At Mayor Ron Kim’s request, the Saratoga Springs City Council passed a resolution at their August 2, 2022, meeting authorizing Kim to write to the Judge in the Tim Wales case asking her to explain the deductible the city was being asked to pay to Travelers Insurance for the settlement of the case.
Instead, Kim sent the following letter to the judge asking for the case to be reinstated and for a meeting.
Judge D’Agostino granted Mayor Kim’s request for a conference and met with the parties including Kim on August 11,2022.
I have been told by several attorneys that Judge Mae D’Agostino is highly respected in the legal community.
The following is a web page from the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF). It is used by the federal courts for, among other things, providing public access to its activities.
This page records the progression of the Wales case ending with a description of the conference Judge D’Agostino held with Kim, Kevin Laurilliard, who had represented Tim Wales, and John Aspland, who had represented the city in the case.
The account of the meeting given here is brief. I take it from “The matter remains settled” that the Judge advised Mayor Kim that the case is closed and will not be reopened despite his request.
“The Mayor seems to agree and understands the terms – the mayor was seeking additional information regarding the settlement, which this Court does not have.”
I conjecture from this that Kim seemed to understand the settlement but was still seeking information about the deductible and the significance of the fact that the Council never voted to approve the settlement.
If this is the case, it would not be surprising that he was told by the court (the judge) that it does not have this information.
At the risk of appearing snarky, of course the judge does not have this information. The terms of the agreement between the city and its insurer have nothing to do with what transpired in the court case.
Any conflict between the city (the Mayor) and its insurer will have to be resolved between those parties.
I have FOILed the court for the complete transcript of the meeting. I was told that the transcript was not sealed, so it should be available. When I receive it, I will post it on this blog.
From Left to Right: Moran, Sanghvi, Kim, Golub, Montagnino
The nearly four-hour August 2, 2020, City Council meeting was marked by confusion and hysterical, baseless allegations against a fellow Council member and a long-time city employee made by Mayor Kim, Public Safety Commissioner Montagnino, and Finance Commissioner Sanghvi. The meeting exposed the fact that these three elected officials do not understand the terms of the insurance policy that protects the city from lawsuits and that they have been unwilling to perform the due diligence necessary to learn about it. Their comments at this meeting also showed that they are embarrassingly ignorant of the city’s process for authorizing the payments of the city’s bills and of their responsibilities for monitoring the payments of these bills. These officials conjured up conspiracies where there were none at the expense of Marilyn Rivers, the city’s Director of Risk and Safety, who has served this city honorably for almost twenty years.
The kerfuffle arose over the payment of a deductible to the city’s insurance company for the settlement of a lawsuit brought against the city in 2020. Mayor Kim, Commissioner Montagnino, and Commissioner Sanghvi are apparently ignorant of the city’s agreement with Travelers Insurance Company that covers lawsuits brought against the city. The insurer has billed the city for a $25,000.00 deductible in the recently settled case. Instead of acknowledging the need to pay the charge, the three launched into an ugly attack at the August 2, 2022, meeting, making unsubstantiated allegations that there was some kind of conspiracy to secretly get the city to pay $25,000.00 toward the settlement, claiming untruthfully at times that they didn’t even know the case had been settled. The toxic discussion was rampant with dark references to unnamed persons attempting some sort of coverup. Despite Accounts Commissioner Moran’s urgent assertions that the bill was legitimate and needed to be paid, the three refused to acknowledge the city’s contractual obligation.
Adding to the madness, Mayor Kim got his colleagues at the table to authorize him to write to the insurer, the attorney who litigated the case on behalf of the city, and to the judge in the case, Justice Mae D’Agostino, “…asking them for a detailed explanation of how this deductible arose, why we were not informed [we had to] to pay $25,000.00.”
I am happy to answer Mayor Kim’s questions:
Mayor Kim, the attorney in the case advised you that there had been a $100,000.00 settlement. It was reasonably assumed that you would be aware that in the event of a settlement, your agreement with the insurer required the city to pay a deductible of up to $25,000.00.
If you were surprised to be told that there was a deductible, it was incumbent on you to either review the agreement yourself or to have the City Attorney do so.
It is hard to understand how you would engage in a public controversy over the matter before educating yourself on the contents of the city’s agreement with the insurer.
Here is the video of Mayor Kim asking for approval for the letter he wants to write and denying that a deductible is part of the city’s contract with Travelers. Accounts Commissioner Moran tries unsuccessfully to set him straight. Kim also inadvertently acknowledges that he was actually advised of the settlement in an email he received from the lawyer who litigated the case.
The letter Kim sent did not adhere to the resolution the Council adopted but instead asked the judge to “…reinstate this case and set a time for a conference with the parties.” This failure by the Mayor to properly carry out a resolution passed by the Council would normally be considered a serious breach, but very little this Mayor and Council do these days seems normal anymore.
Jeopardizing the City’s Insurance
During the Council meeting, Mayor Kim not only repeatedly complained about paying the deductible owed to the insurance company, he also attacked the settlement reached in the case. He claimed the city should not have to pay anything. In a piece of demagoguery, Kim indignantly appealed to the public, telling them the settlement was costing “you” $25,000.00.
