SARANAC LAKE — An independent investigation into a workplace violence complaint filed last summer by former village Manager Erik Stender against Mayor Jimmy Williams found that the mayor did not violate the village’s workplace violence policy and recommended that no action be taken.

“I did not find that Mr. Williams’ defensive behavior, as supported by available witness accounts, violated that policy,” attorney Benjamin Heffley with the Albany-based law firm Roemer Wallens Gold and Mineaux wrote in his two-page summary.

On Wednesday, Stender maintained that he was attacked by Williams, though the investigators found no hard evidence to substantiate his claim.

“Why would I make this up?” he asked. “This actually happened and nothing’s being done about it.”

Though the investigation is over, a divide continues in the telling of the events of July 11, 2023.

Stender was appointed to the village manager position by Williams in April 2022 after Williams came into office. He said resigning was a hard decision, but one he made immediately after an altercation in the village offices with Williams last July, during which he alleged Williams grabbed him by the throat and “slammed” him against a wall.

In the wake of this, the village board commissioned a law firm to conduct an independent investigation into the complaint. Two months ago, after a report on the investigation was returned to the village, the Enterprise submitted a Freedom of Information Law request seeking the report in full, but the village has decided to release only a summary of the report, written by the law firm.

The investigation found that Stender’s complaint against Williams “could not be verified” through eyewitnesses, and that eyewitnesses recounted that Williams was the one on the defensive in the confrontation.

The executive summary does not provide much more detail on the incident outside of what is already publicly known through the initial police report written by Saranac Lake Police Chief Darin Perrotte, but does cement the accounts given last summer. It also provides the law firm’s legal advice.

Heffley recommended no further action be taken because he found that Williams did not violate the village’s workplace violence policy.

“Stender’s account could not be corroborated by any other witnesses,” Heffley wrote. “On the other hand, all eyewitnesses corroborated Williams’ account that he had assumed a defensive posture as Stender approached him.”

–

Reaction

–

“I don’t have anything but positive things to say about Erik Stender,” Williams said Wednesday. “I am just sad that it went to this level and became what it became.”

He said if he could go back to that day, he would have paused the conversation to pick it up the next day to avoid tensions from escalating. He said it was a stressful time for them, managing everyone’s expectations and requests in the village.

“Every day you’re living and learning and continually trying to be respectful and professional,” he said.

Williams called the investigation a “distraction” from positive village business, and said he hopes the report summary brings closure.

Heffley said all witnesses denied being concerned for their safety in village offices and denied feeling unsafe around either Williams or Stender.

Stender said he wants the public to know “what really happened.” He said he was hoping the investigation would bring “accountability,” and maybe action by the board.

“I’m not giving up. I’m letting everybody know what actually happened,” Stender said.

Deputy Mayor Matt Scollin was the point-person on the board for this investigation, along with village Manager Bachana Tsiklauri.

Scollin said he considers the matter closed. He said the investigation was “truly independent” and that village officials stayed out of it, which might have contributed to the process taking longer.

“It took way too long,” Scollin said. “It was an unfortunate situation from the start and it was made more unfortunate by the leak.”

Scheduling witnesses to talk for the law firm’s investigation is the main reason for the report taking so long, according to Scollin.

Because the witnesses’ personal information was leaked to the press last year and published unredacted by North Country Public Radio, he said that made some of them hesitant to participate in this process, concerned it would happen again. The police report leaked last summer was unredacted, with names, dates of birth, addresses, telephone numbers and other information included. The Enterprise did not publish the report in full, to protect the identity of innocent eyewitnesses.

Scollin said he and Tsiklauri had to speak with the eyewitnesses one-on-one to convince them to participate, and said he appreciates that they did.

“It took some additional time to get the witnesses on board to talk again, after they were burned the first time,” he said.

The investigation was completed in mid-May; the Enterprise filed a Freedom of Information Law request for it on May 23. After two months of discussion on what to do with the document amongst the board and the village attorney, the board voted 4-1 on Monday to release a summary of the report in response to the Enterprise’s request. Williams himself voted “no” on the resolution, while the rest of the board voted “yes.”

Williams said the village attorney told him there’s no legal reason he shouldn’t vote.

Williams said he wasn’t voting no for “self-preservation” reasons. He assumed it would pass. He said he voted no because village policy demands employee information be kept “to the utmost confidence,” and he didn’t want to set precedent for releasing documents “just because there’s public pressure.”

–

Account of events

–

Heffley writes that before the altercation, Stender had been in a “contentious conversation” with a village business owner. Both Stender and Williams told Heffley that Stender emerged from the meeting in a state of agitation and raised his voice at Williams before leaving the office.

Williams followed him, and Stender turned around toward him.

This is where the stories diverge.

“Stender asserted that Williams approached him in a threatening manner, placed his hand on Stender’s throat and pushed him against a closed door. Williams, on the other hand, recalled that it was Stender who made the approach,” Heffley wrote. “Williams held out his arm to keep Stender at a distance, but Stender brushed his arm away. In the process, the two rotated about 90 degrees so that Williams’ back was facing the closed door.”

Heffley said he could not corroborate Stender’s account through eyewitnesses.

Similarly, in his report, Perrotte chalked the different accounts up to the unreliability of memory in his initial report and concluded that it was unclear to him exactly who initiated the physical escalation.

To read more about the content and conclusions of the initial police report, go to tinyurl.com/4h22x8nc.