Tag: news

Hank Kuczynski: Corruption and Cover Up

I would like to acknowledge the courage of two Saratoga Springs Department of Public Works employees who dared to be whistleblowers about corruption in the department.

Truly Stunning And Brazen Corruption

In the summer of 2024, Department of Public Works Supervisor J.J. Nichols supervised the paving of Grand Avenue and a few connecting streets. Funding for this was to come from the federal C.H.I.P.S. program. During this project, Mr. Nichols abused his position by directing city employees to do work on his own driveway. This is not in dispute. In addition, he did work on two other private driveways at a cost of thousands of dollars. The improper work done on these two driveways appears to have been conveniently ignored by the Department of Public Works, which was under Commissioner Jason Golub at the time. Any work done by city employees on private property requires a signed contract with the city. There are no contracts for these ghost houses. One improperly paved house is not even located on the streets designated for the grant.

The city police began investigating Nichols, but the investigation was halted when the city’s Human Resources Department advised that the situation had been investigated and that the responsible individual had been disciplined.

In fact, based on city documents obtained under FOIL, there are no records in the Department of Public Works of any investigation being carried out. In addition, then acting Public Works Commissioner Hank Kuczynski’s “discipline” of Nichols was a painless gesture whose main impact was to allow the police to consider the matter dealt with. The result was that the events, including the established wrongdoing by Nichols, remained hidden from the public.

This blog is meant to report on what has occurred and document the many serious, outstanding questions that remain unanswered today.

Kuczynski Stonewalls

Several months ago, following his temporary appointment as DPW Commissioner, I texted Hank Kuczynski to inquire about his plans to address Nichols’ misuse of city personnel and materials to work on private property in the city. I referred him to an earlier post on the issue.

He did not respond.

Killing The Police Investigation

On December 10, the Saratoga Springs Police Department began investigating the improper work by interviewing a DPW worker who had delivered the paving material to one of the private residences.

On February 4, Police Department Lieutenant Paul Veitch reported that he had met with Kuczynski and Human Resources Director Christy Spadoro and had agreed to pause the Police investigation pending an internal city investigation, as that would lead to quicker results.

Veitch’s report indicates that on January 15, Human Resources advised him that the matter “was investigated and discipline meted out.” Veitch then communicated this to the Assistant District Attorney, who decided not to pursue the case further.

The problem is that there was no formal investigation that would have involved all the properties that Nichols illegally did.

HR’s Communication To Veitch Claiming The Matter Had Already Been Investigated Is Not Supported By Documents Released Under FOIL.

The FOIL documents I received included forms, affidavits, and an actual summary showing that the Police had begun what a reasonable person would characterize as an actual “investigation.” In contrast, according to the FOIL request, no such documents were available from the Department of Public Works. (See the FOIL documents provided at the end of this post)

The city FOIL produced:

  • A memo listing the city codes violated by Nichols sent by the Human Resources Department
  • a disciplinary agreement between the city, the union representing Nichols, and Nichols
  • An affidavit from a DPW employee who delivered paving materials to the private job sites from the police department
  • An interview by Police Officer Steven Childs with an employee who delivered paving materials to the private job sites
  • A report written by Lieutenant Paul Veitch on the aborted police investigation.

What’s missing are records of who did the work on the three driveways, the amount of time devoted to this work, or the amount of city-owned and federal grant-funded materials used. In addition, the city could not produce any contract authorizing the work. Without this information, it is difficult to determine precisely how much public money was improperly expended.

Based on the city’s $20.00 per square foot standard for paving, my rough calculations show that the cost of this work could be north of $25,000.00, not including Nichols’ driveway. This dramatically surpasses the $1,000.00 minimum required to raise this to a felony level.

In the entire investigation of this incident, there is evidence that only one person was interviewed, the employee whom the Police interviewed who drove a truck that delivered some of the paving material to the private homes. There is no record of the police or anybody else questioning the whistleblowers, the homeowners, or even Mr. Nichols.

So, the SSPD and the Saratoga DA’s office halted investigations based on Kuczynski and the Human Resources Department’s false assurance that the matter had been fully investigated.

The Curse of the Missing Contracts

The Department of Public Works can perform work on private property. For example, a homeowner can contract with the city to put in sidewalks and adjust where their driveway meets the street. If the city is culpable for damage to private property, the homeowner may not be charged.

However, any work the city does on privately owned property requires a contract with the owner. This contract minimizes the city’s liability and establishes a clear record of what the city has agreed to do.

An example of such a contract is one approved at the April 1, 2025, City Council meeting.

These kinds of contracts are routine.

The following is a sample page from another contract. This contract page spells out the cost and scope of work. According to this document, the city currently charges $20.00 per square foot for paving.

So, why are there no contracts for Nichols’ driveway and the two additional private properties Nichols had paved?

If the work was really required to address problems on the homeowners’ properties caused by the city paving, why didn’t Nichols request the mandatory contracts? It’s simple enough to do.

Nichols, who has worked for the city for decades and has risen to a supervisory position, had to know why contracts were required and how simple it would be to comply.

In the meantime, who is responsible for paying for this work? What were the owners of these properties told as to why the city was paving their driveways? There are no records that any of this was pursued.

Who Knew And When Did They Know?

Judging by my discussions with the whistleblowers, Nichols’s improper work was widely known within the department. A key question is who, if anyone, in management beyond Nichols was aware of this?

Would Any Reasonable Observer Consider The “Discipline” Imposed By Kuczynski An Actual Discipline?

According to the documents I received, Nichols was found to be violating, among other policies, multiple sections of the city’s Ethics Code. In an agreement reached by Kuczynski with Nichols, Nichols admits that he “purposefully directed city employees…to use blacktop to patch potholes in his own private driveway on city time using city resources…” The City’s Human Resources Handbook states that an employee found to have committed these actions is subject to “corrective action, up to and including termination of employment.” Kuczynski punished Nichols by docking him one day’s pay ($330.00) and $75.45 “to reimburse the city for the cost of misused materials.”

