In Defense of Congresswoman Elise Stefanik Against Fake News
by Publius
Dear John.
I have resisted the temptation to enlighten your good readers, certain members of the newly convened 118th Congress and the majority conference members of the New York State Assembly and Senate regarding the misplaced furor spawned by the seating of now Congressman George Santos.
But the din has become such that I am compelled by patriotic fervor and duty to the country to intervene lest the very integrity of the US House of Representatives be compromised.
Yesterday’s cynical CNN attack on Congresswoman Stefanik simply because she orchestrated the election of Santos was more than I could bear.
As you know, Madison and I wrote rather tautologically, as was our custom, in Federalists 51 – 60, on the authority of the national legislature to regulate, in the last resort, its own members. So it wounds me, almost as much as Burr did, that our efforts seem to have been tossed in history’s dustbin. My Lord, do your 21st Century schools not teach history!
I devoted weeks to Federalist No. 59, which I titled Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members, as an antidote to and a warning against those who would expel on some petty pretense such men as Representative Santos.
Congressman Santos was duly elected, thanks to the overreaching gerrymander of the Democrats in the state legislature and, of course, the endorsement, campaign support, and fundraising acumen of your own Congresswoman Elise Stefanik.
I had anticipated when I penned Federalist No. 59 just such ill-begotten attempts to remove a Santos. Fortunately, I convinced the People of the State of New York then that the power to expel must rest, in the interest of its self-preservation, with the House of Representatives itself
“ … upon the evidence of this plain proposition, that EVERY GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO CONTAIN IN ITSELF THE MEANS OF ITS OWN PRESERVATION. Every just reasoner will, at first sight, approve an adherence to this rule, in the work of the convention; and will disapprove every deviation from it which may not appear to have been dictated by the necessity of incorporating into the work some particular ingredient, with which a rigid conformity to the rule was incompatible.”
So it is that your Speaker McCarthy and Ms. Stefanik must be allowed the means of preserving their majority by resisting those self-servers who would kick Santos to the curb simply because he may have lied, cheated, and stolen his way into the House. When it comes to driving America into default later this year, McCarthy and Stefanik will need all the votes they can garner, and they will be able to rely on Congressman Santos.
But, in my old age, I regress. Let us return to yesterday’s CNN slander of Congresswoman Stefanick, an attack so ugly that it must be met with the strongest retort. In fact, so profane were the accusations against the congresswoman that in my day, a duel (a subject I know much about) to restore her honor would be in order.
While it is true, as CNN reported, that Stefanik was so giddy about the prospect of electing Santos that on August 11, 2021, more than a year before the election, she tweeted out her endorsement of Santos. One of the posts included a link to a WinRed online fundraising page asking for donations that would benefit both her and Santos.
“MAJOR ENDORSEMENT ALERT Excited to endorse my friend and fellow America First conservative George Santos for Congress in #NY03,” Stefanik wrote.
“@Santos4Congress will take on NYC liberal elites and bring a new generation of GOP leadership to NY and America. He has my full support!”
How prescient she was. Santos has only been in office a mere three weeks and has already become a member of the “ … new generation of GOP leadership … “ As a freshman, he dominates every news cycle and was instrumental in elevating McCarthy to House speaker.
Instead of praising Congresswoman Stefanik for her heroic efforts to elect Santos, CNN and other outlets slander her.
But her endorsement of now Congressman Santos was only the beginning.
On May 23, 2022, Stefanik reported on Twitter that she had helped raise more than six figures in campaign cash for Santos.
“WOW! Great lunch event for @Santos4Congress! We raised over $100,000 to help George FLIP #NY03 George has my complete and total endorsement and come November, ”tweeted Stefanik, borrowing the Trumpian phrase. “New Yorkers will send George to Congress! #SaveNewYork #SaveAmerica”
So why is Stefanik now castigated by the fake news for helping #SaveNewYork#SaveAmerica?
John, I hope you will encourage your loyal readers to come to the defense of Congresswoman Stefanik as she leads Santos and others in the never-ending fight for truth, justice, and the American Way.
Thank you for allowing me to get this off my chest.
Saratoga Springs Mayor Ron Kim’s section of the January 3, 2022, Saratoga Springs City Council agenda included an “announcement” regarding paying attorneys representing past Mayor Meg Kelly and past Public Safety Commissioner Robin Dalton. Materials related to the “announcement” included invoices from the respective attorneys. Kim asserted that publishing the invoices was necessitated by his commitment to “transparency.” Unfortunately, this commitment does not extend to the Mayor’s own pursuit of engaging legal counsel.
