Mr. Altamari, You Are Better Than This

Charter Commission member Jeff Altamari bitterly attacked John Franck in an October 13 Reader’s View  in the Saratogian regarding criticism of the Charter Commission’s analysis of what the proposed change in government will cost.  He wrote:

“Then the shouting started.  At its September 18 City Council meeting (he has the date wrong, it was on the 19th) …Frank using profanity in the public forum, ridiculed the Commission’s work, accompanied by Madigan and Scirocco.”  Mr. Altamari goes on to urge people to view the video of the meeting.  He further states that “It’s disgraceful Franck angrily claimed the Commission’s findings ‘misrepresented the facts.’” 

I can understand why Mr. Altamari is stung by this criticism but rather than simply state that Franck’s allegations are false, it would have been more convincing and meaningful if he had addressed Franck’s points and  refuted them.

Given the regrettable record of inaccuracies and over statements regularly made by the Charter group, I decided to check out Mr. Altamari’s description of this meeting and watch the video.  Now I can understand and have sympathy for Mr. Altamari reacting viscerally to some very sharp and pointed criticism of his financial analysis of the charter proposal, but I have reviewed the video and to begin with there is no shouting.  I myself did not hear any profanity but I spoke with John Franck and he admits to using the word “bullshit” at one point. While Commissioner Franck is clearly disturbed by what he characterizes as numbers that simply lack logical credibility, neither he nor any of the other Council members, in my opinion, lose their composure.

I am terribly disappointed in Mr. Altamari. Although I have often disagreed with him, I had heretofore seen him as prudent and responsible.  This attack on Commissioner Franck seems  recklessly exaggerated on Mr. Altamri’s part and  out of character.  It cheaply plays to the prejudices of many regarding politicians.  I, like Mr. Altamari urge the readers of this blog to take the time to watch the video and decide for themselves.  

Video of September 19

In his letter Mr.Altamari also makes the kind of absolute statements that have been unfortunately  too commonly used by Charter supporters.   “There is no accountability”  he writes referring to the current city government. This is the kind of sound bite that so troubles me.  City council members are acutely aware that they must run for office every two years.   Would he not  consider that  accountability?  I would urge the readers to review his letter.  He goes on to claim that “Timely, long-term planning is nearly impossible.”  This shrill overstatement ignores  the city’s capital budget which does exactly that and has produced the bike trail, addressed the swamp that used to plague Congress Park, replaces aging fire trucks, etc.  Mr. Altamari does not do nuance.

In his explanation of how he arrived at some of the numbers in his financial impact statement Mr. Altamari writes that “over 20 cities with city managers were examined.” (He later refers to 31) He notes that “thirteen of these were studied in-depth [emphasis added]: five in New York, three in New Jersey, two in Massachusetts, and one in Vermont.” 

So I went to the Charter Commission’s website and under the tab titled “research” I could not find his study.  As this is one of the bases for their financial plan, it is more than odd that it has so far not been available to the public.  I have written to Robert Turner, the chairperson of the Charter Review Commission asking for a copy  of the study.  When I receive it I will share it with the readers of this blog. 

I would note that while looking at how city manager governments are structured in other communities  can be useful, the applicability of these examples is clearly limited.  This is particularly  true in the case of municipalities in other states  where differing mandates and responsibilities for services can have a significant impact on cities’ staffing and budgeting.

The bulk  of the savings Mr. Altamari is claiming in his financial analysis comes from the elimination of four part time commissioners and five full time deputies. It simply begs credibility that a man of Mr. Altamari’s experience would recommend the elimination of all of these employees based on looking at other cities rather than carefully analyzing what essential functions these people may perform in Saratoga Springs and how many hours these activities entail before assuming that a proposed city manager and maybe an assistant could absorb these duties.  There is also the suggestion that existing staff such as the city’s director of finance or the fire chief or the chief of police would take on some of the duties.  Unfortunately, neither Mr. Altamari nor the Commission saw the need to actually ask any of these people if they had the time to absorb these extra responsibilities.

The Commission also assumes there will be savings from two positions a year eliminated through attrition.  Even Commissioner Mathiesen who is a strong advocate for charter change characterized that as unrealistic.

It is quite frustrating to me that Mr. Altamari is fully aware of these criticisms but has chosen not to address them.  Whatever one thinks of Mr. Franck’s comportment it does  not  absolve Mr. Altamari from answering the very legitimate concerns expressed at the Council meeting on the 19th

At the next City Council meeting on October 3rd  John Franck did a power point presentation on why he contends that the Charter Commission’s financial analysis badly misrepresent the true costs of implementing the proposed charter.   It is no rant.  He meticulously and methodically lays out the errors in the document.  His presentation goes well beyond the issue of the eliminated positions. 

