Saratoga Springs Politics

Have you ever wondered what it is like to work in Saratoga Springs city hall for Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran and his Deputy, Stacy Connors? A lawsuit brought by a longtime and well-respected Accounts Department employee, Lisa Ribis, gives some chilling insights.

Ribis filed her complaint on June 18, 2024, accusing Moran of “wanton, reckless, malicious, and/or intentional….actions…” which violated New York Civil Service Law. Lisa Ribis is now the second Accounts Department employee to sue the city and Moran over his treatment of employees in his department.

Among the charges Ribis makes in her suit against Moran and Connors is that she was the subject of ethnic slurs made by Moran. This is alleged to have occurred at an office meeting on September 15, 2023, at which Moran, his deputy Stacy Connors, assistant clerk Barbara Brindisi, and assistant purchasing agent Stefanie Richards were present as well as Ms. Ribis. During the course of this meeting, Moran referred to Italians as “guinea WOPS.” Ms. Ribis was the only person present of Italian heritage.

Ribis’ complaint also alleges that Moran made a number of false accusations about her. One of the more bizarre accusations Moran is said to have made is to claim that Ms. Ribis spit on activist protesters. Anyone who knows Ms. Ribis would know that this is totally unbelievable and out of character. Should there be any doubt in anyone’s mind, one need only recall the distance between the protesters and where Ms. Ribis sat when she was taking Council meeting minutes and ponder what would have been the reaction of protesters had this occurred. Are we to believe that Commissioner Moran was the only person to have noticed this miraculous act of long-distance targeted spitting at a public meeting?

As disturbing is the lawsuit’s listing of the number of times Moran told individuals that Ms. Ribis was to blame for the changes in the On-Call pay document that led to the District Attorney’s investigation and the subsequent $61,000 attorney bill submitted by Moran and Connors.

Some Background

On April 15, 2024, Saratoga Springs Commissioner of Accounts Dillon Moran suspended Lisa Ribis from her position as Secretary of the City Council in an attempt to terminate her. As Ms. Ribis’ job was protected under the city and state civil service laws, Moran lacked the authority to fire her. Instead, she suffered one month without pay and subsequently was barred by Moran from returning to her job while receiving full pay until a hearing can be convened before an arbitrator to judge the merits of Moran’s action.

Moran issued the first and only formal, written criticism of Ribis when he suspended her. For those not familiar with what is required to terminate an employee, barring some egregious event, there needs to be a clear and thoroughly documented record establishing that the proposed termination is based on a chronic history of violations.

It is a testament to Moran’s impetuous and inept management that he would presume that he could prevail in his effort to fire Ms. Ribis, who has no documented history of complaints about her job performance. A darker possibility is that he is willing to waste public money to indulge in reckless, vindictive behavior.

Ms. Ribis has faithfully served the city for nineteen years, during which time she has received no criticism for her work. In fact, she has enjoyed wide respect and affection from her colleagues throughout the city.

Commissioner Moran’s campaign to terminate Ms. Ribis goes back to 2022. It all began following public comments made by her husband, Joe Ribis, at the Council meeting on February 1, 2022, during which he criticized the Council. On February 15, Ms. Ribis was removed from her duties of taking Council meeting minutes. She believes this was because of the comments her husband made. By May, Moran was requiring her to check in with Deputy Commissioner Connors every morning to find out what Connors wanted her to do that day. Ribis was the only employee in the Accounts Department required to do this. As Connors did not come to work at a regular time in the morning, this made Ribis’ work day challenging, to say the least.

As apparent retribution, Moran also refused to compensate Ms. Ribis for overtime related to her role in taking the minutes of the Council meetings. Ms. Ribis had been receiving this compensation routinely for years. In January 2023, Ribis won a grievance against Moran over his refusal to allow her to accrue compensatory time that she was contractually entitled to. His arbitrary decision to deny her compensation for overtime made no sense outside of harassment.

Moran’s False Standard For Removing Ms. Ribis

Moran’s campaign to terminate Ms. Ribis was based on alleged problems with the minutes of Council meetings she took as the Council secretary. It is interesting to note that while multiple sources report Moran accusing Ribis of altering the documents related to on-call pay, this was not cited by Moran as a reason for the firing in his suspension memo.

It is also worth considering the performance of the person he replaced Ms. Ribis with.

Under the New York State Open Meetings Law, the city is required to post the minutes of meetings publicly within two weeks. During the years Ms. Ribis was responsible for this, she scrupulously met this requirement.

Before Ms. Ribis’ suspension, Moran insisted that Deputy Connors review the draft of the minutes before allowing Ribis to upload them to the city’s website. Connors frequently ignored the required timeline in returning the minutes to Ribis for posting. This tardiness resulted in the violation of the state’s two-week requirement.

The person appointed to replace Ms. Ribis no longer has her work reviewed by Deputy Connors but routinely posts the minutes late in violation of the New York State Open Meetings Law.

In fact, the quality of Ribis’ successor’s minutes has been seriously problematic. The minutes contain many errors in punctuation and incomplete sentences. Some have the wrong dates, and most refer to Supervisor Matt Veitch as Mike Veitch.

In an especially troubling incident, Ribis’ successor misrecorded a statement Lew Benton made during the Council’s public comment period. Benton’s remarks cited Moran’s mishandling of the procedures to pay his $61,000.00 legal bill, arguing that he had violated the city’s purchasing policies. This blogger recalls Moran’s body language during Benton’s remarks. He was not happy.

Somehow, Ms. Ribis’ successor inverted Benton’s remarks in the minutes. Instead of citing Moran’s failure to adhere to city requirements, her minutes had Lew supporting the manner in which the bill was to be paid.

It is hard to understand how she could have made such an egregious error. Benton wrote to Moran (see the email at the end of this post) asking that the record be corrected. Rather than having the courtesy of responding directly to Benton, Moran had Ribis’ successor email Benton, agreeing to correct the record. The minutes have never been corrected. [Revised July 26, 2024, The minutes were revised but the revision still was not correct.]

Rather than suffering Ms. Ribis’s fate for allegedly failing to properly manage the minutes of Council meetings, her successor has not only been promoted and enjoyed an increase in salary, but Moran got civil service to upgrade her position, resulting in a further rise in pay.