Even here, Kuczynski cut a corner for Nichols. A ton of the paving materials cost $75.45, but Kuczynski conveniently forgot that it had to be delivered by a heavy dump truck. If you need a ton of paving materials delivered to your driveway, it will cost you more than $75.45.

More Stonewalling

On February 16, 2025, I emailed Commissioner Kuczynski asking how he arrived at Nichols’s punishment. He never acknowledged my email.

A “Punishment” That Can Disappear

As though the punishment was not weak in the first place, it includes language that if Nichols avoids any future disciplinary actions for the following six months, the record for his malfeasance will be expunged, and his actions in this matter cannot be used to determine future discipline. This clause displays how casually Kuczynski took Nichols’s theft of city resources and how much he protected him.

Apparently, if Nichols did this again after six months under Kuczynski, Kuczynski could issue another minor slap on the hand because he would have to pretend that this second violation of the city trust had no precedent.

No Further Remedy By The City

Unfortunately, the charter gives Commissioners broad authority to discipline employees in their departments; therefore, Kuczynski’s mishandling of this corruption does not violate the city charter. Given the formal agreement sanctioned by Nichols’ union, it appears the punishment for his improper work on his own driveway cannot be reconsidered. It is unclear, though, whether the additional two houses can be considered for further action against Nichols.

Sending The Wrong Message

Kuczynski’s failure to thoroughly investigate Nichols’s actions, culminating in basically no punishment, sent a chilling message to the Public Works Department employees, in general, and, in particular, to the two whistleblowers. That message is that if you enjoy the right status, you can ignore the city’s basic policies and procedures and use city resources for your own private gain or those of others who may be your friends or relatives without fear of significant consequences.

More Than Good Neighbors

There is an interesting link between Nichols and one of the homes whose driveway he did. The fortunate homeowner grew up living next door to the Nichols family.

A Dubious Explanation That Begs Credibility

The report by Lieutenant Paul Veitch included in the FOIL documents, offers a dubious defense for the paving of at least one of the private driveways.

“During the investigation, I spoke with supervisors in DPW that stated the work done on the [dedacted] driveway was needed to repair a sidewalk issue that was caused by workdone by DPW on the sidewalk. The reason that work would have been done on the [redacted] direveway was to account for the change in the roadway and having a water pooling issue if not corrected. [emphasis added]”

Bear in mind that there is no existing contract to do work on any of the properties that would establish the “reason” offered by DPW and accepted by Veitch. Notwithstanding what the police were told, there are no records regarding why or what work was done on the additional two houses. One of the houses was not even on a street to be paved.

The poverty of Veitch’s review is disheartening. He conveniently accepted the assurances without any skepticism. What adds to the questions surrounding this ugly business is that Paul Veitch is the brother of Mike Veitch, the highest-ranking full-time employee in the Department of Public Works. One must wonder whether he spoke of his brother when he wrote, “I spoke with supervisors in DPW. “

The Strange Case Of The Flooded Driveway

A picture from Google Earth (below) was taken of one of the driveways back in 2007. It documents that the driveway had severe drainage problems then. Was the paving ordered by Nichols to correct an issue that is possibly at least seventeen years old?

As noted earlier, if the city is responsible for damage to private property, it is liable for the repair. It is important to note that work done paving a street can create problems with the fringes of driveways where they intersect with the street, in which case, there is a legitimate reason for the city to correct them. For example, new paving could cause cars entering a driveway to bottom out.

But if this was a legitimate issue, why didn’t Nichols apply for a contract to fix it? Unfortunately, there are no records of the work done on these driveways, nor a formal explanation for why they were paved. It is important to remember that the city can legitimately do necessary work, but there needs to be a contract with the homeowner approved by the City Council. There is no record of a contract for this work.

The Houses (Not Including Nichols’s)

House #1

Here is the Google Earth Image of one of the driveways and a photograph this blogger took of the other.

Below is a photo taken by Google Earth back in 2007. It documents that this driveway had drainage problems seventeen years ago. How is it that the city is addressing a problem that is at least seventeen years old?

The area that was paved roughly measured 36′ by 21′.

At $20.00 per square foot, the cost would be $ 15,120.00.

More Than Neighborly

The owner of this house is a person whose family lived next door to the Nichols family. Nichols is roughly the same age as this person.

House #2

This is the house that is not on a street to be paved, displaying the new driveway surface and new sidewalk. There is no record of the city having a contract to perform this work.

As the road in front of the house was not to be paved, it is nonsensical to attribute faulty road work to explain the need to do the driveway.

Putting that aside, there is absolutely no way to explain why the city paved the area of the driveway above the sidewalk. How could the paving of the street (that was not to be paved) have had any impact on that area?

As documented earlier in this post, the city charges private property owners $20.00 per square foot for working on driveways.

A surveyor would be required to calculate the paved area accurately. This blogger did a rough calculation of the driveway. Regarding House #2, the apron in front of the walk, I estimated it at 12′ by 12′. At $20.00 per square foot, the cost would be $2,880.00.

The area above the walk is roughly 15′ by 25′, costing $7,500.

This would put the total for this job at roughly $10,380.00.

It is unclear when the walk that crosses the new paving was done. As recently as 2024, there was no sidewalk. If Nichols also did the sidewalk, that would add to the total.

The arrows mark the beginning and end of the new sidewalk.

So, when was this new sidewalk installed, and who paid for it? The documents I received do not provide any information.

The city spent roughly $25,500.00 on these two houses, plus whatever it cost to do Nichols’s driveway.

