
Up until now, the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee has been mounting a focused attack on only one proposed charter change, the one that would affect the wording regarding the city’s County Supervisors. In a recent email to the four Saratoga Springs City Council members endorsed by One Saratoga and the chair and vice chair of One Saratoga, Democrat County Supervisor and Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee member Sarah Burger, however, expanded the attack by warning them all to stay out of charter change altogether. In the meantime, Democrat Public Works Commissioner BK Keramati, who had at a previous meeting suggested charter change language to the Supervisors that gained the support of all his fellow Council members, flipped his position and embraced the new Democratic position laid out by Burger: sending all charter changes to referendum. The problem for Burger, Keramati, and the Democratic Committee is that New York state law is very specific about what can and cannot go to a referendum.
Sarah Burger’s Email
On May 31, 2026, Sarah Burger sent an email to the sitting Council members who were endorsed by One Saratoga, along with two members of One Saratoga’s leadership.
The email is poorly written and poorly researched. It apparently serves several purposes, including ingratiating herself with the leadership of the Saratoga Springs Democratic Committee. The criticism of her by members of the Committee for taking the One Saratoga line in the last election was unrelenting, and apparently, she is seeking to ingratiate herself with them again.
Last year, Mayor Safford established a charter commission with two missions: one was to present to the Council changes that could be adopted by the City Council, and secondly, to present further changes that would have to be approved by referendum in November as laid out in Sections 23 and 24 of the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law. The committee is bipartisan, and many members have served the city in various capacities. The commission is chaired by former City Attorney Vince DeLeonardis. They delivered their proposals, which could be adopted by the Council at the close of 2025, and the Council has been reviewing and discussing them over the past few months. In a previous post, I wrote about the phony issue Gordon Boyd created about proposed language regarding the city supervisors. Sarah Burger has now taken the Democrats’ attack to a higher level.
In her email, Ms. Berger bizarrely warns the recipients that it will be “political suicide” for them to involve themselves in the “formation of our governing document.” She goes on to claim that some of the proposals “require (her word) a public referendum.” Ms. Burger is an attorney. I wrote to Ms. Burger asking: given all the restrictions in New York regarding when referenda can be used, which provisions in the proposed charter changes she referenced in her email would allow for a referendum on it, let alone mandate one, and which statute she draws on to support her claim. She did not respond. I wrote her a follow-up request, which was similarly ignored.
Unlike California, Florida, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon, New York State severely restricts the use of referendums, so it is unclear what she believes can go to a referendum and what the basis of her claim is
Regrettably, as noted earlier, I believe that the purpose of Ms. Burger’s email was political rather than a serious attempt to assist the city and One Saratoga. In order to ingratiate herself with the leadership of the city’s Democratic Committee, she is stirring the proverbial pot.
Ms. Berger is shrewd enough to know that the Commissioners she emailed will not abrogate their authority. Her help is disingenuous. Her main goal seems to be to provide as large a platform as possible for the Democratic Committee to muddy the waters as part of a strategy to discredit Mayor Safford’s commission. Her praise for the commission at the beginning of the last Council meeting, followed by her attempt to discredit their work, was striking in its disconnect.
Her email appears below.
BK Keramati Flips, Then He Flops, And Then He Flips Again
Public Works Commissioner BK Keramati initially opposed changing the language in the charter to address a technical issue regarding our representation to the county. Then he switched, acknowledged the value of the change, and agreed to it, offering his own language. This was documented in a previous post.
At the June 1 City Council pre-agenda meeting, he switched yet again, adopting Sarah Burger’s new narrative.
He seems, like Sarah, to be ignorant of state law on referenda and advocated putting all the individual charter proposal items, particularly the one dealing with Supervisors, on the Council’s ballots to let the public pick and choose, a practice that state law very narrowly limits. Clearly, the local Democratic Committee put the heat on Keramati to follow the new party line.
