Saratoga Springs Politics

Letter To The Editor In Times Union

Times Union coverage of Saratoga Springs City Council actions regarding Mayor Joanne Yepsen‘s ethics violation does a disservice to the facts. The city’s ethics board, whose members were all appointed by Yepsen, found that she violated the city’s ethics code by soliciting fundraising work from Saratoga Hospital while the council was considering its request for a $14 million expansion. Council approval of the requested expansion would have led the hospital to raise significant funds.

A recent editorial characterized the council as “petty” for censuring Yepsen and requesting a state investigation of her actions (“World class, small town,” July 22). Yet, in 2014, when Yepsen requested a state investigation of another city department and its commissioner regarding accusations made by that department’s previous administration — who just happens to be one of her key donors — the Times Union Editorial Board praised her.

Yepsen blames the ethics code. This is strange considering the council, of which she is a member, reviewed the code in late 2015 while she was asking the hospital to hire her. Yepsen won’t acknowledge the obvious impropriety in soliciting employment from an entity while it is requesting her affirmative vote on a project that is important to them.

Once I learned of her questionable attempts to secure employment from the hospital while we were reviewing their expansion application, I repeatedly advised her to admit mistakes, apologize and let us move on. Instead, she has attempted to mislead the commissioners and the public by claiming that any questions about her solicitations are political in nature.

We aren’t petty; we are doing our jobs. Anything less would be a serious failure and a violation of the public trust.

Michele Madigan

Commissioner of Finance Saratoga Springs

From two reliable sources, Mayor Joanne Yepsen has fired her long time Executive Assistant, Gayle LaSalle.  Rather shocking because Gayle LaSalle always appeared very loyal to Ms. Yepsen.

 

In a letter dated July 13^th, attorney James Fauci, on behalf of Jean D’Agostino, the owner of 39 Murphy Lane, has responded to the new stop work order issued by the city.

Apparently, the Zoning Board of Appeals will be considering his letter and making a decision as to whether to withdraw the stop work order at their Monday, July 25^th meeting (tomorrow night).

I am not a lawyer and I found the arguments he makes somewhat contradictory.  As far as I can tell, he asserts that the ZBA in granting his client the variances did not stipulate any special conditions.  He argues that they granted her relief regarding the fact that the lot was smaller than the minimum size required by zoning and on other technical issues related to parking and set back.  He claims that because they did not stipulate any limit on the height of the building that there was nothing to preclude them from building a taller building as long as it did not exceed the zoning limit for the district which is sixty feet.  In effect, he appears to this non lawyer (me) that he disregards the details in the original plan in which the ZBA granted the variances.

On the other hand, he notes that in paragraph 5 the stop work order asserted:

“The resolution granting the variances did not authorize ‘tearing down the barn and starting new’ or the ’removal of the existing barn.’[JK: As stipulated in her application to the ZBA]”

He then offers the following:

“RESPONSE: Neither was done. The applicant has not torn down the barn and started new. All of the materials from the original barn have been preserved and as many as can be safely and effectively used has and will be used.”

First, this seems like a very lawyerly distinction that may hold up in the courts but seems extremely odd to lay people such as myself.  The barn was totally torn apart and no longer existed as a building, following which the owner began to build a new structure.  It also seems inconsistent with his earlier arguments in that by not being included in the resolution it would seem to fall under his category of conditions not stipulated in the resolution granting variances.  In other words, because the ZBA  did not stipulate that the barn could not be torn down in their resolution (even though she stated in her application that she would not tear it down), using his earlier logic, it would not be material.

If the ZBA refuses to have the city withdraw its stop work order, I guess we will all find out what the courts think of his argument.

This is a link to the letter from Fauci. Fauci Re New Stop Work

This is an image of the letter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JK: This is my first attempt at incorporating video in the blog and unfortunately, it is all too obvious.  The complete video of the council meeting is accessible on the city’s website.

I am republishing the Saratogian article on the meeting for context.  There are three videos.  Two are relatively brief and are the highpoints for drama at the meeting.  The other was edited with more care and represents I think the key exchanges during the evening.]

---

Tensions rise within City Council following ethics violation

By Travis Clark, tclark@digitalfirstmedia.com, @TravClark2 on Twitter

Posted: 07/20/16, 1:15 PM EDT | Updated: 14 hrs ago

SARATOGA SPRINGS >> Tensions were high at the Saratoga Springs City Council regular bi-weekly meeting on Tuesday night. Following the Ethics Board’s findings that Mayor Joanne Yepsen violated the city Ethics Code, Finance Commissioner Michelle Madigan motioned for the council to accept the board’s findings, while Public Works Commissioner Anthony “Skip” Scirocco proposed a resolution to censure the mayor in response to those findings.

