The New York State Committee on Open Government (NYSCOOG) has issued an opinion that the Health and Human Services Committee of the Saratoga County Board of Supervisors, chaired by Supervisor Tara Gaston, violated the Open Meetings Law (OML) when it improperly closed the public portion of its January 27, 2021, meeting and went into executive session.
In addition the Committee on Open Government’s email appears to contradict Supervisor Gaston’s claim that she contacted them for assistance.
Supervisor Gaston Denies County Violated Open Meetings Law
In its January 28, 2021 edition, the Times Union reported on the contentious meeting of the county Health and Human Services Committee. The reporter noted that he had contacted the NYSCOOG regarding the executive session and that the NYSCOOG had confirmed his suspicion that the county had violated OML.
I subsequently wrote to Supervisor Gaston and asked:
Do you still contend that it was appropriate to have gone into executive session?
If you do not, are you concerned about the reliability of opinions issued by the County Attorney?
What actions do you plan to take to insure that the Open Meetings Law is adhered to.
Email of February 1, 2021
On February 4, 2021, Supervisor Gaston responded to my inquiry in an email (her full response is at the bottom of this post), “I believe that the 1/27/21 executive session was appropriate and met necessary criteria.”
In this same email Supervisor Gaston attempted to spin the quote from the NYSCOOG in the TU article by interpreting it as having vindicated her. According to her reading of the quote the NYSCOOG was unsure as to whether the county had violated OML.
It is instructive to compare her paraphrase of what the Times Union published with the actual text from the article.
From the Times Union:
“It isn’t clear to me how having a discussion such as the one you describe in public would ‘imperil’ public safety,” she [Kirstin O’Neill Assistant Director of NYSCOOG] wrote in an email.” If the conversation does not meet any of the criteria …in our view, it should have occurred in public.”
Times Union Article
Tara Gaston’s paraphrasing of the article
I am aware that the assistant director of COOG was quoted in a 1/28/21 TU article as stating that an executive session that did not meet certain criteria would violate open meetings law (which I agree with) and that it is not clear to her whether the 1/27/21 executive session would meet the required criteria. To my knowledge no determination has been provided by or requested from COOG.
Supervisor Gaston email.
Ms. O’Neill is not saying she is unclear about whether the Supervisors violated OML. She states she is unclear how such a discussion would “imperil” the public, as required by law.
Nevertheless, to be thorough, on Friday morning, February 5, I wrote to the NYSCOOG asking for an opinion. I provided them with the actual public record (minutes) of the county meeting.
I was surprised to receive a response later that same day. The actual full text in that response removes any possible ambiguity:
“So, the fact that the conversation involved public safety, isn’t enough [JK: Text in red was not included in the TU article]. Having the conversation in public would have to imperil public safety. It isn’t clear to me how having a discussion such as the one you describe in public would “imperil” public safety.”
Email form NYSCOOG
I followed up with a telephone conversation with Ms. O’Neill and she made clear that in her opinion the county had failed to adhere to the OML.
Supervisor Gaston Alleged Attempt For Guidance From NYSCOOG
In her email to me, Supervisor Gaston wrote: “I have requested clarification from COOG.”
In my communication with the NYSCOOG I asked if the county had contacted them regarding the issue of OML and their meeting. In Ms. O’Neill’s response she wrote that to her recollection her office had received no such contact.
So I emailed Supervisor Gaston asking if she could send me her inquiry to the NYSCOOG and their response.
She did not answer that email and I subsequently emailed her again simply asking whether or not she was going to respond for my request. This similarly drew no resply.
NYSCOOG’s inability to recall any contact from the county along with Supervisor Gaston’s silence raises serious doubts about her statement that she had sought guidance from the state.
Supervisor Gaston seems to be part of a closed system that simply ignores the fundamental rights of the community to open government. This kind of opacity regrettably insures that there will be more scandals.
Relevant Correspondence
From The New York State Committee On Open Government
Good Morning Mr. Kaufman,
The motion to enter into executive session must include the reason for entering into the session that is consistent with law (See OML 105(1)).
The motion should also be specific enough so that the public is assured that the body is entering into executive session for a proper purpose.
The only reference to “public safety” in Section 105 is the language which allows a public body to enter into ES to discuss “matters which will imperil the public safety if disclosed.”
So, the fact that the conversation involved public safety, isn’t enough. Having the conversation in public would have to imperil public safety. It isn’t clear to me how having a discussion such as the one you describe in public would “imperil” public safety. If the conversation does not meet any of the criteria described in Section 105 (executive session) or Section 108 (exemptions), in our view, it should have occurred in public.
John, I have received no notification from the County Attorney nor the Committee on Open Government (COOG) itself that the executive session at the 1/27/21 Health & Social Services Committee was determined to be a violation of NYS Open Meetings Law.
I am aware that the assistant director of COOG was quoted in a 1/28/21 TU article as stating that an executive session that did not meet certain criteria would violate open meetings law (which I agree with) and that it is not clear to her whether the 1/27/21 executive session would meet the required criteria. To my knowledge no determination has been provided by or requested from COOG. If that is not your understanding I would appreciate you forwarding a copy of such [JK: I am not sure why she is asking me this.]; I have requested clarification from COOG.
