City Council

CLOSE CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS City Council Meeting City Council Room December 2, 2022 Special City Council Print 3:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL SALUTE TO FLAG PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD / 15 MINUTES PRESENTATION(S): EXECUTIVE SESSION: CONSENT AGENDA MAYOR’S DEPARTMENT ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT FINANCE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT 1. Discussion and Vote: Resolution Re. TRO SUPERVISORS ADJOURN Special City Council Meeting TRO Resolution December 2, 2022 December 2, 2022 CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS Special City Council Meeting City Council Meeting Room 474 Broadway 3:00 P.M. PRESENT: Ron Kim, Mayor – via Zoom Minita Sanghvi, Commissioner of Finance Dillon Moran, Commissioner of Accounts James Montagnino, Commissioner of DPS Jason Golub, Commissioner of DPW STAFF PRESENT: Angela Rella, Deputy Mayor Heather Crocker, Deputy Commissioner of Finance Stacy Connors, Deputy Commissioner of Accounts Jason Tetu, Deputy Commissioner of DPS Anthony Izzo, City Attorney EXCUSED STAFF: Joseph O’Neill, Deputy Commissioner of DPW (on leave of absence) RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS The proceedings of the meeting were taped for the benefit of the secretary and public record. Because the minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, the minutes are not a word-for- word transcript. CALL TO ORDER Commissioner Sanghvi called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. PRESENTATONS There were no Presentation(s). EXECUTIVE SESSION There were no Executive Sessions scheduled. CONSENT AGENDA Page 1 of 11 Special City Council Meeting TRO Resolution December 2, 2022 There were no Consent Agenda presented for the Special City Council Meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT Commissioner Sanghvi opened the public comment period at 3:05 p.m. Commissioner Sanghvi stated each speaker would have two (2) minutes to speak. Sanghvi stated any council member had the option of responding but were not required. Jane Weihe of White Street, Saratoga Springs, asked why the meeting was only offered on Zoom. Commissioner Sanghvi stated it is being lived-streamed and offered on Zoom. Weihe asked whether the legal notice was correct, since it referenced the Saratoga County Supreme Court and Weihe did not understand which court was being referenced. Commissioner Montagnino stated the reference was to the Supreme Court in the State of New York in Saratoga County. Weihe questioned the validity of the legal notice since it referenced the Saratoga County Supreme Court and not the Supreme Court in the State of New York. Eileen Finneran, Saratoga Springs, stated to be a former Deputy Mayor of Saratoga Springs. Finneran stated it to be unfortunate the Special Council Meeting had been scheduled for Friday at 3:00 p.m. instead of during the normal hours for City Council Meeting. Finneran stated to recommend the Council work with the District Attorney, the NYS Attorney General, NYS Police and other involved agencies of the investigation. Finneran pleaded the Council not to waste taxpayer monies on hiring unnecessary, outside legal counsel. Finneran urged the Council to vote no on the resolution. Chris Mathieson of Friar Tuck Way, Saratoga Springs, stated past press conferences would have been conducted by the SSPD and not elected officials. Mathieson stated past press conferences by the SSPD had involved consultation with the County District Attorney, City Attorney and the City’s liability insurance carrier. Mathieson stated the coordination effort would provide protection against civil and criminal lawsuits against the City. Mathieson stated the 1st Amendment did not give elected officials the right to release extensive information and video surveillance recordings. Mathieson stated the Council doing nothing at this time would do nothing to hurt anyone. Mathieson stated not to imagine the Council had anything to add to what had already been disclosed during the Mayor and Commissioner Montagnino’s press conference. Mathieson stated the Council hiring legal counsel to fight the District Attorney’s Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) would not be a good use of the City’s funds. Mathieson stated the TRO resolution to basically be a City Council temper tantrum. Noreen Jones, stated to be a local coordinator/social worker in the greater Capital District for thirty (30) years. Jones stated she no longer lived in Saratoga due to not being able to afford to live in Saratoga Springs. Jones stated to be aware of potential affordable housing coming soon. Jones stated the gag order situation to be out of hand. Jones stated to be a proponent to close bars earlier. Robin Dalton of Caroline Street, Saratoga Springs, read from a letter from Saratoga County District Attorney Karen Heggen, which had been sent to the Council earlier in the day. Dalton read, “…despite my warnings regarding the impact dissemination of the videos and other information beyond assuring the community there was