Somehow, the link for access to the actual statement by Supervisor Veitch did not make it into the post about it. Here is the Statement.
My sources tell me that Brad Burge, head of the city planning department, has just been tasked with writing an RFP for the mixed use development of the city parking lot.
John Franck has not responded to my email asking him why, after volunteering to write the RFP, he passed it on to the mayor’s office.
At 4:32 PM this afternoon, Matt Veitch emailed a Statement to the area newspapers.
The indifference to transparency and accountability of Supervisor Veitch’s statement is quite impressive. Mr. Veitch avoids the danger of talking directly to the press by issuing a carefully crafted statement that ends with “ This will be the final public statement the County will make regarding the current situation at the Mental Health Center.”
The Saratogian got in under the wire and received answers to their questions although apparently even those were done by email. This statement was sent to the Saratogian, the Gazette, the Times Union, and Saratoga Today. So I guess those newspapers will not have the privilege of asking any questions of anyone from the county.
Veitch asserts that “The County used the same hiring process it has used for many years in hiring the current Director, as well as past Directors.”
First, the fact that there is a history of the county improperly usurping the legal responsibilities of the Community Services Board in no way excuses the violation of the law. If anything it is a further indictment that they have been ignoring the law for years.
In fact, Dr. Dale Angstrom was selected by the Community Services Board. The next director along with Dr. Prezioso was hired by the county.
Veitch’s carefully crafted statement never acknowledges the law. It is as if the law does not exist. Nor does he entertain the idea that maybe they should review the law and follow it. Obviously, Supervisor Veitch prefers controlling the patronage. Why allow some professionals in the mental health field on a board to interfere.
The statement also does not acknowledge the unpleasant fact that both he and Hellwig made statements that the CSB hired Prezioso when the published facts document that this was not true.
The statement does not acknowledge that Saratoga County is out of compliance with the Mental Hygiene law in that they no longer have a functioning Community Services Board. According to the FOIL response from the county, the CSB has no mission statement, no bylaws, and no minutes. We also have a letter from the chair of the CSB in which they state they did not select Prezioso nor do they know what their role is. Again, Supervisor Veitch does not entertain the idea that the failure of the CSB to function according to the law is a problem.
Mr. Veitch states, “The County has discussed with Dr. Prezioso certain allegations (my emphasis) made against him at his previous place of employment and we are satisfied with his explanation of the events.” I rather enjoy how delicate they are about Dr. Prezioso’s history of sexual harassment. It’s disingenuous and frankly an insult to one’s intelligence that the Chair of the Board of Supervisors put his name to the prepared narrative, asserting against all evidence to the contrary that the Capital District Psychiatric Center incident was a mere “allegation” left to be refuted in a presumably closed interview. It was an allegation on day 1, until OMH investigated, and made a formal finding of wrongful conduct against Dr. P; paid compensation to the complainant for her injuries suffered; removed him from the line of her direct supervision; and he did not appeal or in any way alter the hospital’s [CDPC’s] finding, which means the determination stands as final, a matter of established fact.
As to the statement by Veitch that none of the psychiatrists left because of the poisonous atmosphere, this is also false and hopefully one of those doctors will eventually speak out.
It is also incredibly self serving that the County investigated themselves and found themselves innocent. It is possible that the CSEA agrees with them. Let’s remember this is the same union that supported Raucci at the Schenectady School district until he was arrested and went to jail. It is also possible that CSEA does not agree with them. After all, the track record of the county making statements that are consistent with the public record is not good
Veitch’s statement also obscures the management problems there by saying that no individual action investigated by the county rose to the level of firing. They acknowledge though that “… some were counseled as to proper workplace conduct.” This little phrase “workplace conduct” is the issue. Prezioso is one of those managers who creates factions of those considered loyal and those considered disloyal. The conflicts of such factions erode the morale of an organization.
It will be interesting to see how the area newspapers respond.
Paul Post of the Saratogian has written a story called “Who Hired Mental Health Director.”
