In its report to Saratoga County, Stewart Hacker Murphy LLC found that the Covid Committee created by the county via resolution No. 84 had violated the New York State Open Meetings Law.
The five-member Covid-19 oversight group created by Board of Supervisors Resolution 84 of 2020 was a public body…
Accordingly, its meetings should have been open to the public and the group was required to keep contemporaneous minutes of its meetings. In fact, the meetings were held in private, and there are no minutes, or any other record, of business conducted during the meetings.
Investigative Report
On April 1, 2020, I emailed all the members of the Board of Supervisors advising them that I believed the Covid-19 group was in violation of state law. The only response I received (see below), was from John Lawler, the Supervisor from Waterford. He wrote back that he had requested the County Administrator (Spencer Hellwig) and the County Attorney (Stephen Dorsey) respond to my inquiry. In his email he asked that the response be circulated to all the members of the Board of Supervisors. I never heard anything further.
At its July meeting, prior to the issuance of the findings of the independent investigation, Supervisor Todd Kusnierz directly asked County Attorney Stephen Dorsey whether the Covid-19 committee was subject to the Open Meetings Law.
First Mr. Dorsey responded as though surprised:
“The Covid Committee?”
Supervisor Kusnierz patiently offers:
“The Compensation Committee. Three supervisors. Two county staff.”
Now, dear readers, try to wrap your mind around Attorney Dorsey’s response:
“I’ve been asked this before and my response was that the County has had several committees; change order committees, vacancy review committee; that deal with compensation issues, staffing issues that their meetings aren’t publically (SIC) noticed, not subject to the open meetings law. There was no real reference to these five individuals as being a committee. They aren’t referred to as a necessary. It certainly could have been done. It was not necessary.”
I am not sure what he meant when he asserted, “They aren’t referred to as a necessary.” Most stunning is his surprise that someone would suggest that the people who comprised the Covid-19 group constituted a “committee.”
Supervisor Kusnierz presses further:
“If I am understanding you correctly the committee that was created by this legislative body is not subject to open meetings law. Is that what you are saying?”
Mr. Kusnierz confusion is understandable. Attorney Dorsey attempts to clarify for him:
“It’s not a committee. It’s not referred to as a committee.”
Mr. Kusnierz continues confused:
“It’s not a committee? The compensation committee is not a committee?”
Attorney Dorsey attempts to help Supervisor Kusnierz:
“it’s not a committee. It’s not referred to as a committee. The word committee does not appear in the resolution.” [JK: At the end of this post is the relevant text from the resolution]
Supervisor Kuznierz attempts a modest challenge:
“But they provided representation on behalf of this entire board.”
Unfazed, Attorney Dorsey attempts to close the discussion:
“They were given a duty. As I said the resolution alone, the Chairman alone had the authority under his executive authority as supplemented by the resolution itself to make those determinations. And he does that in consultation with four individuals named. And he did that.”
Mr. Dorsey Seems To Have Forgotten What He And Human Resources Director Margaret McNamara told the investigating law firm.
This from the investigative report:
On the morning of Tuesday, March 17, Stephen Dorsey (County Attorney) was in the process of revising proposed Board of Supervisor Resolution No. 84 of 2020… As of that morning, the draft resolution contained no content about time-and-a-half, or the formation of what would eventually be the Covid-19 oversight group.
Dorsey tells us that a little while later, McNamara came to see him and asked Dorsey to add language to the resolution for time-and-a-half pay to physically-present workers. Dorsey says that he discouraged the idea, and instead proposed the formation of a committee, whom the Supervisors could authorize to make compensation adjustments more flexible as the need arose. [JK: My emphasis]
Dorsey revised the Resolution to incorporate language that would create the Covid group, which would include Board of Supervisors Chair Preston Allen, Law and Finance Chair Dan Pemrick, Human Resources and Insurance Chair Tom Wood, Spencer Hellwig, and Margaret McNamara.
Investigative Report
So let’s parse this out.
First, in his discussions with the investigator, Dorsey himself apparently referred to the structure being created by the resolution as a “committee.”
Second, he described it as “authorize[d] to make compensation adjustments.” He did not describe it’s role as an advisory one to the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors.
Third, he makes Preston Allen, the chair of the Board of Supervisors, simply a member of the committee. This conflicts with his narrative that the other four members were simply acting as advisers/consultants.
Four, I FOILed the Board of Supervisors for all of the “declarations of emergency” issued by Preston Allen. There were four and none of them authorized the change in pay schedules for the county employees.
Finally, here is the relevant text from the resolution as adopted by the Board of Supervisors:
RESOLVED, that the Chair of the Board, the Chair of the Law and Finance Committee, the Chair of the Human Resources and Insurance Committee, the County Administrator and the Director of Human Resources shall have the authority to jointly determine appropriate County employee staffing levels and rates of compensation [JK: My emphasis] that are consistent and in compliance with the current directives of any Executive Order issued by the Governor of the State of New York relative to local government staffing levels; and be it further ….
Resolution 84
I am not a lawyer but it appears to me to be fairly clear. It does not say that Preston Allen shall decide pay rates drawing on the advice of the other named four. It uses the word “jointly” to describe how decisions will be made by the five named positions.
I wish I was in a position to ask Attorney Dorsey how he reconciles the obvious conflict between what he told Kusnierz and what he told the investigator as well as what is in the actual resolution.
The only thing I can do is offer to publish unedited his explanation on this blog.
All of this is just further proof of the breakdown in the management of Saratoga County’s government.
[JK: Lawler Email]
Mr. Kaufman,
Thank you for your email.
I have requested that the County Administrator consult with the County Attorney and to then respond to your concerns. I have also asked that the response be provided to all members of the Saratoga County Board of Supervisors.
New York State’s Open Meeting Law requires that public bodies as defined by law must, at a minimum, meet the following requirements:
They must provide proper notice to the public of the date, time, and location of their meetings.
They must allow public access to their meetings.
They must provide the public with the minutes of their meetings.
Due to the COVID-19 emergency Governor Cuomo has issued an executive order waiving the requirement of public access. The order does, however, require that such meetings must be streamed live and that a transcript of the meeting be provided to the public.
On March 17, the Board of Supervisors transferred the authority to establish staff positions and to set salaries to a special committee. This committee subsequently implemented salary increases to selected employees.
I contacted the New York State Office of Open Meetings to seek advice as to whether this committee was required to adhere to the Open Meetings Law. I spoke to Kristin O’Neil, its deputy director. I reviewed the clause that established the special committee with her. Ms. O’Neil advised me that had the committee been advisory it would not have been covered by the law but that since it was empowered to determine salaries it would indeed be covered by the law.
Putting aside the importance in our democracy of providing a transparent government, it is my understanding that decisions by a committee that occur in violation of the Open Meetings Law are legally invalid and subject to challenge.
I sent this information to Stephen Dorsey, county attorney. To date he has not responded.
