Relates to requiring the fingerprinting of prospective employees of approved private special education schools; phases in a requirement that all fingerprints submitted by prospective employees and applicants for certification be electronically submitted; authorizes boards of cooperative educational services to conduct fingerprinting for non-component districts, special education schools, and applicants for certification; strengthens identification verification practices at fingerprinting sites for the purpose of conducting criminal history record checks and enhances existing statutory mechanisms to expedite the removal of persons who commit fingerprint fraud; makes permanent certain provisions.
NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A7443
SPONSOR: Nolan TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the education law, in relation to
requiring the fingerprinting of prospective employees of approved
private special education schools, phasing-in a requirement that all
fingerprints submitted by prospective employees and applicants for
certification be electronically submitted, authorizing boards of cooper-
ative educational services to conduct fingerprinting for non-component
districts, special education schools, and applicants for certification,
strengthening identification verification practices at fingerprinting
sites for the purpose of conducting criminal history record checks and
enhancing existing statutory mechanisms to expedite the removal of
persons who commit fingerprint fraud; and to amend chapter 147 of the
laws of 2001, amending the education law relating to conditional
appointment of school district, charter school or BOCES employees, in
relation to making permanent certain provisions relating to conditional
clearances for employment
PURPOSE OF THE BILL:
This bill would protect the health and safety of students with disabili-
ties who attend various special education schools in settings outside of
a public school district or board of cooperative educational services
(BOCES) by requiring fingerprinting and criminal history record checks
of prospective employees of these schools on the same basis as prospec-
tive employees of school districts, charter schools and BOCES.
The bill also expands access to fingerprinting sites by authorizing
BOCES to conduct fingerprinting for non-component districts, special
education schools, charter schools and applicants for certification. It
also better ensures fingerprint security and integrity by phasing in a
requirement that all fingerprints be electronically submitted to the
Department. By requiring electronic fingerprinting, the Department would
better reduce the opportunity for tampering because electronic finger-
prints are transmitted automatically to the Department via a secure
server, whereas "ink and roll" fingerprints are mailed. It also estab-
lishes minimum standards and procedures to be followed at fingerprint
sites to strengthen identification verification best practices at such
sites.
Further, the bill would amend the provisions of Article 23-B of the
Education Law relating to reporting, investigation or identification of
child abuse by persons in an educational setting to clarify that these
provisions apply to non-residential special education schools and
programs, but not to residential schools and programs already subject to
child abuse and neglect reporting under Title 6 of the Social Services
Law.
Finally, the bill enhances existing statutory and regulatory mechanisms
to expedite removal of persons who commit fingerprint fraud by allowing
an employee to be suspended without pay if he/she is convicted of a
felony crime involving the submission of false information, or the
commission of fraud, related to a criminal history record check.
SUMMARY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL:
Section 1 of the bill, would amend paragraphs a and b of subdivision 30
of section 305 of the Education Law to make the provisions that require
the Commissioner of Education to promulgate regulations for fingerprint-
ing prospective employees and develop forms relating to fingerprinting
and notices to employees applicable to prospective employees of special
education schools. These regulations would not apply to special educa-
tion schools located within the City of New York, which fingerprints
employees of special education schools that contract with the New York
City School District. This section and sections 9 through 12, 14, 15, 17
and 18 would amend Education Law §§ 1604(39)(a), 1790(39)(a),
1804(9)(a), 1950(4)(a), 2503(18)(a), 2554(25)(a), 2854(3)(a-2)(i) and
3004-b(1) to require prospective employees to be fingerprinted by
authorized personnel at designated fingerprinting entities approved by
the department, using electronic scanning. It also requires the Commis-
sioner to establish minimum standards and procedures for identification
verification to be followed at fingerprinting sites, including a
requirement that the prospective employee show two forms of identifica-
tion to authorized personnel, one of which shall be an official govern-
ment issued photo identification. The prospective employee must then
sign a sworn statement verifying his/her identity and the authorized
personnel must sign an affidavit, on a form prescribed by the Commis-
sioner, attesting that he/she verified the photo identification
presented and witnessed the employee's signature.
