I received a release from Saratoga Hospital promoting a podcast they have launched. These podcasts are literally the voices of the people of Saratoga Hospital. They are articulate and thoughtful. I highly recommend these recordings.
Voices of Saratoga Hospital Podcast
Our community has so many stories to tell.
We’re excited to share with you our new podcast series: Voices of Saratoga Hospital. It is a series of stories, a collection of shared moments and insights to help us all understand a little bit more about health—and care—close to home.
Our first four stories:
Being a Nurse During COVID
A Story About Addiction and Hope and Recovery
Palliative Care, in the Hospital and at Home
A Sister and a Brother Walk into the Operating Room: A Story of Two Surgeons
These stories shine a light on the extraordinary work we do every single day at Saratoga Hospital.
I was invited to join Dan De Federicis, Robin Dalton, and Adam Israel as a guest on their recently launched podcast “Talking Saratoga.” A great experience with laughs and yuckin’ it up and substantive talk on what’s going on in the city!
In addition to my segment on Mayor Kim’s most recent follies, they discuss the controversy over safety at the Caroline Street Elementary School, the Whistler Court neighbors’ complaint about John Witt’s plan for expanding his project out there in light of the logistical problems of access to the development, Adam Israel’s planned trip to Poland to support the Ukrainians, and Commissioner Montagnino’s unfortunate gaffs over rap music and more.
I have been an observer of and a participant in local politics in Saratoga Springs for almost fifty years. In all that time I have never observed a more blatant waste of public money than Mayor Ron Kim’s decision to hire a private law firm to appeal Judge Jeffery Wait’s decision in City v Church Street Trust.
The principal of Church Street Trust is Jeffery Dumont. He had been cited for initiating work on a property without the required building permit.
Judge Wait, citing the failure of the city to appear at the hearing regarding this case, reversed a guilty plea by Mr. Dumont and dismissed thestipulations against him.
The reality is that the decision had no material impact on the case. Mr. Dumont did not have a building permit and in spite of the decision, is not now entitled to a building permit. He has yet to get approval from the Design Review Commission, and the city’s code enforcement could simply issue citations against him regarding the same issues.
In spite of this, Mayor Kim has engaged the law firm Miller Mannix to appeal the decision.
I sent an inquiry to Commissioner of Finance Minita Sanghvi asking how much this appeal is going to cost the city. To her credit, she did partially respond to my inquiry, but she apparently did not bother to inquire as to what the estimate would be for this court action. Rather, she informed me that the city has the law firm under retainer “for land use issues up to $50,000″ providing Mayor Kim with a sizeable piggy bank to dip in to. Miller Mannix bills $230 an hour. Kim could burn through that account fairly quickly if not checked.
Your Tax Dollars= Mayor Kim’s Piggy Bank
Readers might ask, why would Mayor Kim expend public moneys on pointless litigation. The only rationale I can come up with is that Judge Wait’s decision embarrassed Mayor Kim. The Mayor would like to use your tax dollars now to embarrass Judge Wait by overturning his decision.
One Last Try
So your trusted blogger decided to brave the snow and cold to attend last night’s council meeting (March 1, 2022).
The checks and balances in the commission form of government in this case rest with Mayor Kim’s fellow Council members so I courteously asked them to assist by asking the Mayor the two questions he would not answer when I asked them:
Can the purpose of this appeal be resolved without expensive litigation?
How much is this litigation estimated to cost?
Commissioners Sanghvi, Moran, and Montagnino ignored my request (Commissioner Scirocco was not present due to illness).
It is important to note that the issue here is not just the gross waste of public money but the cavalier dismissal of the central question of transparency. These two questions are simple, and the public has a right to know how their money is being spent and why.
So That’s It
So that’s it. No one on the Council is rising to the defense of the taxpayers. Eventually, we will find out what this fiasco has cost us.
Stewart’s Shops has decided to withdraw the application to build four homes on 30 acres of Snake Hill due to the need for a 24’ wide road that has generated much greater construction and costs than anticipated.
