NYLR Exclusive, Frank Seabrook - Steve Levy Interview 05-30-2012

8/16/2019 NYLR Exclusive, Frank Seabrook - Steve Levy Interview 05-30-2012

1/42

1

05/30/2012:

New York Liberty Report Exclusive Interview

By Frank Seabrook

Steve Levy Responds to Grand

Jury Report

Last month a Grand Jury issued a report that

was critical of the Suffolk County Ethics

Commission. Various comments in thatreport were attributed by Newsday to have

referred to former County Exec Steve Levy.

In his first interview on this subject, Steve

Levy sat down with the New York Liberty

Report to discuss this Grand Jury report.

For those not familiar with the grand jury

process, a grand jury can be convened to

determine whether a criminal indictmentwill be issued, or whether a

recommendation for legislative reform

should be made. In this case, the Grand Jury

held that no criminal acts were committed but recommended numerous changes to the ethics code.

State law designed Grand Jury’s to be weighted heavily towards the prosecution. Only the

prosecution can choose witnesses and documents that will be presented. Those investigated haveextremely limited rights.

This is why the law provides that the proceedings of a grand jury are secret. One of the reasons

for this secrecy is to protect an innocent person from accusations if no indictment is returned.

There are certain exceptions to the secrecy of a grand jury. According to the NYS Criminal

Procedure Law 190.85, the exception being for proposing recommendations for legislative,

executive, or administrative action in the public interest based upon stated findings. The court, towhich such report is submitted, shall make and accept such report as a public record.

However, the report must not be made public if it is critical of an identified or identifiable person.

In the case of this grand jury report, many believe Steve Levy was clearly an identifiable person,

since Newsday had no problem identifying him as County Official E.

Mr. Levy agreed to an interview with the New York Liberty Report and together we discussed

the grand jury findings.


2/42

2

[Editors Note: Mr. Levy states that the specific names mentioned in this interview were identified

by Newsday in its reports on this issue.]

The following are excerpts from our interview, as well as information provided by Mr. Levy.

NYLR: Hello Steve, thank you for meeting with me.

Levy: Thank you Frank for this opportunity.

NYLR: It certainly is a scathing report.

Levy: Yes, but much of the report was based on inaccurate conclusions on the law and facts.

NYLR: We couldn’t help but notice that your side of the story was never presented, is there a

reason why you didn’t appear at the Grand Jury?

Levy: Newsday earlier reported that many of my political detractors had already testified, but Iknew I would have no right to cross examine them. We were anticipating that we would see the

report, as per our understanding of state law, before it could ever be made public, so that we

would have a chance to respond in one shot after everyone else had made their points. I guessthey thought they didn’t have to give it to me or seal the record because they were claiming I was

not identifiable.


3/42

3

NYLR: So you were never served with a copy of the report?

Levy: That is correct.

NYLR: A major point that the report seems to make is that you abused, or violated the integrity

of the Ethics Commission by using it as a tool against your political opponents.

Levy: I sought an ethics opinion to stop improper behavior. The first related to a legislator after

he introduced legislation to impede the closing of the Foley Nursing Home while his wife and

sister in-law worked there. The second related to my former deputy who worked with the unionto sue the County. This is exactly why you have an ethics board. When people see the nature of

the complaint, they seem to understand that. I wasn’t using the system as a political sword.

NYLR: Was this mentioned in the report?

Levy: There was no mention in the report that the Grand Jury ever heard or considered the

details of what we believed were the egregious conflicted behavior that was the subject of mycomplaint. Again, if they had seen the depth of these details, I think they would have agreed that

my quest for the opinions were indeed to protect the taxpayers rather than being some effort to

harm a political enemy.

NYLR: What about the integrity of the Ethics Commission?

Levy: I never told any ethics commission members how to vote on any case. It is important to

note that there was not a single example cited in the report where a single commissioner said I

interfered with the process. If it had happened, you can be assured it would have been included.

[Levy provided NYLR with the following statements from ethics commission members that he

claims support his position]


4/42

4


5/42

5


6/42

6


7/42

7


8/42

8

NYLR: You mentioned a county legislator and former deputy county executive. Can you

elaborate on why you felt it was necessary to bring these matters before the ethics commission,

and explain why you believed this was the proper course of action?

