PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE of September 6, 2000

Minutes
A regular meeting of the Public Safety Committee of the Suffolk County Legislature was held in the Media Room, First Floor of the H. Lee Dennison Building, Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, New York, on September 6, 2000, at 1:00 P.M.

Members Present:
Legislator Maxine Postal - Vice-Chair
Legislator Michael D'Andre
Legislator Joseph Caracappa
Legislator Vivian Fisher
Legislator Jon Cooper

Members Not Present:
Legislator David Bishop - Chairman 
         
Also In Attendance:
Paul Sabatino - Counsel to the Legislature
Linda Burkhardt - Aide to Presiding Officer Tonna
Barbara LoMoriello - Aide to Legislator Cooper
Nanette Essel - Aide to Legislator Fisher Jim Spero - Deputy Director/Budget Review Office
John Ortiz - Legislative Budget Analyst/Budget Review Office
Ilona Julius - Deputy Clerk/Suffolk County Legislature
Bonnie L. Godsman - County Executive's Office/IR
John Gallagher - Commissioner/Suffolk County Police Department
James Abbott - Chief Deputy Commissioner/Suffolk County Police
James Maggio - Assistant Deputy Commissioner/Suffolk County Police James Rooney - Sergeant/Suffolk County Police Department
Robert Gould - Inspector/Suffolk County Police Department
Marc Sitzmann - Police Officer/Suffolk County Police Department
Jeff Frayler - President/Police Benevolent Association
Tom Muratore - Vice-President/Police Benevolent Association
Vincent DeMarco - President/Deputy Sheriff's Benevolent Assoc.
Mike Sharkey - Secretary/Deputy Sheriff's Benevolent Association Philip Goldstein - Resident of Port Jefferson Station
Carmine Vasile - Resident of Patchogue
Henry Huszar - Resident of Farmingville
Harvey Kash - Americans for Legal Reform
Glenn Svoboda - Americans for Legal Reform
Ray Mincone - Organization of Senior Citizens & Retailers
Lou Giordano - SAFE
Tony Cuzzucoli - Resident of Hauppauge
Read Smith - Resident of Smithtown
Janet Goltz - Suffolk County Taxpayer
Valerie Burgher - Newsday
Ellie Seidman-Smith - American Red Cross
All Other Interested Parties

Minutes Taken By:
Alison Mahoney - Court Stenographer

(*The meeting was called to order at 1:13 P.M.*)

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen. I would like to call the Public Safety Committee meeting to order. Legislator Bishop is unable to be here today so he has asked me to chair the meeting. I would like to ask everyone to please stand for the Salute to the Flag led by Legislator Caracappa.

Salutation

There are a number of people who have filled out cards wishing to address the committee. But before we do that, Legislator Cooper has brought a video that he's going to show the committee and the public having to do with I believe it's IR 1765?

LEG. COOPER:
The gun safety bill, yes.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
The gun safety bill. So I would like us to view that video first before we go to the cards from the public.

LEG. COOPER:
Actually I think maybe I'll do it, I'll try to wing it. I don't really need to comment while it's playing. I just wanted to point out, this is a clip, it's actually two clips from a 20/20 segment on this issue, safe storage of firearms to keep it out of the hands of children. And I thought it was apropos because at the last committee meeting I believe there was a representative of SAFE that had shown a videotape extolling the virtues of the Eddie Eagle Program on gun education and had made the comment that the real answer to this problem of children accessing guns was education and that alone would solve the problem.

I had said a number of times when I met with Mr. Giordano from SAFE, and oft times after that, that if the education program could be proved to work then I would be the first to support it locally, but I don't think that that precludes legislation such as I've proposed, a child access prevention law. So since SAFE showed the NRA video, I would like to show just a couple of clips from the 20/20 segment. And depending on the patience of the assembled masses here, I'll either show all 18 minutes or perhaps less than that.

It's two segments, one of them talks about the problem of children accessing guns and the second segment is very interesting, it's exactly on point, it's going to show children that went through the Eddie Eagle Program versus children that did not, put them all in the room with guns laying around and you'll see if there's any difference between the kids that went through the program and those that did not go through the program. So I am not an expert at --

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
But Ilona is. Can you just turn --

LEG. COOPER:
I think if you just hit play we should be all right.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
And if you could just turn the monitor around a little bit more.

LEG. COOPER:
And thank you in advance for your indulgence.

(1st Video presentation Shown)

LEG. COOPER:
This next segment you hear from the daughter, the older daughter who killed her younger sister, it's very emotional, we will jump ahead here.

(2nd Video Presentation Shown)

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Thank you.

LEG. COOPER:
Thank you for your indulgence.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
I think we'll go to that issue first. There are two cards, the first one was filled out by Tony Cuzzucoli.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
Good afternoon.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Hi. Will you please come up to the table?

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
Thank you. I first became aware of this particular proposal as I stated just recently in this last public hearing.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Can I just interrupt you for a minute?

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
Yes.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
I don't know if that's on. Thank you.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
First of all, good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Tony Cuzzucoli, I reside here in Hauppauge. As I had attempted to say just a moment ago, the first time that I was aware of this legislation, proposed legislation, was about a week and a half ago, right after I had flown in from Atlanta; I had been away for the summer and I did not have access to the proposed legislation. However, I didn't want to come out to the public hearing and hear what was being said about it. Unfortunately, there wasn't any proposal, 1765 was not posted so I was still flying in the dark here. Getting up to the mike, I did make some effort to at least say in principle that as a licensed gun owner that I was concerned about a proposal that might in some way appear to restrict individuals within their own homes and I find that to still be a legitimate concern.

I would say to you, first of all, because I do have and I appreciate the time you're going to give me the opportunity here to say something I hadn't understanding Mr. Tonna's time restrictions with all of the people who wished to speak. I wanted to say that I did not grow up on the Island, that I'm a New Englander. I grew up in a small farm village Upstate, New York where everyone, virtually everyone owned guns. I also grew up in a culture, a farm culture where that gun often meant that individuals who did not make a great deal of money would use those guns to hunt and to augment a limited income. I also grew up in a culture where the NRA, as a national organization, was well respected. And one of the rights of passage for all of us was to be able to acquire entrance to the NRA at age 16 and to learn all of the required safety features of handguns law, long guns, prior to being allowed by our parents to go out and to hunt. So that was the culture that I grew up in.

Having taught for 34 years sociology, government, here on an island with a population larger than 21 states of the union, I have had to also understand the surburban environment and some of the mitigating circumstances, as in an urban society, that will limit or in some ways will deny many, many people the knowledge, the understanding, concerns, the respect that firearms present for all of us. I'm also, having been born prior to the Second World War, part of a culture that truly understood and accepted the premise something called individual liberty, but along with that personal responsibility, something that in some ways all of us, all of us, any of us who feel we're responsible citizens will find maybe absent as we look around us the behavior of many people in our communities.

I'm also a father of three children, a father of two beautiful grandchildren, so I am extremely sensitive to being a gun owner.
And I would also preface my comments by simply saying that I do have a handgun that has a trigger lock on it at all times, it is not loaded, and I store it in a gun box, so I may be somewhat unique or different than many other gun owners. But having said that, I belong to two gun clubs on this Island since I have come here, make my living here, and I have been associated with many professional, non professional people, people who euphemistically or sociologically speaking might be described as blue collar folks. I have yet to this day to run across anyone, and I have been in a number of their homes, anyone who would just leave a firearm laying around, a loaded firearm. I have worn this nation's uniform. I would suggest to you that anyone who has worn this nation's uniform, even if they came from an urban or surburban culture, would be extremely sensitive to the enormity of their responsibilities as a gun owner. So to be quite candid with all of you, frankly I have not run across anyone in my life experiences who would leave a gun laying around, accessible to a child.

Having just received by fax, the Clerk, Suffolk County Clerk, was kind enough to fax me a copy of that proposal and I just received it prior to coming in here this afternoon. I have just looked it over very quickly and I am noticing certain words that I find interesting, one, unloaded guns. So I would like to ask Legislator Cooper --

LEG. COOPER:
I'm sorry, that's an old version.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
It is.

LEG. COOPER:
It was changed about a week ago to only loaded weapons.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
I see. That is an old version; what does the current version say? I was told that was the current copy.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Maybe we can get a copy.

LEG. COOPER:
Actually, my aide is making about a dozen copies for anyone here who would like it.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
I see. It's loaded?

LEG. COOPER:
I changed it to -- at first I was thinking -- and look, I don't have all the answers on this.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
Sure.

LEG. COOPER:
And that's why I'm trying to work with --

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
We would all struggle with this, yes.

LEG. COOPER:
Right. My only purpose, even though I've been accused of trying to demonize gun owners, I've been accused of trying to confiscate all firearms, my only goal is to enhance safety. I wanted to institute a child access prevention law, I was shocked to learn that New York State is not one of the 17 states that have cap laws on the books.

If anyone read the New York Times yesterday, and I gave a copy to all the members of this committee, just on Sunday a New York City Police Officer left his 38-Caliber revolver loaded on top of his refrigerator, thought it would be out of the reach of his kids, his five year old was able to gain access to it, shot and killed himself; this happened on Sunday. That's what I'm trying to prevent.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
I think it's a common sense bill. Originally, I thought that it might make sense to include unloaded weapons because as you saw in the video, sometimes kids know where the bullets are kept and they could load it, but I thought, since I wanted to be as reasonable as possible, I would restrict it to just loaded firearms and so I've made that change. I changed the age of definition per child, right now it's been reduced to under 16. The cap laws in other states, some states go with 12, some go with 14, some 16, some 18, I decided to go with 16, under 16.

After meeting with some people from SAFE, they were concerned that if a child broke into a house and stole a weapon and someone was hurt that the owner could be held responsible. I didn't think that logically that would be the case, but I further amended the bill to put in exemptions specifically saying if it's stolen then there's no liability. At the legislative session last week, speaker after speaker would -- made statements that they would never leave a loaded weapon laying around where a child could access it, they would either lock it up in a safe storage depository or they would put a safety lock on the weapon. And I would repeatedly ask them, well, that's exactly what my bill is trying to accomplish. It only takes effect if a child has a reasonable likelihood of gaining access to the weapon. So if you have no kids in the house, if your grandchildren don't visit, if you're not baby-sitting for a neighbor's child, you can leave a loaded weapon on your kitchen table for all I care, it doesn't have impact.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
I see.

LEG. COOPER:
It's only if a child has a reasonable likelihood of gaining access to a weapon, then you have to put a child safety lock on it or you have to lock it up, or take the bullets out.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
That was one of the driving forces behind several of my questions, one of which was really my interest in whether or not in preparing this proposed legislation you had obtained the demographics for Suffolk County to wit the number of homes with children as opposed to those without, for one. I was certainly curious as to not knowing about your age level at that point, if you had received any demographic tables showing how many children there were in Suffolk County homes between the ages of 5 and 12, 13 and 16, 17 and 18. And again, not receiving answers to those questions, those were concerns of mine.

I would say very quickly to you, and I appreciate your response, that I was also interested in whether or not you had received information, you had statistical data regarding the number of accidental deaths in the State of New York and in the County of Suffolk this year for the last five years, the last 10 years. In other words, what is the immediacy? Although I understand immediacy can be that an accident can happen here at any given moment, but I guess with my background I'm always interested in the preparation and the impetus behind such proposals. And I was just curious, I would like to at least have that answered, if I may, how many accidental deaths have there been?

