On February 29, 2024, at 5:30PM, a ceremony will honor the late Skip Scirocco by naming the Saratoga Music Hall after him. The event will take place at the Music Hall, 474 Broadway.
Skip served as the Commissioner of Public Works from 2008 to the time of his death in 2022.
Skip was a kind and modest man who loved this city.
My fondest memory was his role in blocking what was then called the Saratoga Racino and is now called the Saratoga Casino Hotel from expanding into a Las Vegas-like venue. Then, Mayor Joanne Yepsen resisted taking a stand against the proposal by procrastinating for months from taking a position. Skip finally had had enough and announced his plan to introduce a resolution that would have officially established that our city opposed the expansion. Yepsen was forced to take action and the city resolution effectively killed the proposal.
Skip took this action despite the pushback from the Republican County chair. Skip always put the good of the city before partisanship.
Skip and Corinne
From left to right: Skip, Corinne, John William Finn (recipient of the Medal of Honor), Lynne and Phil Klein
It’s refreshing to see a petition requesting action be taken regarding on-call pay. The petition appears to simply provide background information in a non-accusatory, neutral way and seek support for an impartial investigation in the hopes the results of the investigation will provide the City Council and the taxpayers with a conclusive determination to guide corrective action should that be the determination. The legal opinion rendered by the city’s attorneys contained an easy to follow analysis of the issues regarding on-call pay. The petition is asking city officials to seek the outside opinion of the NYS Comptroller’s office. The results of the Comptroller’s investigation should inform the City Council and provide guidance moving forward. That way taxpayers can be assured the matter is fully concluded by an impartial entity. Plus, it gives city officials an opportunity to be exonerated publicly. This is a good thing.
The petition does the job of encouraging action. It doesn’t necessarily name those potentially responsible or pinpoint the fiduciary responsibilities of our elected officials involved. Readers should agree that a full investigation is warranted when you read that tampering with City documents is defined as a crime in the Saratoga Springs City Code.
The resolution adopted on February 9, 2023 not only dramatically increased the salaries of the Deputy Commissioners and the Deputy Mayor, it added the potential of approximately $6,500 compensation in the form of “on-call pay.” This resolution was fittingly brought forward by Jason Golub, Commissioner of Public Works, because his Deputy, Joe O’Neill, is routinely called to respond to emergencies and coordinate subordinate responses.
The Code of the City of Saratoga Springs says Tampering with Documents is a Crime
Any person who, without authorization from the City Clerk, changes or amends, by additions or deletions, any part or portion of the Code of the City of Saratoga Springs or who alters or tampers with such Code in any manner whatsoever which will cause the legislation of the City of Saratoga Springs to be misrepresented thereby or who violates any other provision of this local law shall be guilty of an offense and shall, upon conviction thereof, be subject to a fine of not more than $250 or imprisonment for a term of not more than 15 days, or both.
In compiling and preparing the local laws, ordinances and resolutions for publication as the Code of the City of Saratoga Springs, no changes in the meaning or intent of such local laws, ordinances and resolutions have been made, except as provided for in Subsection B hereof. In addition, certain grammatical changes and other minor nonsubstantive changes were made in one or more of said pieces of legislation. It is the intention of the City Council that all such changes be adopted as part of the Code as if the local laws, ordinances and resolutions had been previously formally amended to read as such.
Dillon Moran, Custodian of All City Documents; Including Altered Resolutions
Foiled documents provide metadata suggesting Stacy Connors, Dillon Moran’s Deputy Commissioner of Accounts, edited the final resolution on February 14, 2023, the week following the City Council meeting. That final resolution added the words situations and events which were not included in the adopted resolution. Was the language added so Deputies in departments which do not respond to emergencies could collect on-call pay? Per the City Charter, the Commissioner of Accounts serves as City Clerk and is the custodian of record for all City documents. This is quite worrisome as the altering of this document occurred in Moran’s Department.
City Charter Title 7.1.2 City Records- The City Clerk shall receive, file, index, and archive, as custodian of record of all City documents, records and other instruments required by law to be filed and maintained by the City.”
An Emergency to Me May not be an Emergency to You
At the February 5, 2024 City Council pre-agenda meeting the legal opinion was presented. Commissioner’s Moran and Sanghvi rejected the legal opinion in part or in whole. Does that mean they still support the altered resolution? Moran stated, ”We can define emergencies in different ways. An emergency to me may not be an emergency to you.” Since the discussion is focused around a legal document it might make sense to use a legal definition of an emergency.
Cornell Law School posts the following, “An emergency is an urgent, sudden, and serious event or an unforeseen change in circumstances that necessitates immediate action to remedy harm or avert imminent danger to life, health, or property; an exigency.”
Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition defines an emergency as, “Situation requiring immediate attention and remedial action. Involves injury, loss of life, damage to the property, or catastrophic interference with the normal activities. A sudden, unexpected, or impending situation.”
Win-Win for Moran
Commissioner Moran was very adamant that the legal opinion was incomplete. He complained that he was never consulted during the analysis of evidence on which the legal opinion is based. He suggested an outside opinion be sought. It’s likely that during an investigation by the Comptroller’s office Commissioner Moran would have plenty of time to give his input as this outside opinion is rendered. It sounds like a win-win for Commissioner Moran.
Commissioner of Finance Looks the Other Way?
Taxpayers should also understand the ultimate guardian of City funds is the Commissioner of Finance, Minita Sanghvi. “The Commissioner of Finance is the chief fiscal officer of the City and shall certify payrolls.” (City Charter Title 4)
The very last line of the resolution reads, “J. This resolution may be reviewed and brought forward by the Commissioner of Finance for future adjustments.” Commissioner Sanghvi, upon the first submission for on-call pay, should have brought her concerns to the City Council. The justifications listed on the on-call pay sheets were not congruent with the resolution adopted citing emergencies not situations and events. Instead, Sanghvi continued to sign off on all on-call payroll submissions including those of her own Deputy. The end of the first quarter of 2024 is March 31st. Based on past practices and the verbiage of the still uncorrected resolution, there is potential that Commissioner Sanghvi could approve over $8,000 in on-call payroll submissions.
