Author: John Kaufmann

[JK: A recent FOIL  revealed more examples of inappropriate language used by Mayor Ron Kim in city hall communications. The following piece by Mike Brandi, the chair of the Saratoga Springs Republican Committee who submitted the FOIL, documents how toxic the environment in city hall has become and includes what appears to be a concerning example of foul language being used by Kim in reference to an employee under his supervision.]

John,

After several leaks of internal emails from the local Democratic party posted to your blog, it has become wildly apparent that Mayor Kim is prone to sending late-night, expletive-laden, abusive emails. Accordingly, under the Freedom of Information Law, I requested all emails sent by Kim which contained a certain expletive we all know as the “F-word.” In response, two heavily redacted emails were provided.

One of which piqued my interest because it happened to be in reference to a FOIL appeal that I had submitted in early 2022. Specifically, on February 4, 2022, Mayor Kim emailed the City FOIL officer asking to set up a meeting about my FOIL appeal. Subsequently, Kim forwarded that same email to Deputy Mayor Angela Rella and his executive assistant, Kerry Huyben. The forwarded email to Rella and Huyben added heavily redacted commentary from Kim. The City released only Kim’s writing that “I did some research on FOIL appeals” and “f***ing”. Keep in mind that at this time, there was no designated City Attorney (despite Kim’s attempts to appoint himself), and there was no designated FOIL Appeals Officer. So, it appears that Kim was seeking to inject himself into this process.

It was not unreasonable to assume that Mayor Kim’s bad language in that email may have been directed at me, a citizen exercising his FOIL rights. Accordingly, I appealed the City’s redactions, seeking to have the email released in full.

This is where things take a more sinister turn. City Attorney Tony Izzo upheld the City’s redactions but clarified the redacted portion of the February 4 email. Izzo writes that the expletive-containing sentence in question contained “[Kim’s] opinion of the work-related conduct of a named city employee.” Accordingly, Mayor Kim, at 10:56 PM on a Friday night, used offensive language in communicating about an unknown public employee’s work-related performance to two other city employees. This is wildly inappropriate.

With the City’s insistence that the redactions remain, we can only speculate as to which employee has drawn the mayor’s ire and what exactly he was saying about them. But one thing is clear, Mr. Kim is a bully who has no qualms about exposing the City to liability in creating an overtly hostile work environment. It is completely inappropriate in any circumstance, but especially for a mayor of one of the most respected cities in the country, to use this sort of language to refer to an employee or in a communication with employees under his supervision.

So what is the big deal? Considering the context, this is no minor incident. The United States Department of Labor classifies “verbal abuse including offensive, profane and vulgar language” as workplace violence and identifies this sort of intimidating, discourteous behavior as a “level 1” warning sign for workplace violence. Researchers at the Southhampton School of Business found that “Repeatedly swearing, making threats and engaging in verbal abuse can lead to depression, stress, reduced morale, absenteeism, retention problems, and reduced productivity [and can] damage the image of the organization.” Karen Hinds, Diversity and Inclusion expert and founder and CEO of the Workplace Success Group states, “Bosses who use profanity to express themselves are in fact, attacking morale and creating a hostile work environment. Their behavior is a poor reflection of their management skills, and in essence, this behavior is workplace bullying.”

Heck, even the Trump White House had standards when it came to profanity. Your readers may recall, Anthony Scaramucci was fired after merely 10 days working for the Trump White House for making “comments that were inappropriate for a person in that position” after a vulgar rant to a reporter.

In closing, Kim’s behavior here is simply reprehensible. Such language directed at an employee’s performance is nothing short of bullying. In choosing his words, Kim reveals much about his character.

In reference to government transparency, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.” There is no better cure for the rot of government mischief than the citizen exercising their right to throw back the curtain and examine the behavior of their elected officials. While these two emails were disclosed, one is left to wonder how many other instances of Kim’s inappropriate behavior remain out of the light of day and how many more we may see as Kim’s administration bumbles toward the expiration of its term.

Excerpt From Tony Izzo To Mike Brandi

Emails

This email contains the F word regarding a city employee. Note that the email thread includes a response from Robin McFee, who is the executive assistant to the city attorney. She handles FOIL requests. This all occurred relatively early in the Kim administration when he was attempting to act as the city attorney. Vince DeLeonardis, the previous city attorney, acted as the appeal officer for FOIL denials. At this stage, McFee does not know who is acting as the appeal officer with DeLeonardis gone and no city attorney.

Mayor Kim Responds To Email From Bill McTygue

Here Kim emails to his deputy, Angela Rella, in response to an email from Bill McTygue. McTygue’s original email is pretty much all redacted, so we do not know what McTygue said to prompt Kim’s email.

[JK: Jim Martinez is a registered architect. A stalwart preservationist and founding member of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation, he has authored many articles about our surviving resources and their stewardship.]

The COVID-19 emergency declarations will end on 11 May 2023. This follows Governor Hochul’s announcement on 15 June 2021, that social distancing requirements and seating distance in restaurants would no longer be needed. Yet today, just shy of 2 years of that proclamation, we are still accommodating extra seating for select businesses in the public rights-of-way (ROW) to lessees and property owners, reducing and in some cases ignoring sidewalk Fire Code and City Code requirements, eliminating valuable public parking and challenging the distinguished visual landscape of our heralded historic downtown district.  

