Saratoga Springs Mayor Ronald Kim will be facing an official complaint against his actions in office. A small group of residents have penned an official complaint to the State Supreme Court, Appellate Division's Attorney Grievance Committee asking that the committee “take seriously” the charges they lay out against the mayor.
The group references a complaint from the desk of Judge Jeffrey Wait. In a written decision on the matter of the People v. Church Street Trust, Wait told Kim, that Kim “does not, nor can he, represent the city in this proceeding.” He cannot be both the mayor and the city attorney, the judge said.
[The story was reported first by FoothillsBusinessDaily.com here.]
The group is Jane Weihe, a registered Democrat, who chastised the city council at their most recent meeting for their support of Kim on a number of matters; John Kaufmann who writes the Saratoga Springs Politics blog and has been working to force the city to find a city attorney who lives within the city limits; and Michael Brandi, an attorney and local Republican.
[Read more about Weihe here. Read more about Kaufmann here.]
Kim is a licensed attorney in New York and has a legal practice outside of his work as mayor. He has told FoothillsBusinessDaily.com that he is not taking payment for work as the city attorney and is not receiving payment at his law firm from the city. In fact, his law practice is suffering because of his work as mayor, he said.
In the letter to the grievance committee, the group claims Kim has possible conflicts of interest; says he has failed to appear in court; cites Judge Wait’s claim that Kim misled the court and a defendant by telling the defendant he need not appear in court; and is using letterhead marked as “City Attorney” while he is also mayor, which may sow confusion in the public’s mind.
The conflict of interest charge stems from the city’s charter, the group writes. The charter establishes the mayor and four commissioners as politically elected officials and as heads of their departments.
The group contends that acting as the mayor and head of that department, he cannot also act as the city attorney and be disinterested legal counsel for the other departments and the city. It’s an inherent conflict of interest, they claim.
“Unsurprisingly, commissioners regularly have different opinions and disagree on the best course of action for matters facing the City. A fact that renders competent, unbiased legal advice especially important,” they write. “The City Council never consented to Mr. Kim acting as attorney for the City and, upon information and belief, there is no written engagement letter or other document detailing the terms of the representation of the City by either Mr. Kim or Ms. Rella.”
Kim has said the charter allows the mayor to appoint a city attorney and does not stop him from appointing himself. Rella is the deputy mayor, a paid position appointed by the mayor.
The question of the city’s attorney has been a thorn in the mayor’s side since he took office in January. As mayor, he is allowed to release the previous city attorney, which he did at the start of his term. He has wanted to find an attorney to fill the role as city attorney part-time, but his first nominee backed out, he said.
Kaufmann has been arguing on his website that the mayor must choose an attorney who lives in the city. In an email to FoothillsBusinessDaily.com, New York’s Department of State has said that the city can enact a law that would allow them to hire an attorney from outside city limits.
Complaints to the Attorney Grievance Committee are investigated by a staff attorney who reports to the committee.
The investigations by the Grievance Committee are generally kept confidential, and a number of outcomes may occur in confidence. The complaint may be dismissed, or the lawyer—Mayor Kim in this case—may get a letter explaining where the committee sees trouble, even if it is not officially misconduct on the attorney's part. That communication would be confidential.
Only in the case that the the committee issues a censure of the attorney—again, of Mayor Kim—or that they suspend or disbar the attorney, are the relevant details made available to the public, an email from NYCourts.gov says.
This story is developing. The group is holding a press conference later today, Thursday Feb. 10.