Have you ever wondered what it is like to work in Saratoga Springs city hall for Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran and his Deputy, Stacy Connors? A lawsuit brought by a longtime and well-respected Accounts Department employee, Lisa Ribis, gives some chilling insights.
Ribis filed her complaint on June 18, 2024, accusing Moran of “wanton, reckless, malicious, and/or intentional….actions…” which violated New York Civil Service Law. Lisa Ribis is now the second Accounts Department employee to sue the city and Moran over his treatment of employees in his department.
Among the charges Ribis makes in her suit against Moran and Connors is that she was the subject of ethnic slurs made by Moran. This is alleged to have occurred at an office meeting on September 15, 2023, at which Moran, his deputy Stacy Connors, assistant clerk Barbara Brindisi, and assistant purchasing agent Stefanie Richards were present as well as Ms. Ribis. During the course of this meeting, Moran referred to Italians as “guinea WOPS.” Ms. Ribis was the only person present of Italian heritage.
Ribis’ complaint also alleges that Moran made a number of false accusations about her. One of the more bizarre accusations Moran is said to have made is to claim that Ms. Ribis spit on activist protesters. Anyone who knows Ms. Ribis would know that this is totally unbelievable and out of character. Should there be any doubt in anyone’s mind, one need only recall the distance between the protesters and where Ms. Ribis sat when she was taking Council meeting minutes and ponder what would have been the reaction of protesters had this occurred. Are we to believe that Commissioner Moran was the only person to have noticed this miraculous act of long-distance targeted spitting at a public meeting?
As disturbing is the lawsuit’s listing of the number of times Moran told individuals that Ms. Ribis was to blame for the changes in the On-Call pay document that led to the District Attorney’s investigation and the subsequent $61,000 attorney bill submitted by Moran and Connors.
Some Background
On April 15, 2024, Saratoga Springs Commissioner of Accounts Dillon Moran suspended Lisa Ribis from her position as Secretary of the City Council in an attempt to terminate her. As Ms. Ribis’ job was protected under the city and state civil service laws, Moran lacked the authority to fire her. Instead, she suffered one month without pay and subsequently was barred by Moran from returning to her job while receiving full pay until a hearing can be convened before an arbitrator to judge the merits of Moran’s action.
Moran issued the first and only formal, written criticism of Ribis when he suspended her. For those not familiar with what is required to terminate an employee, barring some egregious event, there needs to be a clear and thoroughly documented record establishing that the proposed termination is based on a chronic history of violations.
It is a testament to Moran’s impetuous and inept management that he would presume that he could prevail in his effort to fire Ms. Ribis, who has no documented history of complaints about her job performance. A darker possibility is that he is willing to waste public money to indulge in reckless, vindictive behavior.
Ms. Ribis has faithfully served the city for nineteen years, during which time she has received no criticism for her work. In fact, she has enjoyed wide respect and affection from her colleagues throughout the city.
Commissioner Moran’s campaign to terminate Ms. Ribis goes back to 2022. It all began following public comments made by her husband, Joe Ribis, at the Council meeting on February 1, 2022, during which he criticized the Council. On February 15, Ms. Ribis was removed from her duties of taking Council meeting minutes. She believes this was because of the comments her husband made. By May, Moran was requiring her to check in with Deputy Commissioner Connors every morning to find out what Connors wanted her to do that day. Ribis was the only employee in the Accounts Department required to do this. As Connors did not come to work at a regular time in the morning, this made Ribis’ work day challenging, to say the least.
As apparent retribution, Moran also refused to compensate Ms. Ribis for overtime related to her role in taking the minutes of the Council meetings. Ms. Ribis had been receiving this compensation routinely for years. In January 2023, Ribis won a grievance against Moran over his refusal to allow her to accrue compensatory time that she was contractually entitled to. His arbitrary decision to deny her compensation for overtime made no sense outside of harassment.
Moran’s False Standard For Removing Ms. Ribis
Moran’s campaign to terminate Ms. Ribis was based on alleged problems with the minutes of Council meetings she took as the Council secretary. It is interesting to note that while multiple sources report Moran accusing Ribis of altering the documents related to on-call pay, this was not cited by Moran as a reason for the firing in his suspension memo.
It is also worth considering the performance of the person he replaced Ms. Ribis with.
Under the New York State Open Meetings Law, the city is required to post the minutes of meetings publicly within two weeks. During the years Ms. Ribis was responsible for this, she scrupulously met this requirement.
Before Ms. Ribis’ suspension, Moran insisted that Deputy Connors review the draft of the minutes before allowing Ribis to upload them to the city’s website. Connors frequently ignored the required timeline in returning the minutes to Ribis for posting. This tardiness resulted in the violation of the state’s two-week requirement.
The person appointed to replace Ms. Ribis no longer has her work reviewed by Deputy Connors but routinely posts the minutes late in violation of the New York State Open Meetings Law.