Pandemic emergency responses aside, should we question the legitimacy of the taking of public land for private use? The Design Review Board (DRB) was given design review and approval of the outdoor dining corrals, but the legitimacy of the construction barriers was off the table. At their March 3^rd meeting, the DRB were issued prescriptive guidelines as they were presented with 12 applications and a new sidewalk removal request. Were these guidelines vetted by the community, the preservationists or by the Departments of Public Works and Public Safety that might impart code compliance standards? The DRB was informed that the approval and review of these barriers was not part of their charge, instead to simply comment on their compatibility with guidelines questionably unfit for our historic and sacred downtown. The DRB should find them unacceptable in our once great city center.  

The issue overlooked by design was the legitimacy of the concrete barriers recently purchased by the city for the express use by select businesses to be maintained by the Public Works Department for the lessees and property owners to increase their commercial space in the public right of way two years after the pandemic emergency was lifted. Is this municipal option open to all residents on public throughfares?  

Additionally, last year Short Alley, a posted ‘No Parking Fire Lane’ was closed to traffic to accommodate dining along Henry Street. Unsecured flammable propane tanks along with an assortment of miscellaneous detritus was permitted to be stored openly in the fire lane one block from our fire station. Post pandemic restrictions, some businesses on Phila Street have increased their seating by 50% at the expense of the public having to navigate between “The Pillars of Hercules” on one of our historic feeder streets and the loss of valued public parking. Recently a restaurant next to Congress Park has received tentative approval to use its public rights-of-way sidewalk for dining, resulting in forcing all pedestrians into the road. This property already received approval in the past for the construction of an entry portico, stairs and ramps on the public ROW sidewalk, conditioned on preserving the resulting path clear for the public. Is it legal to remove the sidewalk completely against state and local codes?  

Was the tentative approval of this application based on consultation with our city departments, inspectors and planners? Sidewalks and cleared paths on unpaved level surfaces are specifically defined in our City Code as to be a minimum of 5 feet wide, so why is the city now allowing in some instances 4 feet to be the distance between table edges in our downtown core (Caroline Street) and in some others removing them completely? How will this reduced dimension accommodate wheelchairs and baby carriages, let alone the public at large? Have accessible sidewalks, adherence to traffic controls (fire lanes) and our city codes become selective and irrelevant? 

In conducting a code review, the researcher understands that codes are complimentary. One code or one section of a code may be usurped by another more restrictive requirement in another section or another code. Our City Code establishes a five-foot minimum width for public passages on city streets. While another code may permit a four-foot width requirement for accessibility, the larger requirement is what determines the acceptable minimum dimension.  

From our City Code:  

********************************************************************************************** 

Per City Code § 203-23.A.(2)(a), “The minimum width [of sidewalks] shall be 5.0 feet.” However, Fire Code imposes greater space requirements at the public right-of-way. 

 Seems this UDO provision relating to signs (Article 12) should also apply to any usage of outdoor dining space:  

“C. Encroachment into Right-of-Way 

For a sign to permissibly extend into a public right-of-way, prior review and approval by the Commissioner of Public Works, after consultation with the Department of Public Safety, is required. Adherence to the design standards included in this Article does not imply approval of an encroachment.” 

 The City Code also defines the City’s “Fire Limits”, which used to have specific requirements as to construction types allowed therein. Typically, only non-combustible construction is allowed within fire limits. 

One reason that Public Safety needs to review sign installation (and should also regulate sidewalk dining constructions in the public right-of-way) is that the Fire Code regulates egress from buildings.  

Per 2020 Fire Code of NYS: 

 EXIT DISCHARGE. That portion of a means of egress system between the termination of an exit and a public way. 

 PUBLIC WAY. A street, alley or other parcel of land open to the outside air leading to a street, that has been deeded, dedicated or otherwise permanently appropriated to the public for public use and which has a clear width and height of not less than 10 feet (3048 mm). 

1028.5 Access to a Public Way 

The exit discharge shall provide a direct and unobstructed access to a public way. 

Exception: Where access to a public way cannot be provided, a safe dispersal area shall be supplied where all of the following are met: 

The area shall be of a size to accommodate not less than 5 square feet (0.46 m2) for each person. 

The area shall be located on the same lot not less than 50 feet (15 240 mm) away from the building requiring egress. 

The area shall be permanently maintained and identified as a safe dispersal area. 

The area should be provided with a safe and unobstructed path of travel from the building. 

Taking up the entire public right-of-way/sidewalk with dining adversely impacts the available public way for safe egress. 

*********************************************************************** 

We should also understand that the taking of these taxpayer streets and sidewalks are being offered for a pittance to selective lessees who may or may not be city taxpayers. It should be noted that these gifted property extensions are set up by the longitudinal street facing dimensions which at best are discriminatory against businesses with limited frontage or against those restaurants on thoroughfares considered unacceptable. Are these giftings and fee structures transparent and fair let alone legal? 

Codes and requirements are usually the hurdle for most city projects, whether on private parcels or municipal lands. I can remember when this city recognized the attractiveness of its downtown, passing legislation that respected its surviving resources and established guidelines for new contemporary additions to the cityscape. The creation of a review commission charged with embracing the guidelines protects our legacy.  