I am seeking your assistance in rectifying this apparent breach in the law. I would appreciate if you would respond as to whether you plan to address this issue when the Saratoga County Board of Supervisors next meets.
In this post I will go into the report on Saratoga County’s handling of the COVID raises in more detail. I don’t think you can fully appreciate the unmitigated incompetence of the players based on the summary. Only in the details of the events can one appreciate the level of mismanagement. Their extraordinary indifference to the need to keep records of decisions involving large sums of money is incomprehensible. The conflicting stories they told about what happened are also deeply disturbing. This is a long post but well worth the time.
An Acknowledged Error
It is important to note that the authors of the report issued an amending document on August 18, 2020. In the original report the authors stated that the county had violated New York State employment law by recovering moneys from wages without performing a number of required tasks such as prior notice of the proposed action and informing the employees of appeals procedures. They asserted in the report that this failure created a significant liability for the county. The authors now acknowledge that public employees are exempted from these requirements so the report was in error regarding this.
Whose Idea Was The Time-And-A-Half Program
The investigator tried to find out where the original idea to increase the pay for some county workers to time and a half came from.
He reports that on March 13, 2020, Human Resources Director Margaret McNamara met with the three county unions over dealing with COVID. The unions were concerned about pay for quarantined employees. McNamara confirmed that no one at the meeting suggested increased salaries or suggested that there might be a problem of people showing up for work out of fear. This is important because the rationale for the proposed pay bonuses was based on the assumption that the county employees might not show up for work due to the threat of infection.
The author cites his interview with the Deputy County Administrator as the earliest any reference to the new pay schedule idea came up. The Deputy’s recollection appears to conflict with McNamara’s statements.
“At some uncertain time before March 15, 2020, Deputy County Administrator Chad Cooke tells us that he first heard about the idea of paying time-and-a-half compensation to some county employees in the immediate future. He says that Margaret McNamara told him about the proposal, although he does not recall the location or exact circumstances of the conversation. What he does recall is that McNamara told him that the county would or should pay time-and-a-half to those employees continuing to come into work physically (as opposed to those working from home).”
External Report
In the meantime County Administrator Hellwig’s memory is murky. “…he recalls discussing the time-and-a-half at some point by March 15, but he is not sure if it was on March 15 or earlier.” It is apparent in the report that Hellwig wants to put the blame for the idea on McNamara while being coy in his recollections.
“Hellwig recalls that McNamara expressed that she wanted to “get out ahead” of the employee and union relations problems that a pandemic like this could cause, and mentioned the time-and-a-half as an incentive to keep people coming into work despite anxiety about the virus. When we asked Hellwig if he recalls this being McNamara’s idea, or instead something that emerged between them collaboratively, he said he did not recall.”
“…McNamara told us that to the best of her recollection, the idea for time-and-a-half to essential employees arose on March 15 (not before), collaboratively in a private conversation between herself, Spenser (sic)Hellwig, and Chad Cooke (Hellwig’s deputy), a little while before the large department meeting. [JK: This conflicts with Cooke’s recollection] She claims she cannot recall which of the three of them proposed it first, but that consensus was that the extra pay may be a needed incentive to keep people coming into work despite the grim public information about the very high contagiousness of the virus.” [JK: Conveniently for him, Hellwig apparently cannot remember the discussion that clearly].”
External Report
This is all reminiscent of the age old saying that “success has a thousand fathers while failure has none.”
In the club like atmosphere of county government, the need for maintaining any kind of records of meetings or providing written directives seems to be largely ignored. This is all too common in institutions where accountability is largely ignored. The root of this is the utter failure of oversight by the people in control of Saratoga County.
People Received Raises Who By Law Should Not Have Been Granted Them
As documented below, the policy of who would be granted special pay was created with an appalling carelessness, lacking any sort of clarity. Hellwig and McNamara stated repeatedly that all employees working on site would receive the added benefit. Conspicuously absent was any reference at all about the major fact that New York State and local laws made many of the employees ineligible to receive these raises. Other than Hellwig’s cryptic email to the Supervisors there was nothing in writing about the proposed bonuses let alone the legal impediments to such an inclusive program.
As observed in the “conclusion” section of the report, it is unclear whether Hellwig and McNamara were ignorant about the law or simply utterly inept in the administration of the pay increases. They attribute the payments to ineligible employees as “clerical errors.” The report devotes a great deal of time documenting their failure to make this critical issue clear to either the staff or the members of the Board of Supervisors.
The original email from Spencer Hellwig to the Board of Supervisors advises them that essential employees “as identified by the department heads in conjunction with HR” will receive the additional pay. The author notes that “The email does not define…essential staff and does not comment on whether the time-and-a-half would be paid to union and non-union employees alike, or hourly and salaried employees alike.”
At the special meeting of the department heads on March 15, Hellwig informs them that their “essential employees physically coming into work” would receive the benefit. The report’s author asked Hellwig whether he made any reference as to whether “tiered employees would be excluded from the policy, such as salaried employees, the department heads themselves and their deputies, elected officials, or employees whose compensation was fixed by local law. Hellwig told us that he doubts he was specific…”
When asked about Hellwig’s remarks, “Mr. Dorsey (county attorney) and Dr. Prezioso (Director of Mental Health) told us that based on what they heard, it sounded to them like the time-and-a-half would extend to all in-person workers, without any exclusions.” Others interviewed had similar recollections.
The author of the report observes that these meetings were not followed up with any written confirmation or any clarification. This was particularly important because state and local law barred raises to certain categories of staff.
“…There was no written instruction to the departments disqualifying those employees whose compensation was set by local or state law (who , Ms. McNamara tells us, she believes were ineligible under the policy), department heads or deputies, or elected officials.”
External Report
The report asserts that “There appears to be no email or written (author’s emphasis) memorandum distributed to the department heads memorializing the time-and-a-half policy, or providing department heads with specific details about it, during this initial stage.”
The report documents that Hellwig is asked repeatedly about who was eligible and consistently responded that everyone coming to work was eligible. As just one example at the March 17 Board of Supervisor meeting the report includes the following:
Supervisor Kusnierz: Just on that subject, for clarification, is that applicable to salaried individuals?
Hellwig: Everybody.
Human Resources Director McNamara’s Confusion
All of this is particularly important in light of Human Resources Director McNamara’s recollections.
At the March 17 Board of Supervisors meeting the report notes the following exchange:
Barrett (Clifton Park Supervisor): …and who exactly is covered by this provision?
McNamara: So it is anybody who is coming into work Currently?
Barrett: Anybody? Any county employee?
McNamara: Any county employee.
Yet the report notes that in her interview, Margaret McNamara claimed that she was aware of the legal limits of who could receive the additional pay right from the beginning.