In fact, the quality of Ribis’ successor’s minutes has been seriously problematic. The minutes contain many errors in punctuation and incomplete sentences. Some have the wrong dates, and most refer to Supervisor Matt Veitch as Mike Veitch.
In an especially troubling incident, Ribis’ successor misrecorded a statement Lew Benton made during the Council’s public comment period. Benton’s remarks cited Moran’s mishandling of the procedures to pay his $61,000.00 legal bill, arguing that he had violated the city’s purchasing policies. This blogger recalls Moran’s body language during Benton’s remarks. He was not happy.
Somehow, Ms. Ribis’ successor inverted Benton’s remarks in the minutes. Instead of citing Moran’s failure to adhere to city requirements, her minutes had Lew supporting the manner in which the bill was to be paid.
It is hard to understand how she could have made such an egregious error. Benton wrote to Moran (see the email at the end of this post) asking that the record be corrected. Rather than having the courtesy of responding directly to Benton, Moran had Ribis’ successor email Benton, agreeing to correct the record. The minutes have never been corrected. [Revised July 26, 2024, The minutes were revised but the revision still was not correct.]
Rather than suffering Ms. Ribis’s fate for allegedly failing to properly manage the minutes of Council meetings, her successor has not only been promoted and enjoyed an increase in salary, but Moran got civil service to upgrade her position, resulting in a further rise in pay.
A List of the Allegations In Ribis Lawsuit
At a council meeting on February 1, 2022, Ms. Ribis’s husband, Joe, criticized the council.
On February 15, 2022, Ms. Ribis was removed from council meetings and “told to sit at her desk.”
On March 16, 2022, Ms. Ribis was told she would no longer receive accrued compensatory time or receive overtime pay after more than thirteen years of doing so.
The overtime she accrued for a March 15, 2022, meeting was denied.
A fellow employee who took over her meeting responsibilities was granted flex time and/or accrued compensatory time.
On May 3, 2022, Ms. Ribis was instructed to inquire every morning of Deputy Connors, what Connors wished for her to do that day. Ms. Ribis was the only employee in the accounts department required to do this.
In April of 2022, Moran falsely accused Ms. Ribis of spitting on activist protestors.
In January of 2023, Ms. Ribis prevailed in her grievance regarding her right to compensatory time that Moran had denied her.
According to the filing, on May 17, 2023, assistant city clerk Barbara Brandisi and another employee in the accounts department told Ms. Ribis that Moran “…was making it seem as if the plaintiff (Ribis) was to blame for various difficulties with the agenda.”
On January 10, 2024, Ms. Ribis received an email from Moran requesting that she provide another employee with full access to her password-protected files. On January 12, 2023, Ms. Ribis advised Moran that to do so would violate the policy she signed with the IT department.
Following this incident, Ms. Ribis asserts she was”shunned” by Moran and Connors, who refused to speak to her.
On February 16, 2024, Moran reassigned a portion of Ms. Ribis’s duties to the Mayor’s secretary.
On the evening of February 16,2024, Ms. Ribis received a call from a resident advising her that Moran was accusing her of altering the contents of a city resolution. Ribis responded that this was false.
On March 1, 2024, at a meeting convened by Moran with Connors, Executive Assistant to the Finance Commissioner Samantha Clemmy, Deputy Commissioner of Finance Heather Crofcker, and Assistant Purchasing Agency Sefanie Richards of Accounts, Moran asked Connors if the purchasing policy was added to the city council agenda. Connors responded that she “gave it to the secretary (Ribis), but she didn’t load it in time.” Moran responded that “she (Ribis) can’t even do her [expletive] job.”
In reference to item #14, Connors gave the document in question to Ms. Ribis at 11:57 a.m., when the cutoff to add items was 12:00 p.m. Ms. Ribis advised Connors at 12:03 p.m. that she tried loading the document, but the system had locked out at noon. Connors responded at the time that she was aware that the system closed promptly at noon.
On March 5, 2024, Ms. Ribis met with Mayor Safford and his assistant, Susanna Combs. During the meeting, Ms. Ribis advised the mayor that she believed Moran was accusing her of causing the “on-call” pay issue. Mayor Safford confirmed that Moran was blaming her for the change. The change would have made Connors eligible for the additional pay.
On March 20, 2024, Deputy Mayor Joanne Kiernan told Ribis, “you do know Commissioner Moran is blaming you for the ‘on-call’ mess.”
On March 21, 2024, Mayor Safford told Ms. Ribis’s husband that Moran planned to fire Ribis for forging a document. (As far as I know, this allegation was never included in the reasons officially stated for Ms. Ribis’s termination).
On April 1, 2024, during a pre-agenda meeting, Connors publicly stated that the March 19, 2024, meeting minutes should be pulled from the agenda because they were “hard to follow due to sentence structure, punctuation, and tense – meaning point of view is first, second, and third throughout the minutes. They require edits and adjustments for clarity and context. Once minutes are approved, they are a permanent record of the meeting. It’s important they be accurate.” Since Ms. Ribis’s employment in 2005, this is the first time that the minutes have ever been pulled from the agenda due to errors.