Such traffic barriers are questionably legal, ugly and have no place in the public street outside of a short-term emergency.  

Saratoga Springs Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran has steamrolled through a personal takeover of temporary outdoor dining in the city. In fact, this has become his personal fiefdom. He is now the czar of outdoor dining and he rules with opacity.

As documented below, attempts to secure the most basic information on how he awards the city’s rights of way to local restaurants and bars and and how he arrives at the fees he charges have gone unanswered in spite of repeated emails promising to provide key information (see emails below).

A Little History

In the face of devastating threats to the hospitality industry caused by COVID restrictions on bars and restaurants, New York State allowed businesses to expand outdoor dining seating into public rights-of-way. The previous city administration set up a special committee to develop guidelines and implement a program to assist businesses in taking advantage of these new rules.

The committee was made up of Vince DeLeonardis (the City Attorney), Aaron Dryer (Assistant Fire Chief), Mike Veitch (Public Works Deputy Commissioner), and Marilyn Rivers (Director of Risk and Safety). This blue ribbon committee accepted applications from businesses and ensured that the applicants met all the requirements of the city regarding legal issues, public safety, street logistics, and adherence to insurance requirements before issuing permits. This process depersonalized the approval of applications and made sure that the key players with expertise eyeballed every application.

When Commissioner Moran took office, he quickly moved to take control of the city’s outdoor dining program and marginalize the other players. The Public Works Department’s role was reduced to “advice and consent.” All the others who had formerly been involved in the permitting process would now only be consulted at the discretion of Moran. This kind of management is an invitation to trouble.

What Are Some Key Questions About City-Supported Outdoor Dining?

So with Moran now in charge, I wrote to him on March 27, 2023, asking the following questions.

• Do you have any documentation that supports the claim that the fire department has reviewed and approved all applications for outdoor dining since January 1, 2022 as regards adherence to the city’s fire safety requirements?
• If you do, could you please provide them to me?
• Do you have any documentation that demonstrates that all applications since January 1, 2022, adhere to access on the sidewalks to sufficiently meet the city’s right-of-way requirements and the ADA?
• Do you have a spreadsheet or other document that reports for each year on the expenses the city has incurred implementing the outdoor dining program since January 1, 2022, including staff time required to review and process the applications, the cost of acquiring or leasing the barriers, and the cost for deploying barriers?
• If you do, could you provide them to me?
• Do you have a spreadsheet or other document that reports on the income the city has received from restaurants for outdoor dining since January 1, 2022.
• Do you have any documents that explain how the fees for outdoor dining were arrived at.  This would include the process that was used to arrive at these costs as well as the basis for them?

As the emails below document, first Commissioner Moran promised to answer my questions. What followed, however, were multiple emails meant to explain his delays in answering my questions, and then crickets.

A Failed Rush To Open

Moran announced that the season for temporary outdoor dining would begin on March 29 and that by that date the barriers used to protect diners eating in the parking spaces in front of the restaurants would be deployed.

As of the date of this blog (April 20, 2023), the program has still not begun. The public has not been given a reason for the delay. My sources tell me that part of the delay was due to federal and state “prevailing wage” laws. These laws require that businesses contracted to provide services to municipalities must pay good wages based on a scale determined by the state.

Under New York State Labor Law, contractors and subcontractors must pay the prevailing rate of wage and supplements (fringe benefits) to all workers under a public work contract. Employers must pay the prevailing wage rate set for the locality where the work is performed. Prevailing wage is the pay rate set by law for work on public work projects. This applies to all laborers, workers or mechanics employed under a public work contract. 

NYS Department of Labor

Moran apparently selected the Fort Miller Group as the vendor for the barriers. In order for them to deploy the barriers, they would have to meet the “prevailing wage” requirement, but they do not. There is some question as to whether the Public Works Department had the needed heavy equipment to carry this out.

This is emblematic of Moran’s routine failure to perform due diligence properly before rushing forward.

All of this is totally opaque. It remains unclear if the city has even approved this year’s applications for outdoor dining. In fact, as far as I can tell, Moran has yet to get approval for this year’s fees from the Council.

So How Did Moran Arrive At What To Charge For The Use Of Rights-Of-Way?

As the correspondence below documents, the public has no idea how Moran arrived at the fees the city charges businesses for outdoor dining permits (if he has arrived at a fee schedule for this year at all).

Judging by the previous year, the city is charging token fees for some very expensive real estate. Last year, it made no difference if a restaurant had only a small area in front of it using only one parking space or if they took up a street corner with multiple parking spaces. The fees were the same: $250.00 a year for just part of the sidewalk and $1,000.00 for parking spaces whether it was for one or many.

I believe this is a pittance of the value of these right-of-ways, but with no formal assessment of the worth of these properties, who knows?

Would You Like To Own The Parking Space In Front Of Where You Live Or Work?

For some reason, the privilege of using the space in the street in front of a business is limited to restaurants. Retail businesses would love similar privileges for their customers.

Putting aside the arbitrary nature of who benefits from the outdoor dining program and who doesn’t, a major question is what is the value of the sidewalk and street parking spaces? Under Commissioner Moran, this has been a fire sale endearing himself to the businesses who are the recipients of his largess.

