[ THEME MUSIC ] ON THIS WEEK'S EDITION OF "NEW YORK NOW", NEXT WEEK IS THE LAST WEEK OF THIS YEAR'S LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

WE'LL TELL YOU WHAT TO EXPECT WITH THIS WEEK'S PANEL AND LATER, SHOULD NEW YORK'S JUDICIAL WATCH DOG HAVE MORE TEETH?

WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT.

I'M DAN CLARK AND THIS IS "NEW YORK NOW."

[ THEME MUSIC ] WELCOME TO THIS WEEK'S EDITION OF "NEW YORK NOW."

I'M DAN CLARK.

WE'RE NOW IN THE FINAL DAYS OF THIS YEAR'S LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

LAWMAKERS ARE SCHEDULED TO WRAP UP FOR THE YEAR THIS COMING WEEK, ON JUNE 8TH.

USUALLY BY NOW, WE'D HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT THE LEGISLATURE WANTS TO DO BEFORE THEY LEAVE.

BUT THIS YEAR, THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

BECAUSE THE STATE BUDGET WAS A MONTH LATE, THAT GAVE LAWMAKERS JUST FIVE WEEKS TO FINISH OUT THE SESSION.

USUALLY, THEY'D HAVE ABOUT TWO MONTHS.

SO THERE'S BEEN A LOT LESS TIME THIS YEAR TO TACKLE TOUGH ISSUES IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS OF SESSION.

BILLS THAT WOULD GIVE TENANTS MORE RIGHTS AND ALLOW WINE IN GROCERY STORES, FOR EXAMPLE, ARE NOT EXPECTED TO PASS.

BUT AT LEAST ONE BIG BILL HAS SOME MOMENTUM.

THAT'S THE CLEAN SLATE ACT, WHICH WE'VE COVERED A LOT IN THE PAST FEW YEARS.

IT WOULD ALLOW CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS TO BE AUTOMATICALLY SEALED AFTER A WAITING PERIOD IF SOMEONE HAS SERVED THEIR ENTIRE SENTENCE, INCLUDING PROBATION, AND HAS REMAINED CRIME FREE.

FOR MISDEMEANORS, YOU'D HAVE TO WAIT THREE YEARS AFTER THE END OF YOUR SENTENCE FOR THE CONVICTION TO BE SEALED UNDER THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE BILL.

FOR FELONY, IT WOULD BE SEVEN YEARS AND SEX OFFENSES WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE, BUT THOSE NUMBERS COULD CHANGE IN A FINAL VERSION OF THE BILL IF LAWMAKERS CAN REACH A DEAL BEFORE THE END OF NEXT WEEK.

AND SENATE MAJORITY LEADER ANDREA STEWART-COUSINS SAID THIS WEEK THAT THEY'RE ALMOST THERE.

WELL, WE ARE DEFINITELY WORKING ON CLEAN SLATE.

WE ARE DEFINITELY NEGOTIATING.

I THINK WE'RE PRETTY CLOSE BECAUSE IT WAS, AT FIRST, THE TIME AND I BELIEVE EVERYBODY'S KIND OF AGREED ON THE TIME, AND SO I DO BELIEVE WE'RE VERY CLOSE.

BUT ON CLEAN SLATE, THE BIGGER FIGHT IS IN THE ASSEMBLY.

THE STATE SENATE ALREADY PASSED IT LAST YEAR.

SO SUPPORTERS HAVE BEEN WORKING TO WIN VOTES IN THE ASSEMBLY, WHERE IT'S HAD LESS SUPPORT AND THAT CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN EFFECTIVE.

ASSEMBLY SPEAKER CARL HEASTIE SAID THIS WEEK THAT HE'S OPTIMISTIC THEY'LL REACH AN AGREEMENT.

WE'RE TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT THE GOVERNOR AND THE ASSEMBLY AND THE SENATE CAN ALL BE HAPPY WITH.

I THINK WE'RE VERY CLOSE.

VERY OPTIMISTIC WE'LL GET SOMETHING DONE.

LET'S START THERE AND UNPACK THE REST OF THE WEEK WITH OUR PANEL, JON CAMPBELL IS FROM WNYC AND GOTHAMIST AND ASHLEY HUPFL IS FROM THE DAILY GAZETTE.

THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE.

THANK YOU.

THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

SO CLEAN SLATE THIS IS A COMPLICATED BILL BECAUSE OF ITS HISTORY.

TWO YEARS AGO-- AND I SHOULD SAY WE'VE BEEN IN THIS SITUATION FOR THIS IS THE THIRD YEAR WHERE I FEEL LIKE CLEAN SLATE HAS BECOME ALMOST A THING AND SOMETHING WEIRD TORPEDOES IT AT THE LAST MINUTE.

TWO YEARS AGO WHAT THEY TOLD US WAS IT WAS TECHNICAL THINGS IN THE BILL.

TECHNICAL REASONS WHY THE BILL COULDN'T MOVE FORWARD.

