The commission's case against Dopp (and why no Spitzer?)

The state Public Integrity Commission's administrative proceeding “in the matter of an investigation into the alleged misuse of resources of the Division of State Police" by Darren Dopp, communications director to former Gov. Eliot Spitzer, got under way this morning. Since Dopp was a no-show (see my two prior posts), the schedule was messed up, and only one minor witness testified on a housekeeping matter. But on call for this afternoon are Richard Baum, former secretary (I.e. top aide) to Spitzer, and William Howard, Spitzer's former assistant secretary for homeland security, both of whom have admitted to violating the Public Officers Law in the Troopergate scandal. Other state officials, most of them police officers, will testify, but Spitzer himself is not on the witness list and the commission is not planning to call him. (David Grandeau, the former Lobbying Commission director, showed up to listen to the proceedings, but left before I could talk to him.)

The commission's administrative law judge, Christine Kopec, recounted how Dopp's lawyer (or his former lawyer) had requested an indefinite postponement of the hearing on the ground of alleged misconduct by commission staff. (Dopp, who was suspended and left state government as a result of the scandal, alleges that when he later testified to the commission, his testimony was leaked to a Spitzer aide.) Kopec said Dopp's lawyer could have raised that issue on cross examination, but only if it were relevant to the "very narrow ground" of this inquiry into whether Dopp violated the Public Officers Law. (Dopp denies lawbreaking or other wrongdoing.)

The main event this morning was the opening statement of Barry Ginsberg, the commission's general counsel. He said the state police have "a critically important role," and "must be nonpartisan and independent." Misuse must be punished, he said, because it erodes public confidence in the police. Dopp, he alleged, misused state police to serve Spitzer's political agenda, not a legitimate governmental purpose. He said that although Dopp “acted in a rogue-like manner,” that was not the issue. Dopp's duties did not include monitoring of state aircraft, Ginsberg said. He was "an experienced state officer" who "knowingly and intentionally violated the law." Dopp got state police to assist him in preparing negative news articles against then Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, Ginsberg said. Ginsberg said the Spitzer administration had first sought from Bruno's office his itinerary when using state police aircraft, but then when Bruno's counsel protested that the request violated the separation of powers, the administration agreed and said Bruno did not have to provide the information. But then Dopp and Howard allegedly used the state police to get it. Dopp was allegedly told by the governor and other top officials to stop pursuing the information, but continued. Dopp allegedly got state police to create three documents that were not official documents but were made to appear so, and were inaccurate, and were leaked with others to The Times Union. The TU article of July 1, 2007, Ginsberg said, suggested wrongly that Bruno had committed crimes regarding his travel on state aircraft.

The absence of Spitzer is the main problem with the commission's case. Dopp essentially claims that the commission was trying to protect Spitzer and help make him the scapegoat. Albany County DA David Soares, in his second report on the case (after Spitzer's resignation)  released Dopp's testimony about how Spitzer graphically (a "red-hot poker" was cited) instructed Dopp to release information about Bruno's flights. Soares obviously believed the testimony, which also seems to me more plausible than Dopp doing this on his own. But Walter Ayres, the commission spokesman, told me that even if Dopp's testimony to Soares is true, it does not incriminate Spitzer. And, he said, the commission does not need Spitzer's testimony to make its case against Dopp.

But the commission's claim that Dopp, Baum, Howard and state police Acting Superintendent Preston Felton all violated the law over Troopergate, but the control-freak Spitzer did not, does not seem likely. Soares essentially reported that Spitzer had lied to him about his involvement in the case, so why would the commission presume it got truthful testimony from him? They should at least have called him as a witness at this hearing.

(Maybe if Baum chews the scenery this afternoon I'll get to play him for the third year in a row in the LCA show. I also played Barack Obama in last year's show, whose Act One closer was about blaming Darren Dopp. This year's show, coming up April 18, has not yet been cast.)