Final Thoughts
It is important to acknowledge that these are allegations made by Ms. Ribis’ lawyer, Philip G. Steck, and this blogger is unaware of a response from whoever is representing Moran, Connors, and the city.
Still, for some of us who have observed Moran, these accusations have the ring of authenticity.
Lew Benton Email Re Incorrect Statement Attributed To Him In City Council Minutes
It has been brought to my attention that the draft minutes of the City Council’s Special June 26 meeting misrepresent my statement during the meeting’s Public Comment period.
The draft minutes attribute the following statement to me.
PUBLIC COMMENT
“Lew Benton, of Saratoga Springs, commented on the proposed resolution for payment of legal services that had been planned to be presented to the City Council at the June 18, 2024 City Council Meeting and thenwithdrawn. Benton commented he could not find the resolution that enable the use of an assignment for legal liability. Benton commented he may be incorrect in the statement there were no resolutions for a legal liability assignment, and stated that he was unable tofind one. Lew Benton recommended the Council to reference Public Officer Law Section 18 regarding determination ofdefense and indemnification of officers and employees of public entities. Benton commented thatthe prerequisites to a resolution are the City Charter, City Code, and Public Officer’s Laws. Benton commented that the City Attorney’s pay attention to the issues and Benton recommended the assignment of independent council for this issue.”
I have reviewed a transcription of my comments. I made NO such suggestion that “ …an assignment of independent counsel for this issue.” be made. Attributing this false statement to me turns one its head the essence of my statement: i .e., that no assignment can be made unless and until a City Council approved contract with the independent counsel has been reviewed and approved.
In significant part the transcription of my remarks included the following: “Thus far I have bot been ale to discover any resolution that was previously adopted by this council that would authorize the assignment of special independent counsel to any member of the council or authorize payment. The City Charter is clear. No such arrangement can be entered into without benefit of formal contract approved by the City Council.”
I did not recommend assignment but rather informed the Council that it was without authority to adopt the resolution on the finance commissioner’s agenda unless and until a Charter demanded contract was authorized.
Please delete the false statement in the draft minutes and insert “Thus far I have bot been ale to discover any resolution that was previously adopted by this council that would authorize the assignment of special independent counsel to any member of the council or authorize payment. The City Charter is clear. No such arrangement can be entered into without benefit of formal contract approved by the City Council.”
Saratoga Black Lives Matter leader Lex Figuereo was ticketed in May for failing to file the declaration required by the city for groups holding demonstrations. This prompted a variety of responses from BLM supporters, including the New York State Attorney General’s office. The Capital District Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) organized a demonstration objecting to Figuereo’s ticketing. The AG’s office sent a menacing note to the city, bizarrely elevating the filing of a simple form to somehow violating Lex Figuereo’s freedom of speech.
All those who have objected to Figuereo’s ticketing share a fundamental misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the declaration (for a start, it’s not a permit) and how the city responded. In an attempt to set the record straight, Saratoga Springs Public Safety Commissioner Tim Coll wrote the following letter that appeared in Saratoga Today.
Letter to Editor Saratoga Today:
I am reaching out directly to all Saratogians to explain what has occurred with the recent issuance of Appearance Tickets related to Saratoga BLM. The Appearance Tickets were issued because the primary organizer of two BLM demonstrations failed to file demonstration declarations.
DEMONSTRATION DECLARATION
The City of Saratoga Springs requires by Code that any group planning to demonstrate must file a document called a “demonstration declaration.” There is no fee for the declaration and this requirement was established by the City in 2005.
The purpose of the declaration is to provide a way for the Department of Public Safety to work cooperatively with groups organizing demonstrations to ensure that the demonstrators and the public can be safe. As an example, two groups wanted to demonstrate in the same area during the Belmont Festival so alternative locations were provided and agreed upon.
This declaration process is administered by the Accounts Department, and each declaration, if completed properly, is approved. In 2024, the following organizations have filed demonstration declarations that were approved; Saratoga Peace Alliance, Jewish Federation, Horseracing Wrongs, and CSEA. Therefore, the only organization that has refused to comply with this ordinance, thus far in 2024, is Saratoga BLM.
APPEARANCE TICKETS
It should be noted that the issuance of an Appearance Ticket is not a custodial arrest. No person was placed into custody, handcuffed, or processed. The Appearance Tickets were served upon Mark Mischler who is representing the leader of Saratoga BLM.
It should also be noted that the pre-planned, non-violent, protests were not interrupted. In fact, the SSPD took appropriate actions to keep the demonstrators safe when they blocked traffic on the streets in Saratoga Springs.