It is interesting that consistent with the indifference to transparency and openness, county administrator Hellwig Spenser, apparently would only answer questions via email. Clearly he wanted to avoid the risk of follow up questions that might further expose the truth. The story makes clear that the assertions by Hellwig and Supervisor Matt Veitch that the Community Services Board selected Dr. Michael Prezioso are false. Unfortunately, Hellwig was able to assert that the psychiatrists did not leave because of the poisonous environment at the department and that the department is functioning effectively without rebuttal. Neither of these things are true. It is clear that the county is going to support Dr. Prezioso in spite of the damage that he is doing to the department.
Who hired mental health director?
Independent board lacked say in final selection
Monday, July 13, 2015
The controversial Saratoga County mental health clinic director was one of four candidates recommended for the job by an independent board which, according to state law, should have been making the ultimate decision.
Instead, the county Board of Supervisors reviewed the finalists and chose Dr. Michael Prezioso, saying later they didn’t know he had sexually harassed an employee at his previous workplace.
And while County Administrator Spencer Hellwig acknowledged that the fairly recent departure of doctors created a shortage that affected services, he made no connection between their leaving and Prezioso’s management style and said the staff situation has been resolved.
The hiring and staffing issues raise questions about how candidates are vetted and the relationship between Saratoga County and the Community Services Board.
Hellwig has said the Community Services Board, established by state law, does the hiring for this position. However, board Chairman Dr. Frank Arcangelo, in a letter to Hellwig, said the board simply reviewed and ranked four finalists for the job, and that the county chose Prezioso from that list. He did not say where Prezioso stood in the rankng.
“The final selection and hiring was conducted by the (county) personnel department and not the Community Services Board,” Arcangelo said in a June 24 letter to Hellwig. “In fact, as far as I know, no formal feedback was ever provided to the Community Services Board about the hiring process or decision, as board members found out (who was chosen) via the article eventually appearing in the local newspaper.”
Prezioso, who makes $97,244, has been the subject of ongoing controversy since it came to light this spring that a state report said he allegedly sexually harassed an employee while working at a prior job. Three Saratoga Springs City Council members have called for an investigation into the situation and the mental health clinic’s operations, while a handful of clinic employees recently defended Prezioso at a county Board of Supervisors meeting, saying he is being unfairly targeted by disruptive workers.
Hellwig and county Board of Supervisors Chairman Matt Veitch, who is one of Saratoga Springs’ two representatives on the county board, have said the county had no knowledge of the alleged sexual harassment incident at Prezioso’s former job, with the Capital District Psychiatric Center in Albany, when the county interviewed and hired him.
The selection committee that chose Prezioso consisted of Hellwig; Veitch; Clifton Park Supervisor Anita Daly, as chair of the county board’s personnel committee; former Malta Supervisor Paul Sausville, who was the county board chairman; and former county Personnel Director Jack Kalinkewicz, who retired at the end of last year.
Hellwig said Monday that Prezioso was selected over the other recommended candidates because of his academic background, professional experience and familiarity with a public-sector mental health facility such as the county’s.
Arcangelo could not immediately be reached for comment. However, his letter to Hellwig said the four finalists were ranked according to preference.
That’s not how Hellwig interpreted the list.
“We got a list of four names,” Hellwig said. “There was no ranking that I’m aware of, just a list of suitable candidates. It was a year ago.”
The Board of Supervisors approved Prezioso’s hiring last July and he began work in September.
The mental health director’s salary is paid for by the county. However, state law calls for the director to be hired by a county-appointed Community Services Board comprised of mental health professionals, who presumably are most qualified to choose the best person for the job.
But in this case the board merely reviewed candidates and left the final selection up to the county Board of Supervisors.
Hellwig said, “The reality is, the county is footing the bill for all these services – professional costs and administrative oversight. There has been a mutual understanding over the years, before I became administrator, that we would work together.”
The county’s mental health clinic is located on South Broadway in Saratoga Springs. Last month, Mayor Joanne Yepsen, Finance Commissioner Michele Madigan and Public Safety Commissioner Chris Mathiesen said many employees had left because of the clinic’s “toxic” workplace environment, possibly jeopardizing client services.