A List of the Allegations In Ribis Lawsuit

1. At a council meeting on February 1, 2022, Ms. Ribis’s husband, Joe, criticized the council.
2. On February 15, 2022, Ms. Ribis was removed from council meetings and “told to sit at her desk.”
3. On March 16, 2022, Ms. Ribis was told she would no longer receive accrued compensatory time or receive overtime pay after more than thirteen years of doing so.
4. The overtime she accrued for a March 15, 2022, meeting was denied.
5. A fellow employee who took over her meeting responsibilities was granted flex time and/or accrued compensatory time.
6. On May 3, 2022, Ms. Ribis was instructed to inquire every morning of Deputy Connors, what Connors wished for her to do that day. Ms. Ribis was the only employee in the accounts department required to do this.
7. In April of 2022, Moran falsely accused Ms. Ribis of spitting on activist protestors.
8. In January of 2023, Ms. Ribis prevailed in her grievance regarding her right to compensatory time that Moran had denied her.
9. According to the filing, on May 17, 2023, assistant city clerk Barbara Brandisi and another employee in the accounts department told Ms. Ribis that Moran “…was making it seem as if the plaintiff (Ribis) was to blame for various difficulties with the agenda.”
10. On January 10, 2024, Ms. Ribis received an email from Moran requesting that she provide another employee with full access to her password-protected files. On January 12, 2023, Ms. Ribis advised Moran that to do so would violate the policy she signed with the IT department.
11. Following this incident, Ms. Ribis asserts she was”shunned” by Moran and Connors, who refused to speak to her.
12. On February 16, 2024, Moran reassigned a portion of Ms. Ribis’s duties to the Mayor’s secretary.
13. On the evening of February 16,2024, Ms. Ribis received a call from a resident advising her that Moran was accusing her of altering the contents of a city resolution. Ribis responded that this was false.
14. On March 1, 2024, at a meeting convened by Moran with Connors, Executive Assistant to the Finance Commissioner Samantha Clemmy, Deputy Commissioner of Finance Heather Crofcker, and Assistant Purchasing Agency Sefanie Richards of Accounts, Moran asked Connors if the purchasing policy was added to the city council agenda. Connors responded that she “gave it to the secretary (Ribis), but she didn’t load it in time.” Moran responded that “she (Ribis) can’t even do her [expletive] job.”
15. In reference to item #14, Connors gave the document in question to Ms. Ribis at 11:57 a.m., when the cutoff to add items was 12:00 p.m. Ms. Ribis advised Connors at 12:03 p.m. that she tried loading the document, but the system had locked out at noon. Connors responded at the time that she was aware that the system closed promptly at noon.
16. On March 5, 2024, Ms. Ribis met with Mayor Safford and his assistant, Susanna Combs. During the meeting, Ms. Ribis advised the mayor that she believed Moran was accusing her of causing the “on-call” pay issue. Mayor Safford confirmed that Moran was blaming her for the change. The change would have made Connors eligible for the additional pay.
17. On March 20, 2024, Deputy Mayor Joanne Kiernan told Ribis, “you do know Commissioner Moran is blaming you for the ‘on-call’ mess.”
18. On March 21, 2024, Mayor Safford told Ms. Ribis’s husband that Moran planned to fire Ribis for forging a document. (As far as I know, this allegation was never included in the reasons officially stated for Ms. Ribis’s termination).
19. On April 1, 2024, during a pre-agenda meeting, Connors publicly stated that the March 19, 2024, meeting minutes should be pulled from the agenda because they were “hard to follow due to sentence structure, punctuation, and tense – meaning point of view is first, second, and third throughout the minutes. They require edits and adjustments for clarity and context. Once minutes are approved, they are a permanent record of the meeting. It’s important they be accurate.” Since Ms. Ribis’s employment in 2005, this is the first time that the minutes have ever been pulled from the agenda due to errors.

Final Thoughts

It is important to acknowledge that these are allegations made by Ms. Ribis’ lawyer, Philip G. Steck, and this blogger is unaware of a response from whoever is representing Moran, Connors, and the city.

Still, for some of us who have observed Moran, these accusations have the ring of authenticity.

---

Lew Benton Email Re Incorrect Statement Attributed To Him In City Council Minutes

From: Lew Benton <lewbenton@gmail.com>
Date: July 1, 2024 at 12:48:55 PM EDT
To: dillion.moran@saratoga-springs.org
Cc: John Safford <john.safford@saratoga-springs.org>, Tim Coll <Tim.Coll@saratoga-springs.org>, minita.sanghvi@saratoga-springs.org, Jason Golub <jason.golub@saratoga-springs.org>
Subject: Correction to Draft June 26, 2024  City Council Meeting

Dear Commissioner Moran,

It has been brought to my attention that the draft minutes of the City Council’s Special June 26 meeting misrepresent my statement during the meeting’s Public Comment period.

The draft minutes attribute the following statement to me.

 PUBLIC COMMENT

“Lew Benton, of Saratoga Springs, commented on the proposed resolution for payment of legal services that had been planned to be presented to the City Council at the June 18, 2024 City Council Meeting and thenwithdrawn. Benton commented he could not find the resolution that enable the use of an assignment for legal liability. Benton commented he may be incorrect in the statement there were no resolutions for a legal liability assignment, and stated that he was unable tofind one. Lew Benton recommended the Council to reference Public Officer Law Section 18 regarding determination ofdefense and indemnification of officers and employees of public entities. Benton commented thatthe prerequisites to a resolution are the City Charter, City Code, and Public Officer’s Laws. Benton commented that the City Attorney’s pay attention to the issues and Benton recommended the assignment of independent council for this issue.”

I have reviewed a transcription of my comments.  I made NO such suggestion that “ …an assignment of independent counsel for this issue.” be made.  Attributing this false statement to me turns one its head the essence of my statement: i .e., that no assignment can be made unless and until a City Council approved contract with the independent counsel has been reviewed and approved.

In significant part the transcription of my remarks included the following: “Thus far I have bot been ale to discover any resolution that was previously adopted by this council that would authorize the assignment of special independent counsel to any member of the council or authorize payment.  The City Charter is clear. No such arrangement can be entered into without benefit of formal contract approved by the City Council.”

I did not recommend assignment but rather informed the Council that it was without authority to adopt the resolution on the finance commissioner’s agenda unless and until a Charter demanded contract was authorized.

Please delete the false statement in the draft minutes and insert “Thus far I have bot been ale to discover any resolution that was previously adopted by this council that would authorize the assignment of special independent counsel to any member of the council or authorize payment.  The City Charter is clear. No such arrangement can be entered into without benefit of formal contract approved by the City Council.”

Thank you.

