From WXXI news.

This is connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

Well, this is the fourth in our series of conversations with your elected leaders talking about the recently passed New York state budget.

The budget of more than $270 billion passed just before the end of May, nearly two months late.

And some of the most contentious fights happened within the Democratic Party.

But there were plenty of issues that had haven't gotten lawmakers attention on all sides.

And some of them were in the budget, some outside.

And should New York State bar Ice agents from wearing masks while doing their duties?

Should data centers be barred in the state or at least be on moratorium?

We'll talk about health care.

We'll talk about child care.

We'll talk about all kinds of things.

My guest this hour is the assembly member from district number 136.

Sarah Clark is back with us.

Thank you for being back with us.

Nice to see you.

Thank you for having me.

And if we were not on YouTube, I would start somewhere else.

But because some of our audience is on YouTube, they might notice that you have a different style today.

I do.

I had one of those, life changing moments post session.

So, you know, a lot of us who are in Albany, January to June schedule all our, our, appointments or medical appointments when we get back because we're home finally, during the week.

And so I had, you know, my normal mammogram scheduled, in early June and, ended up being diagnosed with breast cancer.

So that sort of changed the trajectory of my whole summer.

And, and has, you know, I feel like we're we're also a little bit of shock, but, already in treatment and, now wearing really cool skater caps because that's my that's where I like it.

I don't know, I'm trying to figure out the scarf type thing, but we'll see.

Fashion is always difficult during chemo, having had loved ones go right through it.

I mean, I've certainly seen it.

I don't want to, I'm not going to belittle or make trite comments.

I know it's I know it sucks.

I mean, I guess people will want to know how you're feeling.

Yeah.

You know, it changes, the regiment, of my treatment, it it has its ebbs and flows right where sometimes you feel better, and sometimes you really don't feel good at all.

It hasn't changed.

My, my just, you know, it's an adjustment, right?

So there are days where it's just really hard to to do a lot, but we, But the workaholic in me tells myself to rest.

But, we're figuring it out.

And there are days where I do feel great, and I feel okay.

Obviously losing my hair is always a little emotional, but there are so many women, I can't even tell you the number of survivor stories I've heard.

Anyone everyone is so willing to share.

And it has been, you feel really a big part of a huge, group of really strong women who have gone through this.

It's recommitted my thoughts on health care access and how, you know, I, I think of people who have huge deductible plans and they get a diagnosis like this, and they have to come up with $20,000 before they can start treatment or things like that.

Like, those are the things that run through my head, because I feel very privileged to have some of the best health care, have some of the best doctors in Rochester.

We are so blessed, with the Pluto Center and other places, to care for us, and treat us.

And so, yeah.

So right now, today, I feel great.

So we'll take that as it is.

And, I'm excited to be here and talk about lots of things happening at the state level.

But honestly, if I can motivate one person to go get a mammogram, I will feel like, I have accomplished a lot today.

Let me just ask you a couple brief things about this, and then we're going to get away from this, okay?

Just briefly, because you say if you can motivate someone to go get a mammogram, this mammogram that you had in early June was not the first you've had in 5 or 10 years.

First.

Yeah.

I mean, I guess the.

Previous one was a year ago, right?

Yep.

Yep.

So you went from free and clear a year ago to this diagnosis.

Yep.

To I mean, this is so cliche, but that had to be shocking.

It I think it adds to the shock.

Right.

And for those of who have gotten mammograms, you sort of know the process and the so when you're there and all of a sudden you're not going into the room where they quickly tell you it's nothing and go home, or they're asking for a follow up, you all, you know, it starts to sink in that there's something happening.

Yeah.

So to have it happen over the course of a year, to change so much and, and be such a, you know, an aggressive form and, and all the different things.

I, I would say I'm, you know, a month into treatment and I'm still in shock, so.

Okay.

And, but the prognosis is pretty good, right?

I mean, breast cancer has a lot of weight behind it.

Research, treatments, you know, the like I said, the the survivor allyship and stories are real.

It it has for many, many women just become a journey to get through.

Right.

It's not easy.

It's not fun.

It takes a huge toll on your body.

But, you know, it is.

It is a long way from the death sentence that it ever used to be.

And, it is.

So there is a lot of hope.

Right?

And it had a lot, a lot of hope.

And it has.

You had you thinking about health care access it.

More than anything.

You know, I really shouldn't I, I well I mean I should it is my job.

But, you know, in moments like this, it's get better, fight it, do the things.

But, it also makes you think about the privilege you have to have top tier access to health care and, and, doctors and medical teams.

And it always makes me think of those.

We talk a lot about health care.

And, you know, people are still really struggling.

You see what the changes at the federal level have done to people's premiums.

30% of people have dropped off, you know, what was considered Obamacare in the ACA?

I mean, these are people now that don't have health insurance or have high deductible plans.

And I can't even imagine getting a diagnosis like this.