I want to be clear that I strongly agree with the issuance of the tickets because not doing so would be a violation of the Constitutional Right to Equal Protection, in violation of the 14th Amendment. More specifically, we should not treat Saratoga BLM differently than the Jewish Federation or Horse Racing Wrongs or any other group. As noted, doing so would be a violation of the 14th Amendment and a violation of the basic tenet of unbiased policing.
I received the following two press releases from the Saratoga Springs Republican Chair, Mike Brandi.
The first, dated July 3, explains the legal action Brandi took after the Saratoga Springs City Council, in a 3-2 vote, agreed to pay a $60,993 bill to a Manhattan attorney hired by Saratoga Springs Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran and his Deputy Stacey Connors to represent them in an investigation into the on-call pay scandal.
The second release, dated July 5, concerns the Saratoga County Supreme Court decision to issue a temporary restraining order to prohibit payments to Moran’s and Connor’s attorney “during the pendency of ongoing litigation.”
Saratoga Springs Republican Chairman Mike Brandi Files Emergency Litigation Against City Council Over $60,000 Payment Approval
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY — July 3, 2024 — Mike Brandi, Chairman of the Saratoga Springs Republican Committee, has taken urgent legal action this morning by filing litigation in the Saratoga County Supreme Court challenging the recent approval by the City Council last night to disburse over $60,000 in payments to Dillon Moran’s private attorneys in relation to the on-call payment investigation. Specifically, Moran ran up over $60,000 in attorneys fees in six weeks, with his New York City-based attorneys charging over $1000/hour.
The litigation, filed under Article 78 of the CPLR, seeks a temporary restraining order to halt any payments by the City during the litigation process. Brandi contends that these payments violate provisions of the New York State Constitution prohibiting gifts to individuals, as well as several State and Local Laws.
In a statement, Mike Brandi expressed his commitment to upholding taxpayer rights and constitutional principles: “While litigation is not our preferred course, I view it as a duty to defend the taxpayers of Saratoga Springs and the integrity of our State Constitution. The City Council’s decision last night amounted to a $60,000 gift to Commissioner Moran, directly contradicting our state’s foundational principles.”
Chris Obstarczyk, of the Obstarczyk Firm, attorney for Mike Brandi, emphasized the responsibility of local government in managing taxpayer funds: “It is essential for local authorities to demonstrate fiscal responsibility and adherence to legal standards and upholding our constitution. I am honored to support Mr. Brandi in rectifying this situation. I trust that the Supreme Court will intervene to put an end to this misallocation of public funds and unconstitutional action of the City Council.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Saratoga County Supreme Court Issues Temporary Restraining Order Prohibiting Payments to Moran’s Private Attorneys Saratoga Springs, NY – July 5, 2024:
The Saratoga County Supreme Court has issued a temporary restraining order today, effectively prohibiting any payments to the private attorneys of Moran during the pendency of ongoing litigation. This action comes in response to emergency litigation filed by Saratoga Springs Republican Committee Chairman, Mike Brandi earlier this week. Chairman Brandi’s lawsuit argued that the over $60,000 in payments to Moran’s private attorneys were unconstitutional and that Moran had a conflict of interest which should have precluded him from voting on matters related to these payments. The litigation seeks to permanently stop any such payments and ensure taxpayer funds are used appropriately and lawfully. In response to the court’s decision, Chairman Mike Brandi stated, “This is the first step in halting this unconstitutional misappropriation of taxpayer funds. We are committed to ensuring that the public’s money is used transparently and in accordance with the law.“
Tomorrow night, July 2,the Saratoga Springs City Council will decide whether to pay bills that Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran and his Deputy, Stacy Connors, have run up when they hired a private Manhattan attorney to represent them in the ongoing investigation of the on-call pay scandal. As readers may recall, their attorney bills $1,250.00 an hour. In eight weeks, including the most recent bill, the sum has grown to $60,992.65. The detailed bill is posted on the Council agenda on the city’s website.
If Moran and/or Connors were to be indicted as part of this scandal, the cost to this city for their representation would run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The hourly rate being charged by Moran’s lawyer is not only the highest rate ever billed to the city; it dwarfs the rates charged by other attorneys who have recently represented city officials. Former Mayor Meg Kelly’s attorney billed the city at $395.00 an hour to represent her during the Attorney General’s investigation. Moran’s lawyer is billing at literally three times that rate. Readers will remember that Moran complained bitterly about paying Kelly’s bills. Likewise Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi, who hasn’t had a problem bringing Moran’s bills to the Council for approval, complained about Kelly’s and former Commissioner Robin Dalton’s bills and just recently floated the idea that the Council might want to start putting a cap on what the Council would pay lawyers hired to represent city officials. She hasn’t mentioned this idea since Moran’s and Connors’ bills appeared.
Municipalities have the authority to scrutinize and challenge legal fees on the basis of reasonableness.
To date, the city has yet to determine whether Moran’s attorney’s rate is reasonable for the city to pay.