LEG. COOPER:
I don't have the information of New York State. The information that I was able to access off the web from Centers for Disease Control and it was confirmed by another federal organization of nationwide statistics, which showed that, as the video said, about every other day a child is accidentally killed; I have the exact stats. If you included teenagers, 15 to 19, it greatly increases, but the statistics I have are for 15 and under; I have it from 0 to 4, 4 to 9, 9 to 14 and over 15.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
Right. The number -- the number, sir, that strikes me from the Center for Disease Control from 1998 I believe was 142 nationwide, 142. Now, that's 142 children we'd prefer not to obviously have had --

LEG. COOPER:
Well, that's the point exactly.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
Yeah.

LEG. COOPER:
And tell the father of the five -- I've got five kids, I have five-year old twins, one child's death is one too many.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
And I don't know whether a child in the past few years in Suffolk County has been killed; I don't want to wait for a child to suffer the same faith as this child in New Windsor who died on Sunday.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
Yes.

LEG. COOPER:
And if New Windsor had a cap law such as I was proposing, that child would probably be alive today.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
Yeah.

LEG. COOPER:
And if we asked that police officer whether he wished they had such a law, I think I know what the answer would be. I am not trying to take away anyone's right to own a handgun. I've stated publicly, repeatedly in my press releases that I support the right of law abiding citizens to own a handgun. I'm just trying to implement reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership. Speaker after speaker said that they were responsible, they would never leave a loaded weapon laying around. I'm not concerned about the responsible gun owners, I'm concerned about the irresponsible gun owners or those in the video that thought they were responsible but underestimated their kids or made tragic mistakes.

So, again, to reiterate, I don't want to wait until next Sunday which a five year old in Suffolk that's killed. If we can implement these reasonable restrictions, I'm still ready to meet with SAFE, I mentioned this last week. I have already met with Mr. Giordano. I had a meeting with the head of the organization that was cancelled, he had a conflict so he couldn't meet, he said that he -- I thought it was left that he would call my office and set up another meeting, I haven't heard from him, it's been a week. I would be ready to meet with him any time, any place to get his input, but only if he's willing to work with me in drafting a reasonable bill. If there are any mistakes in the bill I would love to hear it. I did meet with one member of the organization, I can't remember the gentleman's name, but he spoke before the committee I believe last time and I believe the time before that and he spoke at the Legislature; Al is his first name, I can't remember his last name.

MS. MAHONEY:
DiBernardo.

LEG. COOPER:
Thank you, that's it. And after the last committee meeting I went out into the hallway with him and I believe you, Louis, and some others, to continue the discussion because I was really trying to reach out to them. And at one point, number one, Al finally said that no change that I could make to this bill would ever lead him to support it. And then he said, and I'm paraphrasing -- and Barbara, maybe your memory is better than mine -- he would rather see some children die than do anything that would jeopardize his 2nd Amendment rights. I have to disagree with that. I think that you could preserve your 2nd Amendment rights and still enact reasonable legislation that will prevent access by a child to a loaded weapon, that's all I'm trying to accomplish.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
I can't comment on what he may have said, certainly that would take anyone aback I believe.
LEG. D'ANDRE:
Madam Chairlady.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
I don't know if the speaker has finished his statement.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
No, I wanted to just --

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Why don't we let him finish, Mike, and then I'll let you have the floor.

LEG. D'ANDRE:
Thank you.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
I would say I cannot speak for that individual, nor would I want to. If indeed that's an accurate portrayal of what he did say, then I certainly would not endorse that in any way, shape or manner. I would say, however, in understanding his state of mind, that Legislators who were attempting to deal with some of these real life issues still are dealing or are caught in the maelstrom like so many well meaning gun owners with a greater cultural war out there in which we do have people who have been painted as elitists who can seek, through either ignorance of firearm safety or some ideological agenda, pushing greater gun control when we know that there should be greater enforcement of the laws that are already on the books.

Having said that, it is very hard to not expect someone to come before this mike, and I am not suggesting myself but perhaps the gentleman that you're referring to, who will be somewhat explosive in his response when he hears a Rosie O'Donnell, for instance, stating time and time again with other media or public personality reputations that we're losing 19 young people a day which is an absolute misrepresentation, gross misrepresentation, not factual and yet stirring up an emotional response amongst mothers, fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers across the land, demanding that something be done about an issue that does not exist. That does not suggest, however, that what you are referring to is not a legitimate concern for all of us.

So I would just say having quickly looked at this, and perhaps I may leave this hearing saying son of a gun, I didn't notice that paragraph or that sentence and I'll wish I had taken the time before I came here to do that. But I would say to you that the answer to this issue and for that poor mother who at the very outset of this program, I'm familiar with it, I taped it that evening, I have the tape, someone should have taught her you don't leave a loaded handgun in a pouch in a closet with children.

So essentially, Mr. Cooper, your intentions are real, we all have these concerns for our children. And yet you and I are struggling with the nature of human beings, the nature of the beast being that should this particular piece of legislation be accepted by the County Legislature signed by the Chief Executive, the County Executive, we're still tragically going to have people who will fall pray to their own negligence. So with all due respect, this isn't going to stop that from happening. However, you are to be applauded for at least making the effort.

I would say last that as a teacher, I strongly feel that if you and the County Legislature and the County Exec signed this into law, that you do everything possible to do two things. One, to see that it occurs on the State level, but more to the point, then push for mandated safety courses for all individuals who seek to apply for handguns. And perhaps in some way if you can educate adults, that might be an answer. I may have individuals who I compete with on the range who might disagree with me, but I would say as a teacher I feel that if we were to educate all of our children and educate as many adults who wish to deal with firearms, then perhaps we wouldn't have to see such tragic programs. So the Eddie Eagle Program is one that, again, as in that recent public hearing, I would suggest you pursue. Does it give 100% guarantees? Well we saw, of course not. But that would not suggest that you would not pursue that program just as you say you don't want to wait for one death here in the County before you introduce this. So I believe the logic is parallel logic and that you would do everything possible to perhaps on the State level as well see that education programs could be inculcated.

And I appreciate your patience, I just simply say it should be in the schools. We're closing ranges in schools because mothers are finding that those ranges are underneath schools and want them closed. Yet as a youth, I was taught the proper use of firearm safety, I'm still here and all of the young people that I grew up with are still alive and well, it wasn't guns that took their lives. So education is still at very bottom of this if we can cut through the emotion of that program, terrible as it was. I want to thank you very much for your patience.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Thank you.

LEG. COOPER:
Thank you very much.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Legislator D'Andre?

LEG. D'ANDRE:
How are you?

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
Yes, sir. Good afternoon, sir.

LEG. D'ANDRE:
It's just good to see a sane, sensible person, not somebody from the far left or far right or some alarmist. You've got to -- you're a teacher.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
I was, I'm retired.
LEG. D'ANDRE:
Well, you're always a teacher.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
But yes, thank you.

LEG. D'ANDRE:
And you have a lot of sense. When you see our western culture and westerns are still being played on television, the kids see that, cowboys and Indians are still around, right? You can't legislate carefulness of somebody to be careful, either you have it or you don't have it. If you don't have the brains God gave you to take care of your weapons, to take care of the safety around the house, to take care of your automobile -- don't park it on a hill, if you do put the breaks on -- you can't legislate everything for people's safety, it just -- the world doesn't work that way and unfortunately we have to have the tragedy. That man that killed the people on the train, he brought the gun from California, he didn't have the gun here. And he came here and he shot six or seven people and that woman went to Washington on that to cure all the gun problems and nothing was solved, nothing was cured. You're going to have a certain amount of accidents due to carelessness and you can't legislate that.

And hopefully the education process, like they shoot in the bottom of the schools, in the basements and now they did away with that. They're so afraid to let youngsters handle a gun with supervision. And a lot of these outright liberals, they're afraid of guns, they're afraid it may be turned against them. That doesn't happen, people don't use guns against people unless there's something wrong with them. And how do you legislate sanity? You can't. And you try to get a permit from our Police Department; good luck, good luck. And I don't blame them for being careful, there's where they have to exercise caution and carefulness. If you don't carry a lot of money, if you don't have any legal excuse, why should you have a short arm? A long arm, yes, you go hunting, even if you go Upstate you can excuse that, a pistol no. So our police do the right thing. They do not willy nilly give out guns. If you carry a lot of money and you prove that you carry a lot of money, they'll issue you a gun if you pass a sanity test. We had a man here who was politically connected, he couldn't get a gun because he failed -- the doctor failed him, the Police Commission -- I mean, the Health Commissioner failed him in giving him a gun. That's fine, that's the right thing to do, all the political connections in the world failed him because we had the right people in place and that's as it should be.

Writing another law, good luck. It's fine, you feel better about it, but it's not going to protect anybody. You as a parent, if you don't speak to your children -- I knew a policeman at the 111th Precinct in Flushing, he says to his kids, "I'll break your back if you touch that weapon, it's up here. You keep out of this closet, you don't come anywhere near here," that's how he handled his kids, to my knowledge he never had a problem. Now, should he have gotten a locked box? Maybe, but he handled his the way he saw fit. But he was a loving father who knew how to use discipline at the right times and he knew how to love his children, they're all successful children today.
So all I'm saying to you is I have no faith in these bills, these laws, and Clinton's famous for all of them and he doesn't use the laws that we have and enforce the law, he just BS's that another law, we need another law; come on, give me a break, we've got enough laws on the books. And this young man means well, he's got no meanness in him but it doesn't work that way, it doesn't work that way. People are careless whether it's an automobile, whether it's a car, whether it's a scooter, whether it's what.

So all I can say is we have enough laws on the books, we don't need anymore. What we need is more use of common sense and more use of being nice to each other. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Are there any other questions? Thank you.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
I can appreciate what you have said, Mr. D'Andre. I would say to you, since you had mentioned the Suffolk County Police Department, that having gone through that process that I was treated with respect at all times and I found that the individuals in the Licensing Bureau are very professional to say the least. And I cannot -- I can't extol their virtues enough, they were professional to the core. You're in your own way referring to greater complexity out there regarding this handgun control versus handgun safety issue. I will not respond to your comments about the President or whoever, I will hold those to myself since the --

LEG. D'ANDRE:
Well, we still have the 1st Amendment even though --

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
-- Chairperson is going to have me escorted out of the room, but I do understand your frustration.

LEG. D'ANDRE:
-- we're talking about the 2nd amendment, but we still have the 1st Amendment still active.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
Yeah.

LEG. D'ANDRE:
So you can talk about whoever you like.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Mike, we have a number of other speakers before we can even get to the agenda.

MR. CUZZUCOLI:
Yes. So thank you very much for your time.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Thank you.


LEG. COOPER:
Thank you very much, I really appreciate your coming.

LEG. D'ANDRE:
Thanks for coming.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Lou Giordano?

MR. GIORGANO:
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Our primary responsibility is -- as the gentleman spoke before, it's the personal responsibility of each individual to take care of his firearms. These trigger locks if you have seen the tapes, and many of the members have seen the tapes before, they actually show the gun being discharged with the trigger lock on. We have children who are very curious, they're going to try and use the gun no matter how many times you tell them. The Eddie Eagle Program stresses not to touch it. It's an ongoing program, it's not just a 20 minute class, it goes, it stretches over three years and starting in the kindergarten class and it gives you three different years of continuous education, the same as any other education program. To show these emotional tapes, we have to cut through this, these are our kids lives that are at stake. We showed you basic facts, they were factual, these -- not working. People have to be responsible.

