Saratoga Springs Politics

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

The Missing Meeting

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

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

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

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

A Violation of the Open Meetings Law

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

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

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

Christen Smith, Senior Attorney, Marh 29, 2023

and

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

Christen Smith, Senior Attorney, March 29, 2023

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

Commissioner Sanghvi Shrugs Off Her Responsibility

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

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

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

Instead, she sent the following:

---

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

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

Commissioner Sanghvi

---

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

---

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

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

Best, Commissioner Sanghvi

---

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

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

On March 28, she responded as follows:

---

Mr. Kaufmann, 

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JK: From Publius (aka Alexander Hamilton)]

Some Modest Recommendations on Restoring City Council Civility and Decorum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your humble reader,

Publius

Last year the city endured a drawn-out debacle when Saratoga Springs Mayor Ron Kim refused to approve the co-pay for an insurance settlement. The conflict was ugly, marked by false attacks by Kim against Marilyn Rivers, the director of Risk and Safety. Ultimately, Kim conceded to a federal judge that the city had no authority over the settlement, and the insurance company was finally paid. You would think Kim and the Council would have learned from this experience. You would be wrong.

As Yogi Berra once observed, “it’s deja vu all over again.”

One would have hoped that after having served two terms on the Saratoga Springs City Council as Public Safety Commissioner and now having spent over a year in office as Mayor, that Ron Kim would have at last begun to understand how the city’s insurance coverage works. After all, as he always likes to remind us, he is also a lawyer. Unfortunately, Kim is once more resisting paying a deductible due to Traveler’s Insurance for a case settled against the city.

The Latest Insurance Case

In 2019, Kenneth Wilkins fell on ice in front of city hall. He made a claim against the city. Travelers Insurance defended the city in the suit and ended up settling the matter for $65,000.00. The city’s Travelers insurance policy requires the city to pay a $25,000.00 deductible.

On March 13, 2023, Kim was presented with the following resolution to authorize the city’s payment of the deductible due to Travelers Insurance. As the document below shows, City Attorney Tony Izzo signed off on the resolution writing that it “appears lawful and proper.”

Mayor Kim signed off on the resolution, and then, for reasons unknown, he asked for the document to be returned to him, scratched out his signature, and decided he would bring it to the Council.

The resolution was on the Mayor’s agenda for the March 21, 2023, City Council meeting. In a bizarre twist, the Mayor announced it would not be considered in his agenda but would be dealt with at the end of the meeting.

At the end of the meeting, Kim announced that the Council was going into an executive session to deal with a matter from Risk and Safety. As the matter of the co-pay had originated from Risk and Safety, presumably, the resolution was the focus of the executive session.

When the members of the Council emerged from the executive session, Kim announced that no action had been taken during the session. It is simply stunning that Accounts Commissioners Dillon Moran, Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi, and Public Safety Commissioner James Montagnino said nothing (Public Works Commissioner Jason Golub was absent). Sanghvi and Montagnino had supported Kim in the previous fiasco, and they are apparently doing it again.

What Is Going To Happen To The City’s Insurance

What insurance company will want to put up with this kind of behavior, and if there is one, what will they charge?

Reliable sources tell me that Pat Tuz has resigned as chair of the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee.

I have no other information at this time. Given that the committee is collecting signatures to get their endorsed candidates on the ballot, it is interesting timing.

[JK: I received the following critique from former Finance Commissioner Michele Madigan of statements made by Mayor Ron Kim in a recent Times Union article. ]

In a recent Times Union article Saratoga Springs solar project awarded city funding: City Council votes to award $150K Mayor’s Non-Profit Grant to Pitney Meadows farm by a staff reporter, Mayor Ron Kim took credit for an established non-profit grant program that was officially established in 2021 during my tenure as Finance Commissioner and approved unanimously by the City Council at that time.

At the March 21, 2023, Saratoga Springs City Council meeting Mayor Kim presented a grant tapping this funding assignment, stating that the grant program was created in 2022 by a Council resolution to provide local non-profits with potential city funding. Mayor Kim also released the following statement: “The grant program was created in 2022 by a council resolution to provide local nonprofits equitable access to city financial support. Historically, the only consistent resource for supporting identified priority needs has been the annual Community Development Block Grant Entitlement Funds, and annual allocations to select nonprofits through the mayor’s budget.” [I contacted the Times Union, and they have edited the article and removed his statement.]

