Shortly after the 2018 Charter Review Commission (CRC) began its deliberations, its members issued an invitation to Skidmore Professor Robert Turner, Patrick Kane, and Gordon Boyd to address the Commission. As many of you will recall, these three were among the most active in the now-disbanded 2017 CRC. All three declined the invitation.
Their response, while a disappointment, came as no surprise. During the 2017 campaign those members made their view clear: the current Commission form of government in Saratoga Springs is a dysfunctional disaster that had not only historically damaged the City, but represented a real threat to its — that is to say, our — future. In declining the invitation I assumed that they wanted to broadcast that they felt the commission form was so dysfunctional that any change in it would have no real positive impact. In addition they seemingly did not want to lend credibility to the proposed new charter through their participation.
With only two weeks until we vote, the dissidents, along with five other former members of the past Commission, have now issued a rather ugly, scorched-earth attack against the proposed revisions being offered by the 2018 Commission. I find this troubling on many levels. I could fully have understood if they had urged a “no” vote for the reasons deduced above. They have made it clear that, as is their right, they plan to offer their proposed charter again as soon as legally possible. They could have used this moment as an opportunity to make their case for why the existing charter should be abandoned in favor of one in which City government revolves around a city manager.
Instead, the dissidents have adopted a bunker mentality, issuing a release that embodies much of what has gone wrong with politics in today’s America. It broadcasts their stark narrative that the members of the City Council are greedy politicians who will stop at nothing to gain power and enrich themselves at the City’s expense. This makes me think of John LeCarre who, in his great spy novels, portrayed a cycle in which the perceived venality of one’s opponents is used to justify replicating the same behavior — to win.
So Bob Turner, Pat Kane, Gordon Boyd et al. felt the need to cast the proposed changes to the charter as simple abuses of the public trust. Perhaps they have congratulated themselves for their timing, as we are just two weeks away from a vote. These tactics may in some instances succeed but we should recognize them for what they are: they are by design intended not to reason their way to consensus but to shock and wound.
Since the changes to the charter in Ballot Question One (as compared to Ballot Question Two which would add two members to the council) are both modest in scope and easily explained, Turner et al. had to go to extreme lengths to attack them.
For example (see previous post with all the details of all their accusations) they use shrill oratory to claim that the proposal to remove council members’ salaries from the charter will mean that future members of the City Council will be able to award themselves “unlimited” salaries. This plays on a skeptical public’s fears of “politicians” burdening the citizens with taxes while lining their own pockets. Put otherwise, we’re invited to fear that our government and our elected officials are our enemies. Does this sound familiar?
The problem is that Bob Turner, Patrick Kane, Gordon Boyd, et al. all supported making the same change in their own 2017 charter. So, logically, if you vote for their proposed charter sometime in the future, you will presumably be voting to award Council members “unlimited” salaries. As if borrowing from a Gothic novel we all know, these individuals must have the capacity to stare into a mirror and not see themselves.
The following is an excerpt from the white paper prepared by Vince DeLeonardis and Mike Sharp on this very subject:
… It is also curious why Mr. Turner and the others who signed the letter question the removal of salaries from the Charter, when their own legal counsel, Bob Batson, explained to them that “the model charter rejects putting compensation in the Charter” (see 2/6/17 Commission meeting minutes). Even Pat Kane recognized that “the Department of State and NYCOM recommend that salaries not be in charters” and that “most charters do not identify salaries in the charter”. Mr. Kane believed that “salaries should be left to the Council” and Gordon Boyd fully agreed, stating that “Council should set salaries” and proclaiming that “there is a moral and statutory obligation of the Council to set salaries” (see 3/6/17 Commission meeting minutes).
The Ghost Of Marshall McLuhan
The problem here is not so much whether or not these charter changes are adopted or rejected. Our City is healthy enough to withstand the impact of either the continuation of the existing charter or the adoption of a city manager form of government. Instead, what stands at risk is our ability to thoughtfully engage with each other as citizens in a democratic process. Healthy civic debate, however animated, should not be confused with combat.
And it is not just proclaiming falsehoods or gross misrepresentations, masquerading as fact, which puts us at risk; it is the creation of an overheated rhetoric which is so pernicious and toxic. It intimidates many from offering their opinions for fear that they will be subject to the kind of character attack that pervades documents like the release. Worst of all, it causes many to simply avoid even listening because the experience is so dreadful.
Marshall McCluhan famously observed that the “medium is the message.” That pretty much sums up our situation.
The Grim Decline of the League of Women Voters
In the past, the League of Women Voters set a standard and an expectation for the kind of public dialogue that now appears quaint. They were absolutely scrupulous about fairness and accuracy. Their forums were a study in decorum. If I wanted information on something about local government I could always turn to League-sponsored public events.
Unfortunately, the League appears to have been negatively impacted by the larger forces in our culture. Last year they held a forum on the proposed 2017 charter. They originally set it up so that only the supporters of that proposed charter could participate. Barbara Thomas, who was one of the three co-chairs of the League, was allowed to participate in the decision-making process and to be a panelist in spite of the fact that she was a member of the 2017 charter review commission. When the critics of the charter protested, the League responded by making them a poison-pill offer: there would be three representatives of the charter commission on the panel who would have unlimited time; they would add a representative from “It’s Time”, which was the public relations arm of the charter; and someone else would offer the opposing view. These latter two would be limited to ten minutes each. Needless to say the critics declined to participate in such a lop-sided forum.