And, and, and having access to care or treatment being a barrier.

Well, I can speak for the connections audience, even the ones who don't like your politics, because I know that everybody is going to be sending prayers and vibes and good thoughts your way.

Although like you say, you are in great hands, so.

I am in good.

But I'll take all the good juju, all the good prayers, everything, I love it.

Sarah Clark is an assembly member from district number 136.

My guest talking about this.

Well, you've been in an office six years.

Six years.

The latest budget in your six years?

Yes.

Was it your fault specifically, or was it 100%?

I know, To take me through the process because your colleagues who've been on this program have described getting used to.

Maybe the budget didn't get done April 1st.

Maybe it's a weekly maybe it's maybe it's almost a month late.

Two months late.

Made it really hard to legislate, get to get work done in the session.

So take me through the process as you saw it and why it was late.

Yeah.

You know, I think there is a lot of dynamics behind the budget that aren't just about funding things.

Particularly between the governor and the legislature.

And that is not just Kathy Hochul.

That is every governor who's sat in that position.

Because it is an opportunity to, you know, the rest of the year, we're passing bills that the governor may or may not like, and she's deciding whether or not to sign them.

The budget is sort of that one opportunity for her to really say, these are some of my legislative priorities.

And, so it became a lot of that negotiation and not a lot of negotiation around money.

I think there's this was a frustrating year.

I think having to go two months was sort of really got to the point where we were all very, very frustrated, including, you know, in leadership in the legislature.

And I think there's been some hope that the learning is we can do both, right.

We can negotiate legislation and the budget at the same time.

We don't have to hold up an entire budget while we iron out differences around legislative or policy ideas.

You know, we're all we're in the majority in the Assembly and in the Senate.

We're all of the same party.

We should be able to sort of negotiate those two at the same time.

And it is my hope that next year that is what we will do.

And again, as people have expressed here, it just made it for a very short window on some of what we we didn't get a lot of things done that I really would have loved to have gotten done.

And we'll talk about that coming up here.

Should there be a mechanism that forces some kind of an action on the budget at some point in the process, be great.

If there was, you know, it's hard, right?

Because part of why we're in this is the lawsuit, the Pataki Silver years ago, that really gave the governor a lot more power, in the budget process than too much power.

I would say yes.

But, you know, the governor may not say yes.

I think too much power, but it's a it's the sort of law we have to abide by.

And so I don't see a mechanism by which we could force it without the governor being on board.

To change the process.

And I don't see that happening.

It is just my hope that for good governance reasons, we all figure out a better process to do this.

So that is my that's my hope.

What didn't get addressed or done because things got so squeezed that really frustrated.

I mean, one bill that we really left on the table that has been weighing on me for years is the, the Plastic Reduction Act.

I mean, we've been trying to do this for years now.

And, Chair Glick, who is retiring this year, she's chairing the Environmental Conservation Committee.

And she holds the bill and has made a lot of amendments to it.

And I'm not saying it's in a perfect place right now, but, you know, when you talk about the environment, you talk about things like that.

We have to end the amount of plastic that comes into our lives every day.

And the only way you do it is go up chain, you know, up the chain to the to the producing of it, and it's showing up in your house, in your packaging and all the things.

Is this producer responsibility act stuff.

Okay, okay.

Yeah.

So that was a big one that I feel like if we'd had a little more time, we might have been able to get over the finish line.

You know, I think there were other things related to stuff we tackled around surveillance, pricing and even childcare and, you know, I had, one of those scope of practice bills for our lovely chiropractors that I think if I had a little more time, we would have been able to get over the finish line to finally update their scope of practice after 60 years of not having one.

Tell me about that.

What does that mean?

So the higher ed committee and the state ed department, they have a, department within them called the professions Department.

And that's where all your certifications and your licensors.

But within all of that is what's called the scope of practice.

So every profession in the state of New York has a scope of practice.

And basically it it tells you what you can and can't do within the scope of your profession.

And chiropractors who have evolved over the last 60 years have not had an updated scope since 1964, 63.

And so we've been working really hard to to so what what they do instead is they go to the State Department and they get these guidance letters as they evolve in their I mean, technology changes.

So many things have changed in 60 years.

So they work under what is called these sort of letters from the State Department.

But it's not codified.

So we've been trying to do that, but they're really hard to do.

Scope of practice.

Bills are really hard because it's all a puzzle piece of our health care world of who does what, when, where, and so sometimes other folks don't want one prac, one, profession to have a change because it might infringe on their profession.

And so it's always a delicate balance.

But we were really the closest we've ever been, to passing it.

And I was hoping as someone who, sees the benefits of what chiropractors do and understanding that we owe it to them to, to update their profession.

Okay.

So let me ask about a few of the things that have been in the headlines here.

I'm ready.

So New York State is moving to bar enforcement officers, including ice, from wearing masks in public.