A Need For Action

Regrettably, it is more than likely that if the two whistleblowers had not exposed Nichols, nothing would have happened to him, and this kind of corruption would simply continue.

This does not reflect badly on the many city workers who keep our streets clean and our water running. The failure was in leadership.

With charges also brought against former Public Works Commissioner Jason Golub for misusing city employees, there appears to be a culture of tolerance for abuse.

The people of this city deserve the truth about what happened. The facts need to be reinvestigated thoroughly and transparently, and individuals responsible for any malfeasance held accountable.

###################################################

The bulk of this post was completed several weeks ago. Below are some recent developments.

Potential For City Liability

As it turns out, while the city performed the work on Grand Avenue and St Charles Place back in July of 2024, they have yet to submit a claim for reimbursement. The CHIPS program is federal money, but it is managed in New York by the New York State Department of Transportation. The city still has an eighteen-month window to seek reimbursement, so plenty of time remains. The question to consider is, if these properties were improperly done using CHIPS money, how would this impact the city’s eligibility for funds in the future?

Public Works Commissioner Responds

I spoke with current Public Works Commissioner Chuck Marshall several times about this. Commissioner Marshall has been both available and transparent. He looked at the issue of the two houses that were done in addition to Nichols’s.

He acknowledged that there were no contracts for the work done on these driveways, and they were not included in DPW’s original investigation. He told me that it was essential that the city determine how much was spent on the driveways and ensure that these costs are not included when the city applies for the CHIPS money.

An Anecdote To Amuse

I sent a release to Wendy Liberatore at the Times Union, including this post’s text. She responded,

“I spoke to my editors.

We will not pursue as it happened nearly a year ago and no one, but you, seems overly concerned by the resolution.”

Of course, it’s an old story because it was successfully hidden from the public and never pursued by the press in all this time.

THE DOCUMENTS

Minita Sanghvi Continues to Waste City Money

For almost two years, Saratoga Springs Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi has wasted thousands of city dollars by failing to implement the software the city has purchased that would meet the New York State Attorney General’s key demand that the city properly archive text messages on the phones of city employees and officials.

This blog has covered Sanghvi’s mismanagement of the city’s IT Department extensively. In May of 2024, this blog published a post about Sanghvi’s chronic failure to implement much needed archiving software. Now, a year later, this problem just continues to drag on.

Mayor Ron Kim announced with great fanfare the purchase of software called SMARSH back in 2023. This software would capture all texts from city cell phones and save them in a manner that would make the archive of texts easily searchable. At the time the goal was to help address the city’s Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests backlog. The SMARSH software took on additional importance when in February, 2024, Attorney General Letitia James included in her report the recommendation that the city maintain records of city officials’ communications.

It has now been over a year and a half, and Commissioner Sanghvi, who oversees the city’s IT department, has been unable to implement the SMARSH software. That means the city spent $12,942.21 during a year when the software went unused.

At one point Sanghvi informed the Council that deployment of SMARSH was delayed because she was developing procedures and standards for archiving. The question is why would you purchase the software before establishing the standards necessary for its operation especially if that is going to take over a year and a half during which time the software goes unused.

In any case here, here is Sanghvi in February of 2024 (five months after the city purchased the software), strangely claiming falsely that the city is using the software.

It is unclear if the city renewed the contract with SMARSH when the contract was up last October as there are no public records that I could find regarding a renewal of this software.

If the contract was renewed in October of 2024, the city would have now spent over $20,000.00 so far with still nothing to show for that money.

It is quite extraordinary that Commissioner Sanghvi would allow something that, by her own statements urgently needs to be implemented, sit idle.

You would think Sanghvi would be embarrassed about this failure, but she seems oblivious.

Dem Committee Tries to Address Golub/O’Neill Cases

In the days before their Saturday, November 16, 2024, meeting, the members of the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee received the following email: a proposal for a resolution addressing the criminal charges being brought against former Public Works Commissioner Jason Golub, a Democrat, and current Public Works Deputy Joe O’Neill, a Republican.

Upon hearing that this resolution was passed by the Committee, my first reaction was that this was a temperate and thoughtful resolution and a welcome change from the toxic comments from Democratic Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran, which were repeated on the Democratic Committee Facebook page. Moran had repeatedly wrongly accused Public Safety Commissioner Tim Coll and the Saratoga Springs Police Department of engaging in a racially motivated vendetta against Golub.

Unfortunately, not everyone on the Democratic Committee, including Dillon Moran and members of the leadership, supports this resolution.

The History

As described in an earlier post, the city Democratic Committee posted a shrill attack on Tim Coll and the police on their Facebook page, prompted by the misdemeanor charges against Jason Golub and Joe O’Neill for allegedly using city employees and resources to do work on private property—in the case of Golub, it was his home. The Democrat’s Facebook page claimed the accusations against Golub and O’Neill were motivated by “revenge and racism,” ignoring, among other things, that the case had originated in the New York State Comptroller’s Office and that O’Neill is white. One Committee member commented that she thought the charges were “petty.”

That prompted Republican chair Mike Brandi to write, “To be clear here, it’s the official position of the Saratoga Springs Democrats that you are ok with city officials having city employees do work on their private homes on city time with city property?“

Otis Maxwell, who chairs the city Democratic Committee and manages its Facebook page, never answered Brandi’s question but blocked further comments instead.

The Resolution

Upon learning that the committee had adopted the resolution, my first response was hopeful. As I read it, rather than make harsh speculative accusations that implied that the charges were driven by racism and some kind of alleged grudge, they appropriately urged that the public consider the two men innocent pending actions by the court and affirmed in the strongest terms that any use by public officials of city resources for personal use is illegal and wrong.

I welcomed what I hoped would be the committee’s long-needed shift toward a disciplined and civil approach to future political engagement.

Hopes Dashed

Unfortunately, as reflected by their Facebook page, the committee’s leadership subverted this welcome development.