This year I contacted the League asking if they planned to sponsor a public forum on the newly proposed charter. I was told by a member speaking for the League that, because they oppose the commission form, they would not be having a forum. I subsequently received an email back from one of the League’s leaders advising me that they did not have time to do a program. A letter to the editor in the Saratogian from League representative announced their opposition to the commission form of government and thus to this year’s charter proposal.
The League made its decision without inviting anyone from the current Charter Review Commission to address them. This could not be more out of keeping with the League’s history, nor more damaging to its public profile.
That the League of Women Voters would squander the trust it had so carefully cultivated over the years by insulating themselves and depriving the public of thoughtful debate and consideration of the most recent proposal for charter change speaks volumes about the state of the body politic in the country in general, and in our county in particular.
This country has had other dark periods in our history. Most obvious was the hysteria we faced during the McCarthy period, when organizations and institutions assumed to be stronger than demagogues failed. Enduring these periods was never easy but there is a native resilience in our democracy and I expect we will come through this one, too, though not unscarred.
12 thoughts on “The Attacks On Mayor Kelly’s Charter Review Commission: What a Dark and Ugly Business”
Eleanor Roosevelt who tirelessly furthered the empowerment of women in politics, also believed in participation and good citizenship through a sense of responsibility about that which goes on in one’s locality. In a growing atmosphere of political tribalism, the once venerable fellowship has locally, again chosen sides – disenfranchising voters.
OK – I get while you attacked members of the charter commission because truthfully, BOTH sides of that entire fiasco were were bad (and that includes the council members). But you lost me when you attacked the League of Women Voters John. That’s disgraceful.
I don’t think there is a person in this city that thought charter change was going to go away. It won’t, and will not until change does happen . Like it or not, the LoWV was absolutely right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Upset with Johnny boy about the League of Women Voters?
Just THINK who they represent.
Then, think glass ceiling; et alia.
Thanks for the laugh.
Yea. Women. Hell of a thing to let ’em vote, eh? Sheesh…
From the National League of Women Voters’ website (lwv.org) “about us” :
“It was then, and is now, a nonpartisan organization. League founders believed that maintaining a nonpartisan stance would protect the fledgling organization from becoming mired in the party politics of the day… This holds true today. The League is proud to be nonpartisan, neither supporting nor opposing candidates or political parties at any level of government, but always working on vital issues of concern to members and the public.”
Except here, I guess.
I looked for a passage about an exemption for proposition positions – found none. I looked for a ‘this applies everywhere in the USA except Saratoga County’ passage – couldn’t seem to find that either.
The Saratoga County LWV has disgraced themselves on this issue, flushing nearly a century of credible objectivity. I suggest John send a link for this post to the national LMV – I doubt a “chapter of the year’ nomination is in the offing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s important to note that Turner, Kane and Boyd were not the only signatories of this trashy letter. Fellow Skidmore academic Minita Sanghvi, attorney Ann Bullock, and former Fortune 500 financial officer Jeff Altamari plus Laura Chodas and Beth Wurtmann also signed. How sad.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“This year I contacted the League asking if they planned to sponsor a public forum on the newly proposed charter. I was told by a member speaking for the League that, because they oppose the commission form, they would not be having a forum.” >>>
Am I going crazy here or is it SO EMBARRASSING to admit something like that? If my 5 year old daughter indicated to me that she wound’t speak to someone because they might not agree with her, I would be very concerned about her well-being.
When the LWV says it to the press, I am just perplexed…. what a genuinely pathetic position to take.
LikeLiked by 3 people
John – you are totally wrong about the “decline of the League of Women Voters”. The League is flourishing! Huge rise in membership this year. 42 new members joined after the 2018 membership list was published, requiring a supplementary membership list. The League is the prime organization for well-run “Meet the Candidate” events, requiring many hundreds of volunteer hours. The League is not “required” to sponsor any particular event, including ballot issues. This is a volunteer organization which stretches itself mightily during the election season. You owe the League an apology !
LikeLiked by 2 people
No apology is needed by John; by anybody accept the L 0f WV.
Our Saratoga County L of WV, have proven themselves to be disingenuous and abjectly biased in their agenda.
It is surprising, as a proud member of the academic class, that you fail to see the obvious.
Unless, of course, your own zealous and ardent obligation to this new ultra-leftist ideology (presently referred to as the democratic party) is prohibiting you from coming to present course and reality. IE: The old democrats among us, know vehemently well that the party fell off the wagon back; somewhere, back in 2012?
If the same position was espoused by Fox News, in their ‘fair and balanced (lol)’ debate forum, you would be appalled.
Yes, many of us were all enthusiastic supports of MoveOn.org back in the day.
That’s all changed.
There is an outside agenda threatening our very way of life.
As Americans. Not democrats or republicans but as AMERICANS.
And more specifically: SARATOGIANS.
Prof. Turner, et alia; are operating from a paradigm that is external to our propriety.
With respect the local L0fWV platform: sadly, they too, have fallen off the wagon.
E tu, Bettie?
LikeLiked by 2 people
If the comment given to Robin is representative of their attitude then absolutely NO apology is required. they may not be “required” to sponsor any event yet their reason was less than objective and therefore a poor representation of an organization who should be open to educating the public. They could have easily made sure both sides were represented and missed a great opportunity regardless of the “flourishing” membership.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John is not talking about the size of membership of LWV. He is saying that the League had a conflict of interest last year, and the League is no longer independent or impartial. Thereby losing their credibility. My opinion of course, as an observer of politics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sometimes, Ms. Gallagher, the strength of an organization lies in recognizing its flaws so as to address them and move forward rather than denying they exist.
LikeLiked by 3 people