Practice English Speaking&Listening with: NYS Senate Standing Committee on Ethics and Internal Governance Public Hearing - 08/25/21

Normal
(0)
Difficulty: 0

FINALLY I WANT TO EXPRESS MY

GRATITUDE TO LEADER ANDREA

STEWART-COUSINS FOR CALLING THIS

HEARING TTD AND FOR HER

CONTINUED COMMITMENT TO BRINGING

GOOD GOVERNANCE AND TRANSPARENCY

TO ALBANY.

WE ARE HERE TODAY TO EXAMINE

NEW YORK STATE'S SYSTEM OF

ETHICS, OVERNIGHT AND

ENFORCEMENT TO IDENTIFY AREAS OF

IMPROVEMENT AND TO DISCUSSES

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO ETHICS

WITHIN OUR STATE GOVERNMENT.

MORE URGE END MOMENT TO REFORM

OUR SYSTEM OF ETHICS.

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT WE ARE

HOLDING TODAY'S HEARING ONE FULL

DAY INTO GOVERNOR HOCHUL'S

ADMINISTRATION WHICH CALLED FOR

A COMPLETE OVERHAUL OF OUR STATE

SYSTEM OF OVERNIGHT.

-- OVERSIGHTED, THIS IS AN END

OF A VERY DARK CHAP TERROR IN

ALBANY AND WE HAVE THE

OPPORTUNITY TO SET THE TONE FOR

INTEGRITY IN NEW YORK STATE

GOVERNMENT.

DESPITE THE TIMELINESS OF

TODAY'S HEARING, IT IS NO SECRET

THAT ALBANY HAS A HISTORY LOCK

SUBJECT TO THE SCRUTINY AND

FAILURE TO HAVE AN PIF-- OUR

PROGRESS HAS TOO OFTEN BEEN

RIDDLED WITH SCANDAL AND

UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR.

IRONICALLY IT IS OUR OWN STATE

COMMISSION'S ENTITIES TASKED

WITH ENFORCING OUR ETHICS RULES

THAT HELPED SUSTAIN ALBANY'S.

TODAY WE'LL PAY ATTENTION TO THE

JOINT COMMISSION OR JCOPE AS

PART OF THE INTEGRITY REFORM ACT

OF 2011, JCOPE SET OUT TO REFORM

THE OVERSIGHT AND REGULATION OF

ETHICS AND LOBBYING IN

NEW YORK STATE.

JCOPE WAS CREATED TO RESTORE

PUBLIC TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, YET

SINCE ITS CREATION, THERE HAS

ONLY BEEN RISING CONCERN ABOUT

JCOPE'S NEUTRAL AND ABILITY TO

ACT AS ABINDEPENDENT BODY.

THROUGHOUT THIS HEARING, WE WILL

TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT THE SOURCE

OF THE CONCERNS.

AFTER A YEAR THAT HAS BEEN

DOMINATED BY SCANDAL WITHIN THE

EXECUTIVE, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT

THIS MOMENT CALLS FOR IMMEDIATE

CHANGE AND STRUCTURAL REFORM.

THE FOUNDATION OF GOVERNMENT IS

ROOTED IN THE TRUST BETWEEN

THOSE WHO WORK IN OUR STATE

INSTITUTIONS AND THE PEOPLE WE

ARE MEANT TO SERVE.

THE ABSENCE OF TRANSPARENCY AND

INTEGRITY ENABLE LAWMAKERS TO

MAKE DECISIONS IN THEIR BEST

INTEREST AND AT THE EXPENSE AT

THE VERY PEOPLE THEY REPRESENT.

TODAY WE'LL HEAR FROM THE

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF JCOPE, A

FORMER JCOPE COMMISSIONER.

GOOD GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS,

FORMER STAFF OF THE LEGISLATURE

AND SENATE ETHIC CHAIRS FROM THE

STATES OF ALASKA AND RHODE

ISLAND TO LEARN FROM THEIR

PERSPECTIVE REGARDING ETHICS AND

OVERSIGHT.

PROCESS AHEAD, HEARINGS,

DISCUSSIONS AND CONSULTATION

FORM A PATHWAY TO PASSING MUCH

NEEDED LEGISLATION TO REFORM OUR

SYSTEM OF ETHICS.

SENATOR KRUEGER HAS INTRODUCED

LEGISLATION IN ORDER TO REBUILD

AN ENTIRELY NEW ETHIC

COMMISSION.

DUE TO THE LENGTH OF TIME

REQUIRED TO AMEND THE

CONSTITUTION, I INTRODUCED

LEGISLATION THIS YEAR, SENATE

BILL 6964-A DESIGNED TO REFORM

SOME OF THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS OF

JCOPE ADDRESSING THE PARTISAN

PROCESS AND MINORITY VETO.

UNFORTUNATELY THE SHORT-TERM

FIXED ONLY PASSED IN THE SENATE

THIS PAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION

DURING A YEAR WHEN SOME OF THOSE

IN THE HIGHEST OFFICE IT IS

DEEPLY DISAPPOINTING THAT WE

WERE ABLE UNABLE TO PASS

LEGISLATION.

TODAY IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO

STRENGTHEN EXISTING LEGISLATION

AND IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL AREAS OF

CONCERN THAT ARE NOT ADDRESSED.

BUT IN ORDER TO ENACT EFFECTIVE

REFORM, WE NEED THOSE WITH THE

POWER TO ENACT CHANGE TO SHOW UP

TO THE TABLE.

I WOULD BE REMISS NOT TO MENTION

THE ABSENCE OF THE INSPECTOR

GENERAL AND THE GOVERNOR'S

OFFICE OF EMPLOYER RELATIONS,

TWO ETHICS BODIES RESPONSIBLE

FOR ENFORCING OVERSIGHT A

TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT IS A

GOVERNMENT THAT WORKS FOR THE

PEOPLE.

NEW YORKERS DESERVE INTEGRITY

AND TRANSPARENCY FROM THEIR

GOVERNMENT AND A GOVERNMENT THAT

THEY CAN TRUST WORKS FOR THEM,

NOT THOSE IN POWERFUL POSITIONS.

TIME AND TIME AGAIN, NEW YORK

LEGISLATORS HAVE FAILED TO TAKE

STEPS TOWARD MEANINGFUL REFORM

WHETHER OUT OF FEAR OR DESIRE TO

PROTECT THEMSELVES.

FOR THE PUBLIC WATCHING TODAY,

DON'T JUST LISTEN TO WHAT YOU

SAY.

LISTEN TO WHAT WE DO AND HOLD US

ACCOUNTABLE.

ACTING ON OUR FINDINGS TODAY

WILL PROVE OUR COMMITMENT TO THE

VALUES WE CLAIM TO HOLD WITHOUT

MEANINGFUL TRANSPARENCY AND

ACCOUNTABILITY, NEW YORK STATE

WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO END THE

CYCLE OF CORRUPTION AND ABUSE

THAT PLAGUES PLAN ALBANY AND AS

A RESULT WE'LL NEVER REACH OUR

HIGHEST POTENTIAL AS A STATE.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR

HAVING THIS HEARING TODAY I'D

LIKE TO THANK CHAIRMAN KRUEGER

AS WELL AS MY FELLOW MEMBERS OF

THE ETHICS COMMITTEE.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK

HAS BEEN OF SIGNIFICANT CONCERN

TO BOTH PARTIES, BOTH SIDES OF

THE AISLE AND IN BOTH HOUSINGS.

I WAS IN THE ASSEMBLY FOR SEVEN

YEARS BEFORE I WAS IN THE

SENATE.

SO I'M REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO

HEARING THIS TESTIMONY, IT IS A

BIT OF A REUNION FOR ME TODAY IN

SOME RESPECTS BECAUSE JUDGE

BERLAND, I TRIED A CASE IN FRONT

OF HIM A FEW YEARS AGO.

I WAS A PROSECUTOR MANY, MANY

MOONS AGO WITH THE ONE WITNESS

JULIE GARCIA IN SUFFOLK COUNTY

AND MISS GARCIA AND I'VE

MENTIONED THIS ON THE FLOOR OF

THE SENATE BEFORE AND I THINK

WHAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND

THIS PRESENT COMPANY EXCLUDED,

JCOPE HAS REINFORCED CORRUPTION

OVER THE YEARS.

HAS NOT REINFORCED ETHICS UNDER

ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ON THE

FRINGE OF SOME REAL BIG

SITUATIONS ONE OF THEIR MOST

INEXCUSABLE ACTS AS THE

CHAIRWOMAN MENTIONED IS THE FACT

THAT WE HAVE A CONFIRMED LEAK

WHERE THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE

CALLED ABOUT A DECISION MADE BY

A MEMBER WHO WE WILL HEAR FROM

TODAY IN EXECUTIVE SESSION,

FOUND NOTHING AND THEN THE

INSPECTOR GENERAL APPOINTED BY

THE GOVERNOR, FORMER STAFF OF

OUR FORMER GOVERNOR, FINDS NO

CORROBORATION AND DOESN'T EVEN

MAKE A REFERRAL I GET IT THAT

THESE BODIES CAN'T CHARGE OR

IMPANEL A GRAND JURY OR BRING A

CRIMINAL CASE BUT AT THE END OF

THE DAY, THIS IS SUCH AN

IMPORTANT TOPIC BECAUSE THAT IS

EXACTLY WHY THESE BODIES MORE

SPECIFICALLY JCOPE WERE CREATED.

WITH MUCH FANFARE, THE

MOTHERLAND COMMISSION WAS AROUND

THAT TIME AND ONCE THEY STARTED

TO UNCOVER SOME UNTOWARD OR

INAPPROPRIATE ACTS, THE GOVERNOR

DISBANDED THEM.

THEY WERE MOVING IN A DIRECTION

THAT MIGHT HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN

FRUITFUL AND WITH WHAT WE HAVE

SEEN IN THE LAST 15, 20 YEARS IN

THIS CAPITOL HAS BEEN

DISGRACEFUL AND UNFORTUNATELY IT

TAINTS ALL OF US HERE, THOSE OF

US WHO PRACTICE PROPER ETHICS.

I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY PEOPLE

ON RARE OCCASIONS.

PEOPLE SAY IS THAT PLACE A

SWAMP, IT'S WORSE THAN D.C.,

THAT'S UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE A

VERY SELECT FEW ACT IN THAT

FASHION.

THE REST OF US ACT WITH DIGNITY

AND PRIDE.

I'M REALLY GLAD TO BE HERE AND

I'M GLAD WE ARE DOING THIS AND

MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE WHAT MY

CONCERNS ARE THAT THERE ARE

PARTISAN ASPECTS TO AN EXTENT OF

POLITICAL APPOINTEES, UNELECTED

APPOINTED PEOPLE TO A BODY THAT

HAS THIS AUTHORITY SO THAT WE

REALLY NEED TO LOOK LONG AND

HARD AT HOW WE ARE GOING TO FIX

THIS BECAUSE IT'S CRITICAL AND,

IN FACT, AS SENATOR BIAGGI KNOWS

ON THE BILL SHE PROPOSED, I

DEBATED THAT ON THE FLOOR AND

RECOMMENDED A WONDERFUL IDEA AND

IT WAS A GREAT IDEA BUT A BETTER

IDEA WAS SENATOR KRUEGER'S BILL

BECAUSE THAT WAS TRULY 50-50.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT

HAPPENS IN OTHER LEGISLATIVE

BODIES, PARTICULAR WILL I IN

CONGRESS, REGARDLESS OF

MEMBERSHIP, THEY'RE 50-50.

WHY?

BECAUSE IT AVOIDS POLITICAL HIT

JOBS, THAT BOTH SIDES, IF YOU

CAN HAVE THREE MEMBERS ON ONE

SIDE AND YOU CAN HAVE 432 ON THE

OTHER AND THEY STILL GET AN

EQUAL AMOUNT ON THE

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

COMMITTEE OR COMMISSIONS AND

THAT'S WHAT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE

ALWAYS CONSIDER THAT AND EVEN

THOUGH WE DON'T THINK THESE

INDIVIDUALS PARTICULARLY WHEN

APPOINTED HAVE MALNIS THEIR

HEART, AT THE END OF THE DAY,

PERFECT EXAMPLE IS WHAT HAPPENED

WITH THE LEAK OF AN EXECUTIVE--

IT'S A CRIME TO LEAK WHAT GOES

ON IN EXECUTIVE SESSION IN JCOPE

AND EVERYBODY WALKED.

WE HAD CORROBORATION BY THE

MEDIA THAT THERE WAS AT LEAST AN

INVESTIGATION THAT SHOULD HAVE

TAKEN PLACE AND RESULTED IN

FOUNDED COMPLAINTS.

I LOOK FORWARD TO THE HEARING

AND I THANK THE CHAIRWOMAN AND I

YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME.

>> THIS IS THESE ARE VERY

CRITICAL ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE

OF DEMOCRACY AND I'M GLAD TO

HEAR MY COLLEAGUES SAY THIS IS

NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE AND BOTH

PARTIES HAVE ENDLESS EXAMPLES OF

HOW MEMBERS OF THEIR PARTY HAVE

DONE THE WRONG THING.

I HAVE BEEN IN ALBANY FOR 20

YEARS NOW AND IT'S BOTH PARTIES

AND IT IS EXACTLY AS SENATOR

BIAGGI DESCRIBED, A DESPERATE

NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY AND

INDEPENDENCE OF THE ENT CITIES

THAT ARE ASSIGNED THE JOB OF

MAKING SURE WHEN ISSUES OCCUR OF

SEXUAL HARASSMENT, TO ABUSIVE

REQUIREMENTS ON WORKERS TO DO

NON-GOVERNMENTAL WORK TO THE

WRATH AGAINST FILL IN THE BLANK

FOR NOT FOLLOWING ABINSTRUCTION

THAT THEY KNEW WAS A VIOLATION

OF THE LAW IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR

FORM.

WHEN THERE IS NO WAY FOR THEM TO

TURN TO SOMEONE AND SAY THIS IS

HAPPENING.

YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING TO HELP

ME AND WE HAVE FLUNKED OUR

DEMOCRACY AND FLUNKED OUR

RESPONSIBILITIES AS LEGISLATORS.

SO THERE IS A LOT OF BILLS HERE

TO CONSIDER AND I LOOK FORWARD

TO BRINGING MANY OF THEM TO THE

FLOOR.

AND I ALSO AGREE, THANK YOU,

SENATOR PALUMBO, I BELIEVE THE

SOLUTION TO JCOPE IS TO START

AGAIN THROUGH A CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT THAT MAKES VERY

EXPLICIT WHO THEY ARE, HOW WE IN

THE LEGISLATURE OR THE GOVERNOR

POP SHOP DON'T HAVE CONTROL OF

THEM; THAT EVERYONE WILL BE

TREATED EQUALLY AND NO ONE WILL

BE ABOVE THE LAW.

NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO WIGGLE

THEIR WAY OUT OF INVESTIGATIONS.

THAT THAT WHAT IS WE NEED TO DO.