Aside from being baseless, this was a gratuitous and reckless public attack on the city’s insurer. It is reasonable to assume that Travelers will be most unhappy that the city is unwilling to abide by their contract and pay them. It is reasonable to assume they will not be happy being accused in the Capital District media of failing to protect the city.
This is a total mess and completely unnecessary. It remains to be seen how Travelers will react to the Mayor’s accusations. Several attorneys who practice law involving insurance companies told me that they believe this could lead to Travelers dropping the city’s coverage in the future.
Some History
So what is the story behind this settlement that is causing so much consternation at the Council table?
In March of 2020, Tim Wales, who had worked in the Public Works Department as the city’s engineer, sued the city, claiming he had been wrongfully terminated. Mr. Wales had been fired for alleged abusive behavior. Wales claimed that he had been terminated because he had supported Dillon Moran’s 2019 campaign for Commissioner of Public Works against then Commissioner of Public Works, the late Skip Scirocco.
Mr. Wales lost his lawsuit before the U.S. District Court, Northern Division of New York, along with his appeal to the Appellate Division’s Third Judicial Department. He then sued again in federal court. Regrettably, before this suit could go to trial, the two key witnesses (Skip Scirocco and Jen Merriman) died. Without these witnesses, the attorneys representing the city decided to settle the case for $100,000.00.
This settlement triggered the city’s obligation to pay its insurer, Travelers, a $25,000.00 deductible.
In June, I wrote about Mayor Kim’s false claim that the insurer was required to seek city approval for any settlement. The city’s contract with its insurer, Travelers, is quite clear. The agreement with the insurance company the city has contracted with cedes all authority over handling suits (including frivolous ones) to the insurer. For this authority, the insurer agrees to accept all legal costs in defending the city and to pay any settlement reached by the parties or any award from a trial. As the insurer is burdened with the high costs of attorney fees and paying the bulk of any settlement or judgment, they understandably require having exclusive control over any litigation. This approach is standard for the insurance industry.
In fact, the city’s attempt to interfere in the settlement demonstrates why the insurer requires sole control over the litigation.
As documented in the video clip below, Kim cited the fact that the city had prevailed in the original suit and in the appeal of the suit (Kim inaccurately referred to the latter as arbitration) as evidence that the settlement was unnecessary, ignoring, as stated earlier, that the two key witnesses against Wales are now deceased. I will leave the readers to consider how Mayor Kim thinks he is qualified to weigh in on this case.
The contract between Travelers and the city requires the insurer to pay the full cost of settlements and judgments. In turn, the city must expeditiously pay its deductible to the insurer.
The contract between Travelers Insurance and the city reads:
“If we [Travelers] settle a claim or “suit” for damages, or pay a judgement for damages awarded in a “suit,” that are subject to a deductible, we may pay any part or all of the deductible amount. You [the city] will promptly reimburse us for such part of the deductible amount as we have paid.”
Insurance Contract Signed By City
“If you do not reimburse us [Travelers] for a deductible amount and we are awarded the deductible amount we sought, or any part of that amount in any legal proceeding against you, you agree to pay us the amount of the award and the following:
a. Our deductible recovery expenses; and
b. Interest, from the date of the notice of payment to you on the deductible awarded to us.”
Insurance Contract Signed By City
The Consent Agenda
At the August 2 meeting, much was made of the fact that the authorization for payment of the deductible was included in the city’s “consent agenda.” This was a sure sign for Kim, Montagnino, and Sanghvi that some nefarious plot was underway to sneak the insurance deductible payment through without their knowledge.
(Among the errors in Kim’s remark was his reference to an “arbitrator” when it was the New York State Court of Appeals)
The consent agenda is a tool used to streamline meeting procedures by collecting routine, non-controversial items into a group whereby all are passed with a single motion and vote. This method has grown in popularity in recent years and there are many variations on the theme to meet specific needs.
SVSU
The city has adopted no formal rules of its own as to what items should go on a consent agenda. Instead, the city relies on the vaguely defined definition in Roberts Rules of Order.
The city packages the vast bulk of its outstanding bills each month into its consent agenda, allowing the Council to authorize payments in one resolution. The August consent agenda ran some eighty-two pages listing all the bills to be paid. If the Council had to approve each payment separately, it would take a great deal of unnecessary time. As discussed in the white paper linked above, efficiency is the driving force.
To be included on the consent agenda, the invoices to be paid must reference the line item in the city budget from which the funds for the bill will be drawn. In addition, every bill must have adhered to the city’s procurement requirements.
There is extensive evidence that the city has routinely included the payment of insurance deductibles on the consent agenda. A cursory search showed that the payment of insurance deductibles was authorized through the consent agenda at Council meetings on October 1, 2015, December 4, 2017, and July 7, 2020.
They have been included in the consent agenda because, up until the August 2 meeting, previous administrations have seen nothing controversial regarding the city’s obligation to pay these deductibles.
1. The city had properly executed contracts with the insurer for the service (litigation liabilities).
2. The insurer had fulfilled its duty to represent the city in litigation.
3. The insurer had documented the total cost of the settlements to the city and appropriately invoiced the city for their share (the deductible).
