The Noam Bramson Ethics Transcripts Part III: New Rochelle Mayor Plots to Rescind Gill Appointment

NEW ROCHELLE, NY (August 7, 2022) -- I got sidetracked from the criminal probe of New Rochelle Mayor Noam Bramson over the past month. On July 10, I published The Noam Bramson Ethics Transcripts Part I: New Questions About New Rochelle Mayor Noam Bramson, et al. On July 13, I published The Noam Bramson Ethics Transcripts Part II: Mayor’s Pursuit of New Rochelle Development Commissioner Position.

Thank you for reading Words in Edgewise. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Preamble

In Part I of the series, I wrote:

I will publish a story on the allegation that Mayor Noam Bramson sought four votes, a majority on Council, sufficient to terminate the City Manager if he did not acquiesce to the Mayor’s desire that the City Manager rescind the appointment of Kathleen Gill as Deputy City Manager.

On June 27, I obtained a copy of a records subpoena and reported Westchester County Grand Jury Investigating New Rochelle Mayor on Criminal Public Corruption Charges, a job scheme worth $2.75 million.

The Bramson Subpoena is signed:

By: Brian P. Weinberg

Assistant District Attorney

(914) 995-3407

bweinberg@westchesterda.net

Brian Weinberg previously investigated public corruption in Mount Vernon for the state Attorney General’s Office, and now leads non-law enforcement public corruption probes for the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office.

SEE: Not the First Rodeo for Prosecutor Investigating New Rochelle Mayor

Not a single media outlet has reported that the Mayor of the seventh-largest city in the state is under criminal investigation for public corruption by a grand jury.

I was intending to write Part III on the “rescind” topic by mid-July, but Michael Vaccaro and Malik Fogg, Mimi Rocah and Matt Costa got in the way. So, three weeks later, I now turn my attention back to Noam Bramson and his plotting to undo the appointment of Kathleen Gill as Deputy Manager by City Manager Charles B. Strome on March 17.

It will be helpful for readers to establish in their mind the timeframe for the events that were under investigation by the New Rochelle Ethics Board and referenced repeatedly in the transcripts by familiarizing themselves with the three documents below, so click on all three and study them a bit.

Everything that happens in this phase of the investigation kicks off with these March 17 documents: an email from Strome to Council at 12:05 pm, an email forwarded to me at 1:10 pm, the memo from Strome to Council attached to those emails, the article I published at 1:30 pm based on the memo.

Got it? OK. Now let’s get into the transcripts.

Words in Edgewise is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

During his second round of testimony on April 12, 2022, the City Manager explained how he learned the Mayor was talking to Council members about the Gill appointment. Keep in mind, as you read this, the Mayor testified to discussions he had with four Council members about the Gill appointment. He confirmed those discussions, but disputed the intent behind his initiating those discussions. His account and even the location of those discussions differ, sometimes significantly, from the testimony of other Council members.

MR. STROME: I was told that the mayor made several calls about this subject. The four people he called were Council member Fried, Council member Lopez, Council member Kaye, Council member Ramos Herbert to see if there were four people, because we have a seven-person council, who had the same concerns as him and that if there were, he was going to come talk to me about those concerns. So, I was told that, but that was third-hand information, somebody telling me something somebody else told them, so I was told that and in fact, I was also told that he was, you know, or maybe I just deduced that he was gathering three votes to terminate my employment which is the reason I went to see him the next morning and that's when he said, “no, I was just concerned about the timing of the deputy city manager appointment”.

Q. Was there any reason that he needed three other council people before he could express that opinion to you, that he was concerned about the timing of it?

MR. STROME: That has never been the history. If he or any member of the council had a concern, they were always free to talk to me individually. No one has ever come to me as a group, actually, so I was a little miffed there was an attempt to get three votes because we never had that kind of dynamic. If it is a concern about a personnel appointment or some other matter that is going on, council people and several mayors, two of them, anyway, have never felt the need to get votes to come in. That's what I was told was going on so, you know, if he was getting votes to come talk to me that would have been a very unusual circumstance. That was never required before nor does it really matter, honestly.

STROME: I think the charter is relatively clear all these appointments are at the discretion of the city manager, so in this instance, if somebody came and said they had seven votes I would have said I don't really care, this is my appointment, and I am making it. So that aspect of the events surprised me.

Ethics Board member David Blumenthal, transparently advocating for the Mayor, attempted to establish the idea that Bramson did nothing wrong because he had no known prior history of ethics complaints — a point awkwardly shoved into the Advisory Opinion at his insistence. It backfired spectacularly in a brief exchange with Strome.

BLUMENTHAL: Has there been any instances prior to what you testified for the last hour or so where the Mayor may have broached the line and ever spoke to you about personnel issues that made you feel you are uncomfortable or even gave you agreement but was always something that now in retrospect could have been construed as in violation or possible issues with the charter?

STROME: No.

BLUMENTHAL: This issue that has occurred over the last I will call it 12, 13 months is something that is out of character and it's unusual that he may or may not have broached something that whether he thought it was an issue, you did sense that it was an issue?

STROME: I have had discussions, informal discussions, with members of council related to personnel but they were just informal discussions. This was much more involved.

Strome’s answer highlights the unprecedented nature of Bramson’s actions making what he did worse not better despite Blumenthal’s best efforts.

Asked a simple question about why Bramson felt the need to get four votes to raise the Gill appointment issue with Strome, Bramson resorts to deceptive responses including indignation and exaggeration until his lawyer intervenes.

Q. Is it correct the City Council ultimately hires the city manager?

A. Yes.

Q. By a vote of four the City Council can fire the city manager?

MR. LEVENTHAL: These questions have already been asked and answered.

BRAMSON: I will say again, though, if the implication of your question is that every expression of opinion to the city manager comes with the implicit threat that you will be fired, then I think it is a complete mischaracterization of how we actually relate to each other in this building.

Q. The question was much simpler. Is it correct that the City Council, by a vote of four, can fire the city manager?

...

Extensive argument between Meisels and the Mayor’s lawyer ensues.

...

MR. LEVENTHAL: We'll stipulate City Council can fire the city manager

MEISELS: Good.

Sometimes Bramson referred to having the support of Council members as having votes, but other times not. Regardless, he is seeking to have the support of the majority of council before going to Strome. He was asked about this by Miesels.

BRAMSON: I reached out to other members of the council not to solicit votes, there was no vote to be held on any of this but rather in the mode of consultation with colleagues to share opinions. I said I have a concern about this, here is why I have a concern, do you see it in the same way or do you see it differently, and if my concerns had been confirmed by other members of council then I would feel there was legitimacy in my bringing those concerns to the attention of the city manager who can do with it whatever he wants.

Nowhere in any of the transcripts does anyone, including the Mayor, give the explanation he gives to Miesels here: “I would feel there was legitimacy in my bringing those concerns to the attention of the city manager”.

The Mayor says he needs a majority of Council in order to give legitimacy to his supposed concerns about the timing of the Gill appointment.

Legitimacy is an interesting word choice by a Mayor known to choose his words carefully.

The implication then for the Mayor is that with just two votes in hand, any concerns he would express to the City Manager would not be legitimate. Put another way, his actions would be illegitimate.

This explains why it so important to the Mayor to blame the City Manager for raising the Gill appointment even indirectly on that Friday morning after the Salgado/Gill announcement.

It is not simply that four votes is enough to fire the City Manager but that firing Strome can be portrayed as a legitimate action on the grounds that the City Manager was defying the will of Council. As Bramson later testified, “I don't think any city manager would want to incur the displeasure of the governing body of the municipality”.

Al Tarantino testified that the City Manager called him repeatedly that same day, on March 18.

MR. TARANTINO: ...on Friday after this happened I then get a call from Chuck again that he was quite upset because he had heard that the mayor had reached out to other council members to take their temperature about going to Chuck about the appointment of Deputy City Manager Gill and he was quite upset on the phone about it and, you know, I said well, you know, you do the appointing, nobody else has the appointment and he said well, he had three votes but you need four, and of course the inference of that is that by saying that you are telling the city manager who four votes can remove from office that, you know, if we have four votes, and in fact I sent an e-mail to Chuck Strome the following day (Saturday, March 19) because I was pretty upset with what was going on. In fact, I got not only one call but three different calls from Chuck that day about what was going on with that appointment. You know, we went from the concern about the commissioner of development and all of a sudden now we were involved with the deputy city manager which wasn't something that was part of the entire process of the commissioner of development. This was something new that popped up after the appointments were made. He did bring up to me that, you know, who do you think, you know, are going to agree with him and I said well, you need four votes and I knew some of the council members and I knew some of them were not on board because the council members started, you know, talking to each other after this and it was clear I wasn't going to be called or Ivar Hyden wasn't going to be called because neither one of us would even consider something like that. It is not our position to do that. So then on the third call I got from Chuck was later in the day. It was probably around 6:00 and he was still quite upset that he had heard from the mayor and the mayor was talking about meeting with some of the council members, you know, just two at a time, him and two because you can't have more than three together; meeting two of them and discussing this appointment and, you know, that's when I really was upset, had trouble sleeping Friday night, I have to be honest because this is something that I never experienced. In 14 years I never, you know, seen anything like this and we have had some interesting people on council over the years that I would have probably anticipated this from but not from the people that were involved now, and I sent an e-mail to Chuck that stated that I would like an opinion and I then laid out what my concern was, was about if in fact what was happening with the council members and the mayor talking about getting four votes and to me that meant they were looking to eliminate the city manager if he didn't rescind the particular appointment, and also the issue about the commissioner of development position, were they ethic violations, were they charter violations or were they criminal violations? And I asked for an opinion and, you know, I asked for the opinion from the city manager who then in turn went out and got an opinion from an attorney. I don't have it with me. I don't know if you have it or not, okay. You do have it with the opinion?