BUT WE KNOW ALSO THAT

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

SOMETIMES TAKE YEARS AND YEARS

AND SO THERE ARE STATUTORY FIXES

WE CAN DO NOW AND I THINK KATHY

HOCHUL ON DAY ONE FOR HERSELF

MADE VERY CLEAR THAT THIS WAS

PART OF HER GOAL AND SET OF

GOALS AS THE NEW GOVERNOR.

SO NEVER LET THE CRISIS LEADING

TO ANDREW CUOMO LEAVING AND THE

OPPORTUNITY FOR A BRAND NEW

GOVERNOR, KATHY HOCHUL, TO GET

THIS RIGHT, AS FAR AS WE CAN,

THROUGH COOPERATION WITH THE

GOVERNOR WHO WILL SIGN IMPORTANT

BILLS.

SO I'M, AGAIN, I'M DELIGHTED

THAT ON DAY TWO OF HER

ADMINISTRATION, I THINK WE HAD

THE HEARING SCHEDULED BEFORE WE

KNEW WOULD BE DAY TWO OF HER

ADMINISTRATION, BUT ON DAY TWO

OF HER ADMINISTRATION, WE ARE

HERE WORKING TOGETHER, BOTH

PARTIES TO SAY THERE ARE A BUNCH

OF THINGS WE CAN DO TO GET US TO

OUR GOALS THROUGH THE RIGHT LAWS

AND I THINK WE WILL FIND A GREAT

DEAL OF COOPERATION FROM THE NEW

EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, WHICH I COULD

NOT HAVE SAID A FEW MONTHS AGO

WITH WE TALKED ABOUT THESE BILLS

ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE.

SO I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING

EVERYONE'S TESTIMONY AND I KNOW

THERE ARE PEOPLE, WHEN THEY KNEW

ABOUT THE HEARING, I INVITED A

FEW TO TV AND THEY FELT THAT

THEY COULDN'T BECAUSE OF

CONFIDENTIALITY RULES OR

THEMSELVES.

I URGE THEM TO SUBMIT THINGS IN

WRITING THAT THEY LEGALLY CAN

BECAUSE THEY'RE VERY, VERY

DISTURBING THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN

GOING ON IN THIS STATE THAT WE

DON'T ALL KNOW ABOUT AND THE

PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW ABOUT.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH, SENATOR

BIAGGI.

>> THANK YOU CHAIR KRUEGER.

SO WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, WE ARE

GOING TO BEGIN THE HEARING AND

HEAR FROM OUR FIRST WITNESS,

JUDGE SANFORD BERLAND, THE

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE JOINT

COMMISSION ON PUBLIC ETHICS OR

JCOPE.

>> GOOD MORNING RANKING MEMBER

PALUMBO, SENATOR SALAZAR,

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, I WANT

TO AT THIS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY

TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU THIS

MORNING.

I HAVE SUBMITTED A MORE

COMPREHENSIVE WRITTEN VERSION OF

MY TESTIMONY BUT IN DEFERENCE TO

TODAY'S LONG AND VERY PERSUASIVE

SPEAKERS, I'LL LIMIT MY REMARKS

TO KEY POINTS.

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE

COMMITTEE FOR PERMIT ME TO

TESTIFY REMOTELY.

I JUST RETURNED YESTERDAY

EVENING FROM A FAMILY TRIP AND

SO I'M TESTIFYING FROM OUR

NEW YORK OFFICES THIS MORNING.

ON BEHALF OF OUR COMMISSIONERS,

I WANT TO SAY THAT I'M PROUD TO

BE PART OF THE JOINT COMMISSION

ON PUBLIC ETHICS, NEW YORK'S

ETHICS AND LOBBYING REGULATOR.

TODAY I'M ONLY SPEAKING FOR

MYSELF AND OUR STAFF.

I'M THE COMMISSION'S EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, SANFORD BERLAND.

THE POSITION I ASSUMED ONLY

THREE MONTHS AGO, PRIOR TO

JOINING JCOPE I SPENT SEVERAL

YEARS ON THE BENCH AS A COURT OF

CLAIMS JUDGE SITTING AS AN

ACTING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.

AND I ALSO HAD A LONG AND VARIED

CAREER STARTING AS A JUDICIAL

LAW CLERK IN PRIVATE PRACTICE

AND IN-HOUSE WITH PFIZER, INC.

WHILE I'M STILL GETTING UP TO

SPEED AT THE COMMISSION, I'M

IMMEDIATELY STRUCK BY THE

EXPERTISE AND DEDICATION OF OUR

EXTREMELY PROFESSIONAL STAFF.

FOR A DECADE NOW THEY HAVE

PROVIDED STEADY AND CAPABLE

GUIDANCE AND DIRECTION ENSURING

NO STATE OFFICIAL EMPLOYEE OR

LOBBYIST CAN CLAIM IGNORANCE OF

THE LAWS WE ADMINISTRATES

Mr. OR THEIR OBLIGATION TO

COMPLY WITH THEM AND OF THE

PENALTIES THEY FACE SHOULD THEY

FAIL TO DO SO.

I BELIEVE, OF COURSE, THAT THIS

HEARING HAS BEEN CALLED TO

EXPLORE POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE

APPROACHES TO ETHICS, OVERSIGHT

AND ENFORCEMENT.

AND I'M PLEASED TO BE PART OF

THAT DISCUSSION.

BUT IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE A

USEFUL APPRAISAL OF OUR

ACHIEVEMENTS AND LIMITATIONS

THERE HAS TO BE AN UNDERSTANDING

OF JCOPE'S ACTUAL STATUTORY

DUTIES AND POWERS ONLY AGAINST

AN INFORMED BACKGROUND CAN THERE

BE A REALISTIC ASSESSMENT OF OUR

OPERATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL

ACHIEVEMENTS UNDER THE LAWS THAT

GOVERN JCOPE, WE ARE CHARGED

WITH ADMINISTERING THE STATE'S

ETHICS AND LOBBYING LAWS AND

THAT CAPACITY WE EDUCATE, TRAIN,

ISSUE ADVICE AND GUIDANCE AND

YES WE COMPEL.

WITHOUT OVER 2,000 STATE

OFFICERS UNDER OUR JURISDICTION

AND MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATE

IRAND LEGISLATIVE STAFF AND MORE

THAN 13,000 INDIVIDUAL LOBBYISTS

AND THEIR CLIENTS, WE ARE

EXTREMELY PROUD OF OUR RECORD IN

CARRYING OUT OUR MISSION.

WITH THE STAFF OF ONLY 50

PEOPLE, WE ANNUALLY PROCESS

34,000 FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

STATEMENT, ISSUE GUIDANCE TO

THOUSANDS OF STATE OFFICIALS

EMPLOYEES, LOBBYISTS AND

CLIENTS, ADMINISTER MORE THAN

50,000 REPORTS BY LOBBYISTS AND

THEIR CLIENTS AND INVESTIGATE

HUNDREDS OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST

STATE OFFICERS, LOBBYISTS AND

CLIENTS.

RULE MAKINGS AND ONLINE

APPLICATIONS DO NOT GENERATE

HEADLINES, THEY REPRESENT

ENORMOUS ADVANCEMENTS IN

TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT.

AT THE SAME TIME THE

CONFIDENTIALITY LAWS THAT

SURROUND OUR INVESTIGATIONS ARE

STRICT.

AND THE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING

THEM ARE SEVERE.

I'M NOT SURE WE WOULD

NECESSARILY CHOOSE TO OPERATE IN

THIS FASHION, BUT THE

LEGISLATURE CLEARLY ACKNOWLEDGED

THAT ALTHOUGH MUCH WHAT HAVE

WEIGH DO IS IN THE SERVICE OF

TRANSPARENCY AND SUNLIGHT, THERE

ARE PHASES OF OUR WORK THAT

SHOULD NOT BE MADE PUBLIC.

OUR CRITICS MISCONSTRUE THE

SILENCE THAT HAS BEEN IMPOSE THE

UPON US AS EVIDENCE OF INACTION.

AND THEY CHOOSE TO ASSUME,

WITHOUT BASIS, THAT IMPORTANT

CASES ARE BUYING IGNORED.

NIERSDZ ASSUMPTION IS CORRECT.

TO ATTEMPT TO RECTIFY THIS

MISPERCEPTION, THE COMMISSION

JUST ADOPTED A POLICY TO CONFIRM

PUBLICLY THE STATUS OF CERTAIN

HIGH PROFILE INVESTIGATIVE

MATTERS TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED

BY THE STATUTES THAT GOVERN OUR

OPERATIONS.

IT HAS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT WE

ARE NOT AWE LAW ENFORCEMENT

AGENCY PER SE.

WE HAVE NO CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT

POWERS OR JURISDICTION.

AND SO WHEN THOSE ENTITIES THAT

THE DO HAVE CRIMINAL

JURISDICTION ASK US TO STAND

DOWN, WE TYPICALLY AGREE AS WE

BELIEVE IT IS IN THE PUBLIC

INTEREST FOR US TO DO SO FOCUS

ON THE FACT THAT OUR PROCEEDINGS

ARE CIVIL, NOT CRIMINAL.

WE CAN TO THE CONDUCT OVERT

INVESTIGATIONS AND WE HAVE TO

NOTIFY A TARGET WITH WE START AN

INVESTIGATION AND OUR TOTAL

BUDGET LAST YEAR FOR EVERYTHING

WE DO WAS 5.6 MILLION AS

COMPARED WITH THE

100 MILLION-DOLLAR BUDGETS THAT

TRADITIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

AGENCIES HAVE.

IT MAKES A HUGE AMOUNT OF SENSE

THAT WE TAKE AN INITIAL BACKSEAT

TO CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND

TRIALS, WHICH TYPICALLY EXTEND

THROUGH APPEAL AND OFTEN

RETRIAL.

NEVERTHELESS, EVEN WITHIN THOSE

BOUNDARIES AND OUR SOMEWHAT

CUMBERSOME AND NECESSARY

PROCEDURES, WE HAVE MOVED MAJOR

CASES.

INCLUDING THE FIRST ETHICS

ACTION AGAINST A SITTING

ASSEMBLYMEMBER AS WELL AS I

SERIES OF ACTIONS AGAINST

LEGISLATORS FOR SEXUAL

MISCONDUCT AGAINST THEIR STAFF.

WE HAVE ALSO IMPOSED HUNDREDS OF

THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN

SANCTIONS AGAINST LOBBYISTS FOR

SEEKING IMPROPERLY TO INFLUENCE

PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND FAILING TO

FOLLOW THE LOBBYING ACTS

REQUIREMENTS.

SIMPLY PUT, WE ARE A COMPLEMENT

TO TRADITIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT,

NOT A SUBSTITUTE.

AS I MENTIONED OUR MAIN

FUNCTIONS ARE TO EDUCATE,

MONITOR AND GUIDE AND WHEN IT IS

APPROPRIATE, TO INVESTIGATE AND

BRING CIVIL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.

IN OUR VIEW, WE DO ALL OF THESE

THINGS VERY, VERY WELL DESPITE

THE CONSTRAINTS WITHIN MUCH OF

OUR WORK MUST BE CONDUCTED.

AND THE CONFIDENTIALITY RULES

THAT WE MUST OBSERVE.

AGAIN MADAMS CHAIR AND MEMBERS

OF THE RANKING COMMITTEE, I

APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE

HERE TODAY.

AND IOOK FORWARD BOTH TO ARE

QUESTIONS AND TO YOUR

SUGGESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JUDGE

BERLANDS.

I THINK WE HAVE PROBABLY A

SERIES OF QUESTIONS FROM BOTH

SIDES SO WITH THAT I WOULD JUST

LIKE TO BEGIN ON THE TOPIC OF

TRANSPARENCY AND THEN ONCE I'M

FINISHED, I WILL SEND IT TO MY

RANKING MEMBER AND THEN BACK

OVER TO THE MAJORITY JUST FOR

SOME PROCESS PROTOCOL TODAY.

YOU TOUCHED ON THIS IN YOUR

TESTIMONY AND I JUST WANT TO GO

FOO THIS A BIT.

JCOPE OPERATES IN A SHROUD OF

SECRECY.

THE PUBLIC DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS

TO INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT IS

INVESTIGATED AND THE STATUS OF

THE INVESTIGATIONS.

SUBSTANTIAL BASIS INVESTIGATION

REPORTS AND SET SETTLEMENT

AGREEMENTS ARE ONLY MADE

AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC WHEN

ENFORCEMENT ACTION IS TAKEN.

CAN YOU BRIEFLY EXPLAIN THE LAWS

THAT GOVERN JCOPE'S ABILITIES TO

DISCLOSE PROCEEDINGS AND

INVESTIGATIONS?

>> THERE ARE A SERIES OF

STATUTORY PROVISIONS IN SECTION

64 OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW WHICH

CREATE JCOPE AND AND DEFINE OUR

PROCEDURES AND THOSE MAKE IT A

MISDEMEANOR TO DISCLOSE

INFORMATION WE HAVE COLLECTED

AND PROHIBITED DISCLOSURE OF OUR

PROCEDURES OR VOTINGS, ET CETERA

WHEN A COMPLAINT IS RECEIVED.

SO IN A TYPICAL INSTANCE, A

COMPLAINT WILL COME IN, IF

APPROPRIATE, AND 15-DAY LETTER

WILL ISSUE CALLING UPON THE

RESPONDENT TO RESPOND TO ANSWER

THE ALLEGATIONS.

THE NEXT STEP, IF APPROPRIATE,

WITHIN 60 DAYS, WOULD BE A VOTE

BY THE COMMISSION ON WHETHER TO

COMMENCE A SUBSTANTIAL

INVESTIGATION AND IF

APPROPRIATE, THAT WILL PROCEED

TO HEARING AND DETERMINATION

EVERY STEP ALONG THE WAY, BY

STATUTE, IS DEEMED TO BE

CONFIDENTIAL INCLUDING THE

INFORMATION THAT WE GATHER, THE

FACT OF THE COMPLAINT THE FACT

THAT PROCEEDINGS ARE TAKING

PLACE.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT JCOPE

CREATED.

THIS IS STATUTORY.

THIS IS PART OF OUR ORGANIC

STRUCTURE.

>> SO I THINK--

>> MOST RECENTLY, AS I SAID IN

MY TESTIMONY, WE HAVE, WHERE THE

FACT OF A COMPLAINT HAS BECOME

PUBLIC OR THE FACT OF A

PROCEEDING NOTWITHSTANDING, OUR

CONFIDENTIALITY HAS BECOME

PUBLIC, THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE

VOTED TO PERMIT US TO RESPOND TO

PRESS EMPLOYEES-- IF YOU DON'T

MIND-- SORRY, I'M BEING

COGNIZANT OF MY TIME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE

RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION.

IN THAT POINT AND IN THAT VEIN,

YOUR TESTIMONY ALSO MENTIONED

THE RECENTLY ADOPTED POLICY THAT

ALLOWS THE COMMISSION TO CONFIRM

THE GENERAL STATUS OF CERTAIN

HIGH PROFILE MATTERS.

SO CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN THE

PARAMETERS AROUND THAT

DISCLOSURE AND WHAT QUALIFIES AS

A HIGH PROFILE MATTER AND WHAT

INFORMATION THE COMMISSION MAY

DISCLOSE IN ADDITION TO WHAT

I'VE JUST-- WHAT I'VE JUST

SHARED AS WELL AS WHAT YOU'VE

JUST SHARED?