LAST YEAR, IT JUST DIDN'T SEEM TO HAVE ENOUGH SUPPORT.

SO THIS YEAR, I'M KIND OF WONDERING IF THIS IS LIKE LAWMAKERS CRY WOLF.

YOU KNOW?

WHAT DO YOU THINK, JON?

IS THIS ACTUALLY GOING TO HAPPEN, OR IS THERE... WELL, YOU HAVE THE GOVERNOR, THE SENATE LEADER AND THE ASSEMBLY LEADER ALL SAYING THAT THEY SUPPORT IN IT IN CONCEPT.

WE SPOKE TO ALL THREE OF THOSE PEOPLE THIS WEEK IN SOME FORM OR FASHION OR OUR COLLEAGUES IN NEW YORK CITY DID AND YOU KNOW, THEY ALL SEEM TO SUGGEST THAT THEY ARE RIGHT AT THE FINISH LINE FOR CLEAN SLATE.

NOW THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE.

THIS HAPPENED LAST YEAR, AS YOU JUST SAID, WITH THE RECENT ISSUES ABOUT EDUCATION AND WHETHER THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO SOME OF THESE OLD RECORDS, BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT WOULD DO IS SEAL CRIMINAL RECORDS AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME AFTER PEOPLE HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM INCARCERATION.

EVERYBODY'S SAYING THE RIGHT THINGS BUT IT'S NOT OVER TILL IT'S OVER AND IT GETS THAT VOTE.

AND IF IT DOESN'T PASS THIS YEAR, I REALLY DON'T SEE IT PASSING NEXT YEAR OR AN ELECTION YEAR WHERE EVERY MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE IS UP FOR RE-ELECTION.

I THINK-- ESPECIALLY ON PLACES LIKE ON LONG ISLAND AND IN THE SUBURBS, I THINK THEY'RE REALLY COGNIZANT OF THE POLICIES THAT THEY'RE PASSING THIS YEAR.

NEXT YEAR, THAT MAY AFFECT THOSE ELECTIONS.

HOW DO YOU THINK THAT PLAYS INTO THIS, ASHLEY, JUST THE POLITICS OF KIND OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM AT THE CAPITOL VERSUS HOW THE PUBLIC VIEWS IT?

I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE LEADERS BUT ONE MISSING VOICE IS THE GOVERNOR'S, KATHIE HOCHUL, AND I THINK PROBABLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST HOLDUPS WILL BE HER GIVEN THE FACT THAT SHE WAS-- WHEN SHE WAS RUNNING AGAINST LEE ZELDIN, HE DID A LOT BETTER THAN PEOPLE EXPECTED BECAUSE HE HAMMERED HOME THE CRIMINAL-- THE CRIME STATISTICS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND THAT'S THE SAME FEAR THAT SHE COULD HAVE WITH ANOTHER CHALLENGE GOING FORWARD.

AND I THINK SHE DID COMMENT ON CLEAN SLATE IN NEW YORK CITY THIS WEEK BUT I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT SHE SAID.

WELL, SHE SAID SHE SUPPORTS IT IN CONCEPT.

SHE SAID THAT SHE'S OPTIMISTIC THAT IT'S GONNA GET DONE BEFORE THE END OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, WHICH AS OF NOW IS SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY.

IT COULD BLEED INTO FRIDAY OR BEYOND, GOD FORBID.

NO, I DO NOT WANT THAT.

DO NOT SPEAK THAT.

[LAUGHTER] BUT THIS IS THE BIG TICKET ITEM THAT IS BEING DEBATED.

THERE'S NOT A LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAT JUST AREN'T-- HOUSING POLICY, FOR EXAMPLE-- YES.

WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE BIG TICKET ITEM FOR THE ENTIRE SESSION, IT SEEMS LIKE NOTHING'S GONNA GET DONE ON THAT FRONT.

CLEAN SLATE IS THE ONE WHERE EVERYBODY'S KIND OF HOLDING OUT HOME.

THERE'S KIND OF THESE TINY THINGS -- NOT TINY THINGS BUT THERE'S A LOT OF LIKE SMALLER BILLS THAT I THINK ARE KIND OF IN THE STAGE OF DISCUSSION, BUT MAY NOT MAKE IT BY THE END OF NEXT WEEK.

ASHLEY, I WANT TO START WITH YOU ON THIS ONE.

WHAT ARE YOU WATCHING OVER THESE FINAL DAYS?

THERE'S A LOT TO WATCH, BUT I DON'T THINK A LOT TO WATCH THAT'S GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL.

ONE THING THAT I FOUND VERY INTERESTING I WAS TALKING TO ASSEMBLY MAJORITY LEADER CRYSTAL PEOPLES-STOKES, OF COURSE, SOMEONE WHO HAS A FAIR AMOUNT OF POWER IN THE CHAMBER.

, AFTER THEY PASSED A BILL TO DIVERT THE SUPPLY CHAIN HOLDUP WITH CANNABIS CULTIVATOR LICENSES, SHE SAID SHE BELIEVES THEY COULD ELIMINATE THE POTENCY TAX, WHICH IS A TAX ON CANNABIS, THE HIGHER THE POTENCY, THE HIGHER THE TAX.