I believe that the 1/27/21 executive session was appropriate and met necessary criteria.
Dalton to Seek Re-Election with ‘Community First’ Approach
My experience living in Saratoga Springs has reaffirmed my belief that it is the unique passion and dedication of Saratogians that has made our ‘City in the Country” such a remarkable place to live.
In my role as Public Safety Commissioner, whether at the City Council table or in conversations with constituents, my decisions have always been based on my commitment to good governance, honesty and a persistent search for common ground.
In the last few years, I have struggled to find the value of party politics and partisanship in our city. Fortunately, in my run for office in 2019, I joined other like-minded candidates who prioritized city over party.
Now having served the City for over a year, I remain committed to representing a wide diversity of thought and to giving voice to every resident in fulfilling my role as an elected public servant. To that end, after much careful consideration, I have decided to run for re-election with no party affiliation at this time.
I remain deeply grateful for all of the support I have received from the City Republican Committee in my first year in office and hope to continue to build on that trust in the coming months as I seek a second term as Commissioner of Public Safety in November. [JK: My Emphasis]
“It’s turned into a party of racism, intolerance and hatred,” she said. “Those values fly in the face of the principles our country was found on. I’m deeply uncomfortable with where they are headed and I knew it was something I was not comfortable being a part of.”
Times Union Story
Commissioner Dalton’s release was clearly crafted to be respectful of the local Republican Party. I have no idea what the context of her harsh attack on Republicans as a whole was. I assume she was responding to questions about the impeachment proceedings and the state of the Republican Party in Washington.
I don’t know whether Wendy Liberatore, who wrote the article, simply ginned it up to generate web clicks or whether she was perverse enough to have enjoyed playing a little mischief at Commissioner Dalton’s expense but the result was unsurprising. Chris Obstarczyk, the chairman of the city’s Republican Committee issued a strong statement taking exception to Commissioner Dalton’s remarks. (see below).
I am acquainted with Mr. Obstarczyk and several members of the Republican Committee. While I do not share their approach to government, these are reasonable and civil people. I do not know all of the people on the committee, but I expect there are some who are enthusiastic about Donald Trump in spite of his worst excesses.
It is worth taking the time to read the platform of the Saratoga Springs Republican Party. The platform includes none of the hot button, incendiary, national issues. It basically focuses on making Saratoga Springs better. There is nothing about immigrants, walls, masks, socialistic Democrats, or stolen elections.
Here are a few excerpts from their platform.
We believe in helping people to help themselves. It takes a community. We believe in protecting the most vulnerable of our citizens at a responsible cost to the taxpayers.
We embrace all segments of our community regardless of race, gender, age, or other factors.
We support our ‘City in the Country’ development plan and encourage the use of our greenbelt area for recreation and pleasure whether it be biking, hiking, or trail use.
Saratoga Springs Republican Chair Chris Obstarczyk ‘s press release:
STATEMENT FROM SARATOGA SPRINGS REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN CHRIS OBSTARCZYK REGARDING COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY ROBIN DALTON LEAVING REPUBLICAN PARTY
“Unfortunately, Commissioner of Public Safety Robin Dalton is too focused on national politics when the safety of our community should be her paramount concern.
To stereotype and paint all Republicans, including police and fire personnel in her own department, in such broad strokes as racist, intolerant and hateful is offensive, divisive, tone deaf and untrue.
Ironically, the Republican Party is the party of tolerance and its mission is not set on censoring opposing viewpoints or engaging in cancel culture.
Saratoga Springs Republicans are focused on issues that affect Saratogians as reflected in our platform.
We are committed to keeping Saratoga Springs the great place to work, live, raise a family and visit that it is and will support a candidate that is focused on their job and backs our first responders including police and fire.”
To learn more about what the Saratoga Springs GOP stands for, please check out our platform at LINK
[JK: This post was originally published as a comment by Lew Benton in response to my post on the most recent county violation of the Open Meetings Law. It was so insightful that I am republishing it here as a post to expand its readership]
John,
Many, many years ago ESSO changed its corporate name to EXXON. The pundits weighed in: “New name, same old gas.” So it goes.
The County has purged some administrative staff but the ethic and culture that allowed the COVID pay debacle to advance as far as it did apparently survives.
Every member of a legislative body should be intimately familiar with the legitimate reasons for and the process required to adjourn into executive sessions. Presumably the minutes of this Health and Human Services Committee meeting will identify the committee member who introduced the required motion to go into executive session, the stated subject of the session and the vote that would have been necessary. Those minutes are not yet available.
In the aftermath of last year’s ham-handed and extralegal attempt to enhance the pay of certain county employees and officials, it was reasonable to expect some reform of Board committee operations and the restoration of the Board’s executive authority. Chief among such reforms should have been required strict adherence to the Public Officers Law and how meetings are conducted.
With the exception of the four members of the Board of Supervisors (including the two representing Saratoga Springs), a supervisor also serves as the chief executive officer of their respective town. As such they sit as the chair of their town board. So surely they must know when it is and is not appropriate to adjourn into executive session.
