Summary#
A-11703, “Relates to notice of transfer of sex offender to community program or residence,” would amend New York’s Mental Hygiene Law, not create a separate law. Its stated aim is advance notice when a person defined as a “sex offender” under the Correction Law is transferred to a community program or residence.
- The commissioner would have to notify the chief executive officer of the municipality where the program or residence is located.
- The commissioner would also have to notify the superintendent of the school district in which the facility is located.
- Both notices would have to be given at least 10 calendar days before the transfer.
- The bill is at the introduced stage. If enacted, it would take effect immediately.
What it means for you#
- Commissioner: Would have a new duty to give the two notices for a covered transfer.
- Municipal chief executives and school superintendents: Would receive notice before a covered transfer in their municipality or school district.
- People transferred: Their transfer would be reported to those officials. The bill does not give them a role in the notice process or require notice to the general public.
- Residents and school communities: The bill does not require notice to residents, parents, staff, or students.
Money#
No publicly available information on the bill’s cost.
- The bill requires the commissioner to provide notices, but gives no estimate of staffing or other costs.
What is unclear#
- The supplied materials do not include the current Mental Hygiene Law text, so I could not verify what notice rules already exist or identify the commissioner’s office.
- The bill does not explain what information a notice must contain or how it must be delivered.
- It gives no exception for a transfer with less than 10 days’ notice, and does not explain what happens if advance notice is not given.
- The bill does not define “community program or residence.” It refers to the Correction Law for the definition of “sex offender,” but that law was not supplied.
- Passage is uncertain because the bill is introduced and has not received an Assembly floor vote in the supplied record.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that advance notice gives municipal and school officials time to learn about a transfer before it occurs.
- The bill names specific local officials who must receive notice, rather than requiring a general public announcement.
- The 10-day minimum sets a clear notice deadline.
Case against#
- The bill does not say what officials are expected to do with the notice, or provide rules for handling the information.
- It does not set out exceptions, such as when a transfer cannot be planned at least 10 days ahead.
- The bill does not explain why these two officials are the required recipients or how the notice duty fits with existing rules.