Gaveled in 3:03 PM · Albany, New York · 2001–02 session
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
February 12, 2001
3:03 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR RAYMOND A. MEIER, Acting President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
P R O C E E D I N G SACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The Senate will come to order.
I ask everyone present to please rise and repeat with me the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The invocation today will be given by Rabbi Nachman Simon, from Chabad House in Delmar.
Rabbi.
RABBI SIMON:This past Thursday we celebrated Tu Bishvat, the 15th day of the Hebrew month of Shvat, which commemorates the new year of the trees.
This is a time when trees begin to bud in Israel. It is customary to eat many fruits, especially those for which the land of Israel is praised in scripture. It is said that man is likened to a tree in the field.
We can therefore derive many lessons by observing the trees. One of these is that if a tree has strong and deep roots, a strong wind will never be able to uproot it.
This applies to us also. Our country and state are rooted in the tradition of great moral character. And even though there are persuasions trying to turn us away from these lofty goals, nevertheless, since we have strong roots, we shall not turn away from these pursuits.
Another lesson from the trees is that a tree never stops growing, even when it gets older. Humans stop physically growing when they reach the age of maturity, but their mental and spiritual growth should always progress.
May it be the Almighty's will that He should help each and every one of us to see our full potential and never be deterred from reaching our goal of seeing that the State of New York and its people reach to their highest level.
And may we all see the ultimate perfection of the world, with the coming of the Mashiach, the Messiah, speedily in our days.
And let us all say amen.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Reading of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY:In Senate, Friday, February 9, the Senate met pursuant to adjournment. The Journal of Thursday, February 8, was read and approved. On motion, Senate adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Without objection, the Journal stands approved as read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Thank you, Mr. President. I hereby give notice of a motion to amend the rules of the Senate. The rule's been previously noticed. I'm simply reiterating the notice today for purposes of making it eligible for debate and consideration by the house tomorrow.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The notice is received. It will be entered in the Journal.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Mr. President, I just move that the following bill be discharged from its respective committee and be recommitted with instructions to strike the enacting clause. And that's Senate Bill Number 322.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:So ordered.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI:Yes, Mr. President. On page 7 I offer the following amendments to Calendar Number 44, Senate Print Number 859, and ask that said bill retain its place on the Third Reading Calendar, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The amendments are received, and the bill will retain its place on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO:Thank you, Mr. President. On page Number 9 I offer the following amendments to Calendar Number 65, Senate Print Number 1073, and ask that said bill retain its place on Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The amendments are received, and the bill will retain its place on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS:Mr. President, there's a privileged resolution at the desk, Number 420, by Senator LaValle. May we please have it read in its entirety and move for its immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:By Senator LaValle, Legislative Resolution Number 420 memorializing Governor George E. Pataki to proclaim February 14, 2001, as Congenital Heart Defect Awareness Day in the State of New York.
"WHEREAS, It is the sense of this Legislative Body to memorialize Governor George E. Pataki to proclaim February 14, 2001, as Congenital Heart Defect Awareness Day in the State of New York; and
"WHEREAS, Congenital heart defects are those existent at the time of birth; and
"WHEREAS, With the increasing familiarity of the disorder, more diagnoses are being made of what was not long ago thought to be an extremely rare disorder. But there is still a necessity for continuing research and awareness.
"Congenital heart defects continue to be among the most common birth defects. It is estimated that almost one in 100 children are born with some type of congenital heart defect; and
"WHEREAS, Too many babies, children, and adults continue to battle the devastating effects of a congenital heart defect every day. While many of these defects are repairable or require no surgery, nearly half of all those born with a defect will at some time face one, if not many, surgeries.
"Overwhelming numbers of those afflicted with a congenital heart defect continue to lose their lives due to late detection of the disorder, a lack of donor hearts, or the severity of the condition; and
"WHEREAS, The citizens of New York State and the nation must remain hopeful. Congenital heart defects continue to be researched by numerous professionals so that the medical community may more accurately describe their origin, physical signs, and symptoms and uncover new surgical options that will better aid our loved ones in their fight against a congenital heart defect; and
"WHEREAS, It is the duty of this Legislative Body to raise awareness of this disorder so that the likelihood of early diagnosis and intervention will increase; now, therefore, be it
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative Body pause in its deliberations to memorialize Governor George E. Pataki to proclaim February 14, 2001, as Congenital Heart Defect Awareness Day in the State of New York; and be it further
"RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted to the Honorable George E. Pataki, Governor of the State of New York, and Violet Haufsk, President of the Dominick Open Heart Memorial Fund."
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE:Mr. President, thank you very much. I would like to open sponsorship of this resolution to all the members. I think many are already on this resolution.
And just very briefly, I think awareness is so important, education is so important. There are, as the resolution speaks, one in a hundred babies that are born with some sort of congenital heart problem, some defect. And today, with new surgical options, I think we are giving people a longer life.
And of course, with new technology and research, I am very, very hopeful that we will be able to do just wonder kinds of things to help those infants that are born live a full and long life.
As members, I think if we can, on Awareness Day and beyond, just make each of our constituents aware of new surgical options, early detection. In many communities, I think people do not have this awareness and are not proactive enough in helping their infants live a longer and complete life.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Skelos, Senator LaValle has asked that it be opened. Should we follow our custom and put everyone on unless they inform the desk otherwise?
SENATOR SKELOS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Everyone will be placed on the resolution, then, unless they inform the desk otherwise.
Do you want to speak on the resolution, Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Yes, very briefly, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:I applaud Senator LaValle's initiative with respect to congenital heart defects and their detection and education.
I would just suggest that there is a corollary of endorsing the idea of greater education and better understanding among people in this state, and that is that the cost may go up. We may get more people who recognize that the detection of congenital heart defects -- which sometimes, as in the case of people like Pete Maravich, they go through an extraordinary sports career and they die of a congenital defect in their early 40s even though it could have been detected early on.
But I think, Mr. President, this resolution is versus critically important to raising education awareness. But we have to do it with an understanding that in the long run, it may cost us more. But even if it does, it's clearly the right thing to do.
We have to have the courage to make sure that our wallets follow our proclamations about the need for education and information. When it does, it may cost more, but it seems to me in a just and fair society we have to be prepared for that. And it may mean that we in this room have to be prepared to pay for it. It will be well worth it if we do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The question is on the resolution. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The resolution is adopted.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO:Thank you, Mr. President. On behalf of Senator Seward, on page 9 I offer the following amendments to Calendar Number 60, Senate Print Number 1120, and ask that said bill retain its place on Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The amendment is received, and the bill will retain its place on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS:Mr. President, if we could take up the noncontroversial calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The Secretary will read the noncontroversial calendar.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 3, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 66, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in relation to the commission of crimes against children.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Read the last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Lay it aside, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Lay the bill aside.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 10, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 136, an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to endangering the welfare of a child.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Lay that one aside, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Lay the bill aside.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 43, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 858A, an act to authorize the Congregation Shira Chadasha, in the village of Great Neck, to file an application.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Read the last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Lay that bill aside, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Lay the bill aside.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 51, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 394, an act to amend the Social Services Law, in relation to allowing regional state park police.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Read the last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Lay it aside, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Lay the bill aside.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 57, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 358, an act to amend the Education Law, in relation to providing for an additional annual apportionment.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Lay that one aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Lay the bill aside.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 71, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 63, an act to amend the Administrative Code of the City of New York, in relation to inquiries.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Read the last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Lay that bill aside, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Lay the bill aside.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 75, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 384, an act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to permitting.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Read the last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Lay it aside, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Lay the bill aside.