I recall that there came a time when even most board committee meeting agenda items were determined by the county administrator, not the committee chair. This, of course, gave additional power to the administrator that was never originally contemplated or intended. I hope that practice has long since ended.
Perhaps a few simple suggestions will help. (1) Never attend a Board or committee meeting without a copy of the Open Meetings Law; (2) Remember that the chair and the other committee members are responsible for determining if and when an executive sessions is legitimate; (3) neither the county attorney nor the county administrator have any right or authority to decide the question; and (4) every member should also have a copy of the local law that established the office of and defined the role of the county administrator.
Clearly the committee’s January 27th executive session violated the so-called open meetings law that is Section 105, Article 7 of the Public Officers Law. It’s not too much to ask and expect that elected public officers actually read and abide by it.
Here it is.
§105. Conduct of executive sessions.
1. Upon a majority vote of its total membership, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered, a public body may conduct an executive session for the below enumerated purposes only, provided, however, that no action by formal vote shall be taken to appropriate public moneys: a. matters which will imperil the public safety if disclosed; b. any matter which may disclose the identity of a law enforcement agent or informer; c. information relating to current or future investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense which would imperil effective law enforcement if disclosed; d. discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation; e. collective negotiations pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law; f. the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation; g. the preparation, grading or administration of examinations; and h. the proposed acquisition, sale or lease of real property or the proposed acquisition of securities, or sale or exchange of securities held by such public body, but only when publicity would substantially affect the value thereof. 2. Attendance at an executive session shall be permitted to any member of the public body and any other persons authorized by the public body.
The Health and Human Services Committee of the Saratoga County Board of Supervisors met last week. Their meeting was a debacle with members apparently shouting at each other before the committee inappropriatelywent into executive session. The meeting demonstrated that in spite of the change in leadership, many of the problems that plagued the Board last year are still with us.
The county was allocated 400 doses of the COVID vaccine with apparently very little notice. The county’s Health Department requested assistance from the Board of Supervisors in locating eligible persons to receive the shots.
According to the Times Union:
The state had charged local pharmacies with vaccinating those 65 and older, but created this allotment because of the lack of pharmacies in some areas of the county, according to one supervisor.
TU January 28, 2021
So the 400 doses were only to go to residents 65 or older with “an emphasis placed on reaching homebound seniors.”
The Times Union found that “none of the towns maintain official lists of seniors.” It is my understanding that local municipalities are supposed to maintain lists of disabled and/or isolated individuals in the event of an emergency/evacuation. Such lists are notoriously unreliable due to the cost of keeping them up to date. Apparently, many of the Supervisors didn’t even know that they had such lists. The Sheriff Department’s list was outdated.
The article points out also that it is expensive and time consuming to inoculate people in their homes. In addition to the time required for travel and to give the shot, there is a need to wait an additional fifteen minutes in the event of an allergic reaction.
The TU first tried to contact the county’s Public Health Commissioner Daniel Kuhles for more information.
The Times Union reached out to Saratoga County Public Health Commissioner Daniel Kuhles’ office Thursday for clarification on how the county developed its plan, and was told he wasn’t available unless questions were sent to the county’s public relations agency, Gramercy Communications. The Times Union had not heard from Kuhles by early Thursday evening.
Times Union January 29, 2021
Dr. Kuhles’ resistance to being transparent is not a new problem. In a previous post I reported on the complaint by Mayor Meg Kelly about Dr. Kuhles’ lack of communication. I find it especially troubling that the TU was directed to a public relations firm in Albany the county contracts with. Why should the county need a public relations firm to answer questions that the County Health Commissioner is supposed to be competent to answer?
According to the Times Union, most of the coordination and communications ended up going through Saratoga Springs Supervisor Tara Gaston who chairs the county Health and Human Services Committee.
On Thursday, Gaston admitted she had made mistakes, but defended the intent behind the decisions. The county health department doesn’t have the staffing or capacity to build a list of eligible seniors quickly, she said. The county is in the process of organizing a call center to help determine vaccine eligibility.
TU January 29, 2021
Supervisor Gaston emailed her fellow Supervisors on Sunday night advising them of the availability of the 400 doses and asking them to provide a list of eligible persons to her by noon on Monday. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the email. I contacted Supervisor Gaston last Wednesday (January 27) and to date (February 2) she has not responded.
Allowing politicians to determine who should receive a vaccine is obviously a very bad idea.
She [Gaston] said everything went crazy after that. “This is not good, this is not the best system. We wanted to make sure every municipality had at least some access. I regret that it was presented the way it was. In this pandemic there are no good decisions. There isn’t enough vaccine, enough information, enough people or enough time.”
TU January 29, 2021
Tempers flared at the Wednesday night meeting of Gaston’s Health and Human Services Committee.
At the meeting Supervisors complained about the lack of a plan. At least one Supervisor argued that the Health Department should be dealing with this.
Waterford Supervisor, Jack Lawler, stated:
“Clearly the left hand didn’t know what the right hand was doing. Frankly, we should have left it in the hands of professionals.”
TU January 27, 2021
Providence Supervisor Sandra Winney complained, “I just don’t think I’m qualified to say to people, ‘You can get a shot and you can’t.'”
