Saratoga Springs Politics

Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee chair Pat Tuz has gone to the press regarding a criminal complaint she has filed against Tracey LaBelle, the unsuccessful Republican candidate for Commissioner of Public Safety in last November’s election.

To be the subject of a criminal complaint is devastating.  For a hardened politico, I guess it comes with the territory, but for ordinary people running for the first time for public office, reading about yourself as an alleged criminal in the media is more than humiliating.  There is also the cost of a lawyer to respond no matter how innocent you may be and the potential problems it may cause regarding your employment.

Decent and humane people do not make frivolous complaints.  Before resorting to public denunciations and submitting complaints to the police, they make sure that their charges fully merit the impact their action may have on someone’s life.

Ms. Tuz regrettably has previously shown herself to be capable of the worst kind of cynical spin. Last fall she filed a complaint with the New York State Board of Elections claiming that a flyer sent out in support of Republican-endorsed Mayoral candidate Heidi Owen West contained lies and that the labeling on the flyer indicating it was paid for by the Republican State Committee did not have enough contrast to stand out properly. Readers, there was no way the New York State Board of Elections was going to do anything with these frivolous allegations. Cynically and unethically, the allegations were made just before the election. Ms. Tuz had to know that nothing would come of her complaints but that the Times Union would give full-throated coverage to her accusations. This winter I “symbolically” wrote to Ms. Tuz asking if she had gotten a response from the NYSBOE about her complaint. I say “symbolically” because 1) I knew that they would simply ignore such dubious claims and 2) I knew she would not have the courtesy to respond to me.

If anyone out there wants to bet that the NYSBOE took her claim seriously and responded, I am willing to give good odds and accept the wager.

Now it appears she has made an even more cynical and vicious accusation.

The story in the Gazette regarding her recent accusations against LaBelle is full of odd contradictions. 

Brian Lee is an excellent reporter so I will assume that the confusion in the article is rooted in the poverty of Ms. Tuz’s allegations. 

According to the February 17, 2022, edition of the Daily Gazette (DG), “The complaint accuses LaBelle of submitting a dozen forged nomination petitions to the Board of Elections.”

In the same article, however, Tuz states, “The forgeries and filing of the false documents are the real crimes here and we’d like to know who’s responsible.”  This is an odd statement to make. Ms. Tuz has just accused Ms. LaBelle of submitting the forged documents to the Board of Elections so why is she now wondering who did this?

In an odd admission Tuz told the Daily Gazette, “She wasn’t necessarily suggesting that either Republicans [LaBelle or Guerra] forged the documents themselves but ‘the question remains…who is doing the forging?’…”

In the article, Ms. Tuz randomly uses unspecific terms like “forged Documents,” “false documents,” and “forged signatures” without offering any concrete examples.

Does this have the feel of a political stunt at the expense of Ms. LaBelle?

There is also the issue of criminal intent.  Normally criminal charges involve establishing that the perpetrator of a crime knew what they were doing was against the law and did so willfully.  As we lack the details of the complaint, we have no idea how Ms. Tuz determined that Ms. LaBelle willfully did something illegal.

Here is a link to the Gazette story.  I challenge the reader to determine exactly what criminal statute Ms. LaBelle allegedly violated based upon the story. 

Where Are The Documents?

So, to clarify exactly what the nature of Ms. Tuz’s accusation is I contacted the police asking for a copy of the complaint. I was informed that it was not available to the public.

I then emailed Chairperson Tuz and asked if she would send me a copy of the complaint she filed and her supporting documents.  I pointed out that, if she had proof that Ms. LaBelle had committed a crime, the documents would only add credibility to her allegations.  Ms. Tuz never responded to my request.

I subsequently learned that Mike Brandi had made a similar request.  Mr. Brandi will be replacing Chris Obstarczyk as the chair of the Saratoga Springs Republican Committee.

He received the following text from her:

I am sorry, but if you have time to make a criminal complaint against someone and then promote the story to the area newspapers, maybe you could find the time to provide the actual documents to the public supporting your claim.

Tuz’s unwillingness to provide her documents raises serious questions of credibility. Given the gravity of her complaint, her flippant attitude (she is taking a break) is particularly callous.

Some Thoughts On Signatures

In the DG article, Ms. Tuz is quoted as saying, “there is ‘clear evidence of forgeries in the in the allegations against LaBelle.'” She continues, “There are a number of signatures there that are sided (sic) and have the same type of block letters and they don’t match.  It just doesn’t look good.”

It’s challenging to parse this statement out.  I am not quite sure what she means by “sided.”  Best I can figure, Ms. Tuz is referencing that some signatures on petitions were entered using block letters and do not match the script form of their signature that is registered at the Board of Elections. 

I checked with the Board of Elections and was told that if such block-lettered signatures were challenged after they were submitted to the Board, they would be considered invalid if the signature registered at the Board of Elections was done in script.

Let’s be clear what the definition of forgery is: “the act of falsely making, altering, or imitating (as a document or signature) with intent to defraud.”[www.merriam-webster.com]

Because someone registered at the Board of Elections using script as their signature and then signed a petition using block letters, does not mean they are guilty of forgery nor that the person circulating the petition committed a crime by signing that they witnessed the signature.