Otis Maxwell, the committee’s chair and the moderator of the Facebook page, simply added a “note” to the toxic post stating that the committee does not condone the use of public resources for private gain by elected officials. He left the reckless attacks untouched.

I wrote to Maxwell to ask if he would post the resolution in its entirety, but he has not responded.

Likewise, Commissioner Moran ignored his party’s sentiments expressed in the resolution when he once again, this time at the Council table, belittled the charges against Golub and O’Neill for using city workers and materials to resolve a plumbing issue in Golub’s private home. In this video from the November 19, 2024, council meeting, Moran describes the case as being about “criminalizing Draino.”

The Good And The Bad

The resolution is a modest statement that simply asserts what is traditionally accepted as the core of our justice system: that people accused of a crime should be considered innocent until proven guilty and that it is improper for public officials to utilize government resources for personal use.

While I applaud the authors of this resolution and the committee members who voted for it, I am struck by the fact that a significant number of committee members either abstained or voted against it. Among them was Dillon Moran.

I only wish I had been present to have heard the arguments against this resolution.

Digging Down

While I was surprised by this resolution, considering the committee’s recent history offers some insight into its possible roots.

The committee wanted the special election to fill Golub’s vacancy, which would occur on November 5 to coincide with the national election. Given the dominance of Democrats in the city enrollment, it was assumed that any Democrat would have been elected on the coattails of Kamala Harris.

Unfortunately for them, Jason Golub refused to resign in time for a replacement to appear on the ballot despite numerous attempts to convince him to do so. I am told that he stopped taking telephone calls from the committee’s leadership and ignored their texts and emails.

My sources tell me there is considerable bitterness toward Golub among many committee members.

I am also told that many of the committee members dislike Dillon Moran despite Chairman Otis Maxwell being very close to Moran. As the readers of this blog will know, Moran has been both outspoken and toxic in his defense of Golub, who has been a loyal ally of Moran. Readers may recall Golub was a key vote in paying Moran’s $1,250.00 an hour lawyer. Moran also has a bitter history of conflict with Ron Kim, one of the resolution’s drafters, when they served together on the previous City Council.

These internal dynamics in the committee may have contributed to the resolution’s success.

It is unclear whether the resolution will impact Maxwell, which means that the committee’s Facebook page and weekly newsletter will continue what has become a regrettable tradition of hyper-partisanship and ugly attacks.

Serious Allegations Regarding Abuses By Past Commissioner Jason Golub And His Deputy Joe O’Neill III

In the October 4,2024, edition of the Daily Gazette, Saratoga Springs Mayor John Safford informed reporter Shenandoah Briere that the city’s Human Resources Department and the police were looking into accusations that Saratoga Springs former Public Works Commissioner Jason Golub and Public Works Deputy Joe O’Neill III had used city employees for work on “personal property.”

In the October 8, 2024 edition of the Daily Gazette, it appeared that Safford tried to walk back the story. The article stated:

“My understanding is this is a huge rumor based on a fired employee complaint to HR,” Safford said in a text Saturday night. “I don’t think it amounts to anything much.”

Unfortunately, there is an abundance of evidence to indicate that this is more than just a “huge rumor.”

The Allegation

A complaint made last summer to the New York State Comptroller resulted in a referral to the Saratoga Springs Police Department regarding the potential criminal activities of then Public Works Department Commissioner Jason Golub and Public Works Department Deputy Joe O’Neill III. [At the end of this blog is the relevant excerpt from the New York State Public Officers Law, which makes using public employees for private use a crime.]

It is alleged that two department employees were directed to work on Commissioner Golub’s home under Golub’s and O’Neill’s direction. These allegations have exposed additional potential crimes involving the misuse of city staff and city resources.

Yesterday (October 7), O’Neill resigned as Deputy. He was able to return to his original civil service position, and as far as I can tell, that’s what he did.

The Blocked Drain

Early in 2023, it is alleged that O’Neill directed employee A of the city’s Department of Public Works to go to Golub’s home to address a blocked drain. Employee A could not fix the drain, and the following day, O’Neill had Employee A and Employee B meet him at the city Rec facility at about 1:00 PM.

O’Neill told them to return to Golub’s home, where Golub would meet them. When they arrived, Golub was not there. Shortly afterward, he arrived, and together, they entered the house. Employee A had with him a bottle of Green Gobbler used to unclog drains. It is unclear whether the bottle came from the city’s chemical inventory or whether it was purchased especially for Golub’s job by the city. On Amazon.com, the liquid sells for $26.00 a bottle.

The liquid did its job, and after success, they all left.

O’Neill’s Further Alleged Abuse

Sometime around December 2023, O’Neill had employee A meet him in the city skating rink’s parking lot. He told employee A to throw his tools into the back of O’Neill’s truck, and the two went to the home where O’Neill’s child lived with his mother. I am unclear as to O’Neill’s relationship with the child’s mother.

Employee A repaired a leak under a bathroom sink.

Alleged Black Topping On Private Driveways

Earlier this year, the DPW re-blacktopped a section of Grand Avenue under a grant specifically for that purpose. During the same period, they blacktopped driveways at three private homes. One of the homes was owned by a DPW employee.

Employee A Was Terminated

The Department of Public Works terminated employee A. The contract with the union representing employee A establishes that a person is on probation and considered an at-will employee for the first year. As an at-will employee, they can be terminated at any time without explanation. I can find no information as to the reason Employee A was terminated.

The Statute

Article VIII, §1 of the State Constitution, interalia, prohibits municipalities from making gifts or loans of their money or property to or in aid of private entities. Further, it is a general rule that, because town equipment is acquired for town purposes (see Town Law, §64[2-a]) and town personnel is hired to provide services for the town (see, e.g., Highway Law, §140[4]), a town may not perform work on private property in furtherance of purely private purposes even if fair and adequate consideration is paid to the town under a contract (see, e.g., 1988 Opns St Comp No. 88-41, p 81; 1985 Opns St Comp No. 85-37, p 51; 1983 Opns St Comp No. 83-103, p 127; 29 Opns St Comp, 1973, p 122).

Moran, Sanghvi, and Golub Drag Council Back to Conflict and Chaos

At the June 2, 2024, Saratoga Springs City Council meeting Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi, Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran, and Public Works Commissioner Jason Golub (hereafter referred to as the Faction) continually attacked Mayor John Safford, calling him a liar, claiming he was being partisan, and badgering him unmercifully in a pointless attempt to try to embarrass him. It does not get much uglier than this. The October 24, 2023, above letter from Brian Kremer, the city’s outside counsel for labor issues, was at the heart of the chaotic and unpleasant exchanges.

Abusing The Pre-Agenda Meeting

The contentious discussion commenced when Commissioner Sanghvi proposed a series of salary upgrades for employees in her department that were in conflict with the legal opinion cited above from the city’s labor attorney in October of 2023. Sanghvi did not put these items on her agenda until after the pre-agenda meeting. This avoided a discussion of their legality at the pre-agenda meeting where it should have occurred. Pre-agenda meetings, which are public, are supposed to give Council members the opportunity to respond to any questions about their agenda items before the regular Council meeting to minimize confusion and conflict at the Council table. Sanghvi had to know these upgrades would be controversial as the Council had disagreed about their legality at a previous meeting. She defended not bringing them up earlier because she was waiting for some pending paperwork. She wanted, she said, to “cross the t’s and dot the i’s.” She did not explain why she did not alert her fellow Council members that she planned to bring up these upgrades at the Council meeting if the paperwork was completed in time. There seemed to be no critical rush to adopt her resolution at the June 2 meeting. At least one of the upgrades was to change a job description dating back to 1999. Sanghvi has been in office for two and a half years and just now insisted the issue be urgently addressed. A reasonable person would be skeptical of her explanation and wonder if she preferred the element of surprise.

It is also worth noting, in light of the bitter brouhaha that ensued over an item on Public Safety Commissioner Tim Coll’s agenda at the Council meeting, that no one raised any objections to his request to create and fund a new position in his department at the pre-agenda meeting. If Golub, Moran, and Sanghvi (the Faction) had so much trouble with Coll’s proposal, as we shall see they did at the regular Council meeting, why didn’t they raise their concerns so Coll could prepare to address them?

Kremer’s Legal Opinion

Sanghvi’s proposal to upgrade positions within her department was problematic, given a legal opinion issued by the city’s labor attorney Brian Kremer in October, 2023. Kremer’s letter stated that the practice of members of the Council bringing resolutions to the table to upgrade the positions of their respective staff for the purpose of increasing their salaries is illegal. Kremer wrote that any changes to the responsibilities, salaries, or benefits of existing positions must be negotiated by the Mayor with the union and then submitted to the full Council for action. Outside of regular contract negotiations, this is normally done by something called a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the city and the union. Title 3, I of the city charter gives the Mayor the power to conduct collective bargaining with the city employee’s bargaining units.

Regrettably, up until the June 2, 2024, Council meeting, Kremer’s opinion was routinely ignored by members of the previous Council. At this meeting, Commissioner Sanghvi, rather than allowing the Mayor to handle the contacts with the union and the drafting of an MOA, insisted on again going to the Council directly with a resolution to upgrade three of her employees. Unlike in the past, the two new Council members, Commissioner Coll and Mayor Safford, declined to vote for Commissioner Sanghvi’s resolutions. Both cited the Kremer letter, saying that it could not be ignored and that voting for Sanghvi’s request would be illegal.

This set off a bizarre and acrimonious uproar during which Sanghvi, Moran, and Golub (the Faction) agreed the process was flawed but insisted that the vote take place anyway. Sanghvi’s upgrades passed three to two, with Moran, Sanghvi, and Golub voting in favor and Coll and Safford voting against. As documented by the videos below, successfully getting Sanghvi’s dubious resolution passed was not enough for the three of them. Attempting to divert the discussion from the Kremer letter, they did everything they could to try to embarrass the Mayor for his opposition. They threw the proverbial kitchen sink at him in an unseemly attempt to deflect from the central fact that the city had a letter from Counsel that meant that what they did was illegal.

The three members of the Faction also did everything they could to try to embarrass Commissioner Coll when his agenda came up. The Public Safety Department had lost two of its three senior account clerks (one took a job in a dental office, which tells you there is a problem with city salaries). To address the potential of having no Department of Public Safety staff to handle department purchases, contracts, accounts payable, and parking tickets, Coll, rather than upgrade the senior clerk position (which Kremer indicated was not legal), created the position of “purchasing coordinator,” which, among other things, encompassed the duties of the “senior account clerk” but paid more. Coll was seeking the Council’s authorization and funding for the new position. The current senior clerk scored number one on the civil service exam, so she was well-positioned to be appointed.

The difference between what Sanghvi and Coll were seeking was pretty clear. Sanghvi was seeking to upgrade existing positions in the city’s workforce covered by the current labor agreement, while Coll was seeking to create a new position.

Both Commissioners wanted to make the positions more attractive. Sanghvi, however, chose a method that violated the law, while Coll’s approach did not.

While Coll hoped to attract his senior clerk, who had been the number one candidate based on the exam, the position was still competitive. Approving Coll’s resolution did not guarantee that the senior clerk would be chosen and receive an increase in pay.

Moran acknowledged this during the “discussion,” when he gave Coll, in Moran’s words,” a cautionary warning” that the position was competitive and prejudging who would be appointed would be inappropriate. Consistent with the Kafka-like “discussion,” this did not stop Moran from criticizing Coll for having voted against Sanghvi’s resolutions, asserting that, somehow, both approaches were the same when he had just indicated they were not.

If you watch (endure) the discussion, you will observe that the Faction (Sanghvi, Golub, Moran) all assert over and over that both Sanghvi’s and Coll’s proposals are “upgrades.” They ignore the legal meaning of “upgrade” in the context of both the union contract and New York State labor law with the informal use of the word. It is hard to tell whether their confusion is real or based on ignorance or malice. This is especially true of Jason Golub, who has a law degree from Columbia Law School.

Moran, Who Is Not A Lawyer, Repudiates the Kremer Letter Pronouncing: “It’s Not Relevant”

For not the first time, Moran, who is not a lawyer, attacked a legal opinion that did not go his way. He ripped the Kremer letter in a rant that verged on the comic. He asserted it “contradicts itself inside of itself [JK: Whatever that means], and I don’t believe it has a bearing on this scenario.” As Kremer’s letter directly addressed the issue of upgrades, this statement was particularly bizarre.

Moran’s Gross Ignorance Of City Labor Negotiations

Moran claimed that labor union negotiations are unable to be “granular” enough to deal with individual positions. In a statement reminiscent of a 19th-century robber baron, Moran claimed that only the Commissioners knew enough to deal with employee salaries and duties. Moran apparently doesn’t understand that the days of paternalistic employers handing out benefits to favored employees were supposed to have ended with the rise of organized labor. His statement that individual employee positions are not dealt with in union negotiations is flatly false, as anyone who has been involved with the city’s negotiations with its unions or any other labor negotiations would know. Changes in individual job duties are regularly argued over and settled in contracts. He also dismisses the value of a salary study. He apparently believes he knows more about what certain positions are being paid in other municipalities than any study would produce.

Moran’s sudden profuse concern for the well-being of the city’s employees is also curious, given that he has had an improper practice charge filed against him by an employee, as well as a lawsuit and grievances.

Moran and Sanghvi Accuse Safford And Coll Of Partisan Attack On Employees

At one point, Moran decides that Safford’s and Coll’s votes against Sanghvi’s proposals are motivated by partisanship. This is a particularly interesting and odd line of attack the Faction took considering Commissioner Coll is a Democrat. And what’s with the Bleeding Heart Liberal thing Moran throws out there?

A New Jason Golub Goes After Mayor Safford

In the past, Jason Golub preferred to keep a low profile at meetings, avoiding the scrums. Apparently, those days are over.

At this meeting, Golub went after Mayor Safford, insisting that he explain his vote. This kind of badgering is a new Jason Golub. Why does he insist the Mayor defend himself? The Mayor was gracious enough to respond to him.

Golub then continues his insistence that assuming the current senior clerk in the Public Safety Department is hired as the purchasing coordinator, she gets a salary increase, which is an “upgrade.” As Golub is an attorney, he must know that the term upgrade, in this instance, is a technically legal term referring to increasing an existing position‘s salary. It is worth noting that Jason never actually addresses the substance of Kremer’s opinion, preferring to confuse the public by playing with the word “upgrade.”

At one point in the proceedings, Moran interrupts the Mayor, saying there has been no second to Coll’s resolution. In fact, there was a second, and it was made by Golub. When Moran complains that there was no second to Coll’s resolution, Golub remains silent.

In a particularly troubling moment, Golub attempts to put Coll on the defensive by demanding of Coll why he voted against Sanghvi’s resolution based on the attorney’s letter but didn’t get a letter from the attorney affirming that his (Coll’s) resolution is legal. Here again, Golub avoids addressing the substance of the letter, which attests to the illegality of Sanghvi’s resolution and tries instead to change the discussion to why Coll did not seek the counsel’s opinion.

During the meeting, Coll offered that if they wanted to seek an opinion on his proposal either by Kremer or a different lawyer or even to go to the Comptroller, he would be fine with that. Not surprisingly, none of the Faction took him up on any of this because, I suspect, they knew it was pretty certain that Coll’s appointment was legal in spite of all of their bluster.

A Discussion Devoid Of Logic

Minita Sanghvi has, in the past, played a low-key role in discussions, often trying to play the conciliator. Not so at this meeting. The following is a brief excerpt. Between the discussion of Sanghvi’s resolutions and Coll’s, the hectoring went on for over half an hour.

Here, they attack former Finance Commissioner Michele Madigan for doing what they (the Faction) claim they have done. Sanghvi ignores here two important points.

First, Madigan instituted a practice of including any upgrades in the budget process. Unlike Sanghvi, Madigan was extremely resistant to changing employee grades outside of the annual city budget process. Madigan told me that there had to be some very compelling reason for this kind of action. She recalled that the school came to her because they were unable to attract crossing guards at the salary offered at the time. They were desperate as there was a major safety issue. Madigan agreed to help them by funding a salary increase.

It is also most important to note that Kremer’s opinion was written long after Madigan was no longer the Commissioner of Finance. Unlike Sanghvi, she did not have the guidance of the Kremer letter. Here, Sanghvi badgers the Mayor about Madigan’s culpability.

Bad Faith And Bad Behavior

Mayor Safford remains courteous and calm throughout the aggressive and belligerent verbal hectoring directed at him by the three members of the Faction.

Tim Coll similarly continues to be patient and non-confrontational throughout the ordeal. Coll offers obvious suggestions for resolving the conflict. He suggests going back to Kremer for clarification regarding Sanghvi’s resolution and his own. He suggests that they contact the New York State Comptroller for an opinion. His suggestions are basically drowned out by more irrelevant hectoring.

In the end, after all their complaining, the Faction voted for Coll’s resolution so it passed unanimously further demonstrating the pointlessness of their attacks.

