IN THE MATTER OF BERNARD B



IN THE MATTER OF BERNARD B. KERIK

COIB Case No. 2001-569

February 27, 2002

SUMMARY: The Board fined former Police Commissioner Kerik $2,500 for using three New York City police officers to perform private research for him. He used information the officers found in a book about his life that was published in November of 2001. The Board noted that Mr. Kerik cooperated fully and expeditiously with the investigation and resolution of this matter. Mr. Kerik acknowledged that he had violated the Charter prohibition against using office for private advantage or financial gain and the terms of the Board’s waiver letter, even though one officer, a sergeant, was a close friend of his. The Board by its waiver letter had allowed Mr. Kerik to write the autobiography under contract, but only on the condition that he not use City time or his official City position to obtain a private or personal advantage for himself or the publisher, and that he use no City equipment or personnel or other City resources in connection with the book. The three officers used limited City time and resources in their research, and two of the officers had made five trips to Ohio for the project, each spending 14 days of their off-duty and weekend time.

STIPULATION AND DISPOSITION

Whereas the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board finds that former Commissioner Bernard B. Kerik cooperated fully and expeditiously with the investigation and resolution of this matter; and

Whereas the Board and former Commissioner Kerik wish to resolve this matter on the following terms, Bernard B. Kerik states the following:

1. I was the Police Commissioner of the City of New York from August 2000 until the end of the Giuliani Administration on December 31, 2001. I have previously served the City as Commissioner of the Department of Correction and as a detective for the New York City Police Department (the "NYPD").

2. In early Spring of 2001, sometime before May 16, 2001, I asked an NYPD sergeant, who is also a close personal friend of mine, to find information concerning my late mother, who died in the State of Ohio. At first, I simply gave him her maiden name and did not identify her as my mother because this subject is very personal to me. He initially believed that this was an NYPD matter. He needed more information with which to work, and shortly thereafter, I identified the woman as my mother, asked him to keep his inquiries confidential, and told him to do this work only on off-duty time. I also told him to keep records of any expenses he incurred so that I could reimburse him.

3. The sergeant made some inquiries and also enlisted the help of two NYPD detectives to find out where my mother was buried and the circumstances of her life and death. The sergeant and I are close personal friends and have been close since the early 1990's when we worked together. The sergeant and I have been to each other's homes many times over the years and have socialized outside of work. I called upon him because I knew that I could trust him as my friend. For more than forty years I have desired to find out what happened to my mother, from whom I was separated at the age of four.

4. I know and trust, but have not socialized outside of work with, the two detectives whom the sergeant enlisted to investigate my mother's history.

5. The sergeant collected information from the detectives, and he reported to me what he and the detectives learned about my mother. I approved of the use of the detectives to find this information for me and never asked the sergeant to end their involvement in this research. I told the sergeant I would reimburse the officers for any expenses they incurred in connection with this investigation. For convenience, the sergeant advanced the expense money for the detectives and I reimbursed him.

6. The sergeant made calls from his NYPD office and phone, amounting altogether to no more than about an hour of City time for the entire relevant period, from May to October of 2001. The sergeant and the first detective made five trips to Ohio for me, one in June, one in July, two in August of 2001, and one in October of 2001, on their vacation or weekend time. They each devoted a total of about 14 days to the Ohio trips, where they met with local police, visited my mother's gravesite and places where my mother had lived, found documents, and interviewed witnesses.

7. The second detective did not leave New York, but found information that I needed via the office phone from the office assigned to him as an NYPD detective, and also from his home phone. He also searched for information about my mother from facilities available to him as an NYPD officer. He did this research sometimes on City time using City resources, spending no more than about 4 hours in total of City time in the entire period from May to October of 2001, when his work on the project was completed.

8. I used information that the NYPD officers found for me in my book, The Lost Son, published in November of 2001 by Harper Collins Publishers, Inc. ("Harper Collins") and Regan Books. I entered into the book contract with Harper Collins in April of 2001, and have since received payments under that contract. On May 17, 2001, I wrote to the Conflicts of Interest Board for advice. I received a written waiver to write this book on my own time on certain conditions.