Things got quite heated and citing alleged public “safety” the committee went into executive session.
The law does allow for executive sessions for, “matters which will imperil the public safety if disclosed.” But it was unclear how discussing a vaccination plan for 400 people would harm the public safety of a county with nearly 230,000 people.
Times Union January 27, 2021
Kristin O’Neill, Assistant Director for the Committee on Open Government told the Times Union the county erred in going into executive session.
“It isn’t clear to me how having a discussion such as the one you describe in public would ‘imperil’ public safety. If the conversation does not meet any of the criteria …in our view, it should have occurred in public.”
Kristin O’Neill, assistant director of the Committee on Open Government.
A number of Supervisors told the TU that the discussion that occurred did not require going into executive session.
Supervisor Lawler told the TU, “There was no reason, in my opinion for executive session. This should have been a public conversation.”
According to the TU, 130 persons were inoculated in their homes by EMS crews, and 270 were to receive their vaccines at the Public Safety Building.
Disgraceful Opacity Is A Continuing Problem
As readers may recall, the investigation into the COVID salary fiasco last year revealed that the county had systematically violated the Open Meetings Law. The investigation revealed that the Saratoga County Attorney at the time had improperly counseled that the executive sessions were ok.
The new County Attorney who served as assistant to his predecessor apparently is continuing this tradition. He supported going into executive session. It is very troubling that Supervisor Gaston who is an attorney and who must be familiar with the report of the earlier investigation, is continuing this very troubling pattern.
I emailed Supervisor Gaston asking her whether in hindsight she had improperly allowed the meeting to go into executive session and if so, how she planned to avoid future abuses.
Supervisor Gaston did not respond to my email.
The open meetings law is the building block for accessible government. I find it very troubling that Supervisor Gaston is unwilling to address this issue.
I received a request from Jason Golub to assist in soliciting the public to take a survey developed by the Police Reform Task Force that he co-chairs.
I have major reservations about the survey which I document in this post. Having said that, it is important that the goal of strengthening our police force has this community’s involvement so in spite of my reservations, I still would encourage the readers of this blog to participate in the survey and to engage in the public discussion that the final report by the task force will generate.
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced new guidance for the New York State Police Reform and Reinvention Collaborative, which was established by the Governor’s Executive Order in June. The guidance offers a framework and topics for consideration by local police departments, elected officials and citizens as they develop their local plans for reform. Per the Governor’s Executive Order, every locality must adopt a plan for reform by April 1, 2021 to be eligible for future state funding.
August 17, 2020
Mr. Golub wrote the following introduction to the survey:
As part of the ongoing work of the Saratoga Springs Police Reform Task Force to develop a plan and recommendations around police strategies and program reform in Saratoga Springs, we have put together the Saratoga Springs Police Reform Community Survey. While not intended to be exhaustive, the goal of the survey is to both understand concerns community members have, but also get additional community input on areas where the task force is considering recommendations for policy or practice change. Input from community members is critical to our work and the survey is an important element of ensuring the community’s voice is heard by both the task force and the police.
The survey takes 5 minutes to complete. Please feel free to post/distribute to other members of the community. Thank you!
But Here are some Problems:
An Odd Collaboration
The initial draft for this survey was done by John Schroeder who is not a member of the Task Force. It is not clear how or why he was chosen to create this document. He is also personally hosting the survey and its results. Mr. Schroeder has been an outspoken critic of the city’s police department and of the Commissioner of Public Safety , Robin Dalton. He has submitted some forty-four FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) requests for documents related to the police department. Most recently he was awarded money from the city for a FOIL request that was sent to him seven days late per FOIL requirements.
I am deeply troubled that it is not clear whether his application will be able to harvest IP addresses from participants in the survey. An IP address is the unique identifier for a computer and can be used to track people. Survey software normally is able to save the IP address of people who participate.
I think that Mr. Schroeder deserves a great deal of credit for his dedication in working for police reform. He is a voice that deserves engagement.
Having said that, I think his role in drafting the survey and, more importantly, hosting the data collection and storage is problematic.
This Survey Will Provide Feedback To The Task Force But Will Not Provide Meaningful Statistics
While this survey will provide some feedback to the task force, it cannot be used to provide a completesnapshot of how this community feels about policing.
Providing a more accurate picture of the community’s opinion would require a random sample. This survey is simply based on responses from whomever happens to know about it and is willing to take the time to fill it out.
The survey also does not utilize technology to limit participants from responding to the survey more than once. An enterprising person could fill the survey out as many times as they have the patience to do so.
There are troubling problems with some of the questions
The following are some of the questions in the survey that I find problematic and seem to have many characteristics of a push poll. A push poll according to Wikipedia “is an interactive marketing technique…in which an individual or organization attempts to manipulate or alter …views under the guise of conducting an opinion poll.”