AND SHE SAYS-- AND JUST A SIDE NOTE, SENATOR COONEY ALSO HAS A BILL AND HE'S THE CHAIR OF THE NEW CANNABIS COMMITTEE.

HE WANTS TO SEE THAT ELIMINATED, AND SHE SAID SHE THINKS IT WILL GET DONE BY THE END OF THE YEAR AND PART OF THE REASONING IS THAT WE SAW IN THE BUDGET, THERE WAS A LOT OF MEASURES TO CRACK DOWN ON THE ILLICIT MARKET.

SHE SAID THAT WOULD, ONE, HELP WITH THAT AND TWO, PREVENT PEOPLE FROM GOING TO MASSACHUSETTS TO BUY THE SAME PRODUCT FOR A CHEAPER PRICE.

IS THERE ANY SENSE THAT LIKE IS THERE ANY SENSE-- IF THEY ELIMINATE THE POTENCY TAX, THAT'S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE A DROP IN REVENUE FROM THE CANNABIS MARKET.

IS THERE ANY SENSE THAT THEY REPLACE IT WITH ANYTHING, OR WE JUST DON'T KNOW REALLY RIGHT NOW?

WELL, AT LEAST THE PERSON I SPOKE TO UPSTATE CANNABIS COMPANY IN UPSTATE SCHENECTADY, THEY WANT THAT GONE.

IT'S NOT THE REVENUE, BUT THEY WANT PEOPLE IN THE DOOR BECAUSE THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE SAME THINGS THAT THE LAWMAKERS ARE, AND THEY THINK IT WILL ACTUALLY GAIN THEM MORE REVENUE BECAUSE MORE PEOPLE WILL BE COMING IN THE DOORS.

YEAH.

AND CANNABIS HAS BEEN THIS ISSUE WHERE IT'S KIND OF LIKE EVOLVING AS THE STATE CONTINUES TO ROLL IT OUT.

THERE'S AN INTERESTING PROPOSAL THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE WE WENT ON AIR ABOUT HOW SOME LAWMAKERS, INCLUDING SENATOR COONEY, WANT TO ELIMINATE THE EXCISE TAX ON MEDICAL CANNABIS, WHICH WE COVERED A FEW WEEKS AGO.

I HOPE YOU SAW IT.

JON, YOU WANT TO GO TO YOU NOW.

WHAT HAVE YOU-- WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT OVER THE NEXT WEEK?

YOU MENTIONED HOUSING?

YEAH.

THE HOUSING DEAL FELL APART IN THE BUDGET.

BUT THERE'S, I GUESS, SOME HOPE AFTER THE BUDGET BY SOME LAWMAKERS THAT THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO COME TOGETHER ON SOMETHING BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

YEAH.

AND WHAT YOU SEE RIGHT NOW IS NEW YORK CITY MAYOR ERIC ADAMS AND HIS TOP AIDES REALLY, REALLY PUSHING FOR SOME OF THESE KIND OF ON-THE-MARGIN HOUSING ISSUES.

THINGS LIKE A 421-A EXTENSION ON TAX CREDIT FOR DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THEIR DEVELOPMENTS IN NEW YORK CITY.

THAT EXPIRED.

THEY'RE TRYING TO EITHER EXTEND IT OR JUST GRANDFATHER IN PROJECTS THAT WERE IN THE PIPE LINE THAT SUDDENLY WERE NO LONGER ELIGIBLE FOR THAT TAX CREDIT, BUT THAT IS A VERY-- IT'S LONG BEEN A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE IN ALBANY BECAUSE THERE IS A GOOD SEGMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE THAT BELIEVES IT'S ESSENTIALLY A HANDOUT TO DEVELOPERS.

SO YOU SAW MAYOR ADAMS ON THURSDAY HAVE A PRESS CONFERENCE IN GOWANUS, BROOKLYN, WHERE HE, YOU KNOW, PAINTED IT AS A NECESSITY FOR ALBANY TO DO THAT OR TO MAKE IT EASIER TO CONVERT OFFICES INTO APARTMENTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HE'S HOLDING OUT HOPE FOR, BUT YOU KNOW, SPEAKER HEASTIE, CARL HEASTIE, THE ASSEMBLY SPEAKER TOLD US HE DOESN'T REALLY SEE THAT EITHER HOUSE PICKING OFF THIS ITEM OR THAT ITEM ON HOUSING.

HE THINKS IT HAS TO BE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE PACKAGE AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO GET DONE BY NEXT WEEK.

RIGHT.

I THINK THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL ITEM IN THAT POTENTIAL PACKAGE THAT COULD HAVE FORMED WAS THE GOOD CAUSE EVICTION BILL.

YES.

THAT IS A BILL-- I GENERALLY SAY SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD REQUIRE GOOD CAUSE FOR EVICTION BUT I DON'T DEFINE THAT BECAUSE THE BILL IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN JUST THAT.