Kelly and Dalton had secured legal representation after Attorney General Letitia James initiated an inquiry into a number of upstate New York municipalities regarding possible civil rights violations. In the case of Saratoga Springs, the inquiry related to the city’s response to actions taken by the local Black Lives Matter group. James had subpoenaed the cell phone records of Kelly and Dalton and had advised them that they would be deposed.
Kim’s publishing of the invoices from the lawyers was unprecedented as it was not related to any resolution to be adopted by the Council or any other action to be taken.
As Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran pointed out, the Council had previously approved the hourly rate being charged by the attorneys and had authorized paying them up to $10,000 each, although that amount was less than what was now required.
Kim told his colleagues he would be bringing forward a resolution at the next Council meeting to pay the bills. New York State Public Officers’ Law requires that municipalities pay for the legal defense of elected officials should they be subject to legal liabilities associated with actions that had been performed in their official capacities.
Public Safety Commissioner James Montagnino told his colleagues that he would need to review the bills. This seemed most odd as the bills were part of the published agenda. Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran pointed this out to Montagnno, who ignored him.
Department of Public Works Commissioner Jason Golub then offered that “having been a government investigations lawyer for fifteen years, these bills are not unreasonable. Reviewing documents, and preparing depositions take a lot of time, and so a thirty grand bill for two people for several months…I looked at it, and I didn’t find anything that was extreme…for what it’s worth.“
Gollub’s remarks ended the discussion.
Interestingly, the Council’s discussion of Kim’s announcement was unusually bland and thankfully without drama. That was yet to come.
Sloppy Work Violates Privacy
First, it turned out the Mayor had failed to vigorously review the legal invoices before putting them up on the city’s website. They included the home address of Meg Kelly. Kelly’s attorney brought this to the attention of the City Attorney, and the invoices were removed from the city’s website.
“…I will continue to be fully transparent and accountable to Saratogians as to the status of our financial commitment via periodic reports at the City Council meetings.”
TU January 4, 2023
Kim then contended incorrectly that some of the attorney costs were high because Dalton had returned her IPad “mangled” and that the password Dalton provided “didn’t work.”
However,
Dalton said she returned the device as soon as she left office and that she didn’t have a discussion with anyone at City Hall regarding a password. Furthermore, she said, the city is the administrator of the device and could have reset the password and that all the information on it would have been in the server.
TU January 4, 2023
Kim Casts Doubt About Paying Fees
Kim also told Liberatore he was interested in capping the fees the city would pay.
“Obviously, we went above it [JK: The original amount approved by the Council],” Kim said. “Normally, this is not an adversarial process. They [JK: The Attorneys?] provide information and that’s all. But this is turning out to be expensive.”
TU January 4, 2023
The article ended with the following:
When asked if the city will likely have to pay Kelly and Dalton’s legal bill regardless, he said “it’s an open question.”
“It depends on what the AG’s office alleges,” he said.
TU January 4, 2023
These remarks continue Mayor Kim’s regrettable tendency to engage in legal conjecturing untethered to what the law actually requires.
The readers of this blog may recall the debacle when Mayor Kim opposed the city paying the copay for the insurance settlement in the Tim Wales case. This pointless conflict went on for some time. Eventually, despite Kim’s obstinant opposition, payment for the copay was finally authorized by the Council.
A News Story Was Not Enough
But Mayor Kim was not done. The city allows citizens to sign up to receive emails regarding city activities and advisements.
Kim next decided to utilize this vehicle to email his remarks regarding these bills and copies of the invoices to the public. Announcing the bills at a Council meeting, posting them on the city’s website, and going to the press was not enough.
Kim Reneges On His Promise To Authorize Payments Of Bills At January 17, 2023, Council Meeting
For some reason, the Mayor failed to place a resolution to pay the legal bills of Dalton and Kelly on the last (January 17) City Council agenda as he had announced he would do.
Why is anyone’s guess. For the Mayor, the concept of transparency is fluid.
Kim’s Strange Untransparent Request For Quotes (RFQ)
While Kim has claimed his handling of information about Kelly’s and Dalton’s legal bills was all about his commitment to transparency, he has been less than forthcoming about using public money for his legal pursuits.
On January 10, 2023, the Mayor’s office issued a Request for Quotes ( RFQ ) for legal services. The scope of work requested was:
“Responding to a Subpoena Duces Tecum from the Office of the Attorney General in connection with an investigation under New York Executive Law 75(3); and”
“Performing other legal services as assigned.”