This is not a good look for Sanghvi, who is also currently running for a State Senate seat. If Commissioner Sanghvi is found culpable in this matter, one might think this could seriously impact her campaign.
Sanghvi Funds Only Public Works On-Call Pay in 2024 Budget
Based on the language of the adopted resolution, discussions at the February 9, 2023 meeting and the legal opinion, it is clear the intention of the resolution was to compensate the Deputy Commissioner of Public Works. What has not been exposed is that the adopted 2024 City budget, prepared by Commissioner Sanghvi, includes the familiar Deputy allotted amount of $6,500 budgeted for on-call for Public Works and only Public Works. Finance and Public Safety do not include an on-call pay line item. The Accounts’ and Mayor’s departments list an on-call line item which Commissioner Sanghvi did not fund.
Saratoga Springs City Attorneys David Harper and Tony Izzo issued an opinion regarding the resolution that established the city’s on-call pay policy for Deputies. At the pre-agenda meeting February 5, Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran contemptuously dismissed the opinion with extensive, rambling, and caustic declarations. Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi was also critical.
The Opinion
The City Attorneys’ legal opinion was carefully researched and crafted (it can be found at the bottom of this post). Impressively, unlike some legal opinions, this one is easily understood by non-attorneys.
After considerable controversy arose over the collection of on-call pay by four of the five Deputies in 2023, Mayor Safford asked the City Attorneys to advise the Council on who, if any, of the city’s Deputies was eligible for on-call bonus pay according to the resolution passed by the last Council in February of 2023. He also noted that there was a conflict between the apparent record, as documented by the minutes and the video of the meeting, and the version posted by the Accounts Department. The Mayor asked the Attorneys to clarify what the resolution actually stated.
In the case of the Deputies, the Attorneys found that the text of the resolution “clearly applies to the Deputy Commissioner of Public Works who at night, on weekends & holidays receives emergency calls due to water main breaks, etc. and in such cases, he assigns duties to subordinates.”
The opinion acknowledges that, as the Accounts Department is responsible for supervising local elections, there is a brief period of time during elections when the Accounts Department Deputy might need to be on call.
Apparently, at Commissioner Sanghvi’s request, the opinion included that in November of 2022, the Finance Department Deputy was contacted outside of regular hours when the city server was down.
Improperly Paid
The implications of this opinion are significant. The Deputies for the Mayor, the Commissioner of Accounts, and the Commissioner of Finance submitted invoices for approximately $10,000.00 for which they were not eligible. Adding to this fiasco’s significance was that in all three cases, their respective bosses all signed off on these invoices.
It also reflects a breakdown in the oversight by the Finance Department, which should have flagged these invoices but did not. Indeed Finance Commissioner Sanghvi herself signed off on her own Deputy’s inappropriate request for payment.
The Pre-Agenda Meeting
At the February 5, 2024, Council’s pre-agenda meeting, Mayor John Safford introduced a discussion regarding the legal opinion on on-call pay. He did not seek to claw back the sums of money that should not have been paid to the deputies. He had apparently hoped his colleagues would simply abide by the City Attorneys’ legal opinion, making a contentious discussion unnecessary. His hope was not realized.
Moran’s Bullying
Dillon Moran knew he had a problem well before the City Attorneys issued their opinion. Some weeks earlier, Moran approached Department of Public Works Deputy Joe O’Neil with a proposal. He asked O’Neil to support a plan that would eliminate on-call pay and instead pay all the deputies an additional $5,000.00. It is important to note that Deputies had already received a substantial salary increase in the same resolution that contained the on-call provision.
Moran clearly knew that his Deputy was not eligible for on-call pay and that he himself was implicated in inappropriately paying her because he signed the form that authorized the payments to her.
If the Council expunged on-call, it would imply that the whole thing had been a mistake for which everyone was culpable aka “mistakes were made.”
He received no support from DPW, and his idea went nowhere.
Carl Sandburg famously opined:
“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”
Carl Sandburg
At the pre-agenda meeting, Moran took Sandburg’s advice to heart.
Moran’s problem was that the opinion on on-call was sufficiently compelling, defying any arguments that Moran might put forward based on the actual opinion in the text. Undaunted, Moran threw out every imaginable buzzword and sound bite for twenty minutes, denouncing the decision without addressing its substance.
He asserted that he had been blindsided by the opinion. At one point, he asked his colleagues to raise their hands if they had not had an opportunity to discuss this opinion with the City Attorney. This did not work well for him as he was the only one who raised his hand. In fact, he had had plenty of time to read the opinion and to seek out the City Attorney to discuss any issues or questions he had.
Moran threw out every possible cliche and catchword in his ramblings, hoping he would bully Mayor Safford and undermine the integrity of the opinion. Conspicuously missing was any discussion of the actual substance of the opinion’s text.
Here is a thirteen-minute video of the event. For those who do not want to endure the video, I offer highlights of what Moran said. Readers will note that conspicuously absent from Moran’s objections was any discussion of what the resolution actually said.
He claimed the opinion was somehow prejudicial against the employees in his department.
He asserted that “The context of the charter is not considered here.”[JK. What’s the charter got to do with this?]
He asserted that “The context of the appointing authority is not here [JK: appointing authority?]
He asked “How do you know the legislative intent if you weren’t in conversation with the people who were actually in the conversations?” [JK: the opinion was co-authored by Tony Izzo who has been with the city for over 35 years and Jason Golub, the author of the resolution, spoke extensively with the two attorneys.]
Referring to the opinion, he said he would “love one that was well informed. This wasn’t a well informed opinion.”
“I understand, as the appointing authority, what my responsibilities are to make priorities within my department. None of that’s in here.”
