Bill to limit taxpayer funding of Cuomo’s legal fees worries public sector unions

The eye-popping $60 million that New York state spent related to Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s various scandals, including his legal defense, has prompted lawmakers to introduce legislation meant to curb excessive tabs on the taxpayer dime. But the bill wouldn’t apply only to the former governor – or even just to elected officials. It would apply to all public workers, and that has led public sector unions representing state workers to approach it with caution.

Sponsored by state Sen. Liz Krueger and Assembly Member Grace Lee, the State Taxpayer Oversight and Protection Act, or STOP Act, would expand the authority of the state comptroller to evaluate how state workers utilize taxpayer dollars in lawsuits related to their state work. Generally, the state attorney general’s office will represent state employees and those subject to the Public Officers Law, but in cases where it can’t, New York state will reimburse them for the cost of private attorneys. The comptroller currently has limited ability to reject the reimbursements, but the STOP Act would enable the comptroller to cut off the money if they determine that spending has become unreasonable.

The clear impetus for the proposed legislation was Cuomo. “The way that Andrew Cuomo used the system for defense is extraordinary and was probably not contemplated when the law was written,” Lee told City & State. The ex-governor has hired multiple law firms to represent him in sexual harassment lawsuits brought by three different women, racking up millions of dollars in attorney fees. State Attorney General Letitia James recused herself from representing Cuomo, since her office investigated the sexual harassment claims against him, which means that the state has been on the hook for the cost of all of his attorneys. Cuomo has denied all of the allegations against him.

The STOP Act would allow the comptroller to determine whether the costs covered by the state are “proportional to the needs of the case and consistent with the manner and methods of defense employed in similar or representative cases.” Hiring multiple high-paid attorneys from different law firms would automatically be considered “unreasonable” unless the state employee can make a compelling case for it. “This is really to ensure that we're not writing blank checks to politicians to support their legal defense,” Lee said. “I believe that everyone is due their day in court, but they shouldn't do it at the full expense of taxpayers.”

However, the legislation is already raising some eyebrows within public sector unions who represent state workers and civil servants. The Public Employees Federation – which covers scientific, professional and technical state workers – said it has concerns about the bill. “As a union, we are looking at the STOP Act closely,” Rob Merrill, a union spokesperson, told City & State in a statement. “We have concerns that this will negatively impact the defense options available to our members who are sued while acting as agents of the state.”

The state’s largest municipal union, the Civil Service Employees Association Local 1000, has not taken a position on the bill yet, but a spokesperson said that the union is reviewing the “potential impact, if any, on the state workforce represented by CSEA and will continue to monitor its progress in the NYS legislature.” A spokesperson for United University Professions, which represents State University of New York faculty and staff, confirmed that the STOP Act would impact its members if enacted and that its attorneys are reviewing the proposal. And a public sector union source said that labor groups have different levels of concern about the potential impacts of the legislation.

Lee said that she has already spoken with CSEA and that PEF was in the process of reviewing the bill. She said that she doesn’t have major concerns about pushback from unions. “I believe that this bill will continue to ensure that people do have adequate defense, but ensures that no one is exploiting taxpayer money while they do it,” she said. But Lee also said that she is willing to discuss potential amendments to address any specific concerns raised by unions.