Senator Skelos, that completes the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS:Mr. President, if we could now go to the -- since we disposed of that so quickly, if we could go to the controversial reading of the calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The Secretary will read the controversial calendar.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 3, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 66, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in relation to the commission of crimes against children.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Explanation, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Velella, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR VELELLA:This bill would require the district attorney to notify the local child protective agency of the conviction of any person at least 18 years of age for the following crimes: abandonment of a child, nonsupport, endangering the welfare of a child, unlawfully dealing with a child, sexual performance by a child, any other crime against a child under the age of 16.
This notification requirement will ensure that the agency has complete information with which to advise the Family Court about whether or not a child should be returned to the custody of its parents.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will yield to a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Velella, do you yield?
SENATOR VELELLA:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Is it the intent of this legislation that the local Child Protective Services agency would then bring an appropriate action? Is there any requirement in law that they do that to achieve the goals of this legislation?
SENATOR VELELLA:Senator, this legislation is to give notice to those agencies so that then they could properly act within the confines of the law and within the duties assigned to them by the law to properly act, that they would have the information available to them, and that they would be notified of any person over the age of 18 who's been convicted of any of these crimes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Through you, Mr. President, if sponsor will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Velella, do you yield?
SENATOR VELELLA:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Senator, given the notification requirement in this piece of legislation, is it your intention that the potential civil liability for child protective agencies would be increased because they would now be placed in a position where they knew about such conduct, such illegal conduct, and therefore they would be in a position where they would have to act? Does that affect the potential civil liability of those child protective services?
SENATOR VELELLA:Senator, I couldn't comment on whether or not it would.
My intention with this bill is exactly what I said it is. It is to give notice to the proper agencies that someone has been convicted of these enumerated crimes and that that agency should act properly based on that information. It's an attempt to give an agency that protects children every bit of information necessary.
And then you and I can only assume that those in those agencies act properly and within the confines of the law. If they do so, they have nothing to fear from any liability statute or any liability theory that you might be able to think of.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Through you, Mr. President, if Senator Velella will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Velella, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VELELLA:Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Isn't it true that the conduct that you've described -- the use of a child for pornography, the failure of supervision -- all of those things would constitute a basis for action by a local Child Protective Service against each of those individuals?
The reason why I ask this question is because you've outlined a series of conduct, you've told them you're going to give them information, but the statute doesn't - the proposal doesn't require them to do something with it.
SENATOR VELELLA:Senator, I think you're trying to read an awful lot into a very simple statute that makes common sense.
When somebody is convicted of one of these crimes, you notify the Child Protective Services that this is a bad person. They have been found guilty of doing something to a child or doing something with a child that we don't like, that was illegal, and you ought to be aware of that and act accordingly in the future. Simple, direct, to the point.
You're trying to read too much into it, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Through you, Mr. President, if Senator Velella will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Velella, do you yield?
SENATOR VELELLA:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Through you, Mr. President. What I'm trying to do, Senator Velella, is figure out why we're doing this.
Because my question is, if they are bad people and they're involved with children, is merely telling them enough? Shouldn't we require the local Child Protective Services to do something with this information, such as commence a proceeding that would prevent them from having access to children or, if they had children in their custody, removing that custody?
I understand that you're simply giving them notice. My question is, why shouldn't we do more and have them do something with this information?
SENATOR VELELLA:Senator, in your zeal to find questions to ask me, you have blinders. They have been found guilty of a crime. The court is going to punish them. There is a sentence. They will be punished by the Penal Law because they committed a crime.
All we're doing is giving a little bit more notice to some of the agencies to further protect, in addition to the punishment. So this will be in addition to all the bad things you want to do to these bad people.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Thank you, Mr. President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:I appreciate the clarification from Senator Velella. I'm going to vote in favor of this bill. But I don't think it quite goes far enough. I think it needs a companion.
And the companion would be that simply transmitting the information from the criminal process into Child Protective Services is not enough to achieve the goal that Senator Velella I think is trying to get to, and that is to protect children.
The thing to do is to require, under this bill, if we're going to have the courage to transmit the information to the child protective agencies, let's require them to do something with it. Senator Velella's comment about they'll be punished criminally isn't enough. After all, many of these individuals can take their criminal punishment -- which may be probation, it may be something very minor, a 30-day prison sentence -- but we don't remove those children who are exposed to adults who have committed crimes involving children.
We don't take the important following step, which is to guarantee or to require that the child protective agencies stand on their feet and take the next action, which is to remove the children from parents or any adult who has shown lack of fitness for their position as parents or advisors to children.
So I'm going to vote in favor of this bill, Senator Velella, and I hope by the end of this session we'll see another bill that carries it to its logical conclusion, which is knowledge is not enough, we need action in these cases to protect our children.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 10, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 136, an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to endangering the welfare of a child in the first and second degrees.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:May we have an explanation, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Volker, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR VOLKER:Mr. President, this is a bill that passed the Senate last year by a vote of 58 to nothing. It creates the offense of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree and redesignates the offense of endangering the welfare of a minor in the second degree.
At the present time, the offense that's involved here, the first degree offense, would be an A misdemeanor. And as I think some of us have pointed out, in many courts today it's unfortunately a crime which is more -- its absence of weight, unfortunately, is more used than anything else. Many of the district attorneys, particularly with the busy courts that we have, it's usually virtually ignored.
What it would do is a person would be guilty of endangering the welfare of a minor in the first degree if she'd either previously been convicted of an offense of this nature or if she knowingly acts in a manner that creates -- he or she -- that creates a substantial risk of physical injury or prolonged impairment of mental or emotional condition of a child less than 17 years of age.
What this is is it in effect sets up a situation where a person who causes some additional problems for a child under 17 years of age could be charged with a Class D felony, which would allow, in effect, some sort of penalty for the kind of conduct that now in many cases is virtually being unpunished.
And these are pretty serious situations, and I think it's something -- and that's why it passed 58 to nothing last year, because I think it's something that we should really do in both houses. And I'm hoping that the Assembly will follow suit this year.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY:Yes, Mr. President, I wonder if Senator Volker will would answer -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Volker, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR VOLKER:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY:Thank you.
I'm just wondering, Senator Volker, currently what does the law say regarding an instance where there is a conviction of abuse, as is in your legislation, or endangering the welfare of a child? What is the current punishment for that?