no threat to the public at that time, the Public Safety Commissioner and the Mayor offered speculation and inaccuracies to the media while outside City Hall crucial evidence was still being gathered on Broadway by the police. It was a disservice to all involved in this incident, but also to the members of the media who unknowingly shared the inaccuracies, misinformation, and conjecture disseminated by the Public Safety Commissioner and the Mayor. I cannot understate how much the unprecedented amount of misinformation so early in this investigation has tainted witness accounts and impeded our pursuit of justice.” D.A. Karen Heggen Page 2 of 11 Special City Council Meeting TRO Resolution December 2, 2022 Dalton stated to be appalled and embarrassed by the leadership of the Commissioner of Public Safety and the Mayor. Dalton stated if the Commissioner and the Mayor would have listened to law enforcement and the D.A. instructions and see beyond arrogance and vanity, the press conference put the investigation in jeopardy. Dalton stated for the Council to want to continue down the path to litigation of the TRO, was not what the Council Members were elected to do. Dalton stated the Commissioner of Public Safety had offered a resolution for a vote on Monday, November 2, 2022, which the Council Member had not had time to read, the City Attorney had not read, and the resolution not been posted on the agenda for public review. Bill McTygue, Saratoga Springs, stated to have been in the City long enough to know when the City’s interests were not being well-served. McTygue stated the action of the D.A. Office had been to muzzle the leaders of the community and public officials, and possibly the SSPD. McTygue stated the D.A. Office had tried to prevent public officials from appropriately and responsibly talking about an incident which happened on Broadway that the community is concerned with. McTygue asked where the District Attorney was during the Darryl Mount incident, which cost the City a lot of time, money, and energy. McTygue stated the City should expect the County’s cooperation while the City solves the issues it is facing. McTygue stated the City had every right to hire an attorney to protect its Home Rule interest, without County interference. McTygue stated the County takes sixteen million dollars out of the City of Saratoga Springs each year. Mike, asked what had the Commissioner of Public Works and the Mayor tried to prove. Mike asked the Commissioner Montagnino what had been the reasoning for the press conference after they had been told not to disclose information. Commissioner Montagnino stated the record of the press conference had stated the explanation for the press conference within the first sentence. Mike asked whether the protocol for an investigation had been for the City to answer to the State agency or whether the City took the lead. Sam Brewer of Lake Ave, Saratoga Springs, stated some decisions are mistakes depending on the person making the decision. Brewer stated the Council had made a serious mistake and cleavage within the Democratic Party. Brewer stated there to be a difference in individual and collective rights. Brewer stated evidence had been released which would be used in 2 to 4 separate investigations. Brewer stated it may have been an 11th Amendment violation for the select Council Members to have released video during the press conference. Brewer stated the release of video of an ongoing investigation had crossed the line to infringement of person’s rights in a jury trial. Tim Buckley of Long Island and Skidmore College student, via Zoom, asked whether the Council were concerned regarding the morality of a wide-reaching gag order to the full staff of City employees. Buckley stated it to be upsetting that something pertaining to public safety cannot be discussed. Buckley stated more paranoia arises when subject matter cannot be discussed. Commissioner Sanghvi closed the public comment period at 3:25 p.m. PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT 1. Discussion and Vote: Resolution Re: TRO Commissioner Montagnino read the resolution into the record. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS: Page 3 of 11 Special City Council Meeting TRO Resolution December 2, 2022 That the actions of Karen Heggen, District Attorney of Saratoga County, in seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) directing that “The Mayor of Saratoga Springs, the Public Safety Commissioner of Saratoga Springs, and all other elected or public employees of Saratoga Springs acting in their official capacity, shall refrain from making any further public comments characterizing any evidence, speculating as to the quality, quantity, or clarity of any evidence, and presenting opinions or legal conclusions as to the ongoing investigation [into the events of Sunday, November 20, 2022],” are condemned in the strongest terms for the following reasons: 1. District Attorney Heggen obtained the TRO illegally, in violation of 22 NYCRR § 202.7(f), by failing to provide the City with notice and an opportunity to be heard; 2. District Attorney Heggen acted