End the secrecy in Suffolk

Political scandals come and go, but a stench lingers around backroom understandings and agendas known to mar the process of law enforcement in Suffolk County.

More than a decade after County Executive Steve Levy was barred from seeking reelection in a secret deal with since-convicted District Attorney Thomas Spota, its terms, absurdly, remain concealed.

Newsday has been seeking relevant documents from Spota's successor, Tim Sini, under the Freedom of Information Law. Sini has responded that while his office is ready to release the non-prosecution agreement, Levy filed a lawsuit to block disclosure.

The public interest is best served by the material's release.

The circumstances of the agreement were highly unusual, even unheard of, when reached in 2011. While some elected officials have resigned facing criminal charges, this episode created its own Suffolk-style fog. Levy forfeited whatever may have been his political future by surrendering his $4 million campaign fund and agreeing not to run again.

He was not prosecuted. But the key question is, not prosecuted for what? Was it legitimate for would-be accuser and would-be defendant to keep the potential allegations under wraps, as a condition of their resolution?

Isn't it relevant to those in the system, and more importantly the public at large, to know whether the charges Spota once pointed at Levy's head carried any real weight at all?

After all, Spota and key allies later went to jail for illegal, highhanded, self-serving, arguably political actions far outside their sworn law-enforcement duties.

And recently Newsday revealed, based on newly unsealed court records, that federal prosecutors had sought to present evidence at the Spota corruption trial of a plot by top officials to remove Levy — whom they privately branded "anti-cop" and "uncontrollable."

Now, after Spota's trial made clear the corruption of his office, it's important to know how Levy was targeted and what set of facts made him so vulnerable. One relevant question is: How far can a district attorney and police officials go to nullify the public’s choice of candidates for an office? The text of the agreement could give Suffolk residents a clue as to how justified it might have been to take down their county executive, who had been reelected on rival party lines four years earlier with 96% of the vote.

Levy told Newsday after learning of revelations in the records: "These documents confirm that this cabal was engaged in a plot to get me out of the way so they could control the county."

Maybe it will help to reveal the exact nature of official threats that derailed a career so active that only a year earlier he changed parties and ran for governor. Maybe the threatened charges might have held up on the merits. We just can't tell.

Relevant and proper official information warrants public release, which is long overdue. The merits are clear, and we'd expect the court to agree.

— The editorial board