As far as I can tell, item #1 has to do with the Attorney General’s office investigating the misconduct of local police forces and other agencies statewide. It requires that the subject of the investigation provide “all required documents.” This is a link to a report produced under this section of law.
As the Mayor does not answer my inquiries, I am unclear, though, exactly why this RFQ was issued and why these tasks could not be handled by the City Attorney. Responses to the RFQ were due by January 17, 2023, which coincidentally was the date of the most recent Council meeting, but none of this was on the Mayor’s agenda.
Has something new developed with the AG investigation?
Has this RFQ some kind of relationship to the Mayor’s issue with paying for Kelly’s and Dalton’s attorneys? Who knows?
Just as odd is the extremely vague and open-ended section of the RFQ which states the Mayor is seeking counsel for “Performing other legal services as assigned.”
As this RFQ has no stated limits regarding what is sought in terms of time or how much money will be spent, it seems to provide the Mayor carte blanche to hire attorneys for whatever purpose he wants.
It would seem that in the interest of “transparency,” the Council would be asked whether they thought the city needed additional legal representation in the form of an RFQ before seeking bids. This is especially appropriate here as the Council might find the lack of limits regarding the scope of work, cost, and duration problematic.
Should the Council decline to approve any agreement growing out of this RFQ, this will do little to improve the city’s growing reputation for the questionable manner with which it handles legal matters.
Would that the Mayor applied his rigorous standards of transparency to his own actions.
I received the following from a group that has recently formed in response to a proposal being developed by the Mayor’s office for, according to the city’s website, a”streetscape improvement project to enhance Saratoga Springs’ signature street-Union Avenue between East Avenue and Circular Street.” There will be a public hearing and a presentation on this proposal at the Tuesday, January 17, City Council meeting.
JK
The Historic Union Avenue Neighborhood Association (HUANA) is a large group of concerned citizens who live on or near Union Avenue. It was specifically formed so that property owners, residents, and businesses could have a voice in any proposed changes to Union Avenue ( the beloved street we call home ).
huanavision@gmail.com
The Saratoga Springs City Council is preparing to vote on a concept that has broad implications for Union Avenue and one that could set an unwanted precedent for other areas of the City.
The “Enhancing Union Avenue” plan was revealed to the public by the city’s Complete Streets Advisory Board at a meeting held at Empire State College last October. It became quickly apparent that the sole focus of the plan was the addition of bike lanes along Union Avenue.
We, the members of the Historic Union Avenue Neighborhood Association, are a group of concerned citizens who live on or near Union Avenue. We assert that no changes to Union Avenue should take place without a comprehensive plan that simultaneously addresses the safety and the historic integrity of this grand boulevard. We further believe that the plan should be developed within a process that allows for detailed discussion with ALL stakeholders, including the New York Racing Association, the National Museum of Racing, the Saratoga Historic Preservation Foundation, Empire State College, the business community, and area residents.
Union Avenue, on the National Register of Historic Places, is a vital gateway to our city and the first impression many have of our beloved town. As noted sportswriter Red Smith once famously said, “From New York City, you drive north for about 175 miles, turn left on Union Avenue, and go back 100 years”. We cannot afford to play high-stakes poker with one of our community’s greatest assets. We respectfully request Mayor Kim and the members of the City Council suspend this project until a comprehensive plan that addresses all concerns and answers all questions is in place.
According to an article in this week’s Saratoga Today, Saratoga Springs Mayor Ron Kim told the paper that Tony Izzo will stay on with the city even though Kim has posted a job vacancy for a City Attorney, a position currently held by Izzo.
“It’s for a new position,” Saratoga Springs Mayor Ron Kim said, adding that longtime current city attorney Tony Izzo will be staying on.
Saratoga Today
My sources indicate that as of Thursday (January 12), the Mayor had still not discussed the solicitation for the position with Mr. Izzo nor explained exactly what Mr. Izzo’s role will be in the future.
There is a certain irony that Mayor Kim was highly critical, upon taking office last year, that the city was paying full and parttime attorneys.
On Friday, January 6, 2023, Saratoga Springs Deputy Mayor Angela Rella delivered the above notice to the City’s Human Resource Office advertising an opening for a City Attorney. The salary for the new City Attorney is listed as $95,000 to $120,000 for an average work week of thirty to forty hours. (It’s a salaried position so what is the story with thirty hours?)
It is unclear what the posting of this position means for the future employment of Tony Izzo, the Saratoga Springs’ current City Attorney.
Neither Kim Nor Rella Bothered To Advise Izzo
After delivering the position posting, Ms. Rella left early on Friday. Izzo only learned about the posting because other people in City Hall happened to see it.