An Unhealthy Situation

This is representative of how Commissioner Moran operates. He appears uninterested in rigorous planning and accountability. Such an approach would require an open process involving his colleagues and their staff in city hall.

Previous Councils would never allow this kind of wild west behavior. They would insist on the details. This would normally be especially true regarding the role of the Finance Commissioner. Commissioner Sanghvi’s failure to evaluate the financial considerations in Moran’s initiative is more than disturbing. She should be asking the same questions that I asked.

Watching this Council is a grim undertaking.

Emails

---

On March 23, 2023 I wrote to Dillon Moran:

This is a follow-up to your call today:

1. Do you have any documentation that supports the claim that the fire department has reviewed and approved all applications for outdoor dining since January 1, 2022 as regards adherence to the city’s fire safety requirements?
2. If you do, could you please provide them to me?
3. Do you have any documentation that demonstrates that all applications since January 1, 2022, adhere to access on the sidewalks to sufficiently meet the city’s right-of-way requirements and the ADA?
4. Do you have a spreadsheet or other document that reports for each year on the expenses the city has incurred implementing the outdoor dining program since January 1, 2022, including staff time required or review and process the applications, the cost of acquiring or leasing the barriers, and the cost for deploying barriers?
5. If you do, could you provide them to me?
6. Do you have a spreadsheet or other document that reports on the income the city has received from restaurants for outdoor dining since January 1, 2022.
7. Do you have any documents that explain how the fees for outdoor dining were arrived at.  This would include the process that was used to arrive at these costs as well as the basis for them?

 Please note that the adoption of a resolution by the council did not provide any of this information.

 Thank you for your assistance.

 JK

---

On March 23, 2023 Moran responded:

John

I’ve been in Boston the last couple of days and am booked full tomorrow. 

I’ll get you something next week, and I will also share how it’s working this year

Kind Regards,

Dillon Moran

---

On March 28, not having heard from Moran I wrote:

You were going to get back to me with answers to my questions this week.

---

Still not hearing from Moran, on March 30 I wrote:

Dillon:

You said you would provide me with answers to my email this week.  What is the status of my request?

---

On March 30, 2023 Moran responded:

Still working out some of the details. 

The applications are easy to access, I’m working on the rates at present. 

I have an assessors exam tomorrow so I’m not going to have everything done until next week. 

Kind Regards,

Dillon Moran

---

On April 3, 2023 I again wrote to Moran:

What is the status of answering my questions re outdoor dining

---

On April 4, 2023 Moran wrote:

I will be doing an update at the Council meeting tonight. After that we can figure out what your concerns are and address them. 

Kind Regards,

Dillon Moran

---

On April 4, 2023, I wrote:

What my concerns are spelled out in my email.  To the extent that they will not be directly and clearly addressed in your presentation tonight you should answer them.

JK

---

On April 6, 2023 Moran wrote:

Barb is going to be sending you the applications from the last go round. 

There’s a lot going on, I don’t have staff laying around like the others. 

Your patience is appreciated 

Kind Regards,

Dillon Moran

---

On April 8, 2023 I wrote Moran:

Thank you for sending the applications.  Unfortunately for some reason you did not include the schematics documenting how the outside areas would be laid out that was part of the application.  These drawings would have been the only thing of value to me.

More centrally, neither your presentation at the last council meeting nor your emails addressed any of my questions.  I find this troubling as you had announced that the deployment of outside dining would begin on March 29.  I don’t see how you can approve any applications until you have addressed the issues that my questions were based on.

Do you plan to answer my questions?

---

On April 10, 2023 I wrote:

I am still waiting for answers to my email re outdoor dining.  Do you plan to answer my questions?

---

On April 10, 2023 Moran wrote:

I’ve tried to provide you what you asked for. 

What are you trying to uncover or prove here? I simply don’t have time to play wack a mole about an approval process from 2022 that I’m not directly involved with. 

Kind Regards,

Dillon Moran

[I got the following release from Courtney DeLeonardis, the chair of One Saratoga]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

One Saratoga: Seeks an independent line on the ballot and has endorsed a diverse slate of candidates.

Beginning on April 18, One Saratoga members and supporters will be going door to door asking for residents of Saratoga Springs to sign petitions to get their endorsed candidates an independent line on the November 7 ballot. Any person who is registered to vote, regardless of their party affiliation and including No Party, may sign.

One Saratoga has endorsed candidates from both the Democratic and Republican parties. It is a true fusion slate. One Saratoga has endorsed Chris Mathiesen for Mayor, Tim Coll for Public Safety, and Matthew Veitch and Michele Madigan for County Supervisors.

Courtney DeLeonardis, Chair of One Saratoga, said, “One Saratoga was created to promote City before Party and this year we hope to further that effort with a line on the ballot that we believe contains candidates who share our goal.”

One Saratoga is a non-partisan coalition of local residents that seeks to have the best-qualified people governing Saratoga Springs regardless of partisan affiliations. Their watchword is “City before party”.

For more information about One Saratoga, signing petitions, and to learn about their endorsed candidates go to their website at- https://realonesaratoga.org/

[JK: This article was originally posted about a week ago. It has been updated with additional information]

I had heard that the recently resigned chair of the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee, Pat Tuz, had been cited for violating city code and state and federal environmental regulations.