Section 2 of the bill would amend subparagraph (vii) of paragraph c of
subdivision 30 of section 305 of the Education Law to make the provision
requiring that an employee's fingerprinting records be destroyed 12
months after termination if the individual is not employed by another
public school also apply to employees of special education schools and
re-employment in such schools.
Section 3 of the bill would amend paragraph d of subdivision 30 of
section 305 to make the provision that requires the Commissioner to
develop forms to be completed by prospective employees when conditional
appointments or emergency conditional appointments are made also apply
to special education schools.
Section 4 of the bill would add a new paragraph (f) to subdivision 30 of
section 305 of the Education Law to define a 'special education school"
as a state school operated pursuant to Article 87 or 88 of the Education
Law (i.e., the State School for the Blind at Batavia and the State
School for the Deaf at Rome); a state-supported school operated pursuant
to Article 85 of the Education Law (i.e., a "4201 school"); an approved
private non-residential or residential school for students with disabil-
ities located within the state (i.e., a "Chapter 853 school"); or an
approved provider of preschool special education services or programs
(i.e., "4410 providers"). This term would not include a school or facil-
ity operated or licensed by another state agency unless the school or
facility is also an approved private school for students with disabili-
ties or an approved preschool provider.
Section 5 of the bill would amend subdivisions 3, 4, 5 and 6 of section
1125 of the Education Law to include non-residential special education
schools or programs within the definitions of "employee", "volunteer"
and "administrator" for the purposes of Article 23-B of the Education
Law relating to reporting, investigation or identification of child
abuse by persons in an educational setting. The bill would define
"non-residential special education school or program" as a non-residen-
tial state-supported school operated pursuant to article 85 and an
approved non-residential private school or preschool for the education
of students with disabilities.
The bill also would amend the definition of "educational setting" to
include non-residential special education schools or programs, and
exclude residential schools subject to mandatory reporting to the State-
wide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment pursuant to Title
6 of the Social Services Law.
Section 6 of the bill would amend subdivision 2 of section 1126 of the
Education Law to require that reports of child abuse by an employee or
volunteer of a non-residential special education school be forwarded to
the administrator of the school. The administrator of a nonresidential
special education school or program would be responsible for compliance
with the provisions of Article 23-B.
Section 7 of the bill would amend section 1128-a of the Education Law to
clarify that where a school administrator or a superintendent of schools
forwards a report prepared pursuant to section 1126 of the Education Law
to law enforcement, the report must also be submitted to the Commission-
er of Education if the employee or volunteer alleged to have committed
an act of child abuse holds a certification or license issued by the
department.
Section 8 would amend section 1133 of the Education Law to provide immu-
nity to any administrator who reasonably and in good faith reports to
law enforcement officials information regarding allegations of child
abuse.
Section 13 of the bill would add a new paragraph oo to subdivision 4 of
section 1950 of the Education Law to allow BOCES to process fingerprints
to be utilized in criminal history record checks for prospective employ-
ees of nonpublic elementary and secondary schools, special education
schools, non-component school districts and charter schools and for
applicants for teacher certification and for applicants for a charter as
a charter school. These services must be provided at cost and the BOCES
shall not be authorized to charge any costs incurred in providing such
services to its component school districts.
Section 16 and 16-a of the bill would amend subdivision 20 of section
2590-h of the Education law to clarify that the Chancellor is responsi-
ble for taking the fingerprints for licensure and/or employment of
personnel employed by a special education school that contracts with the
City School District of the City of New York.
Section 19 of the bill would amend paragraph b of subdivision 2 of
section 3020-a of the education law to allow an employee to be suspended
without pay if he/she is convicted of a felony crime involving the
submission of false information, or the commission of fraud, related to
a criminal history record check.