Izzo, who served as the city’s Assistant City Attorney for almost thirty-five years before Ron Kim appointed him City Attorney in early 2022, is well-known and well-liked in City Hall.
Neither Mayor Ron Kim nor his Deputy Angela Rella had the courtesy of meeting with Tony Izzo to inform him of his status which now seems to be up in the air with this posting.
Commissioner Sanghvi’s “Right Sizing” Budget
A look at how Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi has designated money for City Attorney positions makes this situation particularly confusing. There is $93,600 for a City Attorney in the current 2023 city budget that was adopted in November. Tony currently fills this position. Finance Commissioner Sanghvi also set aside another $70,000 for a City Attorney in an attachment to the budget.
Finance Commissioner Sanghvi set aside money outside of the 2023 budget for six new positions in the city. One of these six positions is identified as being for a City Attorney. Money for these new positions was allegedly not included in the city’s budget because it was supposedly unclear as to when these new positions would be filled.
The use of this device conveniently minimized the size of the budget increase from 2022 for the Mayor’s office as it did not include money for another City Attorney nor the funding for a second new position in his office.
This budgeting device is often used when estimating a starting date for a position is hard to predict. It is useful if filling a position first requires the candidate to acquire special training, for instance at the Police Academy, and it is unclear when that training could occur.
In the case of hiring another City Attorney this makes little sense, though, especially since the position was quickly advertised at the beginning of this budget year.
Why Commissioner Sanghvi did not just include the position in the regular budget is unclear.
Current City Attorney Izzo’s Status
It is unclear what the status of current City Attorney Tony Izzo is now.
Are we going to have two attorneys on staff again even though Kim began his term in office swearing the city didn’t need any City Attorneys? Is Tony Izzo going to be demoted? Is he going to be terminated? Where does Tony Izzo fit into this configuration? Who knows? There is only silence from the Mayor’s office.
It’s About Human Decency
The idea that neither Kim nor Rella bothered to inform Izzo on Friday of the posting for a City Attorney position is just shameful. Kim has every right to employ whomever he wants as the City Attorney, but his office also has a responsibility to treat Tony Izzo with respect and courtesy by making clear to him what his status is or will be.
City Morale
This incident was not an anomaly. It is reflective of an attitude that pervades City Hall these days. Employees are routinely ignored or dealt with rudely particularly by Mayor Kim and Public Safety Commissioner Montagnino. The treatment of Izzo simply amplifies publicly what is going on in City Hall daily under the current administraion.
Apparently, three public hearings were supposed to be held at the January 3, 2023, Saratoga Springs City Council meeting. For some reason, only one was listed when the agenda appeared on the city’s website, but all three took place anyway.
According to an opinion offered by City Attorney Tony Izzo at the Council meeting, if the city publishes a legal notice for a hearing in an area newspaper, the city can go ahead and hold the hearing even if the hearing notice does not appear on that meeting’s agenda. I know that I do not have the time to scour the legal notices in newspapers every day to educate myself as to what business will be transacted at City Council meetings. I rely on the agenda published on the city’s website.
On the agenda for the January 3, 2023, meeting, only one hearing was listed. As the following videos document, City Attorney Tony Izzo is called to the microphone and assures the Council that because the legal notices in the newspapers were published, the Council can ignore the fact that they were not all on the agenda published on the city’s website.
The Mayor’s office is responsible for putting the Council’s agenda together. Of course, no one on the Council asks how the items were left off the agenda and what actions the Mayor’s office will take to ensure this doesn’t happen again. Nor did Mayor Kim apologize for the lack of transparency about the evening’s agenda.
The Mayor’s Office Couldn’t Even Get All the Legal Notices Up Properly
To add insult to injury, not only wasn’t a public notice of the hearings put on the agenda but it turns out the city also failed to correctly publish the legal notice for one of the three hearings.
As Izzo is explaining how the Council can proceed with the hearings, a voice from off-camera advises him that he is wrong about the publishing of the three hearings because one of the legal notices was late.
Izzo apologizes, saying he was misinformed.
Again, no one on the Council asks how this happened and what procedures will be implemented to avoid this in the future.
The Mayor never acknowledges the failure of his office in this matter and simply proceeds with the meeting as though there were no issues.
Complicating matters was a confusing discussion about which hearing wasn’t properly noticed. I have listened to the video repeatedly, and I have been unable to figure out how the Council still had three hearings when the legal notice for one was not published in time.
