Letter from Mary Anne Whelan

Politicos Need To Read the Bill

The recent letters to the editor by State Senator Peter Oberacker and Assemblyman Chris Tague condemning the recently passed Clean Slate Act (Freeman’s Journal Nov. 23, 2023) suggest that they either have not read the bill, or don’t know how to interpret it correctly, or are gambling on taking a hit against a Democratic governor and Assembly, or all three. Interested readers can read it directly by looking it up (New York State Assembly Bill A.1029-C) or by Googling “Clean Slate Act Myths and Facts” at https://assembly.state.ny.us/cleanslate/?sec=facts_and_myths. The latter is an efficient and authoritative review by the State Assembly.

The statement from the Assembly reports that the Clean State Act does not “automatically seal records after a specified period of time” or “hide serious crimes like manslaughter, gang assaults or armed robbery” and it does not “simplify the process for criminals to conceal their pasts and exploit unsuspecting victims” (cf Oberacker). It does not “prioritize felons” or allow people to “do whatever they want in New York and not have to face repercussions” (cf Tague). The Assembly statement says that “Clean Slate will not seal the records of registered sex offenders or anyone who has been convicted of a crime where a life sentence may be imposed. Some types of crimes, like murder, are NEVER eligible for sealing…Clean Slate has no impact on the ability to inquire into someone’s criminal history…Clean Slate doesn’t change state, federal or local laws regarding where/how people can ask about records—sealed or otherwise. Additionally, a person must have completed their sentence, including all parole time, without further incident…Clean Slate does not lessen sentences or penalties and does not affect orders of protection, reparations or other forms of victim compensation.”

What Clean Slate does do, is to protect persons who may have a record of having been convicted of certain unlawful and unrelated offenses, for which they have paid the prescribed penalties and who have been without criminal charges or convictions for at least three years since that time. The prior offenses and convictions can still be looked up by parties with an interest. The Act was vetted and accepted beforehand by a large number of persons, including lawyers, law enforcement personnel, landlords, and business persons across the state.

What is disgraceful is not the act that was passed: it is trying to propagate misinformation which is at best erroneous and is otherwise deliberately deceptive if presented by anyone, let alone elected officials. Oberacker and Tague should acknowledge, and correct, their incorrect statements.

Mary Anne Whelan
Cooperstown