>> YEAH, IN SUBSTANCE, WHERE THE

FACT OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE

AGENCY HAS BEEN MADE PUBLIC, FOR

EXAMPLE, THE COMPLAINANT HAS

MADE A PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT BY

PRESS RELEASE OR OTHER MEANS,

THAT THE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN

FORWARDED OR THERE HAS BEEN A

FORMAL REFERRAL FROM ANOTHER

AGENCY SUCH AS THE COMPTROLLER

OR PERHAPS FROM THE O.A.G., THE

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

WHERE IT'S IN THE PUBLIC

INTEREST TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT

WE, IN FACT, RECEIVED THE

COMPLAINT AND WHETHER OR NOT A

PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED.

WE HAVE NOW BEEN AUTHORIZED, WE,

STAFF, HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY

THE COMMISSIONERS TO EITHER

CONFIRM DEPENDENCY OR THE FACT

THAT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE

COMPLAINT, AS THE CASE MAY BE.

YOU KNOW, THE STATUTORY

PROVISIONS WITHIN WHICH WE ARE

OPERATING REALLY DON'T PERMIT

MUCH MORE DISCLOSURE THAN THAT.

>> OKAY.

SO TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, THE

TIMES UNION REPORTED EARLIER

THIS WEEK THAT THEY REQUESTED

COMMENT ON WHETHER THREE MATTERS

WERE PENDING BEFORE JCOPE BUT

ONLY RECEIVED A RESPONSE ON ONE

OF THOSE ISSUES.

I THINK THAT THE SPOKESPERSON OF

JCOPE RESPONDED THAT TWO MATTERS

BEING REQUESTED INFORMATION FOR,

THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO COMMENT ON

BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT CONSIDERED

PUBLIC MATTER DESPITE THE FACT

THAT THE TIMES UNION HAD A COPY

OF THE COMPLAINT MADE TO JCOPE

AND ALSO THE REFERRAL MADE TO

JCOPE IN ANOTHER.

SO CAN YOU PROVIDE SOME MORE

CLARITY AROUND HOW JCOPE IS

REALLY DETERMINING WHETHER

SOMETHING IS A PUBLIC MATTER AND

TO THE RULE AND POLICY JUST

CREATED I THINK IT WOULD BE

REALLY HELPFUL TO HAVE YOU ON

THE RECORD ADDRESSING WHETHER

JCOPE INSTITUTED THIS POLICY TO

BURNISH ITS OWN REPUTATION.

>> I MEAN THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS,

TO THE EXTENT SOME OF THE

MATTERS ABOUT INQUIRY WAS MADE

DID NOT FIT THE CRITERIA, WE

ARE-- AND I AM UNABLE, AT THIS

TIME, TO PROVIDE FURTHER

COMMENT.

AS I SAID IN BOTH MY WRITTEN AND

MY ORAL TESTIMONY, IT IS A CRIME

UNDER THE STATUTE UNDER SECTION

94, THE EXECUTIVE LAW TO

DISCLOSE WITHOUT SPECIFIC

AUTHORIZATION.

IN MY VIEW, I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR

THE COMMISSIONERS, I'M SPEAKING

FROM STAFF IN MY TESTIMONY, BUT

IN OUR VIEW, THERE ARE INSTANCES

IN WHICH THERE ARE

MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR

NOT THE AGENCY HAS RECEIVED

AND/OR IS ACTING ON A COMPLAINT.

AND WHERE THE JUDGMENT IS MADE

NOT SO MUCH THAT IT IS IN

JCOPE'S INTEREST BUT IT IS IN

THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO KNOW

WHETHER OR NOT THE AGENCY HAS

RECEIVED THE COMPLAINT AND

WHETHER OR NOT A MATTER IS

PENDING BEFORE US.

THEN THE CRITERIA CALL FOR THE

DISCLOSURE, WHERE IT'S A

CONFIDENTIAL MATTER THAT IS THE

COMPLAIN ANT HAS ELECTED, FOR

EXAMPLE, NOT TO GO PUBLIC WITH

IT AND ONE DOESN'T HAVE TO

SEARCH FAR TO SEE INSTANCES

WHERE THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE.

WHETHER IT'S A MATTER THAT AN

INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT WANT

PUBLICIZED FOR GOOD AND

SUFFICIENT REASONS FROM HIS OR

HER PERSPECTIVE OR ONE IN WHICH

THERE ARE OTHER SENSITIVITYIES

WE WOULD NOT CONSIDER THAT TO BE

A PUBLIC MATTER IN WHICH I WOULD

BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN

PART BECAUSE IT MIGHT DETER

FURTHER COMPLAINTS OF THAT KIND

FROM BEING PROPERTY DO OUR

ATTENTION AND AGAIN WE ARE

OPERATING WITHIN A AT THAT TIMER

TO FRAMEWORK.

TO COME BACK AND ANSWER YOUR

QUESTION, MADAM MADAM CHAIR, THE

INTENTION IS NOT TO BURNISH OUR

IMAGINATION, I'M NOT SURE HOW IT

WAS BURNISH OUR IMAGE ONE WAY OR

THE OTHER, ABOUT IT IS TO SERVE

IN OUR JUDGMENT, THE BEST PUBLIC

INTEREST.

>> I'M GOING TO YIELD MY TIME TO

SENATOR PALUMBO.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

GOOD MORNING JUDGE BERLAND.

NICE TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

>> GOOD MORNING, SENATOR, GOOD

TO SEE YOU.

>> YOUR HONOR, I JUST HAVE A FEW

QUESTIONS ON THE INTERNAL

PROCESS OF HANDLING A COMPLAINT.

MY UNDERSTANDING A COMPLAINT

COMES IN, A PRELIMINARY

INVESTIGATION AND THEN THERE IS

A VOTE TO PROCEED.

IS THAT GENERALLY HOW IT HAPPENS

OR IF YOU WANT TO CLARIFY THAT.

>> IN THE MORE TYPICAL CASE, A

COMPLAINT, IT COULD BE SOMETHING

FROM OUR TIP KLEIN, FOR EXAMPLE

WE HAVE AN ANONYMOUS TIP LINE.

IT COULD BE AN EMAIL IT COULD BE

A TRADITIONAL LETTER, THOSE

STILL COME IN OR IT COULD BE A

REFERRAL.

OUR ENFORCEMENT STAFF MAKES A

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IN

SOME INSTANCES, DEPENDING ON THE

NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT,

REGARDING, FOR EXAMPLE, STATE

EMPLOYEE, THEY MIGHT REACH OUT

TO THE AGENCY TO SEE IF THE

AGENCY IS ACTING ON IT, WHAT THE

AGENCY KNOWS ABOUT IT PERHAPS

THE AGENCY'S ETHICS OFFICER OR

THEIR OWN INTERNAL INVESTIGATIVE

STAFF.

IT MAY BE A DEPARTMENT THAT HAS

AN INSPECTOR GENERAL BUT THEY

WILL DEVELOP PRELIMINARY

INFORMATION AND IF APPROPRIATE A

SO CALLED 15-DAY LETTER WILL GO

OUT TO WHETHER YOU DESCRIBE THE

INDIVIDUAL AS A TARGET OR A

SUBJECT OR THE RESPONDENT,

CALLING UPON THAT INDIVIDUAL

WITHIN 15 DAYS TO ANSWER THE

CHARGES OR THE NATURE AND

SUBSTANCE OF THE COMPLAINT.

ONCE THAT IS RECEIVED, THE

COMMISSION WILL BE CALLED UPON

TO VOTE WHETHER OR NOT TO

COMMENCE WHAT IS CALLED A

SUBSTANTIAL BASIS INVESTIGATION.

AND IF THERE IS A VOTE IN FAVOR

OF DOING THAT, STATUTE CALLED

FOR SO CALLED SCOPE OF

INVESTIGATION TO BE ORDERED AT

THE SAME TIME THE INVESTIGATION

IS OPENED SIMULTANEOUSLY WHICH

DESCRIBES HOW OUR INVESTIGATIVE

POWERS, ESSENTIALLY CIVIL

SUBPOENA POWERS AND INTERVIEWS

AND SO ON WILL BE CONDUCTED AND

THEN DEPENDING ON HOW THAT CASE

DEVELOPS, IT MAY GO TO HEARING

BEFORE AN INDEPENDENT HEARING

EXAMINER AND IF IT GOES ALL THE

WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS, VERY

FEW CASES GO THAT FAR WITHOUT

SOME SORT OF RESOLUTION BEING

REACH ADD LONG THE WAY, THEN

THERE WILL BE A REPORT FROM THE

HEARING OFFICER TO THE

COMMISSION AND THE COMMISSION

WILL BE ASKED TO DECIDE WHETHER

OR NOT IT AGREES THAT THE

DETERMINATION.

IF IT'S A STATE EMPLOYEE, STATE

OFFICER, THE COMMISSION, IF IT

FINDS THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL

BASIS, WILL ASSESS THE PENALTY,

DEPENDING UPON THE NATURE OF THE

STATUTE THAT'S VIOLATED, IF IT

IS A LEGISLATIVE EMPLOYEE, THAT

FINAL DETERMINATION WILL BE

REFERRED BACK TO THE LEGISLATIVE

ETHIC COMMITTEE.

>> IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS NO

ACTION TAKEN AGAINST AN

INDIVIDUAL, IS THERE ANY MANNER

IN WHICH THE JCOPE COULD RELEASE

THE INVESTIGATIVE MATERIALS TO

ANOTHER LEGISLATIVE BODY SAY,

FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WAS NO ACTION

TAKEN AND THERE WERE SOME

COMMISSIONERS WHO FELT THAT THIS

SHOULD HAVE PROCEEDED FURTHER,

THERE IS ANY SORT OF ADDITIONAL

PROCESS, FOR EXAMPLE, MAKING A

REFERRAL WITHOUT A MAJORITY VOTE

TO SOMEONE LIKE A DISTRICT

ATTORNEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OR AN

ACTUAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY?

IS THERE ANY MANNER IN WHICH

THAT CAN BE DONE.

>> WHY, UNDER YES, UNDER THE

STATUTE, THE COMMISSION CAN

VOTE, SAME TYPE OF VOTING

PROCEDURE AS IN OTHER MATTERS,

TO REFER THE MATTER TO A LAW

ENFORCEMENT ENTITY THAT IS IF

THERE IS A DETERMINE I GOES AT

ANY POINT IN WHICH UNCOVERED

WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE EVIDENCE

OF THE VIOLATION OF ANOTHER

CRIMINAL PROVISION, THEN YES, WE

DO THERE HAVE THE POWER TO

REFER.

BUT IF YOUR QUESTION IS WERE WE

HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE IT

PUBLIC, THE ANSWER THE STATUTE

DOES NOT PERMIT US TO DO SO

THAT'S WHAT THE LEGISLATURE SAID

WHEN IT ENACTED...

>> SURE.

MY QUESTION IS REALLY CONFINED

TO WHETHER OR NOT IT CAN BE

FURTHER REFERRED OUT WITH A VOTE

OTHER THAN THE STANDARD VOTE AND

OF COURSE YOU HAVE PROBABLY

GLEANED I'M REFERRING TO THE

LEAK INVESTIGATION SCHS KIND OF

THE EASIEST AND MOST OBVIOUS ONE

THAT WAS BEFORE YOUR TIME OF

COURSE, AND AT THAT POINT, THE

INSPECTOR GENERAL TOOK IT UP,

BUT MY BELIEVING IS ALL OF THE

GOVERNOR'S APPOINTEES VOTED

AGAINST A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS

INVESTIGATION AND THAT JUST KIND

OF WENT AWAY.

MY CONCERN IS THAT WHEN THERE IS

A VACANCY AS WELL ON THE

COMMISSION, THAT'S AN AUTOMATIC

NO VOTE.

SO WHEN YOU HAVE A VACANCY THAT

ISN'T FILLED, IT CREATES A BIT

OF A STALEMATE.

DO YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS AS

TO HOW WE CAN REMEDY THAT

CONCERN THAT I HAVE?

>> LET ME TAKE IT BACK A STEP IF

I MAY, SENATOR.

>> SURE.

>> UNDER THE STATUTE, THE

STATUTE IS VERY SPECIFIC IN

SECTION 9-A ABOUT LEAKS OF

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FROM

THE COMMISSION AND THIS STEMS

FROM OUR PREDECESSOR AGENCY'S

CORONAVIRUS.

THE LEGISLATURE PROVIDED THAT

SPECIFICALLY IN THE EVENT

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

FORBIDDEN TO BE DISCLOSED AND

THAT WOULD INCLUDE HOW

COMMISSIONERS VOTES VERY

SPECIFICALLY TO BE REFERRED TO

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SO IN THAT

SPECIFIC INSTANCE, THE STATUTE

DOES NOT-- AT LEAST WITHIN THE

TERMS OF THE STATUTE, DOES NOT

PROVIDE US WITH LATITUDE, JCOPE

AS A COMMISSION, TO REFER THAT

MATTER EXCEPT TO THE INSPECTOR

GENERAL, WHICH IN THAT INSTANCE

I THINK THIS IS A MATTER OF

PUBLIC RECORD, WAS PROMPTLY

DONE.

SO THAT TOOK PLACE.

IT TOOK PLACE IMMEDIATELY, THERE

WAS NO HESITATION AND THERE WAS

NO DELAY.

THAT WAS IMMEDIATELY REPORTED ON

TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S

OFFICE THE.

THE MORE RECENT INCIDENTS TO THE

EXTENT THEY INVOLVE COMMISSION

VOTING, AGAIN, I'M NOT PERMITTED

BY THE STATUTE TO SPEAK TO THAT

VOTING.

THAT WOULD BE COMPOUNDING THE

VIOLATION THAT OCCURRED IN THAT

INSTANCE, ALLEGEDLY OCCURRED IN

THAT INSTANCE: NONETHELESS,

INDIVIDUALS HAVE, TO MY

UNDERSTAND CAN, PUBLICLY-- TO MY

UNDERSTANDING, PUBLICLY, MADE

THEIR OWN REPORTS, IF YOU WILL,

WELL TO THE OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL.

THAT'S OUTSIDE OF JCOPE'S

JURISDICTION THERE ARE NO

SECRETS TO THAT ASPECT OF IT.

IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, I

SUPPOSE YOU KNOW, IF IT IS

DEEMED REPORTS TO THE INSPECTOR

GENERAL ARE NOT A SUFFICIENT WAY

TO DEAL WITH THOSE KINDS OF

LEAKS, THE SANCTITY OF THIS

PRIVATE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

IS TO BE PROTECTED, OUR REFERRAL

POWERS COULD BE EXPANDED AND

THAT RESTRICTION WHICH RESTRICTS

US REPORTING TO THE INSPECTOR

GENERAL COULD BE COULD HAVE AN

ALTERNATIVE OR OTHER

APPROPRIATIVE INVESTIGATIVE OR

PROSECUTORIAL AUTHORITY.

>> EXCELLENT.