improperly in presenting the proposed TRO to a Judge in the afternoon of the day before Thanksgiving, thereby depriving the City of the opportunity to respond in a timely fashion; 3. District Attorney Heggen acted improperly in seeking to prevent the City from being heard on the TRO for a full month; and, most importantly, 4. District Attorney Heggen knows, or has reason to know, that seeking a TRO which precludes every public employee of the City of Saratoga Springs, including elected officials, from exercising their free speech rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is a gross violation of her Oath of Office Commissioner Montagnino moved and Mayor Kim seconded for the City Council to accept the resolution regarding the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The resolution had been tabled. Commissioner Montagnino requested the letter from District Attorney Karen Heggen to be part of the official record. Commissioner Sanghvi read the letter from District Attorney Karen Heggen into the record. This correspondence is directed to you as the Saratoga Springs City Attorney. I would respectfully request that a copy of this letter be shared with each member of the Saratoga Springs City Council prior to their scheduled meeting today. The morning of November 20, 2022, began with the energetic collaboration between a variety of agencies. Amid an unprecedented officer-involved shooting in downtown Saratoga Springs, my office was coordinating with the New York State Attorney General's Office, the New York State Police, and the Saratoga Springs Police Department. Unfortunately, that collaboration ground to a standstill when I privately expressed concerns to the Public Safety Commissioner and the Mayor prior to their scheduled press conference- specifically, I was concerned with their intentions to publicly share sensitive, incomplete, and potentially prejudicial information without any further input from law enforcement. Page 4 of 11 Special City Council Meeting TRO Resolution December 2, 2022 As I am sure you are already aware, the first forty-eight hours of a criminal investigation are the most important. I maintain that the Mayor and Public Safety Commissioner's unilateral decision to publicly share video footage of the incident, together with the reckless speculation tQ.at assigned levels of culpability to the parties involved, has irreversibly impaired this investigation. After the Public Safety Commissioner continued to discuss details of the investigation repeatedly and publicly, I pursued my only remaining option by way of a Temporary Restraining Order. It was not my first choice, but regrettably it was necessary. This was not the first time that the Public Safety Commissioner interfered with a criminal investigation. As I expressed to the Public Safety Commissioner and the Mayor that morning, my major concern was and continues to be the integrity of the ongoing criminal investigation. It was never my goal to prevent the dissemination of information relevant to public safety, nor does the Temporary Restraining Order prevent discussions about future public safety or policies. Rather, as the Temporary Restraining Order specifies, my go was to prevent " ... releasing any further street camera footage, police officer body camera footage, surveillance footage, private video footage, audio footage, audio transcript, or any other information that would tend to identify witnesses, their statements to law enforcement, or describe in detail any physical evidence or resulting scientific tests associated with the ongoing investigation" as well as cease " ... continued public comments characterizing evidence, speculating as to the quality, quantity, or clarity of evidence, and presenting opinions or legal conclusions as to the ongoing investigation." As the District Attorney, it is my job to seek justice without fear or favor. Despite my warnings regarding the impact dissemination of the videos and other information beyond assuring the community there was no threat to the public at that time, the Public Safety Commissioner and the Mayor offered speculation and inaccuracies to _the media while outside City Hall crucial evidence was still being gathered on Broadway by the police. It was both a disservice to all involved in this incident, but also to the members of the media who unknowingly shared the inaccuracies, misinformation, and conjecture disseminated by the Public Safety Commissioner and the Mayor. I cannot understate how much the unprecedented amount of misinformation so early in this investigation has tainted witness accounts and impeded our pursuit of justice. It is the responsibility of public safety officials to exercise caution in deciding when and what to share concerning ongoing criminal investigations. My source of conflict is with the Mayor and the Public Safety Commissioner's decision to ignore all input when they unilaterally shared sensitive information containing misstatements, mischaracterizations, and speculations. This drastically impaired one of the most serious investigations of my tenure-as well as potentially violated the Constitutional