Allegations of wrongdoing on part of Executive Director Barbara Rice found to be ‘unsubstantiated’
By Zachary Matson
The Adirondack Park Agency and its leader Barbara Rice were cleared of wrongdoing by the state Inspector General’s office after a 20-month-long investigation into allegations that she managed key agency decisions to benefit herself.
The allegations, addressed one-by-one in an investigative report released Monday, spanned decisions to hold APA’s annual planning forum in Saranac Lake, to move the agency headquarters to the village and general mismanagement and retaliation against employees. The report concluded that the complaints were “unsubstantiated.”
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
“I am pleased with the outcome of the investigation,” Rice said in a statement Monday. ”Moving forward, I am excited to continue building upon all of the successes that we have achieved over the past three years.”
The IG report sheds new light on the internal workings of the agency and the frustrations of current and former employees who have accused Rice of relying on an inner circle of trusted staff while marginalizing others, including those outlined in a union letter anonymously signed by 20 of 47 non-management agency staff members. While the report cites multiple accusations of Rice reassigning work, excluding staff from meetings and removing one staff member’s access to an agency vehicle, the IG’s office found that none claimed a specific instance of prohibited retaliation.
The investigation centered on four specific areas of allegation:
- Rice improperly steered the 2023 Adirondack Planning Forum to the Hotel Saranac to benefit herself and the Village of Saranac Lake, where her family owns a furniture business and she previously served on the village board.
- Rice violated a legislative appropriation by shifting a plan to reconstruct the agency headquarters in Ray Brook to establishing a new headquarters in Saranac Lake.
- Rice improperly directed a change to an enforcement decision involving a friend.
- That Rice generally mismanaged the agency and retaliated against staff.
The report details the investigative findings for each allegation and includes new details about the proposed headquarters move, which has raised opposition among current and former staff. While an initial legislative analysis had said a $29 million appropriation was intended to build a headquarters in Ray Brook, the final language passed by lawmakers did not specify a location.
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
During the investigation, an APA employee accused Rice of misleading state budget officials about rising cost estimates, claiming Rice obfuscated in a meeting with officials shortly after learning the project cost had increased by nearly $10 million. Since APA has still not finalized a spending proposal for the headquarters, the IG “did not find any evidence that Rice violated the approved appropriation.”
The report also noted that the appropriation has been maintained in multiple budgets and was recently increased another $10 million. The agency has rejected Explorer requests to release a feasibility study of moving the headquarters. Rice at the agency’s June meeting indicated an update on the building would be forthcoming soon.
Supporters of a move have extolled the benefits of relocating the agency to Saranac Lake, including supporting the revitalization of an important hamlet. In rebutting allegations that Rice’s family business would benefit from the move, the IG report cited a budget official suggesting it would have little economic benefit for the village. (Rice has said her family business would not participate in furnishing a new building.)
“A [Department of Budget] employee informed [investigators] that the potential economic impact on the surrounding community would likely be minimal,” according to the report. Since the distance of the move was small, “employees’ spending habits would be unlikely to change.”
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
Some opponents of a move to Saranac Lake have raised the conflict of interest the agency would face in granting itself a permit to build near the Saranac River shoreline. Rice told investigators that the agency planned to manage the conflict by having the project permit reviewed by APA staff who were not involved in planning the building project.
The report also revealed that “based on a call [Rice] received from a family friend, Rice asked an APA employee to reopen an [enforcement] case that had already been reviewed and closed.” An APA employee described the instance as troubling since Rice involved herself in an enforcement case where she knew someone involved. After the case was reopened, “a mutually beneficial agreement was reached, and the right outcome was achieved,” according to the report. The IG found that the agency was not formally changed, and Rice did not improperly direct a new enforcement decision.
John Ernst, who chaired the APA board for the past four years and served his last meeting earlier this month, in a statement Monday called Rice an “exemplary public servant” and thanked the IG for its work.
“Executive Director Barbara Rice is an exemplary public servant who led the Agency with the utmost professionalism throughout this investigation,” Ernst said in a statement. I am not surprised that the claims against her were unsubstantiated, the case closed, and her name cleared.”
The Adirondack Explorer thanks its advertising partners. Become one of them.
Photo at top: Barbara Rice, Adirondack Park Agency Executive Director at an APA meeting on March 13 in Ray Brook. Photo by Eric Teed
“The report cites multiple accusations of Rice reassigning work, excluding staff from meetings and removing one staff member’s access to an agency vehicle, the IG’s office found that none claimed a specific instance of prohibited retaliation…..”
I am trying to understand this statement. The IG office found these work place actions were not “prohibited retaliations”; therefore is the reader to conclude they are in fact retaliations?