Question #9 asks the survey taker to respond to a number of statements. It reads:
Please indicate which of the following changes to policing you support:
For all of the following statements the user can only select one of the following answers:
Support – Don’t Support – Not Sure
One of the statements reads: Ending profiling, “Stop and Frisk”, and policing of minor issues
One of the classic ways that polling is abused is by crafting questions whose real purpose is less to gather information and more to send a subtle message to sway participants . In this case asking if one supports “ending” these three practices sends the message that these are currently in effect in Saratoga Springs. I know that profiling and stop and frisk are not city policies. Are there ongoing abuses? I don’t know, but the question should be drafted to be neutral. Choosing not sure indicates you don’t know if you would support these changes or not.
The vast majority of people in our community I believe would oppose racial profiling and “stop and frisk.” They may answer “support” without realizing that their answer implies that they believe the police currently are guilty of these activities.
In addition this is really three questions rather than one. This violates basic best practices for surveys. What if you, the person filling out the questionnaire, believe in ending one but not all of these activities?
For instance there is the problem with the third part of this “question” which is extremely vague: ending of “policing of minor issues.” I would expect that many who take this survey will not know what is meant by a “minor issue”.
I believe this is a reference to the grossly abusive tactics established in New York City called “the broken window” strategy. This policy assumed that by arresting people for minor violations that it would suppress crime in general. This policy evolved into a system where police in New York City were assigned quotas for arrests in order to effectively carry out the policy. The subsequent litigation over this policy documented the arrest of people for infractions that were routinely arbitrary and often without merit. For example, people were arrested for obstructing sidewalks when they were chatting with someone on the street and there was plenty of room to walk around them. The vast percentage of these arrests were of people of color.
While I suspect this is what “policing of minor issues” is referencing the wording is so vague that I can’t be sure.
I don’t know what the intention of the people who crafted this question was, but this question clearly has a message. It may perhaps simply reflect the unconscious prejudice of the authors rather than be a pernicious effort to manipulate.
I, like most citizens in this city I think ,oppose racial profiling and the arbitrary use of stop and frisk. Unfortunately, I did not know how to respond to the issue of “policing minor issues” due to its vagueness so I was unable to comfortably select any of the possible answers in spite of the fact that it was a required field. I could not continue with the survey without making a selection so I was forced to make an uncomfortable choice.
Another statement participants are asked to respond to is did they support:
Banning No Knock, and Knock and Enter warrants
I know what a no knock entry is (Breonna Taylor died as a result of a no knock debacle). I do not know what a “knock and enter warrant” is. Is it when the police knock and announce themselves just before they force their way into a building? Is it when police knock and announce themselves and if the occupant doesn’t answer the door they force their way in?
The problem is that here again there are two questions rolled into one so if I did support ending “no knock warrants” but not “knock and enter” there is no way of registering this kind of response.
I think there are legitimate arguments both for and against the policy of no knock warrants but without more information about what a knock and enter warrant is I have difficulty answering this question. I do think these are important issues for our city to consider.
Here is another statement participants are asked to respond to:
Requiring de-escalation and strict guidelines on using force, especially deadly force
This again presumes that the city does not already require “de-escalation and strict guidelines on using force, especially deadly force.” In fact these are currently official city policies. A more relevant question would be to ask whether “to your knowledge does the city adhere to these policies?”
Given the gravity of the need to minimize violence, the idea, as assumed by this question, that the city lacks these policiesis an implicit criticism of the police department’s management rather than a serious attempt to gain insights from respondents.
Here is another statement in this section:
Prioritizing resources towards rigorous training to reinforce policies, including testing for bias in shoot/don’t shoot decision making
This again this has a “push poll” quality to it. It gives the participant in the survey the impression that the city does not already “prioritize rigorous training to reinforce policies…”
Contrasting The Schenectady Survey With The Saratoga Springs Survey
Schenectady’s task force is called the “Schenectady Police Reform and Reinvention Collaborative.” They collaborated with the John Finn Institute for Public Safety, an independent research firm to craft their survey and to collect and analyze survey responses. The difference in terms of the quality of their survey and the Saratoga Springs survey is striking. Its questions are clear and direct. Unlike the Saratoga Springs survey, each question allows the person filling out the survey to answer “I don’t know.”
One of the most confusing elements of Saratoga’s survey is that it appears to ask the user to make determinations about the success or failure of the city in a variety of areas. I know that I balked at these questions because I was in no position to know. The Schenectady survey has crafted similar questions but in those cases the user is asked about his/her impression rather than asking the person to make an actual determination.
Consider this excerpt from the Schenectady survey:
We’d like to begin by asking a few questions about your opinions of the Schenectady Police
Please indicate the response that most closely fits how you feel (my emphasis) about the Schenectady Police Department.
1. THE LEADERSHIP OF THE SCHENECTADY POLICE DEPARTMENT IS RECEPTIVE TO CHANGE/INNOVATION.
Having raised these criticisms, I still believe that responses to this survey may help the task force in its deliberations and I would encourage the readers of this blog to take the time to do the survey.
It is no secret that I am a great admirer of Mayor Kelly. Some weeks ago, she announced that she would not be running for Mayor in the coming election. This is a link to a story on WAMC about her decision. I am very sorry about her decision, but I am grateful for her two terms. I wish her all the best in her future endeavors. She has been an extraordinary mayor.
I received a release from Mayor Kelly’s office of an upcoming food drive that she is sponsoring. This effort is really emblematic of her sense of service to our city.