Section 20 of the bill would amend subdivision 1 of section 3035 of the
Education Law to make the provision that requires the Commissioner to
submit fingerprints to the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS)
with required processing fees and requires DCJS to submit the finger-
prints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for a criminal
records check also applicable to a special education school, except a
special education school located within the City of New York. It would
also only require the Commissioner to submit one set of fingerprints,
instead of two sets of fingerprints, except where otherwise necessary.
Section 21 of the bill would amend subdivisions 3 and 3-a of section
3035 of the Education Law to make the existing procedures for condi-
tional clearances and emergency conditional clearances apply to special
education schools, and would apply the due process procedures estab-
lished by section 50 of the Civil Service Law to prospective employees
of state schools under Article 87 and 88. The bill also would amend
subdivision 3-a of section 3035 to authorize the City of New York and
the Commissioner to share criminal history record information on employ-
ees of special education schools, and authorize the Division of Criminal
Justice Services to provide subsequent criminal history to the Commis-
sioner for employees of special education schools located outside New
York City and to the City of New York for special education schools that
contract with the New York City School District.
Section 22 of the bill would amend paragraph i of subdivision a of
section 4212 of the Education Law to require that applicants for employ-
ment by 4201 schools be fingerprinted in accordance with subdivision (d)
of such section.
Section 23 of the bill would add a new subdivision (d) to section 4212
of the Education Law to require fingerprinting of all prospective
employees of 4201 schools unless they have received clearance for
employment pursuant to sections 3035 or 3004-b of the Education Law
(i.e., through a public school or teacher certification) or section
599-cc or 1209-d of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (school bus drivers and
attendants) or by the City of New York pursuant to local law. The new
subdivision also would authorize the Commissioner to provide subsequent
criminal history notifications to the schools. The new subdivision would
authorize conditional appointments and emergency conditional appoint-
ments of prospective employees of such schools to the same extent and
under the same conditions as a board of education of a union free school
district pursuant to Education Law § 1709(39).
Sections 24 and 25 of the bill would amend paragraph (i) of subdivision
(a) of section 4314 of the education law and add a new subdivision (d)
to section 4314 of the Education Law to require fingerprinting of all
prospective employees of the State School for the Blind at Batavia
unless they have received clearance for employment pursuant to sections
3035 or 3004-b of the Education Law (i.e., through a public school or
teacher certification) or section 599-cc or 1209-d of the Vehicle and
Traffic Law (school bus drivers and attendants) or by the City of New
York pursuant to local law. The new subdivision also would authorize
conditional appointments and emergency conditional appointments of
prospective employees of such schools to the same extent and under the
same conditions as a board of education of a union free school district
pursuant to Education Law § 1709(39).
Sections 26 of the bill would amend paragraph i of subdivision a of
section 4358 of the Education Law to require that applicants for employ-
ment by the State School for the Deaf at Rome be fingerprinted in
accordance with subdivision (d) of such section.
Section 27 of the bill would add a new subdivision (d) to section 4358
of the Education Law to require fingerprinting of all prospective
employees of the State School for the Deaf at Rome unless they have
received clearance for employment pursuant to sections 3035 or 3004-b of
the Education Law (i.e., through a public school or teacher certif-
ication) or section 599-cc or 1209-d of the Vehicle and Traffic Law
(school bus drivers and attendants) or by the City of New York pursuant
to local law. The new subdivision also would authorize conditional
appointments and emergency conditional appointments of prospective
employees of this school to the same extent and under the same condi-
tions as a board of education of a union free school district pursuant
to Education Law § 1709(39).
Section 28 of the bill would amend paragraph a of subdivision 11 of
section 4403. of the Education Law to require that applicants for
employment by Chapter 853 schools be fingerprinted in accordance with
subdivision 23 of such section.