Q. Right.

MR. TARANTINO: So the opinion, you know, laid out if these things were true, but that was the job of this Board to determine those kinds of things. So, you know, that's where everything ended with me as far as the process. I got that opinion and I decided to just hold on to it and wait and just see, you know, how the process played out but it gave me a little bit of comfort in knowing I wasn't, you know, totally off base in what I was seeing in front of me. I was very concerned but, you know, you give people the benefit of the doubt until you can prove otherwise and I wanted to make sure I wasn't going down a path that was the wrong path and that to me was very important.

Tarantino’s testimony takes the story up to Saturday March 19, the day before I filed my ethics complaint.

The transcript of his testimony depicts the Mayor engaged in what appears to be classic deceptive behavior throughout.

For example, when he says “most of us (Council members) have, at one point or another, shared personnel assessments with each other and/or offered suggestions to our management team” he is portraying his uncharacteristic actions in the days after the announcement of the Gill appointment as commonplace.

There is testimony from the Council members he called about the Gill appointment saying that the calls the Mayor made were not just uncommon but it was unprecedented for the Mayor to share personnel assessments with other Council members to offer suggestions to “our management team”.

Throughout his testimony, the Mayor attempted to play off his highly unusual calls about a personnel decision he admits was solely within the prerogative of the City Manager, one that had been made and publicly announced, to pedestrian conversations he has had with Council members about run-of-the-mill agenda items that are entirely within the prerogative of Council.

BRAMSON: It is the kind of conversation that members of council have on a regular basis, and also I have to say the kind of conversation that I and other members have on a regular basis where we do not feel restrained from expressing our opinions on a whole range of subjects. That is how a government functions well. At the same time we respect the division of responsibility and authority and we know that there are certain areas in which Chuck's decision is final and other areas which our decision is final, and I think to assume that every expression of opinion comes with it in implicit compulsion or threat, is really a gross distortion of how dialogue occurs within the government, and if one is to sort of embrace that as a view it would chill the kinds of discussions that public officials have to have to the point of paralysis. I am not being argumentative. I realize you have to ask these series of questions. I just want to make clear this is a fundamental mischaracterization, this complaint, of the nature, the content, the tone of the conversations that we had with ourselves and it is based on a view how public officials communicate with each other which is completely at odds with any sort of realistic notion of how a government would function.

Bramson is being argumentative. How do we know? Because he knows he is, to the point he feels the need to say, “I am not being argumentative”. That is what someone says who is being argumentative but does not want to be seen as being argumentative.

Bramson called two Council members afterward he testified to tell them what he said and what they can expect to be asked. Setting aside that these are additional examples of rather blatant witness tampering by the Mayor, and that he only called the two votes he had lined up against Gill, he describes the hearings as adversarial.

Sara Kaye said the Mayor called her to tell her about his testimony.

KAYE: He said that it went well. He told me the topics that were covered, and that it was more adversarial and formal than he had expected.

Yadira Ramos-Herbert said the Mayor called her to tell her about his testimony.

RAMOS-HERBERT: He did call he me to say -- an he said -- he framed the -- he said two things. One, he thought it was a bit more adversarial than he anticipated; and that the question about the -- that my name came up or -- not my name, but the question about when he talked to me about the economic development commissioner role was likely to come up.

In a future article on the Mayor and his lawyer, readers will see only two witnesses felt the need to bring a lawyer — Bramson and Kaye — but it is only Bramson’s lawyer, Steven Leventhal, who walks into the hearing in full rant mode, objecting to the Mayor being sworn, claiming the hearing is an ambush, saying the process is unfair, and saying “the mayor is not going to give sworn testimony” unless charges are proffered.

If the Mayor’s hearing before the Ethics Board felt adversarial it is because the Mayor did not want to give direct answers to simple questions and his lawyer did not want the Mayor to answer any questions at all.

At one point, when the Mayor is asked if four votes are required for Council to fire the City Manager, Leventhal directs his client not to answer setting him off on another rant.

MR. MEISELS: We have several choices. You can refuse to answer the question, you can take the Fifth Amendment if you want to. We got to do something with that question.

MR. LEVENTHAL: The last thing in the world that the mayor wanted to have have happened today was any kind of adversarial tone. He is here to cooperate.

MR. MEISELS: Answer the question.

MR. LEVENTHAL: This is not a good faith investigation by you.

In the end, only three people respond to questions using the word adversarial, Bramson’s lawyer, Ramos-Herbert and Kaye and the last two are testifying not about their own experience but to how Bramson characterized his hearing to them. No other witness characterized the hearings as adversarial.

If Bramson’s hearing felt adversarial to him and his lawyer there is only one reason: they were both hostile towards the Ethics Board from the moment they entered the room until they left.

The Mayor makes out as normal Council members discussing personnel decisions when it is not. He says “we respect the division of responsibility and authority”. He says “we know that there are certain areas in which Chuck's decision is final” while ignoring that the Gill appointment is one of those areas. He twists and exaggerates a limited question about a specific situation into “every expression of opinion”.

The issue is not about the Mayor expressing an opinion to the City Manager but, as the Mayor himself says, his canvassing Council members seeking to gain majority support for his position on the Gill appointment so he can go to the City Manager with four votes in hand to give what he calls legitimacy to his opposition to the Gill appointment. To everyone but the Mayor, going to the City Manager with four votes is a threat in and of itself regardless of what words are said or not said.

If a man walks up to you on the street, puts a gun to your face and holds his hand out, you know he is threatening to kill you if you do not hand over your money. No words are required for the victim to know they risk being shot if they do not comply. Four votes is a loaded gun under the City Charter. The Mayor had one round in the chamber, two in the barrel and was looking to Lopez or Fried to be the fourth round.

Not a single witness testified that there was anything normal about what the Mayor did in making those calls.

Fried describes a call from the Mayor about personnel matters as unprecedented.

BLUMENTHAL: ...how often do things like this, personnel discussions that happened on the 17th and the 18th, is that something that is unusual?

FRIED: Yes, for personnel discussion I believe this is my first in six years, my first personnel discussion.

...

It is unusual in that-- and you all know this, I just learned it, the only personnel decision that we have as council is hiring the city manager and so in that way it was unusual.

As the Mayor deflects questions on this point, he portrays his conversations as normal.

Q. Did you ever, in any of your conversations with any of those council people, mention to them that there were other council people that you had spoken to who shared your concerns?

BRAMSON: I may have. I don't remember. It is possible.

Bramson would have the Ethics Board believe he cannot recall saying he had the support of Fried and Kaye — or anyone for the matter — in his three-way phone call three weeks earlier.

Q. ....Did you ever make a suggestion that if enough people had the same concerns, that you might go to Chuck's office and discuss it with him?

Recall the Mayor has testified he sought four votes to have legitimacy when going to the City Manager about Gill. And Fried, Kaye and Lopez testified to this as well. In typical Ramos-Herbert fashion she said yes, no and she could not recall.

The answer to the question is a simple one-word answer: “Yes.”

Here is the Mayor’s answer:

BRAMSON: Only in the fashion that I already described. You know, members of the council and myself, we speak on a regular basis about lots of things as we should. We jointly share authority. As mayor I am one of seven. I don't have authority above and beyond them and so exchanging ideas and receiving each other's opinions is a normal and appropriate and necessary part of how we work, and so when you phrase the question as you did, to me it implies that the intent of these calls was to count heads and see if I got to four but that was really not the spirit of the calls, it was more to get other people's opinions and to determine whether my concerns were shared or not.

A person who is not being deceptive gives the simple one-word answer.

The Mayor gives a 128-word answer. He reads into the question a motive. He says, “when you phrase the question as you did, to me it implies that the intent of these calls was to count heads and see if I got to four.”

Look at the question again:

Q. ....Did you ever make a suggestion that if enough people had the same concerns, that you might go to Chuck's office and discuss it with him?

This is a straightforward question with a simple answer yet the Mayor begins with what is known in behavioral analysis as a referral statement, a deceptive verbal behavior in which a person refers to a previous statement.

The Mayor says, “Only in the fashion that I already described”.

He then uses another deceptive tactic called attack behavior. He impugns the integrity of Peter Miesels by portraying the question as manipulative — “when you phrase the question as you did” — and says there are implications embedded in it. It is a way of justifying his avoidance of a direct answer on the grounds that the question is a “trick question”.

The Mayor does not want to lie. He and his lawyer repeatedly express a desire not be viewed as “adversarial” or “argumentative” yet questions are often restated and reframed by them to be questions the Mayor can answer truthfully.

Bramson’s hearing is a master class in deceptive tactics: false denials, evasion, claims of faulty memory, failure to answer, procedural complaints, projection of blame, and more.