9. On May 29, 2001, the Conflicts of Interest Board sent me a waiver letter allowing me to perform my contract with Harper Collins for the purpose of publishing a book based on my life history on stated conditions. I understand that a waiver was required because Harper Collins has business dealings with the City. The Board wrote as follows:

"You are advised, based on your representations and on Mayor Giuliani's written approval, that the Board has determined that your work for Harper Collins Publishers Limited would not conflict with the purposes and interests of the City (see Charter Section 2604(e)), provided that, as you propose, you recuse yourself from all discretionary business dealings, including the issuance of discretionary permits, between any of the Firms [corporate affiliates of the publisher] and the City. It would not violate Chapter 68 for you to continue to perform, as part of your duties as Police Commissioner, the above-described necessary and appropriate press, law enforcement, and charitable activities that may involve the Firms or their employees.

You are further advised that all your outside work must be performed at times when you are not required to perform services for the City; that you may not use your official City position or title to obtain any private or personal advantage for yourself, the Firms, or their employees; that you may not use City equipment, letterhead, personnel, or other City resources in connection with this non-City work; and that you may not disclose or use for private advantage any confidential information obtained as a result of your City employment. See Charter Sections 2604(b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(4), respectively."

10. When I asked the sergeant to help me find information about my late mother, I believed that I was asking a favor of a friend. I also believed that if he and the other detectives he had tapped to assist in this private investigation did the work, and particularly the trips to Ohio, only on off- duty time, that I would be in compliance with the Board's requirements. I now understand that my assumptions were not correct and that two of the NYPD officers did perform some of this private work on City time from their government offices and phones, albeit no more than five hours in total during the whole six-month period at issue. I also understand now that it was a conflict of interest for me as Police Commissioner to use subordinate officers, even my close personal friend, in the NYPD to help me with my private project. I acknowledge now, but did not realize at the time, that my use of the officers violated the conditions of the Board's waiver letter and of Charter Section 2604(b)(3), which provides, in pertinent part, that "[n]o public servant shall use or attempt to use his or her position as a public servant to obtain any financial gain, contract, license, privilege or other private or personal advantage, direct or indirect, for the public servant or any person or firm associated with the public servant." The use of City facilities, though limited, also violated Charter Section 2604(b)(2) and Board Rule Section 1-13, which prohibit the use of City resources for a non-City purpose.

11. I also recognize that because the three officers were employees of the NYPD, their efforts and skills provided me with a "private or personal advantage" within the meaning of Charter Section 2604(b)(3), and could be seen as a "financial gain" to the extent that their work advanced my work on the book.

12. In recognition of the foregoing, I agree to pay a fine of $2,500 to the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board upon signature of this Disposition.

13. I agree that this statement is a public and final resolution of this matter. Furthermore, I agree to provide a copy of this Disposition to any City agency where I might apply for employment upon the request of such agency or in response to any City inquiry calling for such information.

14. This agreement constitutes a waiver by me of any rights to commence any judicial or administrative proceeding or appeal before any court of competent jurisdiction, administrative tribunal, political subdivision, or office of the City or the State of New York or the United States, and to contest the lawfulness, authority, jurisdiction, or power of the Conflicts of Interest Board in imposing the penalty which is embodied in this agreement. I further waive any right to make any legal or equitable claims, or to initiate legal proceedings of any kind against the Conflict of Interest Board, or any employee thereof, relating to or arising out of the facts and circumstances of this case, except to enforce this Disposition.

15. Any material misstatement of the facts of this matter, including of this Disposition, by Mr. Kerik, his attorney or agent, shall, at the discretion of the Conflicts of Interest Board, be deemed a waiver of confidentiality of this matter.

16. I confirm that I have entered into this agreement knowingly and intentionally without coercion or duress, and have had access to counsel of my choice in reaching this agreement and have entered into this agreement with the advice and consent of counsel. I accept all terms and conditions herein without reliance on any other promises or offers previously made or tendered by any past or present representative of the Conflicts of Interest Board, and I fully understand all the terms of this agreement.

17. This Disposition shall not be effective until all parties have affixed their signatures below.

18. This Disposition constitutes the entire agreement of the parties whose signatures appear below, and no other agreement, oral or otherwise, regarding this matter shall be deemed to exist or to bind either of the parties or to vary any of the terms contained herein.

19. The New York City Conflicts of Interest Board accepts this Disposition and the terms contained therein as a final disposition of the above-captioned matter, and accordingly, affirmatively states that no further enforcement action will be taken by the Conflicts of Interest Board against Mr. Kerik based upon any and all of the facts and circumstances recited above.

Bernard B. Kerik

Dated: February 27, 2002

Benito Romano

Acting Chair

Dated: February 27, 2002

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download