I wrote to Ms. Tuz inquiring about the allegation and received this response.

They have been out here.  We are waiting to hear their report.  I think we put some stone below the water line on the lake. 

There’s no story there John and please nothing about my personal life.  

Thanks,

Pat Tuz

March 31, 2023

My first response was to honor her request. If what she stated were true, then it seemed like a minor violation that did not deserve posting.

However, I made some inquiries and acquired documents that indicate a far different story from what Tuz told me.

The Violations

Apparently, Ms. Tuz and her husband, Jon Weilbaker, built a driveway on property they own on Saratoga Lake. Their property has a steep slope, so their clearing of the land and the gravel they laid down for the driveway created an environmental threat of runoff into Saratoga Lake. Their actions involved violations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Saratoga Springs land use codes. In addition, they disturbed some wetlands.

The following documents from New York State and the city make for interesting reading describing multiple infractions and the required remediation.

On page one of the following New York State Department of Environment violation notice, Tuz’s husband tries unsuccessfully to convince the DEC investigator that the driveway was not meant for vehicles but was simply a path to the lake. The rest of the document cites numerous problems and what remediation will be required.

Here is the notice sent to Ms. Tuz and her husband John Weilbaker by the city on March 13 informing them of multiple violations of city codes including their failure to obtain the required permits for the work they had done. The city ordered them to immediately cease work on the property until they had obtained the proper approvals from the city Zoning/Planning Department.

It’s Always The Coverup

I do not think it is unfair to characterize Ms. Tuz’s email to me as grossly inaccurate and misleading. “We put some stone below the waterline” does not accurately describe why the state and city were unhappy with what she and her husband had done.

Interestingly, Ms. Tuz is on the board of the Saratoga Lake Association (SLA).

According to the SLA website:

“The Saratoga Lake Association is a not-for-profit organization. Its purposes are to promote and enhance the health, safety, sanitation, ecology, recreation and environmental quality of the Saratoga Lake area through education, charitable contributions and environmental action.”

SLA

[JK: Pat Tuz sent me an email explaining her resignation]

Hi John:

On the subject of my resignation, on my part it was planned.  Life’s circumstances got in the way  with our business and a few personal matters, and, as you may know,  the Democratic Committee took a lot of time.   I decided to complete the petitioning process so that I would not leave anyone in the lurch before resigning.  And it was soon enough before the primary so we could give someone else a chance.

I enjoyed the committee very much.  There are a lot of hardworking, dedicated people on it and it was a pleasure to work with them.

Thanks for your interest! 

Pat Tuz

Who’s Next?

The Executive Committee will handle meetings until the right person steps up. It does take a lot of time and commitment so anyone would want to make sure they can make that commitment.

Pat Tuz

The April 4, 2023, Saratoga Springs City Council meeting devolved into a five-hour ordeal of toxic outbursts and recriminations exchanged amongst the Council members themselves and coming from Black Lives Matter members in the audience. Mayor Kim, unable or unwilling to maintain order, empowered the worst behavior from BLM and his colleagues at the table. While Kim’s mismanagement of the meeting was the major factor, his colleagues on the Council must share some of the responsibility for this craziness.

Emblematic of the evening, in a particularly shocking breakdown of decorum and civility, BLM leader Lexis Figureo seized the microphone from Chris Mathiesen as Chris tried to address the Council during the public comment period. In the following video, Mathiesen asks Mayor Kim, “Is this ok with you?” Mayor Kim’s response was to inform Mathiesen that he (Kim) was running the meeting and then to shut down the public comment period. Members of BLM then removed the temporary barrier that separated the Council table from the public seating area and invaded the space adding to the toxic chaos. In fact, one of the BLM people grabbed Public Safety Commissioner Montagnino’s microphone from the Council table and used it to shout epithets.

This city is flirting with real trouble. This aggressive behavior, if unchecked, has the real potential to descend into violence, and yet Mayor Kim and his colleagues at the table that night, with the exception of Commissioner Montagnino who appealed to the Mayor to restore order, sat ineffectually by like bystanders watching a train wreck.

A Pointless Resolution

To understand just how bizarre the evening was, it is important to grasp just how pointless one of the main events on the agenda was. Commissioner Montagnino had brought a complaint of disorderly conduct against BLM member Chandler Hickenbottom following the the shut down of the February 7 City Council meeting after repeated disruptions by BLM members. So the main event at this meeting was the consideration of a resolution offered by Kim that allegedly relieved the city of liability for any litigation resulting from the charges brought against Chandler Hickenbottom (BLM) by Commissioner Montagnino. In addition, because the Council had not formally endorsed Montagnino’s action, the resolution claimed that Montagnino had acted as an individual not as a city official and was therefore not entitled to any coverage for legal costs should he be sued.

State law establishes that elected officials are indemnified for suits related to their office’s duties. The city’s insurance policy covers our elected officials based on this law. This policy would provide money for their representation in court in case of a complaint against them and cover any fines.

The poorly crafted resolution asserted that the Council never authorized Montagnino to bring his action against Hickenbottom and boldly asserted that therefore “…neither Chapter 9 of the City Code nor Section 18 of the Public Officers Law shall apply.” It provided no language from the state law supporting this assertion.

