Democrats on the Saratoga Springs City Council voted 4 to 1 to spend $10,000 to hire a law firm that has been a generous contributor to Mayor Kim and the Saratoga Springs Democrats to investigate “allegations of discriminatory conduct”.
What Are They Investigating?
The tenth item on Mayor Ron Kim’s agenda at the October 17, 2023, Saratoga Springs City Council meeting was a resolution for “Authorization for Mayor to Sign Contract with The Towne Law Firm to Conduct Workplace Investigation.” Linked to this line were four items, including the actual resolution along with the Request for Quote (RFQ) all of which were extremely vague.
There was no public explanation as to what action required investigation nor who allegedly did the action. As far as I can tell, based on what was said at the meeting, there is no record of an actual complaint.
The Mayor claimed that the city had to hire an outside law firm for this investigation because there was no one available in city hall, including HR, who did not have a conflict of interest. It was never explained what this conflict was.
The entire process was the most opaque discussion I have ever observed at a Council meeting. For those who want to endure the entire eight minutes it went on, I have included a clip at the end of this blog.
The Towne Law Firm Has Contributed Generously to Ron Kim and the Saratoga Democrats
The firm that was selected by the four members of the Council (Kim, Moran, Sanghvi, and Golub) contributed $1,000.00 to Kim’s campaign chest and more to other Democratic candidates and the city Democratic Committee.
The Towne law firm has contributed:
- $500.00 to Kim on July 23, 2023
- $500.00 to Kim on September 19, 2021
- $500.00 to Michael Phillips, who ran for County District Attorney and is now Kim’s assistant City Attorney
- $500.00 to the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee on October 17, 2022
- $1,000.00 to the Saratoga County Democratic Committee on October 24, 2022
- $250.00 to Gordon Boyd, on June 25, 2023. Boyd is one of the Democratic candidates for Supervisor and ran Phillips’ campaign for DA.
The Investigation
On further research (more on that shortly), I learned that the issue to be investigated was sexual harassment.
In fact, the protocols for such investigations require that to protect all involved, investigations are supposed to be as protected from public scrutiny as possible, which I expect is why the discussion was so obtuse.
As noted, no reason why the human resources department would have a conflict of interest in investigating this was offered. HR is supposed to be the vehicle for addressing issues like sexual harassment. Unfortunately, in the spirit of catch-22, under the issue of privacy, there is no way to find out if there were any actual complaints filed for harassment, let alone why HR would recuse themselves and whether it was appropriate for them to do so.
The Reveal
The need for privacy and caution went off the rails the following day when Mayor Ron Kim went to the Times Union in order to get a story. He included an email that, in effect, identified the target of the investigation along with the potential victims. In the spirit of the protocols that protect privacy, I am not including the emails or a link to the story.
Curiously, Tracy Sangare (sometimes referred to as Tracy Krosky), a BLM activist, read this email during the public comment portion of the Council meeting. It was apparently given to her by a Council member.
Yet More Toxic Behavior
As routinely happens at Council meetings, the discussion about hiring the Towne Law Firm devolved into raised voices and ugliness. For those of you who, for some reason, have not had enough of this stuff, here’s yet another video.
A Civil Voice
In contrast, consider John Safford, the Republican candidate for Mayor, who made brief and thoughtful observations on the city’s insurance and bonding problems during the public comment period.
No one on the Council responded to his suggestions.
Saratoga Springs Politics 
Our own Harper Valley PTA! Way to go Jimmy, calling out these hypocrites.
Who in the hell is being harassed? Doesn’t there have to be a harassee? The only thing I found offensive about his little joke was that it wasn’t really funny.
LikeLiked by 3 people
They say talk is cheap, until you hire a lawyer. So true.
If I hired any of the lawyers (council members) in these video clips, I would be ripped off because of the long-winded diatribe, and the lack of savoir vivre, or savoir faire. Fellow citizens, we have reached a new low.
LikeLiked by 3 people
$10,000 taxpayer dollars wasted.
How many times does Minita whine about how limited our revenue is and yet not a peep on this expense.
Write in Joanne Kiernan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John,
You may know that the City Charter at 4.4.13 (see below) prohibits, in this matter, the City Council from entering an incurred obligation ” … against any allotment or appropriation except and unless the Commissioner of Finance first certifies that sufficient funds are or will be available to cover the claim or meet the obligation…”
The cost of outside legal services retained by the City Council becomes a charge against the “Professional Services” expenditure line in the City Attorney’s budget. That budget is part of the mayor’s comprehensive budget.
However, that budget line has already been exhausted for this fiscal year and stands in deficit. The adopted 2013 Comprehensive Budget appropriated a total of $20,000 for such services but already, according to Finance, $33,049 has been obligated. Thus $13,049 MORE than appropriated for the year has been spent even BEFORE the the Council’s recent authorization to retain the Towne Firm.
It does not appear that the Commissioner of Finance certified – as required by Charter law – prior to last week’s action that funds are available or will be available to cover the $10,000 approved contract.
In other words, monies to cover authorized obligations MUST be appropriated or certified to be available BEFORE the obligation is made. The Council cannot spent what it has not appropriated.
Further, Finance notes that by year’s end the line will be overspent by $72,300. Where that $72,300 will come from apparently remains to be seen.