The grantee, Pitney Meadows Farm, is a well-respected, longstanding contributor to the city. They would likely pass any protocol established. That does not change the fact that the taxpayers have no idea how they were chosen, and what other deserving non-profits might have been considered. There is no evidence that the established application and awarding of funds established in 2021 regarding a CDBG-type review, evaluation, and recommendation were followed. There is no evidence of attorney approval that this is an appropriate use of the funded assignment (required). Yes, Mayor Kim is an attorney – he is not the city attorney or impartial regarding this grant. 

It is an election year, and nothing looks better for an incumbent mayor (who will likely have a primary opponent in former Commissioner Chris Mathiesen) receiving press for a generous distribution of taxpayer funds for a great cause, minus the established application and award process. Mayor Kim is quite good at pointing fingers to unfairly blame predecessors and, on the flip side, taking credit for established programs he had nothing to do with.

Michele Madigan

Former Commissioner of Finance 2012 -2021

Currently running for County Supervisor

I attended the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee’s meeting on Saturday, March 18, 2023. I was asked to leave, but as it was held at the Saratoga Springs Library, all events in the library’s meeting rooms must be open to the public, so I was able to stay and observe what Chair Pat Tuz touted as a “Rah,rah fellowship meeting”. The meeting included some questionable directions to petition gatherers.

Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran is head of the committee collecting signatures for election petitions. This process has become especially challenging this year as, in addition to the full slate of candidates on the petitions the committee members are circulating, Democrat Chris Mathiesen is also independently circulating a petition for Mayor and Democrat Michele Madigan is also independently circulating a petition for the second Supervisor slot. Someone asked Moran what to do if a person they approached said they wanted to sign the petition for one of the challengers rather than for the candidates on the committee petitions. Moran responded that they should just pass on to the next person. You cannot sign petitions for two different people running for the same office therefore if someone wanted to sign Chris Mathiesen’s petition for mayor, they could not also sign a petition for Ron Kim for Mayor.

Then Committee member Shafer Gaston spoke up. He told the attendees that it was actually not illegal to sign more than one petition for the same office . He told them to tell people they could sign as many petitions as they wanted and they should get the signature anyway.

It is true that it is not illegal to sign for more than one candidate for the same office. But it is also true that your signature may not count if you do this. Election law establishes that if the same person signs for two different candidates for the same office, the signature with the earliest date is valid and the other is not.

So while it may not be illegal to encourage voters to sign all the petitions they want, it is surely unethical and manipulative to mislead a voter into signing a petition for a candidate they do not want to support without telling them that their signature for the candidate they do like will then be invalid.

Neither Moran nor anyone else at the meeting pushed back on Gaston.

[JK: Thanks to an alert reader and friend, I learned that where I used the word “claim” I should have used the word “complaint” which I have now corrected.]

At the March 21, 2023, Saratoga Springs City Council meeting, Mayor Ron Kim submitted a resolution that was meant to further juice up his conflict with Public Safety Commissioner James Montagnino over the claim the latter brought against Black Lives Matter activist Chandler Hickenbottom.

As the video documents, the resolution heading indicated that it was written by City Attorney Tony Izzo.

In the clip, Montagnino calls Izzo to the microphone to inquire about the source of the document :

Montagnino: “You drafted this?”

Izzo: “I did not. It caused me some concern.”

Montagnino: “It says ‘City Attorney’ at the top.”

Izzo: “Yes, so I did check back. I did not draft this document.”

Montagnino: “Do you know who did?”

Izzo: “No, I do not.”

Kim: “I did. I’m an attorney.”

Kim apparently saw no need to consult the City Attorney on the resolution even when appropriating his letterhead.

A Mess

As it turned out, the resolution not only had the inappropriate heading attributing it to the city attorney, it had additional issues. There were typos, and the text referred to Montagnino’s action as a “summons” when the proper legal term was “complaint.”

The Mayor then withdrew the resolution citing the errors in it and his desire for a vote that would include Public Works Commissioner Jason Golub, who was absent. The Mayor asserted he would have Golub’s vote in support at the next meeting.

In my previous post, I wrote about the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee’s attempt to repair the damage caused by their refusal to allow three Democrats seeking their endorsement to address the full committee in violation of their own endorsement policy. Chair Pat Tuz’s odd solution to repair this mistake was to allow Chris Mathiesen, candidate for Mayor, Michele Madigan, candidate for Supervisor, but not Tim Coll, candidate for Public Safety, to address the committee as a special meeting to be held March 18, 2023. In addition, for some reason Tuz also scheduled the already endorsed Democratic candidates (Kim, Sanghvi, Moran, Golub, Montagnino, and Boyd) to address the committee at this meeting as well.