If the New York State Public Officers Law would not cover Montagnino’s liability then he is not covered. If the New York State Public Officers Law does cover Montagnino then he is covered. One way or the other, the resolution is trumped by state law.

So, as Montagnino accurately pointed out during the discussion, the resolution is pointless.

What, then, was the purpose of this resolution?

It was about drama along with petty payback and not the law.

How About Consulting The City’s Insurance Carrier

The primary drafters of this resolution were Kim, his deputy Angela Rella, and Public Works Commissioner Golub. While all three are lawyers, none have any municipal law expertise.

There was a simple way to determine if the action against Montagnino was enforceable. All they had to do was consult the city’s insurance carrier as to our policy.

They didn’t.

Free Speech Suppression?

The proponents of this resolution allege that Chandler Hickenbottom’s free speech had been denied out of some animus based on racism and sexism. In this excerpt, Accounts Commissioner Moran berates Montagnino claiming that Montagnino’s racist rant stopped the February 7 meeting.

What Actually Happened On February 7.

This is a twelve-minute video from the events of February 7, 2023. It was these events that are the basis for both Montagnino’s action and Kim’s resolution. It belies Moran’s intemperate and untrue accusation that Montagnino’s “racist” remarks were what stopped the meeting. Montagnino never spoke during Hickenbottom’s rant.

Speakers at public comment are allowed two minutes. As documented in this video, Ms. Hickenbottom monopolized the microphone for twelve minutes, refusing to adhere to city policy after repeated requests that she give up the microphone to the next speaker. In her comments, she herself observed that she was “going to keep disrupting.”

You might call what Hickenbottom did a form of civil disobedience, but characterizing Ms. Hickenbottom as a victim of speech suppression is a fabrication.

The Council Has Descended To An Unsustainable Low

As bad as past meetings have been, April 4th’s meeting achieved a new low of toxicity and belligerence. Figuereo and his allies continually attempted to interfere with the meeting for four hours, yelling and making thoughtful deliberation by the Council problematic.

The tone and substance of the council members were not much better. The Mayor is unwilling to implement any standard of decorum and civility. In fact, he frequently contributes to the toxic atmosphere that now dominates our City Council.

This Is Not Going To End Well

Given the increasing violence in this country, the grim reality is that the level of unrestrained anger and abuse at the Council table and from the Black Lives Matter people has created a very dangerous environment. There is the real potential for violence if nothing is done to insist on reasonable order and civility. We live in a culture in which the national news is increasingly dominated by random shootings by disturbed people. What happens regularly now at Council meetings is an invitation to disaster.

I attended the April 4, 2023, meeting of the Saratoga Springs City Council. I was continuing my campaign to secure a response as to why the city’s website lacked video and minutes of the March 8, 2023, meeting of the Design Review Board. At the meeting, Commissioner Minita Sanghvi advised me that she had sent me an email the day before regarding the matter. In fact, she had emailed me the evening before, which I admit to having missed.

According to her email, the planning staff person responsible for seeing that the meeting was recorded had retired, and the new person forgot to record the meeting. These individuals work under Mayor Kim, and apparently, Ms. Sanghvi allowed his office to take weeks to supply that answer.

At the meeting, Commissioner Sanghvi was unapologetic. She dismissed that it took two and a half weeks to get a simple answer out of the Mayor’s office by observing that “things take time.” She appeared unphased that the city had violated the New York State Open Meetings Law. It should be noted that if she had acted expeditiously when notified about the missing records by insisting that the planning department post the meeting minutes, she would have avoided violating the NY State Open Meetings Law. Even today (April 5), the minutes are still not posted on the city’s website.

Sanghvi’s Email

Mr. Kaufman, 

We have understood now that because of a retirement in the planning staff, there were human errors in the recording. The person who usually recorded the meetings retired. Someone else was supposed to press record and forgot to do it until 15 minutes into the meeting. They have let us know that they have hired a new person and that the management of the webcast will be the new hire’s responsibility. The planning department have assured us that they will provide detailed minutes for the agenda items that were not recorded. 

IT has been working with the Mayor’s office to figure this out and will continue to help all departments to ensure their meetings are posted on our website.

Have a blessed day! 

Commissioner Sanghvi

The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board (DRB) met on March 8, 2023, to review the applications submitted by city restaurants for outdoor dining, but there is no record that this meeting ever took place. Finance Commissioner Sanghvi, who is responsible for the city’s website where records of meetings are supposed to be made available to the public, seems unconcerned.

The Missing Meeting

I was recently looking for video of the March 8, 2023 Design Review Board meeting for a story I was working on.

There are two places on the city’s website to view videos of public meetings (more on the problem with this design later).

I looked first on the page labeled “Video Archive” on the city’s website. There was an entry for the meeting and a copy of its agenda, but there was no video nor were there minutes posted. [Note: The “Where is it ?” on the shot below is my comment]

I looked next on the webpage called “Live Meetings” , but there was no reference there that any meeting ever even took place on March 8.

A Violation of the Open Meetings Law

I contacted the New York State Committee on Open Government regarding the missing records.