Lew Benton
City Charter
Section 4.4.13
Payments prohibited. It shall not be lawful for any City employee to incur or contract any expense or liability for or on behalf of the City, unless the Council has made an appropriation concerning such expenses. No payment shall be made or obligation incurred against any allotment or appropriation except and unless the Commissioner of Finance first certifies that sufficient funds are or will be available to cover the claim or meet the obligation when it becomes due and payable. Any authorization of payment or incurring of obligation in violation of the provisions of the Charter shall be void.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Lew,
Thanks for reading and posting relevant sections of the charter here. A couple of things:
1) The city council, by voting to spend the $10,000, appropriated the monies.
2) The specific budget category for ‘professional services’ is overspent.
3) The city has a general fund and, perhaps, a contingency fund for overspend in specific budget areas that can cover the expense. Or, it may have a standard operating procedure for this type of event.
4) The vote of the Finance Commissioner on the appropriation implies certification, or perhaps she certifies with a signature statement on the appropriation?
So, you may be correct that there are deficient specific procedures here, however, there is a logical implication that this was totally legal.
Nice exercise in interpretation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sam
Maybe legal but definitely insanely stupid.
Do you agree?
LikeLike
Bob,
This is a simple and routine ‘Limits of Authority’ statement that you will find in most corporate policy, or in this case, in municipal law.
This specific statement, by implication, seems to address employees spending city money or signing contracts as opposed to direct Council appropriations during meetings.
It could be written with a bit more clarity, however, I think it totally cogent.
What I run into on a day-to-day basis is the ability of employees to comprehend written policy. As I have gotten older and studied demographics and psychology a bit more, I realize what a large problem this is. Language interpretation is a specific cognitive focus that differs pretty widely. Sometimes things need to be written differently for different people because even if we all speak English, we are not really speaking the same language.
So, I disagree.
Sam
LikeLike
My mistake, I was not clear: It is insanely stupid to waste 10,000 dollars like this.
LikeLike
Oh, for a potential sexual harassment case or lawsuit, the outside law firm is money well spent in this case. In larger organizations, these investigations and settlements are costs of doing business. In less sophisticated enterprises, normally there is intimidation and cover-up and sometimes nasty retribution. Any municipal employee with an email account or a cell phone should think twice about sending any messages beyond what is strictly required to perform a duty. Employees that engage in this sort of thing are financial liabilities for the taxpayer. The city recently hired an IT contractor to retain, automatically, all messages sent with city cell phones for evidence preservation purposes.
LikeLike
Oh, for a potential sexual harassment case or lawsuit, the outside law firm is money well spent in this case. In larger organizations, these investigations and settlements are costs of doing business. In less sophisticated enterprises, normally there is intimidation and cover-up and sometimes nasty retribution. Any municipal employee with an email account or a cell phone should think twice about sending any messages beyond what is strictly required to perform a duty. Employees that engage in this sort of thing are financial liabilities for the taxpayer. The city recently hired an IT contractor to retain, automatically, all messages sent with city cell phones for evidence preservation purposes.
LikeLike
Sorry Sam, While you may find a way to defend the funding IF there were an actual claim of sexual harassment. There is no claimant and while the e-mail have been in poor taste it does not seem to meet the definition of sexual harassment.
“behavior characterized by the making of unwelcome and inappropriate sexual remarks or physical advances in a workplace or other professional or social situation.”
” any unwanted sexual behaviour that makes someone feel upset, scared, offended or humiliated, or is meant to make them feel that way.” I guess if you really really try you might say the e-mail made one of the recipients (the other commissioners) feel upset, scared, etc. However, it seems the only that may have had their fragile sensitivity upset are the same people who routinely call others names, ridicule, and bully.
Based on that observation, this appears to be only a “gotcha” toward someone they dislike and are taking glee in embarrassing. AND, spending tax payer money to do it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, the Council vote to authorize the $10,000 expenditure is not an appropriation as suggested by an earlier post. The $20,000 in the City Attorney Professional Services expenditure has already been overspent. Before authorizing additional obligations a budget transfer should have been approved by resolution.
And, no, a vote to authorize an expenditure does not, in and of itself, imply or certify that the budget line item, in this case the City Attorney Professional Services line, can cover the expenditure. Prior to the vote to retain the law firm not one member of the Council asked if the money was in the budget. It was not.
While the writer seems to dismiss such actions as insignificant or simply an inconvenience to be dealt with administratively, it is not. Over spending budget line items, without formalizing necessary transfers and posting them, infringes on the public’s ability to monitor actual expenditures and gauge overall budget impact.
In this matter the amount is modest but there are many expenditure accounts in the current budget that have been overspent by substantial amounts and have yet to be made whole. Under budgeting expenditure lines seems to be a hallmark of the 2023 spending plan and has been carried forward in the proposed 2024 budget.
Major expenditure lines in the proposed 2024 spending plan (including police and firefighter overtime and comp. time accounts, 207 and 207a lines and others) are under funded by $100s of thousands and will result in large overruns. This will present real problems next year and should be a concern for all.
Finally, the “amended” 2024 budget posted to the city website today does not address this problem and, just as concerning, continues to carry several anticipated revenues that are unrealistically inflated.
The Charter is clear, as is the NYS Local Finance Law.
Lew Benton
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you Gayle and Lew.
It was a bit concerning that 5 people thought wasting our 10 grand on Mayor Kim’s petty, personal attack was ok. This is why I fear Kim will be reelected. Sad for our city.
LikeLike
Four people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I counted Sam.
LikeLiked by 1 person