“In McNamara’s understanding of the idea (time-and-a half), all physically-present County employees would be eligible for the time-and-a-half pay, except for certain County officers whose compensation may only be adjusted by local law amendments subject to referendum (such as McNamara herself) or those whose compensation is set by law(such as the District Attorney). All other employees, including non-union and salaried employees, up to and including department heads, would be eligible. However, she does not particularly recall discussing her own ineligibility with Hellwig or Cooke on March 15-she assumes it was a foregone conclusion that officers with compensation set by state or local law must be ineligible.”
External Report
The problem is that two days following her exchange with Supervisor Barrett McNamara directed the payroll supervisor as to who to grant the raises to. She excluded the County Coroner [JK: Why just the Coroner? Unfortunately, the investigator never pursues this.] and the members of the Board of Supervisors but she did not exclude herself or all the other ineligible county employees. McNamara told the investigator that her receiving the pay increase was a clerical error but this is clearly contradicted by the county’s payroll supervisor:
“County Payroll Supervisor Lisa Masten told us that on Thursday, March 19, McNamara directed her (verbally) [JK: Just another example of something that should have been memorialized in a written directive], for the first time, to apply time-and-a- half wages to all employees working in person, beginning March 16. Masten says that McNamara told her the only personnel to be excluded were Board of Supervisors and the County Coroner. According to Masten, McNamara did not specifically mention herself or Spencer Hellwig in these directions, but Masten assumed that they were to receive extra pay because McNamara said “all’ employees coming into work (except the Coroner and the Board.”
Margaret McNamara also claimed that she did not want the additional pay. If this was the case, why didn’t she direct Ms. Masten to exclude her?
An Unfortunate Decision By County Attorney, Stephen Dorsey.
At the heart of this debacle is that New York State Municipal law establishes that only the Board of Supervisors had the authority to adjust salaries and that even that authority was circumscribed regarding elected officials and “officers” of the county.
County Attorney Stephen Dorsey told the investigator that on the morning of the March 17 Board of Supervisors meeting, he sent a draft of the resolution authorizing the COVID Committee to Hellwig’s Deputy Chad Cooke, Margaret McNamara, and Adam Kinowski (McNamara’s deputy).
“Dorsey tells us that a little while later, McNamara came to see him and asked Dorsey to add language to the resolution for time-and-a-half pay to physically-present workers. Dorsey says that he discouraged the idea, and instead proposed the formation of a committee, whom the Supervisors could authorize to make compensation adjustments more flexibly as the need arose. Dorsey believed that this more flexible approach was better suited to the circumstances which were changing by the day, and would probably be more appealing to the Supervisors than the idea of extra pay for a fixed period of time. Dorsey says that McNamara agreed to that proposal and left. Dorsey revised the Resolution to incorporate the content that would create the Covid group…”
The report goes on:
“For her part, McNamara generally recalled that Dorsey drafted Resolution 84 and recalled that the COVID group was either Dorsey or Hellwig’s idea. She did not recall any particular recollection about any conversation with Dorsey about initially including time-and-a-half pay in the resolution.”
One has to wonder what the lawyer who interviewed Dorsey must have thought about all of this. The report is unequivocal that state law required that the salary changes could only be accomplished through a resolution by the Board of Supervisors. So here the County Attorney is telling him that he explicitly nixed the idea of including language authorizing the pay increases in the resolution to be adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
The Question As To What, If Anything, Did the COVID group decide on March 19?
The members of the COVID group contend that on March 19, they met and reversed their earlier decision regarding time-and-a-half, limiting it to just the members of the Command Center.
The report raises serious doubts about the veracity of the COVID Committee members’ description of events.
“There is no contemporaneous documentation showing that the COVID group, did in fact decide to limit the time-and-a-half pay to command center personnel on March 19. There are no minutes or notes of the March 19 meeting, and there are no verifiable announcements of the change in policy to the Board of Supervisors, County departments or the unions at that time. On the other hand, there is documentation, discussed through the remainder of this chronology, which justifies doubt as to whether the group in fact made a concrete decision on March 19, or some time closer to the end of the March 20 – April 2 period.”
The report records that on the same day of the meeting, March 19, Deputy Administrator Chad Cooke sent on an email to all department heads that undermines the claim that the Covid group had limited special pay to the Command Center employees.
As a reminder, operational protocol for next week is the same as this week with the exception of further reductions of staff as you have discussed with Marcy (Margaret McNamara). Employees that are deemed non-essential are staying home and will be paid straight time. Employees that will be working are being [paid] time and a half.
Chad Cooke, March 19, 4:34 p.m.
The report points out the obvious: “There is no indication in this email that the time-and-a-half pay would be limited to command center workers.”
Cook told the investigator that he
“…did not learn about the change of policy until days later. But we note that Cooke did not send any follow-up email to department heads correcting this information until nearly two weeks later, on April 2 and by that time the Covid group had met two more times (March 25 and April 2). Having no minutes of any of the meetings, for that reason alone it is simply undocumented as to whether the Covid group made its decision on March 19, or during some later meeting.
External Report
Regrettably the investigator does not cite that among the recipients of this email were Cooke’s boss Spencer Hellwig and Margaret McNamara. These two were both on the Covid committee that had allegedly changed the policy that day. So the obvious questions are 1) did they not read Cooke’s email when they got it, 2) if they did read the email, why didn’t they send out an email advising the department heads that Cooke’s email was incorrect and advising them of the revised policy?
McNamara claimed as proof of the March 19 decision that she had telephoned the representatives of the three affected unions that day and informed them of the decision. The investigator addressed this:
But that is not contemporaneously documented either… McNamara did not attempt to document those communications (retroactively) until late May. Moreover, the PBA president denies outright that he heard of the change in policy on or near March 19.
External Report
The report cites an email on March 23 sent out to the Board of Supervisors regarding questions put to him by Times Union reporter Wendy Liberatore in which she asked how many employees would be receiving time-and-a-half. Hellwig responded:
We are down to 380…Most of that number is made up of corrections, road patrol, DSS, and public health.
Hellwig email of March 23
The problem is that as observed by the investigator, if on March 19 the Covid committee had limited the raises to just the 40 employees in the command center, “…the number of effected employees should have been well below 380, and would largely not include Corrections and Road Patrol employees (who, with a few exceptions, were mostly not working the command center).”
In that same email related to answering Liberatore’s questions Hellwig answered that the following would be receiving the raises:
The Sheriff, the Public Health Director, the Emergency Services Director, the MH (mental health) director and other department heads are included in this group.
Hellwig Email March 23
The investigator observed:
If the Covid group decided on March 19 to end time-and-a-half pay for everyone except the command center personnel, it does not make sense that Sheriff Zurlo is included among those receiving extra pay (he was not a command center worker).
External report
I would also observe that Zurlo along with the Mental Health Director were ineligible under New York State and local law to receive this money. Elected officials cannot be granted raises effective during their current term as noted by the authors of the report. Hellwig appears to be oblivious to the laws even at this later date.
The investigator notes regarding the Liberatore article:
Any County employee reading this article–indeed any person reading this article–would have reason to believe that all physically present workers were getting the extra pay (or at least those in the departments mentioned by Hellwig).