Doctors who work at the clinic are employed by Saratoga Hospital, but are paid by the county under a county contract with the hospital.
Hellwig wrote Monday in an email responding to questions: “I can tell you that the contract employees who left were leaving to pursue other professional opportunities. This did create a shortage of professionals available to meet our minimum contract agreement for physicians with Saratoga Hospital. It has long been a challenge for public sector mental health clinics like ours to compete with the private sector in hiring psychiatrists to treat our clients, which is why several years ago we moved to a contractual arrangement with Saratoga Hospital.
“The recent departure of some of these doctors only exacerbated the issue, and with the controversy surrounding the center, shined a light on the issue,” Hellwig continued. “Since the time that these shortages were reported, the county acted and has created a nurse practitioner position, which moves many of the physicians’ duties to a nurse position. Also, Saratoga Hospital has sent the county three new doctors, to assist in alleviating the shortage in our contract with the hospital. So, with those actions, we have brought the center back to where we expect (it should be) with the amount of services we should be providing to our residents.”
Arcangelo’s letter to Hellwig said there are also “seems to be some confusion about the role and scope” of the Community Services Board’s responsibilities with regard to mental health director’s job performance and clinic operations. Historically, the board has served in an advisory capacity to the mental health director, he said.
“The Community Services Board has not functioned in any capacity relating to clinic supervision, internal clinic or other agency staff issues or grievances, or supervision of the (director),” Arcangelo said. “I am aware that New York State mental hygiene statute grants the local Community Services Boards greater administrative scope than our current and historical model would suggest, but this has not been the model adopted in Saratoga County for many years.”
As reported by the Times Union, Michael O’Sullivan, the publisher of the Saratogian and the Troy Record took a buyout and is gone from both newspapers as of last week. He was replace by Robert O’Leary who had been the general manager of the Kingston Freeman. The Irish apparently were well represented at the parent company, Digital First Media.
So here is the cannibalistic history.
1. Michael O’Sullivan who had been the publisher of the Saratogian replaced the publisher of the Troy Record to become publisher for both papers.
2. Robert O’Leary who had been general manager at the Kingston Freeman is now the publisher for the Kingston Freeman, the Saratogian, the Troy Record, and the Oneida Dispatch.
Interestingly, O’Leary had worked at our own Gazette Newspaper.
I have also learned that the Saratogian no longer has a staff photographer.
I have had my criticisms of the Saratogian but I will be very sorry to see it close which I very much expect will happen.
I am in favor of the solar amendment passed by the City Council on Tuesday night.
For those of you not familiar with the original ordinance:
6.4.8 SOLAR ACCESS
Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, no property owner may erect a structure or allow a tree or other flora to cast a shadow upon a solar collector greater than the shadow cast by a hypothetical wall six feet high located along the property line between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time from September 21 to March 21.
This seems rather complicated because the shadow is literally a moving virtual shadow depending upon what date and what time you choose. There is, however, software designed to figure this out. (Shadow Calculator) This is a link to a pretty neat web site that lets you hone in on your actual property using Google Maps and create a virtual structure on your property and then check out its shadow on different days and times.
Basically the ordinance cited above is meant to insure that nothing, including trees, on one property adversely affects solar panels on any neighboring property.
The amendment to the ordinance which was adopted excluded the downtown from this requirement.
In brief, given the wide variety in heights of downtown buildings along with the goal as set out in our Comprehensive Plan to concentrate growth in the core, the original language creates significant potential conflicts between property owners. Had the Cantina on Broadway, for instance, erected a solar panel on its roof, the building housing Northshire Books could not have been built under this ordinance. The scope of these problems is clearly very different from areas outside the core where building height and the close proximity of other structures are very different.
Northampton, Massachusetts is a city similar to ours in many ways and has won an award for being a highly rated sustainable community (Northhampton Link). It considered adopting a solar panel ordinance a number of years ago but determined that in light of their goal of concentrating development downtown such an ordinance would be a significant hindrance.
