Learn about the charter change proposals that will be on this November’s ballot in Saratoga Springs.
Vince DeLeonardis, City Attorney and chair of the current Charter Review Commission, will discuss the two ballot questions that will be put before voters and answer questions. Several Commissioners and Deputies who were on the Charter Commission are also expected to attend. The meeting will be held at the Saratoga Springs Public Library on Wednesday, October 3, at 6:30PM. The event is a public educational meeting sponsored by SUCCESS. All are invited to attend.
The two ballot questions will read as follows:
1. Shall the Saratoga Springs City Charter be amended as proposed by the 2018 Charter Review Commission?
[This proposes updates and adjustments to the current commission form of government.]
2. Shall the Saratoga Springs City Charter be further amended to provide for two (2) additional City Council members whose authority shall be legislative only?
The Charter Commission’s full report and the proposed changes are available on the city website as are videos and minutes of all of their meetings.
7 thoughts on “Learn about the charter change proposals that will be on this November’s ballot in Saratoga Springs.”
Yes on #1. Absolutely, positively NOT on #2, which is the most ridiculous thing I have seen yet in all of the charter possibilities.
I like N0. 2, because it provides a possibility for people like dmorris12014 to contribute his usual, “all things wrong with the city” pulse, without having to be challenged by heading a department or working with a deputy commissioner and staff.
All the second part of this does is to prove how insane the commission form of government is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It has had a good track record Dave. Don’t be such a naysayer.
No James. That’s where you are wrong. VERY wrong. If it had such a ‘good track record’, then why has just about every community in this country abandoned it? Saratoga was fortunate because it had some good people in charge in spite of the form of government we have. But the actual form of government itself is terrible, and always has been.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe that we have maintained our form of government (with its occasional amendments) because it works for us. I suspect that if you study every one of those communities that you envy, you might find that at the moment they changed forms of governance, they were mired in an economic decline or stagnation, desiring a change to hopefully provide a resurgence for their municipalities. I also believe, that if they had a choice today, they would consider going back – just as Watertown our faux sister city has done recently by dismissing their third city manager in 5 years. I also believe that size matters. Our city is manageable and far more responsible to its citizenry with our form of government. Larger municipalities may benefit by different forms. Few small American cities today can compare themselves with ours – lucky us! For over a hundred years, we’ve had more than “some good people” and I can only point to one person that was unfit for office and our elections solved that problem directly. I don’t expect you to agree with me Dave, but please don’t SHOUT with your type. It is rude.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Re: “Our city is manageable and far more responsible to its citizenry with our form of government.”
Then please explain to us all how ‘responsible’ it was that the development I live in waited over 50 years (not a typo) to get the flooding problem solved (and that’s only on the top of the hill, not the bottom). And that isn’t a knock on Skip either, who is working on fixing the problem.
Please tell us how ‘responsible’ it was that it took almost 40 years to get our housing to a point where it is now?
Please tell us how ‘responsible’ it is that we still don’t have a firehouse to serve an area we know is not ‘up to snuff’ in coverage?
None of this is a knock on the people that served (well, one in particular to be honest with you), but rather this insane form of government. It’s as illogical as it gets, and needs to be replaced. But these proposals won’t do a thing to separate executive and administrative powers, which to me is ‘the’ big deal. I’m voting yes on the first (simply because it should help city hall function better on a daily basis, but never on the second part which is horrible wrong for many reasons.