The Towns and their Planning Boards have done an excellent job of balancing “preservation with progress” and have regulations on drainage, tree cutting, access, etc. that preclude most of the development problems people perceive.
Due to the hill’s shape and steep sides, which come from layers of shale that were tipped up vertically and can be seen from the water, this area has remained undeveloped. The rest of the lake has progressed dramatically over the last 50 years. The Sewer District corrected a serious water problem and 25’ lots with seasonal camps were transitioned into attractive year-round homes.
According to Stewart’s Shop chairman of the board, Bill Dake, “We had hoped to construct four attractive homes on 30 acres that would’ve had very minimal visual impact and may have symbolized the tremendous progress the lake has made over the past 50 years. Some say Saratoga Lake has been over-developed, but I would encourage you to drive around the lake today, with the leaves off the trees, and you will see, there is still much to be done.”
The City Council continues to have problems properly notifying the public regarding what will transpire at their meetings. Accounts Commissioner Moran’s campaign to take full control over outdoor dining has been plagued by missteps and the confusion continues with tonight’s agenda.
At Moran’s request, the city began in January to schedule public hearings on extending public dining, but as there was no actual proposal posted anywhere, no one showed up to comment. It was basically a waste of time to schedule them.
Finally, last Friday night Commissioner Moran included an actual proposal in the preliminary agenda for Tuesday’s meeting. It immediately ran into problems. His proposal, as readers may recall, gave him sole authority over outdoor dining. Unfortunately, as Public Works Commissioner Skip Scirocco was quick to inform him, this violated the city charter as the Department of Public Works has authority over the city’s streets and sidewalks.
At Monday morning’s agenda meeting Moran referenced an amended document that would give both Moran and Public Works authority over the establishment of outdoor dining. This change to the code was substantive and interim City Attorney Tony Izzo seemed to be saying that this would require new notices for a hearing on a new document.
So tonight’s agenda indicates there will be yet another public hearing on Moran’s proposal and his agenda no longer includes a vote on his proposal, only a discussion.
The problem is the document that is supposed to be the focus of Moran’s discussion and the public hearing is not the one that includes Public Works.
So we have the worst of two worlds. The document for the hearing is still the obsolete one from Friday night so the public does not have the benefit of accessing the current proposal, and the city still has a hearing scheduled. Some innocent person may attend tonight’s meeting to react to a proposed amended code that is not the one that is actually being considered.
Commissioner Moran has modified his proposal to authorize himself as the arbiter of outdoor dining. The revised amendment to the city code would now require the “advice and consent” of the Commissioner of Public Works on any plan to establish outdoor dining on city properties.
In our commission form of government, the Department of Public Works has the responsibility of maintaining the city’s roads and sidewalks. The Commissioner of Accounts cannot usurp that authority.
At this morning’s pre-agenda meeting Commissioner Moran asked Tony Izzo, the interim City Attorney, if the changes to his proposal would require a new public hearing. Tony responded that if the change were substantive then there would need to be a new notice and a new hearing. Unfortunately, technical problems with Zoom interrupted the discussion. When the Zoom meeting was able to continue Mayor Kim told the participants that Commissioner Moran would talk further with Tony and resolve the issue later. At this point it is unclear whether there will be a vote on this issue at tomorrow (Tuesday, 3/1/22) night’s City Council meeting.
I found it interesting that the Commissioner of Public Safety, James Montagnino, offered no pushback regarding the marginalization of his department from the permitting process for outdoor dining. Public Safety used to be represented by the Battalion Chief of the Fire Department on the committee that oversaw the expansion of restaurants onto city streets and sidewalks. Other members of the original committee, the Director of Risk and Safety and the City Attorney have also not been reinstated.
Fees and Decorations
The proposal also institutes fees now for permits for outdoor dining and now allows “decorations” which were previously prohibited. There is no indication of any standards for the “decorations.”
