Saratoga Springs Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran has been unsuccessfully trying for months to get the city to allow him to have his own attorney rather than rely on the city’s attorney. At the September 16, 2024, pre-agenda meeting, he insisted that he had the right to have his own attorney. When Mayor Safford indicated he could not support this, Moran announced that he and his staff would stop processing contracts for a month.
It is hard to believe that he will follow through on this threat, which would violate his oath of office as the Commissioner of Accounts.
At the August 20, 2024, Saratoga Springs City Council meeting, Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran presented the Department of Public Works agenda as the Commissioner of Public Works position is now vacant with the departure of Jason Golub for a position with the State of New York. I’m not sure exactly why Moran is playing this role. Nevertheless, Moran was the one to move the item on the Public Works agenda for the city to pay the attorney fees of Jason Golub and his former Executive Assistant Brooke Van Buskirk. They had incurred the fees using Oscar Schreiber as their counsel for interviews by the New York State Police regarding the ongoing criminal investigation into the on-call scandal.
The ensuing discussion about paying the bills for Golub and VanBuskirk was tortured. I have included the full video of that conversation at the end of this post for readers willing to endure the entirety of Moran and Sanghvi’s dubious arguments.
Key to all this is the lawsuit, which is still awaiting the judge’s decision, brought by Mike Brandi, the city Republican chairman. Brandi challenged the Council’s 3-2 decision on July 2, 2024, to pay the legal bills for Dillon Moran and Stacy Connors amounting to $60,000. Brandi argued several reasons why the Council should not have approved these bills. The most relevant one is Brandi’s contention that the city code for indemnification is too broad and conflicts with New York State law. I discussed this in an earlier post, but the basic issue is that while the city code allows for indemnification in civil and criminal matters, the state only provides coverage in a criminal case if the city employee/official is found innocent or the prosecution drops the case. Bills incurred in criminal cases are to be paid upfront by the defendants. They can then be reimbursed if they are cleared of the charges. The bills Moran and Connors incurred were related to the investigation of the on-call pay scandal, which is a criminal case. The bills put forth for Golub and Van Buskirk are for representation in the same criminal investigation.
Moran Rants, Sanghvi Pontificates, Coll Reasons
The evening’s discussion on Moran’s motion involved the usual rants by Moran, dubious legal advice from Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi, and repeated patient attempts by Public Safety Commissioner Tim Coll to explain to them the legal issues involved.
At one point, Moran attacked Coll, demanding to know how he knew the lawyers’ bills were related to a criminal matter. Coll’s reply to Moran was simple: This is a NY State Police investigation, and they only investigate criminal matters.
Moran then launched into a rant denouncing Mike Brandi and his lawyer, Chris Obstarczyk, for suing the city, calling them “grifters” and inaccurately describing a previous lawsuit they won against the city.
Commissioner Sanghvi offered her own skewed legal theory about the city’s obligation to pay the lawyers’ bills by claiming that, notwithstanding the ongoing state police investigation and the seating of a grand jury over the on-call scandal, the matter can only be categorized as criminal once someone is charged. Coll attempted, without success, to explain to Sanghvi that this was not the case. Sanghvi continued to repeat this incorrect piece of information as if saying it more than once could somehow make it true.
In another piece of magical thinking, Sanghvi and Moran also dismissed the idea that Brandi might sue the city again if the Council voted to pay Golub’s and Van Buskirk’s bills. Moran opined that he did not operate in a world of hypotheticals. Sanghvi was similarly skeptical but insisted that if Brandi sued successfully, the city could claw back the money, not from the lawyers but from the city employees who hired the lawyers. She actually said that should the city lose, she would just go over to DPW and get the money from the two employees (I am not exaggerating, as the video documents). Even if Golub and Van Buskirk still worked for the city, which they do not, there is every reason to expect they would not simply acquiesce to Sanghvi’s request, and that this would lead to more lawsuits this time with the unappealing scenario of the city suing its own employees.
Coll’s Amendment
Commissioner Coll was the voice of reason. He tried to repeatedly explain that the main issue before the court in the case of Moran and Connors’ bills was whether or not the city could legally pay upfront for lawyers for city officials/employees in criminal cases. This same issue applied to Golub’s and Van Buskirk’s bills. A decision in the Moran/Connors case would give the Council guidance on how to deal with the new bills. Coll offered an amendment indicating that he thought Schreiber’s bills were reasonable and that he should be paid, but only pending a favorable decision for the city in Brandi’s most recent action re Moran and Connors bills.
During the discussion, city attorney David Harper would only say that it would be legal to pay the bill. That is really not the central question. Strictly speaking, paying the bill on the evening of the Council meeting was legal as it was not at that moment being challenged in court. It would have been helpful, however, if Harper had volunteered what problems paying the bill might precipitate if the court should rule against the city and/or Brandi sued over paying the new bill.
The real question was whether paying the Golub/Van Buskirk bills was prudent until the judge determined whether such a payment is lawful.
It will be a mess if the city pays the bill and Judge Freestone determines that state law overrules our code.
While Mayor Safford voted for Coll’s amendment, he turned around and voted to pay the bill when the amendment failed to pass. The motion to pay Schreiber’s bill passed with Moran, Sanghvi, and Safford voting in favor. Coll abstained, citing that he did not have enough information. It was troubling that Safford appeared so focused on the fact that Schreiber’s bill was reasonable (which it was) that he appeared oblivious to the broader legal issues.
Yet Another TRO
On August 26, 2024, Brandi’s attorney, Chris Obstarczyk, successfully sought a temporary restraining order blocking the city from paying Schrieber’s bill, pending a decision on many of the issues he asserted in the Moran/Connors lawsuit.
Commissioner of Finance Minita Sanghvi, who voted to pay Golub and Moran’s bills, said the city is obligated to pay their specialized attorneys, regardless of who they defend.
“If we hire somebody we have to pay them and that’s important,” Sanghvi said. “You can’t be making it political.”
She also said that not paying vendors can affect the city’s credit. Before the second suit was filed, she also assured the council that the city could claw back the funds from Golub and VanBuskirk if a judge deemed the city should not have paid Schreiber. Either way, she said Schreiber should be paid and that they can’t function by speculating if a second lawsuit would be filed.