SENATOR VOLKER:Class A misdemeanor.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY:Class A misdemeanor.
SENATOR VOLKER:Right.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY:And this bill -- Mr. President, through you, does this bill then change that? The exact same charge would be now a Class D felony, violent felony, is that -
SENATOR VOLKER:Well, what it does is -- it isn't the exact same charge. What we do is we create a more serious charge -- as I said, if you knowingly create a substantial risk of serious physical injury or prolonged impairment of mental or emotional condition of a child less than 17 years old, then we create a Class D felony.
Otherwise, if it's just -- I don't want to say ordinary -- endangering the welfare of a child, which could be a great many things -- as a for-instance, if you leave a child in a car unattended, you could be endangering the welfare of a child.
A lot of times a person is charged with endangering the welfare of a child, which -- if they leave the house and a child is in there and there's a fire or something, and then, even though there's no injury or anything, they could be charged. That's just a misdemeanor.
Where there's a more serious kind of thing where the child's life is threatened -- and I use the fire situation - and if they were -- I would think I would almost call that reckless. But that's where the Class D felony would come in, because their very life was threatened.
Or, in some cases, the mental condition of the child, their -- it seems to -- I believe this came -- it seems to me it came from the district attorneys. Or I'm not even sure, it may have been child welfare people. It seems to me that there should be some grading of offense based on the circumstances.
So that at a more serious situation you could charge the Class D felony, and otherwise you would have the normal endangering the welfare of a child, which is a Class A misdemeanor.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY:Mr. President, I just want to pursue this a little bit. Just one more question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Volker, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR VOLKER:Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY:So, Senator Volker, I want to be clear about this. If I leave my son home alone and it is determined that by leaving him home alone I could be putting his life in danger, and therefore it could be considered at the higher order of crime, under your legislation? And therefore I could be charged with a violent felony, Class D, based on the determination that I put his life in danger?
Or does it -- is it now that I left him and he is burned to death in the apartment, in the house, is it only then that I'm charged with a Class D felony? Or is it that even if I leave him, nothing happens to him, but just because he could have burned to death I could be charged?
SENATOR VOLKER:Well, first of all, Class D is not a violent felony. Let's put that -- this is not a violent felony. Which means it's not in the upper grades.
But, number two, if he actually burns to death, that would trip up the penalty anyway. Probably you wouldn't even have to use the Class D felony, because you would already be in a higher situation.
You cannot assume -- under that evidentiary situation, there's no way that you could assume that something might happen. You have to have something more than that, quite clearly. Because at the present time, what you just described, if nothing did happen, I'm sure it would be a Class A misdemeanor. It would be the same as it is now, because what that -- in fact, most of the time the person isn't even charged with that if there's nothing else besides that. I think in most places there weren't, more than anything.
What is really intended here, though, is the more serious situations where a child's life is actually threatened, where there's an actual situation where a person should have known, under the circumstances, that the child's life could have been threatened or could be threatened, or the mental or emotional welfare of that child.
You have to have a higher -- one of the things about it is that in any felony case, particularly a D felony, you're held to a higher standard in any court in this state. And that's the way it should be. That's the difference between a misdemeanor, frankly, and a felony.
So that what we're trying to do here is differentiate between the ordinary situation where maybe something could have happened rather than something did happen.
Now, if the child obviously is burned to death, then you already have - you're going to have a much more serious charge there of neglect. It's not even going to be neglect, it's going to probably be involuntary manslaughter or something of that nature.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY:Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:I'll yield my time to others.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:Thank you, Mr. President. Would the Senator yield to a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Volker, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR VOLKER:Yes. Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:Thank you. I was listening to the discussion that was transpiring, and many of the questions that Senator Montgomery has raised were those that I earmarked as I looked at your legislation.
And I guess the nature of the question is really to understand, is this - is the intent of this bill to create a series of levels within the Penal Law of behaviors directed toward children? Is that accurate?
SENATOR VOLKER:Yes.
A series? Actually, two levels. Primarily two levels. Right now the only charge is a misdemeanor. So that either you have to have another element involved here entirely that you could make another charge, or all that you could charge for endangering the welfare of a minor is a misdemeanor.
And I think the child welfare people, as well as many of the people that have dealt with this, believe that you ought to be able to have some gradation where the act that involves -- and it's not just parents. I mean, there's obviously -- you know, there can be guardians, there can be all sorts of things. So that you will have, where the child is clearly endangered and there's a substantial risk and you can prove that risk, which is what you have to do, then it should be a felony.
Or if it's just the ordinary situation where, for instance, you can be charged with endangering the welfare of a minor for giving the minor alcohol, something of that nature. So that's not the kind of a situation, obviously, where you'd want a felony, that's a misdemeanor. And that's fine. And we're leaving that the way it is.
But where the situation is far more serious, then you would want a far more serious charge.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:Thank you, Mr. President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Hassell-Thompson, on the bill.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:Senator Volker, I appreciate your explanation and your support in helping me to understand this.
My background is in early childhood education. It's also working with substance-abusing parents and working with children. But it isn't in Penal Law. And many times I'm not always as clear as others here may be about how the Penal Law is affected.
I certainly know and would support this bill primarily because of some incidences in the lives of some of the families and children that I have worked with over the years. And there's a woman now who's serving 25 years to life in Bedford because she left an eight-month-old unattended for five days because she had a crack habit, and the child died of starvation.
My perspective here says that as we look at families, I am not as anxious or concerned about creating more penal layers as I am intervention programs. Because I think that in some of the instances, we fail to realize early on that there are some very - some problems that we have signals for, but, because of the way in which our Penal Laws are written, there are no red flags that are raised.
So that each time as I've listened to the way you have presented bills, I get the sense that you have some of the same concerns that I have. And so I can support this bill, with the understanding that as we do this, we need to extract certainly heavier penalties on certain behaviors. But I always need to be sure that we don't jump from one behavior to another and suddenly we've gone from a mother who may leave a child unattended in the car for a moment while she picks up a package and a neighbor reports that, and if she does that more than once, then it suddenly goes from being a misdemeanor to a felony.
And so I just needed to be sure that I was clear that it was a gradation as opposed to those kinds of jumps.
And I thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Mr. President, would the sponsor yield to just one question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Volker, will you yield for just one question?
SENATOR VOLKER:Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Senator Volker, I want to just call your attention to the section that -- as I understand it, the second section of this bill will include endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree, which you have now elevated to a Class D felony, will include it in the definition of violent felony offenses. Am I dealing with the wrong print here?
SENATOR VOLKER:Yeah, you're right. I'm sorry, you're absolutely right.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Through you, Mr. President, just so I clarify my question to Senator Volker.
The category of offenses that are included, this is to create a violent felony offense that triggers the VFO requirements?
SENATOR VOLKER:Yup.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:All of the other offenses listed there are (a) an attempt to commit certain Class C felonies, which are violent in nature; assault, which is violent; stalking, which is violent; sexual abuse; sexual conduct against a child; aggravated sexual abuse; criminal possession of a weapon, which I think has certainly a very violent overtone to it. But this is the only one of those offenses that doesn't involve necessarily violent intent.