If a person is going to leave a loaded gun on the table where a child can access it, how can he be responsible to put a trigger lock on? This is our main concern. We have to have -- some people feel they have to have access to their firearms, and a trigger lock can limit that type of access. And this is what -- we firmly believe that education is the best way to treat our kids.

And as far as psychologists and everything, just recently -- I don't have the report with me, I'll bring it in, I believe I handed it in at the last meeting, that four different organizations, child psychology, organizations like that, stated that after 30 years of violence these kids become desensitized I think the term is, they're used to seeing this on TV. This is how they act when they see -- pick up a gun, they see it glorified on TV, prime time, your video games. It comes right into your house, this type of violence and they become desensitized to it. And we won't attack, we won't even go near touching the media as far as showing violence on TV, I mean, they showed that when they came out with this rating system that a lot of kids don't even understand or they don't pay any attention to it.

John couldn't make it today, Jon, he was called out of state, but I'm not -- to be certain, I believe he said we will meet as far as concerning the issue of education. The trigger lock bill could give you a false sense of security. We have the best schools in the nation. Kids are going to try and get through that lock and in the process of trying to get through it could cause an accident.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Are there any questions?
LEG. COOPER:
I just had --

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Legislator Cooper.

LEG. COOPER:
-- a quick question for Louis. As I said earlier, I'm not -- I have not shut the door on a mandated safety course, as Mr. Cuzzucoli had suggested. If that could be proven effective I would, again, be the first one to agree to cosponsor an appropriate education course; I think that the two could be done hand in hand. And I also wanted to reiterate that I'm not breaking new ground here, perhaps for New York State this may be a step or two beyond what other counties have implemented, although I believe there may be one or two counties at least that have similar laws on the books. But there are 17 states that have cap laws of one type or another, Florida was the first and my law is actually very similar to the Florida law.

How has it worked in Florida? Has there been a tremendous increase in crime and break-ins? It's been implemented there I believe for about 18 years. So if you're concerned that the world will collapse and the sky will fall and there will be -- people will no longer be able to access their weapons for self-defense and burglaries will increase and crime will go up, I don't think that happened in Florida, I don't think that happened in Virginia, I don't think it happened in Massachusetts or Connecticut or any of the other states where there are cap laws already on the books, in some cases for many years. So I may have to just end up disagreeing with you philosophically.

I would like to take some reasonable step that will protect children. I am not saying that this is a hundred percent foolproof, education would not be a hundred percent foolproof and a child access prevention law will not prevent all accidental deaths, but they may both be useful tools. As I said, I would be willing to consider an education component of this and try to take a broader approach, but I would welcome your support for a reasonable cap law in Suffolk County.

I don't want to wait for a five year old to gain access to a weapon that the parent thought was securely stored. I'm sure that this police officer who deals with guns all the time thought that he was being a responsible parent, thought that his child would not be able to access that weapon, but it's not only your kids. I don't check with my kids' friends parents to find out whether they have guns in their homes, I never think about it, I bet most people don't ask that question. And they may ask about whether they have access to adult television or they may ask about whether they have access to violent videotapes, but most people don't think about asking whether they have access to guns. And I could have no guns in my home or I could be the most responsible gun owner, but then my son goes to his friend's house and that parent is irresponsible, left a gun under a pillow, on a closet shelf and my kid gains access to it or another child gains access and someone ends up getting killed.
So no action that we can take will prevent all accidental deaths, but if we can take some reasonable action that will help reduce the likelihood of a child getting killed, that's my only goal. And again, I would welcome the input of SAFE and any other organization out there to help me draft this legislation. Thank you.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Thank you, Mr. Giordano.

MR. GIORDANO:
Thank you.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Dr. Carmine Vasile.

MR. VASILE:
Carmine Vasile, 60 Herbert Circle, Patchogue, NY, 11772. Okay, I would like to bring some new evidence before the committee, I have some handouts there.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Would you speak into the mike?

MR. VASILE:
I'm sorry. And before I begin, I want to read part of a fax that I sent to Legislator Bishop. It relates to this injunction that Norman Weiss keeps claiming that I'm enjoined and he's using it to attack Legislator Bishop. It says here, "Since the notice of claim is not directed at the defendants, Dean Whitter nor Mr. Weiss, it does not fall within the amended injunction dated December 11th, 1998. Filing of notice of claim dated January 10th, 1999 does not violate the injunction applicable to Carmine Vasile set forth in the orders by Judge Seibert September 14th, 1998, December 11." Now, this is a decision from Magistrate Boyle. Now I asked permission, I am not enjoined from State actions and the case involved is where I sued the State of New York for failing to regulate process servers, because they regulate them in New York City and they do not regulate outside of New York City and we're free game. So this injunction -- and I can't file complaints against Weiss but you have to decide what you're going to do about Weiss attacking Legislator Bishop and calling him my shill, that's ridiculous. Legislator Bishop is not my shill.

Now, the new evidence that I provided which are the handouts, Henry Huszar Friday went to the Suffolk County Clerk's Office; if I go in they sit next to me, they monitor what files I look into, so this has become a police state as far as I'm concerned. Henry Huszar went through the New York Times lawsuit and he discovered some evidence which is new evidence. Now, Normon Yellon responded to the interrogatories in the slap suit against the New York Times claiming he did not possess any documents concerning Dirk Burden, Burden, Dirk Burden. Well, he's required to have them, there is other testimony by him where he says he maintains them. Well, I provided the Legislature five by Dirk Burden, okay. Now, one of them is against me in my matrimonial, another one is against Susan Hoddy, in Setauket which is in Legislator Fisher's committee; James Morpin, which is in Plainview; Joanne Mary Shaw which is in Amityville; and Hannington which is in Lloyd Harbor. Now, I think these people have a right to know that they're victims of forgeries; just common courtesy, tell them that they're a victim of a forgery, let them do what they will.

And I also have a proposed order of protection which I tried to get Judge Raab to sign in the Spring, he refused to sign it. I would like it put before the Administrative Judges on the Criminal Justice Council to see if they would sign it, to protect future victims from sleeping judgments.

That's all I have to say except to reiterate, I am not enjoined against Normon Yellon. Now, there's one other thing. Last week Mr. Sabatino brought up -- last month, he read an except from a 95 page decision which if you are interested I will give you a copy of my rebuttal to that, there's 40 mistakes of fact in that decision. The most important thing is three years ago I went to Gaffney and I went to Grucci reporting a crime ring operating in Suffolk County long before these injunctions came out, I had no clue what I had run across. Now, I don't know if I talked to Mr. Sabatino or -- I talked to some County Attorney when the County Legislature was on Motor Parkway and he said he would look into this matter. And I went there only because I found out that four dozen forged Affidavits of Service were buried by Catterson that were sent to him by Inspector General Gallagher. So when I found that out I went to the County Executive to report that and I never heard a thing. Thank you.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Dr. Vasile, unfortunately Legislator Bishop could not be here today. I know that previously at a Public Safety Committee meeting when this came up it was requested that the DA's office come to a meeting prepared to address what they have or have not done with regard to this issue, obviously they're not here today.

MR. HUSZAR:
Once again.

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Once again.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Well, what I'm suggesting is that I will --

MR. KASH:
What are you going to do about it?

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Excuse me, sir.

MR. KASH:
What are you going to do about it?

LEG. D'ANDRE:
Hold off, hold off.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Excuse me.

LEG. D'ANDRE:
The Chairman has the floor.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
If you would like to speak, you have to fill out a card and wait your turn to be called to address the committee. But what I was saying was that I will speak with Legislator Bishop's office. I don't know whether he requested the DA's office, obviously he did so verbally when there were Assistant DA's here, but I'm going to ask that he in writing request that the DA's office be at the next meeting of the Public Safety Committee to respond to all of the issues that have been raised at these series of meetings. So I will contact Legislator Bishop's office either later today or tomorrow morning to ask that at the next committee meeting the DA's office responds.

MR. VASILE:
Okay, that's great.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Thank you.

MR. VASILE:
Now, one thing to bear in mind, there's a conflict of interest. Many of Yellon's clients are ex-DA's, this is a real problem.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Well, I think that certainly that's an issue that's been stated right here and they can be asked to respond to that as well. Are there any questions or comments by other members of the committee?

LEG. D'ANDRE:
Yes. I --

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Michael?

LEG. D'ANDRE:
I don't know if this is right for this forum here. They should be before the District Attorney or the County Executive, why they failed I don't know, they should hire lawyers and go to work on that.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Well, I think that --

LEG. D'ANDRE:
For us to hear this here, I don't think it's the right order.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Well, I think that obviously -- I get the feeling that this issue has been raised with the District Attorney's office in the past and I think that people are here because they haven't gotten a response. So, I mean, at this point I think that they're coming to the Legislature because it generally is a responsive body and people do get the opportunity to express their interests, position, requests and that's why they're here, all we can do is now request the DA to come to the meeting and respond to these issues. Legislator Cooper?
LEG. COOPER:
I just wanted to suggest perhaps a better forum, if you did want to bring this up before the Legislature, is to speak before the newly formed Judiciary Committee which does deal with the District Attorney's office and the Court System. We had the first meeting yesterday and District Attorney Catterson was at that meeting and that would probably be a better forum for you.

MR. VASILE:
Well, we didn't know about that one.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
It was just formed.

LEG. COOPER:
It was just formed, the first meeting was yesterday.

MR. VASILE:
Oh, okay.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Legislator Caracappa.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
You mentioned people come before this body because we are responsive and we are, but we're also realistic. And when I say this, I mean when the District Attorney's representatives were here three meetings ago, I think before we took our Summer break, they came up here and said nothing under questioning. I know Legislator Bishop has asked them in writing --

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
He has?

LEG. CARACAPPA:
-- to appear before this committee and they haven't. And the day that they do come before the committee to answer questions on this issue, they're going to say nothing again. So I'm realistic about that and I think you're realistic about that and it's a shame, and I think we're both on the same page here. How in God's name is this body going to make the District Attorney answer questions that he's not going to answer? He won't answer your questions, what makes you think he's going to answer our questions?

MR. VASILE:
Gaffney can, the County Executive can if he brings him before the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, that's why we came originally.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
He's going to give us the same excuse he gave you, they're shrouded in immunity top to bottom, and then they're going to say they can't speak of it because it's ongoing litigation, the whole nine yards. I'm not saying this to disprove your claim, I'm just saying that this is reality and this is going to happen.

MR. VASILE:
No, I'm not talking about prosecutorial discretion. There are crimes that are going to be committed, someone has to stop them. There are sleeping judgements out there.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Without question.

MR. VASILE:
When people cell houses these things pop up, every lawyer knows this. How do you stop future crimes? And it's the Attorney General that's supposed to do it. And Magella Called me at home and he said they don't have jurisdiction over process servers, I said, "Excuse me? Abrahms prosecuted 300 in the 80's. How come you lost jurisdiction?" And he said he's going to look into it, he never called me back.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Can I ask Legislator Cooper to give you some information about the next meeting of this newly formed committee?

LEG. COOPER:
Yes. The next meeting of the Judiciary Committee will be on Monday, September 25th, at -- actually right now it's scheduled for three o'clock, I believe that they're attempting to reschedule it to two o'clock. So you may want to check with the office of the Chairman of the committee, Legislator Crecca, Andrew Crecca, and you can confirm the correct time.