The hearing feels adversarial to Bramson because even though Meisels lets him (and his lawyer) give speeches and debate semantics to their heart’s content, once they have finished he goes right back to the question. He is doing his best to not let Bramson off the hook. Bramson does not like it.

Now that you know a bit about behavioral analysis and deceptive behaviors, keep an eye out especially when reading testimony from the Mayor and Yadira Ramos-Herbert.

Consider these behaviors as the Mayor is asked about his history of going to the City Manager with other Council members.

Q. During the entire time that you have been mayor, actually the entire time that you have been a councilman and then the mayor, have you ever had occasion in the company of other council people to go to the city manager to discuss a personnel issue?

BRAMSON: In the company of other city council members? That's an important qualifier to the question. I don't remember. I don't have a specific memory of ever doing that but it doesn't mean it never happened in the last 17 years.

Forty words to say “no”.

Concerns with timing

The City Manager testified the Mayor told him that he was "concerned about the timing of the deputy city manager appointment". If we stipulate for a moment that this nonsensical claim were true, why not simply express that directly to the City Manager? For those who do not know, the Mayor routinely cuts through the City Manager’s conference room and strolls into his office unannounced.

There is no need to organize Council members to go as a group to raise concerns about “the timing” of any appointment made by the City Manager because Strome has unilateral authority to appoint whomever he likes to any position except his own and the Gill decision had already been made.

Tarantino testified that on Friday evening the City Manager was saying Bramson was still pushing for meetings between Council members and the City Manager.

The following day, Tarantino sent an email to the City Manager expressing his concerns.

From: Al Tarantino

To: Strome, Chuck

Cc: Ivar Hyden

Subject: Ethics Codes

Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2022 1:16 pm

Chuck

After speaking with some council members it has come to my attention that the Mayor has reached out to them to persuade them in going to you with four votes to force you to rescind the appointment of Kathleen Gill as Deputy City Manager.My question to you would be is this a violation of the Ethics Code and City Charter to pursue this by the Mayor. It seems to me that the Mayor would be threatening the City Manager with his job by letting him know if he does not do what he wants he will be terminated.

Can you get an opinion on this and let us know.

Al

The City Manager replied to Tarantino’s email the next morning by copying the entire Council including the Mayor. He later told the Ethics Board that the email “speaks for itself” as to his feelings on the Mayor’s actions, that charter is “quite clear” that Council members shall not “direct or request” the removal of any person from office or employment by the City Manager.

From: Strome, Chuck

To: Tarantino, Al

Cc: Ivar Hyden, Bramson, Noam Lopez-Hanratty, Martha Yadira Ramos Herbert Kaye, Sara Fried, Elizabeth

Subject: Ethics Codes

Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2022, 11:05 AM

In response to your inquiry below, I will seek an opinion from the City’s outside counsel relative to the Code of Ethics. On the question of the Charter, I will also request an opinion but I believe the answer to your question is rather clear. I have attached the relevant Article of the Charter for your review. The most relevant sections as they relate to your question are the following:

Section 41: “The City Manager shall have the power to appoint and remove a Deputy City Manager, who shall perform such duties as he shall direct. He shall designate the deputy or a department head to undertake the responsibilities and powers of the City Manager and have the title of Acting City Manager during his absence or disability. During the period of a vacancy in the position of City Manager, the Acting City Manager shall have the responsibilities and powers of the City Manager and perform his duties under the title of Acting City Manager….”

Section 43: “Neither the Council nor any of its committees or members shall direct or request the appointment of any person to, or his removal from, office or employment by the City Manager or any of his subordinates. Except for the purpose of inquiry, the Council and its members shall deal with that portion of the administrative service for which the Manager is responsible solely through the Manager, and neither the Council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinate of the city, either publicly or privately.”

As I stated above, not being a lawyer I cannot provide a legal opinion on either the Charter or Ethics question and I will ask our outside Counsel to do so. However, it is my opinion the sections of the Charter cited above speak for themselves relative to the question you posed.

As to this particular instance, I can advise you that my position on this appointment would not change even if all 7 members of the City Council approached me and requested that I rescind the appointment. As you requested, I have copied the entire City Council on this email.

Let me know if you need any additional information.

The Mayor testified about Tarantino’s email on April 4, 2022.

Q. I am going to show you what had been premarked as Exhibit C and what I am going to ask you to do, it is a chain of e-mails that you are a party. I ask you to go to the last page and take a look at the first e-mail.

MR. BRAMSON: From Al Tarantino.

Q. Okay. First of all, did there come a time that you saw that e-mail before today?

MR. BRAMSON: Oh, yeah. Obviously I responded to it.

Q. When you first saw it, what was your reaction?

MR. BRAMSON: Astonishment, anger.

Q. Now, in his e-mail to you he says-- in to Chuck he says, "After speaking with some council members it has come to my attention that the mayor has reached out to them to persuade them in going to you with four votes to force you to rescind the appointment of Kathleen Gill as deputy city manager. My question to you would be is this a violation of the ethics code and the city charter to pursue this by the mayor? It seems to me that the mayor would be threatening the city manager for this job by letting him know if he does not do what he wants he will be terminated. Can you get an opinion on this and let us know?”

Q. Did you ever have occasion to speak personally with Councilman Tarantino about this after you saw this e-mail?

MR. BRAMSON: I did not.

Q. Did you make an effort to?

MR. BRAMSON: No.

Q. Is there a reason you did not make an effort to?

MR. BRAMSON: I didn't think that would be constructive. I thought it would be more appropriate for me to respond, as I did, with an e-mail to the entire city council and the manager laying out my account of what transpired which I did and which is in front of you and which is consistent with what I just stated a moment ago.

To put the Mayor’s response to the Tarantino/ Strome exchange — and the Mayor’s subsequent response — in context, Strome’s email was sent Sunday morning but Bramson did not reply until Sunday night, after he received an email from me advising him of my ethics complaint, my forthcoming article and my asking a series of pointed questions. By Sunday evening my ethics complaint was drafted and my article about it complete. I sent emails to all of the key players, including the Mayor, detailing all of it.

From: Robert Cox

Date: March 20, 2022 at 6:27:41 PM EDT

To: Noam Bramson

Subject: Commissioner of Economic Development

Mayor Bramson

I want you to be aware that I will publish today (Sunday) at about 8 pm a story which will say you have been pressuring the City Manager to appoint you as Commissioner of Economic Development in violation of the City Charter and GML 18, and that having failed in that given the announcement Thursday of the appointment Adam Salgado to the position of Commissioner of Economic Development, you have sought to pressure the City Manager to rescind the appointment of Kathleen Gill as Deputy City Manager in violation of the City Charter.

I will concurrently file an Ethics Complaint with the New Rochelle Board of Ethics.

I want to give you an opportunity to comment and, in particular, address the following:

I have received additional information, including a memorandum to you from the City Manager and an ICMA to the City Manager.

These documents raise a number of questions.

Were your “informal conversations” with the City Manager about his appointing you to the position of Commissioner of Economic Development violations of the New Rochelle City Charter, specifically Article VI Section 41 (appointments shall be made based on “executive and administrative ability and of the training and experience of such appointees in the work which they are to perform”) and Article VII Section 76.00 (the required qualifications for the Commissioner of Economic Development which include10 years of progressively responsible technical and managerial experience in any one of several areas — community planning, traffic engineering and renewals and redevelopment projects and planning and administration) and Article VI Section 43 (prohibition against members of Council from interfering in appointments or removals by the City Manager)?

Did you use your elected office in an attempt to enrich yourself by obtaining through coercion, actual or implied, a job with an annual salary exceeding $200,000, plus benefits, for which you are not qualified under the New Rochelle City Charter?

Are you aware that under the International City/County Managers Association (ICMA) Code of Ethics, the appointment of an elected official (politician) by the City Manager, qualified or unqualified, would violate three tenets of the ICMA Code of Ethics and subject the City Manager to censure by the ICMA?

Are you aware that the New Rochelle Board of Ethics is created under Article 18 of the General Municipal Law of New York State, which has as one of its purposes to “protect innocent public officers from unwarranted assaults on their integrity”?

Did you subject a public officer to unwarranted assaults on their integrity, a possible violation of New York State law, in particular, Article 18 of the General Municipal Law?

Did you seek to organize members of Council to obtain the necessary votes to remove the City Manager with the intention of going to him, votes in hand, to get him to rescind his appointment of Kathleen Gill as Deputy City Manager — in apparent violation of Article VI Section 43?

Did you consider hiring Luiz Aragon as a consultant to the Development Office, should you be appointed Commissioner of Economic Development?

Do you intend to lead the job search for a new City Manager and, if so, would you accept appointment as Commissioner of Economic Development under the City Manager hired through that search process?

Sincerely,

Robert Cox

Publisher and Managing Editor

Talk of the Sound

The Mayor has never replied to me but did send a “reply all” email to the Tarantino/ Strome exchange on Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 7:39 pm, more than an hour later. He was aware of a likely ethics investigation before he sent the email which explains his declaration that he will “share this account with outside counsel if asked, and will also be pleased to answer questions that counsel may have. Feel free to call me if you would like to discuss”.

This appears to be prima facie evidence of the sort of witness tampering engaged in by the Mayor throughout the ethics investigation process. Twenty minutes before the complaint was filed he detailed to other Council members what his testimony will be in any ethics investigation while inviting them to discuss his anticipated testimony. Kaye and Ramos-Herbert testified that the Mayor discussed his testimony with them after he testified. The Mayor reportedly went to Strome and proposed they “get their stories straight” before they gave sworn testimony.

