Cuomo book a hot topic at JCOPE

Before a deal was struck to publish “American Crisis,” Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s new best-selling book, the governor had to gain approval for the venture from New York’s ethics oversight agency.

Cuomo’s office has provided little information about that approval process, but has noted on several occasions that the Joint Commission on Public Ethics did approve the publishing deal.

Yet two weeks after the book’s Oct. 13 release, a JCOPE commissioner publicly questioned how much weight JCOPE opinions on such matters really carry, sparking an extraordinary response from Cuomo’s

appointees on the panel.

At the public session of the commission’s Oct. 27 meeting, neither Cuomo nor any other state employee was specifically mentioned. And in response to questions from the Times Union, JCOPE Commissioner Gary Lavine, who instigated the discussion, refused to say if his interest in the topic was prompted by the book deal.

“I will not confirm or deny any confidential request for an ethics opinion,” Lavine said.

Still, the timing of the debate, as well as the pushback by Cuomo’s appointees when the topic was broached, suggests the governor’s book was the unstated impetus.

JCOPE’S staff alone has long issued informal written guidance, without the involvement of the commissioners, to public officials seeking to earn outside income. That is “bad policy, a bad practice, a bad protocol,” said Lavine, a Senate Republican appointee to the panel, at the October meeting.

Instead, Lavine said, JCOPE commissioners should reassert their authority to approve opinions issued to top officials, a list that includes state agency heads and the four statewide elected officials.

JCOPE commissioners delegated the authority to write the informal opinions in 2012, just after the panel’s creation. Unless a request poses a “novel” question, commissioners are generally left out of the process. If there is a novel question, the commissioners do vote to approve an official advisory opinion.

The informal opinions carry little legal weight, but public employees can cite the opinion letters if questions are later raised about their conduct.

Then there is the separate issue, which Lavine did not raise at the meeting, about JCOPE formally disapproving or approving an official’s request to earn outside income, such as the request made this year by Cuomo. State officials entering agreements to earn more than $5,000 are required to get the sign-off of both their state agency and JCOPE.

Lavine told the Times Union that while staff occasionally brings questions about the formal approvals before the 14 commissioners, the staff generally asserts the authority to make those decisions as well. Yet in this instance, nothing in the 2012 resolution passed by JCOPE’S commissioners authorizes the staff to approve or disapprove the formal outside-income requests.

It’s not clear what does authorize the staff to make such decisions. A JCOPE spokesman, Walter Mcclure, did not respond to questions on that matter.

Since its inception, JCOPE has faced questions about influence exerted by Cuomo. Its current top staffer, general counsel Monica Stamm, worked under Cuomo when he was state attorney general, and is said to be Cuomo’s favored choice to fill the agency ’s executive director post. If the commission as a whole had reviewed Cuomo’s book deal, the legislative appointees might well have treated the matter more critically.

Lavine told the Times Union he also believes that certain Democrats appointed by Cuomo to JCOPE, Chairman Michael Rozen and Commissioner Daniel Horwitz, may be getting improperly clued in to matters, including outside income opinions, while other commissioners are being excluded. He plans to ask Horwitz and Rozen about that at JCOPE’S next meeting, and has previously stated that there is “super-commission” within the body made up of Cuomo’s Democratic appointees.

Rozen acknowledged at an August meeting that there was a single matter — which he did not identify — on which he was provided information that other commissioners were not.

After Cuomo’s first book, “All Things Possible,” was published in 2014, a financial disclosure form revealed a book advance of $783,000 from Harpercollins. The company is a subsidiary of News Corp., which is a registered lobbying client in New York with business before state government. The book sold only 3,800 copies.

By contrast, “American Crisis” landed on the best-seller list. But Cuomo’s authorship of a 300-page book in the midst of a pandemic that hit New York harder than any state in the country has raised questions from critics, including some Republicans.

Richard Azzopardi, a senior adviser to Cuomo, refused to provide copies of the paperwork Cuomo was required to submit to JCOPE, which according to the agency ’s website must detail the times and days during the week when work was to be performed. Cuomo’s form was also supposed to state how the outside income from a new publisher, Crown Publishing Group, would not pose any conflict of interest.

Azzopardi also declined to provide a copy of any approval letter JCOPE gave to Cuomo.

“Approval was sought and granted just as it was for the last book and any questions about JCOPE’S process should be answered by them,” Azzopardi said.

The JCOPE spokesman, Mcclure, declined to answer most questions, but did say “multiple staff members” from the commission are involved in “any guidance that we provide.” Approval letters are not public.

Lavine, who has served on JCOPE since its inception in 2011, was previously one of Cuomo’s three GOP appointees. For seven years, he said little to incite the ire of other Cuomo appointees, including when Cuomo struck the first book deal and received an informal opinion letter from Ellen Biben, the former JCOPE executive director.

In December 2018, Lavine was not reappointed to JCOPE by Cuomo; he was quickly appointed by Senate Republicans as one of their three commissioners. Over the past year, Lavine has repeatedly raised questions about matters touching Cuomo’s office, especially an alleged “leak” of confidential information to Cuomo following a January 2019 commission vote.

Lavine told the Times Union the alleged leak and “cover-up” by the state inspector general’s office had motivated his new outspokenness. Horwitz, JCOPE’S chair from 2013 to 2016, came back to the commission in January 2019. His reappointment by Cuomo was just in time for the contentious, court-ordered vote on whether to investigate if former Cuomo aide Joe Percoco had misused state resources. By all indications, Cuomo’s commissioners succeeded in killing any JCOPE probe into whether Cuomo was aware of Percoco’s activities.

A Manhattan white collar defense attorney, Horwitz’s high-powered clients have included disgraced financier Bernie Madoff. At recent meetings, when Lavine has broached topics critical of the governor, Horwitz’s attention has been trained on him.

“I don’t know what is in (Lavine’s) head — but you know, there is now a track record,” Horwitz said at the October meeting. “I can only imagine what his motivation is, to see yet another article in the Times Union.”

During the meeting, Lavine at one point suggested delaying a vote on his motion to require informal advisory opinions to go through the commission, instead of staff. But in an unusual move, a Cuomo appointee, William Fisher, introduced Lavine’s motion himself, despite opposing it. Fisher said he was doing so because Lavine’s idea was a “waste of time” and he wanted the discussion to end.

“We have more important things to do, and so does staff,” Fisher said. “So is there a way to call a vote today so we don’t have to hear this again?”

Horwitz seconded the motion. The six legislative appointees, including Lavine, voted in favor. The Cuomo appointees, including Horwitz and Fisher, voted ‘no.’ The vote was 6-6, and the discussion ended.