And my question is, why would you include endangering the welfare of a child, which is really a crime of omission or neglect, in a category of offenses that largely involve the intent of violence?
SENATOR VOLKER:Yeah, I remember now. I'm sorry.
One of the things that's interesting is when the Senator described the situation where somebody is in jail for 25 years to life because a child was, for five days -- died because of lack of food, one of the interesting things about that case -- it's the exact case that's a problem -- if you came and found that child still alive, let's say after two or three days, and took the child, the only charge you could make against that woman would be a Class A misdemeanor.
I think the reason that we have made this potentially as serious an offense is is because what we're saying here is that this is a situation where -- a serious situation here, substantial risk of serious physical injury or prolonged impairment. And the idea is that we want the ability to charge them with a very serious crime where that child has been subjected to a situation where they could die or they could be severely injured or whatever.
And I think that's the reason for that, is because the attempt is to set up a gradation of crime. Because the normal situation is that it's a Class A misdemeanor. And I think there's an attempt here to give a range of penalties where it's more serious.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate Senator Volker's always thoughtful and I think right-on-the-nose explanation of this bill.
But I'm going to vote in favor of it, Mr. President, not without some misgiving. I think if you look at the collection of offenses that will be combined under the VFO provisions, those are all crimes of intent. Those are all crimes of violent intent where the proof at trial would show that there was an intent to commit violence against children.
Endangering the welfare of a child, as defined in this bill, simply says that it's not necessary that you have any intent. And I would suggest that the proposed change, by elevating it from a misdemeanor to a Class D felony, is, as I think Senator Volker properly points out, a reflection of our determination this is a very serious crime. This can have a substantial impact on a child.
But my concern would be that by including it in the violent felony offenses, as certainly Senator Volker knows better than anyone, we substantially enhance the penalties for second-time violent felony offenders. And one of the perhaps unforeseen circumstances is that you can have someone who had done time as a violent felony offender, as a parent, commits this crime and now runs into the substantially enhanced penalties for second violent felony offenders, which would put them in jail for a long time and probably end their period of time that they would frankly be able to influence children or be even connected with children.
I'm going to vote in favor of this bill. I've voted for it in the past. I would simply ask if the sponsor gets a chance to negotiate this bill with the Assembly that he take a very careful look at including this particular issue of neglect of children, whether it rises to the same criminal intentional level as the other ingredients in violent felony offenses.
Senator Volker is absolutely right; we have to a send a clearer message to parents and to those people who have custody of children that this is serious and this violates our acceptable norm of conduct. But by including it in violent felony offenses, we may be sending an unintentional message that combines it with directly intentional criminal behavior, and that may not be the right thing to do.
I'll vote for it with that misgiving, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 6. This act shall take effect on the first day of November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Montgomery, to explain her vote.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY:Yes, Mr. President. I'm going to vote no on this legislation. I have voted no in the past. And I just would like to clarify one reason why I vote no, I want to be on record.
We've had a couple of cases in the recent past -- one was a young mother who unfortunately had an infant and had a dog, and in desperation she went out of her apartment looking for food, left the dog in the apartment with the baby, and the dog ate the baby because they were both starving to death.
We had a young mother who was, I believe, breast-feeding her baby. There was something wrong, the baby didn't thrive, and I think the baby died.
And in those instances, and many others like them, we could very well have people charged under Senator Volker's law. And it doesn't really give us the incentive or it doesn't support the need to address the symptoms that go beyond the issue of whether or not you've simply committed a crime. And in many instances where parents in particular are involved and children are involved and the question of abuse arises, I think we have to be extremely sensitive and careful as to how we define those situations.
So I'm going to vote no only because I just want to be on record as not agreeing so quickly to deal with the criminalizing issue before we address the question of symptoms that have criminal outcomes.
So thank you. I'm voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Montgomery will be recorded in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 56. Nays, 1. Senator Montgomery recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 43, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 858A, an act to authorize the Congregation Shira Chadasha, in the village of Great Neck, to file an application.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Explanation, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI:Mr. President, this is a piece of legislation that corrects basically a problem in time. This congregation purchased a piece of property, the purchase of the property was after the date when the tax rolls closed, and therefore they were not able to apply for the religious tax exemption that is afforded all religious institutions in this state.
Now, if I could just jump ahead so we could save a little time, I suspect that the objections to this particular piece of legislation might revolve around the procedure and not the substance, and that the person asking the questions might raise the issue we should do this all at once as opposed to consideration of individual bills.
And my response -- and again, to truncate the discussion -- is to respond by saying that's all well and good and procedure is very important, but that won't do my congregation here any good. They need the relief now, they're entitled to it, and therefore that's why I submit the bill for this house's consideration.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Through you, Mr. President, will the sponsor yield for just a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Balboni, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR BALBONI:I thought my explanation of the bill would have perhaps - okay, never mind. Go ahead.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Short circuited the -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Thank you, Mr. President.
Could you tell me what date they actually bought the property and how much tax we're going to rebate here or allow the County of Nassau to rebate?
SENATOR BALBONI:Yes, I can. It's Section 1, Block 99, Lot 360. And it was 24 Crampton Avenue, off of Middle Neck Road. And the property was purchased on September 18, 1998. And the taxes were approximately $26,000 -- no, $29,500.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Through you, Mr. President, if -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI:Sure.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Is that the amount of taxes from September of '98 to date, or is that just for the '98/'99 year and '99/2000 and 2000/2001? Is that all three years or each year?
SENATOR BALBONI:I've forgotten my calculator back in my office. But I'll tell you what. After we pass the bill, why don't you and I call the rabbi. We'll ask him directly.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Through you, Mr. President, will Senator Balboni yield to another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI:I continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Do you know, Senator Balboni, whether there was any discussion at the time they purchased the property about the fact that they wouldn't qualify for the tax exemption?
SENATOR BALBONI:No, I do not. I have not had any conversations with the attorney who did this.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Through you, Mr. President, if Senator Balboni will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI:Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Does this tax exemption include the '98/'99 real property tax year?
SENATOR BALBONI:I would imagine it does.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Through you, Mr. President, if Senator Balboni would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Does it include the '99/2000 tax year?
SENATOR BALBONI:You know, actually, I'm looking at it and I don't see the '98 tax year. I don't see the '98 tax year included on this.
So I don't believe -- I would like to amend my response, Mr. President, and say that the '99/2000 was -- the school tax was $4,701.56 and in the '98/'99 was $3,410.22. And the general tax was $2,254.51 for the year 2000 and $1,071.02 for the year 1999.
And as you recall, taxes are assessed, perhaps differently than in your county, at certain times. In other words, half year is the school tax, and then the general tax is assessed quarterly, so there's a difference in the assessment times. And that might explain the discrepancy as to what tax they're asking to be rebated.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Through you, Mr. President, if Senator Balboni would continue to yield.