“I reject this [JK: The opinion]”
“I suggest this is a flawed process, and if we are going to work together, this isn’t how you do this.”
“It’s an unnecessary witch hunt.”
“So we are going to make a decision without proper consideration about all the elements.”
“This does nothing.”
“What’s germain is that it was not properly recorded. It was not reflected in the minutes the way it was supposed to be. It was not put forward as an action of the city council the way it was supposed to be. That’s the responsibility of this body.” [JK: Try to figure out what that is supposed to mean]
“Everything is essential. If the people who work inside the building don’t put in the extra hours to get things done, the government stops working. This agenda process completely stops. We did a tremendous amount of work on the processing and the work and the transactional requirements for station three. That doesn’t happen without my department working with Chief Dyer extra long hours. Well listen, it’s not in the context of a conversation because we weren’t brought into it.”
“It’s (the opinion) is on the agenda and I didn’t get a chance to look at it. What’s the rush?” [JK: The agenda with the opinion was posted on the city website]
“What’s the rush? What’s the rush? What’s wrong with having the conversation about what’s important in my department? I don’t think he (David Harper), in the three weeks he has been here [JK: The opinion was signed by both Harper and Tony Izzo. Tony has worked for the city for over thirty-five years], knows anything about the importance of what happens in my department, the priorities I have set within the community. We can define emergencies in different ways. An emergency to me may not be an emergency to you.”
“It’s not perfect, but if it applies to one, it applies to all.” [JK: The whole point of the opinion is that there is a criteria as to who is eligible so on-call does not apply to all]
“I would suggest we have conversations internally to address this and not air it out, halfway done.”
“I don’t see the value of having this conversation when its incomplete. At least two people sitting at the table are not happy with how are departments are reflective. I don’t understand what you are trying to accomplish with this.”
“This seems like a flogging. You’re setting up more people to take body blows over something that has nothing to do with them.”
“I’m not happy about the way people have been treated.”
“Intent and outcome. The outcome is what matters.”
Interrupting Mayor Safford referencing the legal opinion, “It’s an incomplete one at best.”
“I didn’t know this was going on the agenda. It was presented to me the day after the agenda came out, so that’s the problem.”
“I want to understand what the end goal of this is. It doesn’t seem it is a thorough, comprehensive understanding of the circumstances. It seems like…I don’t know. Like I don’t know. Kick the can down the street? I don’t know. I don’t see any value in this conversation about a half-written document that half of us don’t agree to.”
“We haven’t gotten to that point yet. I would say that’s a good starting point. Have everyone have the opportunity to talk about this before it goes out into the public.”
“I disagree with the process. If I’m not allowed to even speak to an issue that I’m being talked about in. People are talking about my intent. I have a problem with that. as anybody would.”
“I don’t even know what’s the intent.”
“We do things for a reason, right? A plus B equals C. We already have a C. This document that has been thrown out into the public that doesn’t accurately reflect the circumstances of this issue. It was a year-long negotiation. I was in the room almost every single time. The idea I wouldn’t be talked to is absurd to me.”
Commissioner Golub offered the most thoughtful response to Moran. He tried to get Moran to focus on what the opinion actually said rather than what Moran wanted it to say.
Minita Sanghvi’s Push Back
Commissioner Sanghvi argued that the IT department was a “critical infrastructure.” She observed that the IT department had to function 24/7 and that her deputy would need to be on-call in case of a problem outside of business hours.
The opinion acknowledged that IT was indeed critical infrastructure. In addition, Harper and Izzo added language to the opinion, presumably at Sanghvi’s request, that in November of 2022, “the server crashed while the Deputy Commissioner of Finance was out of town. She (the deputy) was called and worked remotely to coordinate the restoration of the server, which is a vital part of the City’s infrastructure.”
Strikingly absent from Sanghvi’s remarks was that the city has had on-call support for IT for over a decade. The city has an agreement with the union that three IT staff rotate being on-call and are paid for it, although less than the amount the Deputies collected for their alleged on-call time. This organizational structure has served the city well.
As a person who made a career as a programmer, I find Sanghvi’s remarks very strange. As far as I know, Sanghvi’s deputy does not have a technical background in IT, and it is reasonable to assume that she would be of little assistance in the event of a server crash or in the installation of software at night.
I contacted Mike Sharp, who was the Deputy under Finance Commissioner Michele Madigan. He offered the following:
Hi John,
Hope you’re having a great trip. IT’s “on call” language is in the CSEA contract (which they are a member of) I believe, and may also be referenced in the city’s Emergency Plan. The language for how and when they are “on call” is explicitly laid out, since it is additional pay. A finance deputy being “on call” for IT is nonsensical. They are not a trained IT expert, and while technically they are second in command for the office, they don’t (or shouldn’t) manage the specific workload of their employees, the same way the DPS deputy isn’t asked to opine on every call made into the fire and police departments. The IT head giving updates to the deputy, who isn’t doing anything other than communicating with their boss and maybe other deputies, is not something that should warrant them being paid extra.
– Mike
Being Firm Is Not Being Uncivil
I think it is laudable that Mayor Safford was patient and thoughtful in spite of Moran’s incendiary attacks on the legal opinion and its authors, David Harper and Tony Izzo.
In the end, I expect Mayor Safford to be respectful but firm with Moran and Sanghvi that the opinion is clear and that they will need to adhere to it.
For those of you not familiar with Dan De Federicis’s aggregate news site, it is an excellent source for everything to do with Saratoga Springs each day. He covers everything from politics to culture to horse racing.
Here is Dan’s commentary on the State of the City event:
State of the City Addresses given by all five City Council Members Tuesday Evening – Information and Commentary by Saratoga Report Publisher Dan De Federicis
I attended Tuesday evening’s State of the City addresses. I use the plural “addresses” to note that unlike in past State of the City addresses, which at least in Mayor Kim’s term were delivered only by him, Tuesday night’s presentations were given by not only the Mayor but also the other four Council Members and even the two County Supervisors.