The Trump administration is trying multiple legal avenues to to block that and to, make sure that Ice can keep wearing masks.

And Ice is not happy about this.

Tell me, first of all, about the motivation.

Did you support that move?

Well, I and I will say so, you know, when the horrific shootings of the two state legislators in Minnesota happened?

Yeah, a couple of years ago.

You know, we all, of course, were very, very concerned.

We gathered the governor gathered, call with, you know, the troopers in the, her agencies, her emergency management, and the legislators.

And we had this whole conversation because if you remember, in that shooting, the the guy that came to the door pretended to be a law enforcement officer and one of the things that we kept being told over and over again is any any law enforcement officer, regardless of their local, state or federal, should identify themselves.

You should be able to see who they are, and you should be able to ask why they're there, and they should have some record or reason or official, whatever it may be.

And we kept saying, but that's not what's happening with ice.

Ice.

It's not telling people who they are.

They're not showing their identity.

They're not showing up with warrants.

And how do we protect the safety of people when that's not happening, when that's clearly what should be happening?

When it comes to law enforcement.

And so I think there was a lot not to mention, you know, the stories that we've heard where sometimes you could be confused whether someone's a law enforcement officer or just sort of a rogue vigilante or someone who's just trying to get involved in a situation they shouldn't.

And if we're going to live in a free and free democracy, then we should expect that our law enforcement officers and those who who serve in that capacity are doing so freely in a way that they are identified, that we understand we are always an innocent before, you know, before being.

Guilty.

Proven guilty.

That is the tenement of our Constitution and our country.

And I just, I don't know constitutionally how it will hold up again, because we're telling federal officers what they can and can't do in the state of New York.

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't I don't know where it will end, but it was the right thing to do for the safety of all concerned.

I think I want to tell you what a couple of your Republican colleagues have said to me about this, and they gave different reasons for opposing this.

Assembly member Andrea Bailey said that she she said she admitted that she would not know how she would react if she were approached by a masked and armed officer of the law.

She said she didn't know in that moment how that would feel.

But she wants New York State to maintain good relationships with federal partners, and if they want to mask, we shouldn't tell them they can't mask because that could inflame the relationship.

What do you what do you make of that?

I mean, I would take sort of the, the flip end of that.

I think we have to tell them not to mask because it's better for our communities.

I think we're all safer when those who have the responsibility.

It is a huge responsibility to be a law enforcement officer of any level in our communities.

And ensuring that that is done with accountability, with transparency, with, you know, the community at heart, it is the most important thing is how we stay safe is how even Ice agents stay the most safe.

So, I just I can't say to not to to say no.

No, like, you guys know better when clearly.

I mean, if you look at the last few months and what's happened with Ice agents and the deaths of innocent people, how we put our trust in that instead of the trust and what we know, I just don't I don't see it that way.

Okay.

And, Assembly member Josh Jensen said that he is concerned about doxing about, you know, Ice agents are kind of in the middle of a political storm.

And there have been reports of, you know, some attempted doxing of various kinds.

What do you think it is?

It's sort of saying we've had two state legislators killed in Minnesota, so I should be able to hide my identity, and I should be able to not tell people who I mean.

These we we as a society, we as a community, have to figure out how to keep everyone safe and hopefully build out that, relationship with our communities.

And I think that that is incumbent upon law enforcement and communities to find that partnership.

These are public service jobs.

These are not, you know, authoritarian things.

And so, you know, I understand the world we live in and where doxing has come from, but we cannot put the communities, safety in jeopardy.

Over this like that, to me, is sacrosanct.

And the most important thing, given sort of the tenements of our Constitution, the tenements of of of who we want to be as a country.

Talking to Assembly Member Sarah Clarke from district number 136.

And if you want to call the program, it's toll free.

844295 talk.

It's 8442958255263 WXXI.

If you call from Rochester 2639994, you can email the program connections at KCI dawg.

Connections at Dawg.

You can join the chat if you're watching on YouTube.

Okay, before I get to some other stuff here, Jim writes in to ask, what are the functions of the Assembly's Committee on Codes?

It doesn't seem to have a subject matter function such as housing or health.

Is it a place to send bills?

The leadership wants to kill?

Well, having gotten two bills out of codes this year, I wouldn't say that's 100% true.

It does have any time.

Your instituting a new fine or a new rule.

It goes through a rule that has some sort of, enforcement piece to it.

It goes through codes.

Yeah.

Codes is one of those strange committees of jurisdiction.

It actually does do a lot around, within the sort of criminal justice system.

It goes hand in hand with corrections and, and judiciary.

So, you know, I have a bill that changes ratios for childcare at home providers.

And it had to go through codes, right, because it's an enforcement, bill that would change how we enforce, ratios for child care providers.

So, yeah, there are a lot of bills.

My, lethality assessment bill went through codes, to change how we respond to domestic violence.

So anytime you're sort of changing that a way we enforce a rule, it goes to codes.