SENATOR BALBONI:Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:As oftentimes happens both in my conversation or questions, lots of other questions crop up.
My question is, does this include the '98, '99, and 2000 tax years? This is for all three years, is that correct?
SENATOR BALBONI:As to certain portions of taxes, I believe so.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Okay. Through you, Mr. President. So is it fair to say, Senator Balboni, that this congregation not only missed the tax filing date once but didn't it get it right for two straight years? Is that correct?
Because they went through several periods of time where they could have claimed the exemption at the cutoff date. They actually went through two or three rounds of cutoff dates and kept missing them; isn't that correct?
SENATOR BALBONI:As I recall - and this is upon information and belief, not exactly a sworn affidavit, Senator, so you'll have to take my recall -- what happened here was they closed and they went and they said, Oh, great, now we'll get exempted from taxes. And they said, No, no, no, that doesn't happen. You actually must apply.
And they said, Well, what's the problem? Well, let's go to the assessor's office. They went to the assessor's office. It took a little time to get a response. And the response came back and said, No, you're not entitled, because you need a special act of the Legislature in fact to be granted the exemption, because you did not file prior to the tax date.
And they said, Oh, well, then what do we do? And they said, Well, go see Balboni and DiNapoli. And they did. That's why we're here.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Through you, Mr. President, if Senator Balboni would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI:Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Did anybody give them the advice that they might need to go see you and Assemblyman DiNapoli for the partial year that they owned the property, but do you know whether they got the advice to go apply for an exemption so for the other two years they could get the exemption that they're entitled to by law? They obviously never filed the exemption.
SENATOR BALBONI:I do not.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Okay. Final question, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Do you yield for a final question?
SENATOR BALBONI:A final question, yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Through you, Mr. President, to Senator Balboni. This amount of tax, how often in the past when we've done these bills does the county legislature in Nassau County award the taxes back? Has it happened every time, to your knowledge?
SENATOR BALBONI:I wouldn't know.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Again, I appreciate Senator Balboni continuing to enlighten me on the difficulties of taxing charitable organizations in Nassau County.
I would suggest, however, that this bill does something that I don't think we've ever done in the past. We have often granted, over my objection, for members from Nassau County the Nassau County charitable relief bill, which we seem to do a bunch of every single year, in which we give them the ability to avoid the same restrictions that apply in Buffalo, that apply in Westchester, that apply in Brooklyn, that apply in Queens, every other place in the state, which they're required to meet the tax status date. If they don't meet it, they have to pay real property taxes.
As I've often said on this floor, this is a both-ways law that's currently now in effect. If the same congregation that Senator Balboni is now seeking to relieve their tax burdens, if they had sold the property halfway through the tax status year, they buyer wouldn't have to pay taxes until it was recalculated. That's what the assessors do in this state.
I would just suggest that we've done this a number of times, it's the wrong thing to do. There's a bill sponsored by the chairman of the Health Committee that will obviate the need for any one of the members from Nassau County to ever come back and take up this house's time providing tax relief for congregations of all different types and varieties from Nassau County, and we will then set up a fair system where the people in Monroe County or Erie County or Westchester get the same benefit. Which is when charitable organizations buy property, the property ought to be tax-exempt from the date of closing. I agree with that as a concept; I've urged my colleagues in this house to bring that bill forward.
And I would suggest that what we're actually doing every time we pass one of these bills is we're creating an attorney malpractice relief program for my brethren at the bar in Nassau County. Because nobody should be allowing a tax-exempt organization to buy a property without the firm understanding of when its tax status date is.
And I would suggest that -- we do this for everybody in Nassau County year after year after year, and we give them a special tax status in this state for people in Nassau county -- let's give it to everybody in this state.
I'm going to continue to vote against these bills. They're wonderful ideas for Assemblyman DiNapoli and Senator Balboni and all the members from Nassau County. It's wonderful that we extend this tremendous, properly motivated benefit to the people of Nassau County. It's a great idea. If it's such a good idea, let's give it to everybody else.
Senate 7325, sponsored by Senator Hannon, will allow everybody to do it. Let's have that debate at the end of the session. I'll stand up and congratulate all my friends from Nassau County for bringing this issue to the floor and making it statewide. But let's do it for everybody and not just the select few who may know Senator Balboni and Assemblyman DiNapoli or my other colleagues in Nassau County. Let's do it for everybody, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 56. Nays, 1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 51, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 394, an act to amend the Social Services Law, in relation to allowing regional state park police access.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:May we have an explanation, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Saland, an explanation has been requested by Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR SALAND:Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, this is a bill which merely expands the existing number of law enforcement agencies and law enforcement entities under Section 422 of the Social Services Law that would have access to the central registry for purposes of child abuse investigations. And what it proposes to do is to add the regional state park police to those other law enforcement agencies that currently have that access.
It's a bill which, incidentally, we've seen in this chamber I believe on at least two and perhaps three prior occasions, and it has passed handily, if not unanimously, previously.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE:Thank you, Mr. President. If the sponsor would yield, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Saland, do you yield?
SENATOR SALAND:Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE:To what end is it to share this list with the park police?
SENATOR SALAND:To what end?
This is not a sharing. This is the ability to gain access to information that is not available to the general public, it's only available to law enforcement and for some other related purposes such as research. The reason is to further investigations of alleged child abuse or neglect.
SENATOR DUANE:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR SALAND:May I ask, Senator Duane, if you'd just -- I don't know if it's my being a little clogged -- if you'd speak up a little bit.
SENATOR DUANE:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE:Why would a park police officer be involved in an investigation of child abuse?
SENATOR SALAND:Well, park police have jurisdiction that expands beyond the parameters of whatever park to which they might be assigned. They are law enforcement personnel, they have jurisdiction that's tantamount to the jurisdiction of the state police. They deal with any number of people within the parameters of a state park, whether they be people who are there temporarily, some who reside in the area permanently.
They are called upon to investigate -- there are incidents where they have investigated incidents of child abuse and where they've needed access, have been required to deal with whatever local district attorney had jurisdiction in that particular county to gain access to the central registry.
SENATOR DUANE:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Saland, do you yield?
SENATOR SALAND:Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE:I still am not sure why it is that these particular police officers would need to have this kind of information readily available to them. Why would a park police officer be involved in an investigation of child abuse?
SENATOR SALAND:Why? The why would be because he or she is a law enforcement officer, they are called upon to do anything that a city policeman, town policeman, deputy sheriff, or state policeman would do. They are called upon to accompany CPS workers at times to sites where there are reports of alleged abuse or neglect.
There could be relevance in determining whether or not there had been any prior reports filed with regard to a family, to see whether or not the behavior that has been alleged is similar, so as to establish a pattern of prior similar allegations.
There's any number of reasons.
SENATOR DUANE:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Saland, do you yield?
SENATOR SALAND:Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE:Why would a child welfare worker not be the person investigating an allegation of child abuse?
SENATOR SALAND:It's not unusual, at least where I come from, and I served as an attorney for a social service department, for a child welfare worker in an appropriate situation -- they deem appropriate -- to bring in the local police.