None of the speeches went long and the entire program took approximately an hour and 15 minutes. The room was mostly full although there were some empty seats.
There were several consistent themes during these presentations – positive outlooks for the city (and county) were consistent, the Belmont Stakes at Saratoga was mentioned by most speakers, but perhaps the most prominent theme during the evening was the praise and expressions of appreciation for Saratoga Springs city employees.
I believe every council member was lavish in their praise and I immediately thought – confirmed by conversations later – that these expressions to city employees were genuine, but also were intended to repair the damage done by the toxicity involving some office holders in city government in the past two years. You could say Tuesday night was the culmination of a month long sigh of relief by many in city hall and beyond.
Mayor John Safford started things off with some uplifting words when he acknowledged “I never expected this” and “I am thrilled to be here.” He talked about the importance of civility and how the word “civil” is the root of the word “civilization”. Mayor Safford usually comes off as so decent and kind, and Tuesday was no exception.
The Mayor went over acccomplishments and goals of his Office. He noted the goal for 2024 was to reduce wait time for a majority of building permits to 4-6 weeks. He reported that he and staff members were reviewing all litigation currently pending against the city. He also outlined their intention to streamline and expedite responses to Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests, some of which have languished and resulted in at least one case of the court ordering the city to pay attorney fees to the person seeking documents.
Commissioner Dillon Moran was the next speaker. My belief is that there are two Dillon Moran’s on the Council. Bad Dillon: pot stirring, and ambitious, and good Dillon, intelligent and visionary. I am happy to say Good Dillon showed up Tuesday. He raised my eyebrows when shortly into his remarks he noted it’s been “less tense this first month.” Such candor was appreciated by this writer and again, it points to the toxicity in city hall in the past administrations, and the fact that – at least for now – that was no longer the case.
Commissioner Minita Sanghvi was the next speaker. I’ve been a fan of Commissioner Sanghvi, but as she spoke, it was clear she was speaking from two roles – one as commissioner and one as candidate – for State Senate.
She spoke as a clear supporter of public safety and had positive comments for the Belmont Stakes. This is not to say she was ever against public safety, but her strong expression of support felt like a shift in focus by a Senate candidate seeking to appeal to moderates. Likewise, she’s been at best indifferent about horse racing, and even talked during her first term about the need for the city to financially prepare for horse racing someday being outlawed in this state. It says here that was actually prudent financial management on her part – because that day could come – but such talk won’t play well in a senate campaign in a district with horse farms and thousands of people who rely on horse racing directly and indirectly for their livelihood.
She noted how Saratoga Springs’ finances were “healthy and good” and like others, she praised her staff.
Commissioner Jason Golub was his usual “Steady-Eddie” self, saying all the right things, going out of his way to commend those in DPW, and talking about a number of projects planned for 2024. At one point he rattled off several DPW initiatives both past and future, with a multiuse trail here, and a dog park there, dam improvements on Loughberry Lake, and more.
His praise for staff was even more specific and eloquent than the others, as he noted “talented engineers” and “innovative and qualified professionals” in DPW. He lauded specific employees by name as well.
Commissioner Tim Coll touted the full staffing of the police department (81 members) and fire department (84 members) and rattled off several statistics listing numbers of calls for the two departments. He noted how he doubled the foot patrol division – from one to two officers – and that these officers were referred to as Community Engagement Officers – or CEOs. He spoke of the police department’s recent accredidation.
He thanked the entire staff, and even noted the work of the code enforement division, often a less visible part of the city’s public safety efforts. Finally, he announced that the much delayed fire station #3 on Henning Road had a planned opening of mid March. I have been a fan of Tim Coll’s ever since he started running, and I have a continued sense of confidence in his leadership.
Supervisors Michele Madigan and Matt Veitch both expressed about the productive relationship they have started and plan to continue. Supervisor Madigan was very laudatory towards Supervisor Veitch, noting that he was selected as Vice Chair of the board of supervisors. This is noteworthy and appreciated as Madigan is a Democrat and Veitch is a Republican, although they both ran on the One Saratoga line, with the motto “City before Party”. Still, it’s good to see comity amongst our representatives both at the city and county levels.
Both Veitch and Madigan indicated that there could be some movement by the board on a new “hybrid” bar closing time. Bar closing times have been an issue for over a decade now – some would say several decades. The state liquor authority will not establish different closing times for municipalities within a county – there must be one county-wide time set. Therefore any request to the state liquor authority to change closing times must come from county level government. The two supervisors indicated the hybrid time would have different winter and summer closing times. From what I heard, it seemed like the winter closing time would be 2am and the summer closing time would be 3am. That might not please everybody but it would be progress on an issue that has not moved an inch over the past decades.
Mayor Safford closed the evening asking the same question he asked at the inauguration on the 1st of this month: What is Saratoga Springs going to look like 10 years from now? He then talked about the importance of harmony in our community and noted how a city requires harmony just like a music body such as an orchestra needs it. He then asked for a motion to adjourn and the evening concluded.
In the ongoing scandal over improper on-call payments to Deputies, it now turns out that the final version of the resolution authorizing such payments was improperly tampered with. It was edited in a way that apparently was meant to help make the Deputy Accounts Commissioner, Stacy Connors, eligible for on-call payments.
Tampering with the city’s legislative records is, at a minimum, a violation of trust and possibly a violation of the law.
A Cumbersome System
The last City Council frequently amended resolutions at the table during Council meetings but regularly did not read the entire amended resolution aloud before voting on it as had been the custom of previous Councils. When this happened, the Council meeting’s minutes contained only the amendment and not the full resolution. The entire final resolution, as amended, is eventually supposed to be loaded into Laserfiche, located in the Accounts Department.
Historically, the assistant city clerk was responsible for updating the text of resolutions that had been amended. The assistant clerk would then store it on the city server in Laserfiche. The resolutions on Laserfiche are not available for direct access by the public. I had to FOIL for this document.