Section 29 of the bill would add a new subdivision 21 to section 4403 of
the Education Law to require fingerprinting of all prospective employees
of Chapter 853 schools unless they have received clearance for employ-
ment pursuant to sections 3035 or 3004-b of the Education Law (i.e.,
through a public school or teacher certification) or section 599-cc or
1209-d of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (school bus drivers and attend-
ants) or by the City of New York pursuant to local law. The new subdivi-
sion also would authorize the Commissioner to provide subsequent crimi-
nal history notifications to the schools. The new subdivision would
authorize conditional appointments and emergency conditional appoint-
ments of prospective employees of such schools to the same extent and
under the same conditions as a board of education of a union free school
district pursuant to Education Law § 1709(39). The new subdivision also
would clarify that it does not apply to an approved July and August
program under Education Law section 4408 that is operated by a school
district or BOCES.
Section 30 of the bill would add a new subdivision 9-e to section 4410
of the Education Law to require fingerprinting of all prospective
employees of 4410 providers unless they have received clearance for
employment pursuant to sections 3035 or 3004-b of the Education Law
(i.e., through a public school or teacher certification) or section
599-cc or 1209-d of the Vehicle and Traffic Law (school bus drivers and
attendants), or a valid clearance issued by the City of New York pursu-
ant to local law. The new subdivision also would clarify that individual
related service providers are responsible for submitting their own fing-
erprints prior to their inclusion on a list of related service providers
maintained by the municipality or board of education pursuant to subdi-
vision (9)(c) of section 4410). The new subdivision would authorize the
Commissioner to provide subsequent criminal history notifications for
its employees to the approved providers or to the City School District
of the City of New York. The new subdivision also would authorize condi-
tional appointments and emergency conditional appointments of prospec-
tive employees of such schools to the same extent and under the same
conditions as a board of education of a union free school district
pursuant to Education Law § 1709(39). The new subdivision would clarify
that it does not apply to an approved July and August program under
Education Law section 4408 that is operated by a school district or
BOCES. Finally, the new subdivision would authorize the Commissioner to
provide a copy of an, employee's clearance for employment or a denial of
clearance to each municipality that employs or has such an individual on
a list of related service providers.
Section 31 would amend section 12 of Chapter 147 of the Laws of 2001, to
ensure that the amendments made by Chapter 147 will be permanent and not
expire.
Section 32 requires the Commissioner of Education, in consultation with
the Department of Criminal Justice to conduct a study of the feasibility
and desirability of aligning the fingerprinting process used for crimi-
nal history record checks for employment in school districts and BOCES
and for certification as a teacher or administrator, to the statewide
vendor managed network administered by the Division of Criminal Justice
Services. It also requires the Commissioner of Education, in consulta-
tion with the Department of Criminal Justice to conduct a study of the
feasibility and desirability of establishing a fingerprinting system for
the licensure of professionals under Title VIII of the Education Law.
This section requires the Commissioner to submit a report to the Board
of Regents, the Governor and the Legislature no later than January 15,
2014, with recommendations, including appropriate actions that would
need to be taken to align the current fingerprinting process with the
statewide system and to estimate costs and/or savings associated with
movement to the statewide system.
Section 33 authorizes the Commissioner to promulgate any and all rules
and regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this bill.
Section 34 is the effective date of this bill.
STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL:
Over the past decade, several pieces of legislation have been enacted to
require prospective employees in various settings to be fingerprinted
for the purpose of conducting criminal history record checks. In each
case, the primary purpose of such legislation is either to protect chil-
dren or other vulnerable populations from exposure to individuals whose
criminal records indicate that they may pose a threat to the health and
safety of those in their custody or care or with whom they have direct
contact, or to protect valuable resources against the risk of theft.
Currently, however, there are gaps in the coverage of these criminal
history record cheek requirements and the protections they provide. This
bill seeks to address those gaps.
PHASING-IN REQUIREMENT FOR ELECTRONIC FINGERPRINTS:
Generally, fingerprints are collected across the state at school
districts, BOCES, colleges and universities, and law enforcement agen-
cies. Fingerprints are received by the Department in two formats: hard
cards containing fingerprints that are collected through the "ink and
roll" method and mailed, .and scanned fingerprint images captured on a
scanner and transmitted electronically via a server. All fingerprint
images are delivered by the Department to the state DCJS to conduct -a
state criminal history records check and to forward them to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for processing against their criminal
record repository.