MR. VASILE:
It's C-R-E-C-A?

LEG. COOPER:
C-R-E-C-C-A.

MR. VASILE:
Okay. Thank you for your time.

LEG. COOPER:
Thank you.

ACTING-CHAIRPERSON FISHER:
Henry Huszar?

MR. HUSZAR:
Good afternoon to the Public Safety Committee. I'm here today regarding the complaint and support of Legislator David Bishop who I feel is attempting, and so is this board, to try to do the right thing.

I'm not enjoined. This injunction is punishing other crime victims and they're trying to stop this from coming out, the total injustice that's being done in these court actions where career criminals are setting up the public, stealing assets, judgments, grabbing houses, there's affidavits in the public record not being cleared out and people are suffering tremendously which the committee already knows. Legislator Andre says oh, maybe they should notify Gaffney's office; well, in a couple of minutes I will tell you what happened with that. I want to read on the record, okay, a letter in support of David Bishop being attacked by Norman Weiss, I'll give you a copy.

"To Honorable David Bishop, Chairman, from Henry Huszar September 2nd," this letter was sent to everybody on the panel. "Complaint; Obstruction of Justice by Normon P. Weiss, one of several accessories after the fact to the Yellon-RICO Enterprise under USC 18, Sections 3, 4, 241, 242 and New York State Constitution and Penal Code."

"Dear Legislator Bishop, upon review of the August 31st letter by
Norman P. Weiss regarding Carmine Vasile, I wish to point out that Mr. Weiss' allegations that you had acted in concert with Mr. Vasile or on his behalf and that his insinuation that you're merely acting as his shill are false. Because I, in fact, contacted your office to arrange the meeting. If anyone could be called a shill, it is Dr. Vasile being used by me and other victims to provide evidence and to support my unprosecuted complaints of civil rights, felony crimes. In fact, Dr. Vasile has been acting in concert with me, Gregory Jenkins, Thomas Green, Bonnie Green and other victims of false notarizations and false affidavits of service proffered by the Yellon Enterprise."

"New Discovered Evidence: Just yesterday I discovered additional evidence of RICO crimes and prosecutorial misconduct in enclosed excerpts from the County Clerk's files, in addition to the names of other victims that I discovered that Yellon began false notarizing court papers as far back as 1979 and that the Nassau County DA confiscated evidence of civil rights/felony crimes to the suspect before the case had been tried. (See court file Norman Yellon v. Bruce Lambert, New York Times, Suffolk County Index No. 06460 from the year 1999)."

Please take notice that when I first tracked down Dr. Vasile as explained in my enclosed affidavit dated May 4th, 1999 (in re: Vasile), he showed me Judge Seybert's injunction as well as 40 mistakes of fact underlying the decision that County Attorney Sabatino used to discredit Dr. Vasile's testimony before the August meeting of the Public Safety Committee. So as far as to secure Dr. Vasile's cooperation, I informed him as a former police officer that no federal judge can strip a citizen of due process, equal protection of rights under the State Constitution. If Judge Seybert intended to do this as Weiss seems to allege, then she too is an accessory after the fact as to Yellon Enterprise crimes against my person and others."

"I respectfully submit that Mr. Weiss' use of Judge Seybert's injunction is a criminal obstruction of justice, an unlawful attempt to obstruct investigations of my complaints to your office. Never did Mr. Vasile shirk his duty to provide evidence to support my complaints and those of others to Congressman Forbes, Mayor Guliani, Senator Schumer, Legislators Denenberg, Fisher, Alden, State & U.S. Attorneys, FBI, State Police, Suffolk County Clerk, Sheriff, the County Executive, County DA -- I'm sorry, County Attorney, the DA, Nassau and Suffolk DA's, the Police, State Commission of Investigation and Internal Affairs Units of the State and Suffolk County Police."
"As noted in my aforementioned affidavit, particularly 10 to 21, I will read to you. Upon learning that Mr. Maturro was involved with a Notary Public Officer impersonator in the April 4, 1999, New York Times Article entitled 'What Happens if Process Server Doesn't Serve', I telephoned the reporter, Bruce Lambert, who directed me to
Dr. Vasile. I visited Dr. Vasile's home on April the 28th, 1999, seeking additional evidence to support my past allegations of a habitual perjurer, I took it upon myself to investigate further. As an experienced police officer, I am well qualified to recognize the pattern of forgery, perjury, subordination thereof, as well as failing to report crimes by Yellon and others."

"On April the 29th, 1999, I obtained a certified copy of
Mr. Maturro's business certificate and provided a copy to Dr. Vasile. The following day I accompanied Dr. Vasile to Riverhead where I personally filed a complaint to the Suffolk County Clerk, Edward Romaine, as to the failure of the Suffolk County District Attorney to prosecute Mr. Maturro who self-admitted in his affirmative concealment of forgeries and other crimes by the Normon Yellon and others for a period of more than five years until November of 1997 when he self-admits being, contacted by the Nassau District Attorney Robert J. Owens, particularly in paragraphs A-10."

"I expressed my outrage as a police officer of the" -- I'm sorry.
"I expressed my outrage as an officer of the court that Mr. Maturro was not prosecuted for his failure to report crimes, including countless forgeries to any police agency, Suffolk or Nassau DA's, District Attorneys, U.S. Attorneys, State or Federal Courts. "

"Upon informing Mr. Romaine that his files contained thousands of forgeries, forged instruments, he asked for a written complaint and promised to write a stronger letter dated November 20, 1997 -- then the later dated November the 20th, '97. I then permitted Dr. Vasile to review my matrimonial file to verify it contained Maturro affidavits which I know to contain perjury so as to further establish a pattern of perjury by Mr. Maturro. Mr. Romaine also advised filing a complaint to the New York State Attorney General. Dr. Vasile later told me that AGA -- AAG Lynda Nicolino was among the first to see evidence that Normon L. Yellon was impersonating a Public Notary Officer in the Spring of '97 and that she helped cover up what I know to be felonies and that she refused to be interviewed by Mr. Lambert, the New York Times reporter. Upon hearing this, I drove Dr. Vasile to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Hauppauge where I personally lodged another complaint as to Federal crimes, including felonies, criminal enterprise, civil rights conspiracy to deny due process en masse under the 14th Amendment and related laws."

"I first appealed to your office and the Public Safety Committee on June 20, 2000 after more than one year of frustration by official and prosecutorial misconduct. Written attacks upon Dr. Vasile's and your integrity and efforts to stop ongoing crimes within Mr. Weiss' July 18th and August 31st, 2000, letters are without merit and an obstruction of justice against my complaints."



"I believe the verbal attacks upon a crime victim of a known forger by Mr. Sabatino before the August Public safety Committee after you left," this is regarding David Bishop, "were also without merit and appear to have been crafted to further obstruct justice -- as it did in a false criminal complaint against my person by Kristin Andre Stewart, County Executive Assistant -- after an Investigator told me he had been appointed to handle my complaint, Thomas Vaughn, and County Clerk Romaine and Congressman Forbes." I'm going to play a copy of a 2000, June 2nd conversation with Mr. Vaughn.

"Needless to say, someone blocked the referral by the County Executive in June of 2000. Dr. Vasile informed me last year that his complaint in 1997 to the County Executive against Norman -- the Norman Yellon Enterprise and the ongoing cover up by the Suffolk DA, FBI and Postal Inspectors, Federal Judges and State Judges and State Police and Attorney General was also to no avail. I personally complained to Sheriff Mahoney, Senator Schumer, Congressman Forbes, Legislator Fisher and you after the independent investigation confirmed unbelievable prosecutorial and official misconduct. Yours Truly, Henry Huszar Retired Police Officer."

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Mr. Huszar, we're not going to allow the playing of the tape. If you have copies, give it to the Clerk and they'll be distributed to us as members.

MR. HUSZAR:
This is not going to take long, it's only going to take ten seconds.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
No.

MR. HUSZAR:
This is very urgent, this has to be played.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Make copies, give them to the Clerk and we'll make sure that we listen to them.

MR. HUSZAR:
This has to come out.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Well, we will get copies, just like we've gotten copies of every other correspondence that --

MR. HUSZAR:
I want the public here at this meeting -- this is part of my testimony here today, it's only going to take ten seconds.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
And it will be put on the record.

MR. HUSZAR:
It's only going to take ten seconds.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Mr. Huszar, we've made a determination as a committee that we will not listen to the recording, but we will take copies.

MR. HUSZAR:
I'm asking for ten seconds to play this tape, that's all I'm asking for; I don't think that's unreasonable.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
I'm sorry, the committee has decided that the tape cannot be played again. We are running very much behind schedule, there is an another committee that's going to be starting after this one. We have a number of speakers who are waiting to address the committee, we have not gotten to the agenda, I'm sorry.

MR. HUSZAR:
Another thing, I had asked last week Legislator Bishop to put in a second request to Mary Jo White, Loretta Lynch, both U.S. Attorneys, Hugh Flanaghan from the State Department of Investigation, a second complaint. We have not been notified in three months of a meeting to take down additional evidence and other victims of this crime ring that we are talking about which the DA not has responded, Suffolk DA.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Unfortunately, I can't respond as to what Legislator Bishop has done. I'm sorry, he's not here today and I can't tell you.

I'm going to interrupt the number of speakers who have signed up to address the committee because the Police Commissioner has to -- has another commitment and I would like to ask him to come up for just a few minutes in the event that he has any comments about any resolutions that are on today's agenda, then we'll go back to the public portion.

COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER:
Thank you. Thank you, Legislator Postal.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
You're welcome. I don't know whether you have any comments about any of the resolutions --

COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER:
Yes.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
-- that are on today's day's agenda.

COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER:
Yes, I do. There are two Local Law Resolutions requiring -- addressing the issue of college education or educational standards for hiring for police officers. And I just wanted to bring to the committee's attention, as I did to the County Executive's Office when they sent me the bills for comment, that I think both issues, both resolutions should be subject to review by the County Attorney's Office. Because of the ongoing Consent Decree that we operate under from 1986, there is evidence, I believe there is actually a written statement at some point from the County -- to the County Attorney from the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department saying that they would reserve right to review any changes in standards of hiring for any officers by Suffolk County. I just want to make sure that we're not caught with the Justice Department telling us, "Well, you didn't let us know and you can't do that without our prior review."

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Any questions or comments by members of the committee? I know that we had addressed this issue previously. I know that I had read I guess the results of a study into the record to show that instituting these kinds of requirements tends to have a deleterious effect on inclusion of populations which traditionally have not had success at either becoming members of or advancing within police departments. So I think that that's of concern.

I also remember that when we addressed this previously, I had asked -- and I don't remember whether it was you, Mr. Commissioner, or somebody else in the Police Department or perhaps Alan Schneider -- what the reality was with regard to police that we've hired within the past, I don't know, half dozen years; obviously we haven't hired too many within the past four years. But whoever responded said that because of the highly competitive nature of the police examination, that even though there isn't a requirement for a certain number of college credits, the reality is that most of the personnel who are actually sworn in personnel of the Police Department do have the number of credits that these resolutions call for.

So, you know, we're going to table these today because there will be public hearings on them. But I certainly think that it's important that if we were to move ahead with either of these that we could be jeopardizing our ability to hire under the Consent Decree and I would certainly suggest to the sponsors that they might wish to contact the County Attorney's Office, and I will suggest to Legislator Bishop that he communicate with the County Attorney's Office with regard to each of these. Legislator Caracappa?