The resolution that established on-call pay was amended at the Council meeting on February 9, 2023, to remove wording in order to allow the Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety to be eligible for on-call benefits. (Ironically, Jason Tetu, the Deputy Commissioner, however, was the only Deputy not to seek payments.) This amendment is recorded in the minutes and the video of the meeting. This is not the wording of the amended resolution, however, that now appears on the Laserfiche in the Accounts Department.
Where Did That Come From?
The resolution adopted by the Council limited eligibility for on-call pay to departments that had emergencies outside of normal city business hours.
Someone tinkered with the text to add the two words “and events.”
The doctored document that was uploaded to Laserfiche had something called meta-data attached to it. This file contains the record of who created the document and when. In this case the record shows Accounts Deputy Stacy Connors created it on February 14, 2023, five days following the adoption of the actual resolution.
Connors’ On-Call Pay Form Contains The Tampered Language
Stacy Connors was the first Deputy to submit a form to the Finance Department to get on-call pay. Significantly, the form she submitted contains the word “event” that was not used in the actual Council resolution.
Here is the text of the header on the form:
Notice that her request for payment form echoes the resolution that was doctored.
The significance of the two words “and events” that were added to the resolution becomes evident in reviewing Connor’s payment forms, all of which contain Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran’s signature authorizing the payment. On her form, she lists under “reasons” such “events” as City Council meetings and a wake. As we shall see, Moran uses the word “events” to go even further in an effort to justify paying this money to his Deputy.
Moran’s Narrative
Moran has been on a campaign in city hall vehemently denying that anything was wrong in paying Connors for “being on call.” He claims that Connors works sixty hours a week (snark alert: an impossible thing to do on a regular basis given the routine responsibilities of the very fully staffed Accounts Department, which basically provides licenses, special documents, and assesses real property.). As such, he alleges that she deserves the on-call benefit.
Unfortunately for Moran, the resolution was not for overtime (which, as a salaried employee, she is not eligible for anyway) but for being on call for “emergencies,” to which the Accounts Department is not subject.
An Email Exchange That Says It All
Included below is an exchange of emails between Ginny Scavuzzo, a concerned citizen, and Moran. Ms. Scavuzzo emailed City Council members expressing concern over the on-call pay for Deputies issue. Moran replies with a series of unusual arguments in defense of the pay. Here are some highlights:
To begin with, lest there be any confusion, Moran writes to Ms. Scavuzzo:
“Nobody, let me repeat, nobody has done anything wrong.”
He then asserts that the purpose of the resolution was to address the long standing issues with inadequate pay for the Deputies. On one level, this is true. The same resolution that established on-call benefits increased the salaries of all the Deputies by a considerable amount. Ms. Connors went from a salary of $80,818.00 to $91,650.00. I actually have no problem with this. I am willing to accept the arguments put forward at the Council table of the need for these increases to attract and keep qualified Deputies. (It is interesting to note, though, that there are no job descriptions for the Deputy positions, nor are there any requirements as to who can be hired.)
Unfortunately for Moran, the issue in question is not the merit of the raises for Deputies but who, according to the resolution, is eligible for on-call pay.
Moran then goes on to attack Ms. Scavuzzo for alleged misogyny.
What is concerning to me is that you have only been prompted to ask about the women in these positions, not the men. I find it off putting that those “reporting” on this somehow leave them out.
Dillon Moran
It is interesting how mercurial Moran is about which women benefit from his largess. Consider Lisa Ribis, the assistant city clerk in the Accounts Department, who records the minutes of Council meetings. Under Mayor Ron Kim, the Council meetings would go on for hours, often late into the night. For reasons that only Moran would know, he decided not to compensate her for her time at these meetings as required by her contract. She had to submit a grievance to the State Public Employees Relations Board, which Moran lost, in order to compel Moran to compensate her properly.
Moran goes on to make further use of the term “event” claiming:
My department is responsible for a number of aspects of our government including our Special Events, which were relaunched after 2 years of inactivity. We completed 63 events in 2023 and my deputy was on call for every one of them and very often was required to respond on weekends and holidays.
Dillon Moran
It is hard not to use hyperbole in describing how absurd his claim is. Special events are things like 5K foot races, Chowderfest, parades, events at the casino, etc. The Accounts Department is responsible for giving out permits for these kinds of events. These events are run by the sponsoring group. Sometimes, the event requires assistance from the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Public Works, but the Accounts Department has no responsibility beyond the approval of the permits for the events. It is rather stunning that he would claim his Deputy must be on-call for these events.
Next, Moran turns to a financial argument:
The amount of money being questioned is less than .01% of our budget and it’s simply revolting to me that the hardest working women in our government are being attacked because they are being paid for the work they do.
Dillon Moran
The amount of money is small in relation to the city budget, but for most of us, the $4,136.75 that Connors was paid improperly for being on-call is still a significant piece of change. Worse, Moran ignores the more serious matter, which is that she was not eligible for this pay.
Moran goes on to make another false argument:
As it is, our deputies qualify for subsidized housing as they barely make an average income for this area.
Dillon Moran
The Liberty Housing project for workforce housing that Moran has championed has an eligibility threshold based on 60% to 80% of AMI (annual median income).
I don’t know if Ms. Connors is married. If she is single, then the appropriate per-capita income would not be for households but for individuals. So, for Saratoga Springs, the median income for individuals is $57,836.00. According to the February 11, 2023, TU story on the special wage increase awarded at the February 9, 2023, Council meeting, Ms. Connors’s salary is $91,650.00. So, if Ms. Connors is single, she would have a salary that is almost 60% over the median income for the city and way, way over the eligibility threshold for subsidized housing. Contrary to Moran’s statement in his email, Deputies’ salaries are well in excess of eligibility for subsidized housing.