External Report
The investigator included a text message exchange between Margaret McNamara and PBA president Ryan Mahan on the evening of March 23 related to Liberatore’s article.
Facially, this exchange appears to indicate that on March 23 Mahan was not aware that time-and-a-half ended for almost the entire PBA membership effective March 20 (even though McNamara says that she told him this telephonically on March 19). Notably, McNamara’s reply does not correct Mahan. He opened this exchange with the statement, “I assume we are still getting time and a half this week?”, and McNamara’s response does not tell him that he is wrong, nor does it attempt to remind him of the bad news she tells us she gave him on March 19.
External Report
On Tuesday March 24, Hellwig sent out an email to all Supervisors with a spreadsheet color coded to show which management level employees were to receive time-and-a-half. “There were thirty-two (32) managers in that group, including Margaret McNamara and Adam Kinowski (her deputy).
McNamara and Kinowski were not command center personnel; if the Covid group had decided to limit the benefit to command center personnel on March 19, McNamara and Kinowski should not have been scheduled to receive time-and-a-half as of March 24. Hellwig and McNamara tell us that McNamara and Kinowski were listed in error.
On March 25, in response to an inquiry from Supervisor Schopf as to which employees are receiving time-and-a-half by that point Hellwig replied (he cc’ed all supervisors):
All non-management regular employees that are physically reporting to work are getting time and a half for every hour they work.”
Hellwig March 25
The investigator notes:
Hellwig’s email does not mention anything about limiting the extra pay to command center workers. Hellwig tells us this email was an error.
External Report
Later that same day (March 25) Hellwig circulated a draft press release to the Board of Supervisors about who was receiving time-and-a-half.
That release acknowledges command center staff, but does not appear to indicate that they would be the only ones receiving time-and-a-half. It appears to state that the number of employees receiving it was still 340.
External Report
The investigator reported that all the members of the Covid committee told him that they met on March 25 and they decided to continue to pay only the command center employees time-and-a-half which they claim was a continuation of the March 19 meeting decision. The investigator observed, “Here again, in the absence of any written notes or minutes from the March 19 or March 25 meetings, there is no contemporaneous documentation of these decisions.”
On March 26, McNamara meets with all three union representatives.
According to Mahan, during this meeting McNamara said nothing about any plan to limit the time-and-a-half pay to command center workers for the then current pay period. On the contrary, Mahan says that McNamara told them, in sum or substance, that the time-and-a-half pay for all physically-present workers would be in place through the end of that pay period (until April 2). but that she was uncertain whether it would continue after that.”
External Report
In support of the authenticity of Mahan’ recollection he cites a letter sent on March 27 to the Board of Supervisors thanking them and asking them to “…consider extending the compensation rate to help offset the emotional impacts that are weighing on our members and their families.”
The letter does not convey any understanding that the Covid group had purportedly decided to end the time-and-a-half pay for all but command center workers back on March 19.
External Report
In our discussions with Margaret McNamara, she did not specifically recall meeting with the union representatives on March 26, but does not doubt that she could have. She was adamant, however, that if she did speak with them that day, there is no way she would have told them that the time-and-a-half pay would continue to April 2. She insists all three knew by March 19 that time-and-a-half ended for everyone except the smaller command center group.
External Report
On March 26, 560 employees of the county including Hellwig, McNamara, and Sheriff Zurlo, received checks with the time-and-a-half bonuses. “Hellwig, McNamara, Cooke, and Kinowski say that they and others were paid the time-and-a-half in error and should never have received it.”
On Friday, March 27 and again on March 30, Ryan Mahan (PBA) says he spoke with Margaret McNamara, looking for an update on whether the time-and-a-half would be continuing into this week. He says that in both conversations, McNamara was non-committal, and indicated that she was still working on the issue. He says that as of March 31, no one in the county had told him that any decision had been made to reduce time-and-a-half to the command personnel.
External Report
Bear in mind that not only allegedly had the administration decided not to continue the policy forward, they allegedly had plans to recoup moneys paid.
The report cites the following text exchange with the CSEA president to add credibility to Mahan’s contention that McNamara was keeping him in the dark. [JK: These are text messages with the usual grammatical errors.]
Brackett: You get any word on what’s going on with the time and a half pay?
Mahan: Absolutely no idea. Marcy (McNamara) spoke in circles on Friday. Today she called at 8 am and asked that I not speak to anyone they were working on ideas for compensation. I still don’t have a clue. They haven’t given a solid answer yet.
Brakett: K I went there and couldn’t get a answer she said he call me later and I’m waiting.
On March 31, twelve days after the decision was allegedly made, the first written record of the Covid group’s decision to limit time-and-a-half appears. The chair of the Board of Supervisors publishes a statement on the county’s website. He states that only the employees at the command center will be getting time-and-a-half.
The investigator observes, “There is a notable parallel between this announcement and “Task Force’s (the group of supervisors critical of the administration) open letter from the day before.” [JK: I remember thinking that Hellwig probably wrote the statement for Allen as damage control.]
On the same day, Margaret McNamara has a remote department meeting, in which she advises them that the county was limiting the time-and-a-half benefit to command center employees. For some or most of the people on this call, this is the first time they have heard about this.
In the case of Ryan Mahan (PBA) he first hears about the change in policy on March 31 when a PBA member alerted him to Chairman Allen’s announcement on the county website. Mahan maintains that like himself, this was the first time the other unions learned about this. He shared a text with the investigator from the representative of one of the other unions, “Wait, Time and on half ended on Tues?”
The report documents emails from Mahan repeatedly asking for clarification from McNamara on March 31 and April 1. On April 1 he writes:
We are getting asked a million times over who is still getting the time and a half. This was never discussed, not one union had a chance to prepare for answering members questions. I personally have members in the command post who don’t know anything about this and now they look like they’re lying when they say I don’t know.
Please provide me with the complete list of the 40 workers still receiving time and a half as this and the issue of compensation is looked into.
Ryan Mahan, April 1
Finally on April 2, Chad Cooke sends out an email spelling out the policy regarding who will be paid what.
Significantly, payroll supervisor Lisa Masten tells us that Chad Cooke’s April 2 email was the first notice she received that the County was limiting the time-and-a-half pay to command center workers for March 20-April 2 pay period. She had never heard that before from anyone. In fact, Masten and her assistant spent the weekend of April 4-5 manually re-coding the entries in the Kronos system to effectuate this change–during that weekend…
External Report
At the April 21 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, Margaret McNamara is asked to confirm that she advised the union heads of the decision to end time-and-a-half for all except the command center employees. She reaffirmed that she had so informed them.
Two of the three unions declined to make themselves available to the internal investigation. As part of that investigation Margaret McNamara wrote to the three unions asking them to confirm that she had informed them of the decision to end time-and-a-half for all employees except the control center staff.