The Mayor Seems Oblivious To The Importance of the Agenda
The Mayor’s cavalier attitude to failing to effectively notify the public regarding public hearings is very troubling. I distinguish here between what is legal and what is effective. It may be legal to have a hearing without it being published in the city’s agenda, but no one can reasonably argue that the public was provided with an effective notice.
Part Of A Broader Problem
This Council has an unprecedented number of last-minute additions regularly added to their agendas during meetings. Such an occurrence was rare in past administrations.
Agenda items are only supposed to be added during a Council meeting because they are so urgent they cannot wait until the next scheduled meeting. Our charter allows for new items to be added but requires a public explanation as to why they were added at the last minute and requires a vote by the Council to allow the item.
This Council never requires a member to defend a last-minute addition to the agenda.
This repeated abuse of adding items at the last minute deprives the public of knowing before the meeting what the Council plans to act on.
With respect, Mayor Kim constantly talks about transparency but demonstrates an unfortunate selectivity in his application of this important value.
When Is a Contract Not a Contract?
Since the Council did away with their pre-agenda meeting this month, another embarrassing item slipped onto the Mayor’s agenda. Item three on Kim’s agenda called for a discussion and vote to authorize the Mayor to sign a lease agreement with the Saratoga County Arts Council. Unfortunately, no such organization exists as their new name is Saratoga Arts Inc. As an attorney (as the Mayor so often reminds us), you’d think Kim would understand the importance of having the correct title on a lease agreement. So while the Council approved a lease with an organization that does not exist (Saratoga County Arts Council), there is currently no legal agreement with Saratoga Arts Inc. Maybe they’ll get it right at the next meeting?
document format with electronic device vector illustration design
New York State requires political candidates to periodically file reports with the New York State Board of Elections disclosing contributions they receive and expenditures they make. Saratoga Springs Mayor Ron Kim has repeatedly failed to file the reports as required.
Readers may recall that Ron Kim failed to report the required financial information to the New York State Board of Elections (BOE) in 2021 when he ran for office. As reported on this blog, he alleged that he had sent the BOE the required information but that a technical problem at the state Board of Elections was why his report did not appear on the BOE website. At the time, I contacted the state BOE, and they assured me that if he had submitted his report electronically as required, it would have been posted on their website. They assured me they were not experiencing any technical problems.
I recently visited the BOE website to check on Kim’s reporting on contributions and expenditures for 2022. There were none. I know he had at least one fundraiser this year. Even if he received no contributions, he was required to report on any expenditures. He had to have spent at least some money to have organized his fundraisers.
Saratoga Springs Public Safety Commissioner James Montagnino and Mayor Ron Kim’s thirst for media coverage has prompted them to use the most intemperate language in their continuing conflict with Saratoga County District Attorney Karen Heggen. This last week (December 18-24), they have been especially shrill.
Their willingness to throw thousands of dollars into vanity suits is emblematic of their thoughtless mismanagement of our city and taxpayer dollars.
A Lost Opportunity To Resolve The Controversy Between the DA’s Office And Mayor Kim and Commissioner Montagnino
In contrast, Saratoga County DA Karen Heggen’s remarks to the media have been temperate and professional, and she has repeatedly reached out to Mayor Kim and the City Council to try to resolve their differences.
Regrettably, her efforts have been ignored in spite of a December 6, 2022, resolution passed unanimously by the Council that directed Commissioner Montagnino, Deputy Mayor Angela Rella, and City Attorney Tony Izzo to meet with her as she had asked. The purpose of the meeting was to be to discuss the temporary restraining order issued against them after Kim and Montagnino held a controversial press conference following the shootings on Broadway. Readers may remember that at that Council meeting, the Mayor announced that he would write to the DA to arrange the conference.
The Poorly Timed Letter
Several weeks later, it came to light that not only had no meeting taken place as directed by the Council, but no one had even contacted the DA. This should have been embarrassing to the Mayor.
On December 19, 2022, some two weeks later, and with just three days until the hearing before the judge to review the temporary restraining order, Tony Izzo sent the letter below, finally asking for a time for the meeting.
Unfortunately, it was sent via the U.S. Postal service. Not surprisingly, it arrived at the DA’s office on December 23, which, of course, was the day after the scheduled hearing before Judge Freestone for the temporary restraining order.
Given how late this letter was in being drafted, one would have expected that it would have been sent via email or hand-delivered. That, of course, would have implied that there was a serious interest in actually meeting.
Here is a copy of the letter.
Mayor Kim’s New Explanation
In the December 23, 2022, edition of the Daily Gazette, Mayor Kim offered yet another explanation as to why they had not met with the DA in spite of the direction of the Council to do so.