IT ALSO INCLUDES A KIND OF FAUX RENT CAP.

I DON'T KNOW THE PHRASING EXACTLY.

I THINK IT'S IF RENT INCREASES BY 3% OR MORE, INFLATION, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

RIGHT.

THAT IS DESIGNED SO THAT YOU CAN'T-- A LANDLORD CAN'T, YOU KNOW, EFFECTIVELY EVICT A TENANT BY HIKING THE RENT BY 20%, 50%, WHATEVER.

YEAH.

SO IT IS ESSENTIALLY-- IT WOULD LIMIT ANNUAL RENT INCREASES AND IT WOULD MEAN A BONA FIDE REASON FOR A LANDLORD TO EVICT A TENANT, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE LANDLORDS ABSOLUTELY HATE, BUT THE TENANT ORGANIZATIONS LOVE.

THIS IS REALLY WHERE YOU GET INTO THIS ISSUE ARE WITH TENANTS ARE PUSHING FOR ONE THING.

LANDLORDS ARE PUSHING FOR ANOTHER.

THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATORS ARE ALL STUCK IN THE MIDDLE THERE, AND THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY NOTHING'S GETTING DONE.

YEAH.

SO I ALWAYS BLAME IT ON THE SUBURBS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TRUE.

I'M GOING TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.

WITH HOCHUL'S PLAN FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS FOR EXAMPLE, SUBURBAN LAWMAKERS DIDN'T REALLY LIKE THAT WITH HER HOUSING COMPACT, THE REQUIREMENT THAT LOCALITIES BUILD NEW HOUSING EVERY YEAR, EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS, SUBURBS REALLY DIDN'T LIKE THAT.

SO I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW THEY DO ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T REALLY DIRECTLY BENEFIT THE SUBURBS, I GUESS, FROM THEIR VIEW.

I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW IT WOULD SHAKE OUT.

ALSO, WE TALKED EARLIER THAT NEXT YEAR IS AN ELECTION YEAR.

THE SUBURBS ARE A CRUCIAL BATTLEGROUND IN NEW YORK STATE AND IF THEY WEREN'T WILLING TO-- TO DO HOUSING PROPOSALS THAT MADE SUBURBAN LAWMAKERS MAD THIS YEAR, ARE THEY GOING TO DO THAT NEXT YEAR WHEN THEY'RE ON THE BALLOT?

I DON'T THINK SO.

I DON'T KNOW.

[LAUGHTER] ASHLEY, I HAVE ABOUT A MINUTE AND A HALF LEFT.

I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE POLITICS OF THIS.

THERE ISN'T SO MUCH HAPPENING AT THE END OF SESSION AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

IT'S A LITTLE QUIETER THAN USUAL, MAYBE AS CLEAN SLATE HAPPENS.

BESIDES THAT, NOT A LOT.

LIKE JON SAID, DOES THAT SPELL A QUIETER SESSION NEXT YEAR?

IT'S A VERY FAR TIME AWAY.

WE CAN LOOK INTO OUR CRYSTAL BALL A LITTLE BIT, I GUESS.

SURE.

I THINK THAT WILL BE THE SAME NEXT YEAR.

I THINK PEOPLE ARE KIND OF WIPED OUT AFTER THE BUDGET.

IT DOESN'T NORMALLY GO IN MAY.

THERE WAS SO MUCH POLICY IN IT AND I GOT THE SENSE FROM LAWMAKERS THAT THEY'RE JUST KIND OF CHECKED OUT AFTER THAT.

THEY WANT TO DO ONE, TWO THINGS AND MOVE ON AND YOU KNOW, BY JANUARY, LIKE YOU SAID, THAT'S A LONG TIME.

IT WAS LAST YEAR, THEY HAD TO COME BACK BECAUSE THERE WERE SUPREME COURT CASES.

WHO KNOWS WHAT COULD POP UP.

BUT I MEAN, MAYBE BECAUSE THEY'RE SO LOW KEY THIS YEAR, THEY'LL COME BACK READY AND REARING IN JANUARY.

[LAUGHTER] IN THE MEANTIME THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEM TO COME HERE AND DO THINGS THAT AREN'T JUST COMING HERE AND PASSING BILLS.

WE OFTEN SEE IN THE SUMMER AND KIND OF IN THE FALL-- MORE IN THE FALL AND IN THE DECEMBER AREA, HOLD PUBLIC HEARING BILLS TO GET READY FOR THE UPCOMING LEGISLATIVE SESSION SO THAT WHEN THE BILL COMES UP FOR A VOTE, THEY CAN SAY, WE HAD A HEARING AND THIS IS WHAT THIS PERSON SAID AND THIS IS WHAT THAT PERSON SAID.

SO THAT WILL BE INTERESTING TO WATCH IN THE FALL BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL KIND OF INFORM WHERE THEY GO IN THE FIRST FEW MONTHS OF NEXT YEAR'S SESSION.

BUT LET'S NOT LOOK TOO FAR AHEAD.