Moran’s History Of Falsifying Documents
This would not be the first time Moran has been involved in tampering with documents. In 2019, Moran ran against the late Commissioner of Public Works, Skip Scirocco. During that campaign, he sent out a mailer with an image of a letter from the New York State Department of Health. Moran doctored the letter so that it appeared to charge the city with having unsafe drinking water. Here is a link to the image of the flyer.
I am submitting my public comment in writing regarding the “On Call Pay” issue.
I have questions:
Have City Deputies been improperly paid for allegedly being “on call”?
Have they actually been “on call” or have they been paid for actual responsibilities that under their job description?
Did three of the city Deputies, facilitated by their respective bosses, use a poorly defined provision adopted by the Saratoga Springs City Council to pay:
Angella Rella, Deputy Mayor: $5,640.75
Stacy Connors, Deputy Commissioner of Accounts: $4,136.75
Heather Crocker, Deputy Commissioner of Finance: $1,128.15
Was the language of the February 2023 resolution for “on call” pay for public works employees so poorly crafted, it was vulnerable to abuse?
Did Commissioner Sanghvi properly monitor and manage this perk?
I believe others have already asked these questions, so my ask is
Where has transparency been, no less accountability? Apparently others have been asking, but they claim that they have been ignored. Ignoring a problem or a perceived one, doesn’t make it go away.
I think we deserve to know what actual “on call” means and be reassured that it doesn’t mean “already documented responsibilities”.
I appreciate, Mr Mayor, that you said last evening that the issue is being reviewed by the city’s legal department. But…
What if, because of the way the resolution was written, these payment are not considered illegal? What then? Are they then just a) immoral b) amoral or c) just plain greedy?
I appreciate your reading and considering my comments.
Furthermore, I would like knowing that public comments don’t fall on deaf ears as I’ve witnessed over the past years.
There’s a reason, Mayor Kim was not re-elected. There also is a reason the re-elected council members (although running unopposed) may not have gotten full support on Election Day.
We are your constituents; we elected you and we are in hopes that you listen and that you hear us. Thank you.
In closing, I thank you all for your service to the city.
Unfortunately misinformation has been spread throughout the community by folks more concerned with creating political arguments than doing the work for the city.
Nobody, let me repeat, nobody has done anything wrong. Every commissioner is equal per our charter and every deputy is equal as well.
The pay program that was passed a year ago addressed long standing issues with inadequate pay for the Deputies, the Full Time manager of our respective departments. (Commissioner Coll has said on more than one occasion that he would not have been able to hire a qualified deputy had we not improved the pay program).
What is concerning to me is that you have only been prompted to ask about the women in these positions, not the men. I find it off putting that those “reporting” on this somehow leave them out.
My department is responsible for a number of aspects of our government including our Special Events, which were relaunched after 2 years of inactivity. We completed 63 events in 2023 and my deputy was on call for every one of them and very often was required to respond on weekends and holidays.
The amount of money being questioned is less than .01% of our budget and it’s simply revolting to me that the hardest working women in our government are being attacked because they are being paid for the work they do.
As it is, our deputies qualify for subsidized housing as they barely make an average income for this area.
Don’t we want to attract and keep the best qualified public servants?
I am more than happy to answer other questions that you may have.
In a letter dated January 2, 2024, the New York State Department of Transportation advised Saratoga Springs Mayor John Safford that the previous Council superseded its authority when it altered the weight limit for trucks on Van Dam Street. As the letter above documents, Van Dam Street is a designated “access highway” by DOT and, as such, is not subject to local control over its truck use.
This is yet another example of the previous Council’s obliviousness to the need for rigorous due diligence. In their rush to endear themselves to the homeowners on Van Dam Street and grab headlines, the Council did the neighborhood a disservice by spreading false hopes.
Even before this DOT letter, former Public Safety Commissioner Lew Benton knew enough to question the city’s authority in this matter and to contact NYSDOT, which confirmed his skepticism.
Bill McTygue and Mark Pingel Grab Headlines With More False Hopes
Planning Board members Bill McTygue and Mark Pingel issued a report in December suggesting an old proposal to construct a truck bypass route through the southern border of the State Park should be revisited.
The first reference I can find to such a proposal was in a report prepared for the New York State Department of Transportation in 1987. The study concluded that a southern bypass would “impact adjacent parklands…to a degree which will be difficult to successfully mitigate” and “…have significant impacts on recreational, historic, and natural resources.” In addition to requiring cutting through extensive wetlands in the Park, the study also concluded that while “various bypass roadway alternatives have been the subject of considerable discussion in the community and were examined closely in the study…they were found to be partial solutions at best…..None would divert sufficient traffic from Broadway…”
Over the years, other Councils have made similar forays to the state, but all such efforts have proved futile.
Such a bypass would be an enormous construction project involving huge sums of money, and the permits for major disturbances of wetlands would encounter fierce resistance from a variety of parties, assuming that the state was even interested.
Three of the city Deputies, facilitated by their respective bosses, used a poorly defined provision adopted by the Saratoga Springs City Council to feed at the public trough.
Angella Rella, Deputy Mayor: $5,640.75
Stacy Connors, Deputy Commissioner of Accounts: $4,136.75
Heather Crocker, Deputy Commissioner of Finance: $1,128.15
A Proposition Cynically Exploited
In February of 2023, the City Council voted for a major increase in their deputies’ salaries. At the same meeting, prompted by Public Works Commissioner Jason Golub, they added a new perk. All deputies could be paid extra to be “on call”.
As a computer consultant who supports software, I thought I was familiar with the term “on call”. This is the way I have always understood it:
if someone such as a doctor or engineer is on call, they are ready to go and help whenever they are needed as part of their job
So, as a computer consultant, I might be required to be on call in case, for instance, a client was installing new software and ran into trouble. This would mean that I would have to agree to be available immediately by phone or perhaps required to be able to be on sight within a certain amount of time to assist the client. On-call doctors, likewise, must be sober and able to respond within minutes should a medical emergency occur while they are on call.