THANK YOU, JUDGE.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

>> BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I WANT TO

RECOGNIZE SENATOR STEC FOR

JOINING US TODAY AND WE'LL HEAR

NEXT FROM CHAIR KRUEGER.

>> THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, JUDGE.

FOLLOWING UP ON SEVERAL OF THE

QUESTIONS.

I'M CONFUSED OF THE ROLE OF THE

I.G. VERSUS THE ROLE OF THE

JCOPE.

SO JCOPE REFERS TO I.G., I.G.

REFERS TO JCOPE, EITHER

DIRECTION, NEITHER DIRECTION?

HOW DOES THAT WORK?

>> WELL, THE STATE INSPECTOR

GENERAL IS AN INVESTIGATOR AND

IT DOES HAVE THE POWER WHERE THE

INSPECTOR GENERAL MPLEGHTS IN

FACT THE INSPECTORS GENERALS IN

ANY OF THE DIVISIONS THAT THE

HAVE INSPECTORS GENERAL WHEN

THEY IDENTIFY VIOLATIONS OF THE

PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW, FOR EXAMPLE

THAT FALL WITHIN OUR

JURISDICTION, THEY CAN REPORT

THOSE MATTERS TO US AND WE WOULD

CRETE THEM AS COMPLAINTS.

IN SOME INSTANCES, THERE MAY BE

MATTERS IN AGENCIES THAT THOSE

AGENCIES HAVE THE MEANS TO

ADDRESS THROUGH THEIR OWN

ENFORCEMENT POWERS IF AN

EMPLOYEE IS DOING SOMETHING THAT

VIOLATES, FOR EXAMPLE, SECTION

73 OR 74 OF THE PUBLIC OFFICERS

LAW, THEY CAN TAKE CERTAIN

EMPLOYMENT RELATED ACTIONS

AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL.

OFTEN WE WILL WORK IN PARALLEL

IN MATTERS OF THAT KIND IN

SEEKING ENFORCEMENT OF

VIOLATIONS OF THE ETHICS LAW.

WITH RESPECT TO THE STATE

ATTORNEY GENERAL SPEAKING ONLY

TO THE DISCLOSURE PROVISION, WE

ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT A LEAK OF

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION UNDER

SECTION 9-A OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW

TO THE STATE INSPECTOR GENERAL

TO INVESTIGATE AND THE STATE

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF COURSE HAS

THE AUTHORITY IF THE INSPECTOR

GENERAL IDENTIFIES VIOLATION OF

THE CRIMINAL LAWS TO REFER SUCH

A VAGUES TO THE APPROPRIATE

PROSECUTORIAL AUTHORITY.

>> AND JCOPE BASICALLY IS

LIMITED IN ITS SCOPE TO PUBLIC

OFFICERS LAW, BUT I.G.,

INSPECTOR GENERAL, HAS A BROADER

MANDATE OF WHAT THEY CAN LOOK

AT.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> IN SOME RESPECTS, THAT'S

TRUE.

AS I SAID EARLIER, MADAM CHAIR,

IN RESPONSE TO SENATOR PALUMBO

BOW'S QUESTION, IF WE JCOPE, OF

COURSE, IN INVESTIGATION,

IDENTIFY WHAT WE BELIEVE IS OR

COULD BE A VIOLATION, FOR

EXAMPLE THE PENAL CODE AS

OPPOSED TO A PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW

VIOLATION, WE ARE EMPOWERED AND

WE WOULD REFER THAT TO THE

APPROPRIATE PROSECUTORIAL

AUTHORITY.

BUT AGAIN WE HAVE ENFORCEMENT

POWERS UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS

LAW THAT THE STATE INSPECTOR

GENERAL DID US NOT NECESSARILY

HAVE SO THERE IS A BIFURCATION,

IF YOU WILL, THE NATURE OF OUR

STATE BODY OF LAWS BETWEEN THE

ETHICS LAWS AND THE PENAL CODE

AND THE POWERS OF THE INSPECTOR

GENERAL, WHICH MOSTLY HAVE TO DO

AS FAR AS WE ARE CONCERNED WITH

INVESTIGATION.

THEY MAY REFER A MATTER BACK TO

US SO SENATOR BIAGGI WAS ASKING

QUESTIONS AND HIGHLIGHTING COULD

BE FUSION OUT HERE ABOUT WHETHER

IS SOMETHING CONFIDENTIAL AND

WHEN IS IT AVAILABLE TO THE

PUBLIC OR TRANSPARENT AND SHE

REFERENCED, I GUESS THE "TIMES

UNION" STORY I BELIEVE YESTERDAY

AND HOW JCOPE HAS DECIDED IN

THREE DIFFERENT WAYS, HOW TO

HANDLE THREE STORY LINES THAT I

THINK WERE ALL KNOWN TO THE

PUBLIC AT A CERTAIN LEVEL.

A FOURTH ONE IN THE PRESS, NO

THE IN THAT ARTICLE, IS THAT

TOMORROW JCOPE IS GOING HAVE A

BOARD MEETING TO DISCUSS HOW TO

HANDLE SOME KIND OF CHARGES

INVOLVING STATE WORKERS WORKING

ON THE BOOK FOR ANDREW CUOMO ON

GOVERNMENT TIME SO THAT'S

APPARENTLY PUBLIC INFORMATION

SINCE IT WAS IN THE NEWSPAPER.

WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO BE

THE QUESTION BROUGHT TO THE

BOARD TOMORROW AT JCOPE AND

WHAT-- I KNOW YOU CAN'T ANSWER

THE QUESTION HOW WILL THEY

DECIDE OR VOTE, BUT CAN YOU HELP

ME UNDERSTAND WHAT ROLE YOU ARE

GOING TO PLAY HERE IN THIS CASE

BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE ANOTHER

STORY LINE THAT IS PART OF AN

INVESTIGATION THAT I THINK IS

BEFORE ONE OR TWO DAs ALREADY.

WHAT IS JCOPE'S ROLE.

I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT

JCOPE'S ROLE IS AND WHEN DOES IT

OVERLAP OR NOT WITH THE ROLE OF

DAs AND/OR INSPECTOR GENERAL?

THE TWO QUESTIONS TIE TOGETHER.

HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE

DOING TOMORROW.

>> MADAM CHAIR, WE ARE ABLE TO

CONFIRM THAT THE MATTER IS

PEPPING AND FRANKLY THE STATUTE

DOESN'T PERMIT ME OR ANY OF OUR

COMMISSIONERS OR ANY OF OUR

STAFF TO SAY ANYMORE THAN THAT.

I MEAN VERY SPECIFICALLY ALL

THOSE PROCEEDINGS AND THIS WAS A

LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT.

THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF OUR

RULES OR REGULATIONS OR POLICY.

THIS IS NOT JCOPE GENERATED THIS

IS STATUTORY AND THIS IS A

JUDGMENT THAT THE LEGISLATURE

MADE WHEN IT ENACTED THE

STATUTE.

AND ONE CAN IMAGINE REASONS WHY.

AND CERTAINLY THE PRELIMINARY

PHASES OF AN INVESTIGATION AND

IF THERE IS A DETERMINATION THAT

INDEED THE CLAIM IS WITHOUT

SUFFICIENT SUBSTANCE OR MERIT

WHY IT SHOULD REMAIN

CONFIDENTIAL BUT ONE MIGHT DRAW

DIFFERENT CONCLUSION AS WELL AS

AS A LEGISLATOR IN FRAMING

LEGISLATION BUT FROM OUR

PERSPECTIVE WE ARE NOT PERMITTED

TO TALK ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF

MATTERS BEFORE US AND I DO

UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION OF

THE PRESS.

I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION OF

THOSE WHO HAVE BROUGHT

COMPLAINTS BEFORE US WHO BELIEVE

THE COMPLAINTS HAVE MERIT AND I

UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION OF

OTHER ARMS OF GOVERNOR AS WELL

AS PERHAPS IN SOME INSTANCES OUR

OWN FRUSTRATION WHEN WE SEE IN

THE PRESS THAT-- BUT AS A MATTER

OF SIMPLE NECESSITY, WE ARE

HANDLING TENS UPON TENS OF

THOUSANDS OF FILINGS EVERY YEAR.

WE ARE EXTREMELY BUSY.

WE HAVE A VERY LIMITED

INVESTIGATIVE CAPABILITY

NONETHELESS,WE CONDUCT MANY,

MANY INVESTIGATIONS.

AND WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT THOSE,

YOU KNOW, WE ARE MALIGNED.

IT'S FRUSTRATING TO ME.

I TOOK THIS JOB BECAUSE I

BELIEVE VERY DEEPLY IN THE

IMPORTANCE OF ENFORCING-- THE

IMPORTANCE OF HAVING AND THE

IMPORTANCE OF ENFORCING

MEANINGFUL ETHICS LAWS.

>> I APPRECIATE YOUR

FRUSTRATION.

>> I WAS ACUTELY AWARE OF THE

IMAGE THE AGENCY HAS.

AND I DO THINK IT'S NOT DESERVED

BUT UNFORTUNATELY, MADAM CHAIR,

THERE IS SO LITTLE THAT I'M

PERMITTED BY LAW TO SAY AND IT

IS FRUSTRATING FOR ALL OF US

AGAIN, I APPRECIATE YOUR

FRUSTRATIONS.

I'M NOT NECESSARILY TRYING TO

GET YOU TO TELL ME THINGS YOU

CAN'T TELL ME BECAUSE OF

CONFIDENTIALITY.

I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S

THE ROLE OF JCOPE AND I USED A

REAL ETCH.

MAYBE I WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER

WITH A HYPOTHETICAL BUT SINCE

THE REAL ETCH WAS IN THE

NEWSPAPER, I USED THE REAL

EXAMPLE.

SO I'LL STICK WITH THAT EVEN

THOUGH YOU ARE NOT GOING TO TELL

ME MUCH ABOUT THAT.

THE ARTICLE SAID THAT JCOPE

COULD ACTUALLY REQUIRE THE

GOVERNOR TO GIVE BACK THE

$5 MILLION IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCE.

FORGET THE ANSWER TO THAT

QUESTION DO YOU BELIEVE THAT

JCOPE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO

COLLECT DEMAND AND COLLECT

FINANCIAL PAYMENT FOR VIOLATIONS

OF PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW.

THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW SECTION

774 INCLUDES PENALTIES OF

VARIOUS KINDS, DEPENDING ON THE

NATURE OF THE VIOLATION.

WE CAN ASSESS FINES WE CAN

AFFECT AN INDIVIDUAL'S OFFICE

FOR EMPLOYMENT WHERE THERE HAS

BEEN A MISUSE OF RESOURCES FOR

ONE'S OWN BENEFIT, WE HAVE

CERTAIN REMEDY ARE AVAILABLE TO

US IN RECOUPING THOSE.

I DON'T I'M RELUCTANT TO OFFER A

LEGAL OPINION.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT-- MY JUDICIAL

BACKGROUND HAVING GONE THROUGH

SIMILAR HEARINGS IN A DIFFERENT

SETTING BUT I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE

A GOOD DEAL OF AUTHORITY BUT

THESE ARE ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE

LITIGATED.

>> SO HAS JCOPE EVER SUCCESS...

>> I DON'T WANT TO FORECLOSE ANY

PENALTY AND I DON'T WANT TO...

>> HAS JCOPE EVER SUCCESSFULLY

ASSIGNED SUCH A PENALTY AND

RECEIVED SUCH A PAYMENT FROM ANY

OF THE CASES THAT JCOPE HAS

DEALT WITH?

WOULD THIS BE A FIRST-TIME

SITUATION OR IS THIS SOMETHING

THAT ACTUALLY HAS HAPPENED?

I TERMLY AM NOT AWARE-- I CAN

GET THE ANSWER FOR YOU-- I'M NOT

AWARE OF ANY INSTABS IN WHICH--

INSTANCE IN WHICH SOMETHING OF

THAT MAGNITUDE HAS BEEN ASSESSED

AS A PENALTY.

I DO ASSURE YOU THAT IN ANY

PROCEEDING, IN ANY PROCEEDING,

WE, AS IS OUR OBLIGATION, TAKE

INTO ACCOUNT THE FULL MEASURE OF

THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO US UNDER

THE RELEVANT STATUTE TO ASSESS

THE APPROPRIATE CIVIL PENALTY

AND THE APPROPRIATE CURATIVE

PENALTY WHERE IT IS WITHIN OUR

POWER AND WHERE TO COME BACK TO

THE OTHER QUESTIONS WHERE

CRIMINALITY THAT WE CAN'T

ENFORCE IS INVOLVED TO MAKE THE

APPROPRIATE REFERRAL.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> I HOPE THAT'S RESPONSIVE TO

YOUR QUESTION I'M CERTAINLY NOT

GOING TO RULE OUT IN AN

APPROPRIATE CASE.

>> THANK YOU JUDGE BERLAND.

BEFORE WE CONTINUE, I WANT TO

RECOGNIZE TWO OF OUR COLLEAGUES

WHO HAVE JOINED SENATOR LIU.

BEFORE WE HAND IT OVER TO

SENATOR BOYLE,LY ASK VERY

QIENDLY THAT WHEN YOU RESPOND TO

THE QUESTION THAT YOU ARE A BIT

MORE SUCCINCT BECAUSE I KNOW WE

HAVE TIME CONSIDERATIONS AND

WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT

EVERYONE'S QUESTIONS GET ASKED

AND THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS

SO IF YOU CAN BE AS SUCCINCT AS

POSSIBLE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

YOU DID MENTION THE PER MENTION

OF JCOPE, THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION

AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT SOMEONE

WHO HAS BEEN IN ALBANY A LONG

TIME, MY PERCEPTION IS THAT

JCOPE IS MORE INTERESTED IN WHO

IS COMMITTING MALFEASANCE RATHER

THAN WHAT THEY DID.

I LOOK AT-- YOU MENTIONED

JCOPE'S ACTIONS AGAINST SITTING

ASSEMBLY PERSON, WHEN THEY'RE

GOING AFTER A FRESHMAN

REPUBLICAN ASSEMBLYMEMBER OR

MAJORITY MEMBER IN THE ASSEMBLY

WHO MIGHT BE A PAIN TO THE

LEADERSHIP, THAT'S FINE BUT THE

BIG ONES ARE CASES LIKE THE

LEAK.

NOW MAYBE I'M WRONG AND I'M

READING MEDIA REPORTS TO SAY

THAT FROM THIS LEAK NIRTSZ THE

GOVERNOR NOR THE SPEAKER WERE

EVER EVEN QUESTIONED.

THE TWO OBVIOUS PEOPLE, I'M NOT

AN INVESTIGATOR NEVER BEEN A LAW

ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL BUT THE

FIRST TWO PEOPLE I WOULD SPEAK

TO WERE THOSE PEOPLE AND MEDIA

REPORTS SAY THAT THEY WERE NOT

QUESTIONED.

THIS IS THE TYPE OF THING I'M

TALKING ABOUT NOW ONE THING YOU

DID MENTION JCOPE IS ALLOWED TO

MAKE A CRIMINAL REFERRAL MAYBE

YOU WEREN'T ALLOWED TO QUESTION

THESE PEOPLE TO ARE SOME REASON.

