By: Daniel Clark
I am submitting the attached report, A Structural Analysis of Disciplinary Inequities in Utica Public Safety (2018–2024), for your review and consideration.
This is not a personal grievance narrative. It is a document-based comparative analysis grounded in public record, court decisions, FOIL-released disciplinary files, and contemporaneous reporting summarized by the Labor Relations Information System and the Utica Observer-Dispatch.
The report compares how the City of Utica applied disciplinary procedures and due-process protections across multiple high-profile cases involving sexual misconduct, criminal behavior, use-of-force allegations, and a job-related medical injury. While outcomes differ, the core finding is procedural: individuals accused of serious misconduct consistently received formal investigations, hearings, and representation, while a firefighter alleging a service-connected medical injury did not.
The significance of this analysis extends beyond any single employee. It raises questions about statutory compliance, disability protections, municipal governance, and precedent affecting all public safety personnel operating under the City’s authority.
All names are preserved, all sources are cited, and no anonymous claims are made. The report is structured to allow independent verification and follow-up.
I submit this work in good faith and welcome scrutiny of both its findings and its sources. My sole objective is transparency and accountability in public institutions charged with safeguarding the public
Executive Summary
This report examines disciplinary outcomes within the City of Utica’s Fire and Police Departments between 2018 and 2024, with particular attention to whether disciplinary standards and due-process protections were applied consistently across comparable cases.
Using publicly available records, court decisions, official City statements, and reporting summarized by the Labor Relations Information System (LRIS), this analysis compares multiple high-profile cases involving sexual misconduct, criminal conduct, use-of-force allegations, and job-related medical injury.
The cases reviewed include Fire Department leadership, rank-and-file firefighters, and sworn police officers. The findings reveal a pattern of inconsistent application of disciplinary procedures and penalties. Employees accused of serious misconduct, Incidents that involve criminal behavior and sexual boundary violations. All afforded formal investigations, representation, hearings, and articulated disciplinary pathways. In contrast, a firefighter alleging a job-related medical injury was terminated without investigation, hearing, medical consultation, or written explanation.
The disparity is not merely a difference in outcomes, but a difference in process. The absence of procedural safeguards in one case, when contrasted with their consistent application in others, raises significant concerns regarding due-process compliance, statutory adherence, and the integrity of the City’s disciplinary framework.
This report does not allege motive. It documents outcomes, procedures, and contradictions using the City’s own records. The purpose is to present a factual, side-by-side analysis sufficient to warrant independent review by journalists, oversight bodies, and the public.
Methodology and Sources
This report was prepared by Daniel W. Clark, a former firefighter with the City of Utica and an USMC – OIF – Veteran, using a document-based comparative methodology.
Sources include:
● Labor Relations Information System (LRIS) summaries
● Utica Observer-Dispatch reporting
● FOIL-released personnel and disciplinary records
● Federal and state court rulings
● Official statements issued by the City of Utica
● Public arbitration and prosecutorial records
Only information available through public record or cited reporting has been used. No anonymous sources are relied upon. Where interpretation is offered, it is grounded in documented procedural facts rather than conjecture.
The scope of review is limited to cases in which sufficient documentation exists to assess:
● Alleged misconduct or issue
● The City’s disciplinary process
● Due-process protections afforded
● Final outcomes and penalties imposed
Legal and Structural Framework
Disciplinary actions involving municipal public safety employees in New York State are governed by a combination of statutory law, collective bargaining agreements, and constitutional due-process requirements.
Key statutes and legal frameworks relevant to this analysis include:
● New York Civil Service Law §75, which establishes procedural protections and disciplinary
limitations for covered public employees, including notice of charges, disclosure of evidence, and the right to a hearing.
● General Municipal Law §207-a, which provides medical and financial protections for firefighters injured in the line of duty.
● Civil Service Law §75-b, New York’s whistleblower protection statute.
● The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related accommodation principles.
● The repeal of New York Civil Rights Law §50-a, which made police and fire disciplinary records accessible to the public. These frameworks do not guarantee identical outcomes in every case. They do, however, require consistency in process, transparency in decision-making, and adherence to established procedural safeguards.
Administrative Philosophy and Its Consequences:
In late 2024 Mayor Michael Galime appointed Gregory Getz the Public Safety Commissioner. The Commissioner is the highest in the Chain of Command under the Mayor. The position is responsible for the Police Department, Bureau of Fire, Codes Department, DPW, and other public safety aspects.
Through this oversight a good commissioner can do more than reduce crime rates and increase public safety. Change and cultivation of the culture in each department can be a result as well as the creation of harmony between departments.
