Tomorrow night, July 2,the Saratoga Springs City Council will decide whether to pay bills that Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran and his Deputy, Stacy Connors, have run up when they hired a private Manhattan attorney to represent them in the ongoing investigation of the on-call pay scandal. As readers may recall, their attorney bills $1,250.00 an hour. In eight weeks, including the most recent bill, the sum has grown to $60,992.65. The detailed bill is posted on the Council agenda on the city’s website.
If Moran and/or Connors were to be indicted as part of this scandal, the cost to this city for their representation would run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The hourly rate being charged by Moran’s lawyer is not only the highest rate ever billed to the city; it dwarfs the rates charged by other attorneys who have recently represented city officials. Former Mayor Meg Kelly’s attorney billed the city at $395.00 an hour to represent her during the Attorney General’s investigation. Moran’s lawyer is billing at literally three times that rate. Readers will remember that Moran complained bitterly about paying Kelly’s bills. Likewise Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi, who hasn’t had a problem bringing Moran’s bills to the Council for approval, complained about Kelly’s and former Commissioner Robin Dalton’s bills and just recently floated the idea that the Council might want to start putting a cap on what the Council would pay lawyers hired to represent city officials. She hasn’t mentioned this idea since Moran’s and Connors’ bills appeared.
Municipalities have the authority to scrutinize and challenge legal fees on the basis of reasonableness.
To date, the city has yet to determine whether Moran’s attorney’s rate is reasonable for the city to pay.
I am reminded of that famous quote from former Supreme Court Justice Stewart Potter, who said of pornography, “I know it when I see it.” While I don’t know what the legal definition of “reasonable” is I feel I do know an unreasonable lawyer bill when I see one and I would say that is what the Council will be asked to consider tomorrow night.
There is also the question of whether Moran has a conflict of interest if he chooses to participate in the vote on his bills tomorrow night. Approving the payment of the bills implies that they are reasonable. As the lawyer will be representing Moran, it would seem grossly inappropriate for him to vote on that issue.
If Moran cannot vote on the bill, it is unlikely to pass.
Whether or not Moran is determined to have a conflict of interest, the underlying issues will truly define the character of those who represent the citizens of this Saratoga Springs.
To adopt Sanghvi’s resolution would be an outrageous example of cronyism. The arrogance of Moran and Sanghvi, along with Public Works Commissioner Jason Golub, if he votes for this, will be simply stunning. They will be telling us that our tax money is in a piggy which they can dip into at their whim.
Saratoga Springs Politics 
Is the City Council not supposed to approve of a request for an attorney ahead of time, not after one has already been hired?
Does the Charter not address this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That was the process, at least as I understood it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tonight’s (July 2) City Council agenda includes resolutions which would authorize the payment of $60,992.65 for vouchered private attorney services in response to a grand jury inquiry centered on “on call” pay to certain deputy commissioners and a former deputy mayor.
However, the proposed payment to Orrick, Herrington & Sutecliffe, LLP, 2121 Main Street Wheeling, WV, is for legal services never approved by the City Council.
Title 8.1 of the City Charter is clear: “The Council may, from time to time, engage legal professionals to provide additional legal service to the City or to any department or entity. Contracts with all such legal professionals shall be reviewed and approved by the Council.”
No such required contract exists and it is difficult to understand how nearly an unauthorized $61,000 expenditure is allowed on the Council agenda.
The payment request, on the commissioner of finance’s agenda, proposes to take the vouchered $60,992.65 from an Assignment of Fund Balance for Legal Expenses. The fund was established in November 2023 and capitalized in the amount of $200,00.
But the establishing resolution (23-623) specifies that the Assignment Fund can only “… be used for providing legal services … as defined in City Code and Public Officers Law.” So it seems that any such assignment must be first meet the standards in the Public Officers Law.
The law is intended to allow for defense and indemnification of public officers and employees:
“Upon compliance by the employee with the provisions of subdivision five of this section, the public entity shall provide for the defense of the employee in any civil action or proceeding, state or federal, arising out of any alleged act or omission which occurred or allegedly occurred while the employee was acting within the scope of his public employment or duties. This duty to provide for a defense shall not arise where such civil action or proceeding is brought by or at the behest of the public entity employing such employee.” Public Officers Law Section 18 (3) (a)
The “action” under scrutiny is not a civil action and, if criminal in nature, cannot be considered within the scope of official employment or duties.
Further, the duty to defend or indemnify and save harmless prescribed by the Public Officers Law shall be conditioned upon:
“delivery by the employee to the chief legal officer of the public entity or to its chief administrative officer of a written request to provide for his defense together with the original or a copy of any summons, complaint, process, notice, demand or pleading within ten days after he is served with such document”
Perhaps the City Council should demand that the requirements for assignment of private legal counsel in this matter are met, that a contract, as mandated by the City Charter, has been reviewed and approved and that non-civil actions fall within the scope of the Public Officers Law.
The finance commissioner’s role in all this seems at odds with her fiduciary obligation as the City’s chief fiscal officer.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Excellent overview Lew. There are also provisions in the city charter Commissioner of Finance section that state you cannot incur a libability against the city without first having an appropriation in the budget. The whole process for this liability was missed by this council and that is unfortunate. is a mess and the council acts as though the city does not have a process and got hung up on what is reasonable. The city policies and procedures that make this simple and fair. There was no good reason for the lengthy discussion about reasonableness if processes had been followed. For example this process:
Simple steps. Just do it.
Then ensure you have the money in the budget to meet the ongoing expense.
Michele Madigan
Former Commissioner of Finance (2012-2021)
current County Supervisor.
LikeLike
When our city attorney was asked, at the council meeting, “can we pay this bill?”, why could not Mr Harper quote the same language that you have just spelled out? Mr Harper, the city attorney we rely on to advise our Commissioners and their Deputies, failed the taxpayers with his weak advice.
As you all know, I have said before that Mr Moran is a rogue Commissioner.
“He makes a lot of money”. Who cares. and what did Moran’s remark have to do with anything at all.
The hourly rate for his attorney is “only $500 an hour” because his highly paid attorney represents himself and his greedy Deputy Ms Connors. Mr Moran, half of $1250 is not $500. This makes me worry.
Mr Benton and Ms Madigan are correct. This is a sham. Commissioner Golub is an attorney, yet he could not see that this egregious bill should not have been passed? Golub is a huge disappointment.
LikeLike
more than a sham!
LikeLike