Last October the Times Union ran a story with the sensational headline: “Saratoga Springs residents find excessive lead, turbidity in city water.”
Two homeowners on Saddle Brook Road reported their water had elevated levels of lead after having it privately tested. They also reported discolored water.
The New York State Department of Health responded to an inquiry by the Times Union regarding the homes as follows:
“The department was made aware of elevated lead levels in the drinking water samples collected from two homes on Saddle Brook Drive in Saratoga Springs. Although the city remains in compliance with current standards, the department, through its Glens Falls district office, is working with the homeowners to troubleshoot potential sources of lead within their homes.”
New York State Department of Health
A careful reading of this text strongly suggests that the problem was not with the city’s water but with the local lines and plumbing associated with the homes.
Dillon Moran who unsuccessfully ran against Department of Public Works Commissioner Skip Scirocco in 2019 and apparently plans to run again this November, is quoted in the article as follows:
“For a city known for its water, this troubles me.Lead levels should be zero. This affects human health and it’s not reversible. Quite frankly, there is a problem here.
Dillon Moran
Subsequently, on social media Joanne Yepsen advised people that they should not be drinking city water. Pat Kane alleged his dogs’ muzzles had become discolored from drinking city water.
Now the New York State Department of Health has written to the city stating that it has completed its analysis of water samples taken on Saddle Brook Drive, and they have reconfirmed that the city is in compliance with Federal and State water quality standards.
The letter confirms that the city will continue to flush the area monthly. The letter also notes that the sodium level exceeds 20 milligrams per litre (mg/l) . The letter notes that salt levels of greater than 20 “should not be used for drinking by people on severely restricted sodium diets.”
Unfortunately the issue of excessive salt in public drinking water is a fairly common problem due to the use of salt on roads that migrates into sources of drinking water. It is, however, not a violation of the water quality requirements.
It is profoundly disappointing how little discussion there is about what the social/historical roots are that led to the yawning, bitter divide that has opened in our country. I am not talking about the recriminations alleged by both sides in this deepening conflict. I am interested in what historical changes have led to the gulf. Most of what passes for analysis, both real and imagined, are narratives about the venality of particular players and conspiracies.
It is dangerous and unhelpful to over generalize. The fact is that the reasons that people voted for Donald Trump or Joe Biden are far more complex and nuanced than the noise on social media would suggest. The idea that the millions who voted for Donald Trump are all fanatical adherents who worship him is no more true than that all those who supported Joe Biden consider him a paragon of righteousness.
I know people who voted for Donald Trump who freely admit that his crudeness as expressed in his tweets make them very uncomfortable and who do not support his draconian actions in separating children from their families. Conversely, I know people who voted for Joe Biden who consider the record of his long career to be a trail of support for policies they abhor.
Still there are strong trends that should be acknowledged.
On the one hand, there are those who opposed Trump who routinely dismiss his supporters as ignorant and racist. There is a strong class tone to their attacks. For them, his supporters are a bunch of redneck white guys. They assume that if you support Donald Trump you do not believe in science and they assume that these people uniformly and uncritically support the police.
Conversely, there are those who supported Trump who view the Biden people as a bunch of elitist snobs who look down on them. They view the pro-Biden voters as hypocrites who talk morals but are dedicated to feeding off the trough of government handouts.
There is little question that there are individuals who fit all of these stereotypes but the social media noise drowns out the voices of the many people who cannot be pigeonholed. These people, I count myself among them, are increasingly marginalized in a trend that threatens to boil over into serious violence and the potential collapse of the American experiment.
In our culture it is easy to fall back on myths and popular trends. Most people are absorbed by the basics of keeping a job and raising a family and have little time to research anything.
Most of us live a myopic existence with only impressions of the past or what the future may hold. It is easy to assume that our current society is, as the conservative commentator Francis Fukuyama who served in the Reagan administration wrote, “the end of history.”
Make no mistake, the United States is still an evolving experiment. Even the most cursory examination of history reveals how transient societies are. Consider how brief our status as an empire has been. Some, like the Roman Empire endure for many centuries, but many others like the Napoleonic or the British come and go.
Analysis should begin with a good dose of humility.
The Disturbing Trend
It is beyond the scope of this post to offer in depth analysis of modern trends or to offer solutions. This post is to encourage people to step back from looking for villains and rather to try to think more broadly about what is transpiring.
One clear trend has been the decline of income for most Americans during the last fifty years. There was a period when many families felt confident that their efforts on behalf of their children would insure that their offspring would enjoy greater affluence and security than their parents’ generation. Since the 1980s that sense of security has been deteriorating for many.
The share of American adults who live in middle-income households has decreased from 61% in 1971 to 51% in 2019. This downsizing has proceeded slowly but surely since 1971, with each decade thereafter typically ending with a smaller share of adults living in middle-income households than at the beginning of the decade.
Pew Research Center
This trend is like an ominous cloud that hangs over our nation. While large segments of communities of color have never known economic security the economic reversal has been experienced almost entirely among white Americans without a four-year college degree, who make up 38 percent of the U.S. working-age population.