WAS THERE A CRIMINAL REFERRAL IN

THE LEAK INVESTIGATION.

>> SENATOR, THANK YOU.

UNDER SECTION 9-A SUBSECTION

(INAUDIBLE) WHEN A LEAK IS

ALLEGED TO HAVE OCCURRED, JCOPE

IS DIRECTED TO REPORT THAT LEAK

TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WITH

THE EXPECTATION ONE WOULD THINK

THAT WILL THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

WOULD THEN CONDUCT AN

INVESTIGATION OF IT, BUT THE

PROVISION SAYS IN THE EVENT OF A

LEAK AND IT'S A MISDEMEANOR,

JCOPE IS REQUIRED TO REFER THAT

TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AS THAT

POINT, IT IS UP TO THE INSPECTOR

GENERAL TO CONDUCT THE

INVESTIGATION.

IT'S ESSENTIALLY TAKEN OUT OF,

FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE

LEGISLATURE MADE THAT JUDGMENT

WHEN IT PASSED THAT THAT KIND OF

LEAK-- AND I THINK THE PRESS 20

FOR THE CONCERN-- PRECEDENT FOR

THE CONCERN WAS IN OUR

PREDECESSOR AGENCY.

THE DETERMINATION WAS THAT

RATHER THAN THE BODY TRYING TO

INVESTIGATE ITSELF, THAT THAT

WOULD BE REFERRED OUT TO THE

INSPECTOR GENERAL.

OF COURSE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL,

YOU KNOW, WOULD HAVE THE POWER,

DEPENDING UPON WHAT CAME OF THAT

INVESTIGATION, TO REFER THE

PROSECUTION OF THAT MISDEMEANOR.

WE, JCOPE, DON'T PROSECUTE

MISDEMEANORS.

WE DON'T HAVE A CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE BUILT INTO WHAT WE DO

WITH ALL THAT A CRIMINAL

PROCEEDING ENTAILS.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT, YOUR

HONORMENT I WOULD SAY THAT AS I

MENTIONED REGARDS THAN JCOPE

FOCUSING ON WHO COMMITTED THE

MALFEASANCE RATHER THAN WHAT

THEY DID THE SAME IS TRUE WITH

STAFF AND MEMBERS OF JCOPE.

I THINK THE LAST PERSON I

REMEMBER IN MY LONG TENURE THAT

REALLY WENT AFTER ETHICS

VIOLATIONS ON BOTH SIDES WAS

Mr. GRANDAU, A SPEAKER OR

DEMOCRAT OR WHATEVER, THEY

FOCUSED ON IT.

I HAVE A MINUTE AND A HALF LEFT.

QUICKLY, WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF

COULD YOU GIVE ONE MAJOR CHANGE,

IF JCOPE STAYED THE WAY IT IS,

NOT TO SAY IT IS GOING TO BUT IF

IT DID, WHAT IS ONE MAJOR CHANGE

WOULD YOU DO TOIC MA IT TRULY AN

ETHICS COMMISSION THAT FIGHTS

MALFEASANCE.

>> I WOULD ASK THAT OUR

ENFORCEMENT POWERS AND BUDGET BE

AUGMENTED.

WE HAVE ARE LITTLE FISCAL

CAPABILITY IN EMPLOYING

ENFORCEMENT COUNSEL AND

INVESTIGATORS.

AND I IMAGINE THAT'S COME ABOUT,

ONLY BEEN HERE THREE MONTHS, AS

A FUNCTION OF THE WIDE ARRAY OF

DUTIES WE HAVE AND THE FACT THAT

INVESTIGATIONS ARE A SMALLER

PART BUT THEY CAN BE A BIGGER

PART AND IF THAT'S THE CONCERN,

YOU KNOW, GIVING US A GREATER

CAPABILITY IN FERRETING IT OUT

AND HAVING MORE SEVERE

PENALTIES, WOULD BE ONE WRAY TO

DO THAT BUT THERE ARE MANY OTHER

THINGS THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO

US BUT IF YOU ARE ASKING ME FOR

THE CHIEF ONE, THAT WOULD BE

ONE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE

SENATOR CAM SENATOR SENATOR

KAMINSKY SKI FOR JOINING US

TODAY.

>> THANK YOU JUDGE BERLAND FOR

YOUR TESTIMONY YOU WERE

APPOINTED AS YOU MENTIONED TO

THE POSITION OF EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR OF JCOPE A FEW MONTHS

AGO, IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR WOULD

YOU MIND DESCRIBING FOR US THE

PROCESS OF YOUR APPOINTMENT TO

THE POSITION?

>> I APPLIED TO THE POSITION.

I HAD LEARNED IT HAD BEEN

POSTED.

APPLIED FOR THE POSITION.

I WAS INTERVIEWED, IF THAT'S

YOUR QUESTION, I HOPE I'M

RESPONDING PROPERLY, SENATOR.

I WAS INTERVIEWED BY WHAT I

UNDERSTOOD TO BE EFFECTIVELY AN

INTERVIEW OR SEARCH COMMITTEE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMISSION.

AND ULTIMATELY MET OR HAD THE

OPPORTUNITY TO MEET-- AND IT WAS

ALL DONE VIRTUALLY BECAUSE IT

WAS DURING THE PANDEMIC, HAD THE

OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE

FULL COMMISSION AND I UNDERSTAND

THERE WERE A NUMBER OF

CANDIDATES WHO WERE BEING

CONSIDERED FOR THE POSITION AND

IN LATE APRIL MEETING OF THIS

YEAR I BELIEVE THE DECISION WAS

MADE AND I CAME ON BOARD MAY 6

IN MY CURRENT POSITION.

>> WHAT TRAINING, IF ANY, DID

YOU RECEIVE UPON STEPPING IN THE

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ROLE.

EXISTING STAFF PROVIDED ME WITH

TUTORIALS ON THE BODIES OF LAWS

THAT I FAMILIARIZED MYSELF WITH

DURING THE COURSE OF THE

APPLICATION AND INTERVIEW

PROCESS, ADMINISTERED BY THE

AGENCIES LED ME THROUGH A BODY

OF PRECEDENT PUBLISHED DECISIONS

WHICH ARE AVAILABLE ON THEIR

WEBSITE.

THE PROCEDURAL RULES, ITS

CONSTITUENCY, IT'S HISTORY.

>> EVERYONE-- I MEAN IF YOU ARE

ASKING ABOUT THE MANDATORY

ETHICS TRAINING, YES, I MEAN

EVERYONE IS REQUIRED STATE

EMPLOYEES EVERY STATE EMPLOYEE

WHO IS REQUIRED TO FILE A

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

HAS MANDATORY ETHICS TRAINING.

DURING THE PANDEMIC, IT HAS BEEN

VIRTUAL BUT IT IS LIVE AND WE

HAVE A REGULAR EDUCATIONAL

PROGRAM THAT WE ADMINISTER AND

PROVIDE THAT EDUCATIONAL ASSET

ACROSS STATE GOVERNMENT.

AND AGENCIES ALSO HAVE THEIR OWN

EDUCATIONAL PROCESSES SO WE

PROVIDE IT TO OUR STAFF AND WE

PROVIDE IT ACROSS THE SPECTRUM

OF STATE AGENCIES.

AND THAT INCLUDES A VARIETY OF

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS WITH AN

EMPHASIS, I WOULD SAY, ON

ETHICAL TRAINING WOULD YOU MIND

TELLING US JUST TO GO BACK TO

WHEN WHEN YOU YOU SOUGHT THE

POSITION WHEN YOU APPLIED.

DO YOU REMEMBER HOW YOU FOUND

OUT THE POSITION WAS OPEN IN THE

FIRST PLACE?

DID YOU LEARN THIS FROM SOMEONE

YOU KNOW DO YOU REMEMBER THE

CIRCUMSTANCES?

>> PROBABLY THE CONVERSATION

WITH THE FORMER CHAIR WHO IS

SOMEONE I'VE KNOWN IN VARIOUS

CAPACITIES OVER THE YEARS.

>> GOT IT.

AND IN YOUR OPINION, DOES JCOPE

HAS THE ADEQUATE RESOURCES TO

HIRE EXPERTS IN CASES WHERE

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT IS NEEDED AND

INVESTIGATIONS THAT MIGHT

REQUIRE SPECIAL EXPERTISE SUCH

AS A SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE?

>> WELL, WE ACTUALLY ARE

DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT FORMER

SPECIAL VICTIMS PROSECUTOR FROM

MANHATTAN DA'S OFFICE.

SO WE HAVE THAT EXPERTISE

IN-HOUSE.

>> SO PERHAPS IN A DIFFERENT

INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION OF A

DIFFERENT NATURE THAN SEXUAL

HARASSMENT, IF YOU WERE TO

DETERMINE DOES JCOPE HAVE

SUFFICIENT RESOURCES TO HIRE AND

THE ABILITY TO BRING IN SOMEBODY

ELSE TO ASSIST IN THE

INVESTIGATION?

>> WE DON'T I MEAN I WISH WE DID

AND I POINTED OUT IN MY WRITTEN

TESTIMONY WE DON'T HAVE FOR

EXAMPLE, ACCESS TO FORENSIC

ACCOUNTANTS AND IT WOULD BE

WELL, IF WE HAD A BUDGET THAT

ALLOWED US, FOR EXAMPLE TO BRING

IN THAT KIND OF EXPERTISE ON ANG

AS NEEDED BASIS.

AND ADDITIONAL STAFF TO WORK

WITH THOSE KINDS OF INDIVIDUALS.

>> THANK YOU, JUDGE.

>> THAT WOULD BE EXTREMELY

USEFUL AS I MENTIONED TO SENATOR

PALUMBO BOW THAT INDEED AN

AUGMENTATION OF OUR

INVESTIGATIVE ENFORCEMENT STAFF

AND AUGMENTATION OF OUR POWERS

IN THAT AREA IN WHICH WE

FUNCTION AND CROARNTDING BUDGETY

INCREASE WOULD BE VERY USEFUL IN

VANGSZING-- ADVANCING THE WORK

THAT WE DO.

>> THANK YOU.

>> VERY WELL AND WE'LL TAKE THAT

UNDER ADVISEMENT WHEN WE GO BACK

TO OUR LEGISLATIVE DESKS.

NOW WE ARE GOING TO HEAR FROM

SENATOR SENATOR STEC.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY

TODAY (INAUDIBLE).

>> I'M SORRY, SENATOR, I

APOLOGIZE.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S MY

CONNECTION--

>> IS THAT BETTER, JUDGE?

THAT WAS ON MY END.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING

WITH US TODAY, JUDGE.

>> A PLEASURE.

>> I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON A

QUESTION THAT SENATOR KRUEGER

ASKED A MOMENT AGO AND MAYBE IF

I ASK YOU A DIFFERENT WAY, I'LL

BE CLEAR ON IT.

HYPOTHETICALLY, IF A COMPLAINT

IS BROUGHT TO YOU OR SOMEBODY

HAS FINANCIALLY GAINED FROM

INAPPROPRIATE ACTIONSES OR

BEHAVIOR, I THINK THE ANSWER TO

THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING THAT

YOU GAVE EARLIER WAS PENALTIES

AND FINES COULD BE INVOKED.

MY QUESTION IS CERTAINLY IF THE

FINANCIAL GAIN IS MORE THAN ANY

FINES OR PENALTIES COULD BE

INVOKED, THERE IS AN OBVIOUS

ENCOURAGEMENT FOR THE BEHAVIOR,

YOU KNOW, THAT IF I GET A $5,000

FINE FOR $5 MILLION BOOK DEAL,

THAT'S NOT MUCH OF A DETERRENT

SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS

HYPOTHETICALLY, IF FINANCIAL

GAIN IS SIGNIFICANT IS THERE A

MECHANISM FOR JCOPE TO CLAW BACK

BEYOND A STANDARD FINE OR

PENALTY, THE ACTUAL GAIN ITSELF?

>> YEAH, YEAH, THE STATUTE

PROVIDES, SECTION 74 IN THE

PENALTY SECTIONS, SUBSECTION 4,

DOES PROVIDE FOR A PENALTY THAT

INCLUDED RECOUPMENT OF THE

COMPENSATION BY THE INDIVIDUAL.

I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE ONLY BEEN

THERE A FEW MONTHS SO YOUR

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH JCOPE

IN THESE MATTERS IS LIMITED BUT

ARE YOU AWARE OF THIS BEING

EMPLOYED BY JCOPE IN THE PAST

AND OTHER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES

WHERE THEY HAVE RECOUPED 9

FINANCIAL GAIN ITSELF IN THE

FORM OF A PENALTY?

I WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL IN NOT

DISCLOSING A MATTER THAT IS QFT

CONFIDENTIAL BUT A GENERAL

PREMISE IN MAKING DETERMINATIONS

YOU KNOW, OFTEN IN THE CONTEXT

OF RESOLVING A MATTER WHERE THE

INDIVIDUAL IS PREPARED TO ACCEPT

THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS OR HER

CONDUCT.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY A GOAL OF

TIE TRAITING THE OUTCOME TO THE

LOSS SUFFERED BY THE AGENCY OR

THE GOVERNMENT OR THE PEOPLE.

OF THE STATE OR THE BENEFIT

GAINED.

THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS OF

MEASURING THAT THAT MAY NOT PLAY

OUT EXACTLY IN ERMS OF-- IN

TERMS OF RECOUPMENT OR SANCTIONS

OR A COMBINATION OF PENALTIES.

I WILL SAY THAT I'M NOT AWARE OF

ANY SITUATION OF THE MAGNITUDE

OF WHAT WAS REFERRED TO EARLIER.

SO I CAN'T SAY THERE IS ANY

PRECEDENT ON THAT AND THERE

ISN'T A LOT OF EXISTING CASE LAW

GENERALLY.

ON HOW THESE PENALTIES ARE

ASSESSED AND THE PRECISE MEANING

OF THAT PHRASE.

I KNOW HOW I WOULD WANT TO

APPROACH IT BUT I THINK I SHOULD

NOT PREJUDGE IT.

THIS IS SOMETHING WE MAY WELL

HAVE TO LITIGATE.

>> THANKS, JUDGE.

AND ONE MORE QUESTION WITH

REGARDS TO THE DISCUSSION

EARLIER ABOUT IF YOU UNCOVER

WRONG DOING THAT NEEDS TO BE

ACTED UPON, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT

THE REFERRAL TO THE INSPECTOR

GENERAL AND I THINK YOU PHRASED

IT THAT YOU WERE EMPOWERED,

JCOPE WAS EMPOWERED TO MAKE THIS

REFERRAL.

IS IT EMPOWERED OR IS IT

REQUIRED TO MAKE THAT REFERRAL

AND AS A FOLLOWUP TO THAT IN THE

CASE THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING

REFERRAL WHERE A REFERRAL HAD

BEEN MADE TO THE I.G., IS THERE

EVER ANY FOLLOWUP OR DO WE NEED

TO BE BANGING ON THE I.G.'S

DOOR?

AFTER A REFERRAL IS MADE TO THE

I.G., THAT IT FOR JCOPE OR THERE

IS A CONVERSATION OR CLOSING OF

THE LOOP THAT THEY'VE GOT IT AND

THEY'RE WORKING ON IT?