With a saner Council, paying the deductible would not be controversial. The city has a signed agreement that requires it to pay the deductible. End of story. Previous Councils understood that their contract with Travelers required payment, so there was no point in making it a special, separate agenda item. There was nothing really to discuss. The city had to pay the bill.
Montagnino Is Wrong About the Consent Agenda
The consent agenda is not just for minor expenses, as Montagnino and Kim claim in these video excerpts from the Council meeting. It is not just for “mops and buckets.” As noted earlier in this post, it is for all expenses that have been properly funded by the Council and have met the procurement requirements.
At one point in the video, Commissioner Sanghvi asks why she had to put an item for $20 on her department’s agenda rather than include it in the consent agenda. Her question demonstrated her basic misunderstanding of the consent agenda. The purchase of the item she referenced had violated the city’s procurement policies and so could not be included in the consent agenda. The Council was required to act on it separately.
Having been in office for seven months, the fact that neither Montagnino nor Sanghvi nor Kim (who previously served two terms on the Council) understand how the items that go on the consent agenda are selected, is quite a sad and troubling admission.
Similarly, Montagnino’s assertion that only minor items are supposed to go on the consent agenda is demonstrably false.
Consider that the city’s payroll of over one million dollars is on the consent agenda. A payment request for $702,165.28 to Amsure for insurance is on that consent agenda.
Or consider these two pages from the warrants for the consent agenda.
This highlighted service contract is not a minor expense at $15,771.00. It is for a service that was properly contracted for and apparently delivered similar to the legal insurance deductible.
This payment of $489,517.94 was apparently for a capital project that had been properly contracted for by the Council and carried out consistent with the agreement. Again, basically the same as the insurance deductible.
No one would characterize these expenses as minor purchases.
Montagnino’s self-righteous rant is so clearly false that it is rather stunning and embarrassing. I guess he thought that no one else would actually look at the documents he was talking about.
The Consent Agenda and Due Diligence: Montagnino Complains about What, in Fact, He Is Responsible for Doing
In a bizarre twist to this story, Commissioner Montagnino bitterly and unashamedly complained that because of an alleged conspiracy to use the consent agenda to hide an allegedly inappropriate bill, he would now be burdened by having to scrutinize all the items in the consent agenda in the future. In effect, he admitted he had been failing in his fiduciary responsibility for the previous seven months. (see video).
Commissioner Montagnino appears unaware that he or his Deputy is supposed to review the consent agenda before it comes before the Council for a vote and not just blindly approve it.
The fact that the consent agenda combines most of the city’s outstanding bills does not relieve the City Council members from reviewing the items on the consent agenda. After all, Council members must go on record with their vote approving the payment of the bills. I spoke to past members of the Council and their deputies regarding these obligations. In each case, I was told that either the elected official or the commissioner’s deputy always reviewed the consent agenda before it came up for a vote. “It goes with the job.,” one told me.
Montagnino Goes Operatic
Notwithstanding Montagnino’s boast about how, using his skills as an attorney, like Sherlock, he had discovered the settlement at issue, there is a trail of emails that show he was advised about the settlement weeks before his alleged sleuthing. On May 20, 2022, Mayor Kim sent out an email that included a thread of exchanges that the case was to be settled for $100,000.00. As documented earlier in this post, Kim acknowledged receiving an email from attorney John Aspland advising him of the settlement.
Additionally, in May, Marilyn Rivers had advised City Attorney Anthony Izzo of the impending settlement suggesting he contact John Aspland.
In that context, Montagnino’s claims indicate that he either did not bother to read his emails or he cynically made his accusations knowing they were unfounded.
It is also worth noting that the City Attorney could have stepped in during this controversy and admitted that he knew about the settlement.
The City Council Goes on a Witch Hunt: Montagnino as the Grand Inquisitor
Having convinced themselves falsely that a grand conspiracy was afoot to cheat the city out of $25,000, Kim, Montagnino, and Sanghvi turned to the question of who was responsible for this supposedly nefarious act that the three “uncovered.” Montagnino leads the charge:
So Who Put the Deductible Payment in the Consent Agenda?
This is a particularly grim example of the disingenuous nature of this witch hunt. Everyone at that table knew that Marilyn Rivers, as Director of the office of Risk and Safety, had put it on the agenda. There was no secret.
This video clip exposes that everybody at the Council table knew this.
A Cruel and Gratuitous Attack on a City Employee
Marilyn Rivers was hired as the first Director of the Office of Risk and Safety Management on April 4, 2003.
During her nineteen years of service, Ms. Rivers established a national reputation as one of the leading voices on municipal risk and safety issues. She has been selected numerous times as a featured speaker at conferences here in New York and nationally and has received numerous awards in recognition of her expertise.
Many of the programs she has initiated here in Saratoga Springs have been adopted by other municipalities in New York as “best practice.”
In speaking to former Mayor Meg Kelly, and former Commissioners Michele Madigan, and Chris Mathiesen, all were unanimous in their praise for her, and all agreed that over her tenure, the city has saved millions of dollars due to her work. Ms. Rivers deserves some of the credit for the high credit ratings the city has received.
As the Risk and Safety Management Director, Ms. Rivers oversaw the Travelers contract. The contract required that Travelers be paid expeditiously upon settlement, and she processed this deductible payment for the Wales settlement as she had processed others over the years.