Lew Benton 

70 Railroad Place

Saratoga Springs

Watching the Saratoga Springs City Council meeting on July 2,2024, I was struck by how incestuous the world the Faction (Public Works Commissioner Jason Golub/Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran/Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi) lives in is. It is truly impressive how oblivious they are as to how the public views the debacle of Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran running up a $61,000.00 legal bill at $1,250.00 per hour. They appear to believe that no one will notice or disapprove if they ignore the New York statutes on how legal bills are dealt with and instead nod their heads approvingly at each other’s clearly inaccurate characterizations of what Moran did and what the obligation of the city is to pay his exorbitant bills.

It must have come as quite a shock to the Faction (Golub/Moran/Sanghvi) when the Times Union, in its July 9, 2024 edition editorial, caustically condemned their approval of Moran’s bills to date.

“It would be wise for the city’s government, if it is going to continue picking up these costs, to set a reasonable ceiling for this type of service. If Mr. Moran wants legal services that are the equivalent of a fully loaded Cadillac, he can cover the cost difference out of his own pocket.”

Times Union Editorial

While all members of The Faction behaved badly, Jason Golub’s behavior in this debacle was especially disturbing and is discussed in some detail later in this post.

The Magical World Of Commissioner Minita Sanghvi

Readers will recall that Moran, Golub, and others are seeking to have the City pay their lawyers’ bills because of an investigation by the Saratoga County District Attorney related to the on-call pay scandal. The investigation is focused on how City Council documents were altered to include the word “events” in the resolution establishing on-call pay for the Deputies. The addition of that word was used to expand the circumstances when on-call pay could be earned.

While this is an ongoing investigation, Commissioner Sanghvi has not been shy about confidently weighing in on the merits of the case. In the July 2, 2024, edition of the Times Union, reporter Wendy Liberatore wrote:

In an email, Sanghvi said the subpoena (related to on-call scandal) is “hullabaloo about nothing” and that the resolution was approved again on Feb. 21, 2023 — almost two weeks after the initial vote — after a typo regarding vacation days was discovered. The word “event” was not discussed at that meeting (Libertore here undermines Sanghvi’s narrative).

Times Union

The first question that I would like to ask Commissioner Sanghvi is simply why when the Saratoga County District Attorney and the state police are conducting an extensive investigation into who and why the minutes of a Council meeting were doctored, she is so confident that no crime occurred.

During the July 2 meeting, Sanghvi bizarrely tried to argue that there was no problem and nothing to investigate since the Council approved a version of the resolution that included the added word “events” when the resolution had to be revisited because of a typo. What she ignores is that, as the TU points out, there was no discussion about adding this word, nor was there a motion to make the change. Council members would have had no idea that word had been added to what they were voting on.

Sanghvi tries to ignore the obvious question that the investigation is focused on: how and why the language was changed and who changed it.

In the following video clip, Commissioner Sanghvi first claims that the doctored language (“events”) was part of the original deliberations approving “on-call” payback in February 2023. (A review of the video of that earlier discussion reveals that this is patently false. The word “events” was never mentioned.) She then goes on to make her argument that the Council unknowingly voting for a doctored document somehow erases the culpability of whoever made the change.

This is just one example of the disinformation promoted by the Faction (Golub/Moran/Sanghvi).

Moran’s Conflict of Interest?

The two city attorneys advised that Dillon Moran did not have a conflict of interest and could vote to approve the payment for his own attorney’s fees.

Saratoga Springs Republican chair Mike Brandi has initiated an Article 78 action in Saratoga County Supreme Court to nullify the Council vote to pay Moran’s bills. One of the many elements in his challenge is the issue of Moran’s conflict of interest.

I am not a lawyer and have not had the privilege of reading the memorandum issued by our City Attorneys clearing the way for Moran to vote. While there may be a legitimate legal rationale for granting Moran the privilege to vote on his own bill, it seems more than odd.

If Moran had not been allowed to vote on paying his own bill, there would not have been a majority, and the authorization would have failed. If it failed, Moran would be on the hook to pay the $61,000.00 bill himself. On its face, this seems like a conflict of interest to me.

We will find out the answer when Judge Freestone rules on Brandi’s action.

A History Of Responsibly Seeking Private Counsel

The Faction (Golub/Moran/Sanghvi) would like the public to believe they had no choice but to pay Moran’s exorbitant bill. The assumption they made was that because he had a right to counsel, it was too late to address any of the many troubling questions about the bill’s cost or the manner by which Moran ran up the bill.

Moran attempted to defend himself from any questioning by announcing that he had consulted with the City Attorney, who had told him he had a right to counsel. Being told he had a right to counsel is not the same as being told he could go out and hire an expensive lawyer from Manhattan at three times the rate of lawyers available in the capital district. The Council was not helpless. Nothing required them to approve this particular bill as presented even though, as we shall see, this is the repeated argument, Jason Golub, in particular, aggressively put forth.

What Moran could and should have done was to follow the example set by Council members and employees who sought representation during the Attorney General’s investigation of the city’s Police Department. As Moran was sitting on the Council when this process was going forward, he would have been aware of the procedure used in securing counsel by Meg Kelly, Robin Dalton, and others.

Below is a series of emails documenting that past process. In this case, it was for former Public Safety Deputy Eileen Finneran and former Public Safety Commissioner Robin Dalton, who were involved in the NY Attorney General’s probe. The role of Tony Izzo, assistant city attorney, is particularly of note.

In this correspondence, Izzo seeks to know the parameters of hourly rates and overall costs for such representation to prepare for Council approval. Note that this information is being sought and obtained before the attorneys have done any work, not after the fact, as in Moran’s case.

Ironically, the three Faction members (Moran, Sanghvi, and Golub) who approved Dillon’s bills without even noting that how he proceeded was inappropriate had all been on the Council when Dalton, Finneran, and others went through the process of hiring lawyers and submitting their bills. And let’s not forget Dillon voting to refuse to pay Meg Kelly’s bills, which in two years were only a fraction of what he managed to accrue in only a few weeks. And, of course, then there was Minita’s repeated suggestion that the Council should consider capping payments to lawyers hired by city officials to defend themselves. That was then, and this is now.

Dillon Moran’s Cynical Abuse

Moran had to know that it was inappropriate for him to start generating bills without the Council’s review. He had to know that there was a threat that if it became public that he was hiring an attorney from Manhattan at a rate of $1,250.00 an hour, the public response would be overwhelmingly negative.

So, unlike Eileen Finneran and Robin Dalton, as documented above, Moran exploited the City Attorney’s opinion that he should hire a lawyer as his defense for hiring the Manhattan attorney without any public scrutiny and start billing before getting the Council’s approval. Harper’s opinion that he should hire a lawyer was not a blank check.