WE'LL GET THERE WE STILL GOT THIS YEAR'S SESSION TO GO.

[LAUGHTER] JON CAMPBELL FROM WNYC AND GOTHAMIST.

ASHLEY HUPFL FROM THE DAILY GAZETTE.

THANK YOU BOTH SO MUCH.

THANK YOU THANKS FOR HAVING US.

A REMINDER WE HAVE MORE NEWS FROM THE CAPITOL ON OUR WEBSITE.

YOU CAN FIND THAT AND MUCH MORE ONLINE AT NYNOW.ORG.

BUT TURNING NOW TO A NEW EDITION OF ON THE BILL WHERE WE TELL YOU ABOUT A BILL OUT OF ALBANY THAT YOU MIGHT NOT HEAR ABOUT OTHERWISE.

THIS WEEK, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT S-7117, WHICH DEALS WITH A GAMING COMPACT BETWEEN THE SENECA NATION AND THE STATE.

RIGHT NOW, THE SENECAS OPERATE THREE CASINOS IN WESTERN NEW YORK AND A GAMING COMPACT WITH THE STATE FROM 20 YEARS AGO GIVES THEM EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS IN THAT AREA.

NO ONE ELSE CAN SET UP SHOP.

BUT THAT COMPACT IS ABOUT TO EXPIRE LATER THIS YEAR.

THAT BRINGS US TO S-7117.

IT'S A BILL THAT WOULD KEEP THAT AREA EXCLUSIVE FOR THE SENECAS AND ALLOW THE GOVERNOR TO NEGOTIATE A NEW GAMING COMPACT AT SOME POINT THIS YEAR.

THE NEW COMPACT WOULD DEAL WITH THINGS LIKE EXCLUSIVITY, REVENUE FROM THE CASINOS AND MORE, AND WITHOUT THIS BILL, THE SENECAS ARE WORRIED THE STATE WILL TRY TO STRONG ARM THEM INTO AN AGREEMENT THAT THEY DON'T LIKE.

TINA ABRAMS IS A COUNSELOR FROM THE SENECA NATION.

THE STATE LEADERS HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO ADDRESS THE INEQUITIES THAT NATIVE NATIONS HAVE FACED FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS AND TO ASSURE THAT WE ARE TREATED AS A FULL OR EQUAL PARTNER IN OUR AGREEMENTS.

ALLOWING THIS BILL TO GO UNPASSED WOULD BE A COMPLETE ABDICATION OF RESPONSIBILITY.

WE'LL KEEP AN EYE ON THAT BILL IN THE FINAL DAYS OF SESSION.

BUT TURNING NOW TO JUDICIAL ETHICS.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN IN THE NEWS A LOT LATELY AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL.

YOU MIGHT HAVE READ ABOUT HOW DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS WANT NEW ETHICS RULES FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

THAT'S AFTER MULTIPLE NEWS REPORTS HAVE TIED SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS TO HARLAND CROW, A REPUBLICAN MEGA DONOR.

THOMAS HAS DENIED THAT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH CROW HAS INFLUENCED HIS WORK ON THE BENCH, BUT BACK IN NEW YORK, THINGS WORK A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

HERE, IF A JUDGE IS ACCUSED OF DOING SOMETHING WRONG OR UNETHICAL, THERE'S A SPECIAL COMMISSION THAT INVESTIGATES.

IT'S CALLED THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT.

IT TAKES IN COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES, INVESTIGATES THEM AND HANDS DOWN SANCTIONS WHEN WRONGDOING IS FOUND.

THERE'S GROWING SUPPORT AT THE CAPITOL TO GIVE THE COMMISSION MORE TEETH.

A NEW BILL WOULD DO JUST THAT BY EXPANDING ITS POWER, MAKING IT MORE TRANSPARENT AND GIVING IT MORE INDEPENDENCE.

WE LAID IT ALL OUT THIS WEEK WITH BOB TEMBECKJIAN, ADMINISTRATOR AND COUNSEL OF THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT.

LISTEN HERE.

[ THEME MUSIC ] BOB, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING BACK.

I APPRECIATE IT.

ALWAYS NICE TO BE HERE.

THANK YOU SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS BILL.

WE DON'T OFTEN SEE LEGISLATION THAT CHANGES YOUR WORK AT THE STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT BECAUSE YOU'RE TRAINED ON THE CONSTITUTION WHICH USUALLY MEANS WHEN YOU WANT TO MAKE A CHANGE, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH A WHOLE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

THIS IS NOT LIKE THAT AND THE WAY THAT I SEE IT IS THIS WOULD GIVE YOU MORE TEETH, GIVE YOU A LITTLE MORE TRANSPARENCY AND A LITTLE BIT MORE INDEPENDENCE, I THINK, FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE.

SO LET'S GO THROUGH IT SECTION BY SECTION AND I'M GOING TO KIND OF HAVE YOU TALK ABOUT HOW IT IS NOW AND THEN HOW THIS BILL WOULD MAKE IT.

