State of New York Office of the Inspector General An Investigation of an Allegation That Herbert Teitelbaum, Executive Director of the Commission on Public Integrity, Inappropriately Disclosed Confidential Commission Information Related to Its Troopergate Investigation and An Investigation of the Appropriateness of the Commission on Public Integrity’s Response Upon Receiving the Allegations Against Its Executive Director May 13, 2009 Joseph Fisch State Inspector General State of New York Office of the Inspector General JOSEPH FISCH State Inspector General KELLY DONOVAN DENNIS MARTIN First Deputy Chief of Staff Inspector General NELSON R. SHEINGOLD Chief Counsel STAFF FOR THIS INVESTIGATION AND REPORT * JOSEPH FISCH Inspector General NELSON SHEINGOLD Chief Counsel ARLENE OSTERER Investigative Counsel (New York) JONATHAN MASTERS Investigative Counsel (Albany) SHERRY AMAREL Deputy Chief Investigator (Albany) * Cheryl McCormick and Steve DelGiacco contributed to the preparation of this Report Pursuant to Executive Law § 53, the New York State Inspector General is charged with investigating corruption, fraud, criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and abuse in agencies within its jurisdiction. The Inspector General is further directed to recommend appropriate action to be taken against individuals who have engaged in misconduct and remedial measures to be instituted by agencies to prevent or eliminate future wrongdoing. The Inspector General’s jurisdiction extends to executive branch agencies, departments, divisions, officers, boards and commissions, public authorities (other than multi-state or multinational authorities), and public benefit corporations, the heads of which are appointed by the governor and which do not have their own inspector general by statute, as well as persons doing business with any such agency. This report is issued in accordance with Executive Law § 53(4), which provides for public written reports of the Inspector General’s investigations. Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY________________________________________________ 1 II. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND _________________________________ 12 Allegations ......................................................................................................................................12 1) The Original Allegation Referred by Albany County District Attorney Soares That Herbert Teitelbaum, Executive Director of the Commission on Public Integrity, Inappropriately Disclosed Confidential Commission Information Related to Its Troopergate Investigation.......12 2) Expansion of the Investigation: The Appropriateness of the Commission on Public Integrity’s Response Upon Receiving the Allegations Against Its Executive Director ..............12 Commission on Public Integrity and Its Predecessor, the Ethics Commission ..............................13 The Troopergate Scandal ................................................................................................................15 III. INVESTIGATION OF THE ALLEGATION THAT HERBERT TEITELBAUM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COMMISSION ON PUBLIC INTEGRITY, INAPPROPRIATELY DISCLOSED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION RELATED TO THE COMMISSION’S TROOPERGATE INVESTIGATION _____ 21 A. Teitelbaum’s Employment of Robert Hermann as His “Backdoor Channel” to the Executive Chamber ..........................................................................................................................................24 1) Hermann’s Communications to the Executive Chamber of Confidential Commission Investigation Matters Beginning in July 2007.............................................................................26 2) The District Attorney’s Review of Inconsistencies Between Testimony of Darren Dopp Before the Commission and His Statement to the Attorney General ..........................................33 3) Hermann Notifies Constantine on November 1, 2007, and Discusses with Governor Spitzer on November 2, 2007, the Commission’s Referral to the District Attorney of Dopp’s Testimony Before the Commission..............................................................................................34 4) Executive Chamber Attorneys Reveal the Leak to the District Attorney ...............................39 5) Hermann Tells Lloyd Constantine, “I know Herb Teitelbaum…He’s capable of doing anything to protect himself…He’s capable of – of claiming that he didn’t tell me any of this stuff…” ........................................................................................................................................40 6) Hermann’s Entreaty to Rifkin Not to Inform Feerick of the Leak from Teitelbaum ..............41 B. The Testimony of Robert Hermann............................................................................................42 1) Concerning His Early Communications with Constantine and Pope (July – August 2007) ...42 2) Hermann’s Admission That He Was in Possession of Confidential Information He Had Obtained from Herbert Teitelbaum, which He Communicated to Constantine on November 1, 2007, and Discussed with Governor Spitzer on November 2, 2007............................................48 3) Hermann Initially Claims Not to Recall Telling Constantine That Hermann Knows What Teitelbaum is “Capable Of” but then Admits “Maybe I Did” Say It...........................................56 4) Hermann’s Version of His November 2007 Conversation with Richard Rifkin.....................58 5) Hermann Falsely Denies to Teitelbaum That Hermann was the Source of the Leak..............59 6) The Belated Appearance of the “Yellow Pad” Story on February 7, 2008.............................60 7) Hermann’s Revised “Yellow Pad” Story.................................................................................65 8) The “Yellow Pad” Story: An Analysis....................................................................................67 C. The Testimony of Herbert Teitelbaum.......................................................................................73 1) Discussions with Robert Hermann and Communications with the Executive Chamber in July – August 2007 ......................................................................................................................73 2) The Working Group and Concern Over Leaks........................................................................86 3) Teitelbaum’s Conversations in November 2007 with Relevant Parties re Allegations Made Against Him.................................................................................................................................89 4) Teitelbaum’s Response to Hermann’s Yellow Pad Story and Teitelbaum’s Note-Taking and Shredding Practices...............................................................................................................94 5) Teitelbaum’s Alternative Defense to Using Hermann as a Back Channel: I Didn’t Do It, But, If I Did, I Was Allowed To ..................................................................................................98 D. Additional Evidence Establishing Teitelbaum as Sole Source of Commission Information to Hermann........................................................................................................................................102 IV. INVESTIGATION OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE COMMISSION’S RESPONSE UPON RECEIVING THE ALLEGATIONS THAT ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HAD DISCLOSED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ___________ 105 A. Background ..............................................................................................................................105 1) John Feerick and the Commission.........................................................................................105 2) Leaks of Confidential Information ........................................................................................105 B. Failure to Investigate Allegations Against Teitelbaum............................................................114 1) Teitelbaum’s Disclosure to Feerick in November 2007 of Allegations About Him: the First Failure by the Commission to Investigate Teitelbaum ..............................................................114 2) Evidence Received from District Attorney Soares in February 2008: the Second Failure to Investigate..................................................................................................................................115 3) The Commission’s Belated Request in August 2008 for Another Opportunity to Review the February Evidence from the District Attorney: the Third Failure to Investigate Teitelbaum128 4) Commissioner Richard Emery’s Discovery of Information about Teitelbaum Which Had Been Withheld from Him: The Fourth Failure to Conduct an Investigation.............................130 C. Significant Misstatements of Evidence ....................................................................................134 V. RESPONSE TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S INVESTIGATION ________ 138 A. Production of Commission on Public Integrity Records and Documents................................138 B. Refusal to Examine Its Newspaper File to Verify Hermann’s Story as Requested by the Inspector General, as Contrasted with Commission’s Demand Upon Governor Spitzer During Troopergate Investigation .............................................................................................................142 C. The Non-Responsive Testimony of Teitelbaum and Commission Counsel Ginsberg Regarding Applicability of Confidentiality Provisions ................................................................144