City Attorney Tony Izzo took the mic and tried to help Keramati understand the law. It is not clear that Keramati grasps what Tony is trying to explain to him.
Berger’s Letter
Sarah Burger <>
Date: May 31, 2026, at 10:12:48 AM EDT
To: Courtney DeLeonardis <>, Jessica Troisi <>, Tim Coll <>, John Safford <>, JoAnne Kiernan <>, Jeffrey Partridge <>
Subject: Charter amendments
Good morning,
Ive given some thought to the proposed charter amendments that are before the council and overall while substantively I may agree with some of them I think the council voting on process for city elections, this supervisor issue, for example, is political suicide for One Saratoga.
There is simply no reason for you all to insert yourselves as elected officials in the formation of our governing document. This is an unforced error.
I firmly believe some of this requires public referendum and taking the voice of the voters away in amending our governing document for these type of substantive changes may down the road fly back on you.
I very strongly urge you to consider sending all proposed amendments to the voters. I want to see you all be successful in the things you are doing as council members. This does not need to be around your necks politically.
Just my two cents.
PS I think the best answer may be as my father always said “when you do not have to do something, do nothing.”
Thanks for reading.
Sent from my iPhone
Sarah J. Burger, Esq.
If/when partisans at the County reduce the influence of SS and/or CP, wouldn’t it behoove us to have language that sets a minimum of 2 SS Supervisors, to give us a legal basis to fight?
LikeLike
In a word, no. The statutes that require one person to be credited by one vote provide the county broad authority to determine its implementation.
LikeLike
But why would SS open this door, even if just rhetorically? Do you happen to know how CP words their charter in regards to representation at the County level?
LikeLike
Is it not true that the County changed the second representation threshold to 27,500 (from 25,000) to accommodate the Half Moon Supervisor’s desire to be the sole vote?
LikeLike
I don’t know about the numbers but after the last census they adjusted the formula to keep halfmoon at one supervisor and that the supervisor Kevin Tollison didn’t want a second for his town so they set the number higher than his town’s population. This was six years ago.
LikeLike
Jane, I’m confused. Why would “1 or more” give us a legal basis, but “2” or “2 or more” not give us a legal basis? And do you feel that the Charter Commission is legitimately bi-partisan?
LikeLike
Clifton park doesn’t have a charter. They’re a town, not a city.
LikeLike
Exactly right Bruce. Our current charter language may help us defend our representation if need be.
LikeLike
Sarah-What is the legal basis for claiming that “our current charter language may help us defend our representation”? You have been asked multiple times by multiple people to answer this question. You are silent. If you cannot cite a legal basis for this claim, please refrain from misleading the public and people like Bruce with this statement.
LikeLike
why do you care so much? Can you tell us how it hurts us to leave it in our charter? Telling that you care so much
LikeLike
Bruce-I don’t know what Clifton Park’s charter says, if anything, about their Supervisors, but their situation is a little different than ours in that one of their two Supervisors also serves as head of their town board as do all the other Supervisors in the county except I think Mechanicville which also has a commission form of government.p>
LikeLike
If/when the County changes the formula so that SS has only one Supervisor, wouldn’t leaving our Charter as is, stating that we have 2 give us some legal basis to take the County to court? Why are you and John not concerned about this?
LikeLike
Bruce-John and I are not concerned because having the number 2 in our charter would not give us any legal basis to take the county to court. If you or Sarah Burger or anyone has a legal opinion that says otherwise, please share.
LikeLike
No worries, Bruce-neither wording would give us a legal basis unlesss you or Sarah Burger have a different legal opinion to share.
And in answer to your second question: yes
LikeLike
So why change the language? Why would the partisan Charter Commission (it’s only technically “bi-partisan) recommend changing the language? “Flexibility”? For why reason?
LikeLike
Bruce-The blog we will be putting up next has a lot of useful information for you, I think. In the meantime, the question remaining is why would Boyd and Burger go to such lengths to put out so much false information?
LikeLike