During the worst of the COVID crisis, the New York State Liquor Authority eased its restrictions to allow restaurants to add outdoor dining. Saratoga Springs amended the city code to authorize a committee made up of the Battalion Chief of the Fire Department, the Director of Risk and Safety, the City Attorney, and the Department of Public Works Business Manager to oversee the temporary expansion of restaurant dining into areas that are the public property of the city (sidewalks, streets, etc.).
Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran has put a resolution on the agenda for the Tuesday, March 1, 2022, City Council meeting which would eliminate that committee and instead give him sole authority to control eating and drinking establishments’ expansion on to city land.
Forget Transparency
Moran’s plan to take over this process only became public on Friday night when the pre-agenda was posted on the city’s website as is required by city procedure.
When I saw this proposal, I began calling around for reactions. It became regrettably clear that none of the principal players in city government, let alone the public, had any idea this was in the works. To say that people were upset when they learned of Moran’s proposal would be an understatement.
It Just Ain’t That Simple
In his campaign, Commissioner Moran promised to “streamline” the process for the permitting of outdoor dining in the city. Commissioner Moran seems disturbingly unconcerned, however, about the logistical and safety concerns that need to be addressed in this process, let alone issues that may arise with the New York State Liquor Authority with licensing requirements
It is particularly troubling that in January he announced on a WNYT newscast that he planned to block off certain downtown streets on Thursday through Sunday nights, May to September, without first consulting with the Public Safety and Public Works Departments as to the feasibility of this plan. It should be noted that Moran does not have the authority to shut down city streets or to make them one way.
Look, I am all for making our city as vibrant and as tourist friendly as possible but to do so effectively means recognizing the complexity of designing and executing a successful plan including taking into consideration the effects the plan may have on the adjacent retail businesses. It also involves recognizing that this cannot succeed as a one man show but rather success depends on being able to work cooperatively with other departments and individuals.
Moran’s ham-fisted push for total control may very possibly have the opposite effect of streamlining change. Announcing that you are “in charge” when you lack the true authority to implement something as major as redesigning downtown streets may create major obstacles rather than overcome them.
Mayor Ron Kim has initiated an appeal of Judge Jeffrey Wait’s decision in the case of City v Church Street Trust (Jeffery Dumont). This was the case in which Mayor Kim failed to appear before Judge Wait who reversed Jeffery Dumont’s earlier guilty plea and dismissed the compliance issues. It is not clear what the city can gain from this appeal, and there is an alternative to this costly litigation which Kim apparently is not considering.
There Is a Simple Solution
Mr. Dumont was in Judge Wait’s court because he had proceeded with construction without the required city building permit. Mr. Dumont still does not have the required permit and has yet to get the approval he needs from the Design Review Commission. My understanding is that the most that could come out of a successful court appeal of this case, however, would be to require that it be sent back to Judge Wait’s court to be reviewed again.
If the goal of the city is to require Mr. Dumont to come into compliance with the city’s building requirements, that does not require expensive litigation. Instead, the city’s Code Enforcement Department (which is under the Mayor) can simply cite Dumont again for whatever outstanding issues remain.
What then is the purpose of expending tax dollars on this appeal?
The only additional advantage that a court appeal could have would be to reinstate Mr. Dumont’s original guilty plea. I wonder who cares that Mr. Dumont, a seventy- plus-year-old contractor has a record of being found guilty in a code enforcement matter? The goal after all is to get him to comply.
This is clearly a waste of taxpayer money.
Shouldn’t The Mayor Seek City Council Approval to Spend Money on This Appeal?
Mayor Kim has employed the law firm Miller Manix to appeal Judge Wait’s decision. This law firm is on retainer to the city but a reasonable reading of their contract indicates that the scope of their work is limited to representing the land-use boards. The Dumont case does not involve a project before the land use boards. It is a code enforcement case.
This is the language in the contract with Miller Mannix. Would code enforcement fit here?