The Mayor told the entire Council what his testimony would be to the Ethics Board. There is so much deception packed into this email that describing it all would longer than the actual email. Here a few examples as guideposts as you read the email:

• “I never initiated a conversation with Chuck about this subject and had no plans to; had it not been for Chuck raising the matter with me, we would never have discussed the issue at all” (blame projection)
• “I was not seeking or threatening his termination” (true, he did not because he did not get four votes)
• “Most of us have, at one point or another, shared personnel assessments with each other and/or offered suggestions to our management team” (true, but that is not the allegation)
• “I would have called CMs Tarantino and Hyden, as well, but they had already responded to Chuck's memorandum via email to express their support, and so their views were known” (as had Fried but he called her twice and went to her house)
• “At no time, did I say or imply that Chuck would be "forced" to rescind his appointment” (no one has alleged that he uttered any words about it, he was still trying to load the gun when it blew up in his face)
• “If my concerns were widely-held, then I would judge it appropriate to bring the issue to Chuck's attention” (“widely-held” is code for 4 votes)
• “I viewed such a prospective conversation with Chuck as fully consistent with the informal discussions many of us have had about personnel over the years and which Chuck has typically welcomed” (based on Strome’s heated reaction it was not welcomed; it is not only not fully consistent with past practice even Bramson could not recall such a discussion in his entire time on Council)
• “I considered the matter closed” (the meeting was Friday morning but the Mayor persisted well after that)
• “I will, of course, share this account with outside counsel if asked” (witness tampering)
• Look for others

From: Bramson, Noam

Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2022, 7:39 PM

To: Strome, Chuck Strome, Al Tarantino

Cc: Lopez-Hanratty, Martha; Yadira Ramos Herbert; Ivar Hyden; Kaye, Sara; Fried, Elizabeth

Subject: Re: Ethics Codes

Given the sensitive nature of this claim, I think it important to offer a full and clear description of the conversations in question, and to address what I believe are significant mischaracterizations in the inquiry.

• Chuck's memorandum announcing the Deputy Manager appointment raised for me concerns related to timing and context. On the eve of our search for a City Manager, I felt that a title change might constrain a new Manager's ability to establish a leadership structure of their choosing.

• I reached out to Council Members Lopez, Ramos-Herbert, Kaye, and Fried to seek their feedback. (I would have called CMs Tarantino and Hyden, as well, but they had already responded to Chuck's memorandum via email to express their support, and so their views were known.) The purpose of my outreach was to determine whether or not others saw the matter similarly to me. If my concerns were widely-held, then I would judge it appropriate to bring the issue to Chuck's attention. If not, then I would let the matter go. At no time did I say or imply that a vote would be held. At no time did I say or imply that Chuck would be threatened, implicitly or explicitly, with termination. At no time, did I say or imply that Chuck would be "forced" to rescind his appointment. Instead, I viewed such a prospective conversation with Chuck as fully consistent with the informal discussions many of us have had about personnel over the years and which Chuck has typically welcomed, while always reserving for himself the full and final right to make appointments, as he deems appropriate.

• During these calls with Council Members, some argued that -- regardless of whether my concerns were valid or shared by others -- raising them with Chuck would simply create tension without constructive purpose. I was persuaded by and accepted this point. With that, I considered the matter closed.

• The following morning, Chuck received a call -- I do not know from whom -- letting him know of these conversations. From this call, Chuck obtained the misimpression that I was seeking his termination, and then confronted me with his concerns. I assured Chuck in clear and unambiguous terms that he was mistaken. He accepted this assurance that I was not seeking or threatening his termination, confirmed this in subsequent conversations with others, and then acknowledged to me that he had misinterpreted the information received in his call earlier that morning. It was only in this context -- in order to set the record straight and explain what had actually transpired in the prior day's discussions with Council Members -- that it was necessary for me to describe to Chuck my concerns about the Deputy City Manager appointment. In other words, I never initiated a conversation with Chuck about this subject and had no plans to; had it not been for Chuck raising the matter with me, we would never have discussed the issue at all.

Most of us have, at one point or another, shared personnel assessments with each other and/or offered suggestions to our management team. To deem the conversations in question a violation of the Charter requires a significant mischaracterization of their content and is also inconsistent with our long-standing practice of open, respectful manager-council interactions on all subjects.

It is unfortunate that this sequence of events, conversations, and misunderstandings has now obviously generated an uncomfortable level of tension and mistrust among us. I accept my share of responsibility for preserving the constructive relationships we have all enjoyed and worked hard to build.

I do not anticipate addressing this issue further via email, but I will, of course, share this account with outside counsel if asked, and will also be pleased to answer questions that counsel may have. Feel free to call me if you would like to discuss.

Noam

Keep in mind, by the time this email was sent the Mayor knew his effort to line up four votes had failed, he knew my ethics complaint would be filed within minutes, followed by my article.

He later testified that he had lined up two votes although there are questions about that because the Mayor appears to have lied during a phone conversation claiming that Sara Kaye and Liz Fried supported him. Fried did not support the Mayor.

Yadira Ramos-Herbert and Martha Lopez each testified about a call they held with the Mayor. Ramos-Herbert testified she was in a meeting when the Mayor called her. She said she called the Mayor back but he didn't answer so she checked her email and saw the Salgado/ Gill announcement then called Lopez who coincidentally was on the phone with the Mayor.

Ramos-Herbert has never explained why two phone calls from the Mayor and an email from the City Manager about the Development Commissioner and the Deputy City Manager would prompt a call to Lopez, who just happened to be on the phone with the Mayor.

There is something odd about this call. The transcript suggests the possibility that the Mayor instructed Ramos-Herbert, who he repeatedly indicated supported him on rescinding the Gill appointment, to call Lopez, join the call and help him to convince Lopez to oppose the Gill appointment — a tag team.

During the call, Ramos-Herbert and Lopez recalled two opposing versions of the Mayor telling them Sara Kaye and Liz Fried “feel the same way”. Martha Lopez testified she understood the Mayor to mean that Kaye and Fried agreed with the Mayor on going to the City Manager to complain about the appointment of Kathleen Gill as Deputy City Manager. Ramos-Herbert implausibly testified she understood the Mayor to mean that Kaye and Fried agreed with Ramos-Herbert on her supposed view that Council members should not go to the City Manager to complain about the appointment of Kathleen Gill as Deputy City Manager.

Whatever the truth of that, and there is plenty of reason to doubt Yadira Ramos-Herbert, it was untrue that Kaye and Fried felt the same way. The Mayor testified he had two votes. Kaye supported the Mayor. Fried was strongly opposed. With Tarantino, Hyden, Lopez and Fried totally opposed, the only “third vote” left to the Mayor was Yadira Ramos-Herbert but she swore under oath she was opposed.

The Mayor testified he had two calls with Liz Fried about the Gill appointment. Fried testified she had two calls with the Mayor, one on March 17 and one on March 18.

MS. FRIED: The next day Noam did call me back to say have you given this any thought and I said I am one hundred percent on board with Kathleen Gill, I think she should be the next city manager. I support her promotion to deputy and that was it. Basically Noam said would you keep an open mind? I said no, I will always support Kathleen, end of conversation, and that was the end of it. Yes, that was March 18th, yes, and then we have not spoken since.

Although Lopez used the word “rescind” repeatedly, Bramson and Ramos-Herbert deny that word or any variation of it was ever used.

RAMOS-HERBERT: Ivar called me after -- I think I was delayed in calling him back. I can't -- it was after the Cox story came out, and I think -- I can't remember what he asked. I think he was trying to ask me if the mayor had asked me about the rescinding -- you know, like, threatening to fire the city manager 'cause I guess Ivar wasn't a part of the calls, and I just affirmed to him, "You know, Ivar, real talk. No, it didn't happen. So whoever is saying that it did, I wish they would just, you know, either get their sources right or call me because I would gladly tell them it didn't happen."

Lopez testified Bramson wanted to go Strome to get him to rescind the Gill appointment. She says Ramos-Herbert agreed with her not to put their names on Bramson’s plan to get the appointment rescinded.

LOPEZ: I told him, "It's like you're going to go argue something that you have no right to change, and you just going to make people, like, react." And I think that that's when he said, "I get you. I understand." And that's when he said, "Well, Sara and Liz have agreed to -- I spoke --" no. He said, "I spoke -- I also called Sara and Liz, and they said yes, that they will agree to, you know, go to the city manager to rescind it."

Q. Subsequent to that conversation, did you ever have occasion to speak to Sara or Liz to find out if what he said was accurate?

LOPEZ: So several days passed by, and I called Yadira, and I said, "You know what? I heard that Liz said no to the request to rescind." And I said, "I don't know. I just feel that I have to call Liz to find out." So I called Liz, and she said, "No, I didn't." And I said, "Really?" So if I would have been by myself talking to the mayor, I probably would have said -- I probably would have questioned myself and said, "Did I hear correctly? Did he say Liz and Sara?" But Yadira was on the phone call. So when Liz said to me, "No, I did not agree, and actually --" she said -- it was a Saturday, and she said, "Actually he came to see me at 7:30." She did say, "He came at 7:30 A.M. to talk to me." The mayor.