The public attacks on Ms. Rivers, who is due to retire next April, have been cruel and unconscionable. I have heard from a number of sources that Ms. Rivers has been devastated by the false allegations made against her. On August 9, 2022, I learned that Ms. Rivers went out on medical leave. Kim, Sanghvi, and Montagnino seem oblivious or indifferent to the harm they have done to Ms. Rivers and to the effect their behavior has had on the morale of the city’s employees.
This Was All Unnecessary
The hysteria generated by Kim, Sanghvi, and Montagnino is unmerited. There had been previous discussions on this litigation in June, so everyone knew about it. The insurance carrier was authorized by a signed contract to have full authority over the litigation. The city was legally obligated to pay a deductible should the case be resolved by a cash settlement with the claimant. Travelers paid the $100,000.00 settlement and sent the bill for the $25,000.00 deductible that the city is required to pay expeditiously. End of story.
The idea that Marilyn Rivers or anyone else tried to hide anything is both unfounded and grossly unfair. Kim, Montagnino, and Sanghvi owe Ms. Rivers an apology.
The most recent public discussions about panhandling remind me of the great sage Yogi Berra’s reference to “deja vu all over again.” We’ve done this before.
Commissioner Montagnino’s New and Apparently Useless Penal Code Proposal to Stop Panhandling Gets Rejected by Council
Saratoga Springs Public Safety Commissioner James Montagnino, to great fanfare, announced his proposed new City Ordinance Chapter 55 titled Aggressive Solicitation to the City code.
This is a prime example of a politician responding to an intransigent problem with the illusion of a solution.
As stated by Commissioner Montagnino, this code enforcement language was taken from one adopted by the City of Rochester. He told the media that the language of the code had withstood numerous court challenges.
He conveniently passed over the history of Rochester’s code, however. It was adopted in 2004 and included special fines, but Betty McBride, a clerk in the office of the Rochester Chief of Police, told Saratoga Today:
It’s a city code, but they don’t give tickets. They choose not to. What we do is we try to help out; offer resources to get shelter, get clothing and food.
Betty McBride
So if they do not actually use the code to give tickets to enforce limits on panhandling, it doesn’t sound like Rochester’s code has any record of impacting panhandling.
At the July 2, 2022, Council meeting, Commissioner Montagnino presented his proposed code. At the public hearing, speakers spoke for and against the proposal. Most of those speaking against the proposal focused on the vagueness of the term “aggressive” and expressed concern over criminalizing the homeless and the lack of affordable housing.
When the proposal came up on the agenda, there was a rambling discussion among Council members over whether to table the proposal, fund a study, or put a sunset clause on the code. Usually, Council members in the past who wanted support for an initiative would have one on one conversations with their fellow Council members to explain their proposal, listen to and try to address any concerns before taking it for a vote at the Council table. This is a useful strategy that can result in a better proposal coming to the table that will have majority support or maybe the dropping of a proposal because these discussions made clear that it wouldn’t have the votes to pass. Listening to Council members ask the most basic questions about this legislation made me wonder if Montagnino had bothered to do this.
The most thoughtful comment came from Public of WorksCommissioner Jason Golub:
The resolution failed with Montagnino and Mayor Kim voting yes and Finance Commissioner Sanghvi, Public Works Commissioner Golub, and Accounts Commissioner Moran voting no.
Mayor Kim and Chamber of Commerce Executive Todd Shimkus Repackage a Failed Policy
Saratoga County Chamber of Commerce President Todd Shimkus and Mayor Kim drew extensive media coverage for a plan to hand homeless panhandlers a card rather than money. The card lists the services available to homeless people.
I ran the Saratoga County Economic Opportunity Council (now re-branded as LifeWorks) for sixteen years and had plenty of interactions with homeless people over that time. Many homeless people often suffer from mental, alcohol, and drug problems. Still, it is the rare homeless person who has not learned through their network about what community services are available.
This card policy is especially aggravating because this same program, carried out during the Joanne Yepsen administration, was a resounding failure, and Mr. Shimkus knows this.
I have talked to one of the downtown business owners who told me that, as far as they know, no businesses are using the cards. When you think about it, how are they supposed to use these cards? Are they supposed to give a stack to each customer?
I advise anyone that handing one of these cards to an unknown panhandler is not a good idea. Giving them one of these cards rather than money invites a potentially very unpleasant interaction.
How About Deploying a Police Officer on Foot to Patrol the Downtown?
Unless a police officer observes a crime, it is difficult to successfully ticket anyone. As Commissioner Montagnino conceded during the August 2, 2022, meeting, an accusation is hard to prove without supporting evidence such as witnesses or video.
One owner of a downtown business told me there was a time when the city assigned a police officer on foot to patrol downtown. They noted that while it wasn’t a panacea, it did act to lessen the general aggressiveness of panhandlers. If Commissioner Montagnino really wants to do something, he should find a way to deploy officers on the street again.
A notice was posted tonight for a special City Council meeting to take place tomorrow, Saturday, August 6, 2022, at 10 AM (see below). There is no indication of what is on the agenda.