Liberatore August 27, 2024
I couldn’t agree more with Sanghvi that if the city hires someone, the person should be paid, but there are some important caveats that she has ignored.
First, the city did not hire Oscar Schreiber. He was employed by Golub and VanBuskirk.
Secondly, there is the issue of what is legal. Hiring someone for some purpose must meet the legal obligations of the city and the state of New York. Whether Golub and VanBuskirk have a right to an attorney in a criminal matter is currently before a judge. Commissioner Sanghvi continues to deny that legitimate legal questions exist regarding the eligibility of Golub and VanBuskirk to counsel paid for by the city.
Consider that Commissioner Sanghvi’s job is to scrutinize all bills to ensure they comply with the laws of the city and the state. She seems to want to dismiss legitimate arguments about the wisdom and legality of paying these bills by falsely suggesting any opposition or even hesitation is “political.”
In fact, it is highly questionable that declining to pay an illegal bill would damage the city with credit agencies, but paying such a bill would do little to help the city maintain the credibility and trust of its insurance carrier.
Commissioner Sanghvi also improperly reduced the situation to whether or not to pay Schreiber when the amendment offered by Coll was that Schreiber’s bills should be paid if Judge Freestone determined that they fell within the law. No one at the Council table argued simply that the bills should not be paid. How Commissioner Sanghvi arrived at that understanding raises serious questions about her competence or just as troubling that she was attempting to “politicize” the issue herself.
Sanghvi Gets A Lawyer
Sanghvi announced at the Council meeting that the State Police have contacted her to schedule an interview related to the on-call scandal and that she has gone ahead and secured legal representation at $525.00 an hour [Readers may recall that Sanghvi has consistently dismissed the on-call issues as frivolous]. This is a higher rate than Robin Dalton’s and Meg Kelly’s attorneys, whose bills Sanghvi continually complains about. She went on at some length that, at the request of the City Attorney, she has provided the hourly rate and scope of work even though she was not required to since Moran, Connors, Golub, and Van Buskirk had not provided that information. Despite Commissioner Coll’s attempts to explain to her that since it was a criminal matter, it was unclear whether the city could legally pay her bills, she seemed unable to grasp the concept.
Commissioner Sanghvi is in a dicey situation. As the Commissioner of Finance, it is her department’s responsibility to protect the city by scrutinizing all bills. She also has broad authority over whether to pay bills submitted to her office. Strictly speaking, this whole scandal could have been avoided had her office rejected the bills submitted by three deputies who were clearly not eligible to be paid for being on-call. What her legal culpability is in this matter remains to be seen.
At $525.00 per hour, she could encumber quite a bill, which may or may not be covered depending on Judge Freestone’s decision.
Judging by her remarks and demeanor during the discussion, she appears oblivious to her situation.
The Times Union has run a story on the city hiring an attorney to represent it in dealing with the New York State Attorney General’s demands on Saratoga Springs following her office’s investigation and report on the city’s conflicts with the local Black Lives Matter group.
After rehashing the legal expenses the city has been enduring, reporter Wendy Liberatore notes that the Council is united on the need to hire outside counsel to respond to the AG. She then provides Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran a platform to attack fellow Public Safety Commissioner Tim Coll.
Moran said he is skeptical about Coll’s sincerity to collaborate. He believes Coll and the police will fight the attorney general on proposed reforms such as training police on de-escalation, bias and community policing.
Times Union August 23, 2024
Moran goes on to make further accusations:
“We are cognizant of the fact we do not have enough legal talent nor appropriate legal talent to engage in the negotiation with the attorney general,” Moran said. “That we all agree on. … The problem is that (Coll) wants to fight the attorney general … His (requests for quotes) is written like somebody who doesn’t want to collaborate with the attorney general, but like somebody who wants to argue over every word in the (proposed attorney general) document [JK:Emphasis added]. … This could harm the city for years going forward.”
Times Union August 23, 2024
Unfortunately for Moran, it was not Coll who drafted the “request for quotes,” but the City Attorney, and Coll has invited all members of the City Council to participate in the interviews of the attorneys who respond to the RFQ.
Moran (and Ms. Liberatore) apparently did not bother to check the facts on this or his other allegations. The city police force, for instance, is already routinely being trained in “de-escalation, bias, and community policing,” so there will be no fight over those reforms as they have already been implemented.
I am in Chicago having participated in the march on Monday opposing my country’s funding of the genocide in Gaza.
I am a Jew and I grew up in a home where when my parents said never again they were not talking about only Jews but the slaughter of innocents of any nationality or race.
I know my gesture of marching is a small one but the images of Palestinians carrying maimed children is simply more than I can bear.
This war will not only devastate the people of the West Bank and Gaza but in the end will threaten the long term future of Israel.
Back in April, Saratoga Springs Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran published a Request for Proposals that would fund attorneys for his Accounts Department along with the Finance Department, and the Department of Public Works. I described his power move in some detail that month.
I had assumed he had dropped the idea but recently he received responses from a number of law firms. He has selected the firm Harris Beach. The award of a contract was put on his agenda for the August 20, 2024, meeting. His proposal was met with intense questioning from Mayor Safford at this morning’s (August 19,2024) pre-agenda meeting. Safford was concerned that Dillon’s proposal lacked any specific guidelines as to when and how the Harris Beach firm would be used by the three departments. Moran bizarrely argued that the guidelines could be figured out after the firm was hired. In the end it was clear that Moran did not have the votes to accept this contract and withdrew that item from his agenda.
If Moran is eventually successful, the toxic environment at Council meetings would then include dueling lawyers at who knows what cost to the city.