Q. Came to her house?

LOPEZ: To her house.

Q. 7:30 A.M.?

LOPEZ: 7:30 A.M. So -- and she said, "I like -- I like Kathleen, and I like Adam, and they are doing a great job." And I agreed with her. I said, "Yeah. They are doing a great job, and I'm very happy." And I mentioned, again, the charter. You know, there are some things that maybe as city council you can do, but you have to be aware of the things that you don't have any control over; right? There's a line. You can stamp your feet or whatever, but there are things that you cannot do, and that's what I said. Something like that, along that line.

Q. Other than the two conversations that you've already explained to us, did you have any other conversations with the mayor about either his appointment to be a commissioner or rescinding Kathleen's appointment to be deputy city manager?

LOPEZ: No. Those were the two -- the only two phone calls.

LOPEZ: (Ivar) said, "I hear that he's calling all the other people -- all the council people," and that's -- okay. So that's when he said, "Liz also agreed with us," you know, with him and Ivar, and that's when I thought maybe I should really call Liz because now I have -- he said that Liz also didn't think that it was a good idea to go to rescind, you know... And that's when I -- I think I called Yadira, and I said, "Yadira, I heard that Liz did not, you know, agree with the mayor." And she and I said -- I said, "What did he say to us? Do you remember?" And she said yes, that Liz and Sara were -- and I said, "Exactly, and I just heard that Liz did not agree. So who is not telling us?" And so then I said, "You know what? Let me call Liz." And that's when Liz said, "Yeah. That's the truth. I did not agree with him, and he came at 7:30, blah, blah, blah."

Martha Lopez testified that after Ivar Hyden told her Fried was opposed to asking the City Manager to rescind the Gill appointment — the opposite of what the Mayor had said on her three-way call with Ramos-Herbert — she called Ramos-Herbert to tell her Hyden said Fried was opposed to the Mayor so she was going to call Fried. Lopez says Ramos-Herbert agreed that the Mayor said Fried and Kaye supported the Mayor. Ramos-Herbert did not mention this significant call in her testimony.

All of this sounds like Lopez is saying Bramson was at Fried’s house on Saturday 7:30 a.m. but having read every word in the Lopez transcript she can be a bit excitable and another interpretation could be when she was trying to recall the day of the Fried call and could not so said “several days” but as she was recounting the actual call it triggered her memory and she blurted out “it was a Saturday” meaning the call was on Saturday. It matters quite a bit because if the Bramson breakfast was on Friday is was before the Strome/ Bramson blow up, if it was Saturday that is another example of the Mayor continuing to pursue four votes after the Strome-Bramson blow up.

I am operating on the belief Lopez meanst to say Fried told her the Mayor went to Fried’s house on Saturday.

Fried testified on April 4, 2022, that after the two calls with the Mayor on Thursday March 17 and one on Friday March 18, “we have not spoken since”. The house visit was not a call so which is it?

Yadira Ramos-Herbert testified that during the three-way call she understood the Mayor to say that Fried and Kaye were in agreement with with Lopez and her in opposing the Mayor going to the City Manager about the Gill appointment.

Lopez testified that she understood the Mayor to say Fried and Kaye supported the Mayor in his effort to rescind the Gill appointment and somehow Ramos-Herbert had the same understanding in the second call which contradicts Ramos-Herbert’s previous testimony about the first call.

The Lopez testimony raises all sorts of questions about Ramos-Herbert’s testimony and some about the testimony of Lopez, Fried and Bramson.

A tangled web

Ramos-Herbert never mentioned the second call made by Lopez to her after “several days passed by” where Lopez told Ramos-Herbert she had just learned the Mayor lied about having Fried’s support. Ramos-Herbert testified about three weeks after these phone calls. She said that when the Mayor said Sara Kaye and Liz Fried “feel the same way” she understood the Mayor to mean that Fried (and Kaye) agreed with her in not supporting the Mayor. If Ramos-Herbert actually had that understanding why didn’t she push back on Lopez in the subsequent call and say she already knew Fried did not support the Mayor based on her supposed understanding of what the Mayor said about Fried on the three way call?

It appears Ramos-Herbert did not challenge Lopez because Ramos-Herbert was the third vote all along. She knew exactly what the Mayor meant by “feel the same way” (in agreement with the Mayor on Gill) and therefore she knew the Mayor was lying when he said Fried supported him. It also means that the three-way call was a set-up where Bramson and Ramos-Herbert plotted beforehand to dupe Lopez by tag-teaming her on the coincidental three-way call.

Contrast the testimony of Lopez and Ramos-Herbert to Ramos-Herbert’s statements to the Journal News :

Councilwoman Yadira Ramos-Herbert said she never spoke with Bramson about rescinding the appointment or firing Strome.

Ramos-Herbert said Bramson asked her what she thought of the appointment that was vacant the last several years. While she was struck by the timing of the appointment, she stressed that decision is solely up to Strome.

Bramson and Fried both failed to mention something that would be rather hard to forget just three weeks later. Fried testified the Mayor called her twice and she told the Mayor “no” on two separate calls and they had not spoken since. Lopez testified Fried told her that on Saturday March 19 the Mayor showed up at Fried’s house at 7:30 in the morning, asking her to change her mind on Gill.

How do both the Mayor and Fried both forget the Mayor showing up at Fried’s house early in the morning?

Bramson concerned with timing?

Bramson was consistent when asked why he canvassed Kaye, Fried, Ramos-Herbert and Lopez about the Gill appointment and they others reflected that reason in their testimony: he said he was concerned about the timing because it would lock a new City Manager into having Gill as a Deputy when they might want their own person.

STROME: ...he said that he was concerned with the timing of the appointment because I was leaving and they were starting a search for a city manager, as they are, and that this might be a problem for that search. I told him I didn't agree with that. They had the right to hire a manager and the next manager has the right to hire or fire whoever they want. So I didn't think it was going to have any impact on the ability to hire a new manager or what would happen when the new manager starts.

Peter Miesels, the lawyer for the Ethics Board demolished Bramson’s claim.

Miesels asked Kaye, Fried, Ramos-Herbert, Lopez and Bramson a series of questions:

Asked whether the Mayor expressed concerns about other appointments that might limit the options of a new City Manager, they all answered the same way.

Edward Ritter, appointed Finance Commissioner on January 1, 2022

No.

Robert Yamuder, appointed commissioner of Human Resources Commissioner in March 2022

No.

Vincent Parisi, appointed Parks and Recreation Commissioner on April 1, 2022

No.

Adam Salgado, appointed Economic Development Commissioner on March 17, 2022

No.

Miesels then asked if all deputies serve at the pleasure of their commissioners, their department heads?

Yes.

And if all the commissioners serve at the pleasure of the city manager?

Yes.

And if a new city manager could fire all the commissioners, and new commissioners could fire all the deputies?

Yes.

The Mayor was likewise asked about the four new Commissioners.

Q. Now, am I correct that in the last year more than half of the commissioners in New Rochelle have been replaced, am I right?

…

Bramson fences words with Miesels.

...

Q. Okay. Did you ever express to anyone a concern that by appointing four new department heads might constrain a new city manager in forming a leadership structure of his or her choice?

BRAMSON: No.

Bramson contends that its not about Kathleen Gill or about the Deputy City Manager title or even Kathleen Gill’s appointment as Deputy City Manager. It only about “the timing”. The City Council had their first discussion about a City Manager search on March 8 and Strome appointed Gill as Deputy City Manager 9 days later on March 17. Somehow, adding a Deputy City Manager title to the Corporation Counsel outranks four new full Commissioners.

BRAMSON: My concerns related to the timing and context. We were almost literally on the eve of launching a search for a new city manager and this struck me as a structural change in the government itself, in other words, creating a position which had not been formally filled that is between the city manager and the commissioner level and my concern was twofold. One, that this might send a signal that there was an heir apparent for the role of city manager which could deter potential applicants from applying and second, as you implied in your series of questions, that it might have the effect if Kathleen was not selected to be city manager, that it might impose a structure, a leadership structure on the next city manager that that manager may not want.

Lopez said the Mayor was not concerned about the four Commissioners, only the Gill appointment.

Q. Did the mayor ever give you an explanation as to why he was concerned about the appointment of a deputy city manager, but he wasn't concerned about the appointment of the four commissioners?

LOPEZ: That's a good point of -- a good way of putting it. I -- I didn't think that fast enough. But probably I should have said, "It's interesting that you were not concerned about the other appointments, but you're concerned about this." Again, he -- when I said why, he said because it will put in a very awkward situation when we hire a new -- not when we hire -- when a new, you know, person is hired.

Noam never raised concerns to Lopez about the four Commissioners.

LOPEZ: Any and all of the appointments that have been made by the city manager that -- you know, nothing has come to us saying we're concerned about this person or that person or that person or the other person. It was only this appointment.

Kaye, Fried, Ramos-Herbert, and Lopez all acknowledged that a new City Manager would not be locked in by Gill’s appointment as Deputy City Manager.

Q. How would the hands of the new city manager be tied by virtue of the fact that there was a holdover deputy in place when that person came into office?

KAYE: Because to fire or remove someone would really -- I think would be very disruptive

Q. Is there a reason that that was a concern as to the deputy city manager

position, but not as to the four commissioners that we discussed already?