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Thank you. I concur with you, Legislator Postal. I have been an advocate against proposals such as this from day one since I've been here, I completely think it takes away from what we possibly could have in regards to highly qualified police officers in the future. It eliminates the possibility for minority candidates in certain instances to become police officers and something we're struggling to this day to meet with relation to the federal guidelines and what they have placed on us under the Consent Decree in years past. So I will oppose these bills as they are brought forward. There is a whole host of other things to consider with relation to other bills that have been brought forward to get additional schooling once a police officer is on the force, do they get time off to go to school, who's going to pay for it, is it a union negotiating item? So it's a pandora's box and I think nothing really good comes out of it. Though I know what the sponsors are looking to do, trying to do, it's a fantastic job, but if you can pass that police exam and get through all of the qualifying things that come afterwards being the reviews by a whole host of boards, then you deserve to be a police officer in the County of Suffolk.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Thank you.

COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER:
Okay. The other comment I would have is on Introductory 1920, creating -- I believe this is the same -- it says HMO services.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
That's wrong.

COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER:
It should be --

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
There's an error on the agenda.

COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER:
-- Pet Safe, yeah.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
1920 is the --

COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER:
Pet Safe Task Force.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Pet Safe Task Force.

COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER:
Yeah. The department -- you know, we would support that on the basis of its very specified mission and that it has a realistic time frame. It is something, and I'm going outside of my scope of my experience of Police Commissioner, but in the Sunrise Fires of 1995 was it?

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Ninety-five, August of '95.

COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER:
Those fires that took place out at the east end, I was with the County Executive's Office at that time and one of the things we did have a problem with was relocation of animals who we could not locate the owners, sometimes these were like horses with out of residence owners. You know, it was through the good offices of various veterinary services and boarding stables that we were able to do so. But it occurred at that point, it occurred to a number of us that we should have a better plan for this than we had, you know, it was kind of hit or miss during those fires. So we would support devising some kind of a plan.

Then the final one is appropriating funds in connection with the purchases of two Medevac equipped helicopters, I will let Assistant Deputy Commissioner Maggio speak to that.

ASST. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MAGGIO:
On August 21st bids were open for helicopters, they did get three bids. The total amount of the bid from MD which made the MD-902 which I think many of you came to see, $8,352,000, there is a resolution before you today for $8.4 million to go ahead and make that purchase. Purchasing right now is in the process of cleaning up some loose ends as far as the comparisons between the bids go to make sure that MD can give us a trade-in of $1.4 million on the two helicopters. Once that's cleared up and the terms of the trade-in are cleared up, we will expect that they will be given the purchase order for those helicopters. If the resolution can be passed at the next meeting, it's anticipated that the helicopters can be delivered around May of 2001, just in time for the summer season and the expansion to the east end if we go ahead with that plan.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Thank you. Legislator Caracappa?

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Along with the purchase, were we able to get training for our pilots from the company?

ASST. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MAGGIO:
Yeah, included in the bid were sufficient funds to do a complete training, all the extra tools and speciality tools that they're going to need. The bid came in as a complete package, we should be able to get everything that we need for the entire price.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Complete package also meaning the Medevac component of the ship.

ASST. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MAGGIO:
Yes.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
And that will be -- I don't know if this is part -- do we have to do it in two different bids or is MD doing a sub with --

ASST. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MAGGIO:
MD is doing a sub-bid with the --


LEG. CARACAPPA:
With the Medevac company.

ASST. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MAGGIO:
Correct.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Okay, so it's all inclusive.

ASST. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MAGGIO:
All inclusive.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Very good.
COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER:
So obviously we would ask your support on that.

LEG. FISHER:
May I ask you a question regarding --

COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER:
Oh, okay.

LEG. FISHER:
Thanks. 1469, authorizing RFP to upgrade educational standards for police exam; can you comment on that, please? I know it's tabled but it seems to be related to the other -- to 1870, is it, or am I --

COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER:
Well, there are three different versions that are out there and they all deal with the question of educational standards for candidates for the entrance exam, I believe in one way or another they all deal with that. And as I said a little earlier, the problem with any one of these things is we still operate under the 1986 Consent Decree with the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division which clearly gives them first right of review before we can do any -- make any changes to the practices and standards by which we hire police officers. And they have already made us know -- they have already let us know in a previous letter that was addressed to the county attorney that, you know, "you have to come to us before you can adopt those kinds of changes. "

LEG. FISHER:
So you have those same concerns that you've expressed about those other two resolutions.

COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER:
That's correct.

LEG. FISHER:
Regarding 1469 as well.

COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER:
Yes.

LEG. FISHER:
Okay. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER:
Okay. And in Legislator Bishop's absence, I would request we postpone the -- I gave you a memo regarding previous -- at his request, I did some research on the Internet regarding DARE, the DARE Program and I think really in fairness to him, since he asked for that, I would rather not discuss it unless he was here.

ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISHER:
Okay, thank you.

COMMISSIONER GALLAGHER:
Thank you.
ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISHER:
Okay, we are running extraordinarily late, there is going to be another meeting at three o'clock. So we still have three more cards. I will beg your indulgence and ask those three speakers to limit your comments to five minutes. The first of those speakers is Phil Goldstein. Hello, Phil. And you understand, I will have to limit your remarks to five minutes.

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Yes.

LEG. D'ANDRE:
It doesn't have to be five minutes, right, Phil?

ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISHER:
No, it could be three.

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Yeah, but knowing me, Legislator D'Andre --

LEG. D'ANDRE:
We'll settle for five.

ACTING CHAIRPERSON FISHER:
We now how succinct you can be.

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Okay. Philip Goldstein, 10 Rodney Street, Port Jeff Station. Let me first make it clear that I have no axe to grind in that I am not being subjected to the abuses that are being alleged by other speakers who have appeared with regard to fraudulent instruments that are being used to thwart what they contend is -- to perpetrate injustices against them as individuals. I'm here because I am a retired social studies teacher who has assumed the role of gadfly in the interest of the pursuit of justice. We took a pledge at the beginning of this meeting, "Liberty and justice for all"; I believe that injustices are being perpetrated and that our system is falling apart, we don't carry out the mandates of the law.

Mr. Caracappa, you undertook in connection with what's occurring in Farmingville to get the INS to fulfill its legal obligation to carry out the law, we're experiencing an invasion. I have compassion for the people who are coming here, I have no objection, you know, in terms of immigration laws and so on. The point very simply is the law is the law, we're supposed to be a nation of laws and yet we don't carry out the law.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Thank you.

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
And you see it and we see other examples of this talking about fraudulent instruments. There was just an article in the newspaper, some individuals succeeded in stealing property by forging deeds and documents and so on, selling houses to people, unsuspecting individuals when he did not, in fact, have ownership of these houses but he was able, because of his cunning, to find loopholes in the system and to use these forged documents to engage in this criminal activity, and that's the point that these people are complaining about. They're saying that not only have they been subjected to injustices but that this is an ongoing activity and they're saying not only do they want justice but they want something done to put a stop to it.

Now, last time I appeared here if you remember, Mr. Caracappa, we had been promised that three actions would be taken. Now, today you spoke about reality, all right, having that cold shower that you took with regard to the INS and the failure of this Legislature to move, you speak about being realistic. But the point very simply is we need to get those appropriate officials who are responsible to fulfill their obligation. We're destroying our democracy, people are losing faith in the system. They see examples like this where public officials are just ignoring their legal responsibilities and not doing it and that's what these people are complaining about. They're saying that they're going to various and sundry public officials and they are being ignored, that they're being viewed as kooks, as people who aren't deserving of being listened to and having the evidence that they're trying to present, and this is the same thing with the Farmingville people who are saying, "Hey, you're labeling us as racists," just as these people are being labeled as kooks.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
You're right.

LEG. D'ANDRE:
Did you speak there, Phil, did you speak at that Farmingville thing?

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Michael.

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
No, I didn't get a chance to, I had appeared --

LEG. D'ANDRE:
I had to ask that because he's so outspoken.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
But Phil, you are most definitely preaching to the choir in this regard. I can't tell you how many issues, and you know better than us, how many times we've tried to stand up for the injustices brought on by other --

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Yes, with the LILCO thing and so on.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
-- other levels of agencies -- other agencies, other authorities, other levels of government.

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
But that doesn't mean you should give up, please, Joe.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Believe me, you know me.

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
The point is that -- and this goes back to Mr. Sabatino and his interpretation. Look at your Charter, there is a Coordinating Council. Now, what is the purpose of bringing this before the Coordinating Council? My intention is that by bringing it before the Council you are saying to the appropriate authorities, be they the New York State Attorney General or be it the U.S. Attorney's General Office, that we as public officials in the County of Suffolk have been made aware by various constituents of problems with regard to due process of the law, and that because these problems involve various agencies within Suffolk County we cannot investigate ourselves. And therefore, we call upon both the Federal and the State officials to do something, to conduct an impartial investigation and see whether or not the contentions of these people are valid and that, therefore, action needs to be taken. Do the laws need to be changed, do we need to protect against sewer service, and so on? New York City acted in this matter but the State of New York has not acted in this matter, Suffolk County has not acted in this matter, and in the interim, people are suffering the consequences of these flaws in the law.

And my contention is that the Charter specifically charges this Coordinating Council with the responsibility. Now, I realize I'm not a lawyer but with all due respect to Mr. Sabatino who is a lawyer, I can read English just as well as he can read English and I believe that if this Coordinating Council wants to assume the jurisdiction, the wording in the Charter affords them the opportunity. And so, therefore, I would urge you -- now, unfortunately Mr. Bishop is not here, but if two members of that Coordinating Council request it then the Council will have to hold a hearing.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Phil --

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Now, Mr. Bishop is the Chairman of this committee and he is one of the people on that Coordinating Council who has the authority to request that meeting, as does Mr. Tonna. And if you people feel that there is sufficient merit to the questions that are being raised, and there undeniably is, I mean, if sewer service is occurring and if people are losing property unjustly and if it appears that the District Attorney is taking this lightly or ignoring it or whatever may be the answer, something needs to be done.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Phil, can I --

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
And if a weighty body like that --

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Phil, excuse me, but can I interrupt you for a minute because we're running really late.
MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Okay.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
And I wanted to ask our Counsel, as I recall, when this issue came up the first time before this committee, I think there were requests for resolutions to be drafted?

MR. SABATINO:
No. Just to recapitulate, I believe -- it will take a couple of minutes but it's worth the time. I think the first appearance was made in June, the first narrowly targeted issue was this issue about criminality with specific cases. There were two representatives from the District Attorney's Office who were present who heard the remarks and the comments that were being made, this committee is clearly in no position to respond to the merits of those individualized cases because we don't have the files. The Chairman of the committee I think took a measured approach which was to ask the District Attorney representatives to study those files and come back to the committee and provide the committee with some information.

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
And they haven't.

MR. SABATINO:
I think that request is still outstanding. As I said at the last committee meeting, I think that's something that should still be pursued because in order for a committee like this to make an informed judgment or decision you need information, not just assertions and allegations that are somewhat nebulous to those of us who don't know what's in the files. I think that's point one that should be addressed.

Point number two is with regard to one of the individuals who made a lot of the allegations, we had a copy of a Federal District Court Decision, I only read certain excerpts on to the record because I think it goes to the issue of plausibility and credibility. This particular Federal Judge happens to be somebody who's a little -- you know, a cut above the rest of your ordinary Judges. I am not saying that her comments are final but they certainly were indicative of the viewpoint of what was going on in terms of all of these allegations that were being made.

