The Sarah Anker Investigation is the Real ‘October Surprise’

Two weeks ago, The Messenger reported of an investigation into former Suffolk County Legislator Sarah Anker (D-Mt. Sinai), who is now running for the First Senate District against two-term Senator Anthony Palumbo (R-New Suffolk). The investigation was started in response to claims from Legislator Chad Lennon (C-Rocky Point), Anker’s successor, and his staff that the Sixth District office was nearly empty, with no physical or digital records of constituent cases and ongoing projects. Lennon claims he was put at a significant disadvantage as a freshman legislator, essentially having to start from scratch to pick up the tab from where Anker left off.

The investigation was unanimously approved by the County Legislature, with Lennon recusing himself, as well as Legislator Anthony Piccirillo (R-Holtsville), who serves as Chair of the Government Operations, Personnel, and Information Technology Committee, the body set to investigate the claims.

Interestingly, not a single other outlet seems to have this on their radar. Whether the claims are true or not, it’s still a significant development into a former local elected official, whose tenure is not far behind in the rearview mirror, and whose political future could be much nearer than anticipated.

In fact, Newsday actually made a pretty egregious typo in one of their latest issues. Their Monday, October 22, paper has a full-page article discussing matching public funds for campaigns. Essentially, your tax dollars go to fund political campaigns if candidates meet certain qualifications, regardless of whether you support them or not, but that’s a topic for a different editorial.

The Newsday article discussed the $375,000 Anker received in matching funds, to Palumbo’s near-$100,000. The typo we found was that Newsday listed Anker as “State Sen.,” as if she is currently the incumbent. We all make mistakes, and mistakes are inevitable in newsprint, but that’s a pretty glaring error, and one that only stands out more given that Newsday and company’s columnists are remaining oddly tacit about the investigation.

Again, allegations are allegations, but this is a major development in every sense of the word. Moreover, we were in frequent contact with Anker’s Senate campaign to set up a time for her to screen with The Messenger. Contact was made over a period of weeks, but scheduling conflicts on both our and her end did not make the interview a reality. However, contact went eerily silent after we apparently broke the story.

Couple this with the disbarment case of Assemblyman Ed Flood (R-Port Jefferson Station). Our discussions with Flood’s attorney on the matter, Steve Losquadro, have presented these bullet points: a clerical error was in need of rectification on Flood’s part. Documents were delivered via courier service – requiring an in-person reception and/or signature – to an address where Flood is not regularly present anymore given his Albany obligations. However, the notice of his disbarment came right to his front door, giving him no opportunity to correct the error and costing him his legal license.

Losquadro remains confident that Flood will have his law license reinstated, but he stipulates that there’s no reason for the judicial review board to do so until after the election, whether Flood wins or loses his seat.

Of course, the media in Suffolk County had a field day with this. At face value, yes, that’s also a significant development, especially in the county’s most competitive seat next month. But there are some crucial components that have been omitted, and we think that this is an attempt to wrest that seat from Republican hands in a time when Democrats are aware of the increasingly competitive nature of New York. Suffolk is considered the “tip of the spear” for almost any statewide campaign, and areas like Three Village, which Flood represents, are now becoming much more competitive than they were a decade ago. Losing their hold on these valuable precincts means a much lower floor than the one to which Democrats are typically accustomed.

Moreover, Newsday’s endorsement of Flood’s opponent, which is their prerogative entirely, was noticeably lacking in Flood’s comments. When Flood screened with us, he was very specific and was able to rattle off what he’s been doing for his district and the state. We find it hard to believe he didn’t deliver the same pitch to Newsday. They must not have felt inclined to write it up. Our interview with Flood is on our website and can be viewed in copies of the October 10 edition of the Brookhaven Messenger.

Both Flood and Anker have their rights to maintain their innocence and the investigating parties have their rights to fact-find as well, especially as these are perhaps the top-two races in Suffolk this year.

But it seems odd that most outlets piled relentlessly on Flood and didn’t even give him a chance at the endorsement table, while simultaneously remaining silent on a bipartisan investigation into Anker.