rights of those on Broadway that chaotic morning. These actions were also in direct violation of the Saratoga Springs Police Department Media Policy. My office will do what is necessary to protect the integrity of criminal investigations in Saratoga County in order to be able to seek justice in each case. In order to avoid similar issues in the future and rather than pursue lengthy, counterproductive litigation at the expense of taxpayers, I invite you to contact me directly and immediately to begin addressing our mutual goals and concerns. This is not the first, nor will it be the last, major event in Saratoga Springs-let us meet and discuss a mutually-agreeable direction for this case Page 5 of 11 Special City Council Meeting TRO Resolution December 2, 2022 that will maintain the standard for all cases to come. Respectfully yours, Karen Heggen, District Attorney Commissioner Montagnino stated the decision the Commissioner and the Mayor had reached on the day of the press conference, November 20, 2022, knowing social media had already carried dangerous conspiracy theories and misinformation. Montagnino stated he ran his campaign on the platform of transparency, and felt it to be important the public had enough information ot form some idea of the nature of the situation that arose during the events of November 20th. Commissioner stated his concerns as Commissioner had been with the perception of the SSPD and how they dealt with the life and death situation. Commissioner stated the scenes from around the country unfold differently when the public had been informed and when evidence is withheld. Montagnino stated it had been the Commissioner and the Mayor’s decision to release approximately two (2) minutes of videotape to give the public a reasonable picture of a dangerous situation handled professionally by the men and women of the Saratoga Springs Police Department. Montagnino stated not to have heard any criticism of the police department from the public. Montagnino stated the District Attorney ended her letter to the City with an invitation to avoid unnecessary litigation. Montagnino stated the District Attorney had begun the litigation and the City had not. Montagnino stated the D.A. did not give notice of intent to seek a restraining order in spite the fact the law requires it. Montagnino stated the D.A. is sworn to uphold the law and with the TRO had chosen to ignore it. Montagnino stated he speaks for himself and believes the Council would agree the City does not want litigation either. Montagnino stated if Heggen would seek to withdraw the application and seek to have the gag order vacated, the City would welcome those actions as an olive branch and allow for productive conversations going forward regarding policy for future situations. Mayor Kim stated per the NYS Open Meeting Law and the resolution adopted by the Council, Council Member were allowed to videoconference into the meeting when extenuating circumstances arose. Mayor Kim stated he fully supported what Commissioner Montagnino had put together for the Special City Council Meeting. Kim stated the letter from the District Attorney mentioned cooperation between the City and District Attorney’s Office which Kim stated he supported. Kim stated on the morning of November 20, 2022, there had been a gathering within the Mayor’s Office with Commissioner Montagnino and senior staff before the press conference to discuss how to express to the public there was no ongoing threat to the public from the gunfight on Broadway and what the City Officials knew and did not know. Kim stated during the middle of the conversations the District Attorney marched in and stated they were not to have the press conference. Kim stated there had been no conversation or negotiation what should be said at the meeting. Kim stated there had been no recognition of what the Mayor and the Commissioner of Public Safety meant to the population and the requirement to inform the public what had just happened in their city. Kim stated there was no recognition of free speech of public officials. Kim stated there was a demand there not to be a press conference. Kim stated when they has asked the District Attorney Heggen what had been the reason for Heggen to not to want the investigation to go forward, the Mayor quoted Heggen as stating it would ruin the investigation. Kim stated it had been ironic the people criticizing the present Council are members from former city administrations that could not control council meetings. Commissioner Sanghvi asked City Attorney Izzo to comment. Attorney Izzo stated he drafted an alternative resolution to Montagnino’s resolution, after the last meeting on Monday, November 28, 2022. Izzo stated he had presented the draft to Commissioner Montagnino and had conversation with the Commissioner about the wording, since it had been the Commissioner’s initiative. Izzo stated Montagnino stated he would prefer to proceed with the resolution presented by Montagnino at the last Council Meeting. Izzo stated the Council has the December 2, 2022, letter from District Attorney Heggen, Page 6 of 11 Special City Council Meeting