The Issue Of Civil Versus Criminal Indemnification

The Attorney General’s investigation involving city officials was a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Under section 18 of the New York State Public Officers Law, public employees enjoy broad protection for covering legal costs and penalties in civil matters.

However, the state of New York deals differently with indemnification in criminal matters.

New York State Law does not authorize the upfront payment of legal costs in criminal matters. Only if the subject of the criminal matter is exonerated can the state reimburse them. This makes sense because why should taxpayers bear the burden of paying the legal bills for government officials found guilty of criminal acts.

For instance, Joe Bruno was eligible to have the state pay his lawyer’s bills only after he was found innocent because his was a criminal not a civil case. He paid his legal bills upfront from his campaign fund, and only after his conviction was reversed on appeal did the state agree to reimburse him. Even then, that right to reimbursement was not unlimited. When he submitted his bills for payment, the state determined that the fees he had incurred were not reasonable and only partially reimbursed him. This fact exposes the falsity of the vigorous argument Jason Golub made at the Council table that Dillon’s bills could not be adjusted retroactively.

Our city attorneys, David Harper, and Tony Izzo, however, have asserted that because our city code fails to distinguish between criminal and civil matters, the city is obliged to pay Moran’s and Connors’ legal bills even though this is a criminal investigation.

Why should the city of Saratoga Springs be exceptional in this issue? Brandi’s challenge argues that state law supersedes our code and the city should not have paid bills up front in a criminal case. This is at the heart of Brandi’s legal challenge. The citizens will have to wait to see who Judge Freestone agrees with.

The determination of Moran’s and Connors’ eligibility to have the city pay bills in a criminal matter is just one issue among others currently being challenged in court by Mike Brandi.

What Is Reasonable?

Even when the right to legal representation is clear, the law still requires that the bills be reasonable.

According to former Finance Commissioner, now Supervisor Michele Madigan, during her administration, the city routinely considered the issue of reasonableness before paying bills and often successfully negotiated lower fees than attorneys originally charged.

This issue concerned the two Council members who were not part of The Faction. Both Mayor John Safford and Commissioner Tim Coll expressed grave reservations not about whether to pay for a lawyer for Moran and Connors but about whether the bills Moran submitted to the Council for payment were reasonable.

The bills appeared excessive on their faces, averaging a thousand dollars an hour.

As Commissioner Coll rhetorically asked during the meeting if the city received a large bill, “Would the city have to pay if the bill was for sixty million dollars?” According to Jason Golub’s argument, it would.

Attorney Harper was called to the mic by Jason Golub and asked whether he thought the bills were reasonable. Harper declined to express an opinion, offering a mild joke that “there is an honor among thieves,” referring to lawyers. Following his quip, he declined to discuss whether Moran’s lawyer’s fees were reasonable. He then read from a section of the law that outlined general criteria for determining fees.

Commissioner Coll, supported by Mayor Safford, urged that approving the bills should be tabled and that the Council should seek guidance from the New York State Attorney General and the New York State Comptroller. Harper had advised the Council to take this action in an email to the Council members which the members of The Faction on the Council chose to ignore.

Golub Goes Into Disinformation Overdrive

Commissioner Golub would have none of this. Clearly, he wanted to support Moran and Sanghvi now and get the city to authorize the full bill that night, no matter what objections might be raised.

Attorney Harper’s restrained style helped Golub exploit confusion. Listening to Harper reminded me of an attorney’s advice to a witness to limit answers as much as possible. When asked by Golub if the city was required to pay for Moran’s representation, he simply answered Yes. When Golub asked whether the city should pay the bill, Harper simply responded that the Council had the authority to approve the bill. He was clearly reticent to expand on the distinction between Moran’s right to be represented and any problems with the bill as submitted.

Golub exploited this by asserting that, according to Harper, the city was obliged to pay for Moran’s representation and that since the city had no clear criteria for what was reasonable, the city was compelled to pay the bill. It would have been helpful if Harper had been more emphatic that, as I believe, the city was not obliged to pay the bill as presented and enjoyed the right to negotiate further with Moran’s attorney. No one questioned Harper on this, and it was not his style to volunteer to discuss the matter and emphasize the difference between paying a bill and paying this bill.

In a particularly cynical stunt, Golub claimed it was too late to delay paying the bill and seek retroactive advice on whether it was reasonable. I believe that Golub knew quite well that the city had every right to challenge the lawyers’ fees, and there was plenty of time to seek an outside opinion and negotiate the cost.

When Coll asked Harper to confirm his email recommending seeking advice from the Comptroller, Harper simply answered yes. Declining to explain to the Council why he thought this prudent made it easy for Golub to ignore his response and insist that the bill be paid in full.

In even more disturbing remarks that ignored Harper’s monosyllabic answer, Golub raised the temperature by asserting that by not agreeing to pay the bill that night, Safford and Coll were somehow endangering future officials.

The following exchange captures the tone and disturbing tactics of Golub, who misrepresents Harper by falsely asserting that Harper is insisting that the city pay Moran’s bill as presented while misrepresenting Coll and Safford as unwilling to pay any bill.

Golub: “Now we have a legal opinion from our lawyer who says we have an obligation to pay this bill [Harper never said this], which is the same obligation we had to pay our former officials bills. And now we are not going to pay it. Let me finish. This gets us to exactly where we don’t want to be with indemnification. What is the point of having legal counsel if we’re going to ignore it?” [Golub, of course ignored Harper’s recommendation that the city seek the advice of the comptroller]

Coll:“So, we all agree we need to be indemnified, I think our obligation is what’s reasonable. We don’t have a standard, I agree with that, but what if the bill was $60 million, we should just pay that too because we don’t have a reasonableness?”

Golub:“You’re applying your subjective standard after the fact and that is dangerous.”

Golub Hands Moran A Blank Check

It is critical to note that after his impassioned assertion, which is false, that the city could not retroactively challenge the attorney’s bill, he never addresses how to handle Moran’s bills going forward. Golub is a smart enough lawyer to know that paying the bill and not addressing how to deal with future bills gave his ally, Moran, the green light to generate even more outrageous bills. As Moran failed to consult the other members of the Council before racking up his $60,000.00 bill, there is no reason to believe that he will not continue to abuse his authority.