The Council voted unanimously, minus Mayor Yepsen who abstained, to accept the Ethics Board’s findings. They also voted to pass the resolution, which both censures the mayor and calls for an investigation into the findings from the state Attorney General’s Public Integrity Bureau. Prior to the vote on the resolution, Madigan motioned for an amendment of the resolution to forward the findings to another entity to address them if the Atorney General’s office is not the right one.

“They needed more facts and I was not ready to share more facts with them at this time,” Madigan said. “So if they are not the right entity to address this issue, we may want to amend to find out who is.”

The Ethics Board’s findings follow accusations that Mayor Yepsen was seeking employment for grant writing services with the Saratoga Hospital Foundation while the City Council was actively participating in business with the hospital. The hospital was seeking approval from the Council for an expansion. After Mayor Yepsen recused herself from voting on the matter for the fourth time, according to Council members, concern was raised.

(function() { var secondaryMedia = $(“#secondary-media”).css(‘height’); var factbox = $(“#factbox”).css(‘height’); var internalContent = parseInt(secondaryMedia + factbox); if((internalContent<400) || (!internalContent)) { console.log(“Article within AD”) googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display(“div_Cube_Article”); googletag.pubads().refresh(); }); }else { console.log(“No AD in article”); $(“#div_Cube_Article”).css(‘display’, ‘none’); } })(jQuery); $( document ).ready(function() { var ADbox = parseInt($(“#div_Cube_Article”).css(‘height’)); if((ADbox<200)){ $(“#div_Cube_Article”).css(‘display’, ‘none’); } })(jQuery); Advertisement

In a letter to the Ethics Board from one of Mayor Yepsen’s attorneys, Robert Ryan, Mayor Yepsen contacted the Ethics Board in January 2016 requesting an advisory opinion as to whether she would have to recuse herself from voting. The expansion had been actively discussed since August 2015. In March 2016, the Ethics Board responded to a letter of inquiry submitted by Madigan as to whether the mayor had violated the Ethics Code. Madigan stated that this letter was discussed and approved by not only her, but Scirocco and Public Safety Commissioner Christian Mathiesen.

Ryan’s letter states that the Ethics Board’s interpretation of the Ethics Code is misplaced.

“Without the ability to cure an actual or perceived conflict of interest through disclosure, recusal and abstention, it would effectively make all but a handful of citizens ineligible to sit on boards of the city,” the letter reads.

It also defends Mayor Yepsen by asserting that the Hospital Foundation was not the applicant for the expansion, and even if this were so, the board’s determination that the Foundation submitting a zoning application is “doing business” is misplaced. Madigan disagrees with this statement and believes the council was in fact doing business with the Hospital Foundation.

During the public comment period of the Council meeting, several community members accused the council of trying to run a smear campaign against the mayor for political gain. These individuals accused members of the Council of being under investigation themselves, which, during the response period, prompted Madigan to defend herself.

Public commenter Phil Diamond accused Madigan and Scirocco of being under investigation by the New York state comptroller in regard to water connection. According to Madigan, there was a 4-1 vote to waive water connection fees, and this was not just a Department of Finance or Department of Public Works vote. Madigan said that her department has been working very closely with the comptroller throughout these investigations and they are not directly focused on Scirocco, but look at water fees over the past 40 years.

Madigan had criticized the mayor for her handling of this investigation, saying she went to the press before bringing it to the Council’s attention. Mayor Yepsen defended herself by stating that the comptroller had reached out to her first.

Madigan then turned her comments toward public commenter Mark Lawton, denying that there is any smear campaign being conducted.

“Things happen, we need to take a look at them and we need to take them seriously,” Madigan stated.

Lawton was offended that Madigan used his name directly. An argument unfolded in which Madigan had Lawton escorted out by a police officer. Lawton left the room stating “so much for freedom of speech.”

Madigan said the reason she asked for Lawton’s removal is because he was shouting at her after public comment period had ended. She said it was time for the council to respond and public comment was closed. According to her, this is not the first time that Lawton has done something like this.

“The Mayor is the presiding officer. She is in charge of running the meeting and keeping order. We have had many meetings where there is no order,” said Madigan. “That’s upsetting to us. We want to feel safe and secure.”

After the exchange, a verbal back-and-forth occurred between Mayor Yepsen and Madigan. Madigan accused one of the public commenters to be the mayor’s “boyfriend” and Mayor Yepsen gaveled Madigan to end the discussion.

Mayor Yepsen said that the Ethics Board needs to stop being used as a political tool and that the Code of Ethics needs to be revisited to improve its language.