Levy: The report stated I had misused the ethics commission by bringing what it claimed was a

politically motivated request for an opinion regarding my former Chief Deputy Paul Sabatinoand County Legislator Ed Romaine. I saw these individuals engaging in conduct we believed

was detrimental to taxpayers. What was I supposed to do? Look the other way, or physically stop

them? No, the proper recourse is to submit it to the ethics commission to decide.

NYLR: Conduct detrimental to the taxpayer? In what way?

Levy: Romaine’s family members were working in the nursing home yet he was voting onnursing home issues, debating the bills, and worse yet he actually sponsored a bill to make it

more difficult to sell or close the facility. His resolution had ramifications to the taxpayers to the

tune of tens of millions of dollars.

NYLR: You believe this was a conflict.

Levy: To us, this was a huge conflict, so we asked him to stop. He refused. We thereafter madewritten requests for him to end this conflicted behavior.

NYLR: So you refute the notion that you were using the ethics commission improperly?

Levy: This is important because if my motivation was to hurt him politically I would have filed

for an opinion immediately after we witnessed his conflicted behavior. We would not have givenhim repeated opportunities to correct his ways. It was only after he continuously blew us off that

we felt we had no other choice but to ask the ethics commission to intervene. It just seemed so

peculiar that in the end no one was criticizing Romaine for his conflicted behavior; they werecriticizing us for trying to stop it.

NYLR: Do you have proof of these requests?

Levy: Yes. I’ll provide them to you.

[The requests were provided by Levy.]


9/42

9


10/42

10

NYLR: And what about Sabatino?

Levy: Sabatino was terminated in the fall of 2007; almost immediately thereafter he startedworking for AME, the county’s largest labor union, which naturally was an adversary to county

management.

NYLR: Why were you concerned about this?

Levy: By the nature of his position as Chief Deputy, Sabatino had access to confidential inside

information that few others had.

NYLR: What type of information?

Levy: Well, management would typically locate money for union raises in places the union could

not detect, so our negotiations could not be compromised. But now Sabatino was basically

working on the other side of the bargaining table with information the union should not have had.

NYLR: Was there any other important info he might have had?

Levy: On top of that he had been intricately involved with the nursing home issue and now hewas working with county employees in their lawsuit to help stop its sale or closure. How else

were we going to stop him from damaging the taxpayer’s interests other than going to the ethics

commission?

NYLR: So other than you, were there any concerns from anyone else in your administration?

Levy: There sure were. In fact my deputies were emailing each other with their concerns about

how this could hurt the county, and how in the past even Sabatino himself commented on this

type of contract as being a conflict.

NYLR: Will you provide us that as well.

Levy: Absolutely, not only emails but other documentation that led to our concerns.

[Provided by Levy]


11/42

11


12/42

12


13/42

13


14/42

14


15/42

15


16/42

16


17/42

17


18/42

18

NYLR: You’re saying that the Grand Jury didn’t see all this information? But didn’t they hear

from Sabatino?

Levy: Well yes, Sabatino and his attorney Anton Borovina both admitted to Newsday that they

testified, and both had motives to testify in a way that would discredit the ethics commission.

NYLR: What was their testimony?

Levy: Newsday reported that Sabatino was the official in the county executive’s office who was

subject to an ethics complaint, and that same official was cited in the report as having giventestimony regarding the county ethics laws. So it sounds to me like he was presented as some

kind of expert. I’ll provide you with the exact wording in the report.

[Levy later provided the following info he was referring to: On Page 7 of Grand Jury Report,

“The Grand Jury heard testimony from County Official B who worked for nearly 30 years as an

attorney in different capacities for Suffolk County, he was involved in drafting language for

many legislative resolutions. He described further efforts to fine-tune the financial disclosurestatute.”]

NYLR: So why is that a problem?

Levy: This is the same Paul Sabatino who had been seeking to discredit the ethics commission

over a three year period, as it deliberated upon a complaint that he had violated the County’sethics code by working with the union and suing the county within two years of his termination.