Evidence of this can be seen everywhere. A drive through most upstate towns serves as a grim tutorial. Beautiful buildings from eras when these communities flourished are now commonly unoccupied and deteriorating.
In their book Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism, Nobel Prize winners Anne Case and Angus Deaton, documented that the life expectancy for white Americans between 45 and 54 was declining. This sad development is oddly unique to the US but I expect the trend will develop in other countries .
This reversal has come almost entirely among white Americans without a four-year college degree, who make up 38 percent of the U.S. working-age population. “Something is making life worse, especially for less educated whites,” Case and Deaton write.
Much of the decline stems from higher rates of suicide, opioid overdoses and alcohol-related illnesses — the “deaths of despair” that Case and Deaton refer to. Americans “are drinking themselves to death, or poisoning themselves with drugs, or shooting or hanging themselves.”
Case and Deaton don’t shy away from the likely cause of this public-health scandal: The collapse of the steady, decently paid manufacturing jobs that once gave meaning and purpose to working-class life.
NPR March 18, 2020
There was a time when Americans without college degrees who were willing to work hard could find good jobs in our industries which would support a family and provide a modicum of security.
A trip through the heartland of our country grimly documents the passing of that age.
Meanwhile there is another economic trend in America:
I would venture to say that a trend where the lives of so many Americans are plagued with the kind of despair that leads to illness and death while simultaneously the wealth of the society is being transferred to the top 5% is a society heading toward some kind of collapse. I am not suggesting that we are on the verge of catastrophe but that this trend, if not addressed, cannot end well.
Parsing the Trending Non Answers
The Leading Right Wing Responses
The Immigrant Threat
The thorny problem of dealing with illegal immigration is real. Unfortunately many on the right exaggerate its threat until it appears as out of a horror film from the fifties. Those who offer a more tempered assessment of the stresses associated with immigration are too often dismissed.
I have never seen any, and I mean any, study or analysis that shows that the decline of America’s industry is the result of illegal immigration. While illegal immigrants may contribute to some wage suppression, it should be clear that the closing of plants cannot be attributed to illegal immigration and it is the loss of our industrial base that is the real source of declining wages.
The issue of illegal immigration is actually more of a symbolic way for people on the right to document what they see as the government’s failure to focus on the needs of its own citizens. It focuses on the fear that the country will eventually be overrun by other desperate people in the world, invading the US. It is a potent image.
Whatever the merit of these fears, it does not explain the decline of the US industrial base and the disappearance of good paying jobs.
Trade Policy: Ripped Off By Other Nations?
This theory asserts that decades of feckless Democratic lead governments have allowed our trading partners to take advantage of us.
The problem with this analysis is that it ignores the fact that the decline in income and the rise in unemployment is a severe problem for many of the very same countries that the Trump administration has targeted for tariffs. If they have been gaming the US, these countries have done a very poor job of it.
England, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, Japan, Mexico… These countries that are allegedly exploiting us and who the Trump administration is slapping tariffs on are experiencing many of the problems that our own country is struggling with.
In fact, China is really one of the few countries to have grown substantially during these last decades. Indeed an argument can be made about the loss of many jobs to China, but it does not explain the trade wars with most of the other countries subject to our tariffs.
While the Chinese manipulation of their currency contributed to their ability to export their goods there is little doubt that the low wages of their labor was probably the most important factor in China’s success.
There is also the troubling fact that four years of trade war with China has had minimal impact on our trade imbalances with China. One might well ask, where are the rejuvenated industries this war was supposed to achieve.
Deficit Spending and Big Government Are Killing The Economy
Many on the right, along with many Democrats, argue that deficits are responsible for our economic problems.
The huge tax cut passed by Trump was so big that even its supporters conceded that it would lead to deficits which it most definitely did. The Trump administration has overseen a huge increase in debt.
The problem with this blanket fear of deficits is that it ignores history. The issue of deficits is far more complex than this kind of attack assumes.
The United States ran a huge deficit during World War II and yet those deficits not only allowed America to defeat Germany, Japan, and the Axis but allowed for a major post war economic boom.
A Bloated Federal Bureaucracy
Another argument often made is that the size of the federal government has contributed to our economic decline.
Looking at recent history (from 1984), however, the largest drop in the number of Federal employees occurred during the presidency of Bill Clinton (Jan. 1993-Jan.,2001). The highest number of employees occurred during the early years of Barak Obama’s Presidency but, similar to Clinton, Obama oversaw a major reduction during his two terms in office (Jan.,2009-Jan.,2017). In contrast, during President Trump’s presidency (Jan. 2017-Jan.2021)there was an expansion in Federal government employment.
There appears to be little correlation between economic growth and the number of employees in the federal government.
The Leading Response By The Democrats And Liberals
For many Democrats and liberals there appear to be two basic responses.
The first is that the country can educate and train itself out of the decline. Somehow the marginalized Americans who have been laid off by vanishing manufacturers can learn new skills. Usually when pressed we hear about how these people will become computer programmers or some such.
Has anyone noticed that after several decades, this strategy has appeared to have failed?
The reality is that education and training is not a realistic solution for many displaced workers especially older workers.
Most importantly, this strategy does not create jobs.