It is worth noting that at a Council meeting on October 18, 2022, Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi sided with then Mayor Ron Kim in opposing a similar proposal by Moran to have the city fund an attorney for him. Here is the record of that discussion:
At the time Kim and Moran were feuding and Sanghvi was Kim’s ally. Sanghvi has been silent on Moran’s latest foray and was not at this morning’s Pre-Agenda meeting
Comments
I sent requests to the three candidates that I am currently aware of seeking to fill the DPW Commissioner vacancy. I asked them to review Moran’s proposal and offer their thoughts. Sara Burger and Michael Ladd did not respond. The following is the response from Chuck Marshall:
“Commissioner Moran’s pattern of alleged mistreatment of staff, increasing litigation, and propensity for shifting responsibilities away from himself, has proven problematic for the city. During this period of mounting legal bills – already burdening taxpayers – it doesn’t seem fiscally responsible to contract for separate attorneys for Accounts, Finance, and Public Works.”
Moran’s Empire
With the resignation of Jason Golub, Moran has taken it on himself to represent DPW at the Council table thus expanding his presence.
[JK: I received a text this evening (08/21/24) from Michael Ladd. He indicated that my text had gone to his spam folder which is why he did not respond. He observed that Moran had withdrawn it to amend it.]
In a front-page story in the August 6, 2024, edition of the Daily Gazette, Sara Burger announced her candidacy to replace Saratoga Springs Public Works Commissioner Jason Golub, who is leaving this position to take a job with the state. On the very same day, she apparently emailed the executive committee of the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee, withdrawing from the race. Then, apparently, she reversed her decision again, reaffirming her intention to campaign to replace Golub.
According to a story in the August 7, 2024, edition of the Times Union, the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee had selected Burger over Gordon Boyd, who also sought the position.
I texted Burger on August 7, 2024, and asked for clarification.
Ms. Burger never replied.
I then emailed Otis Maxwell, the chair of the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee, asking if I could have a copy of her email. He never replied.
It is reasonable to assume that Ms. Burger mysteriously withdrew from the race and then re-entered it.
I think it is reasonable for Ms. Burger to directly address the incident and, assuming she did withdraw and re-engage, explain her decisions.
The Word Partisan Doesn’t Work
Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran has asserted that because the number of registered Democrats is greater than the number of Republicans in the city, that the person selected by the Democratic Committee should be Golub’s replacement.
It is important to understand that for the group currently in control of the Democratic Committee, being a Democrat is not enough. As we saw in the last election cycle when the Committee refused to let three Democrats interested in running for City Council even address the full Committee, any candidate they will even consider, let alone endorse for this current vacancy, must be loyal to the current faction in control of the committee and a fan of Moran and Finance Commissioner Sanghvi.
In contrast, outgoing Commissioner Golub told the Times Union:
‘…his replacement should not be a partisan pick, but one who would work well with the staff. He also told the mayor he would be happy to chair the committee [a committee that would vet and recommend a candidate].”
Times Union August 7, 2024
The Democratic Committee quickly announced on Facebook that they “would like to assist in identifying candidates for the DPW position” and that anyone interested in the position should contact them. When Otis Maxwell, the Democratic chair, however, was contacted by a registered Republican who was and still is interested in the position and has qualifications for the job and a history of working well with city officials and residents of all political persuasions, he was told that the Democratic Committee was only interviewing Democrats.
Ironically, Otis Maxwell, the Democratic chair, had told the Daily Gazette
“we are looking for the strongest candidate, and it would be great if we found somebody who was somewhat apolitical and just had great qualifications and wanted the job and that might help the other side approve them.”
-Daily Gazette July 26,2024
The committee then went ahead and endorsed Sarah Burger, a former Democratic chair who is highly partisan and who has no qualifications. So much for looking for the strongest candidate who might help the “other side” approve them. Note also that Public Safety Commissioner Tim Coll is a registered Democrat but has automatically been delegated to be on the “other side.”
In ironic contrast to the hyper-tribalism of the Democrats who view being a Republican as being the personification of evil, it is the local Republicans who have demonstrated tolerance and the willingness to look beyond party registration in considering who to support to fill Golub’s position. Readers will recall that they endorsed Tim Coll, a registered Democrat who successfully ran for Public Safety Commissioner in the last election.
Mike Brandi, chair of the Saratoga Springs Republican Party, told the Times Union that he is:
“available to speak with anyone interested in the position to discuss my committee’s priorities for the Department of Public Works. … While the local Democratic Party has refused to interview independents and Republicans for their recommendation to fill the position, our priority is what is best for the city.”
Times Union August 7, 2024
Probable Grid Lock
There is currently controversy and confusion over when an election to fill Golub’s position can take place. Moran claims that he will make it happen on October 29, 2024. Without going too far into the weeds, this is highly unlikely. It remains unclear when a special election will be held.
In the meantime, the only way to fill the position, pending an election, would be for a majority of the Council to vote for a candidate to serve as Commissioner until a special election can be held. This would require three votes, and with Golub gone and the two Democrats supported by the Committee, Moran and Sanghvi, committed to Sarah Burger, this seems unlikely.
A number of people have expressed interest in potentially filling Golub’s position. They are either independents or Republicans with little history in the scrum of city politics. Given the public stance of the city Democratic committee, though, it is highly unlikely that Moran and Sanghvi would consider any of these candidates and, therefore, that a majority can be found.
There is a tentative plan for RISE Housing and Support Services to lease the building owned by the city of Saratoga Springs at 5 Williams Street that was used for many years as the city’s Senior Center. RISE hopes to locate its administrative offices there while Bonacio Construction renovates RISE’s office facility at 127 Union Street. Following the renovation, which is estimated to take six months to a year, RISE will relinquish the former Senior Center building and move back to their previous location.
Former Mayor Ron Kim’s history of trying to make the Senior Center into a twenty-four/seven, low-barrier homeless shelter has complicated the process for RISE. Given the Center’s proximity to the Saratoga Central Catholic School, Kim’s plan produced visceral opposition from parents whose children attended the school. This history has bred an atmosphere of fear and suspicion towards the current proposal for RISE to now use the facility.
The plan is now for the City Council to vote on a lease of the Senior Center at their August 6, 2024, meeting.
Regrettably, the agenda published on Friday, August 2, did not include an item authorizing the lease, nor was there a copy of what was being proposed.
How To Create A Toxic Environment
Normally the Commissioner of Public Works would be responsible for bringing a lease like this to the table as this office is responsible for the city’s buildings and facilities. For whatever reason, Jason Golub, the current Public Works Commissioner, has declined to play this role, although he has told people that he plans to vote to approve the lease.