WHERE THERE'S AN ALLEGATION OF

THE LEAK FROM JCOPE, WE ARE

REQUIRED BY THE STATUTE BUT BY

THE EXECUTIVE LAW TO REFER THAT

ALLEGATION TO THE INSPECTOR

GENERAL.

WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO THAT IN

SOME INSTANCES, NOT INVOLVING

LEAKS BUT WHERE WE ARE

INVESTIGATING, THE COMMISSION

HAS THE POWER WHAT WOULD

CONSTITUTE CRIMINAL CONDUCT,

ABLE TO PROSECUTORIAL AUTHORITY

TO MAKE A JUDGE MANY, TO A

PROSECUTORIAL AUTHORITY.

AND I'M SORRY, I LOST THE LAST

PART OF YOUR QUESTION.

ONCE YOU MADE THE REFERRAL TO

THE I.G. IS THERE ANY FOLLOWUP

OR IT GOES INTO A BLACK HOLE AND

MAYBE THIS COMMITTEE NEEDS TO BE

ASKING THE I.G. TO COME AND

TESTIFY.

>> I DON'T WANT TO PREJUDGE THAT

QUESTION THE ANSWER TO THAT

QUESTION.

IT MAY BE THAT ULTIMATELY THE

COMMITTEE NEEDS TO REEXAMINE

THAT RESTRICTION, YOU KNOW,

LOOKING AT ITS HISTORY AND

TAKING INTO ACCOUNT SUBSEQUENT

DEVELOPMENTS BUT I DON'T WANT TO

FORECLOSE OTHER AVENUES BUT I

DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE

APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO TALK ABOUT

WHAT MAY WELL TURN INTO

LITIGATED MATTERS.

>> THANK YOU, JUDGE.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

>> SENATOR GORE RAB-- SENATOR

GORE GAUGHRAN.

THANK YOU THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'M SUPPORTIVE OF SENATOR

KRUEGER'S CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT BECAUSE I DO THINK WE

NEED TO HAVE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT

FRAMEWORK BUT I'M ALSO

SUPPORTIVE OF THE LEGISLATION

THAT SENATOR BIAGGI HAS

SPONSORED BECAUSE CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT TAKES A WHILE AND

SOMETIMES MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO

ACCOMPLISH IN ANSWERING SENATOR

BOYLE'S QUESTION, IN ADDITION TO

MORE FUNDING AND TO CHANGE THE

STATUTE TO ALLOW YOU TO HAVE

ENFORCED HIGHER PENALTIES, DO

YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS

LISTENING TO YOUR FRUSTRATION

ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE

CERTAIN INFORMATION DO YOU HAVE

ANY SUGGESTIONS AS TO HOW WE CAN

AMEND THE STATUTE TO TAKE AWAY

SOME OF THAT FRUSTRATION SO IS

THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN BALANCE

THE ABILITY OF JCOPE TO PROVIDE

MORE TIMELY INFORMATION ABOUT

CERTAIN MATTERS ABOUT IT AT THE

SAME TIME PROTECTING THE ABILITY

FOR PEOPLE TO WANT TO COME

FORWARD AND PROVIDE INFORMATION

ON A CONFIDENTIAL BASIS?

HOW DO WE STRIKE THAT BALANCE

AND DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION TO

DO THAT?

>> YES, THANK YOU, SENATOR.

I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE

APPROPRIATE TO MODIFY THE

STATUTE SO THAT THE COMMISSION

WOULD HAVE A DEGREE OF

DISCRETION-- THIS MAY BE AN

INTERESTING PATH TO GO DOWN IN

SOME RESPECTS BECAUSE YOU KNOW,

UNDERSTANDABLY IT MAY CREATE

OTHER FRUSTRATIONS IN THE MEDIA

AND AMONG INDIVIDUAL

COMPLAINANTS.

BUT WHERE WHERE THE COMMISSION

WHERE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE

AND WOULD NOT EITHER VIOLATE THE

DUE PROCESS RIGHTS SPEAKING

BROADLY, OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO

MAY BE THE SUBJECT A GROUNDLESS

ACCUSATION OR A COMPLAINANT

CONCERNED ABOUT RETRIBUTION, IT

CUTS BOTH WAYS WHERE THERE IS A

BALANCE THAT MAKES SENSE TO

ALLOW US IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

TO ALLOW US TO MAKE PUBLIC OR

MAKE KNOWN THAT YES WE RECEIVED

A COMPLAINT, WE ARE WORKING ON

IT AND IT IS IN THIS PHASE AND

THIS IS WHERE WE STAND IN OUR

JUDGMENT, I WOULDN'T WANT IT TO

BE MANDATORY, YOU KNOW,

INVESTIGATIVE BODIES LIKE A

DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, U.S.

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OVER WANT

TO HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF

CONFIDENTIALITY IN THEIR

PROCEEDINGS.

WE ARE REQUIRED TO MARCH ALONG

IN A VERY SPECIFIC WAY

PROCEDURALLY FROM THE MOMENT WE

GET A COMPLAINT.

I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT

FOR THE COMMISSION, WHERE IT

WANTED TO BE PROCEEDING IN AN

INVESTIGATION TO MAINTAIN

CONFIDENTIALITY FOR THE SAKE OF

THE INVESTIGATION, BUT ALSO HAVE

THE DISCRETION WHERE IT WOULD BE

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NOT

VIOLATE THE RIGHTS OF THE

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING IN AN

INAPPROPRIATE WAY TO BE ABLE TO

TALK ABOUT WHAT WE WHAT WE DO

AND WHAT WE ARE DOING.

AND WAS WE ARE FOCUSING ON.

THAT WOULD BE EXTREMELY

IMPORTANT, I THINK, IN IMPROVING

PUBLIC CONFIDENCE AND IN FACT,

THE ETHICS LAWS ARE BEING MINDED

AND BEING ENFORCED.

THANK YOU, JUDGE, ONE IMPORTANT

QUESTION.

I KNOW YOU HAVE ONLY BEEN THERE

A FEW MONTHS BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE

YOUR SUMMER AND SPRING READING

HAS NOT BEEN A LOT OF NOVELS;

THAT YOU HAVE BEEN DIGGING INTO

OPINIONS AND THE HISTORY OF

JCOPE.

DO YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS IN

TERMS OF LOOKING AT LEGISLATION

JUST BEYOND TRYING TO FIX THIS

FRAMEWORK OF OTHER ACTIONS WE

MIGHT TAKE PARTICULARLY WHICH

WOULD YOU SUGGEST WE MIGHT WANT

TO LOOK AT IN TERMS OF EITHER

BANNING OR LIMITING OUTSIDE

EMPLOYMENT OUTSIDE INCOME,

WHETHER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE

PRACTICE OF LAW OR MAYBE WHETHER

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A VERY

LUCRATIVE BOOK DEAL SOMEBODY

ENTERS INTO, YOU KNOW, RIGHTING

ABOUT WHAT WHAT THEY HAVE DONE

IN THERE I PUBLIC CAPACITY.

>> I WOULD SAY THAT'S WAY ABOVE

MY PAY GRADE.

THOSE KINDS OF JUDGMENTS, I

THINK REALLY NEED TO BE MADE AT

THE LEGISLATIVE HIVE LEVEL I

RECOGNIZE THEY'RE OUR DECISION

BUT I'M LOOKING FOR YOUR

THOUGHTS BECAUSE YOU MADE THE

SUGGESTIONS YOU SEE MATTERS HAVE

COME BEFORE JCOPE BEFORE AND

SHOULD WE GO BEYOND FIXING THE

FRAMEWORK.

>> SENATE MAJORITY SENATOR, AN

MANY NOT ONLY JCOPE'S DECISIONS

BUT THE DECISIONS OF PREDECESSOR

ETHICS AGENCIES IN THE STATE ANA

OF OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT, POST

EMPLOYMENT, AFTER HOLDING A

STATE POSITION OR A STATE OFFICE

OR HOLDING HONORARY POSITIONS

AND SO ON OR ADDITIONAL SOURCES

OF INCOME THERE IS A VERY

SOPHISTICATED AND DEEP BODY OF

LAW THAT HAS DEVELOPED THAT IS

AIMED AT AVOIDING ETHICAL

CONFLICTS AND VIOLATIONS AND AT

THE SAME TIME NOT WANTING TO BE

PUNITIVE IN PUNISHING FOLKS FOR

TAKING THE TIME AND OFTEN MAKING

FINANCIAL SACRIFICES TO WORK IN

THE PUBLIC SECTOR AND YOU KNOW,

IF THE LEGISLATURE WERE TO DIG

IN AND DEEMED IT APPROPRIATE TO

PROVIDE STANDARDS, THAT MAKES IT

EASIER FOR AN ETHICS AGENCY TO

EXAMINE ISSUES, YOU KNOW, WE

DON'T HAVE DISCRETION IN THAT WE

HAVE TO ENFORCE THE LAW AS IT

STANDS.

AND WE DO THAT, AND I THINK WE

DO THAT VERY EFFECTIVELY

CONSTANTLY PROVIDING ADVICE AND

GUIDANCE TO INDIVIDUALS.

THAT PART OF THE SYSTEM WORKS

VERY WELL AND WHEN THERE ARE

DEPARTURES I THINK WE HAVE BEEN

EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE IN ROOTING

THOSE OUT IN DEALING WITH THEM.

BUT I THINK BRIGHT LINE

STANDARDS, YOU KNOW, SO MUCH OF

WHAT WE DO IS EDUCATING,

EDUCATING THE WORKFORCE,

EDUCATING PUBLIC OFFICERS ON

WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN NOT DONE

CAN AND CANNOT DO.

SOMETIMES IT IS NOT IMMEDIATELY

OBJECT SWRUS AND THAT'S WHY IT

IS IMPORTANT TO PROVIDE BRIGHT

LINE STANDARDS MIGHT WELL BE A

USEFUL UNDERTAKING.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH SENATOR.

>> RECOGNIZING SENATOR LIU.

>> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND

THANK YOU, JUDGE, FOR YOUR

TESTIMONY.

I HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF

SERVING IN THE STATE SENATE NOW

COMING UP ON THREE YEARS-- YEAH,

THREE YEARS, TODD.

AND DURING THIS TIME I'VE HAD

COUNTLESS, COUNTLESS

CONVERSATIONS WITH MEMBERS OF

THE LEGISLATURE, MEMBERS OF

STATE AGENCIES, MEMBERS OF THE

PUBLIC, MEMBERS OF THE FOURTH

ESTATE ABOUT JCOPE.

MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHO JCOPE

IS OR WHAT IT IS, BUT THE PEOPLE

WHO DO KNOW ABOUT IT, I HAVE

NEVER HEARD A NICE THING SAID, A

COMMENDING THING SAID ABOUT

JCOPE.

IT HAS AN AWFUL, AWFUL

REPUTATION, AS YOU YOURSELF HAVE

NOTED NOW YOU HAVE SERVED AS A

JUDGE, A STATE SUPREME COURT

JUSTICE FOR YEARS, YOU WERE

ACTUALLY RECENTLY APPOINTED TO

THE HIGH LEVEL COURT, THE COURT

OF CLAIMS, YET YOU LEFT THAT TO

HEAD THIS AGENCY THAT IS JUST

TERRIBLE IN PRETTY MUCH

EVERYBODY'S MIND SET MY QUESTION

TO YOU JUDGE BERLAND IS WHY?

WHY DID YOU DO THIS?

I'M INLINED TO BELIEVE THAT

BASED ON YOUR VAST EXPANSE OF

LEGAL EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE

MAYBE YOU THOUGHT YOU WOULD

BRING SOME LEVEL OF WISDOM TO

THIS TERRIBLE AGENCY AND MAKE

SOME CHANGES OR AT LEAST SUGGEST

SOME CHANGES SO I GUESS MY

QUESTION IS TWO PARTS.

WHY AND WHAT CAN YOU-- DO YOU

HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS AS TO HOW

TO REFORMULATE OR COMPLETELY

RECOMPOSE JCOPE.

MANY OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT

WILL TESTIFY FOLLOWING YOU ARE

CALLING FOR THE TOTAL ABOLISH

ISSUEMENT OF JCOPE AND TO

REPLACE IT WITH SOME BETTER RUN

ENTITY.

WHAT ARE YOUR IDEAS ON HOW TO DO

THAT BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING THAT

IS PART OF THE REASON WHY YOU

LEFT YOUR NEWLY APPOINTED COURT

OF CLAIMS JUDGE TO COME TO

JCOPE.

>> I CAME TO JCOPE, SENATOR--

THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION--

BECAUSE I BELIEVE VERY STRONGLY

BOTH IN THE IMPORTANCE OF

PROPERLY ENFORCING ETHICAL RULES

UPON OUR STATE ROFTION ELECTED

OFFICIALS STATES EMPLOYEES AND

THAT WE ARE AT A JUNCTURE I

DON'T WANT TO GET TOO HIGH

FLORIDA FUTTIN' BUT-- AND I PERY

BELIEVE JCOPE HAS AN EXTREMELY

IMPORTANT ROLE TO PLAY.

IT HAS AN IMAGE EVERYBODY I

THINK THAT IMAGE ISSUE IS?

LARGE MEASURE, A FUNCTION OF THE

FACT THAT WE ARE LIMITED IN WHAT

WE CAN TALK ABOUT BOTH IN WHAT

WE ARE DOING AND WHAT WE IN MANY

INSTANCES HAVE DONE.

SOME OF IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE

IF SOMEBODY COMES TO US ASKING

TO TAKE A SECOND JOB.

I WANT THEM TO COME TO US AND

THEY'RE PROTECTED IN THOSE

INSTANCES.

IF THEY DO THE WRONG THING,

THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT THING

BUT IF THEY DO THE RIGHT THING,

THEY SHOULD BE PROTECTED--

>> IF THEY DON'T DO THE RIGHT

THING?

>> I THINK, AGAIN, WOULD BE

HELPFUL IF WE COULD TALK MORE

ABOUT WAS WE ARE DOING.

BUT WITHOUT TRENCHING UPON

IMPORTANT DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, SO

BOTH SIDES OF THE PROCEEDINGS WE

HANDLE.

I THINK THE COMMISSION HAS DONE

AN AWFUL LOT THAT IS JUST NOT

SEEN BY PEOPLE AND I THINK THERE

MAY BE UNREASONABLE EXPECTATION.

IF THE EXPECTATION IS FOR US TO

BE A MORE AGGRESSIVE

PROSECUTORIAL AGENCY, THEN WE

NEED TO HAVE THE FISCAL

RESOURCES TO DO IT, THE STAFFING

TO DO IT AND THE JURISDICTION

AND THE ENFORCEMENT POWERS TO DO

IT.

>> THANK YOU, JUDGE BERLAND.

I WANT TO JUST SAY BEFORE MY

TIME IS UP FROM YOUR OPENING

STAIMGHT AND THE RESPONSES, YOU

BASICALLY POINT OUT THAT THE

BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH JCOPE IS

BAD P.R. IMAGE AND THAT MAYBE

ITS HANDS ARE TIED TOO MUCH BY

CERTAIN LAWS OR REGULATIONS.

IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME THAT JUST

BEING A FRESH FACE IN JCOPE, YOU

BEING THE NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

FOR THE FEW MONTHS, IT ACTUALLY

SEEMS LIKE YOU HAVE BEEN THERE

FOR YEARS AND ARE NOW MAKING

EXCUSES FOR JCOPE OPPOSED TO

TRYING TO SEE HOW BETTER JCOPE

CAN DO IT JOBS?

I'M LOOKING AT SOME OF THE

TESTIMONY THAT IS GOING TO BE

PRESENTED LATER, BECAUSE WE HAVE

ADVANCE COPIES.

I THINK A LOT OF THE ARGUMENTS

THAT WE WILL HEAR LATER ON ARE

VERY CREDIBLE AND PERHAPS I MAY

HUM GLI SUGGEST THAT YOU TAKE A

LOOK AT THOSE SUGGESTIONS

YOURSELF.

THANK YOU.

>> YOU WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE

SENATOR STAVISKY FOR JOINING US

TODAY AND IF YOU HAVE ANY

QUESTIONS.

>> VERY QUICKLY.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE

SENATOR STAVISKY.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY

I WAS LISTENING TO IT IN THE CAR

AS I WAS DRIVING UP AND I

HEARD-- MAYBE I HEARD

INCORRECTLY BUT I THINK YOU SAID

THERE WERE 50 POSITIONS STAFFED

AT JCOPE.

>> SENATOR, GENTLEWOMAN, THERE

ARE 50 EMPLOYEES AND THOUGHTS

NOT ENOUGH TO DO YOUR JOB.

I PROMISE TO MAKE MY QUESTION

BRIEF AND QUICK AND TO THE POINT

AND THAT'S THE QUESTION.

>> 50 AND OUR CURRENT BUDGET IS

ENOUGH TO DO THE JOB THAT WE ARE

DOING IF WE ARE GOING TO BE

CALLED UPON TO EXERCISE AND

GIVEN GREATER PROSECUTORIAL

MANDATE AND PROSECUTORIAL

POWERS, THEN ALONG WITH THAT

WOULD COME OF NECESSITY THE

RESOURCES IN THE BUDGET TO

PERFORM THAT ROLE.

TO RESPOND IN PART TO WHAT

SENATOR LIU HAD BROUGHT UP, AND

I THINK THIS IS PART OF YOUR

QUESTION.

I THINK THERE IS A MISCONCEPTION

ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO, WHAT WE DO

AND WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING.

OUR ENFORCEMENT POWERS ARE

LIMITED TO CERTAIN STATUTES

WHICH-- AND THEY'RE CIVIL

PENALTIES.

WE CAN MAKE REFERRALS IN CERTAIN

INSTANCES TO PROSECUTORIAL

AUTHORITIES, BUT WE ARE AT THE

BACK END OF THAT BECAUSE WE

DON'T HAVE INVESTIGATIVE

CAPABILITIES THAT WE CAN APPLY

BEFORE A COMPLAINT IS BROUGHT.

SO WE DON'T HAVE WIRETAP

CAPABILITY.

WE DON'T HAVE CONFIDENTIAL

INFORMANTS.

WE DON'T HAVE A CADRE OF PEOPLE

OUT THERE LOOKING FOR THOSE

TYPES OF THINGS.

MOST OF OUR STAFF ARE INVOLVED

IN OR DEALING WITH ENFORCEMENT

OF THE LOBBYING LAW AND THE

FILING REQUIREMENTS, THE FINAL

DISCLOSURES STATEMENTS THAT NEED

TO BE FILED AND IN THE

EDUCATIONAL FUNCTIONS THAT WE

PERFORM.

INVESTIGATIONS ARE A SPAULL PART

OF OUR MANDATE STAT TORIALLY AND

THEREFORE OPERATIONALLY THAT'S

HOW THEY PLAY OUT.

>> I JUST RECEIVED AN EMAIL

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF MY FILING OF

MY JCOPE REPORT WHICH WAS FILED

IN MAY WE ARE NOW AT THE END OF

JUNE WHAT ARE THE 50 PEOPLE

DOING IF NOT ENFORCEMENT?

>> SENATOR, IF YOU ARE FILING,

IN THE FIRST INSTANCE THROUGH

THE LEC, THE LEGISLATIVE ETHICS

COMMITTEE, THEN THEY PROCESS THE

DISCLOSURES FIRST AND THEN

THEY'RE LATER PASSED ALONG TO

JCOPE SO YOU ARE FILING WITH

THEM AND THEN THERE IS A PERIOD

OF TIME BEFORE IT COMES TO US.

>> BUT WHAT ARE THE 50 PEOPLE

DOING?

HOW WILL INCREASING THE NUMBER

OF PEOPLE GIVE YOU BETTER

ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITIES?

WHAT ARE THESE 50 FOLKS DOING?

>> AS I SAID, MOST OF THE STAFF

IS INVOLVED IN HANDLING THE

VARIOUS STEPS IN DEALING WITH

ENFORCEMENT OF THE LOBBYING ACTS

DISCLOSURE AND FILING

REQUIREMENTS THE FINANCIAL

DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS THAT ARE

CALLED FOR BY PUBLIC OFFICERS

LAW 73-A. AND THE EDUCATIONAL

WORK THAT WE DO.

OUR ENFORCEMENT STAFF IS

COMPARATIVELY SMALL AND IT'S

TIGHT TRAITED TO MATCH THE

ENFORCEMENT MANDATE THE LAWS INE

STATUTE.

IF THE POWERS ARE GOING TO BE

AUGMENTED AND I HAVE BEEN ASKED

WHAT MY THOUGHTS ARE ABOUT

THINGS THAT COULD BE DONE TO

IMPROVE OUR CAPABILITIES, AND MY

RESPONSE IS ONE THING WOULD BE

TO GIVE US GREATER ENFORCEMENT

POWERS THAT IS A GREATER ARRAY

OF PENALTIES THAT WE CAN

ADMINISTER AND BROADEN OUR

ABILITY TO ENFORCE VARIOUS LAWS

STATUTORILY AND CORRESPONDINGLY

IF WE ARE GOING HAVE INCREASED

RESPONSIBILITIES IN THAT SECTOR

OF WAS WE DO WE WOULD NEED A

CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN OUR

ENFORCEMENT BUDGET.

EVERYONE AT JCOPE IS BUSY ALL

THE TIME.

THAT INCLUDES NOT JUST OUR

ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTIGATIVE

STAFF, BUT EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS

WORKING--

>> THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

BUSY AND ACCOMPLISHMENT THOUGH.

THANK YOU, MY TIME IS UP.

>> THANK YOU, SENATOR STAVISKY.

THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS

FROM THE OTHER SENATORS SO I'M

GOING TO GO BACK TO THE

QUESTIONS THAT I WAS UNABLE TO

FINISH FROM THE BEGINNING AND

JUDGE BERLAND, WHAT I'M GOING TO

ASK YOU RIGHT NOW IS ARE THREE

THINGS.

THE FIRST IS TO PLEASE GO OFF OF

SCRIPT.

THE SECOND IS IN THE QUESTIONS

THAT ARE YES OR NO, TO JUST

PLEASE ANSWER YES OR NO AND THE

THIRD, I THINK WE'VE HEARD

ENOUGH FROM SECTION 9473-A, WE

DON'T NEED A REGURGITATION OF

THAT LAW ANYMORE.

LET'S PLEASE BEGIN.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE CRITERIA

FOR WHAT CONSTITUTES A PUBLIC

MATTER, IS JCOPE WILLING TO

PUBLISH THAT CRITERIA YES OR NO.

>> YES, THEY'RE ON OUR WEBSITE.

>> AMAZING.

WOULD JCOPE SUPPORT THE

STATUTORY CHANGES TO GIVE THE

COMMISSION GREATER DISCRETION IN

RELEASING INFORMATION.

>> THE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL TO

INCREASE TRANSPARENCY AS WELL AS

DISCRETION WITHIN JCOPE, IS

JOARP SUPPORTIVE OF THIS

STATUTORY CHANGE?

>> WE ARE SLIT SUPPORTIVE OF

INCREASING TRANSPARENCY AND

DISCRETION IN BEING ABLE TO

DISCLOSE MATTERS, YES.

>> GREAT.

GOING TO AN ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUE

ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT ALMOST

TWO YEARS AFTER THE FACT WE DO

NOT KNOW WHO ALLEGEDLY LEAKED

JULIE GARCIA'S VOTE TO THE

GOVERNOR?

YEARN?

YES OR NO?

>> I'M SORRY.

COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?

THE QUESTION IS DO WE KNOW?

>> YES AND I'M GOING TO YIELD

BACK MY TIME.

ARE YOU CONCERNED TWO YEARS

LATER WE DO NOT KNOW WHO

ALLEGEDLY LEAKED COMMISSIONER

JULIE GARCIA'S VOTE TO THE

GOVERNOR?

IS THAT CONCERNING TO YOU?

>> PERHAPS UNLESS YOU KNOW

ALREADY.

>> I DON'T THINK IT'S HAVING ANY

CURRENT IMPACT ON OUR

OPERATIONS.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN INTERESTING--

I WASN'T PART.

>> PLEASE ANSWER YES OR NO

BECAUSE OUR TIME IS RUNNING OUT

HERE.

ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT AFTER TWO

YEARS, WE DON'T KNOW WHO MADE

THAT LEAK.

>> IT'S CONCERNING TO ME AS A

LEGISLATURE.

AS A WHOLE I WOULD HOPE IT WOULD

BE IT WOULD BE TERNING TO YOU.

>> FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AND I

HAVE ONLY BEEN WITH THE AGENCY

FOR THREE MONTHS.

>> JUDGE BERLAND CAN WE RESPECT

THE PARAMETERS.

PLEASE ANSWER YES OR NO.

>> I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO

FINDING OUT BUT IT'S NOT

IMPACTING MY DAY TO DAY WORK OR

THE WORK OF THE AGENCY.

>> I WASN'T TO LET THE RECORD

REFLECT THAT I FIND IT VERY

CONCERNING THAT DO YOU NOT FEEL

THAT IT IS A CONCERN THAT WE

DON'T KNOW WHO LEAKED THE FORMER

COMMISSIONER'S VOTE TO THE

FORMER GOVERNOR DO YOU HAVE

CONFIDENCE IN THE FORMER

GOVERNOR'S INVESTIGATION

PERTAINING TO THIS ISSUE?

>> I HAVE SEEN THE REPORT.

I AM NOT PRIVY TO WHAT UNDERLIES

IT.

IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR ME

TO COMMENT--

>> I ACTUALLY THINK IT WOULD BE

VERY APPROPRIATE CONSIDERING YOU

ARE THE HEAD OF THE ETHICS

COMMISSION IN OUR STATE.

EITHER YOU HAVE CONFIDENCE IN

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S

INVESTIGATION OR YOU DON'T.

SO YES OR NO.

I'M GOING TO TAKE A NON-ANSWER

AS A NO.

>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO IT.

I'M JUST NOT PRIVY TO WHAT

UNDERLIES IT.

>> YOU GIST SAID YOU READ THE

REPORT.

>> TO FORM AN OPINION WITHOUT

HAVING MORE INFORMATION.

>> YOU JUST SAID YOU READ THE

REPORT.

>> I READ THE REPORT.

>> WHAT WHAT ADDITIONAL

INFORMATION DO YOU NEED?

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT UNDERLIES

IT, SENATOR.

>> THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE

BECAUSE USUALLY A REPORT BY THE

I.G. IS SUBSTANTIATED WITH A LOT

OF INFORMATION AS WELL AS

CORROBORATING EVIDENCE SO TO NOT

HAVE-- I'M GOING TO TAKE A

NON-SCENES AS A NO BECAUSE IF

YOU DID HAVE CONFIDENCE, YOU

WOULD SAY YES DO YOU BELIEVE THE

LEAKS RAISED BY THE CONCERN WERE

A ONE OFF OR PART OF A BROADER

PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR AT JCOPE?

>> AGAIN I WAS NOT THERE AT THE

TIME.

I HAVE NOT SEEN EVIDENCE OF A

PATTERN OF THAT KIND OF

BEHAVIOR.

IT HAS NOT BEEN CALLED TO MY

ATTENTION.

IF IT HAD BEEN, I WOULD HAVE A

STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO REPORT

THAT TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

>> OKAY.

>> IN YOUR EXPERIENCE AND

UNDERSTANDING, HAVE JCOPE

COMMISSIONERS EVER RETROACTIVELY

REMOVED APPROVAL BY A DECISION

MADE BY STAFF?

IS THERE PRECEDENT FOR THAT YES

OR NO?

>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY

PRECEDENT FOR THAT.

>> AND THAT'S WITH REGARD, I'M

REFERRING THAT WITH REGARD TO

THE VOTE THAT'S GOING TO TAKE

PLACE TOMORROW WITH REGARD TO

THE GOVERNOR'S BOOK DEAL.

JUST GOING BACK TO YOUR

INTERVIEWING PROCESS, WHO

INTERVIEWED YOU FOR THE ROLE?

>> IT WAS SO LONG AGO.

I THINK IT WAS-- I'M SURE IT WAS

IN 2020.

IT WAS IS A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMISSION.

>> IT'S FINE THAT YOU DON'T

REMEMBER.

>> I THINK THE THEN CHAIR MICROS

SEN.

>> THANK YOU.

-- MIKE ROSEN IT WAS FOUR OR

FIVE MEMBERS ON A SCREENING

COMMITTEE AND SUBSEQUENTLY THERE

WAS A FURTHER INTERVIEW WITH THE

FULL COMMISSION BUT I DON'T-- I

CAN'T SAY THAT ALL 14 OR 13 AT

THE TIME OR 12, WHATEVER THE

NUMBER WAS AT THE TIME WERE

PRESENT BUT THERE WAS MORE THAN

ONE INTERVIEW AND THERE MAY HAVE

BEEN THREE.

>> GOT IT.

OKAY.

AND DURING THE INTERVIEW

PROCESS, DID YOU HAVE ANY

CONVERSATIONS WITH THE FORMER

GOVERNOR?

>> NO.

>> OKAY.

FINALLY.

I DO HAVE MORE QUESTIONS BUT I

UNDERSTAND THAT WE MAY BE OUT OF

TIME HERE WHEN JCOPE TAKES

CONFIDENTIAL VOTES, WHO ARE IN

THE ROOM AND ARE STAFF PRIVY TO

THE VOTES OF THE COMMISSIONERS?

>> OF THE CONSIDERABLE VOTES ARE

DONE IN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND

CERTAIN STAFF WOULD BE PRESENT,

YES.

>> THE COMMISSIONERS AND CERTAIN

STAFF.

>> CAN YOU DEFINE CERTAIN STAFF?

TYPICALLY CERTAIN STAFF WOULD

INCLUDE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

GENERAL GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPUTY

GENERAL COUNSEL AND DEPENDING ON

THE NATURE MIGHT INCLUDE

DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION OR

INVESTIGATIVE STAFF WHO ARE

RESPONSIBLE FOR A PARTICULAR

MATTER BEING PRESENTED IN

EXECUTIVE SESSION IF IT IS A

MATTER NOW OF GUIDANCE BEING

VOTED ON, IT MAY BE THE CHIEF

ETHICS OFFICER WHO WOULD BE

PRESENT.