TRO Resolution December 2, 2022 which he had not heard much commentary from the Council on yet. Izzo stated he had served the present Council and past Council’s for thirty-seven (37) years and had participated in the drafting and discussion of many inter-municipal agreements. Izzo stated the results had generally positive, and if another is participating in bad faith it does not take a long time to find out. Izzo stated a suggestion of a mutual agreed upon solution may be possible. Izzo suggested the Council may want to consider a mutual agreement with the District Attorney’s Office. Izzo stated there to be potential to make a mutual agreement contingent on the withdrawing of the current temporary restraining order, which Izzo offers to the Council for consideration. Commissioner Golub stated Izzo’s resolution and removes the four (4) points which were in Commissioner Montagnino’s resolution. Golub stated in Izzo’s version of the resolution had been the Council disagreed with the temporary restraining order as the main point. Golub read City Attorney Izzo’s draft resolution into the record. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga Springs, NY, as follows: WHEREAS, last week the Saratoga County District Attorney obtained a Temporary Restraining Order in Saratoga County Supreme Court, directing that "The Mayor of Saratoga Springs, the Public Safety Commissioner of Saratoga Springs, and all other elected or public employees of Saratoga Springs acting in their official capacity, shall refrain from making any further public comments characterizing any evidence, speculating as to the quality, quantity or clarity of any evidence, and presenting opinions or legal conclusions as to the ongoing investigation [of certain named events on Sunday, November 20, 2022]",and WHEREAS, this Council understands the importance of preserving evidence in legal proceedings. However, it disagrees with the Temporary Restraining Order. The Order improperly precludes City officials and employees from exercising their rights to free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Furthermore, the Order is excessively broad in $Cope and severely impedes the ability of City officials in carrying out their duties to inform the public about important matters in our City. The Council's responsibility to the people demands nothing less, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. This Council finds that the Temporary Restraining Order, as issued, is inappropriate. 2. This Council authorizes the hiring of legal counsel to forthwith initiate proceedings to rescind the Temporary Restraining Order. Commissioner Golub asked Attorney Izzo whether Izzo removed the legalize verbiage from Commissioner Montagnino’s version due to the language being inaccurate, inappropriate, or unnecessary. Izzo stated he took a different tact to the resolution and tried to emphasize the opinions of the Council at the November 28, 2022, meeting, which had been the Council had a duty to keep the public informed and that duty is one of respect. Izzo stated Montagnino preferred his own resolution, which Izzo reiterated he had every right to do. Golub asked Izzo whether Montagnino’s resolution would Page 7 of 11 Special City Council Meeting TRO Resolution December 2, 2022 move the ball forward in what the City Council is trying to accomplish. Izzo stated it to be his understanding the Montagnino resolution is allowing the Council to hire an attorney. Golub stated Montagnino’s resolution does not have a provision for the hiring of an attorney. Izzo stated it is his understanding there is a proposal the Council hire an attorney. Commissioner Golub stated there are no provisions to hire an attorney in the resolution, and Commissioner Sanghvi stated the hiring of an attorney is not on the table anywhere. Izzo suggested Montagnino’s resolution be modified to include the hiring of an attorney if the Council were still considering the hiring of an attorney. Commissioner Moran stated the incident from a few weeks ago had changed the community forever. Moran stated the event had demonstrated the heroics of the men and women of the SSPD. Moran stated he did not fault the intent of the Commissioner of Public Safety or the Mayor in their wanting to bring forth information about the incident to the community. Moran stated with a little extra thought and consideration before the press conference the officer’s name would have been redacted from the body camera footage. Moran stated the press conference had been an arbitrary decision made by the Mayor and the Commissioner of Public Safety without the consultation of the rest of the City Council. Moran stated the other Council Members were not given notification of a press conference. Commissioner Moran stated the County’s District Attorney’s Office is no friend of the City of Saratoga Springs. Moran stated the D.A. had turned a blind eye to the fraud and forgery during the last election. Moran stated the D.A. Office pick and chose political fights. Moran stated the TRO had been politically motivated to harm the Mayor, Commissioner of Public Safety, and the rest of the