I am reminded of that famous quote from former Supreme Court Justice Stewart Potter, who said of pornography, “I know it when I see it.” While I don’t know what the legal definition of “reasonable” is I feel I do know an unreasonable lawyer bill when I see one and I would say that is what the Council will be asked to consider tomorrow night.
There is also the question of whether Moran has a conflict of interest if he chooses to participate in the vote on his bills tomorrow night. Approving the payment of the bills implies that they are reasonable. As the lawyer will be representing Moran, it would seem grossly inappropriate for him to vote on that issue.
If Moran cannot vote on the bill, it is unlikely to pass.
Whether or not Moran is determined to have a conflict of interest, the underlying issues will truly define the character of those who represent the citizens of this Saratoga Springs.
To adopt Sanghvi’s resolution would be an outrageous example of cronyism. The arrogance of Moran and Sanghvi, along with Public Works Commissioner Jason Golub, if he votes for this, will be simply stunning. They will be telling us that our tax money is in a piggy which they can dip into at their whim.
New York State Attorney General Letitia James has issued the city an Assurance Of Discontinuance (AOD) proposal. It would be part of the settlement growing out of the AG’s investigation of the Saratoga Springs Police Department. If implemented, it would require that the city allow not just Black Lives Matter but any group, including the Proud Boys, to block city streets and disrupt City Council meetings. It is quite stunning. It basically precludes the city’s police department from enforcing key codes essential to the city’s functioning.
It provides wide immunity from arrest for any demonstrators who violate city codes.
Among other provisions to hamper the city from exerting its authority, Attorney General Letitia James’ proposed agreement would grant demonstrators the right to block streets and sidewalks at their discretion. According to James, any group that wants to demonstrate can now control the city’s streets. The document reads:
A Deep Dive Into The AOD Proposal
This is the cover letter for the AOD. As readers will observe, it asserts, “The AOD would restrict the city of Saratoga Springs, the SSPD, and those acting in concert with them [emphasis added], from seeking criminal charges for most non-violent violations of law.” It is hard to believe that lawyers drafted this. “Those acting in concert with them” could be the New York State Police, the Saratoga County Sheriff’s Department, the FBI, or Homeland Security, as we saw during the Belmont Stakes. How does the Attorney General expect to enforce this AOD on these organizations? Does the Attorney General plan to go after these other law enforcement groups to restrict their operations when they occur in Saratoga Springs?
General Prohibitions
The AOD lays out a series of general prohibitions. Keep in mind these prohibitions would apply to any demonstration whether it be BLM or the Proud Boys.
No horse-mounted police.
No officers on bicycles.
Any arrest related to a demonstration must be made during the demonstration.
The city is precluded from enforcing parade requirements or from enforcing the requirement to fill out a demonstration declaration.
The city cannot enforce its rules for decorum at its Council meetings or “other official city function” except in the case of violence, physical injury, or significant property damage.
There are sound reasons for delaying the arrest of persons involved in the protest until after the event. Arresting someone during a demonstration is an extremely provocative act that logically has the potential to produce a scrum. It is reasonable for the police to refrain from arrests during a demonstration where possible. In fact, the AG’s insistence that the police can only make arrests during a demonstration is at odds with their requirement that the police use all means possible to de-escalate.
There is also the real possibility that someone may have committed a crime that was not apparent at the time. The fact that the original crime was unobserved and not acted upon during the demonstration is no reason to place the perpetrator beyond culpability.
Police on horseback are a key element in dealing with crowds. The rider’s elevation allows them to see things that a person on the ground would not. Officers on horseback are also an effective tool for separating demonstrators and counter demonstrators in a crowd. The AG’s proposal offers no explanation as to why the use of officers on horseback is prohibited nor do they explain why they are prohibiting police on bicycles.
The AG Authorizes Demonstrators To Disrupt City Council Meetings
Item #55 prohibits the police “…from investigating, arresting, or seeking charges against any individual for expressive conduct at any city council meeting or other city function in the absence of particularized allegation of violence, physical injury, or significant property damage caused by such individual.” The AG appears shockingly unconcerned about the need to maintain order at Council meetings that have been repeatedly shut down by demonstrators.
The Proposed Tier System
The AOD lays out four “tiers” of response to demonstrations they want the police to follow. The first tier is for demonstrations that involve no violence or the “significant” destruction of property.
The second tier is appropriate if the police are “aware of a specific and credible threat that violence or significant property damage may occur at the demonstration.” However, there is no guidance on distinguishing “significant” from “not significant” property damage.
In this case, the police can only act if a person has committed a felony. They are precluded from acting on persons committing violations or misdemeanors. (In a subsequent section and in conflict with item c, they are allowed to arrest for misdemeanors as well.) This still precludes the police from acting on violations such as disorderly conduct.
AG Indulges In Catch 22 Logic
More problematic are the prohibitions in the AOD that significantly restrict investigations into the pre-activities of the group demonstrating.