Although the New York State Open Meetings Law requires the public be notified at least seventy-two hours before a regularly scheduled meeting, this specially called meeting apparently does not have to meet this requirement nor is an agenda required to be posted.
Nevertheless, as far as I know, it is unprecedented for the City Council to set a meeting without notifying the public of what business will be transacted.
Setting meetings without advising the public of what the Council plans to do is bad practice. As noted in many posts, the current members of the Council consistently fail to meet the transparency standards they continually claim to embrace.
Saratoga Springs Public Safety Commissioner James Montagnino signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Gaffney’s Bar back on May 25, 2022, stipulating conditions under which the establishment could re-open. The New York State Liquor Authority characterize the agreement as “not worth the paper it was written on.”
I FOILed for the document, and it is quite revealing. Not only has Montagnino assumed authority to negotiate a settlement with Gaffney’s that only the New York Stae Liquor Authority is authorized to do, but it seems he has also wrongly assumed the Mayor’s authority to sign agreements, even invalid ones, on behalf of the city.
According to the city charter, as I read it, the Mayor is the city official authorized to sign formal agreements. Also, agreements are supposed to be adopted by resolution of the full City Council.
Now note how the document is signed: “Acknowledged on Behalf of the City of Saratoga Springs“
Is this Commissioner Montagnino playing lawyer by diddling with the wording? Read carefully. He is only “acknowledging” promises made by Gaffney’s. He knows that an actual real agreement with Gaffney’s (if the city could even do this) would require that the City Council adopt a resolution affirming the action. Why he did it this way is anyone’s guess.
I wrote to Commissioner Montagnino and Mayor Kim, asking whether a document such as this could be signed by anyone other than the Mayor and whether it required Council approval. Neither of them responded.
[JK: I recently published the email former Saratoga Springs Public Safety Commissioner Chris Mathiesen sent to the City Council regarding his concerns about the staffing level in the Saratoga Springs Police Department. I subsequently published the exchange between Chris and current Public Safety Commissioner Montagnino. Now Chris has further reviewed the statements made by the PBA at the July 5 City Council meeting and has sent the following email to Montagnino. Here are links to the original exchanges: Chris’s original email and the subsequent exchange]
Chris’s Email
Commissioner Montagnino,
After you responded to my e mail which included my concerns about the PBA presentation describing a serious staffing shortage in our police department, I began to question whether I had heard the points being made by the PBA correctly. While I thought that I heard the PBA representative stating that there were 20 vacancies in the department, you assured me that this was not the case.
I just finished viewing the LOOK TV replay of the July 5 Council meeting. It is much easier to decipher what was being said when viewing the recording. The PBA representative did indeed emphasize more than once that they are facing a busy summer season with 20 vacancies in the department. The officer went on to say that the situation is so serious that investigators may have to be re-assigned to patrol duties, thus significantly impacting that division. It sure sounds like a public safety emergency to me. I would continue to suggest an emergency declaration until further notice to close bars a little earlier so that some of the pressure being placed on our officers can be eased.
You mentioned the recent NYS SLA restrictions imposed on Gaffneys and you seem to infer that this will quell the nightclub district problems. Those problems are much deeper than you seem to realize. Having a strong police presence on Caroline Street every warm-weather weekend is vital to keeping a semblance of peace.
I was thrilled to see that the SSPD actually has funding for 80 positions. We were never able to have more than 72 positions in our budget during my three terms. . Kudos to Commissioner Martin and Commissioner Dalton for achieving those much-needed increases in staffing. But 80 minus 20 equals 60 active members which is not a very desirable position to be in for July and August . It would work fine in January.
It is important that our citizens feel that they can trust those of you in City government. If the PBA was wrong in their count of active members of the police department in their appeal to the Council for a number of labor concessions, you should have pointed that out publicly in your response to their presentation. If the PBA is right, we do have a serious public safety emergency.
As documented in this blog here and here, Saratoga Springs Mayor Ron Kim has been spending city money pursuing pointless legal actions in a city code enforcement case involving Church Street Trust.
My FOIL requests regarding the costs of this litigation show that the law firm of Miller, Mannix, Schachner, and Hafner LLC is continuing to bill the city for work on this case. As of July 7, 2022, the city has paid them $6,575.00 and neither of the legal actions they are pursuing are over yet.
I have written to Mayor Kim and appeared at a Council meeting asking him if he can explain the purpose of these legal actions. He has not responded nor have any of his fellow Council members shown any interest in pursuing an answer from him.
The Mayor’s dogged pursuit of this case at the public expense deserves a public answer.
[JK: The following is an exchange between former Public Safety Commissioner Chris Mathiesen and Montagnino prompted by Mathiesen’s recent email to the City Council.]
To say that there are 20 “unfilled slots” is a little inaccurate. Full staffing, as you know, is 80 sworn officers. From that number must be deducted seven who are currently in the Academy and therefore unavailable for actual service, on duty, for the City. From that number must also be deducted an additional five who will be starting training at the Academy later this month. Thus, 80 is reduced by 12 to 68. Of those, one has been on disability for years but yet continues on our books. That reduces the “net” number to 67. One of our officers is on “loan” to a DEA task force and has been for several years. That reduces the “net” number to 66. Another officer is currently assigned to the Police Academy as an instructor. That reduces our “net” number to 65. Just this week, an officer returned to service after a lengthy period of reserve military deployment. His absence from service here in the City had reduced our “net” number to 64. We have an officer out on Family Medical Leave. That reduces our “net” number to 63. We have only three or four truly “unfilled” slots at the present time.