The third point I made at that committee if you recall was that you've got a list of all the agencies that have been contacted -- the Attorney General, the County Attorney, the District Attorney, the Attorney General, you know, Federal agencies -- and what I said to you was that the one agency I can guarantee you will be able to get to the bottom of this if there is, in fact, something there is the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Now, I think the comment was made that people went to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the FBI said there's no foundation. Well, I've got to tell you --

MR. VASILE:
That's not true, don't make up stories.

MR. SABATINO:
That carries an awful lot of weight with me --

MR. VASILE:
You're lying.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Excuse me, sir.

MR. VASILE:
I'm sorry. I can't stand these lies, I'm sick of it.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to adjourn the meeting if you keep interrupting.

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
If I may, Mr. Sabatino, to interject.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Can I just -- Phil.

MR. SABATINO:
The point being what I had said was that the place to go would be the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If you've gone there and they've said no that carries a lot of weight, if you haven't gone what I had said was that's the place to go.

I just spent this last weekend reading a very long book, okay, it's written by Jack Newfield and Wayne Barrett which outlines in great detail how all of the New York City problems in the 1980's were investigated and ultimately uncovered with regard to the Parking Bureau violations and the Bess Myerson Case, and quite frankly, you know who uncovered those cases? It wasn't the New York City investigators, it wasn't the local people, it was the Federal Bureau of Investigation; it goes into excruciating detail, it's a 400 page book. I'm telling you right now, if you've gone to the FBI and they've said there's nothing there, then in my mind it's pretty indicative that there's nothing there. If you haven't gone to the FBI, I would say go to the FBI.

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
All right. Mr. Sabatino, the point is that --

MR. SABATINO:
The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council is not the FBI.

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Unfortunately, the merits of this problem are being judged solely on the basis of the credibility of Mr. Vasile. And I say that --

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Phil, Phil, let me interrupt you because I want to cut to kind of the chase. Can I ask-- as I recall, there were requests for two resolutions, and I may be really -- wait, wait, let me continue. I think that one -- and again, I'm not sure -- was a Memorializing Resolution asking the State of New York to give us the ability to, I guess, prosecute -- to license or prosecute process servers who engage in sewer service, and the other one I think was a Local Law that would have locally licensed process servers.

MR. SABATINO:
And what legislator Bishop said in his -- I don't recall the first part, but in response to the second part he said he was going to contact some people in the city to take a look at what they had proposed but there was no commitment of doing any legislation. And then I interjected at that point and said you can't base a piece of legislation of that magnitude on unanswered factual allegations. I think that a lot of what you're describing hinges on statements that were made with regard to alleged failures to prosecute at the local level from the District Attorney's Office and I don't know that that's the factual predicate; you're making an assertion that that's the case but we have no documentation to that effect.

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Mr. Sabatino, what I'm contending is that --

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
You know, Phil --

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
-- the mistake that's being made repeatedly is that judgments are being made with regard to the credibility of Mr. Vasile and Mr. Huszar and they --

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Right. And Phil --

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Let me just finish what I'm saying.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Phil, I don't think that's the issue here. I think the issue here -- and I think we all recognize that there's an issue of proper service and people not having the opportunity to have their day in court. And without proper service they're being put at completely legal disadvantage and I think we're all trying to resolve that issue. So it has nothing to do with an individual or somebody's credibility, I think we recognize the validity of this concern.

You know, the issue of whether the DA is pursuing these allegations is one issue and that's something that we haven't been able to get an answer on. What I'm trying to get to is what we could do as a Legislature to give this County the power, or through the State have the power to --

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
To protect the citizens.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
-- take action to protect citizens to make sure that they're given proper service so that they have their legal rights.
Applause

And if they're not given proper service, that there's some kind of action that's taken to prevent these process servers, number one, from continuing to do this and, secondly, to prosecute them.

MR. SABATINO:
I understand that. But not to be argumentative, service of process was an issue when I was in law school and that was a couple of generations ago, okay. A licensing bill isn't going to change the nature of what you are describing if, in fact, what you're describing is truthfully taking place which is that you have found people who have, in fact, fraudulently or inappropriately, you know, filed false affidavits, false documents, there are tons of provisions in the Penal Law which will cover all that. You're saying that those cases are not being prosecuted because there are some large, systemic wide -- some people use the word cover-up, some people have said corruption, that somehow this entire system has been co-opted by a conspiracy. I am not saying what you are saying is true or that it's not true, but if this whole thing hinges on a conspiracy to undermine the entire system, licensing is going to have absolutely no impact. What's the point of licensing, who are we going to license; we're going to license the people that aren't prosecuting the cases?

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Fine. Then Mr. Sab --

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Can I ask, we never did receive a copy of the new York City Statute, did we?

MR. SABATINO:
No, I have not received any.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Is there somebody here from the Presiding Officer's staff? No. Okay, I'm going to ask that we request a copy of that statute with the intention of seeing whether we can replicate it here, because this has been going on for some time. And I think regardless of any of the individual allegations and, you know, as I say, the DA's actions are another matter which I think we should pursue, but I think that we need to take some action with regard to preventing this kind of abuse from going on. So Phil, again, I'm sorry to cut you off but we're running real late. I'm going to request that the Presiding Officer get a copy of the New York City Statute and get it to our Counsel so that we can look to see what we have to do to replicate it.

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
All right. Just one last thing.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Phil, I'm sorry.

MR. GOLDSTEIN:
Mr. Sabatino said go to the FBI.
VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Phil, I'm sorry. There are other people who have signed up to speak, we still have got to get to the agenda. I'm going to call Glenn Svoboda.

MR. SVOBODA:
Thank you. I feel for the gentlemen in the back. I've been to Mrs. Fisher's office myself, worked heavily with Mr. Levy and Mr. Fred Towle, I just come from his office yesterday. The sad thing about this is that these people -- this happened from a divorce. I want to remind you that 43 other states have shared parenting, and you's all been mailed literature, every one of yas. Okay? And I want to thank yas very much for not doing nothing about it except a few of us in this building, they know who they are who's done the right thing. We've got a high suicide rate because of this. One every 48 minutes is killing themselves because of this barrage. I was just incarcerated for 45 days in Riverhead. I was never given credit for my child support, not once. I have $3,400 worth of receipts sitting in my house. Why is this? Because you's are meeting a quota. We know the Federal Government, how it works; the more money Suffolk County says it's got to collect, the more money the Federal Government gives to New York and Suffolk County.

Now, I want to let you know, while I was in there you's were locking up people on disability and welfare, social services and compensation. You know what that is, that's stealing from the Federal Government, people, you's are stealing from the Federal Government, and Mr. Gaffney is quite aware of this. We tried speaking publicly, I was on Cablevision and Newsday interviewed me against the boot bill that was passed. I want to let you know how the system works. When I was in jail I was ordered to pay $200 a week while I was incarcerated, this is my second job that I lost, let alone three summers not seeing my two boys. What happens is, is that another -- by the time I come out I owed another $2,500, that triggers CSEB. And they're only allowed to lock us up for six months per year with no good time, and I'm in with New York State sentenced to 16 years. While I was in there in Yaphank a couple of Hispanic people took the locks, because you put two people in one cell, the same locks they have, but in Yaphank it's a free for all, 90 people, they put the locks in the sock. While the two black people were sleeping at night they smashed the skull in while another Hispanic fellow cuts somebody else's eye out. And I was locked in one of the cells in Riverhead with a man that was incarcerated from the age of 17 to 33, he was out four months and was back in Riverhead again. This is as a father how I'm treated.

But the beauty of this is when I get out, which I did, I owed another $2,500, next year I will be back in jail again. You's are locking people up for the same money, the money don't come off the arrears. We go to jail every year, in 12 years we will being doing six years in prison thanks to the system, while 43 other states have some type of shared parenting people. Now, we want to stop this? Pass the shared parenting bill, you's already signed for it on April 14th of 1994 and you's all have copies of this right here, unanimously you signed by Suffolk County.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
May I ask, was that a Sense, does it say Sense number whatever up at the top?

MR. SVOBODA:
Memorializing?

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Right.

MR. SVOBODA:
Memorializing, yes.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Yeah, if I could just interrupt you. We don't have the jurisdiction to do that, the State does.

MR. SVOBODA:
I understand that.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
So what this does, when we pass this it says to the State, "We would like you to adopt shared parenting."

MR. SVOBODA:
I understand, I understand that.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
If they don't take action we can't compel them to do it.

MR. SVOBODA:
I understand that. We know who the culprits are in this County. We spoke to Mr. Gaffney about it, he chooses to do nothing about it. We already let everybody know who's doing it, it's a very large outfit that we're doing, we're letting everybody know including Mrs. Carpenter who passed that bill. And it's a disgrace that she passed that bill because we already lose our license. I want to tell you how it happens. We lose our license, we can't even visit our children because of this because mom calls the police when we go to visit our children that he has no license so he can't visit with his children, thank you very much. You understand? When is somebody going to help the fathers? Because that's how you're going to fix it for these people, stop the billions of dollars that's being stolen in this County.

I, too, am a victim but I'm not going to talk about it. I've sat with some of these people where they're crying at their dinner table; you understand? And I know some of us -- we have to do it, people, stop making us fight, okay, because that's what you's are doing, you's are making money for the Judges. And what happens? Here's three newspaper articles, the highest death rate of attorneys in the country right here; I shrunk 'em all down for you's. Judges in black robes, the judges, the attorneys give back up to 20% of what they earn, no secret. Those guys aren't lying, Newsday prints it and they can be sued. Divorce is hell. People --

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Mr. Svoboda, would you sum up, please.

MR. SVOBODA:
Would I what?

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Sum up.

MR. SVOBODA:
Sum up? Yes. I would appreciate that somebody call me at 941-9147, you's didn't do it the last time. I want an amendment for the driver's license so we can get to visit our children and stop willfully throwing us in jail without giving us credit on our child support. You're going to throw somebody in jail, please give us credit, I don't want to be in with inmates that are going Upstate, and that place is deplorable. I slept in a room six by eleven with two people, that's the size for one husky, and it was filthy, mold and the bathroom is never cleaned and the visitor's bathrooms over there in a 23-hour lock up, feces on the floor for months and months and months. Please, we treat animals better. 941-9147, that's my phone number.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Any questions? Thank you.

MR. SVOBODA:
You're very welcome.

Applause

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Ray Mincone.

MR. MINCONE:
Thank you very much. I'll be very brief. My name is Ray Mincone, I'm with the Organization of Senior Citizens and Retailers. We have a situation where it has come to our attention that Suffolk County is perhaps preparing to follow the lead of Nassau County and reassess some of the properties that we have.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
No.

MR. MINCONE:
Well, it's being done on a town by town basis. I know that the County itself does not have that authority, but that it is perhaps trying to encourage the towns to follow their leads, that is Nassau County's lead. I ask that you please not do it if such a plan is anticipated. The reason is is that, as you know, we have a case in Federal Court now challenging the constitutionality of property taxes the way they exist today. We have come upon a situation where we have discovered that some 50 years ago in 1951, Article 8 Section 10 of the State Constitution was changed without voter approval, it just happened that no one in Albany seems to know to this day how it got changed. Well, we have the evidence to prove that it was an illegal act and we're looking to have this Article 8-10 restored to the way it was in 1951.

