Awarded Shortly After James Towne's Generous Campaign Donation to Mayor Kim
Saratoga Springs, NY - The intricate web of political donations, contracts, and city administration in Saratoga Springs has recently come under intense scrutiny, with fresh revelations shedding light on what appears to be a tangled and perplexing nexus of influence and decision-making.
Moving Saratoga Forward has unearthed not just one, but two contracts awarded to the Towne Law Firm, raising significant concerns about the connections between political contributions and the allocation of city contracts.
The Towne Law Firm initially sparked controversy with its $10,000 contract, intended for a targeted workplace investigation of another City Council member. The timing of this contract award and its subsequent revelations about political donations have left many questioning the integrity of the city's political processes. James Towne's financial support extended to Mayor Kim's campaign, as well as other Democratic causes, bringing into question the impartiality of contract awards within the city's administration.
Mayor Kim's acknowledgment of James Towne's campaign contribution added fuel to the fire. In response to an inquiry, Mayor Kim pointed out that only two responses were received following the Request for Quotes (RFQ) sent out on October 5th by his Deputy Mayor, Angela Rella. Despite the limited response, the contract was granted to the Towne Law Firm during the October 17th City Council Meeting. This revelation left many in the community uneasy, wondering whether this was merely the tip of the iceberg in a wider narrative of political influence in the city.
The uncovering of a second contract, this time totaling $5,000, voted on and signed by the Mayor during the August 1st City Council meeting, has added further complexity to the narrative. This contract was awarded to the Towne Law Firm in July, shortly after a sizable donation by James Towne to Mayor Kim's campaign. The sequence of events surrounding this contract unveils a series of intriguing developments.
The timeline unfolds as follows:
July 7th: An RFP was issued for Legal Services for the License Bureau, specifically related to Short-Term Residential Rentals.
July 20th: Bids for the contract were scheduled to be opened.
July 20th: Four bids were submitted to the City.
July 23rd: James Towne donated $500 to Mayor Kim's campaign.
July 26th: A memo was issued by Deputy Commissioner Connors, recommending the award of the contract to the Towne Law Firm, despite Towne's bid being far from the lowest. The decision to deviate from selecting the lowest bidder was not adequately justified, and no explanation was posted from the Commissioner of Accounts regarding this choice.
July 28th: The Towne Law Firm was awarded the bid, and a contract was signed.
August 1st: The Mayor authorized and the City Council voted for the Mayor to sign the contract.
The most glaring issue that arises from this timeline is the lack of transparency in the decision-making process. The absence of evidence on the agenda or at the council meeting to support the Commissioner of Accounts’ claim that the Towne Law Firm's significantly higher bid represented the best value is a significant concern. Additionally, the conspicuous absence of Towne's proposal in response to the RFP has raised questions about whether the Deputy or Commissioner of Accounts had prior discussions with Mr. Towne before the RFP was issued and the contract was awarded.
The lack of documentation surrounding this contract award further fuels suspicions. The city has faced criticism for tailoring Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and Requests for Qualifications (RFQs) to potential awardees, prompting questions about favoritism in the city's administrative processes. Moreover, the connection between Mayor Kim and Warren County, and Towne's affiliation with the Warren County Bar Association, has intensified suspicions of external influences in the contract award process.
Intriguingly, videos from the August 1st City Council meeting have added layers of complexity to the narrative. Mayor Kim's attempt to explain his plan for adding city attorneys to legal contracts and his request for a friendly amendment have raised concerns about his ability to articulate and lead effectively. The videos also cast doubt on the resolution to involve city attorneys in legal contracts and whether it ever transpired. In one video, the Commissioner of Accounts acknowledges the mayor’s request to alter the contract before signing, adding city attorneys to the agreement.
What is most puzzling is the selectivity in examining this specific contract during the August 1st City Council meeting. The Commissioner of Accounts even posed this question, inviting scrutiny of the motivations behind this particular contract's focus. The complexity of these issues has left many in the community bewildered, and they are left to question the motives and actions of the city's leaders.
These recent developments have prompted the Saratoga Springs community to reevaluate the political landscape and the decisions being made by their city leaders.
Is there a connection between this August 1st contract and the October contract, both of which remain active concurrently through December 31, 2023? As we contemplate the intricate series of events surrounding these contracts, several pertinent considerations emerge:
During their meeting on July 15th, the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee expressed their concerns about the behavior of Montagnino, despite having endorsed him as a candidate.
Towne's contract was awarded following his bid submitted on July 20th.
Mayor Kim's attempt to integrate members of his department into the Accounts Department contract raises questions about potential ulterior motives.
In October, Towne was tasked with investigating Montagnino's behavior, coinciding with the period just before early voting.
The question that looms large is whether these occurrences were part of a larger strategic plan concocted by Mayor Kim and his associates to remove the incumbent Commissioner of Public Safety from office?
These facets of the narrative continue to confound observers, inviting speculation about the underlying motivations and the extent of strategic coordination.
The Saratoga Springs community is actively following this intricate web of contracts, political donations, and city administration. The stakes are high, as the community seeks clarity, transparency, and accountability in its political processes. In the coming days and weeks, residents will likely demand answers and transparency from their city leaders. As this story continues to evolve, the future of Saratoga Springs' political landscape hangs in the balance, with its residents eagerly awaiting a resolution to these complex and controversial matters.
Comments