The seven officers in the Academy will be graduating on August 4. They will each be assigned a Field Training Officer and will be on duty from that point forward. There is no “public safety emergency” nor is one expected. (As an aside, you suggest closing the bars at 2 am. Please note that the Memorandum of Agreement signed by Gaffney’s, the City’s largest bar, as a condition of their re-opening, bears my signature as well. That Memorandum is incorporated by reference into Gaffney’s Chapter 136 license and requires them to close their doors at 1:30 am.)
As to the 12-hour shifts, these were adopted by the previous administration despite an exhaustive federal study highly critical of such long work hours. Particularly where overtime shifts run to 16 hours and can run back-to-back-to-back with only eight hours off between shifts, the present system is an invitation to danger from fatigue.
I turn to your questions regarding recent retirements and resignations. Much has changed in recent years regarding public perceptions of law enforcement. Nationwide, police departments at the local, county and State levels have seen record numbers of retirements and resignations. Simultaneously, applications are drastically diminished in numbers. This nationwide phenomenon is occurring here in the Capital Region as well. Albany, for example, lost 90 (yes, ninety) police officers in 2021. Every department in this area is suffering from a diminution in its ranks.
Under the current collective bargaining agreement, our Police Officers are the lowest-paid in the area. When you couple this with the fact that every other police department is short of officers, it is no surprise that officers leave for better pay. Indeed, in the last week a recruit who had been given a conditional offer of employment with SSPD informed us that he had accepted a position with the Saratoga County Sheriff because their pay scale is significantly better.
In addition to our low pay scale, we were unable to attract lateral transfers because, until July 5, we were hamstrung by a policy under which an officer joining SSPD was required to start at the base level of pay, irrespective of how many years’ experience that officer may have had. Thanks to the City Council’s unanimous approval of a Memorandum of Agreement with the PBA offering pay scale commensurate with years of service to laterals, we expect to be able to attract experienced officers from other departments. However, as long as SSPD remains the worst-paid department in the area, the likelihood of our being able to attract qualified, desirable transferees remains small.
The proposed MOA would increase the attractiveness of service with SSPD. This would help us retain officers as well as recruit officers. It would allow us to be more selective as well. It would also offer the opportunity to “cast the net wider” in order to attract a more diverse pool of new officers. (You are no doubt aware of the fact that SSPD has only one Officer of color, and he was sworn in more than 18 years ago. how is this situation acceptable?)
A close examination of the proposed MOA also demonstrates that there is a significant increase in shift differentials. This is no accident; this is by design. The goal here is to incentivize senior officers to bid for the “off shifts.” As I pointed out at the last City Council meeting, the eight officers involved in the Akron shooting of Jayland Walker were working the midnight shift and their average time-in-service was two and one-half years. The senior officer involved had only six years in service. The least experienced officers should not be the only ones on duty during the most dangerous periods of the night.
On a final note, I would point out that there is something fundamentally unsettling in the fact that the overwhelming majority of our Police Officers cannot afford to live in the City they serve. This wasn’t always the case. Less than a generation ago, City residence was a requirement of service with SSPD and yet the number of applicants far exceeded the number of positions available. Today, however, at a starting salary of $50K, how can a Saratoga Springs Police Officer dream of buying even a starter home in this City? Nancy and I bought our first house in Saratoga Springs in 2002 for $110K. The seller had paid $90K only three years before. That house is now on the market for $300K. Is it any wonder one of our Officers recently left to take a position with the Warren County Sheriff when that position pays more money in a county with a significantly lower cost of living?
Dr. Mathiesen, I take you at your word when you say that you are offering constructive criticism. I ask you to consider the fact that, if we take the federal government’s inflation figures as accurate, the Collective Bargaining Agreement under which SSPD Officers are now serving has their annual cost-of-living increases of 2% outpaced by a factor of four. I ask you to consider the fact that the cost of housing in our City has increased at an unprecedented rate. I ask you to consider the fact that law enforcement — once considered among the most honorable professions — is now under enormous societal pressures. I ask you to consider the fact that our SSPD Officers are currently paid less than any other police officers in the area. I ask you whether our City deserves to keep the best people in our uniformed services. And then I ask you how we can not honor the good-faith request of the men and women of our PBA who seek a slightly better quality of working life and a little bit better remuneration.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Jim Jim Montagnino
From Mathiesen
Commissioner,
I don’t disagree with many of the points that you have made in your reply.
I am happy to hear that we are no really down 20 slots in the department as was stated by the PBA reps. It would have been a good idea to clarify that information at that time.