At the time of the vote, I had understood that this provision was crafted as a way to compensate Public Works Deputy Joe O’Neil, whose job really requires that he be on call to deal with emergencies such as broken water pipes or snow storms, which his department would be responsible for.
Joe O’Neil is an outstanding city employee whose job really does subject him to the need to be potentially available twenty-four-seven.
Unfortunately, the language of the resolution was extremely poorly crafted, making it vulnerable to abuse. The problem was compounded due to the failure of Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi to properly monitor and manage this perk. At the time of the meeting, she told her colleagues that she would come up with additional parameters for the new perk and that she would assess the program and report on it quarterly.
In my FOIL request, I sought all documents regarding “on-call.” I received a copy of the resolution establishing on-call along with sheets submitted by the Deputies for payment. My FOIL produced no documents related to Sanghvi’s promises to produce parameters clarifying the new policy nor any documents establishing that she reviewed the program quarterly as she had promised at the February meeting.
I emailed her requesting a meeting on the issue.
She responded by directing me to the Human Resources office. I then wrote back to her asking:
Could she provide me with her quarterly findings?
Could she provide me with her suggested parameters for “on-call”?
As the resolution establishing ”on-call” was to go into effect on February 9, 2023, could she explain how Deputy Mayor Angella Rella was paid for being on-call for the month of January and the first week of February?
As the resolution calls for paying $125.35 a week for being on-call, how was the Finance Department calculating payments if someone was on-call for only a few days?
To date, I have not had a response to these questions from the Commissioner. In our form of government, it is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Finance to establish controls over city spending. These are serious questions that deserve proper answers. To refuse to respond raises grave concerns about what other breakdowns of oversight may be going on in her office.
The Resolution
This is the relevant language from the resolution that included establishing on-call:
Note that this benefit was supposed to only be used by deputies whose department had 24/7 response requirements and involved the necessity of being available to respond toemergency calls. [The final version was amended to remove the phrase “that is not operationally staffed 24/7” thus allowing the Public Safety Deputy to be eligible although Tetu never put in for this pay.]
What Constitutes On Call for a Deputy??
Consider this document from Deputy Mayor Angella Rella seeking payment for being “on-call”:
This is just one of the four pay forms Ms. Rella submitted and that Ron Kim approved to be paid. Three were submitted on November 11, 2023. The fourth was dated December 24. Note the timing of Ms. Rella’s submission of these forms. According to the resolution, this benefit was to be approved and paid on a quarterly basis, but Rella waited until November 11, 2023, to begin to submit her bills. That was just four days following her boss’ defeat in the November 7 election.
The resolution states that the benefit was to go into effect on February 9, 2023 [JK: The date had to be amended because a revised version had to be adopted with a new date of February 21, 2023]. Yet Rella asked for and was paid for the entire month of January and the first week in February. The Finance Department is responsible for making sure claims are legitimate when they do payroll, yet they approved this.
Most startling is that the four documents she billed for claim that she was on call seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day, from January 2, 2023, to December 24, 2023.
As readers will observe, the form for reporting includes a column titled “Reason,” which I assume was meant to explain what was going on that required her availability. She didn’t bother to write anything in this column. Instead, she simply pasted into the head of the form that “…she was available for contact by the Mayor’s Department and was responsible for responding to emergency situations, events, and assigning subordinate employee(s) during these week dates.” If this sounds familiar, it’s because she simply took the language from the resolution.
Who Knows What “On Call” Means?
How could this happen?
Missing from the resolution were the following:
Any definition as to what is construed as being on-call.
Whether the employee was required to meet sobriety standards while on-call.
How quickly an employee was required to respond to an on-call demand (would being on a plane or going anywhere where cell service was problematic, disqualify a deputy from this benefit?). Just how available does a person have to be when on-call?
What constituted the kind of potential emergencies that merited the person being on-call?
What kind of potential emergencies constituted the need for someone heading the Accounts Department to be on-call?
What kind of potential emergencies constituted the need for someone heading the Finance Department to be on-call?
What kind of potential emergencies constituted the need for someone heading the Mayor’s office to be on call (in Rella’s case, 24/7, for a year)?
Granted, the Accounts department is charged with managing the election logistics in the city, so there might be staffing issues or problems with equipment that would merit having the Deputy on call on those specific days. Other than that, the Accounts Department is responsible for doing such city business as issuing licenses, keeping city records, and assessing city properties. It’s hard to imagine what emergency could possibly occur in that Department that would require the Deputy to be paid to be on call. Nothing happens in the Accounts Department after office hours that can be construed as an emergency.
The Finance Department includes the IT department but that department has an internal on-call policy already that was negotiated with the CSEA union. They rotate three IT staff people who are paid not $125.35 like the Deputies, but $75.00 to be on call for the week. They have successfully operated this way for years. So the Finance Department Deputy doesn’t have to manage these people to get them in should there be an IT emergency after office hours. As with the Accounts Department, nothing happens after office hours in Finance that can be construed as an emergency that needs to have anyone ready for a quick response.
Is This Being Confused With Work Outside Of Normal Business Hours?
While Rella and Finance Deputy Heather Crocker simply leave the reason column of the On-Call Pay form blank, consider this document for Deputy Commissioner Of Accounts Stacy Connors which Dillon Moran approved.
It is unclear how to interpret this document. What does being available to respond to an emergency have to do with attending the State of the City event?What does attending a wake have to do with being on-call? What does attending a “special” City Council meeting have to do with being on-call? In her other sheets, she has “CC” in the reason column. Based on the dates, I assume this refers to City Council meetings. What does being on-call have to do with attending a City Council meeting? None of what she lists has anything to do with being “on call,” yet Moran approved this, and the Payroll employee in the Finance Department paid her.
Public Safety Dispatchers Get Nothing For Being On Call
According to past Public Safety Commissioner James Montagnino, the Public Safety dispatchers are required to be on call for eight hours before and after their shifts but receive no special compensation for this.