KAYE: I -- I think that there are different types of roles.

Q. Any other reason?

KAYE: Not that I can think of.

Bramson admitted as much while offering a convoluted and unconvincing answer.

BRAMSON: You are correct that a new city manager could choose to change the structure but I think to do that would be immediately awkward and problematic because it would set the city manager up for a conflict with a key member of the administration in the form of Kathleen who serves as corporation counsel and would be deputy city manager, so my concerns related entirely to what this would mean for the search process for which the city council and mayor are responsible and what it would mean for the future success and leadership of the city manager and our professional team. You can agree or disagree with whether my concerns were valid. Reasonable people can disagree about that.

This explanation is nonsensical.

None of the witnesses mention Strome’s prudence in appointing a deputy soon after he announced his last day on December 31, 2021. In the event the Council had not decided on a replacement for Strome by the end of the year, there was a successor in place to serve as Interim City Manager on January 1, 2023

Kathleen Gill has been in a senior leadership role with the City for many years. She has served as acting City Manager on many occasions. She is the heir apparent. She has made no secret of her desire to be the next City Manager. She fully intends to apply when the job is posted and has said so.

Liz Fried testified to this.

FRIED: I called Kathleen Gill and I said are you interested in the city manager job when Chuck retires, and she said yes...

Based on the transcripts, Kathleen Gill already has support from Al Tarantino, Ivar Hyden, Liz Fried and Martha Lopez which is a majority of Council.

Any sentient candidate for the City Manager job would know that Gill had the inside track from the moment the job opening was posted. She has been Corporation Counsel for many years. She recently completed 15 months as acting Development Commissioner. She has a strong working relationship the same Commissioners appointed by Strome that did not concern Bramson — and the rest.

Only a fool would show up for their first day as City Manager and think it a good idea to fire Kathleen Gill regardless of whether she has the secondary title of Deputy City Manager.

More to the point, whatever dynamic the Mayor imagines would exist if another candidate is hired as City Manager, will exist regardless of Gill having the Deputy City Manager title. Gill would still be a highly qualified senior official passed over for the top job with whatever implications the Mayor can envisage.

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of how City Hall operates knows that Bramson’s supposed concern over “timing” is hogwash. As always, the Mayor’s only concern is himself and his future ambitions.

Gill speaks to this in her testimony.

Q. ...there has been testimony that the mayor attempted to get four people to go to visit the city manager and express displeasure with your appointment as deputy city manager. Do you know (the) mayor was displeased with that?

GILL: So I don't know with any certainty. I discussed it with the mayor. I believe it is because I gave a legal opinion that probably influenced the city manager's decision not to appoint him (as Development Commissioner).

Gill is getting to the heart of the matter saying the Mayor is upset with her because he believes she is the reason he was not appointed to be Development Commissioner.

He is attempting to block Gill the way he believes she blocked him.

Lopez says the Mayor is angry with Gill

LOPEZ: ...various people have told me that he is now furious somehow that it's Kathleen's fault that all of this happened...

Lopez says Gill is a threat to the Mayor.

LOPEZ: I think for Noam, this is a real threat because that kind of cuts off his ability to manipulate the situation to his benefit one way or another.

Ramos-Herbert gave testimony that is revealing for what it says about the Mayor’s mindset as much as hers.

One of the anti-Gill talking points is wanting a “national search” for a new City Manager. It is code for Anyone But Gill.

“She's not necessarily someone I would identify as my first pick. I can say that right now,” said Ramos-Herbert. “I've had some interesting interactions with her that, I think, limit the city in some ways” without explaining what those interactions are or what made them interesting.

“I did have reservations if she did apply. I did have reservations,” she said, repeating herself for emphasis.

RAMOS-HERBERT: ...but I did receive the appointment as being a way to sort of bolster a potential application for the deputy city manager to become city manager. Again, she has never told me she's applying, but that's sort of the word in the hallways.

Ramos-Herbert and Bramson (and presumably Kaye) ruled out Gill because the Mayor has his own plan.

It is why the Mayor added “not-profit experience” to the written job description for City Manager.

It is why the Mayor perjured himself when Meisels asked about him discussing with other Council members the idea that the past experience qualifications for the City Manager position might include “not-profit experience” as a substitute for experience in municipal government.

Q. And at any time did you ever discuss with any of them changing the qualifications for the position of city manager?

...

BRAMSON: No.

Bramson did raise it in a Super Executive Session (Council members only) on March 8, 2022. I was outside the conference room when it happened and Council members talked about it afterwards in the hallway. Council members testified to this but the testimony was redacted.

Bramson’s perjury on his Alisa Kesten maneuvers is another story for another day.

Setting aside the preposterous reason the Mayor propounded for his calls to Kaye, Fried, Ramos-Herbert, and Lopez, let’s look at the strategic logic. He told them he would go to the City Manager if three other Council members shared his supposed concern over the timing.

He testified he did not bother to call Tarantino and Hyden because their email response to Strome’s announcement was favorable to Gill (Tarantino says it’s because the Mayor knows he and Hyden would never go along with a scheme).

If so, why did he call Fried on Thursday March 17, and again on Friday March 18, then go to her house at 7:30 in the morning on Saturday March 19?

Fried’s email response to Strome’s announcement was also favorable to Gill.

FRIED: On March 17th I received an e-mail from Chuck which announced the appointment of Adam Salgado as commissioner of development and Kathleen Gill as corporation counsel/ deputy city manager and I was thrilled. I love Adam and I love Kathleen and I wrote a congratulations to everyone. I was on board.

This testimony raises additional questions about the three-way call where Bramson claims Fried and Kays are on board with going to Strome about the Gill appointment which Lopez says, repeatedly, was about pressuring Strome to rescind the Gill appointment.

And forget about sorting the pretzel logic of Ramos-Herbert’s testimony on this one.

Bottom line: There was never four votes available to Bramson so his calls and breakfast meetings were an exercise in futility born out of desperation to salvage a way out his day job.

Strome was asked about the significance of 4 votes.

Q. Is it of special significance of his coming to you with three other council people for a total of four?

STROME: Well, I think it is implied that if he comes to me with four people, that the majority of the council doesn't agree with the decision...

Strome says the Mayor “told me he never talked about termination with any of the council members, but I wasn't on the phone call so I have no idea what was discussed”.

Strome says “no one has ever felt the need to go get three other people to agree with them”; “thought that was odd”; “curious”; “never happened before”; “calling other council people, it is kind of odd”; “not sure why he felt the need to call other council people to come talk to me about some... procedural matter”; “don't know why that was necessary”, “why else would he be getting three votes other than to terminate me?”

Strome testified that he confronted Bramson on Friday morning, that the Mayor denied trying to line up four votes to come speak with him about rescind the Gill appointment or seeking to fire him, that he accepted the Mayor’s explanation.

STROME: I was also told that he was, you know, or maybe I just deduced that he was gathering three votes to terminate my employment which is the reason I went to see him the next morning and that's when he said no, I was just concerned about the timing of the deputy city manager appointment.

Bramson testified that he had not intended to raise the issue with the City Manager because he only had “two votes” supporting his supposed concern about “the timing” of the Gill appointment, assured the City Manager he was not trying to line up four votes to come speak with him about rescinding the Gill appointment or seeking to fire him, and that the City Manager accepted his explanation.

BRAMSON: I would say that our different understandings were resolved within the space of that morning.

In his email on the night of Sunday March 20, the Mayor said that after “these calls” — referring to the calls on Thursday after the Salgado/ Gill appointment memo was distributed at 12:05 pm and after I published an article based on the memo at 1:30 pm, so Thursday afternoon — he “considered the matter closed”.

That would mean he considered the matter closed after three calls on early Thursday afternoon: the first call to Kaye (she testified to being the first call), the second call to Fried (Lopez and Ramos-Herbert both testified Bramson conveyed to them he had spoken to Kaye and Fried prior to the three-way call).

During these calls with Council Members, some argued that -- regardless of whether my concerns were valid or shared by others -- raising them with Chuck would simply create tension without constructive purpose. I was persuaded by and accepted this point. With that, I considered the matter closed.

Bramson later testified that he considered the issue of Gill’s appointment to be “over at that point”.

BRAMSON: It is not that I failed to bring them on board as this complaint would have you believe, it is I was persuaded that they were correct, so as far as I was concerned, the issue was over at that point and I had no intention of bringing it to the city manager.

What then to make of more calls with Council members on Friday and Saturday, even going to Fried’s home early Saturday morning. Fried and Lopez both testified to receiving two phone calls from Bramson. Fried said even after she flatly rejected Bramson he called again asking her to “keep an open mind” which she said she refused to do.

Tarantino testified that Strome called him on Friday evening March 18, 2022 at about 6:00 p.m., that Strome was still quite upset, that Strome had heard from the mayor, and the mayor told him he wanted to set up a meeting with some of the council members, two at a time, him and two others because you can't have more than three together (4 would be an illegal meeting, a quorum in closed session). Neither Bramson nor Strome testified to such an after hours call about setting up a meeting with the Mayor, the City Manager and two council members.

