Council holds public hearing on draft indemnification ordinance; no vote tonight

The Saratoga Springs City Council held a public hearing on a proposed ordinance to amend Chapter 9 of the city code—"Defense, Representation and Indemnification"—but took no vote and left the hearing open for a later meeting.

City Attorney (speaking at the hearing) said the draft was modeled on state law and intended "to lawfully provide the widest possible scope of defense and indemnification to our city's officers and employees acting within the scope of their public employment." He told the council the draft tracks Public Officers Law sections 18 and 19 and expressly provides coverage "when the need for counsel arises and the city attorney finds there's a conflict of interest for civil and criminal legal proceedings and also explicitly for witnesses in an investigation, whether it's civil or criminal, who are named in a subpoena." He said a more detailed provision describing the nuts-and-bolts of hiring outside counsel had been pulled for further council discussion.

Why it matters: The ordinance would set the city's procedures and scope for paying legal fees for covered employees and witnesses. The city attorney said the draft responds to a recent judicial ruling (referred to in the hearing as a Judge Walsh decision) that limited use of the city's current Chapter 9 in at least one on-call pay investigation. That decision, the city attorney said, prompted the rewrite to align more closely with state law.

During public comment, resident Gordon Boyd said he welcomed the changes but urged the council to add a specific definition of "city" in the ordinance text because the opening paragraph refers both to actions brought "against the city" and actions the city might bring. Boyd said the new draft "seemed to more closely track articles 18 and 19 of the public officers law," but he said some charter implications may remain and that he might offer additional comments at the next hearing. Another speaker, identified only as Carlos, offered remarks not directly on the ordinance and did not affect the council’s decision to keep the hearing open.

The mayor said the council wants the ordinance "done right" and that the hearing would remain open; the council will likely vote after further revision and a subsequent public hearing.

Provenance: The city attorney's explanation and residents' comments were given on the public-hearing portion of the meeting; the council explicitly stated it would not vote on the ordinance at this meeting and would hold another hearing.