SO ONE PART OF THE BILL-- THERE ARE THREE MAIN SECTIONS-- WOULD ALLOW COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS TO GO PUBLIC WHEN A JUDGE IS FORMALLY CHARGED WITH A COMPLAINT.

THAT'S RIGHT.

SO I KNOW THAT THESE DOCUMENTS DO BECOME PUBLIC AT THE END, WHEN YOU'VE MADE A DECISION.

IS THAT HOW IT WORK KNOUS?

WHEN DO THINGS KIND OF GET INTO THE PUBLIC EYE?

YES.

CURRENTLY WHEN THE COMMISSION IS INVESTIGATING A COMPLAINT OF ETHICAL MISCONDUCT BY A JUDGE, THE COMPLAINT OR INVESTIGATION, ANY TRANSCRIPTS, TESTIMONY, DOCUMENTS THAT ARE COLLECTED IN THE COURSE OF THAT INQUIRY, ANY HEARING ON FORMAL DISCIPLINARY CHARGES, ANY ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE FULL COMMISSION IS ALL CONFIDENTIAL BY LAW AND NEW YORK IS IN THE MINORITY OF STATES WHERE THAT IS SO.

IN 38 OTHER STATES, FORMAL COMPLAINTS OF MISCONDUCT AGAINST JUDGES ARE MADE PUBLIC AND THAT IS SIMILAR, BY THE WAY TO WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE FOR LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICERS AS WELL.

IF THEY ARE FORMALLY CHARGED UNDER THEIR OWN ETHICAL PROCESSES WITHINS CONDUCT, THOSE CHARGES BECOME PUBLIC.

JUDGES BEING PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN THE COMMISSION'S VIEW AND THIS IS SOMETHING WE'VE BEEN ADVOCATING SINCE 1978 WHEN THE COMMISSION FIRST WENT INTO EFFECT, FORMAL DISCIPLINARY CHARGES AGAINST THE JUDGE SHOULD BE MADE PUBLIC BECAUSE THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO KNOW.

SO THAT'S WHEN THEY'RE ACCUSED OF MISCONDUCT AND SO IS IT JUST WHEN A COMPLAINT IS FILED, OR YOU HAVE TO SEE THE COMPLAINT AND SAY, WE'RE GOING TO INVESTIGATE THIS AND THEN IT BECOMES PUBLIC UNDER THIS LEGISLATION?

UNDER THIS LEGISLATION-- AND IT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN ADVOCATING-- AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE INVESTIGATION, IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT FORMAL CHARGES ARE WARRANTED, THAT'S THE POINT AT WHICH THE MATTER WOULD BECOME PUBLIC.

NOT WHEN A COMPLAINT COMES IN, NOT WHEN WE'RE INVESTIGATING.

SO IF YOU ANALOGIZE THIS TO A CRIMINAL INQUIRY, FOR EXAMPLE, A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION WOULD BE CONFIDENTIAL BUT IF THE GRAND JURY INDICTS A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT THAT BECOMES PUBLIC.

SO THIS IS ROUGHLY ANALOGOUS TO THAT.

ALL OF OUR INVESTIGATIVE WORK WOULD REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL.

THE FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINTS, THE UNSUBSTANTIATED COMPLAINTS WOULD NEVER BECOME PUBLIC.

BUT ONLY IF A COMPLAINT IS SUBSTANTIATED, AND THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT DECIDES THAT FORMAL DISCIPLINARY CHARGES SHOULD OCCUR, THAT'S THE POINT AT WHICH THE MATTER WOULD BECOME PUBLIC UNDER THIS LEGISLATION.

SO PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND TRANSPARENCY IS GREAT.

I WANT TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SECTION OF THE BILL THAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT.

THIS IS ABOUT YOUR JURISDICTION WHEN JUDGES RESIGN FROM OFFICE.

RIGHT.

SO IF A JUDGE CURRENTLY IS ACCUSED OF MISCONDUCT, INFORMALLY, NOT WITH A FORMAL COMPLAINT TO YOU, BUT IF THEY'RE ACCUSED OF A MISCONDUCT AND RESIGN, YOU CAN'T REALLY DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW, RIGHT?

THAT'S TRUE.

UNDER CURRENT LAW, IF A JUDGE RESIGNS, WE HAVE 120 DAYS TO COMPLETE THE ENTIRE PROCESS THAT AN ORDINARY COURSE WOULD TAKE A YEAR OR YEAR AND A HALF.

YEAH.

AND THEN ONLY IF THE FINAL RESULT WOULD BE REMOVAL FROM OFFICE.

SO IF IT'S NOT THE MOST EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT, EVEN IF THE JUDGE IS GUILTY OF IT, WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY UNDER CURRENT LAW TO DISCIPLINE THAT JUDGE ONCE A RESIGNATION TAKES PLACE.