Basically, we are paying at this rate at today's standards roughly about 40 to 50 times more in property taxes than the State Constitution originally allowed. So the point that we're making is that if indeed the County Legislature is anticipating on going to full value as compared to assessed value as we are today, to please consider our case, let it go through the courts and find out exactly whether or not we have some merit to our case rather than going ahead and going through the full value system.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Thank you. As you know and you said, we don't have the ability here, we don't assess on a County wide basis.

MR. MINCONE:
Yes, I know.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
I don't know of any town that's contemplating reassessing on full value, I don't know that anyone else has.

MR. MINCONE:
I believe that Southampton has already.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Oh.

MR. MINCONE:
So that's the first.

MR. SABATINO:
Other towns have done it.

MR. MINCONE:
Pardon me?

MR. SABATINO:
Other towns have done it in the past. I mean, Islip did it in the past.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Islip did it many years ago.

MR. MINCONE:
Yes, and Islip is doing it.

LEG. D'ANDRE:
Didn't they change it after that?

MR. SABATINO:
No. It's been a smooth transition for the towns that have done it, but there's currently no proposal pending to answer the question.


VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Yeah, I haven't heard of anything, but thank you.

MR. MINCONE:
I would like to just give this to the board, there's only maybe one or two paragraphs about our case.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Thank you very much.

MR. MINCONE:
Thank you.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
The last speaker is Harvey Kash.

MR. KASH:
Good afternoon. I am one of the members of Americans for Legal Reform. We have no offices, I help run the organization, and a good many of the people who spoke here today are members of our organization trying to change the system. But the system isn't going to change if all we hear wherever we go is, "That's not my table", that's the old waiter bit, that's not my table.

We have an election this coming November. There are 435 seats in the House of Representatives and there's about 30 that are in play, all the rest are so gerrymandered that no one else is going -- no one is going to defeat the people who are running. The bottom line is we have now a political class, I don't know the backgrounds of the people sitting up here or on the podium, but we have a political class now that runs everything which is the reason that in the Presidential Election less than 50% of the people are voting, in a local election less than 30% of the people are voting and maybe everybody up here likes it. Nobody gets defeated, there hasn't been any contested districts in the State Legislature, the State either Senate or Assembly, there's virtually no contest in the Congressional districts in most areas in New York State until somebody retires or you have a situation like we have now with Forbes out in Suffolk County; but apart from that, nothing is contested anymore. The same people consistently win, and it matters not whether they're Republicans or Democrats, and we have all of this money that's floating around. Forget about this business, this is nothing, that we hear about campaign finance, that's baloney. There's $50 billion that this man's compatriots, this man's compatriots are getting in tobacco money, that's money, $50 billion that's going to be collected. How many Judges could we buy with that? How many Legislators could we buy with that? That's what this is all about. Because we're not going to get changes until you can have -- you wanted to say something, Mr. D'Andre?

LEG. D'ANDRE:
Yes.

MR. KASH:
Yeah, go ahead.

LEG. D'ANDRE:
Churchill said it best, this is the worst form of --

MR. KASH:
Except for all the rest.

LEG. D'ANDRE:
Right.

MR. KASH:
That's right.

LEG. D'ANDRE:
And I won't have it any other way, with our faults.

MR. KASH:
Okay.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Mike.

MR. KASH:
Excuse me, sir. I am here to see if we can make democracy work. I am not here --

LEG. D'ANDRE:
Yeah, but you're making allegations about money.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Mike.

LEG. D'ANDRE:
Come on.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Let the speaker talk.

MR. KASH:
What? Oh, you mean to say nobody gets bought, nobody gets bought. Well, let me tell you something.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Mr. Kash, can I just ask you, because we're very limited in time, please.

MR. KASH:
I will be finished in a moment, trust me, Ms. Postal; I know you're pressed for time. In Florida, do you know who one of the lawyers are? He only signed on for part of it, you know who one of the lawyers are and the team who is going to get $100 million in the tobacco settlement? His name is Hugh Rhodam; in case anybody wants to know who his sister is, I will let you know. You know who the fellow is in Mississippi, the lead --

LEG. D'ANDRE:
I don't need that information.
MR. KASH:
The lead attorney is a fellow by the name of Dick Scruggs, he's in for $2 billion; you know who his brother-in-law is? Trent Lack. We don't even discuss these things.

LEG. D'ANDRE:
Give me Long Island history.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Michael.

MR. KASH:
Give you Long Island? I'll give you Long Island. Newsday had a hatchet job on me, there was a full page story on me, guess who wrote the story; somebody who was covering the courts at the time who's husband is an attorney. Because I am against attorneys, for the most part, not every single one, but that's what it's all about.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
I can relate to that.

MR. KASH:
Well, I'm just -- so can a whole bunch of other people. Come to some of our meetings and you'll see it, but nobody wants to come.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Mr. Kash, can I ask you to please sum up?

MR. KASH:
I am getting to the point that I wish to make. The point that I wish to make is wherever we go, wherever we go we have the passing of the buck. We have been at these meetings now for three months I think or four months and nothing is going to happen. The reason nothing is going to happen is the word comes down from on high nothing should happen. Because we have people who are in power, and I'm talking about the District Attorney, I'm talking about the Judges, etcetera, who have built this wall of immunity thanks to this man's friends, 46%, both houses of the Legislature, they have put immunity around themself, they don't give a damn. We had to withdraw DA Catterson from our lawsuit, we had to withdraw the head of the Court Officers, a Chief Criminal Clerk, we had to withdraw them from our lawsuit, the Federal lawsuit that we have that's ongoing right now because of the immunity factor; you can't touch these people. And this is a problem, you can't get near them, they know it and they can do whatever they wish to do including criminality. This is the problem. We must take immunity away from these people so we can get to them, and you don't want it to happen, they don't want it to happen and it's not going to happen because all you have is safe districts that are gerrymandered in that way and that's why the people are turned off. If you came to our meetings you would find out how people are being ripped off from the bottom of their toes to the top of their heads.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Mr. Kash?

MR. KASH:
And that's what this is all about. And I thank you for the time.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Thank you. We're going to turn right to the agenda because I know that there's a Social Services Committee that's about to -- actually that should have started 15 minutes ago. I would like to start with the Introductory Prime Resolutions.

Introductory Prime resolutions

1866-00 - Adopting Local Law No. 2000, a Local Law establishing a commensurate worth standard for County hiring practices for Police Officers (Fields).


LEG. FISHER:
Motion to table.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Motion to table pending a public hearing by Legislator Fisher, seconded by Legislator Caracappa. All in favor? 1866 is tabled (Vote: 5-0-0-1 Not Present: Legislator Bishop).

1870-00 - Adopting Local Law No. 2000, a Local Law requiring college education for all County Police Officials (Caracciolo).


LEG. FISHER:
Motion to table.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Motion to table pending a public hearing by Legislator Fisher, seconded by Legislator Caracappa. All in favor? Any opposed? 1870 is tabled (Vote: 5-0-0-1 Not Present: Legislator Bishop).

1872-00 - Reappointing Martin Albert, Sr., as a member of the Suffolk County Vocational, Education and Extension Board (Bishop).
Is there a motion? This is a reappointment. I would make a motion to approve.

LEG. FISHER:
I will second.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Seconded by Legislator Fisher. All in favor? Any opposed? 1872 is approved (Vote: 5-0-0-1 Not Present: Legislator Bishop).

1902-00,
is there a motion, it's Accepting and appropriating 77% Federal Pass-Thru Grant Funds from the New York State Division of Probation and correctional alternatives for the temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) Projects for Community Corrections Programs and creating positions within the Department of Probation (County Executive).

LEG. D'ANDRE:
Motion.


LEG. CARACAPPA:
Second.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Motion by Legislator D'Andre, seconded by Legislator Caracappa. All in favor? Any opposed? 1902 is carried (Vote: 5-0-0-1 Not Present: Legislator Bishop).

Now, as I said before, there's an error on the agenda. The next introductory resolution is 1919-00 which is resolution that establishes a Suffolk County Office of HMO Services. I'm going to make a motion to table this because --

MR. SABATINO:
That's the wrong title.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
No, that's not --

LEG. FISHER:
Well, 1920 is Pet Safe.

MR. SABATINO:
Right.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
This is creating --

LEG. FISHER:
1919, should that be on our agenda?

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
I don't know. It was --

MR. SABATINO:
No, the HMO --

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
The HMO is not on this?

MR. SABATINO:
HMO is a Health resolution.

LEG. FISHER:
It's Health.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Oh, okay.

LEG. FISHER:
1920 is the next one which is Pet Safe.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Okay, no problem. Then 1920-00 - Creating Suffolk County Pet Safe Task Force.

LEG. FISHER:
On the resolution.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
On the resolution, is there a motion?

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to approve.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Motion to approve by Legislator Cooper, seconded by myself.

LEG. FISHER:
Okay. On the motion.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
On the motion, Legislator Fisher.

LEG. FISHER:
I have a question, Legislator Cooper. Number five in the second RESOLVED you stipulate a representative from the North Shore Animal League. I would have preferred a more general category there for a representative from an animal advocacy group --

LEG. COOPER:
Well, actually --

LEG. FISHER:
-- rather than naming North Shore League as the stipulated representative, organization.

LEG. COOPER:
The reason that I went with the North Shore Animal League is that they were on the task force that was formed in Nassau County that implemented the original Pet Safe Program, so they have that history. I was considering making a change on seven, instead of a representative from one of the animal shelters in Suffolk County, forwarding that to the Suffolk SPCA so there would be more of an umbrella organization.

LEG. FISHER:
Okay. Because there is a Suffolk County Animal Rights Task Force and they're not represented here.

LEG. COOPER:
I was not aware that there was one.

LEG. FISHER:
So there is an advisory panel and it would be good to see a member of that panel which is a -- that was something that was created here through a Legislative Resolution. I think that a member from that body should be represented in this --

LEG. COOPER:
I would ask Legislative Counsel, Paul, if you could amend this to include a representative from that body as well.
VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
And Legislator Cooper, if I could make a suggestion that you not eliminate number seven because I think that the animal shelters do need to be represented --

LEG. FISHER:
Yes.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
-- in the event of a disaster, an emergency, I think they might have some special needs because they house so many animals. So I would ask that you not delete that one.

LEG. COOPER:
Point taken.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
On the motion?

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Yeah, on the motion, Legislator --

LEG. FISHER:
If I could just finish my line of thinking.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
I'm sorry.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Sure, I'm sorry.

LEG. FISHER:
The reason I suggest that we reconsider number five is that there are groups, advocacy groups in Suffolk County, and I think because we're dealing with an emergency preparedness, an emergency situation, that it would behoove us to have a representative from a Suffolk County advocacy group.

LEG. COOPER:
Well, I'm amenable to that. We can either table this until the next meeting --

LEG. CARACAPPA:
That's what I was going to suggest.

LEG. COOPER:
Okay.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Why don't you change your motion to --

LEG. COOPER:
I make a motion to table.



VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Okay. Seconded by Legislator Caracappa to table till the next meeting?

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Sure, just pending the changes.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Right. All in favor? Any opposed? 1920 is tabled (Vote: 5-0-0-1 Not Present: Legislator Bishop).

1921-00 - Accepting and appropriating a grant in the amount of $639,918 made available by the New York Division of Criminal Justice Services to continue the aid to law enforcement program with the State Government supporting 44% of program expenditures (County Executive).
Is there a motion? Motion to approve.