The readers of this blog should understand that if a grand jury issues an indictment in this criminal matter, the cost of representation by Dillon’s lawyer could easily reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The Following Videos Tell It All

It Ain’t Over

In the end, The Faction—Golub, Sanghvi, and Moran—voted to pay the bill despite questions about the appropriateness of Moran’s voting to pay his own bill. Safford and Coll voted no.

Mike Brandi, the city Republican Committee chair, has brought a legal action that has temporarily stopped the payment of the bill pending legal review.

Golub Exits

Jason Golub has taken an executive position with the New York State Department of Corrections. He will begin the new job next month, requiring him to resign from his Commissioner position.

If Sanghvi and Moran continue to take hardline partisan positions, the Council will be divided two against two. Since passing any resolution requires a majority, paying Moran’s bills in the future could become problematic.

Unless the four remaining members of the Council can agree on Golub’s replacement, which will be challenging, the Public Works Commissioner position could remain vacant until November 2025.

Saratoga Black Lives Matter leader Lex Figuereo was ticketed in May for failing to file the declaration required by the city for groups holding demonstrations. This prompted a variety of responses from BLM supporters, including the New York State Attorney General’s office. The Capital District Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) organized a demonstration objecting to Figuereo’s ticketing. The AG’s office sent a menacing note to the city, bizarrely elevating the filing of a simple form to somehow violating Lex Figuereo’s freedom of speech.

All those who have objected to Figuereo’s ticketing share a fundamental misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the declaration (for a start, it’s not a permit) and how the city responded. In an attempt to set the record straight, Saratoga Springs Public Safety Commissioner Tim Coll wrote the following letter that appeared in Saratoga Today.

Letter to Editor Saratoga Today:

I am reaching out directly to all Saratogians to explain what has occurred with the recent issuance of Appearance Tickets related to Saratoga BLM. The Appearance Tickets were issued because the primary organizer of two BLM demonstrations failed to file demonstration declarations.

DEMONSTRATION DECLARATION

The City of Saratoga Springs requires by Code that any group planning to demonstrate must file a document called a “demonstration declaration.” There is no fee for the declaration and this requirement was established by the City in 2005.

The purpose of the declaration is to provide a way for the Department of Public Safety to work cooperatively with groups organizing demonstrations to ensure that the demonstrators and the public can be safe. As an example, two groups wanted to demonstrate in the same area during the Belmont Festival so alternative locations were provided and agreed upon.

This declaration process is administered by the Accounts Department, and each declaration, if completed properly, is approved. In 2024, the following organizations have filed demonstration declarations that were approved; Saratoga Peace Alliance, Jewish Federation, Horseracing Wrongs, and CSEA. Therefore, the only organization that has refused to comply with this ordinance, thus far in 2024, is Saratoga BLM.

APPEARANCE TICKETS

It should be noted that the issuance of an Appearance Ticket is not a custodial arrest. No person was placed into custody, handcuffed, or processed. The Appearance Tickets were served upon Mark Mischler who is representing the leader of Saratoga BLM.

It should also be noted that the pre-planned, non-violent, protests were not interrupted.  In fact, the SSPD took appropriate actions to keep the demonstrators safe when they blocked traffic on the streets in Saratoga Springs.

I want to be clear that I strongly agree with the issuance of the tickets because not doing so would be a violation of the Constitutional Right to Equal Protection, in violation of the 14th Amendment. More specifically, we should not treat Saratoga BLM differently than the Jewish Federation or Horse Racing Wrongs or any other group.  As noted, doing so would be a violation of the 14th Amendment and a violation of the basic tenet of unbiased policing.

I received the following two press releases from the Saratoga Springs Republican Chair, Mike Brandi.

The first, dated July 3, explains the legal action Brandi took after the Saratoga Springs City Council, in a 3-2 vote, agreed to pay a $60,993 bill to a Manhattan attorney hired by Saratoga Springs Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran and his Deputy Stacey Connors to represent them in an investigation into the on-call pay scandal.

The second release, dated July 5, concerns the Saratoga County Supreme Court decision to issue a temporary restraining order to prohibit payments to Moran’s and Connor’s attorney “during the pendency of ongoing litigation.”

Saratoga Springs Republican Chairman Mike Brandi Files Emergency Litigation Against City Council Over $60,000 Payment Approval

SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY — July 3, 2024 — Mike Brandi, Chairman of the Saratoga Springs Republican Committee, has taken urgent legal action this morning by filing litigation in the Saratoga County Supreme Court challenging the recent approval by the City Council last night to disburse over $60,000 in payments to Dillon Moran’s private attorneys in relation to the on-call payment investigation. Specifically, Moran ran up over $60,000 in attorneys fees in six weeks, with his New York City-based attorneys charging over $1000/hour. 

The litigation, filed under Article 78 of the CPLR, seeks a temporary restraining order to halt any payments by the City during the litigation process. Brandi contends that these payments violate provisions of the New York State Constitution prohibiting gifts to individuals, as well as several State and Local Laws.

In a statement, Mike Brandi expressed his commitment to upholding taxpayer rights and constitutional principles: “While litigation is not our preferred course, I view it as a duty to defend the taxpayers of Saratoga Springs and the integrity of our State Constitution. The City Council’s decision last night amounted to a $60,000 gift to Commissioner Moran, directly contradicting our state’s foundational principles.”

Chris Obstarczyk, of the Obstarczyk Firm, attorney for Mike Brandi, emphasized the responsibility of local government in managing taxpayer funds: “It is essential for local authorities to demonstrate fiscal responsibility and adherence to legal standards and upholding our constitution. I am honored to support Mr. Brandi in rectifying this situation. I trust that the Supreme Court will intervene to put an end to this misallocation of public funds and unconstitutional action of the City Council.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Saratoga County Supreme Court Issues Temporary Restraining Order Prohibiting Payments to Moran’s Private Attorneys
Saratoga Springs, NY – July 5, 2024:

The Saratoga County Supreme Court has issued a temporary restraining order today, effectively prohibiting any payments to the private attorneys of Moran during the pendency of ongoing litigation. This action comes in response to emergency litigation filed by Saratoga Springs Republican Committee Chairman, Mike Brandi earlier this week.
Chairman Brandi’s lawsuit argued that the over $60,000 in payments to Moran’s private attorneys were unconstitutional and that Moran had a conflict of interest which should have precluded him from voting on matters related to these payments. The litigation seeks to permanently stop any such payments and ensure taxpayer funds are used appropriately and lawfully.
In response to the court’s decision, Chairman Mike Brandi stated, “This is the first step in halting this unconstitutional misappropriation of taxpayer funds. We are committed to ensuring that the public’s money is used transparently and in accordance with the law.“

Saratoga Springs Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi, Public Works Commissioner Jason Golub, and Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran voted to pay Moran’s unprecedentedly high lawyer bill at last night’s(July 2, 2024) City Council meeting. Mayor John Safford and Public Safety Commissioner Tim Coll voted no. Moran’s lawyer billed at $1250/hour to represent Moran and his Deputy, Stacy Connors in the investigation into the city’s on-call pay scandal. This morning, July 3, the city Republican Chair Mike Brandi went to court to challenge the legality of the payment.