Of course we want the police to be adequately paid and of course we would like to be as successful bringing ethic and racial diversity to the department as we have been in bringing gender diversity to all levels of the department. I strongly advocated for higher starting pay for our officers when I was Commissioner for many of the same reasons that you cite. And yes, the pandemic and the current social climate has had an effect on recruitment and retention in departments across the country. Other than the failure of City officials to more adamantly counter the outrageous claims over the past two years that our police murdered Darryl Mount, what sets our department apart from others? Why is our department losing members to other departments when that has not been the case in the past? Yes, the cost of housing in certain parts of Saratoga Springs has increased significantly but this is not true city-wide. Also, there have been more workforce housing units constructed in recent years just for individuals in the early stages of their careers such as police, nurses and teachers. Also, during my administration, very few members of our police force actually lived within the City limits for a variety of reasons (only one of which was the cost of housing). That’s true of officers in many other departments.
Don’t we need to know why the rate of pay in Saratoga Springs is suddenly no longer competitive? It would be a great idea to provide an analysis of the salary scale of other area departments and then see what needs to be done to adapt a more adequate set of salaries for our officers and investigators.
Chris Mathiesen served three terms as the Saratoga Springs Commissioner of Public Safety. He copied me on an email he sent to the City Council. It reaffirms the concerns many of us have about the crisis our police department seems to be experiencing.
Members of the City Council,
I was very surprised to hear during the PBA Presentation to the Council on Tuesday evening that the SSPD has 20 unfilled slots. That’s very alarming and, as far as I know, without precedent. None of the concessions to the PBA proposed by Commissioner Montagnino will remedy this situation any time soon. Given the fact that the City is now entering its busiest season, this is truly a public safety emergency. I would suggest that a Public Safety Emergency be declared immediately with all City businesses that serve alcohol being required to close at 2 AM on weekends and 1 AM on weeknights until further notice. Those last call restrictions are consistent with those in other counties across New York State.
During the PBA Presentation, I was surprised that more questions were not asked by Council members. Why are the reasons that the PBA contract signed barely more than a year ago not include these concessions? Is there any possibility of keeping the present contract with the 12 hour shift? Have any consultants been contacted to see if the 12 hour shift system can be tweaked to make it more workable? Has the City’s Human Resource Department been consulted in order to better explain why so many members of the SSPD have retired or moved to other departments so suddenly? How did the SSPD salary schedule become so non-competitive with other local police departments and why did this occur? Can the salary schedule be re-worked so that it is competitive with other local departments and the County sheriff’s department? Are there other reasons for losing SSPD personnel over such a short period of time? Why were the number of training sessions previously cut? What are the costs to the City payroll of having 52 days a year (Thursdays) where the SSPD would be overstaffed as proposed with the 10 hour schedule? Could there be a better explanation of the disadvantages of lateral transfers?
I am quite familiar with SSPD personnel management from 2012 through 2017. We had very qualified applicants interviewed and we could be quite choosey in determining who to hire. Once carefully vetted, most of those candidates made it through the Training Academy and eventually stayed with our department. Very few transferred to other departments. Our department was thought to be a desirable place to work for a police officer. Our pay scale, opportunity for overtime and our benefit package was at least on par if not better that of other local police agencies and of the sheriff’s department. Isn’t it important to determine exactly what has happened to suddenly make the SSPD such an undesirable place to work?
We were eternally challenged when it came to filling all 72 slots in the department. Just when we thought that we were close to our goal, someone else would retire or, in rare instances, leave the department for other reasons. However, we never had anywhere near 20 vacancies. We instituted the 1 year and 6 month bonus payments to those who gave prior notice of retirement so that those anticipated vacancies could be filled more efficiently. We did reluctantly utilize a lateral transfer once in order to quickly fill a slot but that worked out quite badly. I can relate to the difficulty of keeping all slots in the department filled but I cannot relate to a vacancy of 20 positions.
Please take my comments as constructive criticism. I know what it’s like to be subjected to unfair and constant criticism. I have grave concerns about a department that, at one time, worked so well and is so vital to the success of our City.
The Saratoga Springs City Council is giving out agreements for the use of public property like they are Santa Claus. At the Tuesday, July 5, 2022, Council meeting the members of the Council and the City Attorney admitted they had no idea what the value was of the three properties the city owns that they agreed to allow city businesses to use. This ignorance didn’t stop them from granting permission anyway.
The idea that the city needed to transparently establish a reasoned basis for what to charge before approving the use of public property for local businesses was lost in the kind of rambling and unfocused discussion which seems to be the standard for this current Council.
Newly appointed Department of Public Works Commissioner Jason Golub asked the Council to approve three resolutions authorizing the Mayor to sign agreements for three downtown businesses to use public city property for their private use. Two agreements extended existing agreements.
The Adelphi Hotel had a previous five-year license for a section of city sidewalk for which they paid $2500.00 per year. They were seeking to extend that lease at the same rate for another five years.
The public alley known as Lena Lane has been leased since 2012 by two businesses which each paid the city $2,000 a year. One was Hattie’s, now referred to as JBA Restaurant Corp in the new lease agreement, the other was a bar which is now occupied by another establishment called The District. The two current businesses now abutting that alley were seeking to extend the lease for another five years at the same rate set ten years ago.
Flat Bread Social on Henry Street was seeking the rights to operate their eating and drinking establishment on Short Alley for three years at $2,000.00 per year.