Instead Golub has handed off this responsibility to Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran. While we are told that Moran plans to put a proposed lease up for a Council vote Tuesday (August 6, 2024) this item does not appear on his agenda nor has any document been posted anywhere on the city website for public review.
Unconfirmed rumors of what will be in this proposed lease abound.
There are reports that at least three versions of the lease are circulating.
Moran has told people that the reason that the lease was not on the published agenda was that it needed further work.
As both Moran and Golub refuse to respond to my emails, I have been unable to find out why Golub has refused to sponsor the resolution or what changes Moran thinks are required.
One source claims that Moran has said that there will not be time to make the changes before the pre-agenda meeting on Monday morning, August 5. This means that neither the Council members nor the public will have seen the proposal prior to Moran asking the Council to take action on Tuesday night.
Golub’s Troubling Behavior
Discussions about this plan began last fall so there has been plenty of time to craft a lease and to properly inform the public of its contents and meet with citizens to hear their concerns. That responsibility rested clearly on Golub’s shoulders as DPW Commissioner. Why he has abrogated that responsibility and allowed Moran to take over is unknown.
The Need For A Special Meeting
I have repeatedly written about the Faction’s (Moran/Sanghvi/Golub) indifference to the need to inform the public in a timely way about actions the Council plans to take. Rather than publish proposed resolutions in the agenda, which is posted on Friday nights, they regularly prefer to wait until the Tuesday nights of Council meetings to share what they plan to do.
It is no wonder that the Catholic school community is skeptical about the lease’s terms.
The only solution is to table Moran’s proposal, hold a special Council meeting to consider it and publish the proposal prior to that meeting at a time that will ensure the community has time to consider it and address the Council with their concerns.
Have you ever wondered what it is like to work in Saratoga Springs city hall for Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran and his Deputy, Stacy Connors? A lawsuit brought by a longtime and well-respected Accounts Department employee, Lisa Ribis, gives some chilling insights.
Ribis filed her complaint on June 18, 2024, accusing Moran of “wanton, reckless, malicious, and/or intentional….actions…” which violated New York Civil Service Law. Lisa Ribis is now the second Accounts Department employee to sue the city and Moran over his treatment of employees in his department.
Among the charges Ribis makes in her suit against Moran and Connors is that she was the subject of ethnic slurs made by Moran. This is alleged to have occurred at an office meeting on September 15, 2023, at which Moran, his deputy Stacy Connors, assistant clerk Barbara Brindisi, and assistant purchasing agent Stefanie Richards were present as well as Ms. Ribis. During the course of this meeting, Moran referred to Italians as “guinea WOPS.” Ms. Ribis was the only person present of Italian heritage.
Ribis’ complaint also alleges that Moran made a number of false accusations about her. One of the more bizarre accusations Moran is said to have made is to claim that Ms. Ribis spit on activist protesters. Anyone who knows Ms. Ribis would know that this is totally unbelievable and out of character. Should there be any doubt in anyone’s mind, one need only recall the distance between the protesters and where Ms. Ribis sat when she was taking Council meeting minutes and ponder what would have been the reaction of protesters had this occurred. Are we to believe that Commissioner Moran was the only person to have noticed this miraculous act of long-distance targeted spitting at a public meeting?
As disturbing is the lawsuit’s listing of the number of times Moran told individuals that Ms. Ribis was to blame for the changes in the On-Call pay document that led to the District Attorney’s investigation and the subsequent $61,000 attorney bill submitted by Moran and Connors.
Some Background
On April 15, 2024, Saratoga Springs Commissioner of Accounts Dillon Moran suspended Lisa Ribis from her position as Secretary of the City Council in an attempt to terminate her. As Ms. Ribis’ job was protected under the city and state civil service laws, Moran lacked the authority to fire her. Instead, she suffered one month without pay and subsequently was barred by Moran from returning to her job while receiving full pay until a hearing can be convened before an arbitrator to judge the merits of Moran’s action.
Moran issued the first and only formal, written criticism of Ribis when he suspended her. For those not familiar with what is required to terminate an employee, barring some egregious event, there needs to be a clear and thoroughly documented record establishing that the proposed termination is based on a chronic history of violations.
It is a testament to Moran’s impetuous and inept management that he would presume that he could prevail in his effort to fire Ms. Ribis, who has no documented history of complaints about her job performance. A darker possibility is that he is willing to waste public money to indulge in reckless, vindictive behavior.
Ms. Ribis has faithfully served the city for nineteen years, during which time she has received no criticism for her work. In fact, she has enjoyed wide respect and affection from her colleagues throughout the city.
Commissioner Moran’s campaign to terminate Ms. Ribis goes back to 2022. It all began following public comments made by her husband, Joe Ribis, at the Council meeting on February 1, 2022, during which he criticized the Council. On February 15, Ms. Ribis was removed from her duties of taking Council meeting minutes. She believes this was because of the comments her husband made. By May, Moran was requiring her to check in with Deputy Commissioner Connors every morning to find out what Connors wanted her to do that day. Ribis was the only employee in the Accounts Department required to do this. As Connors did not come to work at a regular time in the morning, this made Ribis’ work day challenging, to say the least.
As apparent retribution, Moran also refused to compensate Ms. Ribis for overtime related to her role in taking the minutes of the Council meetings. Ms. Ribis had been receiving this compensation routinely for years. In January 2023, Ribis won a grievance against Moran over his refusal to allow her to accrue compensatory time that she was contractually entitled to. His arbitrary decision to deny her compensation for overtime made no sense outside of harassment.
Moran’s False Standard For Removing Ms. Ribis
Moran’s campaign to terminate Ms. Ribis was based on alleged problems with the minutes of Council meetings she took as the Council secretary. It is interesting to note that while multiple sources report Moran accusing Ribis of altering the documents related to on-call pay, this was not cited by Moran as a reason for the firing in his suspension memo.
It is also worth considering the performance of the person he replaced Ms. Ribis with.