And if you happen to be in a rural area where perhaps the park police are the only law enforcement agency that you can readily access, I certainly would call them. I wouldn't wait to get a deputy sheriff from the other part of the county if time was of the essence.
SENATOR DUANE:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Saland, do you yield?
SENATOR SALAND:Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE:Even if it is the case that a child welfare worker couldn't find another police officer from the area and so, you know, the park police officer lived next door or whatever, why would that park police officer need to have access to this information? The prosecution is not happening on the spot.
SENATOR SALAND:Could I -- I'm not quite sure what the question was. But if you could rephrase it, I might understand it a little better.
SENATOR DUANE:Okay. I'm accepting, although I'm a little surprised, that a child welfare worker would not be able to ask a police officer to come with them to investigate a case of child abuse. But maybe if, you know, they were in the other part of the county or something and there was a park police officer living next door, I could see where a child welfare worker might ask the park police officer to accompany them to the residence.
However, I still don't understand why that park police officer would need to have this information, because the prosecution is not happening on the spot.
SENATOR SALAND:In order to effectively investigate under any number of fact patterns, the relevance of conduct or prior conduct or a determination as to whether in fact this child had been the subject of prior reports would be an appropriate law enforcement function. It's done every day - if not dozens of times, hundreds of times - by law enforcement personnel throughout this state.
And I would merely just add, we are a very diverse state, Senator Duane. And what occurs in the mid-Hudson or what occurs in the city in terms of the ability to expediently access your local police may be a bit more challenging when you get into more remote areas where you have significant expanses of space and not a police precinct in close proximity or not a sheriff's substation or a state police substation in close proximity, and you would seek whatever law enforcement agency that you can get.
And certainly the park police - and again, I would really reiterate what I said previously. Your park police are duly sworn law enforcement officers who have the ability to do whatever else any of the aforenamed law enforcement personnel could do.
SENATOR DUANE:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Saland, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND:Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE:As a living, breathing example of our state's great diversity, I think, I'm wondering -- again, I'm yielding that you may need to have a law enforcement person go with the child welfare worker. I'm no longer disputing that.
However, I still don't understand why, if a child is -- if there's been a report of child abuse, why it is that that law enforcement person would need to know anything but that the report had happened at that point to go and intercede in what's happening.
Why would they need to know? Or if there's such an urgency that you can't get a regular police officer, would the park police officer then wait, look up the records, and then go? I thought if time is of the essence, shouldn't they just go and try to protect the child?
SENATOR SALAND:This is not merely contemporaneously with the investigation of the incident. This follows up subsequently as you do your investigation.
The central registry deals not only with a child but also deals with the subject. So the subject could be a parent, a custodial parent. It could be somebody who had the child in his or her custody, although not in a parental relationship.
This does not require an instant, on-site access to the central registry. This is part of the normal police or law enforcement process, the paperwork, the investigation that ensues after you've had the initial contact and if in fact you determine that an arrest is appropriate.
SENATOR DUANE:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Saland, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND:Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE:We are talking about increasing access to a confidential list. And if we're going to be giving this list to park police officers because they are investigating child abuse cases, I'd like to know what training park police officers have in identifying and investigating child abuse.
SENATOR SALAND:Just one thing before I respond to the question. One does not get wholesale access to the names in the central registry, if that's what your concern is. You are requesting information based on the subject of your investigation. You don't get indiscriminate access. So I hope that's not your thrust.
Secondly, these park police, as I said earlier, are duly sworn. I could not tell you with absolute certainty, but I suspect that their training requirements are at the very least the same requirements that local municipal police have. And I would assume that they would be comparable to if not the same as the state police. These are not peace officers, these are police officers.
SENATOR DUANE:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Saland, do you yield?
SENATOR SALAND:Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE:In light of what you've just said, that means that park police officers could make an arrest?
SENATOR SALAND:Yes. I think I indicated that earlier in my remarks.
SENATOR DUANE:And finally, why were park police officers not originally included?
SENATOR SALAND:If I knew the answer, I'd be happy to share it with you.
I do know that from time to time there have been additions to the list of those who have access to the records, and generally they've been pretty specific and pointed and narrow.
SENATOR DUANE:Thank you.
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE:I am concerned about opening a confidential list to a new group of people without a very high level of discussion and scrutiny.
I'm also concerned and am going to look into the kind of training that park police officers get in the area of child abuse. It seems to me that really the only thing they need to know in a situation is that a child needs to be removed from an environment or a situation.
But I would be very concerned that a park police officer would be that involved in the investigation of such a matter. And if a park police officer were that involved, I would think that they should be working in tandem with the district attorney, who could then have access to these records.
So I am going to vote no on this and hope that we have more time before this goes through to really look at how these kinds of cases are addressed both in terms of investigation and prosecution.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN:Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Saland, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR SALAND:Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR BROWN:I'm wondering if it has been determined whether or not there is any fiscal impact to passing this legislation.
SENATOR SALAND:I would not think, if there was, that it would be of any significant amount. To the extent that somebody at CPS would be required to respond to a call, it would be one of tens of thousands that they receive.
SENATOR BROWN:Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Montgomery, to explain her vote.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY:Yes, Mr. President, just briefly to explain my vote.
I've had conversations with Senator Saland regarding this bill, and he understands and I want it to be on record that I am not opposing his intent to protect citizens in our state by allowing access to this registry - or access to information, I should say.
But the registry in fact is the problem. I understand that -- I believe it was Senator Spano has tried to make some amendments to this registry so that it makes more sense. But as it stands now, people who end up -- whose names end up in this registry, even if it's an unfounded accusation, their names remain there for ten or twelve years, based on the current law. Except for certain circumstances; i.e., Senator Spano's bill.
So since that is the fact and there are so many problems with that central registry, it is not an accurate indicator of a person's having some actual criminal activity as it relates to child abuse.
So I'm going to vote against it, because I think this is serious enough, I've had enough people who have been denied employment, denied all sorts of privileges because their names appear in that registry even though it's unfounded and they are not guilty.
So that's why I'm voting no on this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Montgomery will be recorded in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 56. Nays, 3. Senators Duane, Hassell-Thompson, and Montgomery recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 57, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 358, an act to amend the Education Law, in relation to providing for an additional annual apportionment.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Explanation, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Morahan, an explanation has been requested of Calendar 57 by Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR MORAHAN:Yes, Mr. President. This bill would amend the Education Law related to contracts between school districts, both in the duration and also allowing the appropriation of the building aid based on the numbers of students going to the transferred-to school.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Through you, Mr. President, if Senator Morahan will yield to a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Morahan, do you yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN:Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Could you explain to me -- I mean, this bill seems to be drafted with a specific pair of districts in mind. Could you just explain the particular nature of this bill? Is this designed to deal with a problem that currently exists or a situation that currently exists in your district? And if so, could you explain the background of that?