Daniel Sisto responded on behalf of the PBA on May 28. He wrote “The statement that the union was advised that the time-and-a-half rate of compensation for all hours worked by members of this union would cease on March 19, 2020 is factually incorrect.”
…Siston and PBA President Ryan Mahan, in our interviews with them, vehemently denied McNamara told them on March 19 that time-and-a -half ended for non-command center personnel, and they maintain that they did not learn that until March 31.
External Report
For our purposes, we find the responses of the other two unions, UPSEU and CSEA, to be inconclusive by themselves, because those representatives have declined to be interviewed and these emails are not self-explanatory. There are also additional documents that we have obtained from PBA (after the Subcommittee released its report) which urge a conservative interpretation of these emails. [JK: This has to do with the poor wording of McNamara’s query to the unions]
External Report
In support of the unions’ recollections the report has this text exchange between the head of two of the union locals:
Mahan: Marcy [JK: Margaret McNamara] just emailed me and asked me to confirm that I knew 1.5 pay was stopped on the 19th. This not correct Marcy. You told us a week later that we were approved til April 3rd and there were no guarantees after that. You actually promised you were still fighting for us.
Beardsley: LOL grimey.
Mahan: She is lying to us as she asks for a favor.
Beardsly: Yes. I am not surprised and than [sic] she wants you to answer the one question and not tell the whole story.
Mahan: Clear as day. She said definitely approved til April 3rd. Asking people to lie to her is not fucking cool.
Beardsly: I told Paul what we say officially and what we explain off the record doesn’t have to be the same. And she holds a lot of chips shes [sic] front line on our contracts u go against her u will be paying for it till you retire.
The investigator sums up his assessment of this conflict between McNamara and the unions:
But, on the whole, the question of whether HR notified the unions of the change in policy for time-and-a-half on March 19, or some time later, is at least very contestable.
External Report
Meetings of the Covid Group Did Not Comply With the Open Meetings Law
As the above factual chronology indicates, one of the challenging aspects of the County’s current predicament is the absence of a clear record of what occurred during the Covid oversight group’s several meetings. This issue is compounded by the fact that, as a matter of state law, the meetings should have been open and minutes should have been taken.
…
The Open Meetings Law also requires the public body to take minutes of all meetings, “which shall consist of a record or or summary of all motions, proposals, resolutions and any other matter formally voted upon.” That did not occur here
External Report
Confusion Over Other Municipalities Giving Bonus Wages For Covid
At the March 17 Board of Supervisors meeting there was the following exchange between Supervisor Kusnierz and Margaret McNamara:
Kusnierz: So, is New York State with a hundred and ninety billion dollar budget doing the same for their employees? Are they doing time-and-a-half? They have a lot more unions than we do.
McNamara: Every municipality is doing it. I’ve talked to several…
Kusnierz: Time-and-a-half?
McNamara: Yeah, City of Saratoga Springs, time-and-a-half. This is just off the top of my head. Um. Town of Malta. I just talked to Supervisor Lant [of Wilton]. I said are you paying them, he said yes he’s paying them.
Supervisor Pemrick: Town of Greenfield is.
Kusnierz: They’re paying time-and-a-half for anyone who comes in?
McNamara: Yeah, City of Saratoga Springs
From the report:
It is well-documented that none of the municipalities mentioned in this exchange were paying essential employees time-and-a-half (outside of regular overtime).
External Report
It was very strange that Supervisor Pemrick offered that his town was paying pandemic bonus when it wasn’t. Not sure what that was about.
It was also very strange that Ms. McNamara would state that “every municipality is doing it.” This was a stunning overstatement. It’s hard to understand what prompted her to make such a statement.
According to the report, Spencer Hellwig was the source of the false statement that Saratoga Springs was paying Covid-related time-and-a-half. He told the investigator that at some unspecified time prior to March 17 he spoke to Mayor Meg Kelly. Somehow, he claims, there was a miscommunication. According to his rendering of the story, she thought he was asking simply whether the city paid time-and-a-half. As this is required by state labor law for overtime she purportedly said yes. He allegedly thought that she was saying that Covid employees were being paid time-and-a-half for their regular hours. Of course, like most other things in this report, Mr. Hellwig made no record of this call.
The readers of this blog will pardon my extreme skepticism of his account.
Allegedly, Ms. McNamara had similar confusion in conversations with the Supervisors of Wilton and Malta. Somehow her inquiries regarding their policies about granting special pay for Covid related wages resulted in her mistakenly thinking these towns had similar policies to what she was proposing.
These is quite a coincidence. Somehow the three inquiries made by Hellwig and McNamara all resulted in the same miscommunication.
It is regrettable that the investigator did not pursue how Ms. McNamara came to believe incorrectly that New York State was similarly granting special Covid pay.
Conclusion
The picture this narrative paints of County Administrator Spencer Hellwig, Human Resources Director Margaret McNamara, and County Attorney Stephen Dorsey is not flattering.
Remember that during this time even the front line hospital staff at most risk were not getting special payments and the first responders throughout the county were similarly operating diligently for their regular pay. The original idea was bad and in many ways self serving. Only after the public outcry do the managers at the county decide they allegedly don’t want the bonuses.
It is also worth noting that after thirty-two years, Spencer Hellwig was eligible to retire. I believe in the New York State retirement system, ones retirement payments are directly related to your last years of employment. If this is the case, Mr. Hellwig would have particularly benefited from the time-and-a-half program.
I would remind readers that when Supervisor Kusnierz moved that Mr. Hellwig be terminated, many of the supervisors present were outraged and asked over and over “Why?” To ask such a question demonstrates just how much trouble our county is in.
Regrettably, Maura Pulver, the proprietor of Five Points Grocery is closing her store. Located at the intersections of Lincoln Avenue, Park Place, and Clark Street, it was a classic community store where the staff knew everybody’s name. They had great sandwiches, deserts, and coffee.
Maura was the heart of the place. She worked very hard for over eight years to make the store work. We will miss her and her store.
She plans to open a modified version of the store just serving food at the Senior Citizens Center.
On August 6, 2020, Saratoga Today ran a story that the group that drafted a charter to change Saratoga Springs’ form of government that failed to pass in 2017, have launched a campaign to pass another version that will be on the ballot for the November elections. So they are back for another bite of the apple.
Today I received a press release from a new group called “Saratoga Works” announcing a campaign to oppose the charter’s passage.
A diverse group of Saratogians have come together to oppose a proposed change in Saratoga Springs’ form of government that will appear on the November ballot. Called Saratoga Works, the new organization issued the following statement:
“We are concerned with the third attempt in eight years to change our city’s form of government to a more expensive, less stable and risky option particularly during this time of pandemic and extreme economic crisis.
Abolishing and setting up a whole new form of government is expensive, disruptive, and challenging under the best of circumstances. Imagine doing this during a pandemic and national economic crisis equal to the Great Depression!