Upon assuming his role at Utica City Hall, Commissioner Getz publicly articulated a leadership philosophy grounded in structural control and top-down administration. In discussing public expectations, he stated: “What the public would want to see is getting all these things under control, from the top down. It really doesn’t work that way… I think what they’re going to see is freeing up more of the resources from the fire department. But from the police department, they’re going to see a more active approach to the contractual and interpersonal relationships between the departments and the city.” Commissioner Getz is a graduate of Hamilton College and the Albany Law School. He has done work with the NYS Court of Appeals and decades in a private legal practice through Leitner & Getz
LLP. The primary focus of his career has been Civil Litigation, Complex Litigation, Insurance, Commercial Law, and Business Law. With this experience it has positioned Mr. Getz not solely an administration, but in fact as a legal authority within city government.
He further explained his approach to governance and public safety: “Eventually, I’ll be having a role in trying to come up with creative approaches for crime deterrent… But when it comes to these things, there’s nothing that works better than deterrence. Criminals don’t want to get caught.”
This publicly stated framework emphasizes deterrence, contractual control, and administrative authority. However, when such a model is applied to statutory medical and disability protections, it carries profound consequences. General Municipal Law §207-a and the Americans with Disabilities Act do not operate as discretionary policy tools; they impose mandatory obligations grounded in medical evidence and due process.
When medical determinations are made administratively without engaging treating physicians, independent medical evaluation, or reasonable accommodation analysis, the law is no longer being applied; it is being replaced. In such circumstances, the role of administrator shifts from legal steward to de facto medical arbiter, a function outside professional qualification and statutory authority.
The result is not merely an individual denial of care, but a systemic erosion of enforceability. If protections enacted by law can be nullified through administrative convenience, then the legal framework intended to safeguard injured public safety workers becomes functionally hollow.
Scope of Comparative Analysis:
This report focuses on the following cases, selected due to their documentation and public relevance:
● John Kelly, Utica Fire Department
● Richard Forte, Utica Fire Department
● Matthew Felitto, Utica Police Department
● Samuel Geddes, Utica Police Department
● Daniel W. Clark, Utica Fire Department
Each case is presented using the same analytical structure to allow direct comparison. The intent is not to equate different forms of misconduct, but to examine whether disciplinary procedures and protections were applied uniformly across materially different circumstances.
Case Analyses
Each case below is presented using the same analytical framework to allow direct comparison. The intent is not to equate different forms of alleged misconduct, but to examine how disciplinary procedures, due-process protections, and penalties were applied across cases involving public safety personnel.
Case 1: John Kelly
City of Utica Bureau of Fire
Position at Time of Discipline: Chief of Department (Interim)
Alleged Conduct:
Public reporting and internal records indicate that John Kelly engaged in sexually explicit
communications with a prospective recruit and participated in lewd acts on Fire Department property. The Oneida County District Attorney described the behavior as “bizarre” but declined criminal prosecution, citing statute-of-limitations constraints and lack of prosecutable offenses.
City Process:
The City initiated an internal investigation conducted by the Utica Police Department in 2018. The City relied heavily on the 18-month disciplinary limitation imposed by New York Civil Service Law §75, asserting that much of the conduct occurred outside the permissible disciplinary window.
Due Process Provided:
Kelly received a formal investigation, interviews, findings, and a negotiated disciplinary outcome.
Outcome:
Kelly was docked two vacation days and demoted from Interim Fire Chief to Deputy Chief. He remains employed in a senior leadership position within the Utica Fire Department as a Deputy Fire Chief.
Notes and Contradictions:
Despite the seriousness of the allegations and public statements from the District Attorney regarding the nature of the conduct, the City determined that discipline options were limited due to timing, lack of a formal complaint, and the City’s interpretation that the interactions were consensual. The disciplinary outcome relied on procedural constraints rather than substantive evaluation of leadership fitness or institutional risk.
Case 2: Richard Forte
City of Utica Bureau of Fire
Position: Firefighter
Alleged Conduct:
Forte was charged with criminal sexual misconduct involving a coworker, including masturbating onto a
female firefighter’s clothing.
City Process:
The case proceeded through the criminal justice system in parallel with internal disciplinary processes.
Due Process Provided:
Yes.
Forte was afforded criminal due process and corresponding internal procedures.
Outcome:
Forte was convicted and sentenced to 60 days in jail. His employment with the Fire Department was terminated.
