Secret Cybersecurity deal approved by unanimous vote -- no objections

                                                                      

Bruce Blakeman

For the first time since the Nassau legislature was created in 1996, lawmakers have approved a secret contract without disclosing the identify of the vendor, the cost or any of the terms of the deal.

At least the administration of Republican County Executive Bruce Blakeman admitted the secret contract is to provide cybersecurity to the county -- something that had only been whispered before.

After the legislature's Rules Committee met in executive session today -- without providing a legal reason as to why they could shut out the public -- Deputy County Attorney Brian Libert explained:

The contract, he said, "supports Nassau County's ongoing efforts in boosting Nassau’s cybersecurity protocols, as well as protective and preventive measures and risk assessment techniques."

Libert said the contract details did not have to be disclosed under the rules of New York's open meetings law, which exempts matters "that imperil the public safety."

Presiding Officer Rich Nicolello (R-New Hyde Park) asked for clarification that the county "will not be disclosing the identify of the vendor or the terms of the contract."

Libert confirmed that information will not be made public. "It would imperil public safety to do so," he said.

Nicolello, the only lawmaker still serving from the original 1996 legislature, said, "This is an unusual circumstance. The legislature has not ever agreed to these type of scenarios prior to this."

But he added, "Given the sensitivity of the issue, what we're seeing unfolding in Suffolk County, I believe this is an extraordinary cicumstance."

Suffolk County operations are still reeling weeks after a cyberattack disabled its computer system.

Nicolello and Minority Leader Kevan Abrahams both said that the Rules Committee had been fully briefed about the contract in executive session.

Legis. Delia DeRiggi-Whitton (D-Glen Cove), who objected to secrecy and missing information in contracts following Super Storm Sandy, noted that the procurement office and Inspector General had signed off on the deal. 

The Rules Committee voted unanimously without any objections to approve the deal that ratifies the personal services agreement executed by Blakeman and also authorizes him to approve any "non-financial" instruments related to the personal services agreement. The "non-financial" caveat was an amendment to the blanket approval originally proposed.

Earlier, the Rules Committee had gone into executive session without giving any legal reason as to why -- despite state law that requires a general explanation and a vote.

Here is the text of the law relating to executive sessions:

§105. Conduct of executive sessions.
1. Upon a majority vote of its total membership, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered, a public body may conduct an executive session for the below enumerated purposes only, provided, however, that no action by formal vote shall be taken to appropriate public moneys:
a. matters which will imperil the public safety if disclosed;
b. any matter which may disclose the identity of a law enforcement agent or informer;
c. information relating to current or future investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense which would imperil
effective law enforcement if disclosed;
d. discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation;
e. collective negotiations pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law;
f. the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation;
g. the preparation, grading or administration of examinations; and
h. the proposed acquisition, sale or lease of real property or the proposed acquisition of securities, or sale or exchange of securities held by such public body, but only when publicity would substantially affect the value thereof.
2. Attendance at an executive session shall be permitted to any member of the public body and any other persons
authorized by the public body