The police are allowed to go to Tier 2 if they have overwhelming evidence that a crime will occur at the demonstration. This becomes meaningless if, as #56 details, they are virtually precluded from any type of surveillance prior to the demonstration.
They are also precluded from recording the demonstration, so no pictures or videos are taken, which further hinders the police from proving a crime.
The Third Tier
Given how poorly written and organized this document is, annotating it is a bit of a challenge. The third tier is triggered by actual acts of violence or property destruction. What constitutes significant versus insignificant property damage is never addressed. Similarly, what constitutes an “imminent” threat is never clarified. The document does tell us it is ok for demonstrators to throw water bottles in spite of the fact that Water bottles as projectiles are potentially dangerous.
This tier cautions that the police may only deploy “a limited number of officers sufficient to address the specific individuals engaged in the acts of violence or property damage (snark warning: for some reason, they left out the word significant, which qualifies every other reference to damage in the document).”
How many officers represent a “limited number” is anyone’s guess.
As the AOD proposal precludes the city from requiring a demonstration declaration that would provide the time of the event and the organizer’s estimate of the number of people involved, the police chief’s ability to prepare for the demonstration in terms of bringing in additional officers or other organizations such as the sheriff’s department is made all the more difficult.
This is real madness. Contrary to the AG’s approach to crowd control, if there is violence or property destruction, it is time to request that the “crowd” disperse. Dear reader, imagine for a moment that you are the city’s chief of police and members of a demonstration are acting violently or destroying property. Wouldn’t you consider it time to try to arrest the perpetrators and ask the crowd to disperse?
Tier 4
Here, the situation is that protesters “are seeking to gain unauthorized entry, or physically blocking others’ entry, into a sensitive location. A sensitive location includes, but is not limited to, a police precinct, courthouse, other government building, hospital, clinic, medical facility, or medical provider.”
For some reason, the authors felt the need to remind the city that the demonstrators may take over the street, block traffic and throw water bottles and still must be “accommodated.” This section appears to be a case of cut-and-paste.
The police must give the protesters three warnings to disperse, allowing five minutes for each warning. So the crowd can block access or remain in a “sensitive area” for fifteen minutes. Given the history of BLM demonstrations, it is reasonable to assume that they will occupy the area until just before the fifteen minutes are up and potentially move to another sensitive location and start the countdown again.
How Is This For Craziness?
Let’s assume the protesters simply block the “sensitive” location for fifteen minutes and decline to disperse. What can they be charged with? Typically, the charge would be for disorderly conduct, which is a violation. According to the AOD, the police are precluded from charging protesters for violations. So what are the police to do? The AOD conveniently doesn’t address this.
The AG’s Standards Proposed Here Would Apply to Any Group Including the Proud Boys Or the Ku Klux Klan
I am a strong civil libertarian and believe the government should enforce its laws uniformly. It should not consider ideology, race, religion, or nationality in its actions. I expect, though, that many of the creators and supporters of the hands-off standards being proposed by Attorney General Tish James would be outraged if these were applied to a Proud Boys demonstration blocking the intersection of Broadway and Lake Avenue and shouting racist slogans.
In effect, the proposed restrictions in Letitia James’s proposal would attract any group that wants to make a splash and get attention for whatever cause they are pursuing. As the proposal also restricts police intelligence operations regarding potential demonstrations, the city will operate in a black box regarding threats. A surprise action would leave the police department and community vulnerable in terms of having adequate staffing resources to protect demonstrators and the public.
James appears either indifferent or ineptly blind regarding the potential for explosive conditions that her proposal would cause. Consider the Belmont concert that drew crowds to Broadway. What if the Proud Boys decided to have a demonstration and waded into the crowd, yelling racist and homophobic slurs? What would the potential be for a riot, and how could the police address this, given Tish James’ prohibitions?
This AOD is clearly not the result of attorneys carefully considering the protection of First Amendment rights. Apparently, a group in the AG’s office sat around a table and carelessly tossed out ideas packaged as the AOD proposal, which she then authorized. While it is an opening proposal from James, it is an extreme position to start negotiations from and must be taken seriously by the city and replied to at a great cost of time and money. Interestingly, the original AG report listed only a half dozen reasonable demands, many of which the city was already practicing. This new proposal is quite bizarre, and unfortunately, the press is not covering this for whatever reason. One can only wonder how this fits into James’ political ambitions. Would she really support this kind of policing of a Proud Boys demonstration? The citizens of Saratoga Springs and New York deserve better.
This blogger was a guest on the Saratoga Podcast on Wednesday, June 19, 2024, where we discussed Saratoga Springs Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran and his Deputy, Stacy Connors, dropping a $49,946.60 bill for their $1,250.00 per hour Manhattan attorney on the city. The still unnamed attorney is representing them in the on-call scandal.
We also discussed a proposed order by the Attorney General’s office that, among other things, would prohibit the police from charging demonstrators for any misconduct below a misdemeanor. For example, the city could not charge them for blocking traffic or disrupting a City Council meeting. I am working on a long post analyzing this bizarre document.