To give the reader some idea of just how dubious Ms. Tuz’s claims are, consider this post from the Saratoga Democrats’ website last year before the election. Here Ms. Tuz claims that somehow this block lettered signature imperiled the integrity of the local election.

The signature on the left is the one registered with the Saratoga County Board of Elections while the one on the right is the signature that the Democrats alleged to be a forgery.

Ms. Tuz never checked with the signatory to find out if he had actually signed the petition using block letters rather than script which is exactly what he did. Instead, she simply exploited the difference to smear Ms. LaBelle by accusing her of somehow forging the signature.

What’s With the Timing of Tuz’s Complaint?

Ms. Tuz says she made the complaint about LaBelle back in November.  Why one might inquire, did she wait until now to go to the press?  After all, LaBelle lost the election. The petitions had been submitted to the Board of Elections back in March of 2021, almost a full year ago. Tuz didn’t make an issue about it during last fall’s campaigns. Why now?

I can only speculate that the self-inflicted wounds that Mayor Kim has visited upon himself, combined with the collateral damage he is doing to his Democratic colleagues on the Council, is taking a toll. So to change the narrative, Ms. Tuz has cynically victimized Tracey LaBelle. It just doesn’t get much uglier.

What I continue to fail to understand is how little Ms. Tuz apparently values her reputation. Granted, many people will read the articles she spawns and be manipulated but there are many thoughtful people out there who will share my condemnation of her behavior. Apparently, she just doesn’t care.

Addendum: Some Background on Petitioning and Challenges

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the candidate petitioning process, a little background information might be helpful in evaluating the claims the Democrats have been making.

In New York State campaign workers must collect a certain number of signatures of registered voters on a petition in order to get a candidate on a ballot for an election. There is a rule of thumb among political operatives that it is best to gather twice as many signatures as the minimum required on a petition to make sure the candidate has enough valid signatures to get on the ballot.

This is because most people circulating petitions are well-meaning volunteers and there are so many ways that signatures can be declared invalid.

Among the reasons are:

1. The signatory has signed another petition for the same office (and maybe even for the same candidate).
2. The signatory put down the wrong address.  Yup, people get confused and sometimes mailing addresses are different from their actual residence address.
3. The signatory does not reside in the correct district.
4. The signatory is in the wrong party.  For instance, a registered Democrat cannot sign a Republican petition.
5. The signatory is not registered to vote.
6. The signatory allowed someone else to sign their name.  There are many reasons why this might happen such as they were out of town and asked their spouse to sign for them.  This is actually an example of forgery.

I am sure there are others but these are some of the major ones. Most of these are innocent mistakes stemming from confusion on the part of the signer. It is amazing how many people think they are registered to vote or think they are registered to vote in a particular party and aren’t or have already signed another petition but have forgotten and sign again.

The fact is that inexperienced people (and even experienced people) going out to petition don’t catch all these mistakes.

There is a difference between the errors of a novice circulating petitions and someone who knowingly forges names.

On the other hand, the petitioner must sign the form affirming that they have observed the signing of every signature. Too many inexperienced people carrying petitions fail to take this requirement with the seriousness that it deserves and allow someone to sign for another, usually a spouse or partner living at the same address. In the past, these kinds of errors have usually been isolated and committed without malice. No one pursued the issue with a criminal complaint. We are living in different times.

Traditionally, the opposing party would look at the petitions of the other party to see if they could disqualify enough signatures to knock a candidate off the ballot.  They would first check how many signatures the candidate had.  If the petitions had a huge margin above the requirement, the opposing party might randomly go through the petitions just to see if there were any glaring patterns of problems.  If not, even though there might be some errors, they would not see the point of taking any further action.

Ms. Tuz is breaking new ground. Instead of challenging signatures following their delivery to the Board of Elections as tradition has dictated in order to disqualify an opponent, Ms. Tuz has weaponized the process. Her new goal is to file complaints months after the petitions have been filed, not to have any material impact on who gets on the ballot, but to use any errors to cynically file complaints during the heat of the campaign that she knows will never be answered.

I cannot think of a more bitter relationship in Saratoga Spring politics than the enmity that existed between Tom McTygue (D) and Skip Scirocco (R). In 2007 Scirocco defeated McTygue to become the Commissioner of Public Works. That began his fourteen years (so far) as Commissioner. He also defeated Tom McTygue’s brother, Bill, in an equally acrimonious campaign. To say that there was no love lost between Tom and Skip would be an extreme understatement.

Yet at the final meeting of the previous administration in December, Commissioner Scirocco announced that the upcoming twentieth anniversary of the carousel in Congress Park would be marked by a ceremony honoring McTygue for his role in establishing the ride in our park. The carousel will be named for Tom McTygue and a plaque will be installed acknowledging McTygue’s role in its creation.

Scirocco told the Council that he had contacted McTygue who expressed appreciation for the honor.

Here is a short video on the carousel from Channel 10 news.

At the time when McTygue announced his plans for the carousel to be placed in Congress Park, it produced an extreme, negative response from preservationists and many others in the community who thought the Olmstead designed park was not the appropriate site for the carousel.