Notes and Contradictions:
The City cited public safety concerns, liability exposure, and the non-consensual nature of the conduct in support of termination. The disciplinary outcome aligned with the severity of the criminal conviction and followed established procedural pathways.
Case 3: Matthew Felitto
Utica Police Department
Position: Police Officer
Alleged Conduct:
Felitto was recorded on a body-worn camera kicking a handcuffed suspect in the head.
City Process:
Felitto was immediately suspended. The incident was publicly reviewed and referred for District Attorney
investigation, followed by federal prosecution.
Due Process Provided:
YES.
Felitto was represented, received hearings, and engaged in negotiated legal proceedings.
Outcome: Felitto pled guilty to a federal civil rights offense, resigned from the Utica Police Department, and was sentenced to two years’ probation, a $7,500 fine, and 100 hours of community service. As a convicted felon, he was prohibited from possessing a firearm.
Notes and Contradictions:
The City pursued aggressive disciplinary action due to the public nature of the incident, civil rights implications, and visual evidence. Procedural protections were fully observed throughout the process.
Case 4: Samuel Geddes
Utica Police Department
Position: Sergeant
Alleged Conduct:
Geddes was accused of improper use of pepper spray during an arrest, including exposure affecting a
minor bystander.
City Process:
The City imposed an immediate suspension and referred the matter for District Attorney review.
Due Process Provided:
Yes.
Geddes participated fully in the disciplinary and arbitration process.
Outcome:
Geddes was ultimately reinstated with back pay following arbitration.
Notes and Contradictions:
Despite public scrutiny and the City’s initial pursuit of termination, Geddes was properly afforded full procedural protections and reinstated when the evidentiary standard was not met. The process functioned as intended under all applicable laws.
Case 5: Daniel W. Clark
Utica Fire Department
Position: Firefighter/ Paramedic
Author of This Report
Alleged Issue:
Clark was terminated for an alleged “injury not sustained in the line of duty.” No misconduct was alleged. The medical issues cited involved CPTSD and a documented cardiac condition associated with chronic stressors from ambulance assignments.
City Process:
No investigation was conducted. No interviews occurred. No medical consultation with treating physicians or VA providers took place. No formal timeline was followed. No written determination was issued prior to termination.
Due Process Provided:
No.
Clark was not provided notice of charges, an evidentiary record, a hearing, or an opportunity to contest the determination.
Outcome:
Clark was terminated. Health insurance coverage was removed months prior to termination. No light-duty assignment or reasonable accommodation was offered.
Notes and Contradictions:
This case represents the most severe employment outcome among those reviewed, imposed without procedural safeguards. The City’s actions diverged from requirements under GML §207-a, Civil Service Law §75, whistleblower protections, and established due-process norms. The absence of process stands in direct contrast to the procedural rigor applied in cases involving criminal conduct and sexual misconduct.
Comparative Findings (Preliminary)
Across the cases reviewed, a consistent pattern emerges:
● Employees accused of sexual misconduct or criminal behavior were afforded full procedural protections.
● Police officers involved in high-profile use-of-force incidents received hearings, representation, and adjudicated outcomes.
● A firefighter alleging a job-related medical injury was terminated without investigation, hearing, or explanation. The disparity is procedural rather than merely disciplinary. The absence of process in Clark’s case cannot be reconciled with the City’s handling of other matters involving significantly greater public risk and liability.
Structural Implications and Public Interest Concerns:
The disciplinary outcomes reviewed in this report raise concerns that extend beyond any individual case. When examined collectively, they reveal systemic vulnerabilities in the City of Utica’s disciplinary framework that carry implications for public safety governance, employee protections, and taxpayer liability. Procedural Consistency as a Due-Process Requirement
New York Civil Service Law §75 and related statutory frameworks do not require identical penalties for different forms of misconduct. They do, however, require consistency in process. This would include notice, investigation, opportunity to respond, and documented decision-making. In the cases reviewed, those procedural safeguards were consistently applied to employees accused of sexual misconduct, criminal behavior, or excessive use of force. Investigations were conducted, evidentiary records were developed, and adjudicatory mechanisms were engaged.
By contrast, the termination of a firefighter for an alleged non-line-of-duty injury occurred without investigation, hearing, medical consultation, or written explanation. This deviation represents not a discretionary difference in outcome, but a departure from the procedural baseline applied in all other reviewed cases.
Implications for Medical and Disability Protections:
General Municipal Law §207-a and the Americans with Disabilities Act exist to protect firefighters who suffer job-related injuries, including psychological and cardiovascular conditions. These protections are not discretionary benefits; they are statutory obligations.