Moran’s and Connors’ $1,250/hr Manhattan Attorney Bill Still Not Produced by Sanghvi
At last night’s Saratoga Springs City Council meeting, Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi pulled the item from her agenda that proposed to give Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran and his Deputy Stacy Connors $49,946.50 “to be used in responding to the subpoena served on them by the District Attorney’s office.”
They were apparently supposed to give this money to an unnamed attorney for performing unknown tasks. No bill or invoice for services was presented with this unusual resolution. As of today (June 19, 2024), other members of the Council and the public have yet to see an accounting of what this money will pay for.
My sources tell me Moran and Connors have engaged a Manhattan attorney who is charging a “discounted” rate of $1,250 an hour. This bill seems to be only for services provided to answer a subpoena. Sanghvi’s resolution also provides that “Dillon Moran and Stacy Connors may continue to request additional reasonable legal fees or expenses from time to time….”
It is my understanding that it is unprecedented for the Council to give money to individuals to pay their legal fees rather than to directly pay the bill submitted by an attorney. While public officials are allowed to hire a lawyer of their choice, note that the fees are required to be “reasonable.” This means not only an evaluation of the hourly fee but also, for instance, a review of the tasks performed and the number of hours billed to carry out that task. To my knowledge, no such review has taken place by the City Attorney, yet the Council was asked by Finance Commissioner Sanghvi to give the money to Moran and Connors anyway.
It is also unclear if the city requires any kind of vetting process before city officials hire private attorneys. In any case, it was revealed at the Council meeting that the scope of the State Police investigation of the on-call pay scandal has expanded to include members of the Finance and Public Works Departments as well as former Deputy Mayor Angela Rella. This will ensure that more legal bills will be coming before the Council for approval. The Public Safety Department has not been involved, as then Deputy Jason Tetu was the only deputy not to take advantage of the on-call pay offer.
It is ironic that both Moran and Sanghvi have bitterly complained about paying former Mayor Meg Kelly and former Public Safety Commissioner Robin Dalton’s legal bills that have been a fraction of the bill Moran and Connors have already presented at what may be only the beginning of the legal process against them. Sanghvi even argued at a recent meeting for a cap to be put on the amount public officials should be reimbursed for legal fees.
She did not bring up a proposal to cap fees again at last night’s meeting.
Minita Sanghvi has an item on her agenda for the June 18,2024, Saratoga Springs City Council meeting to pay $49,946.60 to an attorney to represent Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran and his deputy, Stacy Connors, related to the on-call scandal. Sanghvi also has a resolution to transfer the city funds to pay for this. The language of Sanghvi’s resolution also authorizes more payments to the attorney in the future.
An actual bill or contract from the attorney or even the attorney’s name is missing. As the cost seems excessive on its face, it is disturbing that, as far as one can tell, the City Attorney has not reviewed a bill to determine if it is reasonable. It is even more disturbing that Sanghvi would put this forward for payment given the lack of documentation of the work that was done and a breakdown of the fees that were charged.
Readers may forbear my skepticism, but it seems more than coincidental that neither Sanghvi nor Moran attended the pre-agenda meeting this morning (June 17), at which they would have had to explain all of this. When Sanghvi’s deputy was questioned about the resolution and transfer of city funds to pay this bill, she declined to answer, telling the Council members present that Sanghvi would address the resolution at the Tuesday night meeting.
This is part of an ongoing pattern where Moran and Sanghvi add items after the pre-agenda meeting. This deprives the Mayor and other Commissioners of the ability to prepare for the Council meeting and denies the public of notification of the actions they are going to bring forth.
Here is a press release from Saratoga Springs Republican Chairman Mike Brandi and Sanghvi’s resolution.
SSSGOP Calls on City Council to Reject Moran’s Request for Taxpayer Funds for Private Attorneys to Respond to Criminal Subpoena
June 17, 2024
The Saratoga Springs Republican Committee is calling on the city council to reject the proposed resolution advanced by Commissioner of Finance Minita Sanghvi, which would provide $49,946.60 to pay the bill of a private attorney retained by Commissioner of Accounts Dillon Moran and Deputy Commissioner Stacey Connors in their defense against the criminal investigation related to the on-call scandal.
State Law and Public Officer Indemnification
Firstly, under state law, public officers are only entitled to indemnification in criminal matters after charges are dismissed or they are found not guilty. Taxpayers should not be burdened with the costs of a public official’s defense if there is potential for guilty conduct. This principle ensures that public funds are used judiciously and not in defense of potentially criminal actions.
Locally, Section 9-1 of the City Code provides for indemnification and defense of city officers in legal actions arising out of their official duty or scope of employment. It is an absurd proposition for one to claim that their official duty includes potentially criminal conduct. Certainly, the city would not be paying for a criminal defense attorney if an elected official were driving drunk in a city vehicle. This situation is no different.
