603A, by Senator Leibell, an act
to amend the Retirement and Social Security
Law;
5780, by Senator Brown, an act to
amend the Highway Law;
6024A, by Senator Maziarz, an act
to amend the General Municipal Law;
6339, by Senator McGee, an act to
amend Chapter 558 of the Laws of 1999;
6503, by Senator Bonacic, an act to
change the jurisdiction;
6707A, by Senator Farley, an act to
amend the Public Officers Law;
6793, by Senator Spano, an act to
amend Executive Law;
7139A, by Senator Wright, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
7351, by Senator McGee, an act to
amend the Highway Law;
7415A, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
amend the Uniform District Court Act;
7419, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
7442, by Senator Saland, an act to
4104
amend the Penal Law;
7448A, by the Senate Committee on
Rules, an act to amend the Education Law;
And Senate Print 7476, by Senator
Nozzolio, an act to amend the Correction Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT VOLKER: Senator
Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Madam -
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VOLKER: It's
okay. Mr. President. It's okay.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Mr.
President. I now move the adoption of the
Rules report, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT VOLKER: All in
favor of accepting the Rules report say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT VOLKER:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT VOLKER: The
Rules report is adopted.
Senator Morahan.
4105
SENATOR MORAHAN: Any other
further housekeeping at the desk, Mr.
President?
ACTING PRESIDENT VOLKER: No,
there is none here.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Okay. Having
no other business today, I would move that we
adjourn until 11 o'clock on Wednesday,
June 5th.
There will be a Majority conference
in the Majority Conference Room at 10:30 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT VOLKER: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Wednesday, June 5th, at 11:00 a.m.
Senate Majority Conference at 10:30
tomorrow in the Senate Conference Room.
(Whereupon, at 4:33 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)