For those of us who were around during the years of conflict between the McTygues and Scirocco, Scirocco’s gesture and McTygue’s response was a welcome and reassuring change from partisan acrimony.

Commissioner Michele Madigan and Mayor Scott Johnson

Similarly, the relationship between Commissioner Madigan (D) and Mayor Johnson(R) was not warm and fuzzy. Mayor Johnson, who never lost his cool, demonstrated an unfortunate skill in pressing Commissioner Madigan’s buttons.

All the more pleasantly surprising when Commissioner Madigan, as one of her last gestures in office, proposed naming the city’s Recreation Center after Johnson.

As with the carousel, there was a great deal of pushback when Johnson advocated placing the proposed center near Jefferson Terrace. The more affluent neighbors strongly opposed it. Then Public Works Commissioner Tom McTygue wanted to build it out near the Weibel Avenue ice rink and landfill.

Johnson was insistent that it be constructed in the neighborhood by the Jefferson Terrace Housing Project. He emphasized the need for it to be accessible to children walking and on bikes. His perseverance paid off and the project has been an enormous success. Here is a link to a Gazette story about Johnson and the center.

On January 5, 2022, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial District convened to hear oral arguments in an appeal by the neighbors of Saratoga Hospital over the city’s zoning of the land for the hospital’s expansion.

Consistent with Mayor Kim’s running City Attorney debacle, no one appeared for the city to defend it in the lawsuit. Not to be represented in this court was highly unusual.

Mayor Kim, who is an attorney, had not bothered to meet with the two departing City Attorneys prior to his taking office to find out what outstanding legal actions were before the city.

Had he done so, the city could have hired counsel to represent it.

With City Attorney DeLeonardis leaving office on December 31, and the hearing scheduled for January 5, and no new City Attorney identified to take over, it became obvious that it was simply no longer practical for the city to be able to be represented by counsel. DeLeonardis then advised the court that no one would be available to represent the city and that the city would have to rely on their written arguments to the court.

It is impossible to know whether, if the city had been properly represented at the hearing, the outcome of the decision would have been different.

In any case, given Mayor Kim’s hostile attitude toward DeLeonardis and Mayor Meg Kelly, it is probably unlikely he would have seen that the city was represented or worse yet, would have represented the city himself. The Daily Gazette February 19, 2022 edition reported:

In a news statement Friday, Mayor Ron Kim targeted former Mayor Meg Kelly and former city attorney Vincent DeLeonardis for trying to “ram this rezoning through without taking a hard look at the environmental impacts.”

Kim, whose tenure started Jan. 1, went on to call it a “lack of transparency and stomach-churning duplicity of the former administration and city attorney.”

Daily Gazette February 19, 2022

I am not sure what Mayor Kim means that there was a lack of transparency. This project was the subject of many meetings of the Planning Board and the City Council during which there was much public participation.

People can disagree over the merits of the hospital expansion but I do not know what he is referring to when he accuses the council of “stomach-churning duplicity.”

Analysis Of Court Decision

This is a link to the court’s decision:

Foothills Business Daily (FBD) has a good story on the court decision that is worth reading in addition to the following:

The neighbors of Saratoga Hospital, represented by attorney Claudia Braymer, have won a partial victory in their lawsuit to block the hospital from building a medical office building adjacent to the hospital. 

The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department made the following rulings:

1. The neighbors asserted that the decision by the city to rezone the hospital parcel was an instance of spot zoning.  The court rejected the claim.
2. The neighbors asserted that the members of the council had received donations from people associated with the hospital and therefore there was a conflict of interest.  The court rejected the claim.
3. The neighbors asserted that the designation of the parcel as OMB-2 (Medical Office Building) was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.  The court rejected the claim.
4. The neighbors asserted that the city’s response to State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) was flawed.  The court agreed with the neighbors on this claim.

The city had argued that it was required to bring its zoning into compliance with the city’s comprehensive plan.  Which is what it did. This rezoning action was not a response from an application by the hospital.  As such, the city was not responding to any particular plan for what might be constructed there.  Without a plan, the city argued, any determinations of the impact would be hypothetical.  The city argued that when an actual site plan would be submitted to the city it would then be feasible and appropriate to do a further SEQRA review.

The court’s decision noted that as the hospital had submitted detailed plans back in 2015 in a failed application to the city for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and as the hospital had sent a letter to the neighbors describing a medical building as their planned use for the parcel, there was enough information to undertake a full SEQRA review.

The court found that the failure to consider the impact of a medical building was an example of an unpermitted SEQRA “segmentation.”  Roughly, segmentation is where a developer seeks a review of only part of the full build out for his project.  As an example, a developer submits a plan for a mall that includes only one structure when they actually plan to build more structures on the site over time.

At this point the hospital has the option to ask the City Council to rezone its parcels to OMBD-2 in a process that would have the City Council (or the Planning Board) do the SEQRA review.  In this case, all of the plans and environmental impacts which were nearing completion in the pending site plan review by the Planning Board are known.  As such, the process would be considerably shorter than would otherwise be the case.