Not always today.

Sometimes maybe, but not always.

That was a really interesting and wonky question, by the way.

It was, I wonder, like, who's paying attention?

I know, I know, I love it, I like that one.

I also want to ask you about data centers and, the state moratorium on data centers.

So, first question is, are you in favor of the moratorium on data centers?

We definitely needed a pause.

I, I you know, obviously the governor has done an executive order that doesn't do quite as much as what we passed.

And I still know that the bill we passed is the many other pieces of it are still around.

For her to look at and aren't, aren't totally off the table, but I think for multiple reasons, you know, I joined the Energy Committee two years ago because I really want to be part of these conversations as we figure out our energy, future rate and what that looks like.

And I again, firmly believe that moving to clean and renewable energy will be better for us, you know, through the environment, but also through, ensuring that we have the energy capacity that we need and will ultimately lower rates for everybody.

It's the how, right?

How do we get there?

How do we do it without the full panic everyone gets when they open their utility bill right now?

And so we have these utility challenges on cost and supply right now, adding data centers into the mix, even if they build out their own infrastructure, is still going to put a huge, huge pressure on our our supply side.

And we don't have an answer.

And these local communities where they're going don't have the answer and they need a little more guidance.

We need a better plan.

We need to understand this.

And we need to give those local communities tools to ensure they're protected.

If they choose to move forward with a data center, I think taking a pause for a year, there was a lot in it to really ensure that when the moratorium is up, that there is a real plan and that there are real tools and there are answers to questions, I mean, people that come to us, come to my office, they ask questions.

I don't know the answer.

And I think it's two.

It's too important to to not get it wrong.

Yeah.

So this is what I said to some of your Republican colleagues who criticized as much moratorium.

There is nothing that I've ever seen that is moving as fast as well.

I especially, which is, of course, related to data centers.

But also the question on whether I should be regulated and how and who and it is moving so fast.

And yet you as an elected leader, you're being asked to explain it sometimes to the public or talk about what should be regulated when you're just trying to learn it.

Right?

We're trying to learn it in the communications business.

And by the time I learn anything, something is changed.

It's really moving fast.

So I said, you know, like, look at the polling.

Pew research has new polling on this.

That's a month old.

It's like 68% of Americans or something like it's in the high 60s.

Think that AI is moving too fast.

Only 13% think the pace is appropriate.

And very small numbers of Americans, when polled, say they think AI is going to make society better in their lives.

Better.

So it's not popular.

People think it's moving way too fast.

Why not a moratorium?

And what your Republican colleagues have said is, if we're going to do that, that should be at the federal level because of New York State sits it out.

Other states are in now.

We're losing to other states.

And you can't stop this thing.

What do you think?

Are we losing, I mean, or are those states going to end up losing because they don't have a plan either?

I mean, I, everything I've seen from every state, even some of the most red states, are having communities kind of freak out about this.

Now, there's a few that are very unregulated, and there's not much you can do to stop, data centers.

But, you know, in places even in the Midwest, and we're seeing more and more communities sort of say, whoa, you know, it's vastly unpopular.

There's not a lot of good answers when it comes to I mean, my kids are very savvy.

They they are learning all the tools and how to use AI and all those different things.

But for me, as someone who actually likes to write my press releases and likes to write my posts and enjoys the process, of of doing these things, I get very worried about the effects of AI on jobs and careers and, and where are we sort of racing to the bottom here instead of racing to the top?

I mean, do you think AI is going to make society better.

AI in some ways, but I again, I think you need if you can, you know, crunch medical data on a diagnosis along with a person.

Sure.

But if you're replacing the person, I think we're in real danger.

And that's where I just don't feel like we have, you know, even, not to bring it into politics, but you know, we've passed that you have to be very clear when something's AI generated.

And I have seen a whole host of people out there doing AI generated work and not, you know, not putting that disclaimer.

Absolutely.

And I think that that's it confuses people and people don't understand.

And it it used to be that if you read it, you would think it's true.

And as the internet has become what it has, people somewhat now are not believing what they necessarily read.

Absolutely.

But videos and pictures, it's really hard to, bring that and.

Yeah.

And they spread so fast.

Yeah.

So to your point, it's one thing if a song is an AI generated song and you don't know it and it's on your Spotify list and you kind of like it and you stream it a little bit and then you go, oh, you know, I didn't know that was I don't want to support AI art, but it's not the end of the world, but it's not great.

It's another if if I generated video is quickly convincing thousands or millions of people online that something catastrophic is real when it's not, or somebody said something, Sarah Clarke said something Barack Obama said something.

Donald Trump said something that they didn't say or do.

And it just goes, goes, goes.

So my question is the can you actually regulate that?

And when you talk about often or labeling it, can you regulate it?

I mean, again, it's who enforces and who has the teeth.

And ultimately I think that will be the question we as a state have in this goes to the whether the state does it.