Under the New York State Open Meetings Law, the city is required to post the minutes of meetings publicly within two weeks. During the years Ms. Ribis was responsible for this, she scrupulously met this requirement.
Before Ms. Ribis’ suspension, Moran insisted that Deputy Connors review the draft of the minutes before allowing Ribis to upload them to the city’s website. Connors frequently ignored the required timeline in returning the minutes to Ribis for posting. This tardiness resulted in the violation of the state’s two-week requirement.
The person appointed to replace Ms. Ribis no longer has her work reviewed by Deputy Connors but routinely posts the minutes late in violation of the New York State Open Meetings Law.
In fact, the quality of Ribis’ successor’s minutes has been seriously problematic. The minutes contain many errors in punctuation and incomplete sentences. Some have the wrong dates, and most refer to Supervisor Matt Veitch as Mike Veitch.
In an especially troubling incident, Ribis’ successor misrecorded a statement Lew Benton made during the Council’s public comment period. Benton’s remarks cited Moran’s mishandling of the procedures to pay his $61,000.00 legal bill, arguing that he had violated the city’s purchasing policies. This blogger recalls Moran’s body language during Benton’s remarks. He was not happy.
Somehow, Ms. Ribis’ successor inverted Benton’s remarks in the minutes. Instead of citing Moran’s failure to adhere to city requirements, her minutes had Lew supporting the manner in which the bill was to be paid.
It is hard to understand how she could have made such an egregious error. Benton wrote to Moran (see the email at the end of this post) asking that the record be corrected. Rather than having the courtesy of responding directly to Benton, Moran had Ribis’ successor email Benton, agreeing to correct the record. The minutes have never been corrected. [Revised July 26, 2024, The minutes were revised but the revision still was not correct.]
Rather than suffering Ms. Ribis’s fate for allegedly failing to properly manage the minutes of Council meetings, her successor has not only been promoted and enjoyed an increase in salary, but Moran got civil service to upgrade her position, resulting in a further rise in pay.
A List of the Allegations In Ribis Lawsuit
At a council meeting on February 1, 2022, Ms. Ribis’s husband, Joe, criticized the council.
On February 15, 2022, Ms. Ribis was removed from council meetings and “told to sit at her desk.”
On March 16, 2022, Ms. Ribis was told she would no longer receive accrued compensatory time or receive overtime pay after more than thirteen years of doing so.
The overtime she accrued for a March 15, 2022, meeting was denied.
A fellow employee who took over her meeting responsibilities was granted flex time and/or accrued compensatory time.
On May 3, 2022, Ms. Ribis was instructed to inquire every morning of Deputy Connors, what Connors wished for her to do that day. Ms. Ribis was the only employee in the accounts department required to do this.
In April of 2022, Moran falsely accused Ms. Ribis of spitting on activist protestors.
In January of 2023, Ms. Ribis prevailed in her grievance regarding her right to compensatory time that Moran had denied her.
According to the filing, on May 17, 2023, assistant city clerk Barbara Brandisi and another employee in the accounts department told Ms. Ribis that Moran “…was making it seem as if the plaintiff (Ribis) was to blame for various difficulties with the agenda.”
On January 10, 2024, Ms. Ribis received an email from Moran requesting that she provide another employee with full access to her password-protected files. On January 12, 2023, Ms. Ribis advised Moran that to do so would violate the policy she signed with the IT department.
Following this incident, Ms. Ribis asserts she was”shunned” by Moran and Connors, who refused to speak to her.
On February 16, 2024, Moran reassigned a portion of Ms. Ribis’s duties to the Mayor’s secretary.
On the evening of February 16,2024, Ms. Ribis received a call from a resident advising her that Moran was accusing her of altering the contents of a city resolution. Ribis responded that this was false.
On March 1, 2024, at a meeting convened by Moran with Connors, Executive Assistant to the Finance Commissioner Samantha Clemmy, Deputy Commissioner of Finance Heather Crofcker, and Assistant Purchasing Agency Sefanie Richards of Accounts, Moran asked Connors if the purchasing policy was added to the city council agenda. Connors responded that she “gave it to the secretary (Ribis), but she didn’t load it in time.” Moran responded that “she (Ribis) can’t even do her [expletive] job.”
In reference to item #14, Connors gave the document in question to Ms. Ribis at 11:57 a.m., when the cutoff to add items was 12:00 p.m. Ms. Ribis advised Connors at 12:03 p.m. that she tried loading the document, but the system had locked out at noon. Connors responded at the time that she was aware that the system closed promptly at noon.
On March 5, 2024, Ms. Ribis met with Mayor Safford and his assistant, Susanna Combs. During the meeting, Ms. Ribis advised the mayor that she believed Moran was accusing her of causing the “on-call” pay issue. Mayor Safford confirmed that Moran was blaming her for the change. The change would have made Connors eligible for the additional pay.
On March 20, 2024, Deputy Mayor Joanne Kiernan told Ribis, “you do know Commissioner Moran is blaming you for the ‘on-call’ mess.”
On March 21, 2024, Mayor Safford told Ms. Ribis’s husband that Moran planned to fire Ribis for forging a document. (As far as I know, this allegation was never included in the reasons officially stated for Ms. Ribis’s termination).
On April 1, 2024, during a pre-agenda meeting, Connors publicly stated that the March 19, 2024, meeting minutes should be pulled from the agenda because they were “hard to follow due to sentence structure, punctuation, and tense – meaning point of view is first, second, and third throughout the minutes. They require edits and adjustments for clarity and context. Once minutes are approved, they are a permanent record of the meeting. It’s important they be accurate.” Since Ms. Ribis’s employment in 2005, this is the first time that the minutes have ever been pulled from the agenda due to errors.
Final Thoughts
It is important to acknowledge that these are allegations made by Ms. Ribis’ lawyer, Philip G. Steck, and this blogger is unaware of a response from whoever is representing Moran, Connors, and the city.
Still, for some of us who have observed Moran, these accusations have the ring of authenticity.
Lew Benton Email Re Incorrect Statement Attributed To Him In City Council Minutes
It has been brought to my attention that the draft minutes of the City Council’s Special June 26 meeting misrepresent my statement during the meeting’s Public Comment period.