Persons truly interested in assessing whether the financial document is accurate and valid would do well to take the time to watch the video.  I  have included the power point visuals here.   

Power Point Presentation: Corrective Analysis of Charter Review Commissions Financial Disclosure Summary 10032017-1Corrective Analysis of Charter Review Commissions Financial Disclosure Summary 10032017-2Corrective Analysis of Charter Review Commissions Financial Disclosure Summary 10032017-3Corrective Analysis of Charter Review Commissions Financial Disclosure Summary 10032017-4Corrective Analysis of Charter Review Commissions Financial Disclosure Summary 10032017-5Corrective Analysis of Charter Review Commissions Financial Disclosure Summary 10032017-6Corrective Analysis of Charter Review Commissions Financial Disclosure Summary 10032017-7Corrective Analysis of Charter Review Commissions Financial Disclosure Summary 10032017-8Corrective Analysis of Charter Review Commissions Financial Disclosure Summary 10032017-9Corrective Analysis of Charter Review Commissions Financial Disclosure Summary 10032017-10Corrective Analysis of Charter Review Commissions Financial Disclosure Summary 10032017-11Corrective Analysis of Charter Review Commissions Financial Disclosure Summary 10032017-12Corrective Analysis of Charter Review Commissions Financial Disclosure Summary 10032017-13Corrective Analysis of Charter Review Commissions Financial Disclosure Summary 10032017-14


And the video of the presentation:

I also urge Mr. Altamari to thoughtfully respond to Commissioner Franck’s critique in the manner it deserves.  I would be happy to post unedited his point by point answers or post a video of his response if he would prefer that medium.  Since this is such an important issue in deciding whether or not to support the charter, I can think of no reason why a person like Mr. Altamari who is committed to educating the public would not take the time to address the issues. 

Finally, SUCCESS has approached both John Franck and Jeff Altamari about participating in a debate which seems to me the best way to serve the public and address the issues.  Commissioner Franck has accepted and SUCCESS is awaiting Mr. Altamari’s response.  Hopefully he will be willing to attend.


The Commission also assumes that they will save money by not filling two positions a year related to attrition.  Even Commissioner Mathiesen who is a strong advocate for charter change characterized that as unrealistic.

7 thoughts on “Mr. Altamari, You Are Better Than This”

    1. It is too bad Franck’s presentation isn’t factually accurate, too many assumptions and gives too many hours put in by Commissioners and his financials are also sketchy, we outsource so much money in attorney and engineering fees we may not have had over a 1 1/2 million dollar budget deficit this past year. Also there are very capable people in every department in City Hall that can run the department and if you think not, how can a politically appointed Deputy oversee them when a professional City Manager can’t?


      1. The Lordsplacecom:

        It would be helpful if you would provide some sort of analysis explaining why you dismiss Commissioner Franck’s presentation. I accept the caveat that some of the time spent by the commissioners and their deputies is devoted to legislative matters rather than administrative matters. These responsibilities would be taken over by the proposed legislature. On the other hand, all the commissioners have credibly argued that the job responsibilities are beyond part time and that their deputies spend more than forty hours at work. If you think his numbers are wrong, rather than simply asserting they are inaccurate, you would provide a far better service by offering a counter analysis that included data as Commissioner Franck has done.

        As to your contention that there are employees in the departments that could absorb the work, could you explain how it is that you know that the employees could fulfill their current duties and still take on more work?

        As to the outsourcing of attorney and engineering fees, could you provide some examples of out sourcing work that was unnecessary?


  1. Just for the fun of it:

    It was not unreasonable for adolescent children, when criticized for bad behavior to exclaim; “Stop yelling at me!” It clearly, was an attempt to re-frame the corrective criticism, to their position.

    The purpose, was to present themselves, the “victim.”
    It seems all too common an approach; these days.

    Sometimes it worked, sometimes it did not.
    And Mr. Altamari, has successfully invoked such long forgotten memories.

    Victimization, in this circumstance, is not supportive the cause.
    It does, however, lend support to the opposition.



  2. Ask Mr. Altamari who will represent the citizens if there is mediation needed in a union grievance from a fireman or a policeman or a member of CSEA? Will it be the person, employed by the city, possibly on the same level of employment as the person who filed the grievance, who also goes to the ITAM or the VFW for a brew with the person who files a grievance? The way the Deputy or Commissioner represents the citizens now, is the proper way, as management. It is a confidential level of management.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: