At the August 20, 2024, Saratoga Springs City Council meeting, Accounts Commissioner Dillon Moran presented the Department of Public Works agenda as the Commissioner of Public Works position is now vacant with the departure of Jason Golub for a position with the State of New York. I'm not sure exactly why Moran is playing this role. Nevertheless, Moran was the one to move the item on the Public Works agenda for the city to pay the attorney fees of Jason Golub and his former Executive Assistant Brooke Van Buskirk. They had incurred the fees using Oscar Schreiber as their counsel for interviews by the New York State Police regarding the ongoing criminal investigation into the on-call scandal.
The ensuing discussion about paying the bills for Golub and VanBuskirk was tortured. I have included the full video of that conversation at the end of this post for readers willing to endure the entirety of Moran and Sanghvi's dubious arguments.
Key to all this is the lawsuit, which is still awaiting the judge's decision, brought by Mike Brandi, the city Republican chairman. Brandi challenged the Council's 3-2 decision on July 2, 2024, to pay the legal bills for Dillon Moran and Stacy Connors amounting to $60,000. Brandi argued several reasons why the Council should not have approved these bills. The most relevant one is Brandi's contention that the city code for indemnification is too broad and conflicts with New York State law. I discussed this in an earlier post, but the basic issue is that while the city code allows for indemnification in civil and criminal matters, the state only provides coverage in a criminal case if the city employee/official is found innocent or the prosecution drops the case. Bills incurred in criminal cases are to be paid upfront by the defendants. They can then be reimbursed if they are cleared of the charges. The bills Moran and Connors incurred were related to the investigation of the on-call pay scandal, which is a criminal case. The bills put forth for Golub and Van Buskirk are for representation in the same criminal investigation.
Moran Rants, Sanghvi Pontificates, Coll Reasons
The evening's discussion on Moran's motion involved the usual rants by Moran, dubious legal advice from Finance Commissioner Minita Sanghvi, and repeated patient attempts by Public Safety Commissioner Tim Coll to explain to them the legal issues involved.
At one point, Moran attacked Coll, demanding to know how he knew the lawyers' bills were related to a criminal matter. Coll's reply to Moran was simple: This is a NY State Police investigation, and they only investigate criminal matters.
Moran then launched into a rant denouncing Mike Brandi and his lawyer, Chris Obstarczyk, for suing the city, calling them "grifters" and inaccurately describing a previous lawsuit they won against the city.
Commissioner Sanghvi offered her own skewed legal theory about the city's obligation to pay the lawyers' bills by claiming that, notwithstanding the ongoing state police investigation and the seating of a grand jury over the on-call scandal, the matter can only be categorized as criminal once someone is charged. Coll attempted, without success, to explain to Sanghvi that this was not the case. Sanghvi continued to repeat this incorrect piece of information as if saying it more than once could somehow make it true.
In another piece of magical thinking, Sanghvi and Moran also dismissed the idea that Brandi might sue the city again if the Council voted to pay Golub's and Van Buskirk's bills. Moran opined that he did not operate in a world of hypotheticals. Sanghvi was similarly skeptical but insisted that if Brandi sued successfully, the city could claw back the money, not from the lawyers but from the city employees who hired the lawyers. She actually said that should the city lose, she would just go over to DPW and get the money from the two employees (I am not exaggerating, as the video documents). Even if Golub and Van Buskirk still worked for the city, which they do not, there is every reason to expect they would not simply acquiesce to Sanghvi's request, and that this would lead to more lawsuits this time with the unappealing scenario of the city suing its own employees.
Coll's Amendment
Commissioner Coll was the voice of reason. He tried to repeatedly explain that the main issue before the court in the case of Moran and Connors' bills was whether or not the city could legally pay upfront for lawyers for city officials/employees in criminal cases. This same issue applied to Golub's and Van Buskirk's bills. A decision in the Moran/Connors case would give the Council guidance on how to deal with the new bills. Coll offered an amendment indicating that he thought Schreiber's bills were reasonable and that he should be paid, but only pending a favorable decision for the city in Brandi's most recent action re Moran and Connors bills.
During the discussion, city attorney David Harper would only say that it would be legal to pay the bill. That is really not the central question. Strictly speaking, paying the bill on the evening of the Council meeting was legal as it was not at that moment being challenged in court. It would have been helpful, however, if Harper had volunteered what problems paying the bill might precipitate if the court should rule against the city and/or Brandi sued over paying the new bill.