The Department has taken steps to better ensure the security of finger-
prints in recent years by growing the number of fingerprints collected
electronically. Approximately 75 percent of fingerprints are collected
electronically, which reduces the opportunity for the integrity of fing-
erprints to be compromised.
While the vast majority of fingerprints received by the Department are
transmitted electronically, prospective employees and certificate appli-
cants continue to be able to submit fingerprints on cards using the "ink
and roll" method. This bill would phase-in electronic fingerprinting to
better reduce the opportunity for tampering because electronic finger-
prints are transmitted automatically to the Department via a secure
server, whereas "ink and roll" fingerprints are mailed.
EXPANDING ACCESS TO FINGERPRINTING SITES THROUGH THE USE OF BOCES:
The bill would also expand access to fingerprinting sites. Current law
limits the ability of BOCES to collect fingerprints to prospective
employees of component districts. In order to ensure broad access across
the state to electronic fingerprint technology, this bill allows BOCES
to process fingerprints to be utilized in criminal history record checks
for prospective employees of nonpublic elementary and secondary school,
charter schools, special education schools outside of New York and fing-
erprints for applicants for teacher or administrator certification and
for applicants for a charter as a charter school. The bill provides
protection to component school districts by requiring such services to
be paid at cost and prohibiting the BOCES from charging any costs
incurred in providing such services to its component school districts.
While the vast majority of fingerprints received by the Department are
transmitted electronically, prospective employees and certificate appli-
cants continue to be able to submit fingerprints on cards using the "ink
and roll" method. By requiring electronic fingerprinting, the Department
would reduce the opportunity for tampering because electronic finger-
prints are transmitted automatically to the Department via a secure
server, whereas "ink and roll" fingerprints are mailed
STRENGTHEN IDENTIFICATION VERIFICATION PROCEDURES AT FINGERPRINTING
SITES:
Although it is expected that fingerprinting sites around the state veri-
fy the identity of the people they fingerprint, there are no minimum
standards or procedures that must be followed. This bill establishes
minimum standards and procedures, including a requirement that all
applicants show at least two recognizable forms of identification at the
point of fingerprinting and to authorized personnel, including a picture
identification, to verify their identity and reduce the chance of fing-
erprint fraud. It requires the prospective employee to sign a sworn
statement prepared by the department, on form prescribed by the Commis-
sioner, verifying his/her identity. Authorized personnel will also be
required to take a photograph of the prospective employee and affix it
to the employee's signed, sworn statement. The authorized personnel will
also be required to sign an affidavit, on a form prescribed by the
Commissioner, attesting that he or she verified the photo identification
and that he/she witnessed the signature and processed the fingerprints
in accordance with the law and Commissioner's regulations. We expect
that these stringent identification verification requirements will
reduce fingerprint fraud, and in turn, promote the safety of the
students and faculty of schools across the State.
EXPANDING FINGERPRINTING REQUIREMENTS TO SPECIAL EDUCATION SCHOOLS:
Fingerprinting requirements were imposed on prospective employees of
school districts, BOCES and charter schools by Chapter 180 of the Laws
of 2000 as part of the Project SAVE initiative. This bill extends the
requirement of a criminal history record check to prospective employees
of the various types of publicly-funded schools that serve students with
disabilities placed by school district committees on special education
and committees on preschool special education. The City of New York
fingerprints employees of special education schools with which it
contracts, but there is no fingerprinting requirement for special educa-
tion schools located outside the City of New York that do not contract
with the New York City School District. Now that school districts, BOCES
and charter schools are required to fingerprint applicants for employ-
ment, and as more states impose fingerprinting requirements for school
employees, leaving special education students unprotected creates a
serious risk that individuals convicted of crimes such as sex offenses
involving children that would disqualify them from serving in public
schools will seek to be employed in schools that serve these students.