LEG. FISHER:
Second.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
I'll make a motion to approve, seconded by Legislator Fisher. All in favor? Any opposed? 1921 is approved (Vote: 5-0-0-1 Not Present: Legislator Bishop).

1925-00 - Appropriating funds in connection with the purchase of two Medevac equipped helicopters (CP 3117.512) (County Executive).
This was the issue we heard about. Motion by Legislator Caracappa, seconded by Legislator Fisher. All in favor? Any opposed? 1925 is approved (Vote: 5-0-0-1 Not Present: Legislator Bishop).

Introductory Sense Resolutions

There is a Sense Resolution, Sense No. 123-2000 - Memorializing Sense Resolution requesting the State of New York to remit cellular telephone surcharge to counties providing emergency 911 phone services (Levy). I would make a motion to approve.

LEG. FISHER:
I will second that.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Second by Legislator Fisher. All in favor? Any opposed? Sense 123 is approved (Vote: 5-0-0-1 Not Present: Legislator Bishop).

Tabled Prime Resolutions

1469-00 - Authorizing RFP to upgrade educational standards for Police Exam (Caracciolo).
I would make a motion to table that --

LEG. FISHER:
Second.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
-- based on the reasons the Police Commissioner gave. Seconded by

Legislator Fisher. All in favor? Any opposed?           1469 is tabled (Vote: 5-0-0-1 Not Present: Legislator Bishop).

1528-00 - Amending the 2000 Capital Budget and Program --

MR. SABATINO:
That's off the agenda, Madam Chair, because it's been withdrawn.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Okay, 1528 has been withdrawn.

1707-00 - To extend DARE Program to 10th Grade Students (Binder).
I would make a motion to table that resolution.

LEG. D'ANDRE:
Second.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Second by Legislator D'Andre. All in favor? Any opposed? 1707 is tabled.

LEG. CARACAPPA:

Abstain.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Excuse me, Legislator Caracappa abstains. (Vote: 4-0-1-1 Abstention: Legislator Caracappa - Not Present: Legislator Bishop).

1755-00 - Adopting Local Law No. 2000, a Local Law to regulate the use of mobile telephones while operating a motor vehicle (Cooper).
Legislator Cooper?

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to approve, but before we vote I just wanted to very briefly state, we heard some testimony at the last Legislative Session. Ron Silber, a father who is now a paraplegic as a result of an accident with a driver using a cell phone; Brian Hall, a brother of a person who was killed as a result of an accident with someone using a cell phone; Diane Dono, a friend who lost her best friend in an accident with someone using a cell phone. I really appreciate Legislator D'Andre's comments at the last meeting, he had said that we shouldn't wait for another tragedy to take place before we enact this legislation.

I was going to read -- all my colleagues on this committee have photos from a family album of Morgan Lee Pena, a two year old that was killed in an accident. I just wanted to in 30 seconds read a letter from Patty Pena who I've spoken with and she supports my bill.

"My name is Patricia Pena and I am a 29 year old mother with an empty lap and a dreadfully aching heart. I have to tell you about my baby. Her name was Morgan Lee Pena and she was two and a half years old. She loved reading stories, playing in her backyard, taking walks in her wagon and lying on the couch with her daddy. She was his pride and joy, the love of our lives. She was everything good in our lives. A man whose attention was not on the road or on the vehicle he was driving but instead on the phone call he was making ran a stop sign at 45 miles per hour, broad-sided my vehicle and killed Morgan as she sat in her car seat, "Oh my God, not my baby," I just started screaming. I spent the night at Children's Hospital, they said that Morgan had the worst head injury they had ever seen on a child her age. I watched my baby die right in front of my eyes." I hope that you'll consider that when you vote on this resolution. Thank you.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
On the motion.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
On the motion, Legislator Caracappa?

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Thank you. I appreciate Legislator Cooper trying to do things here for the right reasons, but there's also the other side of the issue, enforcement; I think it's going to be a very difficult thing to enforce. As much as we want to see the use of cell phones cut down by drivers in motor vehicles, the enforcement aspect of it is going to be difficult to say the least.

Secondly, the use of cell phones in today's day and age has, on the other side of the coin in being bad in certain instances, has been quite useful, too. And a lot of the stories I hear, they have been very useful with relation to people in vehicles, whether it be an emergency situation arising. I have heard on countless occasions from the police department how someone has phoned in a drunk driver in front of them and keeping an eye on that vehicle as they're going down the road and phoning in that license plate and location of that drunk driver, any sort of other criminal aspect that has happened on a roadway in a vehicle, on a roadside where a vehicle is -- a person in a vehicle has had the ability to pick up a cell phone in their car and call without having to pull over and be either near a crime scene or involved in a crime. There's a whole host of issues I can bring up, just as you can bring up the other side.

I just want the members of this committee to realize the enforcement aspect of it is going to be difficult. As much as we want to see a crack down and a slow down use and common sense placed on the people who use cell phones in cars, but also there's going to be an effect that's brought upon people who use cell phones on the roadways in vehicles for all the reasons I have stated and others.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Michael?

LEG. D'ANDRE:
Madam Chairlady, the fact remains that the police give out tickets to people who don't wear seat belts.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
That's right.



LEG. D'ANDRE:
And if they can do that, I am sure they can police these phones. Remember one thing, we've got a bill in here for guns, this is more critical than accidents by guns because no tests are required for a phone, anybody can apply and get one. So I don't think the police will have a hard time policing this at all; in fact, it will bring an awareness. So I'm going to support this bill and I hope all of the rest of my colleagues support this bill because it's needed and you can't wait until there's really an accident. This is not the same level of intensity that we have with guns, even though they appear more dangerous. You get killed in cars and you kill other people in cars by the numbers, if there's four in a car they can get killed and a gun, maybe you shoot only one and then you realize you made a mistake. But still, I still think the police can police this and I'm going to support this bill.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Legislator Caracappa?

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Counsel, in other municipalities throughout the region there have been some statutes passed with relation to the uses of cell phones in cars, whether it be local villages or counties. Could you tell me what's going on with that, with those ordinances? I know there's been some litigation brought forward or a Judge has put an injunction on one of the passages of a certain bill in a certain municipality; is that true? And you can give me a little more background on it.

MR. SABATINO:
Well, at the time that I did the legislation which was back in July, there were only two municipalities that had actually, in fact, adopted legislation. One is in a city, believe it or not, called Brooklyn which is in Ohio and that one has been, you know, on the books and in fact it's being enforced and I think they've had -- I think it was several hundred or several dozen, I can't -- I think it was in the hundreds where they had actual --

LEG. COOPER:
I think over 300.

MR. SABATINO:
Yeah, it was 300, that was the number, it was 300. And then there was --

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Three hundred residents?

LEG. COOPER:
-- one town in New Jersey which is called New Hope. I'm not aware -- at least I wasn't aware back in -- I mean, I know the one in Ohio has clearly been in place and it's being enforced. The one that was adopted in New Jersey was adopted in the earlier part of the year. In the research I had done at the time, there was talk about bringing litigation, I haven't heard a follow up where in fact there was litigation brought, but those are the only two in the country at this juncture. But there's nothing in the local community, I mean nothing at New York State, no neighboring communities have done it, I know in the State of New York there's nothing.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
When you say have done it --

MR. SABATINO:
The confusion might have been Brooklyn, somebody might have thought that Brooklyn, you know, the city had done something, but it wasn't the case.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
When you say haven't done it, you mean an ordinance or an injunction, look for some sort of an injunction, a lawsuit?

MR. SABATINO:
What I mean is that there were no lawsuits that I'm aware of.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Okay.

MR. SABATINO:
You know, that would have resulted in an injunction. There's only two cities that have done it.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Legislator Cooper --

MR. SABATINO:
No, there are states, there are some states that have considered it but there's only two actual, you know, enactments.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
You have done tremendous research in your past legislation and I know you have done it here. My question to you, you would probably know of some areas where there have been ordinances put in place and challenged?

LEG. COOPER:
I understand that there's a town in Pennsylvania where they're considering a challenge, but to my knowledge there have been no instances where any local ordinances have been overturned.

LEG. D'ANDRE:
Just one more point, Madam Chairlady.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Okay. Legislator D'Andre, last comment.

LEG. D'ANDRE:
Last comment. We have a million people in this County and a million people in Nassau County, it's not like we're rural Pennsylvania and some other towns, except in Philadelphia that is. So given that, the fact that we have a million people in our County, there's reason for alarm.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
We have a motion and a second on 1755, motion to approve. All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions?

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Abstain.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Legislator Caracappa is abstaining. 1755 is approved (Vote: 4-0-1-1 Abstained: Legislator Caracappa - Not Present: Legislator Bishop).

LEG. COOPER:
Thank you very much.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
1765-00 - Adopting Local Law No. 2000, a Charter Law to require safe storage of firearms in Suffolk County (Cooper).

LEG. CARACAPPA:

Motion to table.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Motion to table. Is there a second?

LEG. COOPER:
I second the motion.

LEG. CARACAPPA:
I will let Legislator Cooper make the motion.

LEG. COOPER:
I actually was about to make a motion to table. I really want to make an effort to work with SAFE --

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Very good.

LEG. COOPER:
-- and especially that gentleman that spoke today who seemed very rational and reasonable and I would like to get his input. So I would make a motion to table this until the next committee meeting, please.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Okay. There's a motion to table 1765 by Legislator Cooper, seconded by Legislator Caracappa. All in favor? Any opposed? 1765 is tabled (Vote: 5-0-0-1 Not Present: Legislator Bishop).

1847-00 - Adopting Local Law No. 2000, a Local Law to require the use of helmet by minors bicycling or in-line skating (Carpenter).
I think the public hearing was closed on that?

MR. SABATINO:
Yes, Madam Chair, it was closed on the 31st.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Yeah. Would make a motion to approve this.
LEG. CARACAPPA:
Second.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
There was just an article in today's Newsday about the volume of head injuries.

LEG. FISHER:
That's on the scooters.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Yeah, on scooters which is -- that's right.

LEG. D'ANDRE:
I second that, Madam Chairlady.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Okay. Legislator Caracappa, would you like to make a motion to approve?

LEG. CARACAPPA:
You can.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
It's all right. Motion by Legislator Caracappa, seconded by Legislator D'Andre. All in favor? Any opposed? 1847 is approved (Vote: 5-0-0-1 Not Present: Legislator Bishop).

Tabled Sense Resolutions

Sense No. 95-2000 - Memorializing Resolution requesting the State of New York to restrict cell phone use in cars (Cooper).
Legislator Cooper?

LEG. COOPER:
Motion to approve. It's a Sense calling upon the State to basically enact the same legislation that we're pushing.

LEG. FISHER:
Second.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Motion by Legislator Cooper, seconded by Legislator Fisher. All in favor? Any opposed?

LEG. CARACAPPA:
Abstain.

VICE-CHAIRPERSON POSTAL:
Abstention by Legislator Caracappa. Sense 95 is approved (Vote: 4-0-1-1 Abstention: Legislator Caracappa - Not Present: Legislator Bishop).

Motion to adjourn, Legislator Fisher, seconded by Legislator D'Andre. Thank you.

(*The meeting was adjourned at 3:33 P.M.*)

                                                Legislator Maxine Postal, Vice-Chair
                                                Public Safety Committee

- Denotes Spelled Phonetically