Tuz’s plan apparently did not sit well with Mayor Ron Kim.

In yet another intemperate, curse-laden rant, Kim verbally attacks Pat Tuz, the chairperson of his own party.

Ron Kim’s Rant

From Ron Kim To Pat Tuz (Mar 14, 2023, at 6:13 PM)

Not clear to me why the two non-endorsed candidates are getting 15 minutes to address the Committee while the endorsed candidates are only getting 5 minutes—what the FUCK IS GOING ON!!!!!   ARE YOU WORKING TO FUCKING MAKE SURE THAT THE CANDIDATES WHO ARE FACING A CONTEST WILL LOSE?

 Ron Kim

PO Box ***

Saratoga Springs, NY 12866

Pat Tuz Sends a Stinging Reply

Readers may remember that Mayor Ron Kim is having problems with the petitions he will need to fill if he is to appear on the ballot. Pat Tuz seems to reference this in her reply to Kim. Tuz copies the members of the City Council (Moran, Sanghvi, Golub, and Montagnino) plus the leadership of the Democratic Committee (Gordon Boyd, Otis Maxwell, Susan Cohen, Diane Czechowicz, BK Kermati)in her email.

From Pat Tuz to Ron Kim:

You (Ron Kim) have already spoken.  You may take as long as you want.  BUT, the purpose of the meeting is fellowship, encouragement  and GETTING EVERYONE OUT TO GET PETITIONS SIGNED.   I got 50 so far.  How about you? 

Just as an FYI, some are not signing due to:  1) Endorsement unfairness.   2). Ron and Dillon fights at CC meetings.  3). Jim Montagnino

This can be overcome, but, we have to get the signatures to get on the ballot so let’s get going. 

Pat Tuz

Cancel culture: Cancel culture is a phenomenon in which those who are deemed to have acted or spoken in an unacceptable manner are ostracized, boycotted or shunned.

-Wikipedia

Saratoga Springs Democratic Chair Pat Tuz has invited Chris Mathiesen and Michele Madigan, along with the candidates the committee previously endorsed for City Council positions, to address a meeting of the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee on March 18.  Conspicuously absent from her list of invitees was Tim Coll, candidate for Public Safety Commissioner.

As readers will recall, all three Democrats, Mathiesen, who is running for Mayor, Madigan, who is running for a Supervisor seat, and Coll, who is running for Public Safety Commissioner, had sought endorsements to run on the Democratic line in the November city elections. All three were interviewed by the endorsement committee, rejected, and then refused the opportunity to address the full committee in violation of the committee’s own policies. The Democratic Committee then went on to endorse all the incumbents (Kim, Moran, Sanghvi, Montagnino, Golub, and Boyd for Supervisor)

The committee experienced significant criticism from the press, the public, and some of the committee’s own members for their closed, undemocratic endorsement process. The Democratic leadership then came up with this absurd March 18 meeting as their idea of a remedy for this mistake. The committee has made its endorsements and is currently circulating petitions for all the incumbents, so this meeting will change nothing. So what is the point? And why spend the committee’s time listening again to the candidates they have already endorsed as well as is planned?

In this context, Tuz’s decision to allow her committee members to hear from some of the Democrats who weren’t endorsed but not all is even more perplexing and only serves to highlight the undemocratic, heavy-handed methods of Ms. Tuz and her executive committee.

Tuz Cancels Coll in Email Exchange

[JK: the full text of the emails between Tuz and Coll can be found at the end of this post]

After seeing the announcement of the meeting he was not invited to in the committee’s newsletter, In the Loop, Tim Coll wrote to Chairperson Tuz asking that he, too, be allowed to address the full committee at their meeting on the eighteenth.  Without being specific, Ms. Tuz responded by informing Coll that “their [Republican] values….are different than our [Democratic] values,” and since he had been endorsed by the local Republican committee, she would not allow her committee members to hear Coll speak. It is interesting that Ms. Tuz chose to ignore that Coll is a registered Democrat.

Coll responded that the best way to determine what his values actually are would be for him to attend the committee meeting and have the opportunity to engage in conversation with the members. He reminded her that he had asked her to forward his email requesting this opportunity to her entire committee and asked if she had done that.