The failure to engage in medical evaluation, consult treating physicians, or explore reasonable accommodations undermines the purpose of these laws. When medical determinations are made administratively without evidence, consultation, or review, the statutory framework designed to protect injured public safety workers becomes functionally unenforceable. Moreover, when administrators act outside their professional qualifications by making de facto medical decisions, it establishes a dangerous precedent and exposes the institution to significant legal liability.
Risk to Municipal Integrity and Public Trust:
Disciplinary systems function not only to punish misconduct, but to reinforce public trust in institutions charged with safeguarding life and property. A sense of protection and legitimacy is inherent to the employees and their families entrusted under that care. When procedural protections appear selectively applied, confidence in the fairness and legitimacy of those institutions erodes.
The cases examined here demonstrate that individuals accused of serious misconduct were afforded procedural rigor, while an employee seeking medical protection was denied the same. Such asymmetry invites questions regarding internal accountability, governance priorities, and the neutrality of decision-making structures.
Precedential Impact:
Perhaps most concerning is the precedent such actions establish. If termination without process is permissible in cases involving medical injury, similar approaches could be applied to other employees who become medically inconvenient, financially burdensome, or administratively complex.
This precedent does not remain confined to one department or one individual. It reshapes the expectations of due process for all public safety employees operating under the City’s authority.
Limitations of the Analysis:
This report does not claim access to internal deliberations, undocumented communications, or intent. It does not speculate as to motive. Its conclusions are drawn solely from documented actions, timelines, outcomes and experience.
The analysis is limited to cases with sufficient public documentation to allow comparison. It does not purport to represent every disciplinary action taken by the City of Utica, but rather those that illuminate structural inconsistencies when viewed together.
Conclusion:
When viewed in isolation, each case reviewed by the City of Utica can be explained through statutory distinctions, timing constraints, or factual differences. When viewed collectively, however, the procedural disparities become difficult to reconcile.
Employees accused of criminal conduct and sexual misconduct were provided formal processes and protections. A firefighter alleging a job-related medical injury was not.
This divergence raises legitimate questions regarding due-process compliance, statutory adherence, and the integrity of the City’s disciplinary framework. Those questions warrant independent examination by journalists, legal authorities, and oversight institutions charged with ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability in public service.
Appendix A — Personal Reflection (Author
Statement)
This section is provided for context only and is not intended as evidentiary support for the findings of the
report.
I served the City of Utica as a firefighter/paramedic and entered that service with a clear understanding of duty, accountability, and sacrifice. I accepted the risks inherent to the profession; physical, psychological, and moral. To sacrifice one’s Body, Mind, and Soul to that of their fellow human, a complete stranger, with no questions asked, is unfathomable until it isn’t. What I did not anticipate was that an injury sustained through service, documented and treated by medical professionals, would be addressed not through process or evaluation, but through silence and termination. I was not afforded the procedural protections routinely granted to others accused of far more serious misconduct. That disparity compelled me to examine whether my experience was isolated or symptomatic of a broader structural issue.
This report was written not out of retaliation, but obligation. Obligation to truth, to due process, and to the public servants who trust that the systems governing them will function fairly. Most importantly when they are most vulnerable.
My personal beliefs and moral grounding inform my commitment to integrity and accountability, but they are not the basis of the findings presented in this report. Those findings stand on documented record. I submit this analysis in good faith, with the hope that transparency and independent review will strengthen, rather than diminish, the institutions entrusted with public safety.
— Daniel W. Clark Semper Fidelis
Appendix B — Source Index & Citations
The following sources were used in the preparation of this report. All citations are derived from publicly accessible records, court filings, or contemporaneous reporting.
Primary Reporting & Summaries
● Labor Relations Information System (LRIS):
“Utica Disciplines Police Officers and Firefighters Differently, Deputy Chief Claims” (2020)
● Utica Observer-Dispatch reporting (2018–2024)
Legal & Judicial Records
● People v. Richard Forte, New York criminal proceedings
● United States v. Matthew Felitto, U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York
● Oneida County District Attorney declination memoranda (Geddes case)
● Arbitration decision reinstating Sgt. Samuel Geddes (UPD)
Statutory References
● New York Civil Service Law §75
● New York Civil Service Law §75-b
● New York General Municipal Law §207-a
● Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
● Repeal of New York Civil Rights Law §50-a (2020)
Public Records & Disclosures
● FOIL-released disciplinary records obtained following §50-a repeal
● Official City of Utica statements and press releases
● Public arbitration rulings and sentencing memoranda
All links and documents are available upon request