The hospital’s real problem is that the culture of the current Council is hostile to the hospital.  During their campaign, last fall, the slate of Democrats who have taken office sought support from the neighbors opposed to the hospital expansion.

If twenty percent of the owners of properties adjacent to the hospital sign a protest petition, it would require a supermajority of the council to approve the hospital’s expansion.  It is hard to imagine four of the current members of the Council supporting such a vote.

In his campaign, Commissioner Moran trumpeted his claim that he would not do reassessments. Here are just two of his campaign mailings, but the promise is on every one of his mailers.

It now appears clear that Commissioner Moran is going to carry out major reassessments of properties throughout the city.

According to the February 15, 2022 edition of the Foothills Business Daily,

Hundreds, maybe up to 1,000, residences are undervalued on the tax rolls in Saratoga Springs, and the city has contracted with a company to help find and rectify the discrepancies, says Commissioner of Accounts Dillon Moran. 

FBD

“Rectify The Discrepancies”: When is Reassessing not Reassessing?

So apparently there are a large but unknown number of structures that have either been built or have had major work done on them such as new additions or other improvements, whose assessed value has not been updated in the city’s tax roles.

At their last meeting (2/15/22) the Council approved a contract with GAR Associates to go through the city’s records regarding, I assume, building permits to determine which properties need to be reassessed.

Moran says the trouble has arisen over years as the Accounts Department has only one full-time assessor and one clerk. As such, some residential properties have been developed on what was undeveloped land, or the homes have received major upgrades, but the assessments [my emphasis] have not been adjusted to reflect the increase in value.

FBD

Now I am not opposed to making sure that properties are properly assessed in order for our real property taxes to be fair, but Moran promised “No re-assessment”.

The Ethics Of Promises

Commissioner Moran has a history of reckless campaigning with a disregard for the facts. Readers may remember that he forged a NY State Health Department document in a previous campaign to try to smear his opponent.

I will be generous and assume ignorance rather than malice in this case of his promise not to do reassessments. In his desire to use this as a hot button campaign issue he simply saw no need to actually research whether the city in fact needed to carry out extensive reassessments.

Moran, asked by FBD to explain the discrepancy between his campaign promise not to do reassessments and his current plan told FBD:

“I’m comfortable making the fairness argument,” he said, adding, “Everybody has the ability to grieve” their new tax bills if their home value changes. Also, the changes only apply moving forward. The city cannot ask for taxes that should have been levied in the past.

FBD

Maybe he should have considered the “fairness argument” before making “NO ASSESSMENT” the center of his campaign.

Saratoga Springs Mayor Ron Kim has appointed Tony Izzo as an “interim” City Attorney. Tony was the city’s Assistant City Attorney for over 30 years before Kim decided not to reappoint him when he took office in January. While I am happy that Tony will be returning to city hall, this is yet another chapter in the continuing debacle as Kim struggles to permanently fill the City Attorney’s position.

The resolution establishing the terms of Tony’s appointment has him working from twenty to twenty-nine hours a week

If you are familiar with Tony’s history, you know he will regularly be working more than those contractual hours. The city of Saratoga Springs has no more loyal supporter than Tony Izzo.

Interestingly, Tony had been making $1,100.00 a week during Meg Kelly’s administration. The terms of employment are the same under Kim, but now Tony will be making $1,800.00 a week. I am glad for Tony. I feel pretty confident that the increase was not rooted in a demand from Tony for more money. His salary will be less than what Kim advertised for a permanent part time city attorney.

In his announcement of Tony’s appointment, Mayor Kim stated, “As we continue our search for a city attorney, Tony has agreed to step in as an interim attorney.”

In the February 16, 2022, edition of the Foothills Business Review, Stephen Thurston reported:

Asked if he [Mayor Kim] is having trouble finding an attorney to take the job, he said there has been no trouble at all.

“We’ve actually been spending a lot of time interviewing people,” he said.

Foothills Business Daily

Mayor Kim’s remarks seem a bit disingenuous. After his well-covered fiasco before Judge Wait and his reported intransigence in accepting the clear evidence that the City Attorney is a public officer subject to a residency requirement, it is likely that the Mayor is having more trouble finding a City Attorney than he will publicly acknowledge. After all, he has had since November to find one.

A very reliable source has told me that Mayor Kim had a candidate who initially agreed to the appointment but who backed out two days before Tuesday’s Council meeting.

In his remarks, Mayor Kim emphasized the temporary nature of Tony’s appointment noting that he is continuing his search for a City Attorney. After Tony generously agreed to step in to assist the Mayor and the city it was particularly ungracious of Kim to infer that Tony Izzo does not embody the qualities of a City Attorney that the Mayor is looking for.

Mayor Kim is not one to admit error. For all his protestations that he was wronged by Judge Wait and that he plans to appeal Judge Wait’s decision, the fact that neither Judge Francine Vero nor Judge Jeffery Wait will allow him to appear in their court as the attorney representing the city may have influenced his decision to hire Tony.

I am grateful to Tony for his willingness to take on the job. Having served the city for more than thirty-five years, he will bring with him an institutional history that this new council desperately needs. I just hope that the Mayor will seek his counsel and listen to him.