Tuz responded with a spirited attack not only on anyone who would be a registered Republican (which he is not) but anyone who would accept an endorsement from the city’s Republican Party.  She goes on at great length extolling her own virtues, including describing herself as one of the “believers in democracy,” implying that Coll is not.

Conspicuously absent was an answer to Coll’s fundamental question as to whether Tuz had circulated his email to the committee as he had requested.

Coll, who was not registered in any political party for many years, was clear he intended to seek support from both the Democratic Committee and the Republican Committee when he was initially interviewed by the Democrats. This is consistent with his campaign theme in which he eschews tribalism in politics and his belief that we need to repair the divisions in our political culture.

Tuz conveniently ignores the irony that the local Republican Party, which she contends is anti-democracy, was willing to rise above partisanship in the interest of the city by endorsing a Democrat and had no problem with Coll speaking to their full committee.

What Is Tuz Afraid Of?

It is hard to understand why Tuz would refuse a simple request to forward Coll’s email asking to speak to the full committee.  She had already successfully blocked his endorsement.

Tuz’s refusal to forward a legitimate and courteous email to her committee was a pointless abuse.  The endorsements are done.  She seems to be utterly oblivious that such pettiness only serves to undermine the narrative that was supposed to repair the original media damage done by their flawed endorsement process.

I understand that there is some dissension among the rank-and-file members of the committee over the endorsement of Montagnino for Public Safety Commissioner.  My guess is that Tuz, directed by Gordon Boyd, is worried that a compelling presentation by Tim Coll might further undermine Montagnino and threaten Tuz’s and Boyd’s credibility.

The Emails

---

From: Tim Coll <tcoll42@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 11:21 AM
Subject: Interview with Dem Committee
To: Pat Tuz <pat.tuz@saratogadems.org>

Hi Pat-

Hope you are well. This email is really to the entire committee. I am sending it to you and respectfully request that you forward it to all of them.

I read in the latest edition of your newsletter, In the Loop, the following:

“Since our endorsement meeting last month, we’ve heard from several of our members, the general public and even endorsed candidates that all candidates should have been allowed to address the full committee rather than only those recommended. ”

The timing of this is rather odd given that the Committee’s endorsements have already been made and petitions are being circulated, but nevertheless, I agree with the members of the committee who have championed openness and inclusivity.

On the other hand, the newsletter also announced that I would not be given the courtesy to address the committee citing the endorsement of the city’s Republican Committee.

It is unclear to me who made the decision that the full committee should be able to hear from some but not all of the Democrats who sought their endorsement.

The current political environment is already toxic with extreme partisanship. This is an opportunity to show that our local Democratic Committee is better than this. I believe your committee should have the opportunity to hear from me and judge me on my qualifications and character, not on who does or does not support me.

I respectfully request the opportunity to join my fellow Democrats who were denied the opportunity to address the full committee during your endorsement process to now have the opportunity to meet with your members and allow them to decide for themselves who might best serve the city of Saratoga Springs on the City Council.

Respectfully,

Tim Coll

---

From: Pat Tuz <pat.tuz@>
Date: Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: Interview with Dem Committee
To: Tim Coll <tcoll>

Hi Tim:

I thought you got the Republican endorsement.  Can you clarify?

Thanks!

Pat Tuz

---

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:26 PM Tim Coll <tcoll> wrote:

Yes, I did. 

---

From: Pat Tuz <pat.tuz@>
Date: Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: Interview with Dem Committee
To: Tim Coll <tcoll>

I thought you all should have been allowed to speak – at that point, or prior to your endorsement by the R’s.    I don’t remember what day that happened.   It does not make sense now that you be allowed to speak to our group  because you were endorsed by the R’s.   You have to stand for something which I presume is  their values which are different than our values.  And right now we have to move forward and get things done.  

But, good luck and see you out there!!

Pat Tuz

---

On Mar 13, 2023, at 6:36 PM, Tim Coll <tcoll> wrote:

Pat-

I agree with you that there was a mistake made and we should all have been allowed to speak. It appears, based on your email to me, you are not going to forward my emal to the membership as I requested. I hope I am incorrect and that you can assure me that you did indeed share my message with all your committee people. It would be unfortunate if this became yet another mistake.

I was surprised that you alleged that I, an enrolled Democrat, do not now share the values of you and your hcommittee. The best way to determine what my values actually are would be for me to attend your committee meeting and have the opportunity to engage in a conversation with your members about my qualifications and goals for the city as Public Safety Commissioner.

I respectfully request that you share my email with all committee members if you have not done so and that you reconsider your decision to bar me from addressing your committee.