NYLR: Just so I understand, let me get this straight. Sabatino went from being investigated bythe ethics commission, to now being an expert witness testifying to the grand jury against the

ethics commission?

Levy: It appears that way. And nowhere in the Grand Jury report was it mentioned that Sabatino

had this ample motive to discredit the ethics commission, or to extract retribution upon me due to

my administration’s request for this opinion, or having him fired.

NYLR: Interesting… And you say that Newsday had earlier reported that the Grand Jury also

heard testimony from Anton Borovina. So what’s the significance of that?

Levy: Newsday noted that Borovina spoke, and I’ll quote, “on the history of ethics regulations in

Suffolk.” But what was not mentioned was that Borovina was not only wrong on the law, he had

a huge conflict, in that he was associated in business dealings with Sabatino, as well as being hislawyer in the case before the ethics commission that members of my administration brought

against Sabatino.

NYLR: So Boravina went from representing Sabatino, who was being investigated by the ethicscommission; to now being an expert witness also testifying to the grand jury against the ethics

commission.


19/42

19

Levy: Again it appears that way. I have a letter dating back to 2010 expressing concern about

Borovina’s involvement in the investigation of the ethics commission, the very ethics

commission that was holding hearings regarding his client, Mr. Sabatino. Conflicts never seemedto deter Borovina. In fact, he was so brazen in conflicted behavior that he had the gall to

aggressively apply for the position of legal counsel to the legislature’s investigation of the ethics

commission, at the same time he was representing clients before that body.

[Levy provided letter.]


20/42

20


21/42

21

NYLR: So was any of this evidence presented to the grand jury?

Levy: I don’t think so, it certainly wasn’t mentioned in the report. Worse yet, Borovina also wasthe attorney for Comptroller Joseph Sawicki in the case Sawicki brought against Ethics Director

Alfred Lama regarding his health benefits, which was a major topic in the Grand Jury report.

[Levy provided document.]


22/42

22

NYLR: So County Comptroller Joe Sawicki initiated a suit against Alfred Lama regarding

whether he was entitled to health benefits. Newsday reported the Grand Jury Report said Lama’s

independence was compromised because the county held that he was entitled to those health benefits. How do you respond to that?

Levy: The grand jury relied on incorrect information when it mistakenly stated that an ethicsofficial working for the commission was given health benefits to which he allegedly was not

entitled, and that this supposedly clouded his independence. That is just inaccurate.

NYLR: It was also reported that Comptroller Sawicki conducted an audit of Lama’s timesheets.

Levy: The audit by Sawicki was simply incorrect. It took the view that Lama did not qualify for

benefits because he did not work more than 50% of a full time position in each payroll period.This is a ridiculous and illogical standard.

NYLR: How so?

Levy: Obviously, one must look at the hours accumulated over the course of that year, not on a

week to week, or bi-weekly fashion. To adopt the logic of the Comptroller, administrators in his

office would have to monitor an employee pay period by pay period. And, if they weremonitoring this on a week to week basis, why didn’t they kick him off benefits on those weeks

he worked less?

NYLR: So you’re saying that’s not practical.

Levy: No. Because one two-week period the employee would be eligible for benefits whilelosing the benefits the following week, only to have them reinstated the next.

The Comptroller’s inaccurate audit which apparently was relied upon by the Grand Jury wasactually refuted by the County’s Labor Relations Director last summer. I’ll provide that letter to

you.



23/42

23


24/42

24

Suffolk County Community College

Office of Human Resources

July 11, 2011

Christine Malafi, Esq.County AttorneySuffolk County Attorney’s OfficePO Box 6100Hauppauge, New York 11788

Re: Part-time Employees

Dear Ms. Malafi;

This letter shall serve to confirm our conversation with regard to two questionsyou requested clarification on.

The first question involved part-time workers and how holidays and paid time offthrough use of accruals would impact their part-time work schedule. Under the

AMB contract, paid holidays and use of paid accruals (i.e. vacation, sick,personal, compensatory) is considered time worked. Therefore, an AMB part-time employee who utilizes paid accruals or who receives pay for holidays, suchtime would be considered in determining his/her scheduled work year.