Council. Moran stated the Council should follow the lead of the criminal justice professionals. Moran stated SSPD Chief of Police Crooks stated the Council should not be talking about the incident and should follow the lead of the SSPD and NYS Police. Moran stated the resolution would continue to distance the Council from what they should be focused on. Moran stated the County had no interest in the City of Saratoga Springs other than the revenue the city generates for the County. Moran stated the County need to assist the City to make the change the community is asking for with bar closure times. Moran stated in the past he had been against the government interference in telling a business how and when to operate. Moran stated the world had changed and there is more anger and frustration with people carrying guns and knives on the streets and into local establishments where alcohol is served. Moran suggested the Council to take District Attorney Heggen up on her offer and to pass a resolution which would state the Council would meet with her when the TRO is withdrawn. Moran stated the resolution as written pushes the council down the road that does not further the Council’s agenda. Moran stated to agree with City Attorney Izzo. Commissioner Golub stated to agree with Commissioner Moan that the TRO resolution does not move the ball forward in a significant or productive way. Golub stated the Council needs to support local law enforcement and there is a role for the City Council to play and stated it not to be the role the Council is presently playing. Commissioner Sanghvi stated to agree with Commissioners Moran and Golub. Sanghvi stated the SSPD were heroic during there interactions on the evening of the event on Broadway. Sanghvi stated the Mayor and the Commissioner of Public Safety had the best intentions with the press conference to quell the rumors and that had been there purpose. Sanghvi stated there may had been errors in the press conference which D.A. Heggen had pointed out. Sanghvi stated she had called Heggen’s Office to get clarification to understand what the District Attorney meant regarding by her statement of mischaracterization and speculations. Sanghvi stated the City Council choices were City Attorney Izzo’s resolution which was not on the agenda, Commissioner Montagnino’s resolution, and Commissioner Moran had the option of making a friendly amendment or his own Discussion and Vote resolution. Commissioner Moran suggested Commissioner Montagnino’s resolution be tabled until the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, December 6, 2022, with updates added to the resolution to include a timeline for D.A. Heggen to remove the restrictions of the TRO. Page 8 of 11 Special City Council Meeting TRO Resolution December 2, 2022 Mayor Kim stated his concern about Commissioner Moran’s approach is that the District Attorney is not in the position to negotiate the removal of the TRO. Kim stated a judge had given the directive and issued the order. Kim stated the only recourse for the Council would be to challenge the gag order in court, which Kim stated to believe would be the right thing to do to serve the taxpayers of the community. Kim stated the judge who would be reviewing the appeal of the TRO would want to know the consensus of the Council Members and why the gag order is wrong. Kim stated to defeat a TRO time is of the essence. Kim stated the purpose would be to show that the order is not something that can be lived by. Kim stated to be willing to negotiate what is in the resolution. Kim stated if the City Attorney recommended additional elements to be included in a revised resolution, Kim stated he would be wiling to discuss the proposal. Kim stated it would not be appropriate to go the District Attorney and agree to talk with the TRO in affect, since it is not the District Attorney’s order, but an order from a judge. Kim stated if the Council does not want to act on the TRO resolution today then the Council should act on it at the next City Council meeting. Kim stated it to be critical to determine the rights of the elected public officials and their constituents. Kim stated the court standard of a appeal of a TRO is to challenge the order quickly. Commissioner Golub stated the TRO resolution as written does express the Council would be challenging the TRO in court. Commissioner Sanghvi asked Commissioner Montagnino whether the Council could ask the District Attorney to vacate the TRO, with a timeline of a response by the D.A. to occur before the December 6, 2022, Council Meeting. Sanghvi stated if the City Council did not hear back from the D.A. to have a meeting to discuss by the date of the Council Meeting, then the Council would pass a resolution to include the hiring of an attorney to move forward with appealing the TRO. Commissioner Montagnino stated the Council could appeal to the D.A. to withdraw the TRO application. Montagnino stated the Civil Practice Law of Rules state an order issued can be modified and withdrawn by right at the request of person who applied for it up until the point the City responds. Montagnino stated the