This kind of behavior was all too common at meetings of the previous Council. The members of this new Faction that has formed would do well to reflect on the last election when every member of that Council who had an opponent lost. There is every indication that this kind of acting out is not popular with the majority of Saratogians. They would prefer that city business be conducted in a civil manner, as exemplified by the two new members.

Lexis Figuereo, Ticketed Again By SSPD Police, Goes Toxic with Help from the Press

Lexis Figuereo Ticketed Yet Again

On May 29,2024, the Saratoga Springs Police Department issued a second ticket to Saratoga Black Lives Matter leader Lexis Figuereo for again, as the organizer of the demonstration, not filing a “demonstration declaration” required by the city when groups of more than 25 people plan to hold a demonstration. This action by the SSPD drew the predictable response from Figuereo that somehow his rights were being trampled on. In addition, Daily Gazette columnist Andrew Waite weighed in with another inaccurate piece, in which he managed to misrepresent just about everything.

The Latest Saratoga BLM Press Conference and Demonstration

On May 25, 2024, BLM organized a press conference in Congress Park and a demonstration.

Lexis Figuereo was among the speakers. As the following clips document, he announced that the local BLM group would continue to block the streets and disrupt City Council meetings. More troubling, he announced, “We will be disrupting businesses. We will make sure you do not get your money.“

A Reporter questions Figuereo

The number of participants in his events continues to dwindle. At this event, there were only approximately thirty people.

Interestingly, in contrast to previous actions, when the group left the park, they used the sidewalks rather than the streets. Of particular note, Mr. Figuereo stayed behind in the park.

Mr. Figuereo had previously been issued a ticket as the organizer of the demonstration for failing to submit the required city form for a May 1 BLM demonstration. The form is called a “demonstration declaration.” The city requires that the form be submitted prior to the public announcement of demonstrations. The purpose of the document is to inform the city prior to the event as to when and where the demonstration will take place. It also includes information as to prohibited activities such as carrying weapons, wearing masks, failing to clean up following events, etc. By signing the form, the organizer of the event acknowledges these requirements.

There is no charge for the form, but the organizer of the event is subject to a fine or brief jail time if they fail to comply with its timely submission.

Mr. Figuereo is currently suing the city in federal court over alleged civil rights violations. He has repeatedly announced that the money he anticipates receiving from the success of his suit will fund his children’s college tuition.

I presume his decision to stay in the park rather than join the march this time was based on his attorney’s advice that flagrantly violating the city’s code again would not help his lawsuit.

The strategy seemed to be to have someone else lead the march down Broadway to try to argue that Lex was not the organizer. His decision to remain in the park rather than join the march contrasted with his declarations at the press conference that he planned to disrupt the city streets, City Council meetings, and local businesses.

That Ruse Didn’t Work

Unfortunately for Mr. Figuereo, this ruse did not work. He failed to consider that it was possible to organize a demonstration even if he didn’t participate in all of it. BLM put out the call for the event, and Figuereo is the acknowledged head of the organization. So, on May 29, he was issued yet another ticket for failing to submit this same form, a demonstration declaration.

This is all such stunning folly. What, one must ask, is the problem with simply filling out a simple one-page form that doesn’t even have a fee attached? What profound principle would be violated by adhering to this modest requirement? While the form was included in a recent post, here it is again.

By my count, this form has twenty questions that can be answered without any research. I would estimate that this form can be filled out in less than two minutes.

If refusing to fill out this form is of such ethical and political importance, why not proudly announce his refusal at the press conference and share with the public the reasoning for his resistance rather than pretending he was not the organizer of the event?

Making Toxic Remarks Does Not Constitute Building A Social Movement

Mr. Figuereo told the reporters at his press conference that “we will not be deterred. We will not be shushed (SIC) bullied. This ain’t the sixties.“

I presume that when Mr. Figuereo announced that “this ain’t the sixties,” he was referring to the tactics of the movement built by Martin Luther King that emphasized love and civility in the face of brutal suppression. Mr. Figuereo has made it clear by his own conduct that his group rejects King’s tactics and believes that its grievances entitle them to the righteous anger they express when using crude insults and epithets. Similarly, he feels that there is no need to endure arrest or other indignity at the hands of authority, as did King, Gandhi, and their followers.

The dwindling number of participants in his group’s actions attests to the folly of his approach. (The Skidmore semester has ended for the summer.)

Regrettably, he confuses his media coverage, the praise offered by some cynical local politicians, and his success in the courts with social change.

As a person who participated in the social justice struggles of the past, I can assure the readers of this blog that the culture was very different. The question of how to build a mass movement for change was vigorously debated. Young people argued over whether wearing ties and jackets and knocking on doors in an effort to support Eugene McCarthy’s campaign against Lyndon Johnson was more effective than street demonstrations in opposing the war in Vietnam. Many worked in urban centers organizing for such basic services as decent trash collection. Others dedicated themselves to assisting miners seeking compensation for black lung disease.

As has been documented extensively, Figuereo does not engage, nor does he articulate thoughtful, achievable goals to work towards; he harangues.

The key point for activists used to be achieving the trust and respect of the people asked to support change.

Mr. Figuereo does not lack courage, but he seems to have no sense that his methods serve only to isolate his group rather than expand it.

The Israel/Palestine Conflict and BLM

One of the issues Figuereo and BLM have recently embraced is the issue of the events unfolding in Gaza.

As noted in an earlier post, I feel strongly that Israel’s response to the horrific violence of October 7 has itself been appalling. The interview on CNN by Fareed Zachariah of Aryeh Neier, the founder of Human Rights Watch expresses my concerns better than I can.

Mr. Neier, who is eighty-seven and a Jew, escaped Nazi Germany as a child. His first response to the events of October 7 was to come to the support of Israel, but over time, the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and the West Bank has caused him to rethink that support.

This is a brief recording of the interview.