Christen Smith, a senior attorney in that office, responded. Here are relevant excerpts from her emails:

If the municipality has a regularly and routinely updated website and utilizes a high speed internet connection, it would be required to either post its minutes or post an unabridged recording or transcript. However, even when a video or audio recording or written transcript of the meeting is posted, minutes must still be made available within the statutory timeframes to anyone making a Freedom of Information Law request for the minutes.  

Christen Smith, Senior Attorney, Marh 29, 2023

and

In addition to the advice provided, I offer the following opinion. A public body’s failure to post meeting minutes or an audio recording or written transcript of a meeting within two weeks of an open session or one week of an executive session in which action was taken, is inconsistent with the requirements of Section 106(3). I checked the Saratoga Springs Design Review Board section of the City’s webpage before responding to you initially and you are correct that such minutes, records or transcripts have not been posted and it has been more than two weeks since the meeting of concern.

Christen Smith, Senior Attorney, March 29, 2023

It is clear that the failure to properly post the video and/or minutes of the March 8, 2023 DRB meeting violates the New York State Open Meetings Law.

Commissioner Sanghvi Shrugs Off Her Responsibility

Part of Minita Sanghvi’s job as Finance Commissioner is supervision of the IT Department which is responsible for the maintenance of the city website. Commissioner Sanghvi has a history of failing to maintain the website properly and dismissing problems with it when they are brought to her attention.

I emailed Commissioner Sanghvi and advised her that the city’s website was missing the required video and minutes for the March 8, 2023, meeting. I pointed out that the city’s website is the window into city government for the public, and as its manager she is the guardian, a grave responsibility.

I had hoped that she would share my concern about this breakdown and assure me that she would move vigorously to determine why the information was missing, determine who was responsible, and, if possible, find the missing files.

Instead, she sent the following:

---

On Mar 21, 2023, at 5:03 PM, Minita Sanghvi <minita.sanghvi@saratoga-springs.org> wrote:

We’ve reached out to the Mayor’s office. They are looking into it. When I get a response from them, I will update you. 

Commissioner Sanghvi

---

And a week later, I received this from the Commissioner:

---

From: Minita Sanghvi <minita.sanghvi@saratoga-springs.org>
Date: March 27, 2023 at 12:44:10 PM EDT
To: john kaufmann21 <john.kaufmann>
Subject: Re: Video

We have spoken to IT and the Deputy Mayor but they may need to talk to someone in the Planning Department. Perhaps this is something you can take up with the Mayor’s office since Planning is under their purview.
If we hear of anything in the meanwhile, we will update you.

Best, Commissioner Sanghvi

---

I then wrote Commissioner Sanghvi a stronger email reminding her that she was responsible for maintaining the website. I noted that her office is just fifty feet from the Mayor’s office and that her staff includes a deputy, an executive assistant, and an administrative assistant, so it was hard to understand why she would need me to seek information from the Mayor’s office.

What is most disturbing is that she clearly sees this as a matter that concerns me rather than her.

On March 28, she responded as follows:

---

Mr. Kaufmann, 

We will look into this as best we can. And will get back to you when we have another update.  Minita Sanghvi

---

Again it is apparent that she fails to grasp that this is a serious problem that she needs to aggressively address. “As best we can” does not encourage confidence. Readers who follow this blog will recall that Commissioner Sanghvi routinely opines about her championing of transparency, and yet she seems utterly oblivious as to how central maintaining city records of meetings is and the importance of her role in making them available to the public.

As of the date of this post (April 3, 2023) there has been no further response.

Commissioner Sanghvi’s Chronic Failure To Keep The Website Up To Date

The missing DRB meeting records are emblematic of some additional ongoing problems with the availability of records on the city’s website.

I rely heavily on the city’s website for this blog, but more importantly, the public relies on it. If there is a proposed building project in a neighborhood, this site allows homeowners and renters to observe the deliberations of the city’s land-use boards to assess what impact it may have on them. The same is true for the city’s many committees and task forces, as well, of course, for city council meetings.

For as long as I can remember, the public has been able to view videos of past Saratoga Springs city government meetings by clicking on the “web archive” menu on the city’s website. For the past three months, however, videos of recent land use board meetings have only sporadically been posted there and then only when I have complained to Commissioner Sanghvi.

When I originally wrote to Commissioner Sanghvi that I could not find recent meeting videos, she sent me a link that turned out to be to the “Live Meetings” page of the city’s website. Like most innocent users, I had assumed that the purpose of a “Live Meetings” choice was to view a meeting currently in session, and the purpose of the web archive page was to view past meetings. There had been no notice posted alerting the public that videos of past meetings could now be found on the “Live Meetings” page.

When I pointed out to Commissioner Sanghvi the confusion created by duplicate locations with conflicting names, she ignored the potential problem and actually boasted that having the archive on the Live Meetings page was good because it gave users more choices. Except, there isn’t a choice if the archive page is not updated, and the only place to find a video is on the Live Meeting page. The obvious problem is that there is only a choice if you update the archive page when you update the Live Meetings page.

I wrote software for a living, so I have some experience with interface design. Multiple locations for the same activity only work if the website manager rigorously ensures that both locations are properly synchronized.

Commissioner Sanghvi seems to live in a bubble in which unpleasant truths cannot penetrate.