I think it is also important to keep the scope of what is contemplated here in perspective. The downtown area affected is quite modest in size.
I share my Sustainable Saratoga friends’ desire to vigorously press for green energy in light of the grave danger of global warming. We differ about the significance of the impact of this ordinance change, however. How seriously does excluding the downtown threaten our commitment as a community to reducing greenhouse gases? To what extent does insisting that the city core must have an ordinance on solar panels make sense? Is this an issue of symbolism or an issue of critical substance deserving the heat that this debate has generated? Are there existing and emerging sustainable technologies that will better suit the downtown now and in the future?
A major concern is that for many of the players in this conflict, the question of solar panels is a stalking horse for opposition to the proposed City Center Garage. While changing the ordinance removes an obstacle for the City Center to build its garage, mixing the two issues does a disservice to both.
What remains to be examined and what may have a broader impact is the potential conflict between solar panels and not only buildings but trees in the remaining areas of the city still covered by this solar ordinance. Sustainable Saratoga has launched an important tree planting initiative along with their support for solarizing Saratoga, and the danger is that these two worthy goals may come into conflict with one another as solar panels are installed throughout the city and trees are planted and grow. What happens, for instance, if a panel placed on a house is shaded by a neighbor’s tree? Under the ordinance as written the tree must come down. Clearly the way ahead for a sustainable Saratoga must involve a holistic look at all aspects of what makes for a sustainable city. For an interesting discussion of this and the issue of solar panels and historic preservation as well I refer you to the article cited in an earlier post.
Which brings us to the question of why not wait and review the ordinance as a whole as it affects the entire city. To my mind, the process for developing an ordinance for the entire city is going to be arduous. Aside from the problem of the ordinance itself, the city would be imposing new standards for all its property owners. This is the kind of process that will require patience, diplomacy, and commitment. Anyone who has watched our City Council will know just how monumental a task this could end up being. I know that many of the readers of this blog will differ with me, but waving the solar ordinance requirement for downtown, as argued earlier, was both simple and needed.
On June 14th, a group named “Citizens For High Rock” held a forum on the proposed City Center Garage. At the meeting the group was highly critical of the City Center’s plan and argued that a mixed use facility should be built instead. The group talked about incorporating retail space and affordable housing units in the facility. Adding these new uses would require even more parking in addition to accommodating the needs already identified for the City Center and downtown. On its face, their suggestions sound like they would involve a very large facility.
I am extremely skeptical that these ideas can attract the kind of private money required for such an ambitious project. Having said that, I would be among the happiest people should I be proven wrong.
Commissioner John Franck announced at a June City Council meeting that he would be preparing an RFP for mixed use development plan. I just learned that Mayor Joanne Yepsen has taken over responsibility for drafting this RFP. I emailed John Franck last night asking why he had passed this on to the Mayor. When I get a response from Commissioner Franck, I will post it on this site.
Given my skepticism regarding such a project, I am concerned that this is simply going to lead to further delays. In that spirit, I emailed the following to Mayor Yepsen:
I understand that your office has taken over responsibility from John Franck for drafting the RFP related to the land currently under consideration for the City Center Parking Structure. I would be grateful if you could answer the following five questions.
- What comprises the physical footprint of the property that the RFP would address? I am not quite sure what the geographic scope of the land in question is.
- In your planning, what is the timeline for issuing a draft of the RFP?
- In your planning, when would you anticipate issuing the final RFP to solicit proposals?
- In your planning, when would you anticipate the date would be for when responses to the RFPs would be due?
- In your planning, when would you expect to either accept a proposal that met the RFP requirements or, in the event that no such proposal was received, to end the process?
Thank you in advance, for answering my questions.
I was careful to use the phrase “in your planning” because I understand that factors often arise that make rigid commitments problematic. Still, it seems eminently reasonable that in taking on this responsibility, the Mayor would have some targets as to when all of this would take place. Mayor Yepsen stressed in her last campaign for Mayor the accessibility of her office and the high standards for transparency her office would maintain. I would expect to get a response from her office fairly soon and will post it on this site when I receive it.