I would love a lot of national guidance around AI data centers, health care.

I'd love a lot of that.

But in the absence of it, states like New York, California, big states where they are grappling with these same issues and and realizing that more needs to be done by us leading it does change narratives, conversations, even in other states, even at the National level, because we're such big economies, because we're such, you know, important pieces of, you know, we are both clearly huge donor states that have huge tax spaces that pay for a lot in the federal government.

So I, I think abdicating that responsibility to a completely dysfunctional federal government is a cop out.

And the other thing that your Republican colleagues have said is roughly 12 months ago, Governor Hochul in New York state said, you know, they want to be Silicon Valley of AI and want to be open for business.

And then all of a sudden you get this moratorium and they they contradict each other.

Do you see any contradiction?

You know, obviously, she kept a lot of the research AI piece, which is where she sees the Silicon Valley drive.

Right?

Because it's really based in these research, entities, in our universities and colleges.

And, and that wasn't touched by the moratorium.

Agree, disagree.

So I do think you can do those two things at the same time.

Okay.

Yeah.

I mean, maybe your kids feel different about you.

You said your kids are good at using stuff and they're good, but we we.

Had some heated discussions about it all.

I'm I'm always fascinated by what teenagers are learning that more quickly than I am learning.

But, we'll keep asking the questions and people can decide for themselves if they think AI is moving too quickly or data centers are moving too quickly, or what?

What's going on here?

But this 12 month moratorium looks like it's going to last, right?

Yes, yes.

I mean, with her executive order, obviously there's not been action yet on AI legislation, but even with just the executive order we want, we got a year to to figure this out.

Okay.

So let's, let's take this only break of the hour.

We're going to come back with Assembly Member Sarah Clark from district number 136.

We'll take more of your questions, comments, feedback.

And we're going to talk about a couple of other issues that are important to the Assembly member, including, child care, capacity expansion legislation, and more.

So let's go ahead and take that break and we'll come right back.

Coming up in our second Our Connection summer sessions focus on love, friendship and relationships.

This week and this hour, we're talking about the boys.

There's all kinds of research showing that boys and young men are really struggling with depression, with loneliness, suicidal ideation and more.

And there are questions about what masculinity means, especially in the broader culture right now.

We'll talk about that next hour.

Support for your public radio station comes from our members and from Bob Johnson Auto Group.

Believing an informed public makes for a stronger community.

Proud supporter of connections with Evan Dawson focused on the news, issues and trends that shape the lives of listeners in the Rochester and Finger Lakes regions.

Bob Johnson Auto group.com.

This is connections.

I'm Evan Dawson, Assembly member.

Sarah Clark is my guest.

And Andrew and around the quit on the phone.

Hey Andrew go ahead.

Hey you guys.

Hey, Sarah, what do you think about safe, small nuclear power that's, environmentally friendly.

So I, you know, I haven't.

I want to learn more.

Obviously, I live in the Maplewood neighborhood of Rochester, and one of the applications right now in the governor's, nuclear plans, is one at the Kodak Park, which is just down the street from me.

And so obviously, that's brought a lot of attention to this and a lot of questions and a lot of, other things.

You know, when we took Indian Point off off the grid, we had no plan to to replace it.

And why did they take us?

Why did they take nuclear?

Who, who why would.

That was a foolish thing to do.

It was a couple of years.

I mean, I it's in Westchester.

I don't know all the details, but I think it had a lot to do with the high density population area that it was around and the endpoint and the ability to evacuate safely.

If there was ever, issues there.

But I think, you know, a lot's changed in nuclear technology.

We're trying to learn more about what these small, what this would look like, how you make insure safety of community.

But it has shown to be a very clear, good generator of power that would, you know, not have some of the reliability issues we have with some renewables like wind and solar.

And, you know, if you look at other countries who have gone completely carbon free, nuclear is is a piece of it.

So we're we're trying to learn more about what that would mean.

I mean, I guess my biggest concern is that's a ten year plan, right?

What do we do over the next ten years?

What is what is what do you mean by the ten year.

To build it to build that would take ten years.

What the putting them up in two years in Saudi Arabia.

Well they have different rules okay.

So that last point there, that is one that I hear often, which is a lot of supporters of nuclear either don't believe or are challenging the idea that it really is a decade, like.

Yeah, I mean, and.

You're saying it.

Is current infrastructure, okay.

Approvals and process, I mean, from our understanding is that's how long it would take to build should.

It be faster?

I guess I still have a few more questions to make sure the safety, is addressed.

And what that would look like, what you know, and also why it takes ten years.

Is it just a paperwork issue?

I mean, we ultimately going to get to the same place in ten years that we would if we built it in two, and it's just a matter of going through the process?

Or are there real, legitimate benchmarks and things that need to be met along the way before we get there?

I those I don't have a good answer.

So energy a couple other sort of related things.