There are plenty of questions about this call:

• If the matter was aired out on Friday morning why was the Mayor still pushing for a meeting Friday evening?
• Why did the Mayor making multiple calls to Lopez and Fried?
• Why was the Mayor at Fried’s house at 7:30 a.m. on Saturday morning?
• Why did Ramos-Herbert tell Strome on Monday that she had not called before that because the weekend was “intense”?
• What would be the purpose of a meeting with two Council members for them to repeat what had already been aired out on Friday morning?
• Who was the Mayor planning to bring to the meeting?

On that last point, it is clear from the transcripts that those two Council Members were not Tarantino, Fried, Lopez, or Hyden. By process of elimination that leaves Kaye and Ramos-Herbert, further undermining Ramos-Herbert sworn testimony to the effect that she was not the Mayor’s third vote while once again highlighting her duplicitous behavior on the three-way call with Lopez.

Who were the three votes?

STROME: I heard that he had two people and went to one of the other ones. I don't think he ever, from what I was told, that he never had Liz Fried. I was told that he had-- he talked to Martha and said I have Yadira and Sara and you would be the fourth, and I was then told again third-hand that she said no, but I think from what I gather, from what I heard again third-hand, that Martha and Liz didn't entertain the discussion at all. Sara and Yadira might have entertained it but in the end, whether they decided to agree or not agree, apparently because there wasn't four, he was never going to come see me but I did go to see him because I was a little annoyed the next morning (must be Friday) when I heard about all this.

Strome’s testimony here is the only time any witness states the obvious about the three-way call “(the Mayor) talked to Martha and said ‘I have Yadira and Sara and you would be the fourth’”.

Ramos-Herbert was the third vote and lied repeatedly to cover it up.

David Blumenthal asked the Mayor what would have happened had he gone to the City Manager with four votes to raise concerns about the Gill appointment and the City Manager said “no, I made this decision”.

BRAMSON: I mean, you know, that would be the end of it. I respect it. There was never any doubt that this was his appointment to make and he had the authority to make the appointment. There was no questioning or challenging of that.

MR. BLUMENTHAL: Okay.

The Mayor said he had two votes so did not go to the City Manager with just three total and would not have raised the subject had not Strome come to him on Friday morning.

To the average person, that sounds like the Mayor saying he raised his concerns about the Gill appointment Friday morning and he considered the matter closed.

In Bramson-World, based on the testimony of others, it was for the Mayor just the end of Round One. He spent Friday, Saturday and Sunday trying to get to four votes and have a meeting with them and the City Manager.

If he had already raised his concerns directly to Strome on Friday morning why was he still trying to wrangle a fourth vote out of Fried on Saturday?

It would seem obvious that his goal was not to raise the “timing” issue with Strome, he done that already. The only logic that makes sense is that the Mayor wanted 4 votes to give the City Manager an ultimatum — rescind the Gill appointment or pack your bags.

Strome was surprised that the Gill appointment raised concerns

STROME: ...for several years, probably five, every six months I write a letter to Kathleen saying that you are the acting city manager when I am not around, or if I become incapacitated you become the acting city manager, and in fact, every time I go on vacation or leave I send an e-mail to the city council saying I am not going to be around. While I am away Kathleen will be the acting city manager. So the idea that naming her deputy city manager was going to be surprising to anybody was weird.

STROME: ...(with the) deputy city manager position, I didn't need to —-that I didn't find unusual only because, you know, I did that before with the previous deputy manager, I just named the person. I didn't have a discussion. It is not like we go through a job interview process for a deputy city manager. I have never done that. So the deputy city managers while I have been here are people that had other roles and I would be promoting them so it wasn't really an issue. The fact is when I hire commissioners I usually update the council prior to the public announcement of the commissioners. It is kind of a funny thing about this whole thing. I thought there would be much more angst by the mayor of the development commissioner appointment.

Fried did not understand why the Mayor was concerned about the Gill appointment

Q. Were you surprised that he raised the question about a deputy versus-- and not about any of the commissioners?

FRIED: I was more surprised because it was Kathleen, to be quite honest. It wasn't really a bureaucratic question, it was more like why wouldn't you want her?

Q. Did he respond to that?

FRIED: Yes. His response was that — I actually took notes on it because he said he had a problem with her permanent title change because if then the new city manager came in, that that might be a problem for the new person.

Q. Did you understand what that meant?

FRIED: No.

Charter violations

The Mayor knows it is a charter violation for a Council member to request the appointment or removal of anyone under the City Manager.

Q. Now, based upon your understanding what the limitations are, do you understand it is correct that no council person may request the appointment or removal of any person to or from employment by the city manager?

BRAMSON: Yes.

Strome makes the same point.

STROME: ...the council is not to get involved in specific personnel decisions. It is clear in the charter they shall not and it is clear that I as the city manager have the absolute right to name a deputy city manager at any time I want, whether I want one or don't want one, and gathering votes to talk about that or to ask me to rescind or whatever you want to say, to me, I think I said it in the memo, that speaks for itself, that was a clear violation but I would get an opinion from the legal counsel which is another opinion which I don't know if you have all seen but I did ask Mr. Toomey for a second opinion.

STROME: I have heard that the phone calls were being made to get four votes to come to me and ask me to rescind the appointment of the deputy city manager. I have no knowledge that's true but that's what I was told.

Q. If what you heard was accurate, okay, would that not violate the charter provision, provisions that council people are not supposed to approach you in reference to employment decisions?

STROME: ...if the Mayor's characterization is accurate, then it would have been appropriate to come to me prior to an appointment and just say, because you are leaving we don't think you should hire a deputy city manager... Once the appointment is made, I believe you can read the charter to say there should be no conversation. They have no authority to come to me about the nature of that appointment. Once I made it, I have made it, it is my right to make it and they have no role in the decision. I think the charter is pretty clear on that.

Martha Lopez testified she immediately raised the Charter violation issue when the Mayor called her on the March 17 three-way call.

LOPEZ: ...the first thing that I said was like, there is a charter. "There is a city charter. Why do you want to go against the city charter?" ...and he went on to say that he was not happy with the idea that the city manager had not discussed with him or us that -- of his decisions, his appointments. And again, I said, "Why do you want to do something that we cannot do? He has the right. As a city manager, he has the right to appoint whomever he thinks fits the positions." And he said, "Well, you know, if a new city manager comes in, sometimes they want to bring their own people etc., etc." And I said, "I do not --" and I was very clear -- "I do not want my name on it, and I do not -- I am not going to be part of that." I said, "Do not add my name to it." I was very, very clear. "Do not add my name," and Yadira said the same. He did say that Sara and Liz had agreed -- that they had agreed that they would do it.

Ramos-Herbert has massive credibility issues

Q. You said that the mayor had said he had spoken to Sara and who else?

RAMOS-HERBERT: Council member Kaye and Council member Fried -- Liz.

Q. And that they felt the same

RAMOS-HERBERT: Yes.

Q. And as I understood, you took that to mean the same way you did or the same way he did?

RAMOS-HERBERT: I took it to mean the way I did 'cause the conversation we were having was with respect to he was concerned about locking in the future city manager, but it was just more like the timing of it, that -- and why he didn't tell us on Tuesday night when we were all together in person. So I think I defaulted to just my own concern.

Ramos-Herbert said Bramson said that Kaye and Fried agreed with her and Lopez that the Mayor should not go to the City Manager about the Gill appointment.

If that is true then why did anyone including the Mayor think he had three votes?

Her performance is at times a comical.

She had a habit of reflexively attesting to her honesty as she does in describing a phone call with the City Manager on March 21.

RAMOS-HERBERT: ...there was no conversation around getting votes to fire you. I'm not about that. I'm straight up. I'm only about doing the work, and I need you to hear that from me. This is your pick."

I'm straight up!

And again in her recounting of a call with Hyden.

RAMOS-HERBERT: Ivar called me after -- I think I was delayed in calling him back. I can't -- it was after the Cox story came out, and I think -- I can't remember what he asked. I think he was trying to ask me if the mayor had asked me about the rescinding -- you know, like, threatening to fire the city manager 'cause I guess Ivar wasn't a part of the calls, and I just affirmed to him, "You know, Ivar, real talk. No, it didn't happen. So whoever is saying that it did, I wish they would just, you know, either get their sources right or call me because I would gladly tell them it didn't happen."

Real talk!

When answering a question she combines her honesty with her refusal to listen to gossip — she is so honest that gossip is beneath her.

Here is Ramos-Herbert reacting to a simple question on whether she heard about the Mayor wanted the Development Commissioner position.

RAMOS-HERBERT: I try not to get involved in gossip. I'm going to be very honest with you.

Here is Ramos-Herbert on who told Strome that Bramson was canvassing council members.

RAMOS-HERBERT: -- I feel like I'm so out of the loop here. I have no idea. You know, we don't -- we have a shared office that I haven't used since COVID came, and I work at Columbia Law School. So I'm not -- I'm not here to kind of get the water cooler. So I -- I can't call it. I really can't. I've really tried, but I have no idea.

No gossip! No water cooler! Just straight up, honest, real talk for her.

Ramos-Herbert offers 67 words to say she has a shared office at City Hall, that there was a COVID pandemic, that she is employed by Columbia Law School. If you do not know, the simple direct answer to “do you know” is “no”.

Here is Ramos-Herbert on whether Gill wants to be City Manager.

RAMOS-HERBERT: ...she has never told me she's applying, but that's sort of the word in the hallways.

Oops!!!

Let be honest, real talk... is there a water cooler in that hallway?