Commissioners Moran, Sanghvi, Montagnino: They see no problem

In the February 14, 2022, edition of the Foothills Business Daily (FBD), with the exception of Public Works Commissioner Scirocco who is out due to illness, Mayor Kim’s other colleagues have come out in support of Mayor Kim stating that they see no conflict of interest in his being both Mayor and City Attorney. Further, they found no problem in relying on him for the city’s legal needs.

Three city council members reached in time for this publication do not see a problem with the mayor in his dual role.

Foothills Business Daily

Commissioner Minita Sanghvi told FBD that she has observed no “improper behavior.”

Commissioner Dillon Moran assured the FBD that “he had gotten the legal counsel he needed.”

[Commissioner] Montagnino said there may be times when the mayor would be in a conflict of interest as mayor and city attorney. That would keep him from acting as counsel in a specific situation, “but that’s not a blanket disqualification.”

FBD

Conflict of Interest?

Here is a definition of “conflict of interest” from a website called Indeed (they regularly advertise on public radio):

Conflicts of interest have many forms, from financial to personal. They can occur any time someone in a position of power could be motivated to abuse their position to earn money, make connections, build a reputation or otherwise promote their personal goals.

Indeed

It would seem that this would cover the mayor’s dual role.

Alice In Wonderland

Mayor Kim appointed himself as the city attorney. He then provided legal advice to the members of the Council in his capacity as the City Attorney confirming for them that he could be and had become their City Attorney. (Having trouble with that syllogism?)

A rigorous and responsible City Council would have sought an independent opinion regarding the dual role. Unfortunately, we do not have that kind of council.

What Is Most Troubling Is Not His Conflict Of Interest

In an example of magical thinking, Mayor Kim continues to assert that he never lied to Judge Wait.

Mayor Kim told FoothillsBusinessDaily.com last week that he did not lie to the judge. He believed the case had been adjourned. He was in City Hall and could have shown up in court within minutes if called, he said last week.

Foothills Business Daily

So Mayor Kim sent an email to Judge Wait that stated that he and the attorney representing the defendant had agreed to seek an adjournment.

It has been established that the defendant had no lawyer. Simple logic tells us that he could not have reached an agreement with a lawyer who did not exist. Therefore, the statement to Judge Wait that he and a non-existent lawyer had reached an agreement is demonstrably false.

It is also rudimentary that only a judge can grant an adjournment. As my FOIL for the email is languishing in city hall (it has been more than two weeks) I do not know if the email sent by Mayor Kim requested an adjournment or worse, maybe instructed Judge Wait to adjourn the case. Amazingly though, Ron Kim, a lawyer as he likes to repeatedly tell us, felt no responsibility to check with the court to see if the judge had granted the adjournment before he told the defendant not to show up and decided himself to skip the hearing.

What the record shows is that Judge Wait never granted an adjournment and that the defendant and Mayor Kim were required to appear in court even if only to ask for an adjournment.

Nevertheless, Mayor Kim still insists that it was Judge Wait’s fault that he did not appear in court.

Scary!

Which brings me to my central point: What is truly scary is that Commissioners Montagnino, Sanghvi, and Moran believed they, and the city, could rely on Attorney Ron Kim for sound legal advice.

The City Council has again violated the open meeting law. The City Council has a pre-agenda meeting on the Monday before the Council meetings. They are required to provide access to the public for any meeting at which there is a quorum.

The city website indicated the Monday morning meeting would take place on zoom, but there was no link nor any information on how to acquire a link. Jane Weihe emailed the deputy mayor asking how the public can access the meeting.

Deputy mayor Angela Rella responded with an email that contained a link.

Jane wrote back to her and asked, “how is the general public made aware of how to access the meeting?”

Ms. Rella did not provide a reply.

From the February 10, 2022, edition of the Times Union:

“He (Mayor Kim) also said he is appealing Judge Wait’s decision.”

“’ The attorney handling says we have a good chance of reversing it,’ Kim said.”

Times Union February 10, 2022

So according to the TU, Mayor Kim has engaged counsel to appeal the decision City of Saratoga Springs v Church Street Trust. This was the case dismissed by Judge Jeffery Wait when Mayor Kim failed to appear in court to request an adjournment.

I have written to Mayor Kim asking for the name of the attorney he has engaged to carry out the appeal, and so far have gotten no response.

The Mayor’s indication that he has involved an attorney to act on the city’s behalf raises serious issues that need to be addressed.

First and foremost, section 8.1 of the city charter requires that in order for the city to hire outside counsel it requires an action by the City Council. This would include the scope of work and how much the city was committed to pay. There is no record of such a resolution, and the Mayor’s agenda for Tuesday’s (2/15) Council meeting includes no request for Council action on such a resolution.

In addition, according to the city’s purchasing policies, the Mayor was required to either seek a minimum of three bids from interested attorneys or issue an RFP depending upon how much the cost of the services will be. He has done neither.

It is important to note that in seeking a resolution to hire outside counsel, Kim would have to involve his colleagues on the Council in a public discussion as to whether an appeal is justified both in terms of the likelihood of success and whether the cost of such an appeal is merited.

Where Are The Checks And Balances On The Mayor?