The real question was whether paying the Golub/Van Buskirk bills was prudent until the judge determined whether such a payment is lawful.
It will be a mess if the city pays the bill and Judge Freestone determines that state law overrules our code.
While Mayor Safford voted for Coll's amendment, he turned around and voted to pay the bill when the amendment failed to pass. The motion to pay Schreiber's bill passed with Moran, Sanghvi, and Safford voting in favor. Coll abstained, citing that he did not have enough information. It was troubling that Safford appeared so focused on the fact that Schreiber's bill was reasonable (which it was) that he appeared oblivious to the broader legal issues.
Yet Another TRO
On August 26, 2024, Brandi's attorney, Chris Obstarczyk, successfully sought a temporary restraining order blocking the city from paying Schrieber's bill, pending a decision on many of the issues he asserted in the Moran/Connors lawsuit.
In the August 27, 2024, edition of the Times Union, reporter Wendy Liberatore wrote:
Commissioner of Finance Minita Sanghvi, who voted to pay Golub and Moran's bills, said the city is obligated to pay their specialized attorneys, regardless of who they defend.
"If we hire somebody we have to pay them and that's important," Sanghvi said. "You can't be making it political."
She also said that not paying vendors can affect the city's credit. Before the second suit was filed, she also assured the council that the city could claw back the funds from Golub and VanBuskirk if a judge deemed the city should not have paid Schreiber. Either way, she said Schreiber should be paid and that they can't function by speculating if a second lawsuit would be filed.
Liberatore August 27, 2024
I couldn't agree more with Sanghvi that if the city hires someone, the person should be paid, but there are some important caveats that she has ignored.
First, the city did not hire Oscar Schreiber. He was employed by Golub and VanBuskirk.
Secondly, there is the issue of what is legal. Hiring someone for some purpose must meet the legal obligations of the city and the state of New York. Whether Golub and VanBuskirk have a right to an attorney in a criminal matter is currently before a judge. Commissioner Sanghvi continues to deny that legitimate legal questions exist regarding the eligibility of Golub and VanBuskirk to counsel paid for by the city.
Consider that Commissioner Sanghvi's job is to scrutinize all bills to ensure they comply with the laws of the city and the state. She seems to want to dismiss legitimate arguments about the wisdom and legality of paying these bills by falsely suggesting any opposition or even hesitation is "political."
In fact, it is highly questionable that declining to pay an illegal bill would damage the city with credit agencies, but paying such a bill would do little to help the city maintain the credibility and trust of its insurance carrier.
Commissioner Sanghvi also improperly reduced the situation to whether or not to pay Schreiber when the amendment offered by Coll was that Schreiber's bills should be paid if Judge Freestone determined that they fell within the law. No one at the Council table argued simply that the bills should not be paid. How Commissioner Sanghvi arrived at that understanding raises serious questions about her competence or just as troubling that she was attempting to "politicize" the issue herself.
Sanghvi Gets A Lawyer
Sanghvi announced at the Council meeting that the State Police have contacted her to schedule an interview related to the on-call scandal and that she has gone ahead and secured legal representation at $525.00 an hour [Readers may recall that Sanghvi has consistently dismissed the on-call issues as frivolous]. This is a higher rate than Robin Dalton's and Meg Kelly's attorneys, whose bills Sanghvi continually complains about. She went on at some length that, at the request of the City Attorney, she has provided the hourly rate and scope of work even though she was not required to since Moran, Connors, Golub, and Van Buskirk had not provided that information. Despite Commissioner Coll's attempts to explain to her that since it was a criminal matter, it was unclear whether the city could legally pay her bills, she seemed unable to grasp the concept.
Commissioner Sanghvi is in a dicey situation. As the Commissioner of Finance, it is her department's responsibility to protect the city by scrutinizing all bills. She also has broad authority over whether to pay bills submitted to her office. Strictly speaking, this whole scandal could have been avoided had her office rejected the bills submitted by three deputies who were clearly not eligible to be paid for being on-call. What her culpability is in this matter remains to be seen.
At $525.00 per hour, she could encumber quite a bill, which may or may not be covered depending on Judge Freestone's decision.
Judging by her remarks and demeanor during the discussion, she appears oblivious to her situation.
Sanghvi Lawyers Up
Schreiber Bill
No comments:
Post a Comment