Month: July 2015

The only information on the Saratoga County Community Services Board is a one line item on the county government website that states when their meetings are held.  There is no list of who is on the board or even where they meet.

According to their website they were to meet today, July 29, 2015.  Last week I sent an email to its chair, Dr. Frank Archangelo, with documents that indicated  the failure of the county to follow the law in hiring the mental health director, the county’s violation of the law in usurping the Community Services Board’s oversight duties, and the obvious and gross flaws in the county’s investigation of mis-management at the clinic.  I asked that the documents be shared with the members of his board.

He emailed me back on Friday indicating he would fully respond to me on the following Monday.  When I had not heard from him on Monday, late that afternoon I followed up asking when I might get his reply.  He then sent me an email in which he stated that the Board does not meet in August so he could follow up with the board in September.  He apparently overlooked the fact that there was a board meeting scheduled for that Wednesday.  When I asked about the Wednesday meeting he told me that they required two days notice to attend the meetings and three days notice to speak. Furthermore, if I were to speak, I would only be allowed five minutes and there would be no discussion.

I responded by asking why it was that they required two days notice to simply attend their meeting.  I also asked for a copy of the bylaws which would presumably set this requirement.  According to my earlier FOIL to the county, there are no bylaws (Why not ask anyway?).  I also asked whether I could expect that the members of the board would receive my original email prior to or at the meeting.

He emailed back stating that two days notice was a “courtesy” but that he would allow me this one time to both attend and address the board.  He did not provide me with a copy of the alleged bylaws.  He did not indicate when he planned to share my email with the board.  He did however state that he would no longer be responding to emails to his personal email account.  He did not provide me with any other email address that I might use to contact him.

The meeting was to be held at 4:00 pm at the Mental Health Center.  When I arrived a few minutes before 4:00 I was told that the meeting had been canceled.  I later learned from a reliable source that the alleged reason that the meeting had been canceled was due to a lack of a quorum.  I found out that Archangelo was in the meeting room.  There are a number of troubling questions about this canceled meeting.  First, since there are no bylaws, what is the basis of a quorum?  It is also passing strange that Archangelo knew there would be no quorum before the meeting was to start.  If the board had been previously polled and he knew that there would be no meeting, why was he there in the meeting room?  There may be some plausible reason for this but since Dr. Archangelo will not respond, I will never know.

So I have no way knowing when the next meeting will be or whether he has provided the board with the documents in my email.

 I attach here the emails and the statement I would have made to the board which I believe are all courteous.

  Emails From Archangelo

Statement I would have made to CSB:

I come before you with an appeal. I am sure that the members of this board who all treat the mentally ill came to their profession out of a deep sense of services and caring.   Who else would better understand the terrible toll that mental illness has on its victims and on the loved ones around them. The fact that you volunteered to be on the community services board speaks to your dedication.

I do not envy you. The document I have circulated among you raises grave concerns about the violation of New York State law as regards the manner in which Dr. Michael Prezioso was hired, the inappropriate interference of our county government in the management of the clinic, and the on-going confusion about the role of your board. It also quotes a psychiatrist who was employed by the clinic that at a minimum should alarm you and motivate you to determine the extent of its truth, especially in light of the obvious flaws in the investigation carried out by the county into this matter.

I can only appeal to you as human beings who know how important the effective running of our clinic is to ask for the New York State Department of Mental Hygiene to meet with you in order to determine what your role should be and to provide you with the training and technical assistance to fulfill your responsibilities.

Thank you for listening to me.

I leave it to my readers to judge Dr. Archangelo’s behavior in this matter.  As for me, I think it  fits right into culture of both the County and the local Mental Health Clinic.

Sarah Burger had submitted a petition to the Saratoga County Board of Elections which would have required a primary for the Working Family Party line.  Previously, Chris Mathiesen had received their endorsement and will appear on their line in November.

In a letter to Eileen Finnera signed by both the Republican and Democratic Board of Elections Commissioners, they ruled that because the petition did not identify the members of the Committee To Fill Vacancies, the petition is invalid.  Since only Mathiesen has submitted valid petitions for this office, there is no one to run against him in a primary so there will be no primary.