The second question relates to determining the period of time that a part timeemployee must work greater than 50% in order to be eligible for benefits. Whileit is well established that the employee must work greater than 50% of the workweek, it has not been established over what period of time this should bemeasured. For a management employee who has the ability to vary his/her workschedule, it has not been determined at this time if the period of measuring the50% is weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, quarterly or annually.

From a stand point of determining eligibility for health insurance alone, it is notpossible to alter someone’s health insurance on a weekly, bi-weekly or even

monthly basis. This is due to the rules requiring a waiting period to commencehealth insurance of approximately two months. Therefore, it would be impossibleto put someone on or take them off health insurance on a weekly or evenmonthly basis.

I hope the above answers the questions that you have raised. If you have anyfurther questions, do not hesitate to contact me at 631-451-4239.


25/42

25

Sincerely,

Jeffrey L. Tempera Assistant Vice PresidentHuman ResourcesJLT:or

Levy continued: The Labor Relations Director also noted that the comptroller failed to include

Judge Lama’s accrued vacation and sick time in calculating his hours, which he was required to

do under the contract.

NYLR: So Sawicki was wrong in his determination that Lama received benefits to which he was

not entitled? And Newsday suggested that the Grand Jury relied on this information.

Levy: Yes, and the Grand Jury report suggests that there was some kind of inappropriate plan tohave an ethics official classified as a management employee so he could qualify for benefitswhere he could not otherwise obtain them. There was no such arrangement.

What happened here, according to the County Attorney, is that the legislation appointing the

ethics official, as drafted, inadvertently and incorrectly listed him as a union employee. It was

later discovered that he was management, because he could be fired at will by the ethics

commission and did not have civil service protection.

The Grand Jury said that Lama was not entitled to benefits because he was supposed to be aunion employee. But this was inconsistent and illogical. The Grand Jury Report itself defined amanagement employee as someone that served at the pleasure of his or her supervisors. I’ll

provide you with that statement.

[Levy provided the following statement later. On page 16, the Grand Jury report notes, “Suffolk

County Employees, other than sworn police or correction officers, are categorized as either

management employees, meaning that they serve at the pleasure of their designated supervisor,

or are civil servants protected by collective bargaining agreements and are members of the

Association of Municipal Employees (herein after A.M.E.).”]

Levy continued: That is exactly what Lama was. He could be hired or fired at the discretion of

the ethics commission. So how in the world could they say that the county attorney was incorrectis designating him as a management employee? And by the way, regardless whether he was

union or management he still qualified for the benefits! We couldn’t take them away even if we

wanted to.

Ironically, the county attorney’s review of his timesheets shows that he would have been owedwages if his hours were based on being a union employee.

[Levy provided the quote from the county attorney’s report which stated, “Our calculations

clearly show that if the executive director’s wages are calculated as an AME employee, he is

owed wages.”]


26/42

26

NYLR: The Grand Jury reported that the ethics official’s “independence was impaired by the

improper financial benefit he received from the executive branch of government…”

Levy: It is truly baffling how this minor correction on his management status could be presented

as some type of conspiracy to grant a favor to an ethics director. Remarkably some media went

as far as to brazenly suggest it was done in order to get a favorable ethics opinion from him.

NYLR: So the Grand Jury contradicted itself.

Levy: Yes. On the one hand it defined a management employee as someone who serves at the

pleasure of his supervisor, and then it criticized the county attorney for designating Judge Lamaas management, who indeed served at the pleasure of his supervisor.

NYLR: So why does that matter?

Levy: This mistake is crucial because the Grand Jury thereafter mistakenly suggested that Lama

received a favor from the Executive Branch to give him something to which he was not entitledand that this so-called favor compromised the judge’s independence.

It is illogical to suggest that an action was taken as far back as 2004, when Lama was deemed

management; to influence a decision by Lama on a question that would not even be posed to him

until 2007, the question related to filing of the financial disclosure form.

NYLR: Did the report actually tie the two together?

The Grand Jury report ultimately included a line that “there is no evidence to link the two,” butthe damage was already done. By connecting the two in the narrative, people could reach a false

impression of what actually happened. One media editorial picked up on this topic, andconcluded that the county executive “approved salary benefits to a commissioner to avoid

having to file disclosure forms embarrassing to his wife.”