I will be writing about all this more when I get back from fishing in Wyoming, but today’s Saratoga Podcast did a great job focusing on the many issues raised at last night’s meeting and Brandi’s response. Podcast guest former Finance Commissioner and current Supervisor Michele Madigan challenged Sanghvi’s assertion that there was no process in place to address this situation and guest Mike Brandi explains his legal challenge. A lively and informative program.

Tomorrow night, July 2,the Saratoga Springs City Council will decide whether to pay bills that Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran and his Deputy, Stacy Connors, have run up when they hired a private Manhattan attorney to represent them in the ongoing investigation of the on-call pay scandal. As readers may recall, their attorney bills $1,250.00 an hour. In eight weeks, including the most recent bill, the sum has grown to $60,992.65. The detailed bill is posted on the Council agenda on the city’s website.

If Moran and/or Connors were to be indicted as part of this scandal, the cost to this city for their representation would run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The hourly rate being charged by Moran’s lawyer is not only the highest rate ever billed to the city; it dwarfs the rates charged by other attorneys who have recently represented city officials. Former Mayor Meg Kelly’s attorney billed the city at $395.00 an hour to represent her during the Attorney General’s investigation. Moran’s lawyer is billing at literally three times that rate. Readers will remember that Moran complained bitterly about paying Kelly’s bills. Likewise Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi, who hasn’t had a problem bringing Moran’s bills to the Council for approval, complained about Kelly’s and former Commissioner Robin Dalton’s bills and just recently floated the idea that the Council might want to start putting a cap on what the Council would pay lawyers hired to represent city officials. She hasn’t mentioned this idea since Moran’s and Connors’ bills appeared.

Municipalities have the authority to scrutinize and challenge legal fees on the basis of reasonableness.

To date, the city has yet to determine whether Moran’s attorney’s rate is reasonable for the city to pay.

I am reminded of that famous quote from former Supreme Court Justice Stewart Potter, who said of pornography, “I know it when I see it.” While I don’t know what the legal definition of “reasonable” is I feel I do know an unreasonable lawyer bill when I see one and I would say that is what the Council will be asked to consider tomorrow night.

There is also the question of whether Moran has a conflict of interest if he chooses to participate in the vote on his bills tomorrow night. Approving the payment of the bills implies that they are reasonable. As the lawyer will be representing Moran, it would seem grossly inappropriate for him to vote on that issue.

If Moran cannot vote on the bill, it is unlikely to pass.

Whether or not Moran is determined to have a conflict of interest, the underlying issues will truly define the character of those who represent the citizens of this Saratoga Springs.

To adopt Sanghvi’s resolution would be an outrageous example of cronyism. The arrogance of Moran and Sanghvi, along with Public Works Commissioner Jason Golub, if he votes for this, will be simply stunning. They will be telling us that our tax money is in a piggy which they can dip into at their whim.

New York State Attorney General Letitia James has issued the city an Assurance Of Discontinuance (AOD) proposal [JK: The full proposal is at the bottom of this blog]. It would be part of the settlement growing out of the AG’s investigation of the Saratoga Springs Police Department. If implemented, it would require that the city allow not just Black Lives Matter but any group, including the Proud Boys, to block city streets and disrupt City Council meetings. It is quite stunning. It basically precludes the city’s police department from enforcing key codes essential to the city’s functioning.

It provides wide immunity from arrest for any demonstrators who violate city codes.

Among other provisions to hamper the city from exerting its authority, Attorney General Letitia James’ proposed agreement would grant demonstrators the right to block streets and sidewalks at their discretion. According to James, any group that wants to demonstrate can now control the city’s streets. The document reads:

A Deep Dive Into The AOD Proposal

This is the cover letter for the AOD. As readers will observe, it asserts, “The AOD would restrict the city of Saratoga Springs, the SSPD, and those acting in concert with them [emphasis added], from seeking criminal charges for most non-violent violations of law.” It is hard to believe that lawyers drafted this. “Those acting in concert with them” could be the New York State Police, the Saratoga County Sheriff’s Department, the FBI, or Homeland Security, as we saw during the Belmont Stakes. How does the Attorney General expect to enforce this AOD on these organizations? Does the Attorney General plan to go after these other law enforcement groups to restrict their operations when they occur in Saratoga Springs?

General Prohibitions

The AOD lays out a series of general prohibitions. Keep in mind these prohibitions would apply to any demonstration whether it be BLM or the Proud Boys.

No horse-mounted police.

No officers on bicycles.

Any arrest related to a demonstration must be made during the demonstration.

The city is precluded from enforcing parade requirements or from enforcing the requirement to fill out a demonstration declaration.

The city cannot enforce its rules for decorum at its Council meetings or “other official city function” except in the case of violence, physical injury, or significant property damage.

There are sound reasons for delaying the arrest of persons involved in the protest until after the event. Arresting someone during a demonstration is an extremely provocative act that logically has the potential to produce a scrum. It is reasonable for the police to refrain from arrests during a demonstration where possible. In fact, the AG’s insistence that the police can only make arrests during a demonstration is at odds with their requirement that the police use all means possible to de-escalate.

There is also the real possibility that someone may have committed a crime that was not apparent at the time. The fact that the original crime was unobserved and not acted upon during the demonstration is no reason to place the perpetrator beyond culpability.

Police on horseback are a key element in dealing with crowds. The rider’s elevation allows them to see things that a person on the ground would not. Officers on horseback are also an effective tool for separating demonstrators and counter demonstrators in a crowd. The AG’s proposal offers no explanation as to why the use of officers on horseback is prohibited nor do they explain why they are prohibiting police on bicycles.

The AG Authorizes Demonstrators To Disrupt City Council Meetings

Item #55 prohibits the police “…from investigating, arresting, or seeking charges against any individual for expressive conduct at any city council meeting or other city function in the absence of particularized allegation of violence, physical injury, or significant property damage caused by such individual.” The AG appears shockingly unconcerned about the need to maintain order at Council meetings that have been repeatedly shut down by demonstrators.