This expensive version of charter change will transfer power away from the people and give it to an appointed bureaucrat called a City Manager who cannot be voted out. It will also politicize our neighborhoods by dividing them into wards.”
Saratoga Works points to the many examples of success under the city’s current commission form of government including keeping taxes flat for 8 years and guiding the city through the current crisis.
“Our commission form of government has used its disaster plan to successfully run our city when forced out of City Hall by a fire, and now has managed a pandemic and is working through the national business meltdown.”
The proposal to radically change the city’s form of government to a hired city manager and to divide the city into wards will appear on the November ballot in Saratoga Springs.
[JK: I received this press release from the Commissioner of Finance, Michele Madigan]
INVITATION TO Mask Up, Saratoga SpringsCampaign Kick-off Event
For Immediate Release Contact: Deirdre O’Dwyer-Ladd Phone: 518-587-3550 x2571
Who: All are invited to join Saratoga Springs City Officials and Community Partners as the Commissioner of Finance, Michele Madigan, announces the City’s “Mask Up, Saratoga Springs” awareness campaign.
What: In response to the NYS Mask Mandate and Public Health Law, this educational effort will entail a series of lawn signs, posters and public service announcement aimed at increasing the safety of our business community, area residents and visitors during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Where & When: The pubic is welcome to gather with us on the front steps of City Hall on Friday, August 21st at 1:30pm in support of our community’s health.
Why: Promoting best practices during this unprecedented time is a great example of a city and community collaboration. We hope you will do as purported and wear a mask, socially distance and wash your hands to help stop the spread of the COVID-19 virus and keep our downtown flourishing. We look forward to seeing you in solidarity tomorrow. Remember, we’re stronger together, so Mask Up, Saratoga Springs!
“The MaskUp, Saratoga Springs campaign is our city’s effort to normalize mask wearing in the fight against COVID-19 and to debunk myths associated with masks. Along with physical “social” distancing and regularly washing hands or using hand sanitizer, wearing a mask is the easiest way to stop the spread of COVID-19. The campaign will provide messaging and guidance for our visitors and residents to our city that incorporate mask wearing, washing your hands, and social distancing
Unfortunately, COVID-19 shows no signs of going away any time soon however, there are simple steps we can all take to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and our communities. For starters, we urge everyone to Mask Up and make masks part of your daily wardrobe and regular routine. By wearing a cloth mask, practicing social distancing, and regularly washing our hands, we can all prevent the spread of COVID-19.”
Commissioner of Finance Michele Madigan
XXX
Attached: Official Invite PDF and copies of the 4 signs for the Mask Up, Saratoga Springs campaign.
[JK: I am currently working on a post detailing the report by the law firm that carried out the independent investigation of the Saratoga County pandemic raise debacle. In contrast to the endless testimonials at the August 18, 2020, meeting praising the “genius and dedication” of County Administrator Hellwig, the details of the report paint a picture of a simply stunningly inept administration ignorant or oblivious of state law and incoherent in their stumbling and often contradictory policies. I found it quite amazing to the point of embarrassing that the Supervisors who supported Hellwig at this meeting would publicly proclaim that they found nothing in the report of any consequence. God help this county!]
[Correction: The original article an inaccuracy. The original resolution to terminate Hellwig was made by Todd Kusnierz.]
At the August 18, 2020, meeting of the Saratoga County Board of Supervisors a resolution was put forward by Moreau Supervisor Todd Kusnierz to in effect terminate County Administrator Spenser Hellwig.
Hellwig is an “at-will” employee. Theoretically that means he can be terminated at the simple discretion of his employer which in this case is the Board of Supervisors. In our litigious age that does not mean that an employee cannot challenge the decision in court. Hellwig has worked for Saratoga County for some thirty-two years so it is reasonable that a court would give any appeal from him a sympathetic ear.
The resolution offered by Schopf was brief. It offered no particulars as to why Hellwig should be terminated. The apparent assumption was that as an at-will employee, it was not necessary. The resolution’s supporters assumed that the devastating, independent report on the pandemic raise debacle proved their case and that nothing more was needed. It appeared to me that they assumed that arguing over the contents of the report would simply involve them in endless argument. During the very long meeting, they refused to discuss the particulars as to why Hellwig should be fired.
What ensued was an ordeal of blather. In terms of the numbers of Supervisors present, supporters of the resolution were in the minority. There were about seven of them as compared to sixteen defenders of Hellwig. Due to the weighted vote system, however, it appeared that the supporters of the resolution had the votes originally.
What followed were hours of chaos as Hellwig’s allies challenged the resolution’s supporters to explain why their Administrator should be fired. This loyal blogger had to endure hours of these people going on about how cruel and unfair it was to fire a dedicated employee who had served the county brilliantly. They berated the resolution’s supporters for their unwillingness to explain why this man who they described in saintly terms should be fired without due process [JK: A process for “at will” employees that was never described]. The Board of Supervisors has a rule meant to limit the time individuals can speak on any resolution. This time limit was simply ignored by the Chair in spite of protestations from Hellwig’s critics. Basically Hellwig’s supporters took up about eighty-five percent of the talking time.
The meeting was as poorly run as the County. It was not surprising because the meeting was chaired by Preston Allen, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. This whole mess happened on his watch. Because the County has a weighted vote system it can create a very distorted picture. It only takes seven supervisors from the municipalities with the greatest populations to form a majority even though there are twenty-three supervisors. So the dynamic was sixteen Supervisors berating seven Supervisors. They accused the supporters of the resolution as playing politics. As they are pretty much all Republicans, this seemed like a very strange attack but logic and prudence were not in evidence at the meeting.
In the end a committee was set up with half being supporters of the resolution and half being opponents to review Hellwig and come back with recommendations.
Our own Assemblywoman Carrie Woerner is a co-sponsor of the bill that would institute this regulation . The bill is being promoted by the salon trainer industry which would greatly benefit from those who wash hair having to attend their schools to get certification.
Todd Garafano served as president of the Saratoga Convention and Tourism Board (rebranded as Discover Saratoga) before becoming the executive director of the Salon & Spa Professionals of NYS, a nonprofit representing cosmetology schools that would benefit from this new law. Garafano’s wife, Hollene, previously served as a director of the organization.
Significantly, Todd Garafano’s son, Chris Garafano, is Assemblywoman Woerner’s legislative director.
In tempered and lawyerly prose the law firm Jones, Hacker, Murphy. LLP paints a picture of Saratoga County management as oblivious or indifferent to state law and acting unchecked beyond their legal authority. It describes bumbling administrators oblivious to the need for essential record keeping. It raises serious questions about the credibility of statements made by County Administrator Spencer Hellwig and Human Resources Director Margaret McNamara.
The report was commissioned by the County under pressure by a group of insurgent Supervisors. The report was delivered to the County on August 6 and distributed to the Supervisors on August 7. The document was drafted by the law firm as a “privileged and confidential document” and Supervisors were advised by Preston Allen, the Chairman of the Board, that it should remain internal until the Board decided otherwise.