SENATOR MORAHAN:Yes, it does apply to two districts within my Senatorial district. Although the bill is written broadly enough that if any other districts would find them themselves in the same predicament, they could also avail themselves of this particular act.
What happens here is we have one school district, considered a poorer district, that sends all of its high school students to a neighboring school district that's considered, under the formulas, a wealthier district. This bill says that any school district that does so do that -- and some of these contracts are entered into in the state of New York already between school districts -- it saves one school district building a whole new high school. Okay?
Now, currently they're only allowed a five-year contract that they can make between the districts. This says if a school district is receiving in more than 50 percent of its secondary-education students from another district, they could use the other district's building appropriations if that indeed, if that appropriation is more -- in this case, 40 percent versus 10 -- for the building aid for the school.
It also expands the time in which they can have this contract, so that the receiving school district would have 15 years that they can go into the contract, which would allow them the time to amortize the cost of building the new school and/or additions.
In the district of Tuxedo, the school district of Tuxedo, they have to now face one of two things, either rejecting the school's students from the Greenwood Lake district and/or building and expanding their own high school.
They have no problem taking in the students, but they would like to do it with the building aid from the sending-in district, and they want to contract long enough so that they would bind that district long enough to pay off the amortization of the building of the school.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Through you, Mr. President. Just so I understand this, this would allow the district that has a greater indicia of wealth, when they take the students from the other district, to use the formula for building reimbursement in the poorer district to, in essence, buy the new space to accommodate the students from that district?
SENATOR MORAHAN:If they're taking in -- if more than 50 percent of the population of the high school comes from outside the school. If Tuxedo takes in over -- if the Tuxedo school district's population, secondary population, is in excess of 50 percent coming from another district, then it would apply. If it was less than 50 percent, it wouldn't apply. I think that's reasonable.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Through you, Mr. President, if Senator Morahan will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Morahan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN:Yes, I do, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Is there any provision in this bill if the population that they take in drops below 50 percent?
In other words, I understand the logic that says the wealthier district, because it's taking in a very significant population, should be able to borrow the poorer district's increased aid formula. In other words, you'd use the higher rate of reimbursement, because you're building new space.
My question is, what happens if during the 15-year period the amount of students actually drops below 50 percent? Does that affect the aid distribution or the way the agreement would work?
SENATOR MORAHAN:I believe it would. But because they're in for 15 years, the receiving school district would still be protected.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Okay. Through you, Mr. President, if Senator Morahan will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Do you yield, Senator Morahan?
SENATOR MORAHAN:Yes, Mr. President, I certainly do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:You've mentioned the two school districts that I assume are in your district that would benefit from this legislation. What other application would it have in other school districts in the state, do you know?
SENATOR MORAHAN:It would have the same applications for those who fall under the same criteria.
I do not know of any other two school districts that fall under that criteria. And that's why I think this is an urgent bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Okay. Through you, Mr. President, just one final question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Morahan, do you yield for a final question?
SENATOR MORAHAN:Yes, Mr. President.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:I've actually been final when I've said final, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Don't toy with us.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Could you just tell us, Senator Morahan, what the fiscal impact to the state is in the difference between the lower reimbursement rate available in the wealthier district and the consequences of the higher reimbursement rate for the poorer district? How much more does it cost the state if this bill becomes law?
SENATOR MORAHAN:I don't have an exact number. But the fiscal note says the impact on the state would be minimal.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Through you, Mr. President, I thank Senator Morahan. Actually, again, I thought that was a good explanation of the complications of this bill.
Just on the bill briefly, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:We always see the notion that these fiscal impacts are minimal. I guess if you have a $12.8 billion investment in public education, a couple of hundred thousand here, a couple of hundred thousand there will always be considered minimal. But nonetheless, as the old line goes, when you add them all together you may be talking about real money.
Despite that, I still am going to vote in favor of this bill. I think the point that Senator Morahan makes -- that is, that the kind of regional cooperation necessary to build what is probably going to become a regional high school, I think it's actually more efficient if two school districts combine their student populations to create a regional high school of sufficient size to make the kinds of programs that we'd all like to see in high schools available.
You need a certain size to do that. If you're combining school districts and creating a single building, I'm not troubled by the notion that you in essence get to finance that additional space through the resources of an increased aid from a neighboring district. If you're taking in their pupils, you should be able to, in essence, borrow their beneficial aid formula.
I would suggest, Senator Morahan, that whatever model seems to be working down in your neck of the woods, I hope this bill has more statewide application, because I think the principle is a good one. We've got, in my judgment, far too many school districts in this state. We ought to be encouraging consolidation.
This is a bill that may move us down the road to at least consolidating at the secondary level. And who knows, if it works and it's successful, you've reached that size necessary to make a good high school, it could apply in middle schools and grammar schools as well.
So I'm going to vote in favor of this bill. I think it's a good idea. I also understand the reason why it's got to be 15 years rather than five, because we have that artificial five-year limitation in the General Municipal Law for contracts between different levels of government. I've often thought that that's an anachronism we should get rid of as well across the board and simply require a finding of the need for longer-term intermunicipal agreements.
So I think doing it for 15 years, I understand the logic. I would suggest we do away with the five-year limitation completely, because it doesn't conform with the modern realities of long-term financing of these kinds of debts.
I'll vote in favor.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN:Thank you, Mr. President. I too don't have a problem with this. But did I hear the sponsor say correctly that this only applies to one school district in the state?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Do you wish the sponsor to yield for a question?
SENATOR BROWN:Yes. Yes, if he would.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Morahan, do you yield for a question from Senator Brown?
SENATOR MORAHAN:Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR MORAHAN:Yes. It is not written for one district. In other words, they don't specify in the bill this district and X district and Y district.
What this says, it sets up a set of ratios which happen to fit only one school. And that criteria is that they would have to be taking in 50 percent of their secondary students from another district.
So any district in the State of New York, as Senator Dollinger pointed out, that did combine, then they could have the same benefit of the bill. But it would have to be the criteria of 50 percent or more -- or more than 50 percent, actually, would have to be going from one school district to another.
When we talk about the impact on the state finances being minimal, the alternative to this bill is that the school district that's now sending its children to another high school, their only alternative is to build their own high school and get the same aid. Therefore, I believe it's a minimal impact.
SENATOR BROWN:Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 3. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 71, by Senator Velella -
SENATOR SKELOS:Lay it aside for the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Did you say for the day, Senator Skelos?
SENATOR SKELOS:For the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Lay the bill aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 75, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 384, an act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to permitting.
SENATOR DUANE:Explanation, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Skelos, an explanation has been requested of Bill 75.
SENATOR SKELOS:Mr. President, this would permit the parent, parents, or legal guardian of a minor to be present during any proceeding involving sexual harassment.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE:Thank you. If the sponsor would yield, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE:Thank you. I feel as if we've been here before.
But I wanted to know why we haven't made it so that a young person could choose any adult to be with them during one of these hearings.
SENATOR SKELOS:You asked that question last year, and I'll give you the same answer. I have parent, parents, or legal guardian.