This is just plain wrong. Wrong facts, and no evidence, but still a suggestion is made that there

was something nefarious.

Financial Disclosures

NYLR: That brings us to the financial disclosures. How did this whole thing start?

Levy: It is no coincidence that the saga related to financial disclosure and all that followed beganvery soon after I switched my registration from Democrat to Republican. Suddenly, I wasquestioned by the media about why I had been filing a New York State disclosure form.

NYLR: The claim was you inappropriately failed to file a county financial disclosure form andwere given a special favor by the Ethics Commission “allowing” you to file the state financial

disclosure form instead.


27/42

27

Levy: This too was inaccurate. It was not a matter of choice –– I was required by state law to file

the state form because I was a member of the New York State Pine Barrens Commission. The

fact that I was required to file the state form was not noted in the Grand Jury report. This isimportant because it tears apart the suggestion that I was shopping for the most advantageous

form in which to file.

I’ll get you the letter proving I was required to file the state form.



28/42


29/42

29

NYLR: But the grand jury said you acted inappropriately by not filing the county form.

Levy: The Grand Jury report was inaccurate in stating that I had to file the county form afteralready filing the state form. The grand jury members are generally not lawyers and I believe

they were probably relying on legal analysis from individuals who had massive conflicts of

interest.

With all the highly respected independent ethics experts throughout New York State, the Grand

Jury apparently relied on Sabatino and Borovina, these two conflicted individuals who had been

bashing the ethics commissions for the past two years. Yet all of the major ethics scholars in New York State including Mark Davies the head of New York City’s Board who helped draft the

original state legislation, and Barry Ginsberg the former director of the State Commission of

Public Integrity, agreed that I did the proper thing regarding my filings. And none of theseexperts were quoted in the report.

NYLR: Do you have these opinions?

Levy: Yes I’ll get them to you, as well as two other experts who agree with me, including the

former counsel to Nassau’s commission.

[Levy provided letters.]


30/42

30


31/42

31


32/42

32


33/42

33


34/42

34

NYLR: Why did you file a request for an opinion from the ethics commission regarding your

filing?

Levy: Before my request for an opinion was ever filed, Ethics Commissioners had already told

another employee that the filing of the state form had to be accepted by the county. They were

mandated to accept the state form from those who had to file it. So it wasn’t as though an EthicsCommission official crafted a special decision just for me.

Once I heard from that fellow employee that the filing of the state form complied with county

requirements, I wrote to the commission just to confirm that the information given to me was, infact, accurate. I received a letter indicating that once the state form was filed there was no need

to file a duplicative county form. So I left it at that. And the media didn’t seem to care until I

switched my enrollment 4 years later.

NYLR: But the Grand Jury cited a case where they claim the county law trumped the state law.

Levy: I knew that Sabatino and Borovina in the past inappropriately misapplied this case. In thatcase a party leader, who was not required to file a state form, had failed to file either a state or

county form. The court correctly ruled that he had to file the county form. That is clearly

distinguishable from my case where I had to file the state form, and did indeed file it. The statelaw is clear, that once you file the state form you don’t have to file a duplicative county form.

Again, the individual in that case cited filed no report whatsoever.

NYLR: But didn’t the report claim the state form was less extensive?

Levy: The state’s highest ethics expert concluded that the Grand Jury’s assertion that the countyform was more extensive than the state’s was inaccurate. The state form asks far more probative

questions than the county’s form, including seeking information about gifts, political party

information, future contracts, etc. He went so far as to say the county form did not comply withstate law.

NYLR: Do you have that opinion?

Levy: Yes, I will provide it. And you have to understand that even the county legislature

eventually conceded the county form was deficient. And that’s why they amended the form last

summer to include all the state form questions that were missing on the county form.

[Levy provided opinion.]


35/42

35


36/42

36


37/42

37


38/42

38


39/42

39

NYLR: So you’re saying that the experts note that the state form is more comprehensive than the

county.

Levy: Yes, this information is crucial because it refutes the nonsensical unsubstantiated

allegations in the media that I was looking to file a state form rather than a county form so as to

hide information, without saying what that information was. Both forms ask about your outsideincome.