[JK: I have been told that Commissioner Monagnino was misinformed on this.]
Reform?
This mess really needs some sort of action. Commissioner Sanghvi is responsible for monitoring the city’s finances and for ensuring there is no abuse. Her cavalier attitude about this gross waste of city money is most unfortunate. There is no indication she plans to reconsider this, let alone reform it.
At the January 2, 2024, Saratoga Springs City Council meeting, newly elected Mayor John Safford introduced a resolution to make a payment required by a court order. This should have been a routine vote to approve the court settlement/but not for Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran.
In 2023, requests by Saratoga Springs Republican Chair Mike Brandi to secure documents from the city under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) were ignored in flagrant violation of the law.
Brandi sued the city, and the court sustained his complaint that the city had violated FOIL and ordered the city to pay his costs ($2,500.00) and to provide him with the documents.
This blog has documented the disintegration of the city’s response to the Freedom of Information Law under the previous City Council. FOIL is at the heart of open government. Months ago, this last Council acknowledged that it was routinely in violation of its obligation to release public documents to citizens in a timely manner but, in spite of this, chose to take no action to address the problem.
The following is a video from the January 2, 2024, Council meeting. As the video documents, Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran first pretends he does not know who the litigant was that the city was required to pay. Moran asks Safford, “Who is this check going to?” After Mayor Safford confirms that it is going to Brandi, Moran disingenuously asks whether Brandi is the G.O.P. chair. After Safford confirms that Brandi is the G.O.P. chair, Moran feels “compelled” to ask, “The G.O.P. chair sued the city?” and when Safford confirms, Moran asserts, “It’s not very civil.” The Council then moves to a vote. Moran votes no on complying with the order to pay. He offers no explanation.
Ugly Partisan Behavior by Moran Right Out Of The Gate
As readers may know, all but one of the candidates endorsed by One Saratoga won the seats they ran for in the November election. Their theme was “City before party.” It was hoped by many that that successful message in this last election would result in a Council whose members would avoid cheap partisan attacks and that their votes and actions would reflect a commitment to doing what is best for the city. Apparently, Dillon Moran didn’t get the message.
In this first Council meeting of the New Year, there was nothing even thinly disguised in Moran’s gratuitous, partisan performance. It makes no difference who requests documents from the city. Under New York State Law, all citizens have the right to secure documents under FOIL, and all government bodies in New York State are required to respond in a timely manner or pay the consequences. Dillon Moran does not get to decide any of this.
It is most disturbing that he would vote to ignore the court’s order. Moran now oversees Risk and Safety. Rather than set a standard for rigorously adhering to all city, state, and federal requirements as he had just taken an oath to do when he was sworn into office the day before, he openly flaunted the court’s authority in order to indulge in partisan grandstanding.
Moran’s behavior signals that he, for his part, is not about to leave the acrimony that plagued the last Council behind.
At the special end-of-year Saratoga Springs City Council meeting on December 28, the Council’s deliberations were marked as usual with improper proposals, confusion over resolutions, and, of course, acrimony.
Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi’s agenda included a proposal to fix what she referred to as the “human error” in the 2024 city budget that resulted in her budget improperly exceeding the New York State Property Tax Cap. Apparently, a miscalculation having to do with a program called “payment in lieu of taxes” (PILOT) was the cause of the problem. The Commissioner did not explain how the error occurred or why she had just noticed that her budget violated the state’s tax cap (this blog indicated the tax cap was an issue weeks ago) and how she planned to avoid such events in the future.
The remedy Sanghvi proposed involved the Council approving changes in the 2024 budget. Kim repeatedly and forcefully stated that amending the 2024 budget in 2023 was in violation of the city charter and that he was “aghast” that she was proposing this.
In the end, no action was taken, and the problem was kicked over to the incoming Council.
At the same meeting, Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran offered a resolution to award a bid to a company for, as far as I can tell, setting up a registry for short-term rentals in the city.
Moran acknowledged that his resolution did not include an actual contract with the firm as was usually the case. He told his colleagues that changes in the insurance market had become a barrier to the city’s standard contract. He assured his colleagues he would work things out and that a contract would be ready for action at the next Council meeting. He told his colleagues that rather than use the city’s contract, he would use one from the vendor. This vendor had, apparently, already gotten the city to sign a non-city contract with the firm previously.
The city purchasing policy restricts the use of non-city contracts. Such contracts are only to be used in unusual circumstances and, most importantly, must include all the city’s requirements.
The normal procedure would have been for Moran to present all the items related to an award bundled together for action. These would have included the contract.
Why Moran could not wait until he had all the documents ready to present this to the Council is unclear, but this is part of an unfortunate pattern. There is, of course, the possibility that the successful bidder could not comply with the city’s policies, so prudence would have had Moran wait on the matter.
This is especially odd because he was introducing his resolution at a special meeting of the Council on December 28, and the new Council would be meeting in only five days. He never explained why there was a rush on the matter nor why he felt the need to bifurcate the process over two meetings.
In fact, the agenda for January 2, 2024, is on the city’s website, and there is no item on his agenda for this proposed agreement.
Pardon the play on words of the title of this post, but hopefully, this new council will combine the fact that it is a new order (group) and hopefully will bring a new discipline (order) in how this city does business.
As far back as I can remember, previous Councils have utilized their City Attorneys to review resolutions to be brought before the Council first to ensure that they met all the legal requirements both of our own charter and of all related other institutions.
Hopefully, on January 2, 2023, when the new Council convenes, Moran’s proposed contract will be tabled if it appears on his agenda and, along with the documents he presented on the 28th, they will be reviewed by the new City Attorney before any further action is taken.
In fact, I am optimistic that the free-for-all of chaotic resolutions submitted, withdrawn, resubmitted, etc., will be history, and the new Council will move forward with a more disciplined and deliberative approach to legislation, and it will indeed be a Happy New Year for the city.
Saratoga Springs Politics 