STATEMENT OF SPECIFICATIONS:Land Use Board Legal Counsel
The applicant shall advise and represent the City land use boards (inc. Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals, and Design Review Commission) [JK: Emphasis Added] and render legal services relating to applications before such boards, as well as general counsel on an as-needed basis, as requested by the Mayor, or his/her designee.
LEGAL SERVICES
The applicant shall provide the following legal services on an “as-needed” or “on-call” basis for this project, and shall be provided at the direction of the Mayor, or his/her designee, including but not limited to:
A. Occasional attendance at land use board meetings and workshops.
B. Preparation of draft land use board decisions and/or resolutions.
C. Provision of legal advice on applications before the City land use boards.
D. Provision of guidance to the City land use boards for compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA).
E. Litigation pursued or defended at the direction of the Mayor.
F. General counsel.
The applicant assumes full responsibility for the provision of the products
Contract of City with Miller Mannix
The heading of the agreement clearly states: “Land Use Board Legal Counsel”. The specifications state that Miller Manix will “advise and represent the City land use boards…” All the legal services listed, A-F, should be viewed in that context.
The specifications also include, though, this vague language: “as well as general counsel on an as-needed basis, as requested by the Mayor…”
I think it could be argued that this vague language allows the Mayor to utilize the attorneys’ services beyond land use board issues, but I think a reasonable person would agree that this is a stretch given that this provision is embedded in an agreement to engage Land Use Board Legal Counsel. Code enforcement is not within the purview of the land use boards.
There is, I think, a reasonable argument to be made that the existing Miller Mannix contract does not cover the Mayor’s request to pursue this appeal. In that case, the Mayor needs to seek approval from the Council to hire outside counsel according the City Charter. The conservative and transparent approach that would show respect for the other Council members and the public would be to have a public discussion of this move and to seek Council approval for the appeal. This seems especially apt given real questions as to whether an appeal is worth the cost.
Unfortunately to date, Mayor Kim’s colleagues at the Council table seem unwilling to challenge him on pretty much anything.
An Email To The Mayor
I have written to the Mayor asking him why he is pursuing this appeal when other less expensive solutions are available to him. I will post his response to this site when I receive it.
An Email to Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi
I have written to Finance Commissioner Sanghvi asking what the estimated cost for the Miller Mannix appeal would be. Her reply:
“Hello, Thank you for your inquiry. As you know it’s the weekend and City hall is closed. I will speak to the people involved on Monday and we’ll get back to you next week. Thank you, Minita”
Mike Brandi, the chair of the Saratoga Springs Republican Committee has submitted a complaint to the Saratoga Springs Police Department. The complaint focuses on what appears to be a forged signature on a petition that Ron Kim circulated. Here is a link to the Daily Gazette article.
In a conversation with Mr. Brandi, Brandi expressed ambivalence about the controversy.
“This business with criminally targeting people circulating petitions is not healthy for our democracy,” Mr. Brandi told me. “We identified Mayor Kim’s flawed petition last year. Even the most cursory inspection of the signature in question raises doubts that the hand that signed it was the same as the hand that signed the registration card at the Board of Elections. Still, we did not want to and do not want to create an atmosphere of fear for people generous enough to volunteer their time and take part in the democratic process by circulating petitions.”
“On the other hand, the recent and gratuitous charge against Tracey LaBelle was the last straw. Ms. LaBelle properly witnessed every signature on all her petitions. The fact that there were some people who signed her petition using block letters that did not match the script on their registration cards did not constitute ‘forgery’ and Ms. Tuz had to have known this.”
“At this point, the police have our complaint against Mayor Kim and we trust them to investigate fairly.”
The Documents
In contrast to City Democratic Committee Chair Pat Tuz, Mr. Brandi has made both his claim and his documentation available to the media and the public.
The arrow below points to the signature on the petition.
Below is the registration card from the Saratoga County Board of Elections. The signature to compare can be seen at the bottom right. It simply begs credibility that the person who signed the petition is the same person who signed the registration card.