NYLR: Do you wish to elaborate on assertions’ in the media that your wife’s business was

somehow helped?

Levy: This area was perhaps the most disturbing of any area in the report. The report was worded

in such a way as to lead media outlets to suggest that my wife was building her business throughimproper means. Actually, my wife started her business as a single mom and did it the old

fashion way, through hard work. She was alone with a three year old and an infant. She could

have gone on welfare but did not. She networked, took out massive loans, and took great risks.

Yet, we’ve had to endure inaccurate innuendo that she received county contracts or that I didsomething inappropriate to build her business. One media outlet website stated that I helped

firms owned by my wife to gain contracts. The undisputed fact is that she never received a

contract from the county. My administration barred the County from even taking a bid from hercompanies.

NYLR: What type of business did she run?

Levy: A medical transcription company. It was founded long before I became County Executive.

Her company provides transcription services to hospitals and medical centers. When opportunityto bid on hospital work came about, there would be no reason she would be blocked from doing

so since she was not contracting with the county or doing any county business for these separate

entities. The spouse of a state official isn’t barred from working for a public school districtsimply because the district gets state aide.

But just to be sure, she went through the extra step of seeking an opinion from the Ethics

Commission, which ruled that no conflict existed as long as she did not use my name, which shenever did. Yet it was suggested in the press that I controlled the commissioners who voted on the

issue. What was not mentioned is that two of the three commissioners were appointed in the

previous Gaffney administration.

NYLR: You are obviously very frustrated by all this.

Levy: This is one of those situations that comes under the heading “damned if you do, damned if

you don’t.” If my wife did not seek an ethics opinion, she and I would have been criticized for

not vetting the issue. Yet once you get a decision you are wrongly criticized by those who

baselessly refuse to accept it.

NYLR: The grand jury report claims you threatened legislators by obtaining their financial

disclosure forms. How do you respond?


40/42

40

Levy: The legislature created an investigative panel as a political witch hunt against me after I

changed political parties. I had insisted that if it was going to be reviewing financial disclosures,

it must be looked at evenhandedly by reviewing both branches of government, not just theexecutives in political fashion. This was not a threat. This was about fairness in highlighting the

double standard that was taking place.

NYLR: Could you be more specific about this double standard you refer to?

Levy: This is significant because the media reports wrongfully suggested that I was remiss in not

having my wife’s clients listed. After perusing through the other forms that were obtained viaFreedom of Information requests, no other official had their clients listed either. And for good

reason. There was no request or requirement on the forms, or in the law, that filers include a

listing of clients. The point I was making to legislators is that my claim that clients were notrequired to be filed was bolstered by the fact that other county officials did not list them either.

For instance, the comptroller had side accounting and fishing businesses, and did not disclose

clients. That is why it was necessary for the legislative panel to expand its review beyond my

forms. When I brought this up to legislators, some went public claiming I was threatening them.This was not a threat. This was about fairness. I wrote a letter to Presiding Officer Lindsey

complaining about the double standard and calling for the legislature not to exempt itself in this

review.

[Levy provided letter to Lindsey.]


41/42

41


42/42

NYLR: So to conclude, how long did it take for the ethics commission to finally render a

decision regarding requests you made pertaining to the conflicts with Sabatino and Romaine?

Levy: The ethics commission which normally may take a few weeks or possibly months to

render an opinion was taking years. My administration expressed frustration over this long delay

on the cases of both Sabatino and Romaine. One way or another just decide.

The ultimate irony is, were there such control over the ethics commission, as implied by this

report, the administration would have received favorable rulings within a very short turnaround.

This did not happen.

NYLR: I appreciate the amount of time you gave us.

Levy: I think we covered a great deal and again I appreciate the opportunity. It will be fun to get

back to discussing the various important issues affecting our residents.

NYLR: So what’s next for Steve Levy?

Levy: I’m enjoying the slower pace and spending time with my family, but will hopefully find a

way to contribute to the community.

NYLR: Thank you Steve.

Levy: Thank you.

----

Documents

NYLR Exclusive, Frank Seabrook - Steve Levy Interview 05-30-2012