Otis:

You ask several things of me: to “renounce any association with [the Dart] mailer
and apologize to Kristen Dart for the ill will it created;” to “rescind [my]
endorsement of John Safford;” and “to return the $1000 contribution.” I shall
address each item seriatim. I ask that you circulate my response in its entirety to
the full membership of the City Committee, as they deserve a full explanation as I
deserve the opportunity to be heard.

1. The Dart Mailer:

It is impossible for me to renounce any association with the Dart mailer. I wrote
every word of its content; I approved its layout; I authorized its distribution to
recipients I chose. I stand behind the mailer because it accurately informs the
voting public of Ms. Dart’s supportive stance toward Saratoga BLM. You (and
others) call the mailer “racist,” though no one who has used that epithet has
supported the allegation with a single fact.

Let me walk you through the mailer step by step. It is arranged to constitute a
logical argument whose conclusion is stated first: “A vote for Dart is a vote for
BLM.” All the statements that follow, on both sides of the piece, are the premises
from which that conclusion may be reasonably inferred.

There are two premises stated on one side of the piece. Both are quotes, with
attribution, from the Daily Gazette. The article from which they are drawn was
written by a reporter who interviewed Ms. Dart before writing it. Ergo, it is
reasonable for me to believe in the accuracy of the statements. They indicate that
Ms. Dart “is generally sympathetic to Saratoga BLM’s ideology” and that Ms. Dart
“has the group’s backing, including financial support.” This latter assertion, by the
way, may readily be corroborated by looking at Ms. Dart’s campaign finance
disclosures filed with the New York State Board of Elections. They do indeed show
a $300 contribution from Alexis Figuereo, the self-described “co-founder” of
Saratoga BLM.

The other side of the mailer contains two “bullet points” that give evidence as to
what Saratoga BLM’s ideology is. The first, “Saratoga BLM was ‘disheartened’ by
the unanimous jury verdict exonerating the Saratoga Springs Police Department in
the Darryl Mount case,” is drawn from the statement dated October 17 and posted
on Saratoga BLM’s Facebook page. Indeed, space limitations on the mailer
prevented the inclusion of the entire statement, which was introduced with the
claim, “the justice system continues to fail the Black community, even in death.”
The statement went on to say, “Saratoga Black Lives Matter is devastated to
announce that the jury has sided with the City of Saratoga Springs” [emphasis
mine], and called the verdict a “grave miscarriage of Justice.”

You are well aware that I am fully familiar with the Darryl Mount case. I released a
37-page report on it in February 2022, my second month in office. The trial of the
case lasted more than two weeks. During that trial, multiple eyewitnesses with no
connection to law enforcement testified to having seen Mr. Mount lying
unconscious in the alley before the first police officer arrived. Not one witness
testified to a single observation that would have led to the conclusion that the
responding officers ever made physical contact with Mr. Mount.

In light of the overwhelming evidence supporting the jury’s verdict, it is beyond

irresponsible for Saratoga BLM to claim that “the justice system continues to fail
the Black community” and that the verdict was “a grave miscarriage of justice.”
Such statements only serve the self-interest of race-baiting hucksters who feed on
discord. The Darryl Mount verdict should signal an end to a disturbing episode in
the life of Saratoga Springs, not the beginning of a new one.

Thus, from Saratoga BLM’s response to the Mount verdict, one may readily glean
insight into the group’s ideology. And voters should know that Ms. Dart, who seeks
to become the civilian official with policy-making authority over the Saratoga
Springs Police Department, is “sympathetic” to that ideology.

But there is more: the mailer states, “Saratoga BLM also recently hosted a pro-
Hamas rally outside City Hall.” That the group hosted a rally is not a disputed fact.
That it was held outside City Hall – without the legally required permit, by the way
– is also not in dispute. Apparently, however, there are those claiming that the rally
was not “pro-Hamas.” I watched the rally myself, first from a window next to the
doors of City Hall, and later from a surveillance camera monitor at the police
station. The rally was held on Thursday, October 19, fully eight days before Israel
had even begun its ground operations in Gaza. The rally was advertised (again on
Saratoga BLM’s Facebook page) as supporting a “ceasefire.” What actually took
place, however, was a protest at which Palestinian flags were waved and chants of
“from the river to the sea” could be heard. Again, this is evidence of the ideology
to which Ms. Dart is sympathetic.

In the midst of all this, we must also not forget one overarching reality: that
Saratoga BLM is responsible for having shut down our democracy, not once but
twice. In the history of our City, it had never before happened that a group of
protesters caused the abrupt termination of a City Council meeting. It has now
taken place on two separate occasions, thanks to Saratoga BLM. And now, since
February 7, 2023, it is more the norm than the exception that individuals affiliated
with Saratoga BLM take the microphone at the public comment period of City
Council meetings to spew hate-riddled filth into the record. Are these the
“Democratic values” to which you refer in your email, Otis? I hope not.