IT WOULD REALLY BE SPECIFIC TO

THE NATURE OF THE MATTER.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS HAS COME UP

IN MY PERIOD OF TIME I DON'T

RECALL ANY SPECIFIC INSTANCE.

I SUPPOSE THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF

LOBBYING, IF IT IS A LOBBYING

RELATED ISSUE THAT IS BEING

ADDRESSED, LOBBYING RELATED

ISSUE BEING ADDRESSED IN

EXECUTIVE SESSION BUT REALLY IT

WOULD BE BEYOND EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPUTY

GENERAL COUNSEL, IT WOULD DEPEND

ON THE NATURE OF THE MATTER THAT

WAS BEFORE THE COMMISSION AT THE

TIME OF THE VOTE.

>> AND THEN THE FINAL QUESTION,

WHO, IN YOUR OPINION OR

STATUTORILY OR CONSTITUTIONALLY

HOLDS JCOPE ACCOUNTABLE?

>> WELL, WE WERE ESTABLISHED AS

I RECALL AS AN INDEPENDENT

AGENCY WITH THE IDEA THAT WE

WOULD BE LARGELY FREE OF THAT

KIND OF OVERSIGHT OTHER THAN

GENRE VIEWS AND OVERSIGHT THAT'S

EXERCISED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ARM

OF THE GOVERNMENT.

WE CAN HAVE ARTICLE 78

PROCEEDINGS TAKEN TO THE

JUDICIARY IF THERE IS

DISAGREEMENT WITH HOW WE HAVE

COME OUT IN THE PART OF THE

RESPONDENT ON THE SUBJECT OF AN

INVESTIGATIVE MATTER OR LOBBYING

LAW MATTER OR DETERMINATION AS

TO WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING IS A

GIFT OR NOT SO THE SCWUSHRY HAS

JUDICIAL RECREW OVER OUR

DECISION MAKING IN THAT RESPECT

BUT YOU KNOW, BY AND LARGE, WE

ARE INTENDED TO BE INDEPENDENT.

BUT OF COURSE SUBJECT TO DUE

PROCESS AND CREATURE OF THE

LEGISLATURE SO THE LEGISLATURE

HAS THAT KIND OF JURISDICTION

OVER THE LAWS THAT GOVERN US AND

OUR OPERATIONS.

>> TWO FINAL COMMENTS TO CLOSE

US OUT TODAY.

THE FIRST IS THAT IT WAS MY

UNDERSTANDING THAT JCOPE WAS NOT

PERMITTED TO SEND THE I.G.

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION SO THAT

PART OF YOUR TESTIMONY IS

CONFUSING TO ME AND WITH REGARD

TO WHAT WE DISCUSSED

SPECIFICALLY WHEN IT COMES TO

WHAT CAN BE SHARED WITH THE

PUBLIC AS WELL AS THE PRESS WHO

OBVIOUSLY PLAYS A SIGNIFICANT

ROLE IN ALERTING THE PUBLIC AND

ALSO NOTIFYING THE PUBLIC AND

BRINGING TRANSPARENCY TO OUR

GOVERNMENT, I WOULD ARGUE THAT

TRANSPARENCY IS IN THE BUB

INTEREST ESPECIALLY WHEN IT

COMES TO ETHICS, I THINK IT IS

THE ESSENCE AND ETHOS OF ETHICS

SO TO ARGUE OTHERWISE, I THINK,

IS NOT DOING JUSTICE TO THE

ISSUE OF ETHICS I THINK THAT'S

PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT IS A

WIDESPREAD BELIEF SO AS LONG AS

THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS.

>> I WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING,

SENATOR, IF I MAY.

THE STANDARDS FOR THAT HAVE BEEN

ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION, THE

FOUR INSTANCES IN WHICH

INFORMATION, CONFIRMATION CAN OR

CAN'T BE GIVEN OR STATED ON OUR

WEBSITE, THERE ARE SEPARATE

CRITERIA THAT THE COMMISSIONERS

ESTABLISHED ENDING NOT TO BE

PUBLIC.

I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IN ANSWER

TO THE FIRST IN THE SERIES OF

QUESTIONS THAT YOU ASKED I DON'T

HAVE ANY MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT

THAT.

THAT WAS A JUDGMENT OF THE

COMMISSIONERS AND I'M NOT-- I

DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR

ME IN MY ROLE AS EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR TO COMMENT ON THE

WISDOM OR NOT OF THEIR

DETERMINATION IN THAT RESPECT

BUT THAT'S THE BIFURCATION THAT

THEY DREW.

>> I'M SORRY, I DON'T THINK I

WAS CLEAR.

WHAT IS IT NOT APPROPRIATE TO

COMMENT ON?

>> THE DECISION BY THE

COMMISSIONERS THEMSELVES ON THE

STANDARDS UNDERLYING THE FOUR

INSTANCES ON THE WEBSITE

RECENTLY PUBLISHED DEFINING WHEN

THE COMMISSION CAN CONFIRM

WHETHER OR NOT A MATTER IS

PENDING OR A COMPLAINT HAS BEEN

RECEIVED.

>> I DON'T WANT MY WORD TO MEAN

SOMETHING SO I WANT TO RESTORE

MY OWN INTEGRITY.

I HAVE A FOLLOWUP TO WHAT YOU

JUST SAID BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE

WE ARE ZIGGING AND ZAGGING

BETWEEN THINGS THAT ARE VERY

IMPORTANT TO GET REALLY CLEAR ON

AND SO I THINK PART OF WHAT HAS

BEEN THE MAIN CRIT CRITICISM OF

JCOPE THERE IS AN APPEARANCE OR

PERCEPTION BY THE PUBLIC BY THE

LEGISLATURE, BY OTHERS, GOOD

GOVERNMENT GROUPS THAT JCOPE IS

MAKING AD HOC DECISIONS, RIGHT?

SO IT DOESN'T-- IT IT IS NOT

VERY CLEAR WHAT THE LINES ARE

BETWEEN 3 STAFF MAKING DECISIONS

AND COMMISSIONERS MAKING

DECISION SO SPECIFICALLY WHEN WE

ARE TALKING ABOUT INFOREIGN AL

DECISIONS, AND INFORMAL OPINIONS

AND ALSO FORMAL OPINIONS WHICH

WE KNOW ARE REQUIRED BY THE

COMMISSIONERS AND SO YOU ARE

REFERRING TO THE WEBSITE THAT

YOU CURRENTLY MADE THESE

CRITERIA CLEAR BUT CAN YOU TELL

US WHAT IT IS FRONT FOR STAFF TO

FORM AN OPINION?

>> AS I SAID, THE COMMISSIONERS

MADE A JUDGMENT THAT CERTAIN

INFORMATION CAN BE PROVIDED AND

THAT IS STATED ON THE WEBSITE

WHAT CAN OR CAN'T BE--

>> CAN YOU STATE THEM TODAY FOR

THE RECORD RIGHT NOW?

>> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PULL

THEM UP AND UNFORTUNATELY I

DON'T HAVE-- I'M GETTING THEM.

SHALL I READ THEM INTO THE

RECORD?

>> YES, PLEASE.

>> OKAY.

THE FOLLOWING.

THE COMMISSION MAY IN ITS

DISCRETION PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE

RECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT, THE

COMPLAINT ITSELF INCLUDING THE

IDENTITY OF THE COMPLAINANT IS

NOT PUBLIC REMAINS A

CONFIDENTIAL RECORD AND CANNOT

BE DISCLOSED.

2: PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE

MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE JCOPE

FOR THE DURATION OF THE MATTER

PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE MATTER

NO, SIR LONGER PENDING BEFORE

JCOPE AFTER IT HAS BEEN CLOSED

FOR ANY REASON AND 4: PUBLICLY

ACKNOWLEDGE IF THE COMMISSION

HAS RECEIVED A REQUEST FROM LAW

ENFORCEMENT TO DEFER ITS

INQUIRY.

THESE APPLY WHEN THE EXISTENCE

OF A COMPLAINT OR MATTER IS

PUBLIC.

THE COMMISSION, AFTER

CONSIDERING THOSE FACTORS MAY IN

ITS DISCRETION--

>> YES, YOU CAN CONTINUE.

IS THAT IT?

>> THAT'S IT.

TO ROUND OUT THIS POINT HERE.

THAT IS WHEN THE PUBLIC CAN BE

MADE AWARE OF WHAT JCOPE IS

INVESTIGATING AND/OR THE CONTENT

OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS AN

INVESTIGATION, A COMPLAINT, ET

CETERA.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO DECISION

MAKING BETWEEN STAFF WHICH YOU

HAVE IDENTIFIED SOME STAFF AS

DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATIONS,

GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPUTY GENERAL

COUNSEL OR COMMISSIONERS OF

WHICH THERE ARE 14, THE

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DECISION

MAKING WHEN IT COMES TO YOU

INFORMAL OPINIONS AND FORMAL

OPINIONS IS SIGNIFICANT.

AND SO SPECIFICALLY IT WOULD BE

HELPFUL FOR EVERYBODY HERE AS

WELL AS THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND

WHAT THE CRITERIA ARE BETWEEN

WHEN STAFF CAN MAKE A DECISION

AND COMMISSIONERS ARE THEN

REQUIRED TO MAKE A DECISION AND

MORE SPECIFICALLY WHEN WE ARE

THINKING ABOUT THE DECISION

MAKING AROUND THE GOVERNOR'S

BOOK AND WHETHER OR NOT HE, THE

FORMER GOVERNOR'S BOOK, WHETHER

OR NOT HIGH WAS ABLE TO PURSUE

THAT DEAL, THE DECISION MADE BY

STAFF SEEMS IRREGULAR COMPARED

TO THE GRAVITY AND WEIGHT OF

THAT DECISION SO I'M TRYING TO

UNDERSTAND THE CRITERIA AND THAT

IS THE LAST THING I'M GOING TO

ASK SO PLEASE ANSWER IT

THOROUGHLY.

>> THE STATUTE PROVIDES, WITH

RESPECT TO-- AND I'LL SORT OF

PUT IT INTO THE ADVISORY SIDE OF

WHAT THE COMMISSION DOES, IT

PROVIDES THAT THE COMMISSIONERS

CAN DELEGATE TO STAFF THE

RENDERING OF THOSE KINDS OF

OPINIONS SO WHEN MB COMES TO US

SEEKING GUIDANCE ON, FOR

EXAMPLE, A POST EMPLOYMENT

MATTER, WHETHER THAT WOULD

VIOLATE SECTION 73 OF THE

STATUTE OR WHETHER THEY WANT TO

ENGAGE IN AN OUTSIDE ACTIVITY

WHICH COULD IMPLICATE SECTION 73

OR 74, BOTH OF THE PUBLIC

OFFICERS LAW, THE COMMISSION CAN

DELEGATE TO STAFF THE POWER TO

PROVIDE WRITTEN GUIDANCE IN

THOSE MATTERS.

SHORTLY AS I WAS COMING ON

BOARD, THE DELEGATION IN CERTAIN

INSTANCES WAS CHANGED SO CERTAIN

REQUESTS FROM CERTAIN STATE

OFFICERS WOULD NOW HAVE TO GO TO

THE COMMISSION BEFORE THEY COULD

BE RENDERED MUCH SO IF THAT'S

WHAT YOU ARE ASKING, MADAM

CHAIR, THAT'S THE ANSWER.

THERE ARE DELEGATIONS IN PLACE

THAT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED-- AND

THOSE HAVE BEEN IN PLACE IN ONE

FORM OR ANOTHER, I BELIEVE,

SINCE THE INCEPTION, VIRTUALLY

SINCE THE INSPENGS OF THE

AGENCY.

THEREBY TOO MANY REQUESTS OF

THAT KIND IN THE EXPERTISE

REQUIRED IS QUITE SPECIALIZED,

AS I DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY.

TO KEEP AS A PRACTICAL AND

EFFICIENT WAY DONE IN THE FIRST

INSTANCE BY THE FULL COMMISSION

SO THOSE ARE HANDLED BY STAFF.

THE COMMISSION ALWAYS RESERVES

THE POWER, IF IT WISHES THROUGH

REVERSE OR CHANGE OR REVISE AT

SOME POINT THOSE KINDS OF

DETERMINATIONS ASHED THERE IS A

BODY OF PUBLISHED PRECEDENT

ADVISORY OPINIONS THAT INFORM

THE KIND OF GUIDANCE THAT IS

GIVEN SO IT'S RARELY-- IT'S NOT

THE SORT OF THING THAT IS DONE

FROM SCRATCH.

THERE IS TYPICALLY A BODY OF

PRECEDENT UNDERLYING THOSE KINDS

OF DETERMINATIONS I'M HOPING

THAT'S RESPONSIVE TO YOUR

QUESTION.

IT'S NOT, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION

PURPOSES, GEARED TO WHO IS IN

THE ROOM DURING EXECUTIVE

SESSION.

THERE MAY BE INSTANCES IN WHICH

A GUIDANCE REQUIRES THE

ATTENTION OF THE FULL COMMISSION

AND THEREFORE THE CHIEF ETHICS

OFFICER WOULD BE PRESENT IN

EXECUTIVE SESSION TO EXPLAIN THE

FACT PATTERN AND PROVIDE A VIEW

OF WHAT THE LAW AND PRECEDENT

REQUIRE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IN

THAT INSTANCE AND TO RESPOND TO

ANY QUESTIONS OR GUIDANCE THE

COMMISSIONERS MAY HAVE.

BUT I HOPE THAT'S HELPFUL.

>> IT'S SOMEWHAT HELPFUL.

I JUST WANT TO, YOU KNOW, IN

RESPONSE TO THAT, I MEAN SINCE

DETAILS ABOUT THE FORMER

GOVERNOR'S BOOK DEAL BECAME

PUBLIC, JCOPE DEBATED A MOTION

TO REQUIRE THAT ALL OUTSIDE

INCOME APPROVALS BE MADE BY

COMMISSIONERS SO THAT VOTE

FAILED.

ALL OF THE FORMER GOVERNOR'S

APPOINTEES VOTED AGAINST IT AND

SO CLEARLY THAT IS SOMETHING

THAT NEEDS WORK AND I THINK THAT

THE MORE TRANSPARENCY THAT JCOPE

CAN HAVE, I THINK THE BETTER AND

I THINK IT ACTUALLY WILL MEAN

THAT IN THE TIME THAT JCOPE

STILL EXISTS, IT WILL BE ABLE TO

UPHOLD ITS ACTUAL MISSION OF

SERVING THE PUBLIC.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR

TESTIMONY TODAY WE HAVE TO MOVE

ON TO THE NEXT PANEL,

UNFORTUNATELY.

BUT WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

>> IF I MAY, I JUST WANT TO

THANK THE CHAIRS, RANKING

MEMBER, ALL THE SENATORS PRESENT

FOR THEIR ATTENTION AND FOR

THEIR VERY THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONS

<