Even though everyone including her testified that Bramson intended to go to the City Manager if a majority of Council shared his supposed “timing” concerns she denies knowing what the Mayor intended to do if he secured 4 votes.

Q. In the three-way conversation that you already testified to, did the mayor suggest that if a majority of the council members saw the appointment of a deputy city manager from his perspective what he would do about it?

RAMOS-HERBERT: No, it didn't --

Q. Didn't get that far.

RAMOS-HERBERT: Didn't come up -- yeah -- 'cause -- it just didn't come up. Martha and I weren't even there. We were, again,

Q. So was there any discussion about that if you agreed with him, he would go and speak with the city manager about that appointment?

RAMOS-HERBERT: No discussion about whether -- yeah.

Q. Right. So --

RAMOS-HERBERT: I did not see it as locking him in. So when the mayor said that statement to me, I said, "I don't see that. The new person can fire whomever they want."

Q. So there was really no place to go after that.

No one but Ramos-Herbert has denied the Mayor intended to go to the City Manager if he secured 4 votes — including the Mayor.

BRAMSON: So I will state what I said earlier. The tenor of my conversations with council members did not involve forcing, compelling, requiring, voting. This was an exchange of opinions about a concern and seeking advice about whether it was appropriate and constructive to bring that concern to the attention of the city manager.

MR. BLUMENTHAL: The conversations you had, I forget what date it was, March 17th, whatever date it was that week with those four counselors or three counselors--

BRAMSON: Four.

MR. BLUMENTHAL: Had they been in agreement with you, what would you have said to Chuck that, you know, what do you think?

BRAMSON: I think I would have said to him something similar to what I said to you which is here is why I think this is problematic.

MR. BLUMENTHAL: Once it is published, you know, it is sort like you are pregnant or you are not?

BRAMSON: David, that's exactly why I was ultimately convinced not to do it.

MR. BLUMENTHAL: Okay.

BRAMSON: The conversations had their intended purpose. There was an exchange of views. A couple of council members said to me no, it is probably not a good idea to talk to Chuck and I said you know what, you are right.

MR. BLUMENTHAL: Let's say those four would have been swayed by your perseverance on this and they say you know what, I think we are right, this will make our lives difficult in the selection of a new city manager which is our responsibility and Chuck, we think you should-- you know, we will go as a group, we will all go as a group, you go in for us, however the methodology would have been, you would have said that and you would have said no, I made this decision.

BRAMSON: I mean, you know, that would be the end of it. I respect it. There was never any doubt that this was his appointment to make and he had the authority to make the appointment. There was no questioning or challenging of that.

BRAMSON: ...during the course of those conversations a couple of members of Council said to me that they may agree with how I am looking at it but they think there it no point in raising it with Chuck because this is a fait accompli, the decision is made.

This raises the question of who said both they agree about the supposed timing concern and do not go to the City Manager? Not Tarantino, Lopez, Fried, or Hyden for sure. Kaye said she did not agree but would support the Mayor going to the City Manager. Once again that leaves Ramos-Herbert who testified that she was in sync with Lopez but contradicts her own testimony or is contradicted by others’ testimony. The only “couple of members of Council” who might conceivably fit Bramson’s description are Kaye and Ramos-Herbert.

LOPEZ: ...he wanted us to go to the city manager to have him change his mind. I said no, and that's the end of it. And once I make -- I look at the facts, and once I make my decision, I'm not going to be manipulated by the situation

LOPEZ: So he wanted to meet with the city manager to tell him that -- to rescind -- to rescind the appointment.

MR. BLUMENTHAL: Okay.

LOPEZ: Sorry about that. Yeah, to rescind the appointment. So that's when I said, "Please do not add my name to that because I am not going to be part of that”.

LOPEZ: ...he wanted to get us to go with him to tell the city manager that -- you know, what -- that it just -- that he wasn't happy with the idea.

KAYE: He wanted to get the reaction of other council members and see if we felt similarly, and if so, then he would speak with the city manager.

MR. BLUMENTHAL: That last sentence where you said speak to the city manager, about what?

KAYE: To share our -- our concerns.

It is noteworthy that Kaye said “our” concerns here considering her previous testimony that she was not involved in what Bramson was attempting to do with the Gill appointment.

This one word casts doubt on her entire testimony.

KAYE: I wasn't sure how much it mattered that she -- the -- that she had acted as a deputy city manager in an informal way for quite some time; that it seemed more like just semantics than a real change; but that when he shared his concern, I could see how that could be problematic

KAYE: But I -- I definitely remember concluding the conversation by not really having a conclusion by saying I'm not really sure what --

...

KAYE: If other people share -- other council members shared his concerns, then he would consider raising it with the city manager.

...

Q. Do you know whether or not you're the first person he called?

KAYE: I think I was.

....

Q. After the mayor called you and expressed his concerns about the appointment of a deputy city manager, did you have occasion to discuss that topic with other council people?

KAYE: No.

Q. Did you discuss it with anyone other than the mayor?

KAYE: No.

Ramos-Herbert contradicting her prior testimony

RAMOS-HERBERT: ...(The Mayor) wanted to say something to the city managers, as I recall. He's like, "Can I tell him that we talked?" And then I think Martha and I were like, "To say what?" I said, "What is -- what is telling him going to do? Like, what is that going to actually do for the situation?" He said, "Well, I can tell him that we're not -- I can tell him that we were a little surprised by the timing."

RAMOS-HERBERT: And then I was on my phone, and I said, "You know, this is on Cox's blog already. It's on Facebook. Like, he's not going to fire -- like, he's not going to do that. I just don't see the point. Just leave it alone." And Martha said, "Honestly, yeah. I don't want my name in this. Like, if you talk to him, talk to him on your own. I don't want to be involved.

Ramos-Herbert said she said to Bramson “he's not going to fire — like, he's not going to do that”.

MR. BLUMENTHAL: (The Mayor) was going to say, "There's a few council members who agree with me, that this is problematic, and you should rescind it or, you know, please think about this?" What was the ask?

RAMOS-HERBERT: Yeah. I don't think the — I don't recall rescind. I don't recall taking it back, although I did say it's not like he can change it or fire her because it's already out. It's been published. But I think -- I recall him saying, "I just want him to know that we don't like the timing of the appointment."

Having denied the Mayor’s purpose in gathering 4 votes is to pressure Strome to rescind the Gill appointment she slips and confirms it by testifying that she discussed “firing” Gill with the Mayor and Lopez, who confirmed this multiple times.

Who called Strome?

A question at the center of the entire issue is how and why the City Manager came to believe that the Mayor was attempting to get 4 votes to force him to take the Deputy City Manager title away from Kathleen or be fired.

If it were me doing the asking, I would have gotten everyone who testified on the record on what they knew about this. Peter Miesels did not do that. He did not even press Strome on that question when he did not want to answer.

The only thing Strome would say is that it was not someone in the City government and that the information was “third-hand”, someone telling another person who told him.

Having immersed myself in the matter the “someone” had to be one of the Council members the Mayor called: Kaye, Fried, Ramos-Herbert or Lopez.

As Kaye and Ramos-Herbert supported the Mayor (as much as they tried to deflect from that in their testimony) I rule them out.

Lopez did not know until “days later”, days after her three-way call with the Mayor and Ramos-Herbert, that the Mayor lied to her when he said Kaye and Fried “felt the same way” which Lopez understood to mean they both supported the Mayor. Based on this and the rest of her testimony, I rule her out.

The only Council member who fits the bill as “the someone” is Fried. She was an immediate and unequivocal “no” and beyond that sounded offended not only by what the Mayor was proposing to do but was deeply unhappy Bramson was targeting Kathleen Gill.

I asked Fried yesterday whether she was “the someone” referred to be the City Manager and she replied.

“I will not comment during an ongoing investigation,” said Fried.

The “another person” who acted as the bridge between Fried and Strome, someone not in government, someone trusted by both Fried and Strome, appears to me to be a particular person but that person flatly denied being the “another person”. I will take that person at their word.

There is no question whether I do or not it should be investigated by the prosecutor.

Especially given that Strome took this person at face value, confronted the Mayor then threw this person under the bus when the Mayor denied he was gathering votes to present a rescind-or-be-fired ultimatum to him.

I asked the City Manager about this but did not receive a reply of any kind.

Conclusion

My articles on the transcripts are meant in large part to do the grunt work for the DA by sifting through the transcripts while applying my background knowledge and a context that the DA will never have, to point out things they might not pick up on. This article (Part III) and the previous article (Part II) were the two deepest dives and the length of the articles on the Development Commissioner position and the Gill appointment show that. Thankfully, it is downhill from here with the transcripts. The articles on Alisa Kesten and the Downtown BID Board will be short. There will be sone additional articles about specific aspects of the transcripts and, once those are done, I will publish two versions of the transcripts: the original “clean” versions and my marked-up, color-coded “working” versions.

I believe the DA should also work to establish several things:

• The connection between Bramson and Blumenthal: who were the cut-outs, was Blumenthal sharing information protected by attorney-client privilege, was Blumenthal holding up the Advisory Opinion to water it down and insert language beneficial to the Mayor.
• Whether there is a case for witness tampering by the Mayor.
• Whether there is a case for perjury by Council member Yadira Ramos-Herbert.
• Who called the City Manager and told him the Mayor was preparing an ultimatum on Gill?