And in general, do you think nuclear has any momentum to do more in the state right now?

I mean, the governor has thrown some hefty weight behind it.

She's obviously put out a bunch of application requests for applications, including the one that we know has been submitted at Eastman Business Park.

I, I feel like that's a big piece of where she thinks we can generate the power.

We've had other huge projects sort of shuttled, and, by the federal administration, including offshore wind, which would have been huge downstate.

And so it's sort of like we don't have a choice, right?

We we we we're running out of time to have a plan.

And if nuclear's a piece of it and we can do all these things to ensure safety and, and also get to a point where it's happening soon, we can't wait on generation.

But I also I think it's a piece I think there's a lot we can do around power generation.

Okay.

Do you think we're ever going to see the fracking ban lifted or revisited?

No.

And when it comes to solar, some of your Republican colleagues have said they are opposed to the larger scale industrial size on farmland that we're seeing.

How where are you on that?

So Cornell just did that study.

I don't know if it's been brought up, but what what was actually found is that a lot of farms moved to large solar projects in order to maintain farm use of their land.

It is a way to offset huge costs that they're bearing right now to keep their farm operational.

It's actually helping the farm stay in business, not taking it out of business.

I mean, that's what the Cornell report found.

Now, we could do more.

And it only looked, you know, at a few different counties in a few different places.

So I do think it's something we need to look at.

Just to really see that the, the details and what's happening.

But generally if you are a huge a big farm and you put in solar and that helps offset some costs to ensure that you can stay operational, I think that's a win win.

Now, does it mean we shouldn't be putting solar on every parking lot and every roof and every other place that we're not right now?

As my dream, of course.

So should be top priorities.

Any dead space where we are not putting solar right now is waste.

And, I think that's part of our challenge as we continue through this.

And I just want to say this about solar when we had last year during June last June, not this June, we had a really bad heat wave, similar actually to the one we just had a few weeks ago.

Solar saved us personal solar.

Solar on people's homes is the reason the grid was able to stay fully functional.

It is a good thing.

Solar is a really powerful piece of the equation and we're just not deploying it enough.

So I think we can do both.

I again, I think maybe we need to look a little more firmly.

We don't want to lose, you know, our ability to grow and do make sure our farms have what they need.

But at the same time, I think sometimes solar is helping them, not hurting them.

All right.

Next on the phone in Rochester, this is Monty.

Hey, Monty.

Go ahead.

Hello.

Earlier in the show, you were talking about chiropractors.

I have asked a couple of insurance representatives, and they've told me they don't cover it because chiropractors aren't doctors.

I thought they, you know, they used.

They used to be.

What happened?

Well, I don't know, because, insurance covers a lot of people that aren't doctors.

They cover physical therapists, they cover, occupational therapy, they cover nurses, they cover nurse practitioners.

So that's a new one for me.

I don't know, but I do know their scope needs definitely to be updated and professionalized.

I do know there are insurances like cover chiropractor, so it might be an individual, not a, a whole thing across the industry.

But they are health professionals, so they should have a billing code and be able to, recoup insurance.

For the most part.

I know they're covered under Medicaid, so.

Okay.

Does that help, Marty?

Okay, yes it does.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you very much.

You, Tess emails to say please share my appreciation for Sarah's outstanding constituent services.

I had a confusing tax audit from New York State.

I was unable to get to the root of the problem.

Through my correspondent to the New York State Department of Taxation.

After I reached out to Sarah, her office put me in touch with the right person at the department who solve my problem in minutes.

Oh my gosh, what are my favorite stories?

I. Mean, that's like the nuts and bolts day to day work, right?

I love it, by constituent services, having been in this business 20 years on the federal side and now six on the state, it is solving some, you know, people often call us after they've tried a lot of other ways to solve their issue.

And, when we can help, it makes my day so bright.

I will also say plenty of love for Sarah, who, the, Assembly member just disclosed earlier this hour that she has a breast cancer diagnosis.

She is in treatment.

And so, disclosing publicly today that you're going through treatment.

Prognosis is good, but it's going to be hard and a lot of love coming in for you.

Oh, I love it.

And I know you feel it.

I know you're feeling that from the public.

This may not be in your area here, but I'll read.

Dalia.

Dalia, says is, And the Seneca Falls landfill.

Is that something that comes up in the budget, or is that dealt with somewhere else?

And what's the most recent information I've heard that it keeps, keeps on going.

At least as the landfill owners want it to keep growing.

And are those landfill owners locally?

So Seneca Falls is outside of your district?

It is outside.

You know, obviously, like I mentioned with the, the plastics bill, one of the issues is our landfill capacity.

And so there are sort of those broader conversations, but what actually happens with a specific landfill like that, whether or not it's extended in its, ability to expand or continue and for a few more years past its original permit, those are all decided locally with the state.

You know, there's sort of a local decision to say yes, and then they pull it up to the state.