Lack of Transparency and Adherence to City Policy
Secondly, neither Commissioner Moran nor Deputy Commissioner Connors have disclosed the identities of the attorneys they have hired. Nor have they provided a copy of the bills that are to be paid with this $49,946.60. Moreover, the city’s purchasing policy has not been followed to ensure that the city is obtaining a fair rate for these legal services or that the city is protected in the case of vendor misconduct. Attorneys retained by the City are required to produce evidence of certain insurance requirements, which has not occurred here. Finally, Section 8.1 of the City Charter makes it clear that only the Council may engage legal professionals. Moran has no independent right to retain counsel for himself at the cost of the City. Transparency and adherence to established procedures are fundamental to maintaining public trust and fiscal responsibility.
No Demonstrated Conflict or Incompetence in City Attorney’s Office
Thirdly, there has been no demonstration that the City Attorney’s Office is conflicted or incompetent in handling the subpoena. Precedents such as the cases of former Mayor Kelly and former Commissioner of Public Safety Dalton only involved the allocation of outside counsel after it was clearly established that there was a conflict of interest in them sharing counsel with the city. This crucial step has not been met in the current situation.
Chairman’s Statement
“Commissioner Moran’s brazen attempt to siphon taxpayer funds for his personal legal defense slush fund is not just inappropriate, it is an outright abuse of his position,” said SSGOP Chairman Mike Brandi. “The residents of Saratoga Springs should not be forced to bankroll his legal troubles, especially when there is no legitimate reason to bypass the City Attorney’s Office. Moran should not be allowed to play fast and loose with the law and then expect taxpayers to bail him out when he is found with his hand in the cookie jar. This blatant disregard for protocol and transparency is a slap in the face to every taxpayer and yet another blight on Moran’s already tattered record.”
Background on Investigation
The Saratoga County District Attorney has initiated a probe related to on-call pay for Saratoga Springs Deputy Commissioners. On April 24, 2024, Saratoga County Judge James Murphy III authorized subpoenas that were served on the city on April 25, 2024. The investigation is looking into misconduct regarding the claiming of thousands of dollars of on-call pay by certain city officers.
The SSGOP stands firm in its commitment to fiscal responsibility and transparency in government. We urge the city council to reject the request for taxpayer-funded private attorneys for Moran and Connors. It is imperative that taxpayer money is protected and used appropriately, ensuring that public trust is upheld.
Please contact Mike Brandi at this email with any questions.
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.
[An error was made. I put up a map of Saratoga Battlefield rather than the state park. This is the state park.]
Saratoga Springs Planning Board members Bill McTygue and Mark Pingle received major media coverage when in a report, they circulated, they proposed building a truck bypass through the southern end of the state park to remedy the problem of trucks traveling through the residential neighborhood of Van Dam Street.
I was surprised by Bill’s involvement in such a proposal. He was active in the city working for his brother, Public Works Commissioner Tom McTygue, when this bypass was proposed back in the ’90s. The state dismissed the idea for basically the same reasons as the points made in a recent paper written by Sustainable Saratoga.
I have sympathy for the Van Dam neighbors who must contend with the trucks that pass by their homes. It seems unfair, though, to offer them the illusion that the state would finance the huge project of a truck bypass through a state park given not only the cost but all the other issues raised in the Sustainable piece.
The following are excerpts from the Sustainable paper along with the paper itself.
The value of protected wild lands and public support for their preservation is greater than ever. The proposed route through the park would cross 2,000 feet of high-quality wetlands, as well as tributaries to Kayaderosseras Creek, including Geyser Creek. Undisturbed forests and wetlands provide essential habitat for wildlife and mitigate the effects of climate change. Wetlands reduce downstream flooding, a benefit ever more important as the frequency and severity of storms steadily increase. A renewed push for the construction of a major highway through the park would be met with a strong public outcry.
The construction of a truck bypass highway, where proposed, would violate the New York State Open Space Conservation Plan. The Open Space Plan calls for actions to further protect the streams and wetlands in the Kayaderosseras corridor. The acquisition of nearby upland areas, as proposed by the planning board members, is not an objective of the Open Space Plan and would not compensate for the impacts to Kayaderosseras tributaries and the extensive destruction of valuable wetlands that would result from highway construction.
The bypass project would be very costly and would have to clear several governmental hurdles. The construction of a bypass highway through the state park would have enormous financial and environmental costs. The source of funding has not been determined. The project would involve a transfer of jurisdiction from State Park land to a State or local highway department. It would involve the New York State Department of Transportation and likely require approval by the New York State Legislature. Members of the Assembly and Senate, many with State Park lands in their districts, would have a hard time justifying the alienation of parkland with uncertain benefits for a distant city. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, which has jurisdiction over the park, opposed the proposal last time and, based on the similarity of this proposal, would be confronted with the same environmental concerns.