At its August meeting the clique that has basically run the County as a fiefdom argued vigorously to withhold the report from the public. The County has a voting system where the votes of Supervisors from the more populated municipalities carry more weight. It became clear that the insurgents had the votes to approve its release and in the end the vote to release the report was unanimous.
In its executive summary the law firm warned:
The report confidentially discusses some potential exposures under the New York Labor Law, and it would be highly irresponsible for any one person, acting unilaterally, to break the privilege attached to this discussion without action by the board as a body.
External Report
Nevertheless, the report in its original and unredacted form was leaked. It has been circulated and this post is based on the full original report.
In a subsequent post I will be discussing in detail the report’s specifics. They are really quite extraordinary, but for the purpose of this post, I will just summarize the findings.
On Sunday, March 15, 2020, County Administer Spencer Hellwig and Human Resource Director, Margaret McNamara convened a special meeting of department heads. At this meeting they announced that all employees operating on site (as compared to remotely) would be paid time and a half for their regular hours. Referencing New York State Municipal Law, the report asserts that “Neither the County Administrator nor the Human Resources Director had legal authority to announce additional compensation on March 15.”
The five member Covid 19 Oversight Group was created by resolution by the Board of Supervisors and empowered to determine staffing and wages independent of the Board. According to the report, this committee “…was a ‘public body’ within the meaning of the New York Open Meetings Law.” This meant that their meetings were required to be:
Open to the public
Properly noticed to the public
Contemporaneous minutes of the meetings were required
The report notes:
In fact, the meetings were held in private, and there are no minutes, or any other record, of business conducted during the meetings.
External Report
In fact, according to the report, all of the members of the committee told the investigator that they didn’t even keep any notes at the meetings.
[JK: In a later blog I will go into this in more detail but I wrote to all the members of the Board and their Attorney way back on April 1 that they were violating the Open Meetings Law to no avail.]
The Human Resources Director Margaret McNamara is considered to be a “County Officer” and “…as a matter of law, changes in her compensation require local law amendments subject to permissive referendum.” She along with quite a few others are considered “officers” and should not have received these time and a half raises because of their special status and yet checks were issued to these “officers.” Ms. McNamara asserted that her receiving the money was a clerical error but the investigator reported on evidence that raised doubts about her claim. She subsequently returned the money making the issue mute. As I will describe in a future post, the handling of her pay and her memory of events raised additional issues.
The COVID Oversight Group claimed that they decided to reverse the time-and-a-half payments at a meeting on March 19:
The group says it made the decision during a meeting on March 19, but there is no contemporaneous documentation of the decision, and the first public notice of it did not materialize until March 31. In the intervening period there were internal and external communications by some County personnel which are inconsistent, and justify confusion about whether this change was definitively adopted on March 19, or sometime later in the affected pay period. Some evidence strongly argues that this decision was not definitively reached until after March 19, or at the very least the decision remained largely unknown until well after March 19.
[Later in the paragraph]
Consequently, there is some risk of exposure to unpaid wage claims under the New York State Labor Law, by employees who might assert that they had already earned the extra pay for that period by the time the County announced that it was ending.
External Report
So the report appears skeptical of statements made by the members of the COVID Oversight Group. As the Group met in private and without minutes or notes the members of the group offered a variety of explanations meant to establish that they made the decision on March 19. The investigator found that many of these explanations did not stand up under scrutiny [JK: This will be explored further in a later post]. This takes on greater importance because if they did not advise employees that the policy had been discontinued they created serious legal liabilities for the County.
This issue is quite important. When they decided to reverse the decision and to recapture the money retroactively, they failed to follow New York State Labor Law which involved timely notices to employees and an appeal process. The failure to have followed these procedures makes the County particularly vulnerable. The investigator noted that many of the department heads claimed that they did not want the money. The problem is that no records were kept of any of this so it is unclear how many County employees have potential legal options to receive the recovered wages.
With a six year statute of limitations for employees to file claims for underpayment of wages, there is a lingering possibility aggrieved employees could assert claims for unpaid time and a half for the March 20-April 2 pay period. Margaret McNamara’s alleged oral notice of the change to the unions on or about March 19 is undocumented and too contestable for us to give it much credit for the purposes of mitigating potential liability.
External Report
As interesting as this general summary may be, it is the details of how management tried to explain all of this as compared to the record that makes really interesting reading.
It will take me a while to compile all of this as the reports runs some one hundred and eleven pages.
What it exposes is the utter ignorance by County Administrator Hellwig and, I assume, County Attorney Dorsey of New York State Law regarding the limits of authority of the County Administration. Aside from the ethics of open government, the failure to even keep proper records at all is simply stunning. There is also the issue of the Human Resources Director’s apparent ignorance of New York State Labor Law.
The overall impression this report creates is of a kind of small club of insiders that became untethered to the laws and management principles that insure the integrity of public institutions.
This blog has written a number of stories about past incidents of mismanagement and self dealing at the County. What this report exposes in terms of ineptitude is chilling. One has to wonder what a thorough audit of the County would uncover.
I have received a number of emails about my last post from the students campaigning to have two Skidmore faculty members fired.
They were quite upset and indignant that I had not redacted all their names and monikers from the Instagram postings I published.
Apparently when you publish something on Instagram, the name of the individual posting (or their on-line moniker) appears in the upper left of their document.
I had overlooked the actual name of one of the authors of two posts. As a courtesy I redacted that person’s name.
In the other cases where those complaining had posted using aliases I made no changes.
The persons making these demands emailed me through the WordPress web program I use. I would not characterize the emails I have received as a charm campaign. One of them advised me that he would be consulting a lawyer regarding the matter.
All of them asserted that I was violating their privacy and that I was putting them in danger. The implication being I guess that someone from the right might be motivated to hurt them.
It seems odd to me that they should be so insistent on anonymity. The documents I published that included their names or their aliases are already on the web and available to anyone with a computer. I do not see myself as “outing” them. In the case of actual names, I redacted as a courtesy because I was hoping that on reflection they might reconsider the wisdom of both the purpose of their campaign (the firing of faculty based on simply attending a rally) and the manner by which they are running their campaign (it includes information that is demonstrably untrue).
There are a number of things striking about their emails to me. The first is the presumption that they can order me to remove their names.
Given the tone of their Instagram posts, I would have thought that they would be proud to have their names associated with their remarks. I am also surprised at their claim that having their names or monikers appear on the blog is suddenly a cause for fear. After all, they have already put their names out on the web in spite of the fact that they apparently believe that publicly taking on what they see as the alt-right may put them in danger. I am unclear why my posting should significantly increase the risk, if any, that they have already willingly taken on.
Ironically they have not been reluctant to post the names and pictures of their faculty targets. They attempted to get the faculty members’ names up on my blog by emailing them in a comment they wanted posted (I didn’t). They have broadcast where their targets work, and most importantly, they have contacted the employer of their targets and asked that the two be fired. They seem oblivious to the contradictions between their demands for privacy and safety for themselves and the real dangers they are willing to create for others.