“Kim said Wednesday evening the city was unable to have discussions with Heggen because it needed to secure outside counsel first which is a “difficult process.”
Daily Gazette
So he alleges they could not meet without a lawyer? Of course, the city has an attorney. In fact, all three representatives of the city who were to meet with Heggen are attorneys.
Readers may recall that at the December 6 Council meeting, where the Council directed that the meeting be set up, not only was there no mention of the need for outside counsel, the discussion emphasized the need for an informal and non-confrontational approach to try to resolve their differences.
If the Mayor had advised his colleagues on a timely basis that he would be unable to arrange the meeting due to a lack of counsel, this recent explanation might enjoy some credibility. He didn’t. In fact, he never communicated this rationale to the Council at all –unless you consider the story in the Gazette a legitimate vehicle for updating his colleagues.
There’s A Consistent Theme Here
I wrote about the failure of Mayor Kim and Commissioner Montagnino to carry out the wishes of the Council in a previous post, so I am not going to go through the full history again here.
I can only observe that, whether officially directed to or not, typically, most officials would have felt impelled to respond to the DA’s repeated requests to meet to at least maintain the appearance of being reasonable and civil, even if they had no intention of really engaging in a productive dialog at the meeting. It is a testament to both Kim and Montagnino’s narcissism that they have instead simply ignored the requests.
Heggen Shifts
In the meantime, the DA’s office has hired outside counsel and altered its legal strategy. They notified Supreme Court Judge Dianne Freestone that they would allow the temporary restraining order to expire. They have now brought a new action called an article 78.
This new action narrows the focus to just Kim and Montagnino rather than all city employees and Council members. The restrictions on Kim and Montagnino would end in 60 days or once a grand jury has completed its work in determining whether to charge anyone in the November 20 shootout.
Heggen’s Offer
In addition to bringing the Article 78 lawsuit, attorney Karl Sleight on behalf of the DA, sent a letter to the city dated December 20, 2022, offering a simple solution to resolve the DA’s concerns.
Basically, it requested that the city follow the police department’s manual, which requires that the police chief have the sole responsibility to manage the release of information to the media during ongoing investigations.
Prior commissioners have uniformly followed this policy and supported this role for the police chief.
Montagnino has responded by attempting to confuse the issue by asserting that the police department manual is only relevant to the internal workings of the police department. As an elected official, even though he oversees the police department, he asserts that it does not cover him. He claims the right to disregard the manual.
The real question, which he would like to avoid, is not whether he is personally required to follow the manual but whether the requirement that the chief manages the release of information of an ongoing investigation is a good policy that should be followed.
Sleight’s letter again stated the DA’s desire to meet with representatives of the city.
The Belittling Of The Police Chief
Unfortunately, none of the media has asked the basic question, which is, why not allow the police chief to assume his historic role as the gatekeeper for information regarding ongoing investigations? Our chief has decades of experience to draw on.
What is the problem? Why not honor the DA’s request?
At the risk of sounding snarky, I believe the primary reason that Montagnino and Kim marginalize the city’s police chief is that they want the media coverage for themselves. They also have an exaggerated faith in their own expertise. Who needs a police chief when you have Montagnino and Kim available?
Being Right Legally Does Not Mean Litigation Is The Best Way Forward
When Jane and I built the addition to our home, the company that was supposed to tile the floor did a miserable job. The tiles were canted and uneven. The resin they used failed (fortunately), and the tiles were not secured to the floor.
We considered suing the company, but the cost of a lawsuit exceeded the cost of redoing the floor.
So the point is that being right legally does not always make it smart to litigate. The cost/benefit issue does not seem to concern Kim and Montagnino when it’s the public’s money they are spending.
Montagnino and Kim Are Happy To Spend Your Tax Dollars
I do not know who will prevail in the most recent lawsuit between the city and the DA.
Among the DA’s arguments are that improperly releasing evidence jeopardizes the right of defendants to a fair trial as required by our Constitution. She argues that such actions jeopardize her ability to enforce the law to protect our citizens from criminals.
Montagnino and Kim contend that elected officials have the authority to determine what the citizens need to know and that they were simply exercising their Constitutional right to free speech by releasing evidence and discussing the shootout.
Who would legally prevail is important, but if the central issue is, as they claim, the need to inform the public regarding the shootout, which I think it should be, then why not allow the police chief to carry out his duties as proscribed in the police manual and move on? Is the police chief not capable of carrying out his duties?
Adding to the dubious need to litigate is that DA Heggen is only seeking restraint until the grand jury completes its work on the case which should be in the near future.