SENATOR DUANE:But through you, Mr. President, if the child is a foster child or, you know, a ward of the state and the parent can't be found, what would happen in a situation like that?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Do you wish Senator Skelos to yield?
SENATOR DUANE:Yes, please. I'm sorry, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Skelos, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR SKELOS:Was that a question?
SENATOR DUANE:Yes.
SENATOR SKELOS:Then I'll repeat my response. Because the legislation specifically says parent, parents, or legal guardian, I feel that's appropriate.
SENATOR DUANE:Through you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE:In a case where a parent or a guardian is someone with whom the child does not feel safe to be in the presence of to discuss one of these issues, would the child have recourse to not have a parent or guardian present but a different adult?
SENATOR SKELOS:The legislation would require the notification of a parent or both parents or the legal guardian.
SENATOR DUANE:So through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS:Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE:So the child would have absolutely no discretion about whether or not notification of a parent or guardian would happen under any circumstances?
SENATOR SKELOS:We're dealing with minor children, so it would be the parent, the parents, or the legal guardian.
SENATOR DUANE:Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE:I'm going to vote no on this. I continue to think that this is just too sweeping.
I think that there are many cases, or there could -- and even if there's just one case of a child who didn't feel safe having a parent or guardian present after notification to hear about something that may have been happening at school, there is no way out of it in this case.
And I think that we need to allow for a situation where a young person could explain to their counselor why they didn't want their parent or guardian involved, and that just can't happen under this legislation.
So I'm going to vote no on it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:Thank you, Mr. President. Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS:Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:Picking up on the point Senator Duane was making, I think that we're talking about anyone under 18, and I believe there are circumstances where it would be a friend of the parent who was accused of sexual harassment, or perhaps even a relative of a parent, and a child, a 16- or 17-year-old, may not feel safe or comfortable or able to express themselves in the presence of the parent.
And I was wondering if any consideration was given to a judicial override provision such as exists in the area of parental consent for abortion, where parents sometimes are notified but in those statutes there's almost always a judicial override provision where, in a very difficult situation where the parents really may not be helpful and may in fact impede this, the child is able to proceed without them.
SENATOR SKELOS:If there was a problem within the family, then that's what a legal guardian is for.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:The difficulty arises in situations where there is -- no parental guardian has ever been appointed, it's a troubled family, and the child has actually been victimized by someone who is close to one of the parents. And if there's no legal guardian present, this statute provides no out for a child in those circumstances.
And I'm afraid that while it's well-intentioned, it might have the effect of actually damaging the proceedings in certain cases like this.
SENATOR SKELOS:If you had a serious problem, I imagine the child could make an application to the Supreme Court and have a guardian ad litem appointed.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:Well, through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS:Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:Are there any provisions for legal assistance for children to make such an application in these circumstances provided by this legislation or any companion bill?
SENATOR SKELOS:No, this legislation specifically speaks to who must be notified in the event there is sexual harassment against that minor.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:Thank you. Thank you for your answers.
Through you, Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:I think the -- I understand the intent of this legislation. I think, though, that we have raised a very troublesome area. There are a lot of 15-, 16-, 17-year-old children here who would be forced to have a parent notified of a proceeding that they may not feel comfortable speaking honestly at if the parent is there. And, unlike other statutes that have been drafted in this area, there is no override provision.
And I would urge that -- I think before we can make this into a law and deal with an area that is of concern to a lot of us, that sort of a provision would have to be provided for. And I think that we should really be looking for that before we pass a piece of legislation like this.
So I will be joining Senator Duane in voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY:Yes, Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Montgomery, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY:I want to reiterate what my colleagues -- the issue already raised. And that is in some instances, unfortunately, a parent or guardian -- or a child who was in foster care, the foster parents, stepparents -- these people are the ones who are involved in cases of sex abuse, very often, and harassment.
And what we certainly don't want is to establish a situation where a child cannot report this in the absence of the person perhaps who is involved in the activity.
So I did legislation a few years ago which would specifically allow youngsters, children below the age of 18, to be questioned regarding instances of sexual harassment and sex abuse. So I think that we would be cutting off the opportunity for the authorities involved in the questioning to get answers from youngsters and get testimony from youngsters if we require that the parents or guardians are present.
So I would vote against this for that reason.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect in 30 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Mr. President, would you recognize Senator Hassell-Thompson, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Hassell-Thompson, to explain her vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Would you withdraw the roll call, please.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:Through the President, I was trying to ask a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Without objection, the roll call is withdrawn.
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR DOLLINGER:Thank you, Mr. President.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:Thank you, Mr. President.
If the Senator will yield to a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS:Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:Thank you, Mr. President. The question has to do with how sweeping this bill is in terms of parental permission. And I wondered if this covers schools or just employment situations.
SENATOR SKELOS:It involves the Executive Law -- amends the Executive Law and it involves minor children who would be employed by companies or entities that are covered under the Executive Law.
Library districts -- for example, in my home community there was a minor who was sexually harassed by an employee. And the library board and the attorney said, We have absolutely no obligation -- this was the president of the library board, the members of the library board -- said, We have no obligation to inform the parents that this occurred. And they obtained a statement from the minor child and the employee was told, Go away. You know, the silent resignation. Go away.
So all this legislation would say is in this type of situation, that library would have to notify this young girl's parent, parents, or legal guardian that there was - of the sexual harassment so they could participate in any legal documents or at least be notified about what occurred.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:Through you, Mr. President, if the Senator will yield to another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The Senator yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:Thank you. What sort of proceedings for sexual harassment are covered? Are they only court proceedings?
SENATOR SKELOS:No. This would be a situation where the minor reported an act of sexual harassment. It would then be the obligation, in this instance, of the library to notify the parents that the child had complained to them of sexual harassment. And they would then participate in any types of proceedings that would occur from that point on.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:But report it to -- I'm sorry, Mr. President, if the Senator will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:Thank you.
Report it to whom? Who would they report to?
SENATOR SKELOS:Again, I'll use the example. The library would report it to, in this instance, this young lady's, this minor child's parent, parents -- in this instant, parents -- or guardian, legal guardian.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:One final question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Senator Skelos, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR SKELOS:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:I'm getting better at this than I thought I would.
I'm trying to be clear as to whether this legislation would also include school incidences as well. Or is this just in the area of minors in employment?
SENATOR SKELOS:It would involve anybody under the age of 18 employed by an entity that's covered by the Executive Law. So if it was a minor child working, for example, as a summer intern in a school district and they were sexually harassed, they would be covered, yes.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect in 30 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:Those recorded in the negative on Calendar Number 75 are Senators Duane, Hassell-Thompson, Montgomery, and Schneiderman. Ayes, 55. Nays, 4.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:The bill is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS:Mr. President, is there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:No, there is not.
SENATOR SKELOS:There being no further business, I move we adjourn until Tuesday, February 13th, at 11:00 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:On motion, the Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday, February 13th, at 11:00 am.
(Whereupon, at 4:31 p.m., the Senate adjourned.)
Highest impact first.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.