Here is a copy of the letter Board of Elections Letter

The purpose of the committee to fill vacancies is to select an alternative candidate if the person on the petition declines to run or becomes incapacitated.  The courts have been fairly lenient about errors on the petitions but leaving these names out is considered to be a “fatal error.”  Here is a further explanation on committees to fill vacancies. Discussion of Committee on Vacancies

I have a copy of the memorandum from Michael Toohey, the attorney for Saratoga National Golf Course, to the city with three different drafts of the proposed text amendment to the city zoning law.  The memorandum is a narrative explaining what SNGC is seeking and why what they want is a benefit to the city.

For those of you who want to go through the documents yourselves you can link to it here.  SNGC Clubhouse Proposal

The cover memorandum makes a variety of claims which I will not go into because they are pretty much “spin” and do not merit space on this blog. 

So here is the proposed definition for a “Clubhouse-Golf” that Mayor Yepsen, Commissioner Franck, and Commissioner Madigan voted to send to the Planning Board for an advisory opinion with my explanatory analysis:

Most of us think of a clubhouse as a single building with maybe a luncheonette, bar, and locker rooms.  Not so here.  The proposed amendment describes it as “A structure or clustered group of structures…(my emphasis)”  This structure or, more accurately, these structures “…may include locker rooms, spa, health and fitness retail, restaurant, and banquet facilities, business center, lodging for up to 100 rooms, and up to 6 free-standing golf lodges, containing common space and up to 8 guest rooms…”  

In order to address any suspicions that these “golf lodges” may be condos in disguise the zoning ordinance requires that these (remember this is a clubhouse) may not have kitchen facilities and they may not be privately owned.

This (these) clubhouse(s) must be 3000 feet from the clubhouse’s “primary, public road entrance with no building being higher than 50 feet.”  Here is a standard dripping in irony: “Only one clubhouse can be constructed in relation to the golf course.”

The final sentence reads (yes, this is a very brief definition): “Retention of permeable land and public access shall be a criterion considered (my emphasis) by the Planning Board in granting of a Special Use Permit and/or Site Plan Review.”

Permeable land is important in development projects because such land helps protect water quality in the watershed.

Now one might ask “What is public access”?  Is it the ability of people to come on the property and play golf?  Is it the right of people to walk through wetlands and trails not part of the golf course or to paddle on any bodies of water on the land?  Is it a permanent and legally binding agreement that gives the public use of the property?

Apparently we must wait to find this out because there is no further discussion of this in the amendment.  Once this zoning change is made and Saratoga Golf National Golf Course applies to the Planning Board for a special use permit and/or approval of their site plan, we will find out.

Some may ask, what happened to the easement that its attorney, Michael Toohey, has been dangling before the public?  In his covering memo we are told that “This is an opportunity (my emphasis) for a portion of the land…to remain permeable with a mandate (my emphasis), that through the special Use Permit and Site Plan approval process that components of public, year-round, access become conditions to the granting of the required permits.”  Has the word “mandate” ever been more abused?  The mandate is that the planning board must consider it.  Note that there is absolutely nothing about how much land will actually be set aside nor what the terms of this access will be.  We will have to wait until, with this ill defined concept, SNGC goes before the Planning Board for its approvals.  Finally, with not a hint of irony, Toohey declaims: “A plan such a this is the only way the ‘Greenbelt’ is guaranteed to remain green.”

Folks, I am not making this stuff up.  Just click on the link to the document and read it yourself. 

If you want to be inspired, watch Commissioner Mathiesen and Commissioner Scirocco statements opposing sending on the text amendment to the Planning Board.  Statements BY Mathiesen and Scirocco Got to 25:18 minutes for the statements.

 

Several months ago, following articles in the Times Union about the problems at the Saratoga County Mental Health Center, the New York State Office of Mental Health did a surprise monitoring visit to our local clinic.  Some weeks ago, I FOILed the county for a copy of the report.

