Confirming our previous reports of city's failure to follow proper procedure.
Finance Commissioner Raises Concerns Over Procurement Process
SARATOGA SPRINGS, N.Y. — The Finance Commissioner remains committed to transparency regarding the irregularities observed in the procurement processes. However, Dillon seems entrenched in his own interpretation of events.
During the pre-agenda meeting, Minita clarified an item on her agenda—the transfer of $87,160 from the City’s contingency fund to supplement the 2024 budget allocation proposed by Mayor Kim.
She reiterated the improper bidding process for the shelter project, emphasizing that the requested funding was initially set at $300,000. Contrary to this, the Mayor sought an additional $87,160, a figure that wasn't part of the shelter's committed amount.
Despite Minita's assertions, Dillon maintained that the bidding was conducted correctly, citing the bid's specified amount. However, our investigations have shown that the originally requested sum was absent from the bid documents. Furthermore, evidence exists of the Mayor consistently advocating for a $300,000 allocation for shelter funding in the 2024 budget.
Minita reminded Dillon of the Mayor's ultimatum: either provide $300,000 or initiate a re-bidding process. Angela Rella's confirmation in June supported the necessity of re-bidding and indicated a contract termination by December. The truth of the matter is evident to all, Dillon.
Ethical Concerns and Potential Audits
Credit to the Finance Commissioner for consistently highlighting procedural violations, substantiated by discussions across multiple City meetings and comprehensive documentation. With this wealth of evidence, the Comptroller's office should easily discern the irregularities during their audit—it's a clear-cut case.
However, an unanswered query remains: why didn't Minita raise concerns earlier, considering her involvement from the project's inception? The transfer of funds based on a flawed Request for Proposal (RFP) and potential communication with the bidder regarding shelter funding before and possibly during the bidding process could be viewed as unethical and strictly forbidden.
Her compliance with Mayor Kim's directives might have exposed her to risks associated with not disclosing additional disbursed funds.
FOIL Requests and Legal Ramifications
The Comptroller's office is aware of significant procedural errors during the original RFP process, indicating a failure to adhere to state and city procurement policies. Persisting in denying these obvious violations of purchasing laws could render city employees and officials involved in this situation liable for neglecting their fiduciary and legal duties to taxpayers.
The continued disregard for fulfilling FOIL requests sets the stage for yet another potential Article 78 judgment against the city, with resultant costs.
During the recent City Council session, the approval of $2,500 for court-ordered attorney fees to a Latham-based attorney representing a citizen—due to the City's failure to provide FOIL documents—marked a fitting moment.
Simultaneously, a citizen addressed the Council, highlighting the non-response to his October FOIL request. Despite follow-ups, he received no information and threatened to file an Article 78 against the city for breaching FOIL guidelines.
The residents' request centered on documentation of the recipient of the October Opioid Settlement payment, a topic previously discussed by Mayor Kim during the October meeting. Mayor Kim had mentioned the probable allocation of these funds to RISE.
The speaker, an attorney involved in lobbying for these settlements, informed the Council about the specific guidelines for using opioid settlement funds. He stressed that directing these funds to a homeless shelter do not align with the established usage guidelines.
Another worry centers around the potential misallocation of opioid funds in paying RISE, the vendor, an amount surpassing the agreed $239,385 without the necessary resolution or council vote.
The lack of a transparent paper trail concerning the opioid settlements implies potential misappropriation, further exacerbated by a breach of City procedures.
Not Everyone Supports the Shelter
During the public comment period, another resident urged the City to shut down the new shelter, reiterating concerns previously expressed. Back in May, this individual cautioned the Mayor against rushing the shelter's opening, citing future safety issues.
During the recent session, the resident provided specific reasons and examples supporting the urgent need for the new shelter's closure.
Contract Validity and Missed Opportunities
The ongoing allocation of taxpayer funds to an organization potentially violating contractual terms has raised serious doubts about the validity of the contract. By bypassing bidding requirements, there's a possibility that more qualified agencies were overlooked, possibly resulting in missed opportunities.
Homeless shelters frequently attract interest from non-profits and investors due to their potential profitability. This underscores the crucial necessity for transparent and lawful procurement practices in these ventures.
Comments