It is most unfortunate that Mayor Kim’s colleagues on the Council (Commissioner Scirocco is out ill and is not a player in this) have done nothing to reign in Mayor Kim’s abuses.

It was bad enough that they supported going into executive session without the required statement of its purpose. It was bad enough that they supported a resolution putting off the State of the City report in violation of the city charter. Now they are faced with Mayor Kim ignoring the city’s fiscal controls on spending.

Transparency?

All of the active members of the Council ran on a platform that highlighted their commitment to transparency. In that spirit, this blogger has written to both the Mayor and those Council members asking for them to address concerns over the Mayor’s unilateral hiring of outside counsel in violation of the city’s policies.

Hopefully, I will receive some kind of response.

The Emails

---

Subject: Outside Counsel

Date: Sat, Feb 12, 6:30 PM

To: Mayor@Saratoga-Springs.org

CC: dillon.moran@saratoga-springs.org, minita.sanghvi@saratoga-springs.org, James, mayor@saratoga-springs.org

According to the February 10, 2022, Times Union edition:

“He (Mayor Kim) also said he is appealing Judge Wait’s decision.”

“’ The attorney handling says we have a good chance of reversing it,’ Kim said.”

These  comments you made to the press raise a number of questions and issues which I am asking you to address:

1. Who is the attorney “handling” this case?

2.    According to the city charter 8.1: “The Council may, from time to time, engage legal professionals to provide additional legal service to the City or to any department or entity. Contracts with all such legal professionals shall be reviewed and approved by the Council.”

   When did the Council vote on a resolution authorizing the city to contract with the “attorney handling” the appeal?

  3.   New York State requires that the city secure three bids or award a contract through an RFP process before it can utilize the services of outside counsel.  Please provide the records showing this procedure was followed.

4.    An appeal of the decision in the case of the City of Saratoga Springs v. Church Street Trust will be expensive especially if the city is using outside counsel. I believe that the principal of the Trust is making a good faith effort to secure the building permit which is the central issue in the case. Please explain how it makes sense for the city to pursue this.

5.    Given the failure of the city to appear in court for this case, what would be the basis of the appeal?

---

Subject: Transparency and Accountability

Date:Saturday, Feb 12, 7:43 PM

TO: dillon.moran@saratoga-springs.org, minita.sanghvi@saratoga-springs.org, James, mayor@saratoga-springs.org

CC: Mayor@Saratoga-Springs.org

All of you ran on a platform promising transparency and fiscal accountability. 

According to the Times Union the Mayor has been working with outside counsel on a review of City of Saratoga Springs v Church Street Trust case with a plan to appeal the court’s decision.

I can find no record of either an RFP or the securing of three bids required to hire the attorney currently working with Mayor Kim. In addition, the city charter (section 8.1) requires you, the Council members, to approve the hire of outside counsel. This was not done.

In the commission form of government you, the Commissioners, are independent and co-equals of the mayor. What actions can the public expect you to take to address the mayor’s violation of state policy and the city charter?

Three local people have begun a Podcast called Talking Saratoga.

Dan De Federicis is a retired NY state trooper, past police union leader, and attorney who publishes Saratoga Reports, a news aggregate site focused on Saratoga.

Adam Israel is a lifelong Saratogian, small business owner, and recent independent candidate for Commissioner of Finance.

Robin Dalton was the Commissioner of Public Safety and ran for mayor on an independent line with Adam.

 The February 7, 2022, edition of the Times Union, has an editorial with the subheading “One Man, One Job,” that chastises Saratoga Springs Mayor Ron Kim for trying to act as both the city’s Mayor and City Attorney. The editorial ends with the admonition, “Mr. Mayor, you have enough on your plate: Cut the drama and hire some new legal counsel.”

One man, one job

In one of his first actions as mayor of Saratoga Springs, Ron Kim dismissed the city attorneys. He said he was dissatisfied with their denials of Freedom of Information Law requests and disagreed with advice they gave the city last year on police reform plans.

That’s the mayor’s right, of course. And it’s a strong signal that Mr. Kim is taking the city in another direction.

The next step? The mayor needs to replace the city attorneys — and not try to do their jobs himself.

That’s what the newly elected Mr. Kim has recently attempted to do, and it has caused confusion, delays and procedural stumbles in court.

He foreshadowed this possibility when he was mayor-elect, suggesting that there was no urgency in replacing the city attorneys. “I’m an attorney,” he said in December. “My deputy, Angela Rella, is an attorney. We won’t skip a beat advising the city.”

Being city attorney is a full-time job. So’s being mayor — which is what voters elected Mr. Kim to do.

And with state Attorney General Letitia James investigating the city police department’s handling of Black Lives Matter protests, the last thing Saratoga Springs needs is more distractions.

Mr. Mayor, you have enough on your plate: Cut the drama and hire some new legal counsel.

Times Union Editorial February 7, 2022

Mayor Kim’s Plan

While I agree with the editorial, Mayor Kim’s plan for hiring new legal counsel for the city is troubling.

