Suffolk DA Tierney is wrong to try to keep tainted Spota-Levy deal secret 

Eleven years after the fact, an odorous secret agreement between Thomas Spota, the since-disgraced and convicted former Suffolk district attorney, and Steve Levy, the former county executive who mysteriously abandoned his political career, remains hidden, just as both parties planned it.

Levy didn’t seek another term and forfeited his $4 million campaign fund to avoid charges apparently related to fundraising. Or so it is stated. But we still don’t have the documented facts to know for sure. Even after all this time, we don't know how much the agreement abused the criminal justice process, or what can be done institutionally to prevent a repeat performance of this slimy scenario.

Newsday has therefore sought to get the agreement released under freedom of information laws. Levy has resisted in court, claiming that nondisclosure was a condition that cannot be breached. Through 2021, Spota’s successor, DA Tim Sini, supported the release as lawful. Levy lost at the trial level and appealed in his bid to keep these governmental facts bottled up forever, which Sini opposed.

Now, with the matter still bogged down on appeal, Sini’s successor Ray Tierney — 10 months after taking office — has ordered an about-face, essentially supporting Levy's drive to keep the deal secret by opposing disclosure.

Why? Tierney argues that his office “needs to stand by the promises made to witnesses to encourage their cooperation. Disclosure of materials that prior district attorneys have promised would remain confidential and sealed would have a chilling effect on our ability to prosecute public corruption cases in the future.” And, he adds, “to do otherwise would allow unethical prosecutors to use the power of their office and the grand jury process to slander and harass their enemies with no finding of criminality.” If Levy was Spota's victim, Tierney seems to suggest, then he'd be victimized again.

At first blush, that sounds like a plausible posture for a prosecutor. And Tierney is right when he says prosecutors shouldn’t use investigative powers to target perceived political “enemies” as Spota seems to have done. But Tierney’s objection to disclosure at this point is too vague and too theoretical to accept. His reservations don't really match the situation. The issue isn't criminal investigation process but the terms of a covert deal with a big and disturbing electoral impact. 

That impact — rooted in a past DA's interference in county governance — must be openly explained. Should a future DA be allowed again to influence terms of the electoral arena? Should a future county executive be allowed to cut this kind of deal, say, just to avoid embarrassment?

Across the nation, there is widespread concern about attempts to nullify the will of voters. That's just what Spota did, without accountability, regarding Levy.

The public has a need to know how it all happened. Contrary to Tierney’s claim, this disclosure can help the justice system, not hinder it.