The draft minutes attribute the following statement to me.
PUBLIC COMMENT
“Lew Benton, of Saratoga Springs, commented on the proposed resolution for payment of legal services that had been planned to be presented to the City Council at the June 18, 2024 City Council Meeting and thenwithdrawn. Benton commented he could not find the resolution that enable the use of an assignment for legal liability. Benton commented he may be incorrect in the statement there were no resolutions for a legal liability assignment, and stated that he was unable tofind one. Lew Benton recommended the Council to reference Public Officer Law Section 18 regarding determination ofdefense and indemnification of officers and employees of public entities. Benton commented thatthe prerequisites to a resolution are the City Charter, City Code, and Public Officer’s Laws. Benton commented that the City Attorney’s pay attention to the issues and Benton recommended the assignment of independent council for this issue.”
I have reviewed a transcription of my comments. I made NO such suggestion that “ …an assignment of independent counsel for this issue.” be made. Attributing this false statement to me turns one its head the essence of my statement: i .e., that no assignment can be made unless and until a City Council approved contract with the independent counsel has been reviewed and approved.
In significant part the transcription of my remarks included the following: “Thus far I have bot been ale to discover any resolution that was previously adopted by this council that would authorize the assignment of special independent counsel to any member of the council or authorize payment. The City Charter is clear. No such arrangement can be entered into without benefit of formal contract approved by the City Council.”
I did not recommend assignment but rather informed the Council that it was without authority to adopt the resolution on the finance commissioner’s agenda unless and until a Charter demanded contract was authorized.
Please delete the false statement in the draft minutes and insert “Thus far I have bot been ale to discover any resolution that was previously adopted by this council that would authorize the assignment of special independent counsel to any member of the council or authorize payment. The City Charter is clear. No such arrangement can be entered into without benefit of formal contract approved by the City Council.”
Watching the Saratoga Springs City Council meeting on July 2,2024, I was struck by how incestuous the world the Faction (Public Works Commissioner Jason Golub/Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran/Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi) lives in is. It is truly impressive how oblivious they are as to how the public views the debacle of Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran running up a $61,000.00 legal bill at $1,250.00 per hour. They appear to believe that no one will notice or disapprove if they ignore the New York statutes on how legal bills are dealt with and instead nod their heads approvingly at each other’s clearly inaccurate characterizations of what Moran did and what the obligation of the city is to pay his exorbitant bills.
It must have come as quite a shock to the Faction (Golub/Moran/Sanghvi) when the Times Union, in its July 9, 2024 edition editorial, caustically condemned their approval of Moran’s bills to date.
“It would be wise for the city’s government, if it is going to continue picking up these costs, to set a reasonable ceiling for this type of service. If Mr. Moran wants legal services that are the equivalent of a fully loaded Cadillac, he can cover the cost difference out of his own pocket.”
Times Union Editorial
While all members of The Faction behaved badly, Jason Golub’s behavior in this debacle was especially disturbing and is discussed in some detail later in this post.
The Magical World Of Commissioner Minita Sanghvi
Readers will recall that Moran, Golub, and others are seeking to have the City pay their lawyers’ bills because of an investigation by the Saratoga County District Attorney related to the on-call pay scandal. The investigation is focused on how City Council documents were altered to include the word “events” in the resolution establishing on-call pay for the Deputies. The addition of that word was used to expand the circumstances when on-call pay could be earned.
While this is an ongoing investigation, Commissioner Sanghvi has not been shy about confidently weighing in on the merits of the case. In the July 2, 2024, edition of the Times Union, reporter Wendy Liberatore wrote:
In an email, Sanghvi said the subpoena (related to on-call scandal) is “hullabaloo about nothing” and that the resolution was approved again on Feb. 21, 2023 — almost two weeks after the initial vote — after a typo regarding vacation days was discovered. The word “event” was not discussed at that meeting (Libertore here undermines Sanghvi’s narrative).
Times Union
The first question that I would like to ask Commissioner Sanghvi is simply why when the Saratoga County District Attorney and the state police are conducting an extensive investigation into who and why the minutes of a Council meeting were doctored, she is so confident that no crime occurred.
During the July 2 meeting, Sanghvi bizarrely tried to argue that there was no problem and nothing to investigate since the Council approved a version of the resolution that included the added word “events” when the resolution had to be revisited because of a typo. What she ignores is that, as the TU points out, there was no discussion about adding this word, nor was there a motion to make the change. Council members would have had no idea that word had been added to what they were voting on.
Sanghvi tries to ignore the obvious question that the investigation is focused on: how and why the language was changed and who changed it.
In the following video clip, Commissioner Sanghvi first claims that the doctored language (“events”) was part of the original deliberations approving “on-call” payback in February 2023. (A review of the video of that earlier discussion reveals that this is patently false. The word “events” was never mentioned.) She then goes on to make her argument that the Council unknowingly voting for a doctored document somehow erases the culpability of whoever made the change.
This is just one example of the disinformation promoted by the Faction (Golub/Moran/Sanghvi).
Moran’s Conflict of Interest?
The two city attorneys advised that Dillon Moran did not have a conflict of interest and could vote to approve the payment for his own attorney’s fees.
Saratoga Springs Republican chair Mike Brandi has initiated an Article 78 action in Saratoga County Supreme Court to nullify the Council vote to pay Moran’s bills. One of the many elements in his challenge is the issue of Moran’s conflict of interest.
I am not a lawyer and have not had the privilege of reading the memorandum issued by our City Attorneys clearing the way for Moran to vote. While there may be a legitimate legal rationale for granting Moran the privilege to vote on his own bill, it seems more than odd.
If Moran had not been allowed to vote on paying his own bill, there would not have been a majority, and the authorization would have failed. If it failed, Moran would be on the hook to pay the $61,000.00 bill himself. On its face, this seems like a conflict of interest to me.
We will find out the answer when Judge Freestone rules on Brandi’s action.
A History Of Responsibly Seeking Private Counsel
The Faction (Golub/Moran/Sanghvi) would like the public to believe they had no choice but to pay Moran’s exorbitant bill. The assumption they made was that because he had a right to counsel, it was too late to address any of the many troubling questions about the bill’s cost or the manner by which Moran ran up the bill.