Rethinking What All This Is About
It is disturbing how many of the letters and documents created and passed along on social media by these students contained allegations that are demonstrably untrue. In the private correspondence I received, one writer admitted that neither she nor the author of the original letter were ever students in the department of the the faculty members they were condemning nor had they taken any of their classes. Another student admitted that they were not at the July 30 protest but had passed on information about what happened that night. That information simply wasn’t true.
I am struggling to understand the behavior of these students. My impression is that they truly believe that events they describe actually occurred even though the allegations they make are demonstrably untrue. They seem to be untethered to reality.
What makes them construct these fantasies and pass them on? Is it the quest for celebrity status by being on the front lines of something exciting that is happening? Is it an attempt to exercise some sense of power and control in an increasingly hostile world by constructing one’s own reality?
Sadly it is not just students who exhibit this behavior, though. Their actions appear to be part of a disturbing national trend and not exclusive to any political party, age group, or social class .
It is unproductive to simply denounce these people, and I really do not have any easy answers as to why all of this is happening or how to change this behavior.
My personal response to this trend is to publish this blog. This blog tries to make sense out of events and create a space where people can comfortably and intelligently consider local issues.
As those who follow this blog know, it can be sharply critical of people and institutions but it is not mean spirited. People who have posted comments on this site using real email addresses, using language that is too strong, are accustomed to hearing from me with a request that they edit their submission and “dial it back.”
My hope is to create some space, however small, for honest and civil conversations.
In a troubling development, a recent graduate of Skidmore College is organizing a campaign to fire two faculty members for attending the Back the Blue rally. The letter this recent student is circulating has many highly inflammatory statements that are demonstrably false.
Please note that I have redacted both the names of the faculty members and the name of the person promoting the firing. I redacted the names of the faculty because I did not want to see them subjected to anymore abuse than they are already experiencing. I redacted the student’s name because I would like to think that their misrepresentations were the result of immaturity rather than malice.
This is the letter being circulated:
These are graphics they have posted on the web as part of their campaign.
The following are excerpts from their letter along with my commentary.
From the letter:
“…it is unacceptable for faculty members…to publicly voice their support for a hateful cause that directly challenges the right of black students to exist, live, and breath in America.”
Letter
The following is from the Back the Blue Facebook page soliciting public participation in their event.
We want to humanize these officers and remind people they are spouses, children, parents, brothers, sisters, friends, neighbors, etc.
Things to Bring: Signs of support, Blue Line flags, your friends and family that are pro police. Kids are welcome as this is a family friendly event.
Things to leave at home: Any political signs, flags, etc. We want to keep this a positive, all inclusive event and do not want this to turn political or negative in any way. This is a peaceful, purely pro-police event. We hope to see you there!Please practice social distancing and wear masks when not possible. Thank you!
From Back The Blue Facebook Page
Conspicuously absent from this Back the Blue text is any reference to Black Lives Matter. It is clearly evident that the organizers of this event went out of their way to make the focus on “purely” supporting the police.
I have a dear friend who attended the Back the Blue demonstration who did so to support relatives who are police officers who share her anger over racism in America and who were appalled by the killing of George Floyd.
The idea that the attendance of faculty at the Back The Blue rally is proof that they oppose the right of people of color to live is just stunning. It is hyperbole on steroids.
That is not to say that other people who attended the event may not have had other agendas but to reduce the event to a campaign for the extermination of people of color in our country is itself rather scary.
But the Saratoga Springs Police stood with their back (SIC) to the white supremacist, alt-right, counter protesters and faced us, as if defending them and looking for potential attacks from us.
From the letter
Back the Blue had arranged for their march and rally with the Saratoga Springs Police. The All of Us group simply announced over social media that they were organizing a counter demonstration and showed up. It is not surprising that the police were deployed around the sanctioned event.
Meanwhile, our side of the protest wore masks, while the anti-Black lives side was mostly mask free, a potential threat to our lives.
From the letter
Whatever threat that the maskless Back the Blue demonstrators may represent to each other and to the police protecting them, in the video they are more than six feet away from All of Us.
After defending the white supremacist until they got bored and went home, the Saratoga Police donned riot gear, camo, and army fatigues, and brought a tank into downtown Saratoga Springs.
From the letter
Repeating myself, the Back the Blue group may very well have had white supremacists among them but characterizing the group as a white supremacist gathering is a reckless exaggeration.
More specifically, the law enforcement officers wearing military type gear were with the Saratoga County Sheriff’s Department. They were dressed this way during the entire evening. All of the Saratoga Springs Police were dressed as they would normally. They did not gear up following the Back the Blue event.
The vehicle was deployed by the Saratoga County Sheriff’s Department. Not to put to fine a point on it, it was not a tank but an armored personnel carrier. A tank has a cannon and machine guns and this armored personnel carrier did not. I have in previous posts expressed that I think the deployment of this vehicle was unnecessarily provocative.
It is a mis-characterization that the Back the Blue people went home because they were bored. They had previously reached an agreement with the police on the schedule of their event which included ending before dark.
Officers…pointed loaded, automatic weapons, at a group of about fifty unarmed protesters…
From the letter
Of all the misrepresentations in this letter, this is the most reckless. It is hard to be temperate in writing about this claim. Based on the extensive video, there were no automatic weapons in evidence at the event. The idea, as put forward by this letter, that there were such weapons present and that they were aimed at All of Us is inexcusable. Bear in mind that the Saratoga Springs Lieutenant managing the event was continually among the demonstrators reflecting the non-threatening effort put forward by the Saratoga Springs Police. If automatic weapons fire had been employed by the police, he would have been among the first casualties.
Protecting Academic Freedom
Institutions like Skidmore College have processes for addressing behavior by faculty members that is deemed to be materially destructive to individual students.
To characterize the participation of the two faculty members in the Back the Blue event as proof that they are an actual threat to students of color is abhorrent and reminiscent of Joe McCarthy’s reign of terror against people on the American left in the 1950’s.
I have to wonder whether the new President of Skidmore College, Dr. Marc C. Connor, will have the courage to come to the aid of these two faculty members who will now be the target of a general campaign to shame and humiliate them. In an age of “cancel culture” one would hope that President Connor would see the need to address this ugly business by countering this campaign of disinformation using the best of the academy to both correct the record and to reaffirm that faculty are not fired based on holding opinions that may not be popular.
JK:Addendum
Someone identified as bokk_choi posted an entry shown in this blog which states “…in attendance today at the blue lives matter (white supremacy protest) were…..Firemen who drove alongside blue lives matter protesters in their fire trucks…” I had not seen fire trucks in any of the videos but checked with Public Safety Commissioner Robin Dalton who confirmed that the only fire truck on the streets that night was one returning to the station from a call.
Saratoga Springs Politics 