Respectfully,

Tim Coll

---

From: Pat Tuz <pat.tuz@>
Date: Tue, Mar 14, 2023, 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: Interview with Dem Commitee
To: Tim Coll <tcoll42@>

So Tim, an interesting conversation to be had.  

I know that you were Unaffiliated, then registered Democratic, then/now got endorsed by the Republican committee and they are helping with your petitioning.  And that you are not a “political” guy as you say.  I don’t know what that even means if you are running for office.  Maybe you believe some Democratic policy (universal healthcare), and some Republican policy (strong police, law & order).  But you have chosen to align yourself with them via the endorsement.

Just so you know, some of us have given up years of our lives to  volunteer, especially after Trump was elected by the Republicans.  As  believers of Democracy, we felt it a duty to pass along free and fair elections, a woman’s right to choose, true equal rights for all, to our children.  I came of age in the Civil Rights era, took my rights  for granted, now see them disappearing. 

Many of us used to but will no longer consider voting for local Republicans.  They have entertained election deniers, taken busloads down to Washington DC for January 6th,  are supporters of our election denying Congresswoman in D21, and  the Democracy deniers in our federal government.  That is very serious.   And local is where it all starts.   So how can we support you?. 

You may not consider yourself “political” but you can’t get anywhere unless you have a “group” to help.  So, it’s best to align with one, I get that.  But, you chose the wrong one.

So, yes we were wrong, and will give Michele and Chris  the chance to speak to our committee.   But, we just can’t give it to you.

Good luck Tim!

Pat Tuz 

---

From: Tim Coll <tcoll@>
Date: Tue, Mar 14, 2023, 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: Interview with Dem Commitee
To: Pat Tuz <pat.tuz@>

Thank you Pat, I disagree.

Kim to Appoint Second City Attorney

Saratoga Springs Mayor Ron Kim will be naming Michael Phillips as the second City Attorney at the next City Council meeting.

Phillips ran for Saratoga County District Attorney against Karen Heggen during the last election and was soundly defeated. As Phillips’ campaign manager was Gordon Boyd, it is not surprising that Kim will now appoint Phillips to the City Attorney job. For those of you who are not familiar with Boyd, he is on the executive committee of the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee. More cronyism.

Of course, this choice only furthers the chasm between the city and the county.

In addition, as I expected, the Mayor plans to have Phillips take over most of the responsibilities that were Marilyn Rivers’. In addition to his City Attorney responsibilities, then, Phillips will be in charge of Risk and Safety for the city. Given Phillips’ employment history, he does not seem qualified.

While the city attorney is often the initial contact person for risk and safety issues in most municipalities, there is normally a full-time person under them to carry out the extensive responsibilities of the job. Typically that position requires a college degree and a number of years of experience in the fields of commercial property and casualty insurance and risk and safety management.

The city website has a long list of skills required for the current Risk and Safety position. They include

-good knowledge of laws and ordinances relating to claims filed by or against municipalities

-excellent knowledge of Public Entity Insurance

-ability to prepare, originate, organize and conduct training seminars

-ability to determine needed reserves for future claims payments

As background to the Director of Risk and Safety’s full responsibilities, here is a link to an earlier post.

Ron Kim’s plan instead is to have the City Attorney assisted by someone in a newly created position called a “claims manager.” That position will require only a high school degree.

It’s hard to imagine how Phillips, with no background in municipal law or risk and safety, will manage these responsibilities along with the other legal demands that will be made on his time.

Given the chaotic situation in the Mayor’s office, trouble lies ahead.

Kim’s Flawed Election Petition

The Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee is currently circulating petitions to get their endorsed candidates on the ballot for the November local city elections but had to recall the separate Ron Kim petitions they were carrying. As previously reported, Ron Kim refused to be on the same petition as the other Democratic-endorsed candidates, and committee members were circulating a petition with only his name on it along with a separate petition for the rest of the slate.

Apparently, however, the separate Ron Kim petition had an error and had to be taken out of circulation after it was distributed. Interesting that Kim, who, as he likes to remind us, is a lawyer, either did not check his petition before it was distributed or somehow didn’t notice there was a mistake. Pat Tuz, chair of the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee, sent out the following email to her committee members:

“The Ron Kim petition has the incorrect spelling of his name. It cannot be used. Please remove it from your pack. NEW Ronald J. Kim petitions will be available this evening after 7:00 on Otis Maxwell’s porch..”

Tuz email