Moran attempted to defend himself from any questioning by announcing that he had consulted with the City Attorney, who had told him he had a right to counsel. Being told he had a right to counsel is not the same as being told he could go out and hire an expensive lawyer from Manhattan at three times the rate of lawyers available in the capital district. The Council was not helpless. Nothing required them to approve this particular bill as presented even though, as we shall see, this is the repeated argument, Jason Golub, in particular, aggressively put forth.
What Moran could and should have done was to follow the example set by Council members and employees who sought representation during the Attorney General’s investigation of the city’s Police Department. As Moran was sitting on the Council when this process was going forward, he would have been aware of the procedure used in securing counsel by Meg Kelly, Robin Dalton, and others.
Below is a series of emails documenting that past process. In this case, it was for former Public Safety Deputy Eileen Finneran and former Public Safety Commissioner Robin Dalton, who were involved in the NY Attorney General’s probe. The role of Tony Izzo, assistant city attorney, is particularly of note.
In this correspondence, Izzo seeks to know the parameters of hourly rates and overall costs for such representation to prepare for Council approval. Note that this information is being sought and obtained before the attorneys have done any work, not after the fact, as in Moran’s case.
Ironically, the three Faction members (Moran, Sanghvi, and Golub) who approved Dillon’s bills without even noting that how he proceeded was inappropriate had all been on the Council when Dalton, Finneran, and others went through the process of hiring lawyers and submitting their bills. And let’s not forget Dillon voting to refuse to pay Meg Kelly’s bills, which in two years were only a fraction of what he managed to accrue in only a few weeks. And, of course, then there was Minita’s repeated suggestion that the Council should consider capping payments to lawyers hired by city officials to defend themselves. That was then, and this is now.
Dillon Moran’s Cynical Abuse
Moran had to know that it was inappropriate for him to start generating bills without the Council’s review. He had to know that there was a threat that if it became public that he was hiring an attorney from Manhattan at a rate of $1,250.00 an hour, the public response would be overwhelmingly negative.
So, unlike Eileen Finneran and Robin Dalton, as documented above, Moran exploited the City Attorney’s opinion that he should hire a lawyer as his defense for hiring the Manhattan attorney without any public scrutiny and start billing before getting the Council’s approval. Harper’s opinion that he should hire a lawyer was not a blank check.
The Issue Of Civil Versus Criminal Indemnification
The Attorney General’s investigation involving city officials was a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Under section 18 of the New York State Public Officers Law, public employees enjoy broad protection for covering legal costs and penalties in civil matters.
However, the state of New York deals differently with indemnification in criminal matters.
New York State Law does not authorize the upfront payment of legal costs in criminal matters. Only if the subject of the criminal matter is exonerated can the state reimburse them. This makes sense because why should taxpayers bear the burden of paying the legal bills for government officials found guilty of criminal acts.
For instance, Joe Bruno was eligible to have the state pay his lawyer’s bills only after he was found innocent because his was a criminal not a civil case. He paid his legal bills upfront from his campaign fund, and only after his conviction was reversed on appeal did the state agree to reimburse him. Even then, that right to reimbursement was not unlimited. When he submitted his bills for payment, the state determined that the fees he had incurred were not reasonable and only partially reimbursed him. This fact exposes the falsity of the vigorous argument Jason Golub made at the Council table that Dillon’s bills could not be adjusted retroactively.
Our city attorneys, David Harper, and Tony Izzo, however, have asserted that because our city code fails to distinguish between criminal and civil matters, the city is obliged to pay Moran’s and Connors’ legal bills even though this is a criminal investigation.
Why should the city of Saratoga Springs be exceptional in this issue? Brandi’s challenge argues that state law supersedes our code and the city should not have paid bills up front in a criminal case. This is at the heart of Brandi’s legal challenge. The citizens will have to wait to see who Judge Freestone agrees with.
The determination of Moran’s and Connors’ eligibility to have the city pay bills in a criminal matter is just one issue among others currently being challenged in court by Mike Brandi.
What Is Reasonable?
Even when the right to legal representation is clear, the law still requires that the bills be reasonable.
According to former Finance Commissioner, now Supervisor Michele Madigan, during her administration, the city routinely considered the issue of reasonableness before paying bills and often successfully negotiated lower fees than attorneys originally charged.
This issue concerned the two Council members who were not part of The Faction. Both Mayor John Safford and Commissioner Tim Coll expressed grave reservationsnot about whether to pay for a lawyer for Moran and Connors but about whether the bills Moran submitted to the Council for payment were reasonable.
The bills appeared excessive on their faces, averaging a thousand dollars an hour.
As Commissioner Coll rhetorically asked during the meeting if the city received a large bill, “Would the city have to pay if the bill was for sixty million dollars?” According to Jason Golub’s argument, it would.
Attorney Harper was called to the mic by Jason Golub and asked whether he thought the bills were reasonable. Harper declined to express an opinion, offering a mild joke that “there is an honor among thieves,” referring to lawyers. Following his quip, he declined to discuss whether Moran’s lawyer’s fees were reasonable. He then read from a section of the law that outlined general criteria for determining fees.
Commissioner Coll, supported by Mayor Safford, urged that approving the bills should be tabled and that the Council should seek guidance from the New York State Attorney General and the New York State Comptroller. Harper had advised the Council to take this action in an email to the Council members which the members of The Faction on the Council chose to ignore.
Golub Goes Into Disinformation Overdrive
Commissioner Golub would have none of this. Clearly, he wanted to support Moran and Sanghvi now and get the city to authorize the full bill that night, no matter what objections might be raised.
Attorney Harper’s restrained style helped Golub exploit confusion. Listening to Harper reminded me of an attorney’s advice to a witness to limit answers as much as possible. When asked by Golub if the city was required to pay for Moran’s representation, he simply answered Yes. When Golub asked whether the city should pay the bill, Harper simply responded that the Council had the authority to approve the bill. He was clearly reticent to expand on the distinction between Moran’s right to be represented and any problems with the bill as submitted.