The Proposed Tier System

The AOD lays out four “tiers” of response to demonstrations they want the police to follow. The first tier is for demonstrations that involve no violence or the “significant” destruction of property.

The second tier is appropriate if the police are “aware of a specific and credible threat that violence or significant property damage may occur at the demonstration.” However, there is no guidance on distinguishing “significant” from “not significant” property damage.

In this case, the police can only act if a person has committed a felony. They are precluded from acting on persons committing violations or misdemeanors. (In a subsequent section and in conflict with item c, they are allowed to arrest for misdemeanors as well.) This still precludes the police from acting on violations such as disorderly conduct.

AG Indulges In Catch 22 Logic

More problematic are the prohibitions in the AOD that significantly restrict investigations into the pre-activities of the group demonstrating.

The police are allowed to go to Tier 2 if they have overwhelming evidence that a crime will occur at the demonstration. This becomes meaningless if, as #56 details, they are virtually precluded from any type of surveillance prior to the demonstration.

They are also precluded from recording the demonstration, so no pictures or videos are taken, which further hinders the police from proving a crime.

The Third Tier

Given how poorly written and organized this document is, annotating it is a bit of a challenge. The third tier is triggered by actual acts of violence or property destruction. What constitutes significant versus insignificant property damage is never addressed. Similarly, what constitutes an “imminent” threat is never clarified. The document does tell us it is ok for demonstrators to throw water bottles in spite of the fact that Water bottles as projectiles are potentially dangerous.

This tier cautions that the police may only deploy “a limited number of officers sufficient to address the specific individuals engaged in the acts of violence or property damage (snark warning: for some reason, they left out the word significant, which qualifies every other reference to damage in the document).”

How many officers represent a “limited number” is anyone’s guess.

As the AOD proposal precludes the city from requiring a demonstration declaration that would provide the time of the event and the organizer’s estimate of the number of people involved, the police chief’s ability to prepare for the demonstration in terms of bringing in additional officers or other organizations such as the sheriff’s department is made all the more difficult.

This is real madness. Contrary to the AG’s approach to crowd control, if there is violence or property destruction, it is time to request that the “crowd” disperse. Dear reader, imagine for a moment that you are the city’s chief of police and members of a demonstration are acting violently or destroying property. Wouldn’t you consider it time to try to arrest the perpetrators and ask the crowd to disperse?

Tier 4

Here, the situation is that protesters “are seeking to gain unauthorized entry, or physically blocking others’ entry, into a sensitive location. A sensitive location includes, but is not limited to, a police precinct, courthouse, other government building, hospital, clinic, medical facility, or medical provider.”

For some reason, the authors felt the need to remind the city that the demonstrators may take over the street, block traffic and throw water bottles and still must be “accommodated.” This section appears to be a case of cut-and-paste.

The police must give the protesters three warnings to disperse, allowing five minutes for each warning. So the crowd can block access or remain in a “sensitive area” for fifteen minutes. Given the history of BLM demonstrations, it is reasonable to assume that they will occupy the area until just before the fifteen minutes are up and potentially move to another sensitive location and start the countdown again.

How Is This For Craziness?

Let’s assume the protesters simply block the “sensitive” location for fifteen minutes and decline to disperse. What can they be charged with? Typically, the charge would be for disorderly conduct, which is a violation. According to the AOD, the police are precluded from charging protesters for violations. So what are the police to do? The AOD conveniently doesn’t address this.

The AG’s Standards Proposed Here Would Apply to Any Group Including the Proud Boys Or the Ku Klux Klan

I am a strong civil libertarian and believe the government should enforce its laws uniformly. It should not consider ideology, race, religion, or nationality in its actions. I expect, though, that many of the creators and supporters of the hands-off standards being proposed by Attorney General Tish James would be outraged if these were applied to a Proud Boys demonstration blocking the intersection of Broadway and Lake Avenue and shouting racist slogans.

In effect, the proposed restrictions in Letitia James’s proposal would attract any group that wants to make a splash and get attention for whatever cause they are pursuing. As the proposal also restricts police intelligence operations regarding potential demonstrations, the city will operate in a black box regarding threats. A surprise action would leave the police department and community vulnerable in terms of having adequate staffing resources to protect demonstrators and the public.

James appears either indifferent or ineptly blind regarding the potential for explosive conditions that her proposal would cause. Consider the Belmont concert that drew crowds to Broadway. What if the Proud Boys decided to have a demonstration and waded into the crowd, yelling racist and homophobic slurs? What would the potential be for a riot, and how could the police address this, given Tish James’ prohibitions?

This AOD is clearly not the result of attorneys carefully considering the protection of First Amendment rights. Apparently, a group in the AG’s office sat around a table and carelessly tossed out ideas packaged as the AOD proposal, which she then authorized. While it is an opening proposal from James, it is an extreme position to start negotiations from and must be taken seriously by the city and replied to at a great cost of time and money. Interestingly, the original AG report listed only a half dozen reasonable demands, many of which the city was already practicing. This new proposal is quite bizarre, and unfortunately, the press is not covering this for whatever reason. One can only wonder how this fits into James’ political ambitions. Would she really support this kind of policing of a Proud Boys demonstration? The citizens of Saratoga Springs and New York deserve better.

The Full Proposed AOD

This blogger was a guest on the Saratoga Podcast on Wednesday, June 19, 2024, where we discussed Saratoga Springs Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran and his Deputy, Stacy Connors, dropping a $49,946.60 bill for their $1,250.00 per hour Manhattan attorney on the city. The still unnamed attorney is representing them in the on-call scandal.

We also discussed a proposed order by the Attorney General’s office that, among other things, would prohibit the police from charging demonstrators for any misconduct below a misdemeanor. For example, the city could not charge them for blocking traffic or disrupting a City Council meeting. I am working on a long post analyzing this bizarre document.

At the June 18, 2024, Saratoga Springs City Council meeting, Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi pulled the item from her agenda that proposed to give Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran and his Deputy Stacy Connors $49,946.50 “to be used in responding to the subpoena served on them by the District Attorney’s office.”

They were apparently supposed to give this money to an unnamed attorney for performing unknown tasks. No bill or invoice for services was presented with this unusual resolution. As of today (June 19, 2024), other members of the Council and the public have yet to see an accounting of what this money will pay for.

My sources tell me Moran and Connors have engaged a Manhattan attorney who is charging a “discounted” rate of $1,250 an hour. This bill seems to be only for services provided to answer a subpoena. Sanghvi’s resolution also provides that “Dillon Moran and Stacy Connors may continue to request additional reasonable legal fees or expenses from time to time….”