I know that Montagnino and Kim were stung and embarrassed by the judge’s decision to issue a restraining order. They would very much like to prove to the public that they were right and the DA and the judge were wrong. It is now clear that they are ready to spend as much as it may cost of city money to litigate.
I doubt very much that they would indulge themselves in this kind of litigation if they had to pay for it themselves, but they are perfectly happy to spend the public’s money.
As Finance, Commissioner Minita Sanghvi is supposed to be the gatekeeper for the city’s money. As such, she should at least have urged caution in pursuing litigation while other options were available. Unfortunately, she was the swing vote to authorize Kim and Montagnino to engage yet another law firm to pursue their vanity suits.
Other Damage To Consider
During all of this, the DA has demonstrated professional restraint. Her correspondence to the Council has been sober and conciliatory. Her comments to the press have been free of invective.
In contrast, Kim and Montagnino have engaged in the most intemperate, shrill personal attacks on DA Heggen.
Consider these remarks by Montagnino as reported by the television station WRGB.
“This is a shameless abuse of our legal system and an embarrassment for the people of Saratoga County. More than a month has past since the shooting incident on Broadway. Despite the fact that the crime was captured by multiple high-definition cameras, not a single arrest has been made and not a single charge has been filed. It’s time for the DA to end the partisan political sideshow and either do her job or ask that a special prosecutor be appointed to do it for her.”
Commissioner Montagnino to WRGB
Mayor Kim has made similar statements.
Commissioner Montagnino and Mayor Kim, There Is Something Called a Grand Jury.
Would that it were all as easy as Montagnino and Kim would have us think.
In the state of New York, grand juries are required in cases where a person is charged with a felony.
Indictments are handed down by the Grand Jury. As the jury of inquiry, the Grand Jury hears the evidence against the defendant presented by the prosecutor and decides if the evidence presented is sufficient for an indictment.
NYS Unified Court System
Both Kim and Montagnino are attorneys. Montagnino lists in his biography that at some point in his career, he was actually a prosecutor of some kind.
They should know that to pursue a felony case, a grand jury must first issue an indictment.
The cynicism of his and Kim’s attacks on Heggen is breathtaking both in terms of their vitriol and in terms of their cavalier misrepresentations. What makes great sound bites does not make responsible law enforcement.
Securing an indictment and then a conviction that will withstand an appeal is a serious and demanding business that takes time. It involves the methodical gathering of evidence and the interviewing of witnesses. It involves the careful and challenging determination of what specific charges to bring before the grand jury once the investigation has been completed. Haste must be restrained in the interest of thoroughness to be successful.
We know very little about exactly what occurred the night of the shootout, as Montagnino should well realize. While the video evidence makes clear who fired the guns, it does not tell us how this all arose. Was the deputy sheriff defending himself, or did his actions precipitate the violence? Who was involved in this altercation, if anyone, beyond the two men who fired the guns? Were the men properly permitted to carry guns?
Both men involved in the shootout have been seriously injured. They represent no ongoing threat to public safety.
Of course, Kim and Montagnino never entertain the possibility that their actions in holding a press conference within 12 hours of the shooting might have contributed to how long the process of getting an indictment takes.
Accusing Heggen of some kind of malfeasance because there have not as yet been charges and arrests, as Montagnino and Kim have done, is the worst kind of cheap politics.
A responsible prosecutor is not bullied into rushing, and a responsible elected official would not exploit people’s ignorance by pressing for actions, which for the case to be successful, he knows must be done properly and take time. A responsible city official would urge the public to be patient and let law enforcement do its job.
Yet More Money For Outside Counsel
I understand that Mayor Kim has now asked the outside counsel who the city has hired to work on this case to pursue recovering their attorney fees. Attorneys I have spoken with are skeptical as regards the city’s chances for success in this.
Of course, the city is now paying for this legal work as well.
These Chickens Are Going To Come Home
This is not the first time Kim has squandered public money on unnecessary litigation and engaged, along with Montagnino, in intemperate public rants. This pattern, coupled with the attack on the city’s insurance carrier by trying to block the settlement in the Wales case and refusing to pay them the deductible the city owed, sends the worst possible message to the insurance companies who underwrite the city.
What insurance company would want to underwrite a city that demonstrates the excesses of Montagnino and Kim?
Actions have consequences, and I believe that this city is going to find that convincing future insurers to underwrite the city is going to become increasingly challenging.
Trouble is on the way.
Poisoning Public Discourse
Most people would like their public officials to act with dignity and grace. Our politics are already stressed, as evidenced by the culture wars in Washington, D.C.