Golub exploited this by asserting that, according to Harper, the city was obliged to pay for Moran’s representation and that since the city had no clear criteria for what was reasonable, the city was compelled to pay the bill. It would have been helpful if Harper had been more emphatic that, as I believe, the city was not obliged to pay the bill as presented and enjoyed the right to negotiate further with Moran’s attorney. No one questioned Harper on this, and it was not his style to volunteer to discuss the matter and emphasize the difference between paying a bill and paying this bill.
In a particularly cynical stunt, Golub claimed it was too late to delay paying the bill and seek retroactive advice on whether it was reasonable. I believe that Golub knew quite well that the city had every right to challenge the lawyers’ fees, and there was plenty of time to seek an outside opinion and negotiate the cost.
When Coll asked Harper to confirm his email recommending seeking advice from the Comptroller, Harper simply answered yes. Declining to explain to the Council why he thought this prudent made it easy for Golub to ignore his response and insist that the bill be paid in full.
In even more disturbing remarks that ignored Harper’s monosyllabic answer, Golub raised the temperature by asserting that by not agreeing to pay the bill that night, Safford and Coll were somehow endangering future officials.
The following exchange captures the tone and disturbing tactics of Golub, who misrepresents Harper by falsely asserting that Harper is insisting that the city pay Moran’s bill as presented while misrepresenting Coll and Safford as unwilling to pay any bill.
Golub: “Now we have a legal opinion from our lawyer who says we have an obligation to pay this bill [Harper never said this], which is the same obligation we had to pay our former officials bills. And now we are not going to pay it. Let me finish. This gets us to exactly where we don’t want to be with indemnification. What is the point of having legal counsel if we’re going to ignore it?” [Golub, of course ignored Harper’s recommendation that the city seek the advice of the comptroller]
Coll:“So, we all agree we need to be indemnified, I think our obligation is what’s reasonable. We don’t have a standard, I agree with that, but what if the bill was $60 million, we should just pay that too because we don’t have a reasonableness?”
Golub:“You’re applying your subjective standard after the fact and that is dangerous.”
Golub Hands Moran A Blank Check
It is critical to note that after his impassioned assertion, which is false, that the city could not retroactively challenge the attorney’s bill, he never addresses how to handle Moran’s bills going forward. Golub is a smart enough lawyer to know that paying the bill and not addressing how to deal with future bills gave his ally, Moran, the green light to generate even more outrageous bills. As Moran failed to consult the other members of the Council before racking up his $60,000.00 bill, there is no reason to believe that he will not continue to abuse his authority.
The readers of this blog should understand that if a grand jury issues an indictment in this criminal matter, the cost of representation by Dillon’s lawyer could easily reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The Following Videos Tell It All
It Ain’t Over
In the end, The Faction—Golub, Sanghvi, and Moran—voted to pay the bill despite questions about the appropriateness of Moran’s voting to pay his own bill. Safford and Coll voted no.
Mike Brandi, the city Republican Committee chair, has brought a legal action that has temporarily stopped the payment of the bill pending legal review.
Golub Exits
Jason Golub has taken an executive position with the New York State Department of Corrections. He will begin the new job next month, requiring him to resign from his Commissioner position.
If Sanghvi and Moran continue to take hardline partisan positions, the Council will be divided two against two. Since passing any resolution requires a majority, paying Moran’s bills in the future could become problematic.
Unless the four remaining members of the Council can agree on Golub’s replacement, which will be challenging, the Public Works Commissioner position could remain vacant until November 2025.
Saratoga Black Lives Matter leader Lex Figuereo was ticketed in May for failing to file the declaration required by the city for groups holding demonstrations. This prompted a variety of responses from BLM supporters, including the New York State Attorney General’s office. The Capital District Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) organized a demonstration objecting to Figuereo’s ticketing. The AG’s office sent a menacing note to the city, bizarrely elevating the filing of a simple form to somehow violating Lex Figuereo’s freedom of speech.
All those who have objected to Figuereo’s ticketing share a fundamental misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the declaration (for a start, it’s not a permit) and how the city responded. In an attempt to set the record straight, Saratoga Springs Public Safety Commissioner Tim Coll wrote the following letter that appeared in Saratoga Today.
Letter to Editor Saratoga Today:
I am reaching out directly to all Saratogians to explain what has occurred with the recent issuance of Appearance Tickets related to Saratoga BLM. The Appearance Tickets were issued because the primary organizer of two BLM demonstrations failed to file demonstration declarations.
DEMONSTRATION DECLARATION
The City of Saratoga Springs requires by Code that any group planning to demonstrate must file a document called a “demonstration declaration.” There is no fee for the declaration and this requirement was established by the City in 2005.
The purpose of the declaration is to provide a way for the Department of Public Safety to work cooperatively with groups organizing demonstrations to ensure that the demonstrators and the public can be safe. As an example, two groups wanted to demonstrate in the same area during the Belmont Festival so alternative locations were provided and agreed upon.
This declaration process is administered by the Accounts Department, and each declaration, if completed properly, is approved. In 2024, the following organizations have filed demonstration declarations that were approved; Saratoga Peace Alliance, Jewish Federation, Horseracing Wrongs, and CSEA. Therefore, the only organization that has refused to comply with this ordinance, thus far in 2024, is Saratoga BLM.
APPEARANCE TICKETS
It should be noted that the issuance of an Appearance Ticket is not a custodial arrest. No person was placed into custody, handcuffed, or processed. The Appearance Tickets were served upon Mark Mischler who is representing the leader of Saratoga BLM.
It should also be noted that the pre-planned, non-violent, protests were not interrupted. In fact, the SSPD took appropriate actions to keep the demonstrators safe when they blocked traffic on the streets in Saratoga Springs.
I want to be clear that I strongly agree with the issuance of the tickets because not doing so would be a violation of the Constitutional Right to Equal Protection, in violation of the 14th Amendment. More specifically, we should not treat Saratoga BLM differently than the Jewish Federation or Horse Racing Wrongs or any other group. As noted, doing so would be a violation of the 14th Amendment and a violation of the basic tenet of unbiased policing.
Saratoga Springs Politics 