judge has to grant the withdrawal, if there is no response from the City. Commissioner Moran asked City Attorney Izzo whether the legal facts were correct in the statements made by Commissioner Montagnino and Mayor Kim. Attorney Izzo stated it to be his understanding the party who makes a motion has the right to withdraw the motion. Moran stated it to be on record the intent of the Council and there is a Request for Quote (RFQ) to hire legal counsel to represent the Council, which may be on the next Council Meeting’s agenda. Moran stated the Council had a few days to engage with the District Attorney to gauge her intent of the offering of an olive branch to the Council. Moran stated to be in favor of giving the District Attorney the opportunity to meet with the Council. City Attorney Izzo stated the City Council had shown it does not want to hire legal counsel to combat the TRO order. Izzo stated the Council had received correspondence from the District Attorney which expressed she had not wanted to bring the order forth. Izzo stated there are government officials on both sides stating a court proceeding is not what they want. Izzo stated it would be unlikely the judge would oppose an action to withdraw or vacate the TRO based upon the expression from so many elected and appointed officials. Commissioner Sanghvi suggested the City Council table the motion and recommended the City Attorney to reach out to the District Attorney’s Office to request the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to be vacated and that the City Council would be open for a discussion post the vacated order. Sanghvi stated if the District Attorney is not amendable to the Council’s proposal the Council would bring up the possibility of hiring Counsel on Tuesday, December 6, 2022, City Council Meeting. Mayor Kim suggested to put a motion on the table which states the City Council requests the City Attorney to send a letter, by the close of today’s business, which states the District Attorney requests the Page 9 of 11 Special City Council Meeting TRO Resolution December 2, 2022 judge to vacates the TRO order so the Council could negotiate per the D.A. December 2, 2022, letter to the City Council with a deadline. Kim stated the Council would then vote on the motion so the City Attorney can say the City Council unanimously adopted the motion. Kim stated he wants to know by December 6, 2022, whether the D.A. choses to vacate the order or whether the Council would be hiring counsel to litigate. Commissioner Golub stated he would like to see the conversation with D.A. Heggen to be constructive and without threat. Golub stated he felt the D.A. would only come to the table if the Council showed they understood her perspective for the order as well. Golub stated the District Attorney felt the Mayor and the Commissioner had done something wrong by sharing information of an ongoing investigation and she may consider vacating the order if there would be an agreement there would be no further sharing of information of the ongoing investigation. Golub stated if the City Council was not willing to agree not to share additional information on the case, then there is no point in having the conversation or a meeting with D.A. Heggen. Golub asked the Council where they sit on that point. Mayor Kim stated he stands behind his statements at the press conference on November 20, 2022. Kim stated D.A. Heggen had been asked before the press conference to define the specific issues that should not be in the public discourse and the D.A. did not respond to those questions and just stated no press conference. Kim stated not to have issue with a letter to the District Attorney from the City Attorney requesting the vacating of the TRO order and then the Council would be able to have discussion with the D.A. regarding specific issues that the D.A. believes would be beyond public discourse. City Attorney Izzo stated to get the letter out by the end of the day, he may send via email. Mayor Kim stated Deputy Mayor Rella and the Mayor’s support staff could assist in drafting the letter to the District Attorney. Commissioner Moran stated a resolution not to be necessary for City Attorney Izzo to draft the letter to the District Attorney. Commissioner Montagnino stated he would table his TRO resolution. Izzo stated he would send a draft of the letter to the Council before sending it to the Saratoga County District Attorney’s Office. Commissioner Sanghvi stated City Attorney Izzo would draft a letter requesting vacating the TRO resolution and the District Attorney would have until Tuesday, December 6, 2022, to reply. Commissioner Sanghvi moved and Commissioner Moran seconded to table the TRO resolution and for the City Attorney to respond to the D.A. with a specific deadline. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ADJOURN Commissioner Moran moved and Commissioner Montagnino seconded to adjourn the meeting at 4:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Brindisi Page 10 of 11 Special City Council Meeting TRO Resolution December 2, 2022 Assistant City Clerk Approved: April 4, 2023 Vote: 5–0 Page 11 of 11