The support offered by BLM to the plight of Palestinians, rather than contributing to bringing about a ceasefire and some kind of resolution to this catastrophe, is counter-productive. Mr. Figuereo’s toxic behavior makes his association with any cause problematic.

Rather than dismissing ” the 60s,” Mr. Figuereo would help himself and this community if he took the time to seriously consider the writings of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. While both men did not end injustice, they had great achievements in their lives before they were assassinated.

Good organizers listen rather than berate. Listening is one of the greatest tools for seeking justice.

More Sloppy Talk From Andrew Waite (AKA Uncle Frank)

In a past post regarding a column by Andrew Waite, this blogger pointed out its inaccuracies and its illogical assertions. The post compared Waite to the archetypal character Uncle Frank, who dominates the Thanksgiving dinner with his uninformed ideas and his cringing attempts at wit.

In the May 31,2024, edition of the Daily Gazette, Waite opines on Lexis Figuereo’s ticketing for failing to adhere to the city’s requirement for a “demonstration declaration.” As with Uncle Frank, Waited does not mince words.

“Issuing that violation was ludicrous and hypocritical,” he pronounces.

Waite Channels Kellyanne Conway

Kellyanne Conway famously defended President Donald Trump’s press secretary when he was nabbed for his repeated errors by characterizing his references as “alternative facts.” This would seem to be an apt description of many of Mr. Waite’s comments. For instance, he writes:

“Perhaps even more dismaying than the existence of the Saratoga Springs rule is that it has been wielded against some but not others.”

–Waite referencing the Proud Boys brief demo in August of 2023 as an example of unfairly singling out Figuereo

The column acknowledges that the Proud Boys event preceded Tim Coll’s term as Commissioner of Public Safety, but the clear implication is that this is an ongoing injustice.

A rigorous journalist might have asked Coll how many demonstration declarations have been submitted appropriately since he began his term in January. The answer is four. BLM is the only organization that has failed to comply during Coll’s term.

Waite continues:

“With the Saratoga Springs Police Department issuing two violations this month to Saratoga Black Lives Matter co-founder Lexis Figuereo regarding a 2005 city rule that requires groups to obtain a “demonstration declaration” before a public protest, Coll and Safford were clearly hoping to limit the possibility of being caught off guard by protests during Belmont weekend.”

Waite May 31, 2024

I find this statement particularly telling. Of course, Coll and Safford do not want to be “caught off guard”- during Belmont or any other time. That is the very purpose of the form. The city needs to be prepared with appropriate staffing to handle any disruption associated with a demonstration and ensure that the demonstration does not violate the prohibitions set out in the demonstration declaration form. It’s called “planning.”

The purpose of the form, as repeatedly documented on this blog site, is to ensure the safety of the demonstrators and the public. In the past, that has meant having enough officers on hand to direct traffic so as to protect the demonstrators from being hit by some crazy driver when they take to the streets and from any bystanders who might try to assault them.

But by using an arcane rule that arguably violates free speech to target one individual, the mayor and public safety leader have only fueled anger in a way that increases the likelihood of unrest during one of the most prominent sporting events Saratoga Springs will ever host.

Waite May 31, 2024

“…arguably violates free speech”? ?Waite’s characterization of the requirement for a demonstration declaration shows his lack of rigor and professionalism. He never explains exactly how free speech is violated when demonstrators went ahead with their press conference and march uninterrupted with only a minor ticket issued later. “Arcane”? As noted above, it has been used regularly during this administration and, putting aside the actions of BLM and the Proud Boys, respected and adhered to for almost twenty years without controversy. No group has ever before complained that filing the “demonstration declaration” violated their 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech.

It would seem to me that any thoughtful reporter would have asked Figuereo why he refused to submit the simple form. I attribute this failure to Waite’s obsession with the rule as punitive. Asking that question would acknowledge that it might have some purpose and would undermine the story Waite wanted to tell.

Waite continues:

The very existence of the rule is deeply troubling. The American Civil Liberties Union says protests don’t need permits and that if a protest does block traffic, police can request that participants move to the sidewalk. There have been no reports that this happened on May 1.

Waite May 31, 2024

In this excerpt, he assumes that the form somehow determines whether a group can demonstrate. He should take the time to actually read the form and its accompanying document. Not submitting this form does not bar a group from protesting. However, failing to submit the declaration as required does subject the organizer to penalties.

In fact, Commissioner Coll went out of his way to make sure Figuereo understood he needed to submit the form by advising Figuereo’s attorney beforehand. It had no effect.

It is a testament to the madness of our times that Figuereo apparently thinks he is making some kind of important statement by refusing to submit this simple form and that his inaction is both defended and amplified by a lengthy column in what is otherwise a good newspaper.

Dillon Moran’s Dubious Quote

“Next weekend is certainly an important weekend for the community,” said Saratoga Springs Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran. “These violations only serve to antagonize and create unrest that will not be helpful to our community or the image that we present to our visitors and the world that will be watching.”

Commissioner Moran’s Accounts Department is responsible for managing demonstration declarations. He recently sent back the form to the Saratoga County CSEA, which is planning to demonstrate concerning its current impasse in negotiations with the county during the Belmont, for missing information.

Is Moran suggesting Coll not apply the law to BLM in hopes that that favor will make BLM reciprocate by not demonstrating during the Belmont, which, in Moran’s view, would hurt the city’s image?

If Moran wants to repeal the provision requiring the “declaration,” he is welcome to try to do so. It would be very interesting to listen to a Council debate on this. In fact, I very much doubt he will ever take any action.

As the elected official who took an oath to abide by and carry out the city’s laws, which include these declarations, Moran should be the first one to insist on consistent compliance with a regulation his department is responsible for.

Suggesting that Coll should not enforce the city’s code in the case of BLM’s non-compliance is unprofessional and unethical.