It's hard for the state to say no, as long as they're meeting all the other, rules and regulations.

So that is somewhat local.

I do know the Assembly member out there is not rerunning, and the, one of the candidates is a Seneca meadows employee who is running now.

So that will be an interesting conversation, I think, in that race.

But we we're going to have a garbage issue.

I mean, we already sort of do.

But on all the great euphemisms out there, isn't Seneca meadows a great one?

It sounds like a place you'd want to retire to.

Seneca.

Seneca meadows of.

Seneca meadows.

Until.

The fragrant.

Aromas.

Get off the Thruway and look at every garbage truck from New York City.

Barreling down with things flying off of it and very stinky.

And it was.

I heard it was either going to be Seneca meadows or Gargantuan trash mound.

Yes.

And they went with Seneca meadows.

Yeah, it's too bad.

Okay, so I want to talk to you about, a headline from your office.

I know you worked with Senator Brouk passing child care capacity expansion legislation.

How does this work?

What's going on?

So, you know, this is legislation that would sort of even up the rules on ratios in terms of how many kids you can watch at what age with adults.

For our home based providers to be equal to that of our center based providers, I will say, full disclosure, the governor vetoed this bill last year, but we still believe and have had some conversations that even maybe not in its exact form, that we passed this year, that there should be.

So basically at 18 months, if you are an 18 month old child and you are in a center based child care setting, you, you're considered a toddler in a home based setting.

For the next eight, from 18 months to two years, you're still considered an infant.

So the ratios are different in terms of how many adults have to be with how many kids.

And we are one of two states that still have this sort of antiquated ratio, for home based providers.

We've been trying to really make the case that, you know, maybe there's a way to say I think safety is the big issue, right?

Ensuring that if you have kids between 18 and 2 who may not be walking yet or whatever, that you could still safely insure, An emergency and the designation of 18 months to two as an infant means that you need more people caring.

You need it's 3 to 1, like a 3 to 1 ratio.

Right?

So you can only have 3 or 4.

Yeah.

And so I think I hear what you're saying is you acknowledge the desire for safety at that age.

Correct.

But you don't want to overburden or overextend to the point where.

To say that in this setting you can be safe, and in this setting, you can't be safe?

I think there's a there's a way to sort of make that more fair, ensuring safety in both settings.

And so we've been working with the governor's team.

It would create also a whole bunch of capacity in our home based providers that they currently don't have without adding a single dollar to the, to the budget.

You know, this is a big issue.

A lot of our home based providers, the real big issue is a sibling issue, right?

So if you have a a kid who's 19 months old and they have a new baby brother, a baby sister, they can't take that baby brother or baby sister till that kid turns to and and so we're working on it.

This is a huge, a huge priority for our home based providers across the state there.

A lot of them are part of what's called CSA voice.

And they've been very clear that, you know, they're professionals.

They care a lot about our children and keeping them safe, and that there is a way to do it.

If 48 other states can do it, we definitely can.

So trying to figure out that pathway right now is where we're at and hoping we can maybe not get to a veto this year.

Why would it be vetoed?

I don't know, I mean, I again, I think there's safety concerns, but I think there's a solution.

And so it's a matter of whether or not we can all agree on the solution.

And so I hope we can this year instead of just saying no.

Okay.

But these child care carry issues have been really central to the work that you've been doing.

And if you look at Universal Child care and you look at the pathway, having this capacity in our home based providers is key.

So many more people choose home based providers for little late for that young age, for that 0 to 3 age.

And if we don't ensure they have both the capacity and obviously all the resources and things they need to keep kids safe and educate and be part of early childhood learning and all the things, particularly in a place like New York City.

I mean, New York City's plan heavily relies on home based providers.

So I just don't see how we don't ultimately get to a solution.

It's for me, I think it's more a question of when, not a question of if.

But doesn't it seem like every year it's you versus the governor on this?

Well, it's because it's so hard.

If it were easy, we would all have solved it along I go.

No, and I'm not trying to be glib about it, but I would love to have the governor across the table or sitting there right next to you, just so we could talk about the governor's office, his concerns about either whether it's money in child care or whether it's safety issues and ratios.

But I think a good public discourse would be really good for everybody here.

I agree.

So the.

Governor's invited well, you come with the governor's.

I'm ready.

But I will say to our, our first grandma, governor, that who we have allowed to be part of the mom squad, she did put out about 3 or 4 months ago a call to sort of direct to looking at over overregulated issues, particularly in places like child care.

And I know there was overwhelming, submissions to that.

I have heard I mean, the sort of the I you know, she, she did a lot for UK this year.

Continue to put more money into our child care assistance program.

It's there's still a lot of things that need to be solved.

New York City got a lot of support for two year olds, for three year olds.

She she did do that.

You know, it was another step forward for child care, this year.

But my understanding is that by next year, there may be a comprehensive look at, at some of the regulations at but, but but making it a bigger.