It is my understanding that it is unprecedented for the Council to give money to individuals to pay their legal fees rather than to directly pay the bill submitted by an attorney. While public officials are allowed to hire a lawyer of their choice, note that the fees are required to be “reasonable.” This means not only an evaluation of the hourly fee but also, for instance, a review of the tasks performed and the number of hours billed to carry out that task. To my knowledge, no such review has taken place by the City Attorney, yet the Council was asked by Finance Commissioner Sanghvi to give the money to Moran and Connors anyway.

It is also unclear if the city requires any kind of vetting process before city officials hire private attorneys. In any case, it was revealed at the Council meeting that the scope of the State Police investigation of the on-call pay scandal has expanded to include members of the Finance and Public Works Departments as well as former Deputy Mayor Angela Rella. This will ensure that more legal bills will be coming before the Council for approval. The Public Safety Department has not been involved, as then Deputy Jason Tetu was the only deputy not to take advantage of the on-call pay offer.

It is ironic that both Moran and Sanghvi have bitterly complained about paying former Mayor Meg Kelly and former Public Safety Commissioner Robin Dalton’s legal bills that have been a fraction of the bill Moran and Connors have already presented at what may be only the beginning of the legal process against them. Sanghvi even argued at a recent meeting for a cap to be put on the amount public officials should be reimbursed for legal fees.

She did not bring up a proposal to cap fees again at last night’s meeting.

Minita Sanghvi has an item on her agenda for the June 18,2024, Saratoga Springs City Council meeting to pay $49,946.60 to an attorney to represent Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran and his deputy, Stacy Connors, related to the on-call scandal. Sanghvi also has a resolution to transfer the city funds to pay for this. The language of Sanghvi’s resolution also authorizes more payments to the attorney in the future.

An actual bill or contract from the attorney or even the attorney’s name is missing. As the cost seems excessive on its face, it is disturbing that, as far as one can tell, the City Attorney has not reviewed a bill to determine if it is reasonable. It is even more disturbing that Sanghvi would put this forward for payment given the lack of documentation of the work that was done and a breakdown of the fees that were charged.

Readers may forbear my skepticism, but it seems more than coincidental that neither Sanghvi nor Moran attended the pre-agenda meeting this morning (June 17), at which they would have had to explain all of this. When Sanghvi’s deputy was questioned about the resolution and transfer of city funds to pay this bill, she declined to answer, telling the Council members present that Sanghvi would address the resolution at the Tuesday night meeting.

This is part of an ongoing pattern where Moran and Sanghvi add items after the pre-agenda meeting. This deprives the Mayor and other Commissioners of the ability to prepare for the Council meeting and denies the public of notification of the actions they are going to bring forth.

Here is a press release from Saratoga Springs Republican Chairman Mike Brandi and Sanghvi’s resolution.

SSSGOP Calls on City Council to Reject Moran’s Request for Taxpayer Funds for Private Attorneys to Respond to Criminal Subpoena

June 17, 2024

The Saratoga Springs Republican Committee is calling on the city council to reject the proposed resolution advanced by Commissioner of Finance Minita Sanghvi, which would provide $49,946.60 to pay the bill of a private attorney retained by Commissioner of Accounts Dillon Moran and Deputy Commissioner Stacey Connors in their defense against the criminal investigation related to the on-call scandal.

State Law and Public Officer Indemnification

Firstly, under state law, public officers are only entitled to indemnification in criminal matters after charges are dismissed or they are found not guilty. Taxpayers should not be burdened with the costs of a public official’s defense if there is potential for guilty conduct. This principle ensures that public funds are used judiciously and not in defense of potentially criminal actions.

Locally, Section 9-1 of the City Code provides for indemnification and defense of city officers in legal actions arising out of their official duty or scope of employment. It is an absurd proposition for one to claim that their official duty includes potentially criminal conduct. Certainly, the city would not be paying for a criminal defense attorney if an elected official were driving drunk in a city vehicle. This situation is no different.

Lack of Transparency and Adherence to City Policy

Secondly, neither Commissioner Moran nor Deputy Commissioner Connors have disclosed the identities of the attorneys they have hired. Nor have they provided a copy of the bills that are to be paid with this $49,946.60. Moreover, the city’s purchasing policy has not been followed to ensure that the city is obtaining a fair rate for these legal services or that the city is protected in the case of vendor misconduct. Attorneys retained by the City are required to produce evidence of certain insurance requirements, which has not occurred here. Finally, Section 8.1 of the City Charter makes it clear that only the Council may engage legal professionals. Moran has no independent right to retain counsel for himself at the cost of the City. Transparency and adherence to established procedures are fundamental to maintaining public trust and fiscal responsibility.

No Demonstrated Conflict or Incompetence in City Attorney’s Office

Thirdly, there has been no demonstration that the City Attorney’s Office is conflicted or incompetent in handling the subpoena. Precedents such as the cases of former Mayor Kelly and former Commissioner of Public Safety Dalton only involved the allocation of outside counsel after it was clearly established that there was a conflict of interest in them sharing counsel with the city. This crucial step has not been met in the current situation.

Chairman’s Statement

“Commissioner Moran’s brazen attempt to siphon taxpayer funds for his personal legal defense slush fund is not just inappropriate, it is an outright abuse of his position,” said SSGOP Chairman Mike Brandi. “The residents of Saratoga Springs should not be forced to bankroll his legal troubles, especially when there is no legitimate reason to bypass the City Attorney’s Office. Moran should not be allowed to play fast and loose with the law and then expect taxpayers to bail him out when he is found with his hand in the cookie jar. This blatant disregard for protocol and transparency is a slap in the face to every taxpayer and yet another blight on Moran’s already tattered record.”

Background on Investigation

The Saratoga County District Attorney has initiated a probe related to on-call pay for Saratoga Springs Deputy Commissioners. On April 24, 2024, Saratoga County Judge James Murphy III authorized subpoenas that were served on the city on April 25, 2024. The investigation is looking into misconduct regarding the claiming of thousands of dollars of on-call pay by certain city officers.

The SSGOP stands firm in its commitment to fiscal responsibility and transparency in government. We urge the city council to reject the request for taxpayer-funded private attorneys for Moran and Connors. It is imperative that taxpayer money is protected and used appropriately, ensuring that public trust is upheld.

Please contact Mike Brandi at this email with any questions. 

The Resolution