[JK: From Publius (aka Alexander Hamilton)]

Some Modest Recommendations on Restoring City Council Civility and Decorum

Dear John.
I note your recent reports on city council member indiscrete, truculent conduct and you, no doubt, are keenly awaiting my views on the matter.

I know from bitter experience what internecine conflicts can lead to. You will recall that the then long simmering political animus between Vice-President Burr and me did not end well and so I hasten to intervene in the current disputes before it is too late.

Even after all these many years I still have a deep affection for your fair city and fondly remember visiting my father-in-law’s flax mill in what you now know as Schuylerville. And, of course, Madame Jumel’s house still stands on Circular Street. Did you know that my son, Alexander, Jr., represented her when she divorced Burr.

I reference my connection to your beautiful community so you and your readers may know I speak with sincerity. But I digress. Back to the subject at hand.
Your commissioner of public safety and mayor seem to have caused quite a stir by entering into a high profile public dispute with the county district attorney regarding a gun fight on Broadway, a dispute that required the city council to hire outside legal counsel.

Through January the city has been billed $5,057.50 by the E. Stewart Jones firm to draft a Memorandum of Law in opposition to the District Attorney’s motion to restrain the mayor and commissioner.

Then there was the not too subtile suggestion by one council member that another was ‘slurring’ his speech during a public meeting, much other vitriol, and the filing a frivolous charge against a citizen for ‘disrupting’ a council meeting.

Then, of course, you reported on the “Case of the Risk Manager” and her notice of claim against the city. What delicious irony, the official charged with reducing and managing litigation against the city is now cast in the role of complainant in a potential law suit against the city.

And now we learn, quite by accident, of the Case of the Missing Assessor.
And through all of this, the mayor and commissioner have frequently and unilaterally assumed the role of city attorney in matters far and wide. And, in doing so, have affirmed De Britaine’s adage:

“Before you act, it’s Prudence soberly to consider; for after Action you cannot recede without dishonour: Take the Advice of some Prudent Friend; for he who
will be his own Counsellour, shall be sure to have a Fool for his Client.”

I see no happy ending to all this and so I humbly offer a few modest suggestions to restore council decorum and spare the community even further embarrassment, ridicule and additional legal costs.

Let us start with your charter, that flotsam washed up by the 1900 Galveston, Texas, flood. To avoid a repeat of the disruption that has plagued some recent ‘meetings’ I encourage an amendment to City Charter, Title 2.2: City Council and powers. The current language reads:

“Members of the public shall be scheduled to speak at Council meetings at times and in such manner as the Council shall establish. Time shall be allotted at every Council meeting for the public to speak.”

To avoid disruption and maintain decorum, I recommend that the current language be replaced with the following:

“Members of the city council shall be scheduled to speak and conduct public business at times and in such manner as the public in attendance shall establish. However, in no case shall any one commissioner be allotted time in excess of 15 minutes without public consent. The mayor shall be allowed up to 30 minutes.”

“Any commissioner or the mayor may yield any remaining allotted time to any other commissioner or the mayor. Council members who exceed their allotted time may be escorted from the meeting and placed in a penalty box until the meeting is adjourned.”

“Members of the public shall be invited to speak at council meetings following a lottery to be held prior to the council meeting. Each lottery ticket shall include a number and the time allotted to the bearer. Thus, for example, the bearer of ticket number 2 and labelled 5 minutes, will be the second public speaker and allowed up to 5 minutes to address the city council.

“Members of the public who exceed their designated time allowance shall also be escorted from the meeting and placed in the same penalty box reserved for council members.”

“Any council member or member of the public placed in the penalty box may be allowed to berate each other until their release.”

“The League of Women Voters shall administer these regulations and be the final arbiter of their application.”

“Any council member or member of the public placed in the penalty box shall be assessed a $25 fine for the first offense and $50 for eacf successive offense. Collected fines shall be placed in a dedicated account to pay for diplomatic services mandated by new Title 3. B.” (see below)”

This new Title 2.2 will eliminate disruption and promote an open, collegial environment while still allowing spleen venting and catharsis in the penalty box.

You must also examine Title 3, B: Intergovernmental Representation, to avoid costly conflicts with other governmental agencies such as the recent dispute with the county district attorney’s office.

Title 3, B. Intergovernmental Representation should be amended. The current language provides that:

“ The mayor shall represent the Council in negotiations or matters affecting agreements and contracts with neighboring local governmental jurisdictions, or the county, state, or federal governments.”

I suggest the following:
“The city council shall appoint an “diplomatic ambassador at large” to represent it in negotiations and dispute resolution with other governments. Under no circumstances shall the mayor or any commissioner initiate any dispute with any neighboring local governmental jurisdictions, or the county, state, or federal governments without first consulting with the ambassador as to the merits of the council members grievance.”

Finally, I reference and emphasize portions of my Federalist 8: The Consequences of Hostilities Between the States which I submit is equally applicable to intermunicipal matters.

“Our liberties would be a prey to the means of defending ourselves against the ambition and jealousy of each other. It deserves the most serious and mature consideration of every prudent and honest man of whatever party. If such men will make a firm and solemn pause, and meditate dispassionately on the importance of this interesting idea; if they will contemplate it in all its attitudes, and trace it to all its consequences, they will not hesitate to part with trivial objections …”

Your humble reader,

Publius