SO CURRENTLY, WE CAN ADMONISH A JUDGE PUBLICLY, CENSURE A JUDGE PUBLICLY, FILE A DECISION THAT THE JUDGE SHOULD BE REMOVED OR IN THE CASE OF A DISABILITY, BE RETIRED, BUT UNDER THE CURRENT STATUTE, IF THE JUDGE RESIGNS, WE CAN ONLY PROCEED IF IT'S A REMOVAL AND ONLY IF WE CAN CONCLUDE THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN 120 DAYS.

THIS LEGISLATION WOULD OPEN THAT UP.

NOW I'M ASSUMING THAT WOULDN'T BE RETROACTIVE.

SO IF WE FOUND OUT THAT A JUDGE WHO WAS ON THE BENCH FIVE YEARS AGO WAS ACCUSED OF MISCONDUCT BUT THEY RESIGNED OR RETIRED, YOU CAN'T THEN GO BACK AND SAY, HEY, THAT WAS BAD.

YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT AND YOU CANNOT AGAIN SEEK JUDICIAL OFFICE?

THAT'S TRUE.

WE HAVE A LONG CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITION IN OUR COUNTRY OF NOT ESSENTIALLY IMPOSING EXPO FACT TOW LAWS OR REALITIES OR REQUIREMENTS.

SO IF A JUDGE WAS THE SUBJECT OF AN INVESTIGATION AND IT ENDED BECAUSE THE JUDGE RESIGNED FIVE YEARS AGO, TWO YEARS AGO, AND THERE WAS NO FORMAL DISCIPLINE IMPOSED, THAT MATTER WILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL FOREVER OR UNLESS THE JUDGE FOR WHATEVER REASON CHOOSES TO WAIVE CONFIDENTIALITY AND MAKE IT PUBLIC.

THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN VERY OFTEN, AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE, AND OVER 900 DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS OVER THE COURSE OF OUR HISTORY SINCE 178, ONLY ABOUT A DOZEN JUDGES HAVE WAIVED CONFIDENTIALITY FOR THE PROCESS TO BE OPEN BEFORE THERE WAS A FINAL RESULT.

IT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT IS IN THEIR-- PERCEIVED TO BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO DO.

NOW I'M ASSUMING THIS WOULDN'T BRING TOO MANY MORE CASES UNTO YOUR CASELOAD AT THE COMMISSION.

BUT I'M WONDERING, YOU KNOW, CHECKING ON THE BUDGET A REQUEST WAS FULFILLED FOR YOU IN THE BUDGET, EVEN IF YOU ARE TAKING ON A FEW MORE COMPLAINTS HERE AND THERE, DO YOU HAVE THE BANDWIDTH RIGHT NOW IT TAKE THAT ON, THESE EXTRA-- THIS LEGISLATION SHOULD NOT CHANGE THE NUMBERS AT ALL.

OKAY.

IT WILL NOT INCREASE OUR WORKLOAD NOR WILL IT DIMINISH OUR WORKLOAD.

WHAT IT WILL DO IS MAKE A PART OF OUR WORK PUBLIC EARLIER THAN IT IS NOW.

BUT STATISTICALLY, NUMERICALLY, THE NUMBERS WOULD STAY THE SAME.

LAST YEAR, WE GOT IT,400 COMPLAINTS.

WE PUBLICLY DISCIPLINED 25 JUDGES.

RIGHT.

I DON'T EXPECT THOSE PROPORTIONS TO CHANGE BUT OF THOSE 25, THEY WOULD HAVE ALL BECOME KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC EARLIER THAN THEY WERE IF THIS LEGISLATION HAD BEEN IN EFFECT.

SO LET'S LOOK AT THE THIRD PART, WHICH IS IT'S KIND OF THE DRIER SUBJECT, I GUESS, BUT IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AND IT'S YOUR BUDGET.

SO EVERY YEAR, YOU COME UP WITH WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE FROM THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR IN TERMS OF YOUR BUDGET.

THEY WORK IT OUT AND DECIDE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS HOW MUCH YOU'RE GONNA GET.

THIS CHANGE WOULD ALLOW YOU TO SUBMIT YOUR BUDGET REQUEST TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AND THEN USUALLY THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE CAN CHANGE PIT SAY, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO TO THE LEGISLATURE WITH THAT REQUEST.

THIS WOULD KIND OF REVERSE THAT AND JUST SAY YOU HAVE A BUDGET REQUEST.

THE GOVERNOR IS GOING TO SEND US THE LEGISLATURE UNCHANGED.

BUT SHE CAN RECOMMEND THAT THERE MAY BE CHANGES.

RIGHT.

SO DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE A BETTER WAY TO DO THINGS, I GUESS?

YES.

AND IT IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT WE'VE BEEN ADVOCATING FOR SOME TIME.

OUR AGENCY IS NOT AN EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCY.

WE'RE IN THE JUDICIARY ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION.

WE HAVE AN ENTIRELY JUDICIAL BRANCH FUNCTION.

WE INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES AND WE PUBLICLY DISCIPLINE JUDGES.

THAT'S ALL WE DO.

RIGHT.

HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO IMPOSE DISCIPLINE ON JUDGES, IT WAS DECIDED-- I THINK APPROPRIATELY BACK IN 178-- THAT THE JUDICIAL BRANCH SHOULD NOT CONTROL OUR BUDGET.

IF THE VERY OFFICERS OVER WHOM WE HAVE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY COULD CONTROL OUR BUDGET, THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO DIMINISH OF OUR EFFECTIVENESS BY LITERALLY HOLDING BACK THE FUNDS.

RIGHT.

YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO.

RIGHT.

SO WAY BACK IN 1978, GOVERNOR HUGH CAREY DECIDED WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE THEN-CHIEF JUDGE CHARLES BREITEL AND THE COMMISSION, THAT THE COMMISSION'S BUDGET SHOULD BE RECOMMENDED TO THE LEGISLATURE BY THE EXECUTIVE, AND GOVERNOR CAREY WAS VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE COMMISSION AS I MUST SAY JUDGE HOCHUL HAS BEEN.

SHE'S BEEN IN OFFICE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW AND EACH OF THE BUDGETS THAT SHE HAS PRESENTED VIS-A-VIS THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION, HAS BEEN THE RESULT OF A COLLABORATION.

WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH HER STAFF WHAT WE THINK IS AN APPROPRIATE REQUEST FOR US, AND I'M HAPPY TO SAY THAT THEY HAVE AGREED IN THAT REQUEST AND THAT'S THE WAY THEY HAVE PROPOSED IT TO THE LEGISLATURE.

OTHER GOVERNORS HAVE NOT DONE THAT, AND IT HAS FORCED US TO GO OVER THEIR HEADS DIRECTLY TO THE LEGISLATURE, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT NO OTHER AGENCY WHOSE BUDGET IS PRESENTED IN THE EXECUTIVE BUDGET CAN DO.

IF-- IF THE GOVERNOR PROPOSES A BUDGET FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SERVICES AND THEIR DIRECTOR DOESN'T LIKE IT, THE OPTION IS SUCK IT UP AND TAKE IT, OR GO OVER THE GOVERNOR'S HEAD AND SEE HOW FAST YOU ARE LOOKING FOR ANOTHER LINE OF WORK.

[LAUGHTER] BECAUSE YOU REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE GOVERNOR SAYS THIS IS WHAT THE BUDGET OUGHT TO BE, THAT'S THE WAY IT OUGHT TO BE.

I'M NOT CONSTRAINED BY THAT BECAUSE THE GOVERNOR DOESN'T APPOINT THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COMMISSION NOR DOES THE GOVERNOR APPOINT THE CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION.

WE HAVE 11 COMMISSION MEMBERS AND THE GOVERNOR ONLY APPOINTS FOUR OF THEM.

SO NOT EVEN A MAJORITY.

OTHERS ARE APPOINTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE LEADERS AND BY THE CHIEF JUDGE.

SO THIS PROVISION WOULD LITERALLY MIRROR THE WAY THE JUDICIAL BUDGET IS PRESENTED TO THE JUDICIARY.

THE GOVERNOR PRESENTS THE JUDICIAL BUDGET WITH COMMENT BUT WITHOUT AMENDMENT TO THE LEGISLATURE AND THEN THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE AND THE CHIEF JUDGE WILL NEGOTIATE WITH THE LEGISLATURE ON WHAT THAT REQUEST SHOULD BE AND WE'RE ASKING FOR THE SAME BECAUSE WE ARE A JUDICIAL BRANCH ENTITY AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH SHOULDN'T BE CONTROLLING THE DISCIPLINING OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS VIA THE POWER OF THE YOURS PURSE.

RIGHT.

IT WILL BE ENTIRELY UP TO THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR, I GUESS, IN NEGOTIATIONS AT THE END OF THE BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS.

THAT'S RIGHT.

I WOULDN'T HAVE A SEAT AT THAT TABLE.

RIGHT BUT AT LEAST THE BUDGET WE REQUESTED WOULD HAVE GONE IN AS WE ASKED FOR IT AND THEN THEY COULD DEAL WITH IT ON THE MERITS.

RIGHT.

THIS HAS PASSED THE SENATE.

SO WE'LL SEE WHERE IT ENDS UP IN THE ASSEMBLY.

BOB TEMBECKJIAN FROM THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU, DAN.

IT'S ALWAYS NICE TO BE HERE.

[ THEME MUSIC ] AND A REMINDER THAT NEXT WEEK IS THE LAST SCHEDULED WEEK OF THIS YEAR'S LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

SO WE'LL LET YOU KNOW IF THAT BILL AND ANYTHING ELSE IMPORTANT MOVES IN THE MEANTIME.

WE HAVE TO LEAVE IT THERE FOR THE WEEK.

THANKS FOR WATCHING THIS WEEK'S "NEW YORK NOW."

HAVE A GREAT WEEK AND BE WELL.

[ THEME MUSIC ] ANNOUNCER: FUNDING FOR "NEW YORK NOW" IS PROVIDED BY WNET.