He has announced that he wants to hire only one part-time City Attorney to replace the city’s previous full time City Attorney and part time Assistant City Attorney. This attorney would “average (my emphasis) thirty hours a week.” Keeping track of those averaged weekly hours should be an interesting challenge for the Human Resources Department.

So under Kim’s plan, the city will go from having a City Attorney for 40 hours a week and a part-time Assistant Attorney for up to twenty-nine hours a week for a total of sixty-nine hours, down to one part-time attorney for thirty hours a week. It is also important to note that both former City Attorney Vince DeLeonardo and former Assistant City Attorney Tony Izzo regularly worked considerably more hours a week than they were contractually obliged to.

Kim claims his plan will save the city money and cited the legal expenses of Jamestown, New York as evidence that Saratoga Springs should be spending less on attorneys. While Jamestown may have a similar population, it does not have the challenges that a successful tourist town like Saratoga deals with nor the extraordinary housing explosion our city has seen in recent years.

Kim has made reference to how much the city has been spending on legal fees, but he has presented no evidence to prove these expenses were not justified. He has not presented any kind of thorough analysis that shows how much time and expertise is required to meet the city’s legal needs. Without that kind of information, it is difficult to understand how he can be confident one part time attorney will be sufficient or that the city will save the $50,o00 to $100,000 he has promised.

Although appointed by the Mayor, the City Attorney actually works for the entire City Council, providing legal services to the Commissioners and their departments. It is disappointing that Kim’s fellow Democrats on the Council seem uninterested in seriously evaluating whether moving back to one part time City Attorney will serve their needs and is in the best interest of the city.

At the bottom of this post is a satirical look at City Attorney expenses by my friend Publius. For all its droll observations, it includes some very unhumorous numbers. For example, it compares the $294,846.00 spent in 2009 on outside counsel when Scott Johnson was Mayor (that did not include the cost of the “part-time City Attorney”) with the $29,593.00 spent in 2020 during Mayor Kelly’s term when the city had one and a half attorneys in-house.

A Passive Council

The authority to establish the terms of employment for a City Attorney rests with the full city Council and is not the prerogative solely of the Mayor.

As readers may recall, in January the Mayor originally drafted a proposal describing the City Attorney job for Council approval and then withdrew it. So the Council has not approved the terms of employment for the position of a new City Attorney.

In spite of this, Mayor Kim posted a help-wanted ad on the Saratoga County Bar Association’s webpage that lists a salary, benefits, and hours for the position.

The job description makes no reference to a residency requirement. Kim’s obstinance regarding this issue now borders on the bizarre. Multiple sources have confirmed that without action by the City Council or, preferably, the NY State Legislature, the City Attorney, as a public officer, must live in the city.

Mayor Kim’s three fellow Council members (Commissioner Scirocco has been absent due to illness) appear unwilling to offer any resistance to the Mayor’s actions.

How can his colleagues on the Council remain silent?

Maybe a critical editorial from the Times Union, a newspaper that has been notoriously supportive of Kim, will be a wake-up call, but I doubt it.

---

[JK: From Publius]

The Musings Of Publius

Thoughts on the City Attorney Question

I note that the matter of the Office of City Attorney still commands a disproportionately large share of your “Saratoga Springs Politics” posts and corresponding reader comments.

Enough already!  Time to move on.

So let’s put this silly city attorney matter to rest once and for all with an objective, non-partisan analysis.

Even a casual review of the relative merits of the full-time v. part-time city attorney model argues in favor of the part-timer. 

Perhaps the greatest, and most overlooked, benefit of the part-time paradigm is its positive economic impact on the legal profession and, in turn, the community at large.  

Since 2019, when the then city council first elevated the city attorney to full-time status, there has been a precipitous and dangerous decline in the amount of public dollars spent on outside legal services.  This must stop!   

Indeed, that city council, in an apparent rush to create a more disciplined, responsible, and cost-effective office, failed to consider its negative impact on many local law firms.  

Compare, for instance, the $294,846 then Mayor Johnson spent in 2009 on outside legal services to the $29,593 spent in 2020, the year following the institution of a full-time city attorney.  Not even a fool could fail to grasp how such economies would injure the legal community.  Is it any wonder then why the government is held in such low esteem today!

In fact, the 2018 council did not even prepare a Fiscal Impact Analysis Statement prior to its action.  Its move to a full-time city attorney was nothing more than a cynical and politically motivated attempt to reduce the cost of city government, increase efficiency and accountability and promote transparency. 

For many years prior to 2019, the city appropriated large sums to hire private, outside law firms.  Often those appropriations had to be supplemented during the course of the budget year to cover legal cost overruns or to make whole deliberately low balled cost projections.

For instance, the original 2008 budget appropriated $175,000 for outside legal services but the then-mayor spent $249,846 that year.  These costs were, of course, in addition to the $58,000 and $53,000 salaries of the part-time city attorney and part-time assistant city attorney.

In 2010 the city attorney’s office overspent its original appropriation of $150,000 for outside legal services by $59,735.  In 2011 $96,000 was originally budgeted but a total of $187,400 was spent.  

In 2012 the mayor’s office allowed the cost of outside counsel to jump from the $75,000 budgeted to $163,606, an $88,606 overrun. 

