The advocates for charter change have posted their leadership’s names on their website. I may be being immodest, but I think my earlier post about lack of transparency may have prompted them.
Interestingly, this same thing happened in 2019. They didn’t include the leadership names on their website then either, and after my blog pointed this out, they posted them. I don’t think there is anything sinister in all of this. It is more of a reflection of their general sloppiness. In spite of their calls for transparency, they seem to be cavalier about their own actions.
This is from their website:
CommonSenseSaratoga’s Campaign Committee
- Julie Cuneo and Ron Kim, Co-Chairs
- Jeff Altamari*
- Gordon Boyd*
- Alexis Brown
- Ann Bullock*
- Sarah Burger
- Ellen Egger-Aimone
- Pat Kane*
- Bahram Keramati*
- Bill McTygue
- Mark Pingel
- Bob Turner*
- Beth Wurtmann*
- Joanne Yepsen
*Indicates citizens who served on the 2017 Charter Commission.
13 thoughts on “Pro Charter Advocates List Leadership”
The ‘change the Charter’ people are an interesting political sub-group within the local Democratic party. It looks like Yepsen and McTygue must have approached Cuneo and Kim to serve as symbolic leaders. An analysis of Cuneo’s public remarks seems to indicate she is interested in running for a Council seat if the charter is changed. This is basically local gerrymandering at its worst, and is a power-grab.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Being a tax paying, homeowner, I was already in support of the charter change. Seeing this list of highly intellectual people solidifies it. Current council is a corrupt club, and needs to be replaced. Thank you for sharing.
I am interested in knowing more about the corrupt club. Please enlighten me with some examples. Also interested in knowing how long you have been a voter in Saratoga Springs?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Margot, ‘current council is a corrupt club’ ? What happened? Who is corrupt? What did they do?
Statements like that without supporting evidence are just noise. Can you do more than be noisy? I thought not.
Unethical Joanne needs a well paying do nothing job.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This Joanne >>> The former Mayor found guilty of an ethics violation? Oh yes please, let’s put her in charge of a new government, preferably one that hasn’t been really written out yet & needs some details filled in here and there…
The City Council has taken the possibly unprecedented step of censuring Mayor Joanne Yepsen over a finding that she violated the city ethics code by creating a potential conflict of interest.
The council voted 3-2 on Tuesday night to censure the mayor over a finding by the city Ethics Board, with Yepsen and Accounts Commissioner John Franck voting against the resolution.
The council action came after the ethics panel found that Yepsen violated the code last winter when she solicited fundraising work from the Saratoga Hospital Foundation at a time when the hospital had a zoning expansion application pending before the city.
The censure, which Assistant City Attorney Tony Izzo said may be unprecedented in city history, will be submitted to the state Attorney General’s Office public integrity bureau and state Joint Committee on Public Ethics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The internal censure against Yepsen was interesting. Frank has an accounting practise that would allow anyone who wanted to buy influence to secretly pay him for professional services, and he introduces resolutions all the time. It does not mean he is unethical, but the payment mechanism is there to allow it. An internal reprimand is effective at warning and preventing a violation of the law or a breach of trust, and the censure restrained Yepsen who needs to make a living, yet didn’t tarnish her reputation to the point of destruction.
You should be aware that your previous misrepresentation of the facts in your blog, “Commenter Attacks Black Lives Matter” could ruin you should any loss of income or bodily harm come to me as a result. It already shows up as the first thing in a Google search of me. I suggest you make all of it go away if you value your assets before anything bad should happen and you end up in court losing everything.
How dare he republish an email you wrote to him, then allow you to continue to respond in the comments? I never knew “letting people see things I wrote” was cause for legal action.
Did you miss the word “misrepresentation”. Nobody was attacked, except me. And my supporting evidence was ” edited out” under the guise of “inaccurate information”. You don’t know what you’re talking about, sport, so why don’t you find out the WHOLE story before making judgements. My previous words stand. I took screenshots and a judge would see that. So you can just simmer down, pal, because a judge WILL look at the WHOLE story.
By “attacked”, you mean he posted the email you sent and allowed you to post comments? There is absolutely no proof that BLM, a decentralized movement, is “Marxist”, so there’s no possible supporting evidence. If you feel like talking in legal terms, that’s probably somewhere between misrepresentation and libel.
You then said it’s an “irrefutable fact” that we’ve been targeted by an organization that burns and loots. I haven’t been to Broadway in a couple days, but it’s my understanding it’s not a smoldering hell-scape of emptied stores. So much for irrefutable facts I guess?
You keep fear-mongering about Seattle and Portland without referencing the countless other protests across the country that happened peacefully, the role of the police and right-wing agitators in protest violence, or any of the other events that have sparked outrage across the country, such as the lack of accountability for the death of Breonna Taylor. Furthermore, you decided to dog-whistle with a comment about black on black crime. Not sure where you’re pulling that from, but in all the FBI data on this topic black on black crime is similar to white on white crime. I check the comments pretty regularly and I don’t think you’ve posted much about that.
Best of luck in your imaginary trial.
John, you know this was a message from me to you. Your tactic of siccing your readers on me makes absolutely no difference. It only shows what a small, cowardly person you are.
I wasn’t responding to you on behalf of John. I responded because of your previous factually incorrect and racist comments, none of which you’ve even attempted to back up or defend here.