A bigger project.

Not sort of these one offs.

Did New York City get too much in this budget?

I never would say they got too much.

I would say we got not our equal share upstate.

Okay.

You know, one of the big things, you know, they got 475 million more for their childcare assistance program.

The rest of the state got 155 million.

We all got up.

Okay.

You know, so we're all now equal in new UK, which was a huge investment in New York City.

And a huge investment outside of New York City.

But they also got 100 million for two K. And they also got more money for three year olds.

We didn't get that same.

So it is my hope that we continue to build out the support.

I mean, part of the issue is New York City is one childcare district.

The rest of the state is 57 separate county childcare districts.

And it is my hope.

And we have some big plans to try to maybe unify the rest of the state as one childcare district.

And I think that would give us a lot more leverage to really ensure equal, equal funding.

Okay.

A couple other issues before the hour is up here.

Where did you end up falling on the big car insurance debate that roiled Albany?

I follow Jen Lunsford this she.

You defer to your colleague on this one?

I will say, as someone who has four insured drivers in my house that it is ridiculously expensive.

I don't think I think there were more things we could have done to address actual affordability.

You know, sometimes I think we get locked into the proposal and not locked into the solution.

And I think this is one of the cases where that was kind of happening, where we got into the weeds on what her proposal was versus ours versus actually saying, how can we solve the affordability issue?

Right.

So do you think our auto insurance premiums are going way down here?

I have mentioned to some of my colleagues who have retired this or are retiring this year, that in the new year, I would like them to write every day to say my car insurance has gone down, my car insurance hasn't gone down, my car insurance hasn't gone.

I, I worry, I worry that it won't.

And so we'll see.

I sure hope it does.

And if it doesn't, I think we need to all insurance.

I mean, my goodness.

I can't even get.

We have because of mass, you know, outside of the auto insurance world, we because of all the consolidation, we are having insurance problems left and right, and people's premiums are really skyrocketing.

Dallas wants to revisit this question.

Says I would just ask how does New York State cooperate with Ice or do and do they at all?

I mean, it can vary, by jurisdiction, right.

And their own proposals.

I think in the budget, what we did was, ensure that, that without an order of enforcement that there is no, collusion or, and that the governor has really gone out of her way with some sort of carrots on that side to, to sort of have these, these law enforcement dollars to say if you if you are willing to, to stand by that we are not going to get involved in federal enforcement issues around noncriminal compliance, you know, civil issues without a warrant or judicial warrant.

I think that's the goal.

New York City is already operates under that.

That rule, which is a huge, obviously part of the state, Rochester also does as well.

I think there's a lot of confusion when people say, oh, well, we're just getting rid of the criminals, or we're just, we're not.

I mean, we're rounding we're rounding people up.

Oh, no.

No, of.

Course, you know, I mean, it is really.

Yeah, yeah.

And when there's this rhetoric of like, well, there are, you know, there are criminal because they came here without the right people.

Are inherently a criminal.

So they're inherently a criminal.

That's just not true.

First of all, it's a civil penalty, you know.

Well, the first claim was we're getting rid of the violent.

Criminals, right.

And and.

That was demonstrably.

Untrue.

And then the second piece to this is so many people live in what we called a gray area where they're awaiting a hearing, they're waiting, ruling, they're appealing, they're doing all this stuff, and those people are all getting deported to places they've never been in years.

It so, yes.

So, the hope is that in the state that no local or state law enforcement, at all Aids, in those situations.

All right.

30s or so here.

What else do you want to get working on this year?

It was a short session in June.

So what do you want to get working on next?

Oh, I have so many plans.

I'm not sure I can do it in in 30s, but childcare is a big one.

We got a lot of ideas around math and literacy and doing better by our early children in terms of the totality of of how we can better help, our families and kids.

We got a lot of ideas around.

I got some health care ideas, cooking, some things around energy.

The work is is not done for sure.

Well, I know it's gonna be a busy year for you.

It is.

But you're always invited.

And welcome back here.

Thank you.

And I'm grateful that you and so many of your colleagues on both sides of the aisle come on this program, give an hour to our audience to ask their questions, to hear from you about issues like the budget, big issues.

And I know you'll be back soon.

It's nice to see.

I really hope that we get to talk about the weird committee structure and jurisdiction of codes.

More and well, well, you never know what the connection audience wants to talk about.

You know, it's up to them.

It's their it's their show.

Continued.

Best to you.

Thank you.

Good luck to you.

Assembly member Sarah Clark from district number 136.

We've got more connections coming up in a moment.

This program is a production of WXXI Public Radio.

The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of this station.

Its staff, management, or underwriters.

The broadcast is meant for the private use of our audience, any rebroadcast or use in another medium, without expressed written consent of WXXI is strictly prohibited.

Connections with Evan Dawson is available as a podcast.

Just click on the connections link at WXXI news org.