---

 

Clip Of Scrum During Public Comment Period

Clip Of Exchange Between Mayor Yepsen and Commissioner Scirocco

 

Edited Fuller Video Of Variety Of Exchanges Over Censure

 

 

 

 

[JK:I received this document from Mayor Yepsen. This was the statement she made at the beginning of her agenda on the Ethics Report at the Tuesday, July 19 meeting]

 

Comments by Mayor Joanne D. Yepsen

July 19, 2016

 

We received an advisory opinion from the Ethics Board last Friday. It was in response to a full review requested by me to the Ethics Board, which I made as soon as a potential conflict of interest was identified by me and the Hospital Foundation simultaneously. This advisory opinion recommends no disciplinary action.

 

I sincerely thank the Ethics Board for their efforts.

 

However, my attorneys and I respectfully disagree with this advisory opinion regarding section 13.3 of the Ethics Code. But I do accept it. We have many lessons learned and can benefit from their work.

 

Certainly I will guide my future actions accordingly, as I’m sure will my colleagues on this city council.

 

The mayor’s position is a part-time position paying $14,500 per year. It is, therefore, not unexpected that a person in this position will seek other outside employment.

 

I had a few brief and preliminary communications with the Saratoga Hospital Foundation It was at this very preliminary stage, with no specific work, no agreements or contract — verbal or in writing, and with no funds even close to changing hands, we both realized the potential for a conflict of interest.

 

I, therefore, went to the ethics board to ask for their opinion. Nearly simultaneously, there was a parallel and completely unrelated zoning application from the hospital in front of the city.

 

The Ethics Board suggested I recuse myself from an upcoming vote on the hospital’s proposal. I asked for their opinion and respected it. I recused myself from the related vote. (At the time, there was no definition for what constituted “doing business with the city” and no general assumption that this term included having a zoning application before the city. This came out of their advisory opinion, which I asked them to provide.)

 

It was never my intention to connect in any way any potential work with the Hospital Foundation and any proposals in front of the city.

 

The buck stops with me. However, I was going by the legal advice from the city attorney until such time I needed outside counsel.

 

As set forth in the June 10, 2016 submission by my attorneys – which I have copies of here this evening for council members and the public – we disagree with the Board’s interpretation of §13-3(I) of the Code as it relates to whether my discussions with the Hospital Foundation while Saratoga Hospital had a zoning amendment pending resulted in Code violation.  The Board’s interpretation of §13-3 (I) is misplaced under the circumstances and is not aligned with the general ethical standards established under the General Municipal Law.  In particular, the Board’s determination that submitting a zoning application is “doing business” with the City is misplaced.  A reasonable interpretation of §13-3(I) clearly establishes you did not violate the City’s Code of Ethics solely by engaging in a dialogue with the Foundation over potential work unrelated to the Hospital’s application for zoning, especially given the fact you recused yourself from taking any action on the Hospital’s application to avoid even the appearance of a conflict.  Also, it appears to us from the Board’s July 14, 2016 opinion that it did not even consider the arguments and analysis in our  submission.  The Board’s recent opinion does not refer to the submission or cite to the body of authoritative guidance cited. 

 

Also, This advisory opinion by the Ethics Board is not just going to affect me. Their interpretation of “doing business with the city” will unfortunately make it difficult or nearly impossible for part-time employees and volunteers to serve the city, as it applied to them as well as full-time employees. Prior to this review and opinion issued no definition of doing business with the city existed.

 

Let’s focus on our lessons learned and the steps we need to take moving forward.

 

First: There have been more inquiries to the ethics board this year than ever before. That’s because our Ethics Board has been used as a political tool. This has to stop! They are a volunteer board which has put countless hours into reviewing multiple inquiries. They continue to do the best they can with a Code of Ethics that has much room for improvement, as we’ve come to learn.

 

Second: We need to make improvements to the city’s ethics code language, to clarify it, so there is little room for interpretation.

 

Three:

I will call for an independent exploration into what standard practice is on the state level. Modeling it, or improving it, makes sense to me. The policies we will then all need to respect and adhere to, will make it clear exactly what is acceptable. There are other members of this city council, and their spouses, who have been or potentially will be in similar situations regarding conflicts and potential conflicts of interest. Every part-time and full-time employee and city volunteer will clearly understand what is expected of them.

There will be No Room for political positioning!

 

I have appropriately not interacted with the Ethics Board during this important practice out of respect for their role.

 

Now, we must all move forward and be productive with the business of the City of Saratoga and our constituents.

 

And I will guide my future actions accordingly, as I’m sure will my colleagues on this city council.

 

 

 

Lost in all the other events at last night’s City Council meeting was the Mayor’s announcement of the hiring of a new deputy to replace former deputy Joe Ogden who left to take a job as budget director at SUNY. His replacement will be Megan Kelly (or maybe Kelley?) No, not that Megan Kelly, but no further information is available at this time. I’ve asked the Mayor to email me a profile of her new assistant and will publish this information when I receive it.