Taunting the DA through the media, as Montagnino and Kim have been doing, may get them on television, but it only contributes to the deterioration of our political discourse.
[JK: This is a guest post by Chris Mathiesen. He served three terms as Saratoga Springs Public Safety Commissioner from January, 2012, to December, 2017.]
The proposal put forth by Commissioner Montagnino to have the City Council endorse the practice of regularly commenting on liquor license renewals and new applications for on-premise sales is not without merit. It is a way of slowly, incrementally achieving the goal of attaining an earlier last call hour. A better solution would be for more responsible regulations to be set City-wide, county-wide or state-wide but that apparently is not possible at this time.
Since November of 1993, the SLA has utilized a 500 Foot Law which applies to establishments that are located within a distance of 500 feet from three other businesses licensed for on-premise alcohol sales. All of the establishments serving alcohol in the very unique Caroline Street-Putnam Street-Maple Avenue area are within 500 feet of at least three other similar businesses. They are all in violation of the 500 Foot Law.
The obvious rationale for the 500 Foot Law is that it becomes much more difficult to oversee and control the licensed businesses if there is an over- concentration of such establishments. Caroline Street has become the prime example in New York State for what can go wrong when there are too many bars with too many intoxicated patrons being served too late in a very focused zone.
In New York State, the standards for new licenses to serve alcohol are more stringent if those businesses violate the 500 Foot Law. The SLA will only issue these licenses if it is determined that it is in the public interest to do so. The considerations include:
The number, classes and character of other premises not only in the area of the proposed establishment but also in the particular municipality.
The impact on the existing noise level.
The history of ABC violations and reported criminal activity at the location.
Any other factor specified by law or regulation that would be relevant to deciding whether public interest would be served by granting the application.
The 500 Foot Law requires that the SLA consult with the municipality and conduct a hearing to gather facts to determine whether public interest would be served by issuing the license. In situations where there is opposition to an application, applicants may come to an agreement on stipulations concerning the operation of the establishment such as closing hours, live entertainment, etc.
Saratoga Springs has a major role in helping to determine whether an applicant in violation of the 500 Foot Law can get a license to serve alcohol and what conditions might be imposed on that applicant. Protecting the reputation of the City, the level of peace and tranquility afforded neighboring residents and businesses, and public safety would all be important factors for the SLA to consider.
As opposed to new applications, renewals of licenses to serve alcohol for applicants in violation of the 500 Foot Law do not automatically meet the same level of scrutiny or process. However, Commissioner Montagnino’s suggestion that letters be submitted to the SLA requesting an earlier closing hour would have an impact on the regulators. Any history of problems related to establishments due for renewal would be pertinent, including violations of local laws as well as the Alcohol Beverage Control Laws. The SLA does have the authority to impose earlier closing hours and other restrictions on renewals in response to the City’s public safety concerns if they can be substantiated.
I have met with the SLA a number of times. They are acutely aware of the Caroline Street problems and they were an important resource for me when I was Commissioner of Public Safety. I am sure that they will continue to cooperate with Commissioner Montagnino in trying to solve a situation that has only gotten worse.
The most recent Saratoga Springs City Council meeting again lasted almost five hours, beginning at 6:45PM and ending just before midnight. It is yet another example of Mayor Kim’s inability to efficiently carry out city business. I will be writing more about the December 20,2022, Saratoga Springs City Council meeting, but Foothills Business Daily (FBD) has published a brief and informative article on the meeting.
DA Heggen Lets Temporary Restraining Order Expire but Moves for Other Legal Action Against Montagnino and Kim
Saratoga County District Attorney Karen Heggen has moved not to continue the temporary restraining order granted by Supreme Court Justice Diane Freestone in the wake of Mayor Kim’s and Commissioner Montagnino’s press conference after the November 20 shoot out on Broadway in downtown Saratoga Springs. This is an excellent piece by FBD on Heggen’s most recent actions in the controversy.
Stephen Thurston, the publisher and author of the Foothills Business Daily, does an excellent job covering local current events. I often rely on his coverage for my blog.
If we want the news media to help us understand local politics, we need reliable sources of information, and FBD is such a resource.
While the basic edition is free, some stories require subscribing to his website for additional information. I urge those who can afford it to support Steve by subscribing.
His Substack page replaced the old email system, and anyone can sign-up to receive the daily emailed updates for free. Some posts are placed behind a paywall, and people interested in a subscription should click this link. The main website, foothillsbusinessdaily.com, is free.
Full access is $5 per month, $36 for a full year, or $60 if you want to be extra special nice and get a full year.
Saratoga Springs Politics 