I received their response.  Redacted County FOIL Re OMH

If you look at the documents you will see they have blacked out virtually all of the monitoring report.  I contacted the New York State Office on Open Government and spoke to Robert Freeman, its executive director.  I described what I had received.  He offered that while they have considerable latitude to keep confidential opinions and recommendations, they cannot redact any facts in the document. I know that the document included at least one fact.

The local county is required by their contract with the state, to provide a certain level of staffing.  Due to the rash of resignations at the clinic they were out of compliance.  According to Freeman, such a statement should not have been redacted.  I expect there other observations of fact that were damning as well.

This is just another example of not only the opaqueness of our county government but a commentary on our two supervisors.  Matt Vietch has strenuously defended the county in the matter of the clinic.  Peter Martin has been silent.  I would point out that Martin is a Democrat.  It speaks volumes that he can behave disgracefully at the expense of the many people in desperate need of services and not fear that Charlie Brown, the chair of the city Democratic Committee will speak out on the issue.

Saratoga Springs city government has had a box at the flat track for as long as anyone can remember. It seems that it is called the “Mayor’s Box.”

At the last city council meeting, Commissioner Michelle Madigan raised concerns about Mayor Joanne Yepsen paying $4,000.00 out of her campaign funds (half the $8,000.00 cost) to secure the box for this racing season.

The full discussion can be viewed at Video Of Discussion Of Box

Move the timer to 34:52 for the discussion.

According to the discussion, a few years ago NYRA, which had traditionally provided the box for free to the city, changed its policy and required the city to pay for the box. Apparently both the governor and the senate gave up their respective boxes rather than pay the fee. At the time Scott Johnson indicated that he did not think the tax payers should foot the bill. He asked the other members of the council if they would contribute. During that first year, John Frank and Michelle Madigan contributed to the cost of the box as well as Johnson. Last year, Mayor Yepsen queried the council regarding the bill and only Michelle Madigan contributed in addition to the Mayor who paid the bulk of it.

This year, when Mayor Yepsen received the bill she put the initial payment down using her campaign moneys but did not advise the other members of the council. At the meeting Madigan strenuously complained about not being notified and, after conceding it was legal, argued it was inappropriate to use campaign funds.

The mayor then asserted that she acted to save the box. She noted that no one had contacted her and in turn, Madigan, Mathiesen, and Scirocco replied that she should have advised them.

In the most interesting part of the discussion, Tony Izzo, suggested that the council use public money for the box. He noted that there was already a precedent of non-profit agencies paying the $221.00 daily cost to use for fund raisers. He suggested that the city might recover much of the cost of the box in this way and save the use of it for special days like the Travers Race.

There was a consensus among the council members that it was important for the city not to lose the use of the box. There also seemed to be a consensus not to use public money. In the end, they agreed to try to come up with a plan outside of the council meeting.

Rethinking The Box From The Outside?

First I should note that while the flat track is great for the city, I personally have no interest in racing. Having said that, I believe that it is quite important for the city to keep its box.

Many years ago I ran a non-profit agency here in Saratoga Springs. Every August a variety of agencies that funded my organization would choose that month to visit my agency. Among my visitors was the head of Federal Region II. This gentleman never went North of New York City as far as I could tell so it was quite a coup to be able to spend a day with him. Ray Watkin, who was then mayor, helped me out by making his box available to my agency for the event.

The reality is that getting things you want is often a matter of getting quality time with the people who make the decisions that are important to you and to building relations with them. In that context, the box is an extremely valuable a fossetr our city.

Starting A Dialogue

I would like to start a dialogue with the people who follow this blog about ideas the city might use to handle managing the box.

I believe that the city should, as suggested by Tony Izzo, use public funds to pay NYRA for the box.

The city council could then establish a committee to manage the box made up of appointments by each commissioner and the mayor.

The committee would keep minutes of its meetings which would be posted on the city’s web site.

Records would be kept of who arranged with the committee for use of the box and they would also be expected to provide the committee with a list of who used the box.

In the case of non-profits or other outside organizations, they would be expected to pay the cost of the box for the day.