The Standard For Determining How Much To Charge
City Attorney Tony Izzo told the Council that the law requires the city to sell or allow the use of public property based on its fair market value or by establishing that the public good that would result from the sale or lease equals or exceeds the fair market value.
Here is the direct quote:
“The rule of course is that when a government sells or leases public property it should be an approximation of fair market value unless there are facts that indicate the benefit to the public in a particular situation is equal to or greater than what would have been obtained on fair market value and governments have a lot of flexibility in determining when that situation exists…”
Tony Izzo, July 6, 2022
The following is a clip of this blogger asking Commissioner Golub to either table the resolutions or amend them to only one-year agreements while the Council establishes a method, open to the public, to determine what should be charged.
Did the Council then table action until, at a minimum, the fair market value could be determined? In a word: No.
In this clip, Mayor Kim asks City Attorney Izzo how the city arrived at the fees for the original agreements with the Adelphi and Hattie’s, admitting in effect that he has no idea what the properties involved are worth.
In turn, Tony admits he doesn’t know how the fees were originally established.
Here is the excerpt from the video.
The Abuse of the Concept of Public Good
In the rambling discussion that followed, Commissioner Moran, Mayor Kim, and Commissioner Golub claim that these restaurants provide a public good because they employ people, and they bring in sales taxes. Commissioner Moran asserted that if the Flat Bread Social didn’t utilize Short Alley, the homeless would use it, so Flat Bread Social is performing a public good. Commissioner Golub expressed the need to support local businesses.
This line of reasoning reflects a lack of understanding of what constitutes the “public good”.
Here is the definition of the “public good” according to the Oxford dictionary:
1. In ECONOMICS, a commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of a society, either by the government or a private individual or organization, “a conviction that library informational services are a public good, not a commercial commodity”
Oxford Dictionary
Let me be clear. I do not oppose the city allowing restaurants or any other business to use city land. What I unequivocally oppose is providing land to particular businesses without providing to the public and other businesses a consistent standard so that everyone knows what the terms of use are and how they were arrived at.
When the current elected Council members (Commissioner Golub was just recently appointed) campaigned last year, they accused the previous administration of cronyism without ever giving any evidence of this. What they do not understand is that the road to cronyism is paved by doing exactly what they have just done: giving out public resources to particular businesses without clearly established standards. Their clear indifference to standards is the path to trouble.
Readers of this blog know that I have asked Commissioner Moran in person and in emails how he arrived at the permit fees the city charges to restaurants to use the city’s sidewalks and parking spaces. After six months of asking I have been unable to get an answer.
The following is a video clip of the full discussion the Council carried on over the leasing issue.
The city has a real estate committee that has operated to determine the price of public properties sold to private individuals and companies. City Attorney Izzo suggested the real estate committee might take the leasing task on. Commissioner Golub offered to meet with Tony about pursuing this. Nevertheless, the Council vote was unanimous to approve these long-term agreements without further study.
A Hopeful Trend
I followed up the meeting by emailing Mayor Kim asking for information on the real estate committee. I asked:
Who is on the committee?
When do they meet?
Are their meetings covered by the open meetings law?
Given that numerous emails with questions that I have sent to Mayor Kim have not been responded to, I was encouraged to get a timely response from Tony Izzo at the Mayor’s behest. I hope this is the beginning of a trend.
According to Tony, the real estate committee was established in 2004. The City Attorney acts as chair. The other four members are selected by the other Commissioners.
These are the current members:
Carrie Schermerhorn (Accounts)
Michael Veitch (Public Works)
Karen Perrino (Public Safety)
Laura Townsend (Finance)
The committee has met as recently as June 15. Tony wrote that they generally meet on the first Thursday of each month unless there is no business.
Tony noted that strictly speaking this committee is not required to adhere to the New York State Open Meetings Law but that the city charter states, “Every agency, board, commission, and other entity shall conduct business in accordance with the provisions of the Open Meetings laws of the state of New York.”
I went to the city’s web page of agenda and minutes and could not find anything related to this committee. Apparently they are not adhering to the charter’s requirement that the real estate committee be dealt with according to the open meetings law. It appears the failure to adhere to the charter in this particular case is not unique to the current administration.
I wrote back to the Mayor and Tony asking whether they planned to include the notices, agendas, minutes, and video for the real estate committee in the future.
Where Does It Stop?
Retailers downtown might ask, why is it only restaurants that get to access the parking spaces in front of their operations to enhance their business and profits? I am sure that many retailers would be happy to pay $1,000.00 to control the parking spaces in front of their store for their customers.
The city is basically giving away the parking spaces in front of those restaurants that want to participate in Commissioner Moran’s outdoor dining program. We have no idea what those parking spaces are worth. The restaurants not only get the parking spaces, but the city purchased the barriers that go in front of them and bear the cost of delivering them, picking them up and storing them. We have no idea what that costs the city. Do Moran’s permit fees cover these expenses? We have no way of knowing.
Now the city has gone beyond granting permits for seasonal use of city property to renewing and making new long-term agreements with certain businesses. It’s time for the city to establish procedures and standards for the private use of public property in Saratoga Springs that are transparently arrived at and fair to all the businesses involved as well as the Saratoga Springs taxpayers.
Saratoga Springs Politics 