Students with disabilities are perhaps the most vulnerable student popu-
lation of all, and exposing them to the risk of abuse by individuals
with criminal histories involving physical or sexual abuse of children
is unconscionable.
The existing protections provided to students with disabilities are not
adequate. In addition, there is no adequate protection for students with
disabilities in non-residential schools. The provisions of Chapter 630
of the Laws of 2006 gave non-public elementary and secondary schools
access to fingerprinting on a voluntary basis, but it is not clear
whether Chapter 630 was intended to apply to residential and non-resi-
dential special education schools. Even if it is applicable, a voluntary
provision would not provide adequate protection for students with disa-
bilities.
In recognition of the costs and administrative burdens from imposing
fingerprinting requirements, this bill would follow the same measured
approach that was adopted for Project SAVE. Fingerprinting would be
imposed only prospectively; it would apply to new applicants for employ-
ment, not to existing employees. Instead of involving school districts
or BOCES in fingerprinting employees of other entities, the bill would
make the special education schools responsible for ensuring that their
prospective employees are fingerprinted and granted criminal clearance
by the Commissioner of Education. Duplication of fingerprinting require-
ments would be avoided to the extent practicable. However, there are
circumstances under which individuals who are fingerprinted and
subjected to a criminal history record check under other laws would not
be exempted by this bill because such other laws do not authorize an FBI
criminal history record check. For example, this bill would not provide
an exemption for individuals employed by approved providers under
section 4410 of the Education Law who have been fingerprinted under the
provisions of § 390-b of the Social Services Law applicable to day care
workers, because there is no provision for an FBI criminal history
record check under that statute. Once an individual would be given crim-
inal clearance after having been fingerprinted by a school district
pursuant to Education Law § 3035 or after they would have applied for a
teaching certificate or would be hired as a school bus driver or school
bus attendant, they would not need to be re-fingerprinted, Special
education schools located within the City of New York and individuals
who are employed by special education schools located outside of the
City of New York who receive clearance by the City of New York would
also be exempted. With these exceptions, the bill would track the exist-
ing requirements for criminal history record checks of prospective
school district employees, providing special education school prospec-
tive employees the same due process protections as school district
prospective employees.
Clarification of the provisions of Article 23-B of the Education Law
relating to child abuse in an educational setting as applied to special
education schools is also needed. The definition of an "educational
setting" in section 1125(5) includes not only a school building or
school bus, but also "any other location where direct contact between an
employee or volunteer and a child has allegedly occurred." Because the
definition of an "employee" in section 1125(3) includes an employee of a
contracted service provider where a school district contracts with a
special education school to provide services to a student, the literal
language of Article 23-B extends to special education schools as
contracted service- providers. Article 23-B, however, requires super-
intendents of schools and school district administrators to investigate
allegations of child abuse and report them to law enforcement. In the
case of a special education school, the superintendent of schools of the
school district will not be in the best position to investigate an inci-
dent as he or she will not have ready access to the information needed
to make a judgment that there is reasonable suspicion that an act of
child abuse involving an employee of the special education school has
occurred. The special education school may be located many miles from
the school district, and the superintendent will have no familiarity
with the employees of the special education school and no ability to
take swift action against an employee if an allegation is believed to be
founded. In the ease of a residential special education school, where
child abuse or neglect of a child in residential care is already report-
able to the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment
under the provisions of Title 6 of the Social Services Law, there is a
severe risk that an independent investigation by a school district would
interfere with and potentially compromise an investigation of alleged
abuse or neglect by the child protective services unit in the local
social services district. Title 6 of the Social Services Law requires
reporting of founded incidents to law enforcement, which makes applica-
tion of the protections of Article 23-B to a residential special educa-
tion school unnecessary.