I think that the members of the city council should not have to pay to use the box. Whatever any of us may think of the individuals who serve on our council, these people put in long hours for a mere $14,000.00 (They do get health insurance which is a valuable benefit and they can receive benefits under the state retirement system). I do not think that it is unreasonable to allow them this perk. They used to get the perk anyway. Now it would cost the city some money to provide it.

I am not concerned about the “political” use of the box as long as it is not excessive. Let’s remember that for decades, the box was used as the mayor and the council saw fit. I am quite confident, seeing fit included inviting key members of their respective parties.

The tricky part of this is who gets the top days like the Travers. I hope that people reading this blog might have suggestions that the council would find helpful.
I think the committee which is expected to manage the box could submit their selection methodology to the council for formal approval.

Theresa Capozzola is a heroine of mine.  No one has been more dedicated to protecting what is left of the green areas of this city than Ms. Capozzola.  She has sat through endless meetings.  She has provided the most thoughtful analysis for many of us about what is going on with development.

She has written an important letter to Mark Torpey that raises some key questions about the Saratoga National Golf Course’s campaign to build in the conservation district.

Capazzola Letter

I attended the Planning Board Meeting on Wednesday night. On the agenda was the text amendment that was referred to the Planning Board by the City Council for an advisory opinion. The text amendment is being “promoted” by Saratoga National Golf Course in order to accommodate their very ambitious plans.

The discussion was extremely convoluted so some background on the process follows. Please try to bear with it.

Formally, the text amendment is about a change to the overall zoning definitions for the conservation (green) district. It is not suppose to be about any particular project. Of course, this is a kind of kabuki dance because there is only one golf course in the conservation district and the text amendment is related to definitions for permissible structures for golf courses in the district. The most obvious point of contention is defining a golf course club house as containing lodging involving one hundred guest rooms.   Most people would describe such a building as a hotel but hotels are not allowed in the conservation district. There are also some additional, smaller, residential units that are meant to be kind of mini houses to accommodate groups but specifically barring any cooking facilities.

In the meantime, things are even more convoluted due to confusion about what is actually under consideration. Is it the specific text amendment referred to the Planning Board by the City Council or is it one of several versions that have been subsequently amended by Saratoga National Golf Course? The members of the Planning Board were unclear about what they should be dealing with. Making it even more confusing is that the revision and the revision of the revision were not labeled in a clear way to know which the latest iteration is.

If this was not enough, Chairman Mark Torpey noted that the final version of the city’s comprehensive plan had not been posted on the web site. As he pointed out, one of the key elements in determining the appropriateness of the text change was whether it complied with the comp plan. He noted that without access to the final version of the comp plan, the ability for the pubic to evaluate the proposed change was problematic.

In the end, the Planning Board agreed to put off a public hearing and a full discussion of the text until the next meeting. They did, however, agree to allow Michael Toohey, the attorney for SNGC to address the board.

Toohey had nothing substantial to say but it took him at least twenty-five minutes to say it. The most memorable thing he said was that the SNGC was about to donate the most land in the history of the city with the exception of the State Park. This is a claim he has made before but what exactly constitutes this donation is yet to be clarified.

The most disturbing event was the decision to pay for the attorney the city uses on real estate matters to work with Toohey. This recommendation was made by Tom Lewis. Mr. Lewis, who was appointed by Scott Johnson was, for many years, the chairman of the City Rep  ublican Party. He was also employed as an executive at Stewarts for real estate acquisition. Given the economics and politics of this issue, Mr. Lewis is one of several seats at the table representing the interests of SNGC. Tom Lewis recommended that the city’s real estate lawyer (he is on retainer) work with Toohey to insure that the wording is legal. The idea that the city tax payers are footing the bill to assist the developer with the language for something that the city has yet to decide it wants is highly questionable.

In the meantime, for those of you as obsessive as me, here is the set of documents sent by the city to the planning board along with an amusing memo by Toohey as to what constitutes a club house

Text Amendment For Advisor Opinion

Definistion Of Club House.