The Signatory
Making things more challenging for Mayor Kim is the fact that the person who signed his petition was a neighbor so it would seem likely that Mayor Kim had to know the person was signing someone else’s name.
As Mayor Kim is not only an attorney but a veteran campaigner (he served as Commissioner of Public Safety for two terms and has run for numerous other offices) it is not unfair to hold him to a high standard when it comes to campaign petitions.
The law requires that the person circulating a campaign petition must affirm that they observed every person who signed the petition. It is a crime to sign the “witness” statement at the bottom of the petition knowing that it contains something false.
Mayor Kim’s Bizarre Response
In the spirit of fairness, I sent Mayor Kim an email to his City Hall email address inviting him to respond to the controversy. In my email, I assured him that anything he sent me would be posted without interference or editing. In contrast to Ms. Tuz, I sent him images of the petition and the registration card so he would be properly prepared.
He responded by advising me, “This email is inappropriate for a City supported resource.”
I do not know why that would be the case. Reporters commonly write to public officials regarding newsworthy issues that are not directly related to their city duties.
Still, I simply wrote back asking how I could contact him on this matter. I never heard back from him.
I hope readers of this blog will appreciate my frustration over his response. He and his colleagues go on at great length about transparency and accountability. In spite of the civility of my inquiries and the serious nature of the issues I am inquiring about, they rarely acknowledge let alone respond to my emails.
Here is the text of my email to Kim:
To: Mayor Ron Kim
From: John Kaufmann
Date: February 24, 2022 3:45 PM
Subject: Petitions and Signatures
Mayor Kim:
I have come into possession of the two documents attached. One is the voter registration card of Mr. R Cooley and the other is the petition you witnessed which includes a Mr. Cooley’s alleged signature. As you will observe, the two do not match. Mr. Cooley’s address indicates that he is a neighbor of yours.
As an attorney and an experienced politician, I am sure you are aware that you must observe each person actually signing your petition in order to properly witness the document.
In fairness to you, I would like to offer you the opportunity to respond to this issue on my website. Whatever you submit to me would be posted on my site without editing.
As you have championed the importance of transparency, I would expect that you would take full advantage of my offer in order to inform the citizens of our city about the facts behind what appears to be a violation of New York State law.
I look forward to hearing from you.
John Kaufmann’s Email
Later that afternoon, I received a blank email from Mayor Kim. I wrote back advising him of this. I then received the following email:
Sorry, still learning how to use my I-Phone email application. This email is inappropriate for a City supported resource.
Ron Kim
So I wrote back to him asking how I could contact him about this matter. He never responded.
Apparently, there is no way of contacting him on matters he would prefer to avoid.
The Complaint
On May 23, 2021, Ronald J. Kim of Xx Martin Avenue, Saratoga Springs, New York, executed a certification certifying under penalty of perjury that certain signatures on a petition labeled “Sheet No. 75” had been made by the purported signatories “in my presence on the dates above indicated and identified himself or herself to be the individual who signed this sheet.” Signature 5 on sheet 75 is recorded as being “R Cooley” residing at Xx Martin Avenue, Saratoga Springs, New York. Signature number 4 on sheet 75 is recorded as being “SD Cooley,” also of XX Martin Avenue, Saratoga Springs, New York. However, the signatures for SD Cooley and R Cooley appear to be very similar and potentially were made by the same person.
The registration information for “R. Cooley” of XX Martin Avenue corresponds to Richard R. Cooley. Mr. Cooley’s signature on file with the Saratoga County Board of Elections does not match the signature applied to sheet 75.
The above facts give rise to a suspicion that Mr. Cooley was not the one who signed sheet 75. If Mr. Cooley did not sign sheet 75, Mr. Kim’s certification of sheet 75 is rendered false. Mr. Kim’s false certification of sheet 75 may be punishable as a misdemeanor under Election Law Section 17-122 and/or Penal Law Section 210.45.
Saratoga Springs Politics 