This bill would address these issues by explicitly exempting residential
special education schools and programs from the requirements of Article
23-B of the Education Law, while providing greater protection for chil-
dren by explicitly making the provisions of Article 23-B applicable to
non-residential special education schools and programs. Incidents occur-
ring in nonresidential special education schools and programs are not
subject to reporting to the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse
and Maltreatment under the provisions of Title 6 of the Social Services
Law. Unless Article 23-B applies, there would be a gap in the protection
of students with disabilities against child abuse. This bill would
ensure that there would be no gap in the protection of these children,
while assigning responsibility for compliance with Article 23-B to the
school administrator of the special education school, rather than the
superintendent of schools of the contracting school district. The school
administrator of the non-residential special education school, defined
as the chief school officer, is in the best position to quickly investi-
gate and take appropriate action to protect the student when an incident
of child abuse occurs. The administrator should be held responsible for
investigating and reporting incidents to law enforcement in precisely
the same manner as a superintendent of schools is for incidents in a
school district school. A school administrator of a non-residential
special education school who fails to investigate or report an incident
of child abuse to law enforcement ought to be subject to the same crimi-
nal sanctions and risk of loss of certification that a superintendent of
schools would face in the same circumstance. This bill would protect
students with disabilities by placing responsibility for investigating
and intervening in cases of child abuse in a non-residential special
education school precisely where it belongs-with the chief school offi-
cer.
ELIMINATION OF BARRIERS TO REMOVAL OF PERSONS WHO COMMIT A FINGERPRINT
FRAUD:
Although there are mechanisms in law to expedite the removal of school
district personnel that commit certain crimes, there are no provisions
to expeditiously address actions related to fingerprint fraud. This bill
provides that an employee may be suspended without pay if an employee
has been convicted of a felony crime involving the submission of false
information, or the commissioner of fraud, related to a criminal history
record check.
BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS OF THE BILL:
The Department will evaluate the costs of implementing new fingerprint-
ing requirements for special education schools and may request addi-
tional funding in the 2014-2015 budget to support implementation of
these reforms.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
In 2009, the language relating to special education school fingerprint-
ing language was introduced in the Senate as S.3294. S.3294 was
referred to the Senate Education Committee and no further action was
taken. An identical bill was introduced in the Assembly as A.6369, and
was referred to the Assembly Education Committee. No further action was
taken.
In the 2008 and 2007 legislative session the special education school
fingerprinting language was introduced as A. 8681 and 5.5774. A.8681 was
referred to the Assembly Education Committee and no further action was
taken. S. 5774 passed the Senate, was referred to the Assembly Education
Committee and no further action was taken.
In 2006, a similar bill relating to special education schools was intro-
duced as S.5432, passed the Senate and was referred to the Assembly
Education Committee and no further action was taken. Another similar
bill, S.4018, was introduced in the Senate, and referred to the Senate
Finance Committee. A similar bill, A. 11908, was introduced in the
Assembly, referred to the Assembly Education Committee and no further
action was taken. Similar bills were also introduced as S. 4985-A for
2003-2004 and A. 10971 for 2004.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act would take effect on the 180th day after it becomes a law. The
Commissioner's authority to promulgate any regulations needed to imple-
ment the act on the effective date would take effect immediately. The
provisions of sections 1 through 4, 18 through 20, and 22 through 28 Of
this act shall apply to prospective employees of special education
schools who are appointed on or, after the effective date, to individual
providers of preschool related services who are placed on lists main-
tained by the municipality pursuant to subdivision 9 of section 4410 of
the Education Law on and after the effective date. The amendments to
subdivision 5 of section 1125 would take effect on the same date and in
the same manner as section 1 of Part E of Chapter 501 of the Laws of
2012. The provisions of section 16 of this act would expire and be
deemed repealed in accordance with subdivision 12 of section 17 of chap-
ter 345 of the laws of 2009. If sections 1-a, 2, 3 and 4 of Part E of
Chapter 501 of the Laws of 2012 shall not have taken effect by the
effective date of this act, the amendments to sections 22, 24, 26 and 28
of this bill shall take effect on the same date and in the same manner
as the respective sections of Part E of Chapter 501 of the Laws of 2012
takes effect.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nicolas Storelli-Castro Director of Governmental Relations State Educa-
tion Department (518) 486-5644