Thus, the then-mayor again demonstrated his commitment to promoting employment opportunities for private attorneys while not depriving the city attorney and the assistant city attorney of their aggregate salaries of $111,000 plus benefits.  Truly a “win-win” for all.

So the part-time city attorney proved to be a significant economic benefit to private law firms.  In turn, those firms undoubtedly spent some of that largesse at local businesses and further stimulated the local economy by contributing to their benefactor’s re-election campaigns.

For example, many of the members of the firms retained by the city may have had lunch at a local restaurant, tipped the server, and paid the city sales tax on their meal.  All of that adds up.

Let’s assume, for a moment, that two lawyers from the firm Dewey, Cheathem, and Howe, while working on a case for the city, have lunch at  Compton’s on Broadway. The check comes, in this example, to $20.  The lawyers leave a 15% or $3.00 tip and also pay $1.40 in sales tax, 30 cents of which is returned to the city.

Thus, the part-time model stood as a powerful manifestation of trickle-down economics.  The reinstatement of the part-time model will restore such economic stimuli.

Of course, the part-time city attorney remained busy by attending city council meetings, itself worthy of his $58,000 stipend. In fact, some even tore themselves away from their private practices to occasionally spend an hour or two in city hall during the day.

Naysayers will no doubt ask what these outside firms did, in the false hope of finding cause to criticize the part-time system. Critics may ask why the part-time city attorney and assistant city attorney could not represent the city or give legal advice to the land use boards or zoning amendments or even provide “oversight” of the defense team in Anderson v. City in 2010.  So much nitpicking.

Well, the following representative example of firms hired and the matters they dealt with should dispel their fallacious arguments.

A sampling of “Outside” Law Firms Hired: January 2010 – June 2011

Miller, Mannix, Schachner & Hufner, LLC, to provide legal services to City land use boards, $160/hr., $20,000 yearly cap, Motion 10-13, Jan. 19, 2010

Bailey, Kelleher & Johnson, to advise City Council on the then city attorney’s workplace violence incident, $170/hr., $1,000 cap, Feb. 16, 2010

Miller, Mannix, Schachner & Hufner, LLC, to provide legal services to City regarding zoning ordinance amendments, $160/hr. Motion 10-186, June 6, 2010

Unidentified “outside counsel” to provide oversight of defense team in Anderson v. City trial.  The council authorizes the mayor to retain counsel at $200/hr.  June 15, 2010

Harris Beach, Mayor failed to properly requisition for a monthly retainer fee of $10,000 for period Feb. 2010 through June 2010 for “general labor advice.”  To honor the $10,000 invoice the mayor had to go to the Council.  The accounts commissioner voted against the expenditure because “proper procedure was not followed.”

Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, and Firth at $170 per hour, no cap, to provide the City with legal counsel on the actions undertaken by the Civil Service Commission in modifying the job responsibilities and abilities within the Building Department.   Motion 10-219, July 26, 2010

Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, and Firth at $170 per hour, no cap, to provide the City with legal counsel on the recent actions undertaken by the City Civil Service Commission in restricting the ability of the assistant building inspectors to issue building permits.  Motion 10-220, July 26, 2010

Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, and Firth, LLC at $200 per hour, no cap referenced, to defend the City in an Article 78 proceeding, matter of Saratoga Citizen, Inc., against City Clerk of the City of Saratoga Springs, Motion 10-265, August

Brown and Weinraub as legal counsel for the proposed charter revision at $200 per hour, no cap referenced. Motion 10-222, July 26, 2010

Fitzgerald, Morris, Baker, and Firth, LLC at $200 per hour to defend the City in an Article 78 proceeding in the Matter of Saratoga Citizen, Inc., against City Clerk of the City of Saratoga Springs,  Motion 10-265, August 25, 2010

Miller, Mannix, Schachner & Hufner, LLC, to provide legal services to City land use boards, $160/hr., $20,000 yearly cap, Motion 11-23, Jan. 18, 2011

Discussion and Vote:  Right to Appeal from Saratoga Citizen vs. the City of Saratoga Springs Court Decision, Motion 11-51, Feb. 15, 2011, no firm named, no $ amount specified. The mayor moved to give himself permission and authorization to direct outside legal counsel to file a notice of appeal by February 17, 2011, in the matter of Saratoga Citizen, Inc. vs. the City of Saratoga Springs. 

Discussion and Vote:  Permission to Perfect Appeal in Saratoga Citizen vs. Saratoga Springs. Motion 11-81, March 15, 2011. Mayor to proceed with the appeal as filed; to perfect the appeal and present it to the Appellate Court for determination, no specific firm named, no hourly fee referenced.

Of course, this is simply a representative sample.  But it includes the hiring of the firm of Bailey, Kelleher, and Johnson to aid the council in determining if the surveillance film of the then city attorney hitting a member of the city council in the head with a bunch of layoff notices had to be provided to the media.

Clearly, the $170 per hour fee for that service was money well spent and underscores the necessity of maintaining appropriate funds for such emergencies.

I trust that this will dispel the myth many of your readers are perpetuating, correct the misinformation abroad, and encourage an honest, fact-based public debate of such matters.  Lawyers have to eat too.

Publius