Finally, as to this point, let me remind you of what Mr. Figuereo has repeated a
number of times: that Saratoga BLM is not affiliated with the national Black Lives
Matter movement. I accept his representation as to this fact. Accordingly, my
assessment of Saratoga BLM should not be read as a statement of my opinion on
the national movement. That said, in case you or any other readers may have gotten
bogged down in my earlier analysis, let me state my opinion clearly: Saratoga
BLM is a hate group. They have screamed “Murderer!” in the faces of our Police
Officers; they have defiled themselves with the filth they spew at City Council
meetings; and they seek to sow division, not healing. They have no legitimate
place in an ordered democratic society.

2. The Safford Endorsement:

I will not rescind my endorsement of John Safford. Ron Kim has proven himself
unfit to serve as Mayor. Chris Mathiesen, though he agrees with my approach
toward those who would destroy our democracy by disrupting City Council
meetings, is mired in the past – a fact underscored by one of Ron Kim’s own recent
mailers. John Safford is a mature, level-headed, even-tempered individual with
proven leadership ability who simply wants the business of the City to be
conducted calmly and fairly. The mere fact that he happens to be the Republican
nominee is essentially irrelevant.

As to Mr. Kim’s lack of fitness, I need not dwell on his curse-riddled hallway
tirade; his malfeasance in the handling of the City’s risk and safety department; or
his inability to maintain decorum at City Council meetings. Rather, I will speak to
his repeated violations of his oath of office.

Shortly after I caused a summons to be sent to one of the fomenters of the February
7th disruption of a City Council meeting, Mr. Kim drafted a proposed resolution
that would hold me civilly liable for my own defense and indemnification in any
lawsuit arising out of the prosecution of disrupters. At the top of Mr. Kim’s
resolution were the words, “City Attorney.” When the matter came up for
discussion, it was revealed that the City Attorney had never even seen the proposed
resolution and that, in fact, it had been authored by Mr. Kim, who had deceptively
tried to give the document some aura of independent legal authority. More
importantly, however, Mr. Kim knew – or had reason to know – that the proposed
resolution violated both the City Charter and New York State’s Executive Law,
both of which provide for the defense and indemnification of public officials.

A second instance of Mr. Kim’s violation of his oath of office may be seen arising
out of the mishandling of the Department of Risk and Safety. As we all know, after
the retirement of Marilyn Rivers, Mr. Kim did not fill the position of Director of
Risk and Safety. Instead, he created – and got the approval of the Civil Service
Commission for – the position of Claims Coordinator. Nonetheless, this new
position remains unfilled and the City’s insurability has been severely
compromised as a result. I submit to you the reason why this essential position
remains unfilled: the job description for Claims Coordinator was carefully crafted
to allow Mr. Kim to appoint a specific individual to that position. That individual
currently serves Mr. Kim in an appointed position that will be terminated at the end
of this year should Mr. Kim not be re-elected. It is my belief that Mr. Kim is
holding the position of Claims Coordinator open so that he can do exactly what he
excoriated the previous administration for doing: appointing cronies to Civil
Service positions on their way out the door.

A third violation of Mr. Kim’s oath of office was his abuse of City process in
contracting out to a private law firm to investigate alleged “discriminatory
conduct.” This is nothing more than a personal vendetta of Mr. Kim’s against me.
The evidence: City policy requires confidentiality in handling employment
discrimination allegations. But Mr. Kim called Rose Schneider from the Times
Union to inform her that the subject of this proposed investigation was myself.
Indeed, I learned for the first time that Mr. Kim wanted me investigated when Ms.
Schneider called to ask me about the matter. Moreover, Mr. Kim knows full well
that matters relating to pending litigation should be handled in Executive Session.
He betrayed his oath of office by placing the discussion and vote on the retention
of independent counsel on the regular agenda for the purpose of scoring political
points against me.

But above all this, the most disgusting example of Mr. Kim’s total lack of fitness
for public office is, in my opinion, the way he allowed me to be attacked at length
during a particular City Council meeting this past spring. Earlier in the day of that
meeting, I had emailed the entire City Council to alert them of the possibility of
my being unable to attend that evening’s meeting. I had a particularly invasive
medical procedure relating to my recent cancer diagnosis scheduled for that
afternoon. I chose to have that procedure done without sedation so that I could
attend the City Council meeting.

That evening, with Mr. Kim fully aware of my medical condition, he allowed the
worst of the Saratoga BLM filth to be spewed at me. Not once did he attempt to
restrain the barrage of curses and vilification. Rather, he allowed the public
comment period to continue until every member of the organization who wanted to
take a turn screaming at me had had his or her fill. This was beyond shameless for
Mr. Kim, not to mention the other Council members who sat silent while this abuse
was being perpetrated.

3. The $1000 Contribution:

Finally, I will not ask my committee to return the $1000 contribution. What I will
do, however, is this: inasmuch as my campaign is almost entirely self-funded, I
will incur a $1000 personal liability to offset any personal gain that might have
flowed from the contribution from the Democratic Committee. I will donate $1000
to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, of which I have been a member
for over two decades. The donation will be made expressly “in honor of those
members of the Saratoga Springs (NY) Democratic Committee who support the
right of the State of Israel to exist as a bulwark against the hatred and intolerance
that perpetrated the Holocaust and that regrettably continues into the present day to
threaten those who wish to live in peace, dignity and mutual respect with their
neighbors.”

Thank you, Otis, for the opportunity to be heard.

Respectfully,

Jim Montagnino