Ulster County Comptroller March Gallagher defended last week her use of a hidden camera to record county employees as part of a time theft investigation when she appeared before county lawmakers to address allegations that the covert surveillance violated a policy intended to protect employee’s privacy. Gallagher also said that she kept the investigation secret from other officials, including the county attorney, because she did not trust them to properly handle a whistleblower complaint.

“We were advised that our investigation was and is compliant with [county policy on covert surveillance of employees],” Gallagher told lawmakers at the committee meeting Thursday. “I was operating under the jurisdiction of the Ulster County Charter and New York State Law.”

Gallagher’s investigation into allegations of time and attendance fraud at UCAT has been under scrutiny since Aug. 25 when a groundskeeping crew discovered a hidden camera with Gallagher’s name and contact information written on it while cutting grass outside UCAT’s headquarters and bus garage on Golden Hill Drive. The hidden camera appeared to have been trained on the building’s entrance to catch comings and goings at the facility. Gallagher has defended the surveillance, saying that it fell within the investigatory powers of her office.

On Thursday, Gallagher appeared before the Laws, Rules and Government Services Committee to answer allegations that her use of the hidden camera violated a resolution passed by the legislature back in 2018 to address workplace surveillance. The resolution reads in part: “The public benefit is better served if notice of the use of recording devices by all Ulster County elected officials and personnel is given to all parties when recording devices of any kind are being used in any communication.”

Addressing lawmakers’ questions, Gallagher, a lawyer, repeatedly declined to discuss specifics of investigations past and present or matters protected by attorney-client privilege, including whether she sought legal advice regarding the workplace surveillance policy before or after the camera was discovered. Instead, Gallagher, who was elected comptroller in 2020, repeatedly invoked the county charter and state law to argue that she had not violated either. Gallagher added that the workplace surveillance policy applied to recording devices owned by county government while her investigation was conducted using her own device. And, while Gallagher denied routinely surveilling county employees, she said the incident at UCAT headquarters was not the first time she had used secret recordings to conduct an investigation.

“When it was necessary to further an investigation or protect taxpayer funding from theft, I have previously recorded a conversation,” Gallagher told the committee.

In response to a question from legislature Minority Leader Kevin Roberts (R-Plattekill) about why she did not seek advice from the County Attorney’s Office regarding the covert recording at UCAT or otherwise coordinate with county officials, Gallagher said that she had reason to believe the executive branch of county government would not adequately protect the rights of employees who report fraud or misconduct to her office.

“The methods that we pursued in this investigation were informed by the mishandling of a prior whistleblower complaint,” Gallagher said. “Based on that combined with the current whistleblower complaints that have come to my office recently it was determined that the preliminary stage of the investigation should remain internal to the Comptroller’s Office.”

Several Democratic county legislators, led by Majority Leader Abe Uchitelle (D-Kingston) appeared unconvinced that Gallagher had not violated the surveillance policy while peppering her with tough questions about how widespread covert surveillance of county employees by her office was.

“There’s a balance to be had between serving the public by recording and creating an environment in which people do not have anxiety about being surveilled,” said legislator Kathy Nolan (D-Shandaken) who is also an attorney. “That was clearly the intent of this resolution and this policy.”

Legislators on both sides of the aisle agreed that there should be a discussion about updating or amending the workplace surveillance resolution and potentially codifying it in the county charter by way of a referendum.

“We appreciate the attempts to prevent fraud in county government,” said Jason Kovacs (R-Town of Ulster), a practicing attorney. “I think the approach here was perhaps a little unconventional, but I think that speaks to the need for a county policy on electronic surveillance.”