The second response is not really an answer. It basically writes off millions of Americans. It simply asserts that globalization is here to stay, and job loss is part of that reality. It doesn’t attempt to propose a solution. Such assertions come dresse with great regret. “Those jobs just aren’t coming back.” “Dirty coal is no longer in demand when oil, natural gas, and non-polluting forms of energy are more efficient.” “It’s too bad about West Virginia, those people are going to have to find other work.”
It is easy to make this argument when you are a hedge fund manager or a doctor, or a Congressional representative from an affluent district. It is a hard sell for the coal miners in West Virginia or the laid off auto workers in Flint Michigan or the woman delivering pizza who used to have a good job in a steel mill.
I find it stunning how easily people I have met who are otherwise kind and generous can so easily dismiss the future for so many millions of their fellow citizens.
So If The Problem Is So Obvious, Why Are We Failing So Badly To Find An Answer?
Well, the main problem is that the models that have sustained US growth for decades are, for many reasons, no longer working and to find solutions will require rethinking many fundamental issues about how an economy works.
Unfortunately, the nature of media has evolved in a way that profoundly undermines the ability of citizens to work together to fashion solutions.
Matt Taibi, one of my favorite social critics, has written a book called Hate, Inc. that lays out the problem of the evolution (devolution?) of the news business.
Traditionally, newspapers and television news sought to reach the entire public. For many years, before the rise of cable television, there were only three broadcast networks (NBC/CBS/ABC). The three competed to reach the widest possible audiences. The one major advantage for this general approach to the news was that people shared the same basic facts. They could argue over their meaning and what to do with those facts but everyone shared the basic terms of the news. I do not want to romanticise this past. The news was not only fairly bland but as many critics have observed, it operated within the limits maintained by the corporations that owned these networks and the corporations who paid to advertise on them.
With the rise of cable, Fox News had the vision to break from this mold. Rather than compete with the major networks or cable channels like CNN, they found that there was a large and distinct audience whose world view they could appeal to. They could tailor their shows to play to the politics of conservative Americans. They would create a medium that would attract these viewers with stories that would reinforce people’s opinions. To interest people the news had to be exciting so they heightened the drama by crafting the news to play on people’s frustration. Stories were shaped to emphasize the righteousness of the good guys and the perfidy of the bad guys. Republicans were the struggling warriors battling with the sleazy Democrats.
This formula worked brilliantly. Fox became a money making machine.
Enter MSNBC. They evolved similarly. Stories on MSNBC endlessly report on the worst excesses of Republicans and the honorable efforts of Democrats to make a better world in spite of the mindless Republican operatives. Annecdotes about how foolish and greedy Republicans are is the basic stock of MSNBC.
As with Fox, this has worked well for MSNBC (if not as well as it has worked for Fox).
To my liberal friends, I would ask them to think about the lack of criticism on MSNBC regarding mainstream Democrats. During Barack Obama’s term more whistleblowers were prosecuted than in all the previous administrations in US history. Obama sent more immigrants seeking asylum back to their homelands then any previous administration. Obama declined to prosecute the people who authorized the uses of torture. His economic team was dominated by representatives of Goldman Sachs who made the banks whole using public money while doing very little for the many people who lost their homes.
The issue here is not that Obama did no good but that the nature of the coverage of his administration by MSNBC was meant to avoid making its followers uncomfortable by any pointed criticisms. The manichean world where there are only the “righteous and the evil” or the “smart and the stupid” built a reliable viewership.
The clearest example of this was the coverage of the Mueller investigation. Any story that contributed to the narrative that Donald Trump had conspired with with Putin [Russiagate] was played to the full. The story that Trump may have obstructed justice was not exciting enough. Trump had to be a Russian agent. There was hardly a night on MSNBC during the Mueller investigation that did not beat this drum. In the end of course the Mueller report failed to establish this.
I am sure that many of my friends who follow MSNBC still believe that Trump was an agent. This in spite of the lack of facts to support their contention.
It’s Not About Convincing Or Proselytizing
Politics has really come to be a matter of identity and not policy. I rarely argue with my friends about politics. It is usually events that cause people to change and not logic. George Bush’s debacle in Iraq was what caused many of the people I know who supported him to alter their opinions.
In fact, nationally many long term Democrats who voted for Barack Obama voted for Trump because of Obama’s failure to deliver on “change.” They supported him because they believed in his message that he was going to bring needed change to the culture of Washington and were disappointed.
Readers should remember that the majority of voters in Saratoga County supported Obama in both his runs and then in 2016 supported Trump. In 2020 the county went for Biden. These very facts should put the lie to the cheap myths about who voted for Trump.
I continue to believe in the value of putting forth helpful information for people so that when they are interested in reconsidering strongly held beliefs a dialogue is possible.
I continue to believe that we can learn from each other if we care to listen.
Case in point is my friendship with Rob Arrigo. Rob is a dedicated libertarian. We profoundly disagree about many important things but Rob is a smart and well read person and I am not afraid to learn from him.
There are hard core Trump supporters who do things like wear tee shirts that display “Camp Aushwitz.” I consider these people more than troubled. They are dangerous. But I also know that there are people who voted for Trump who are good people and that there is the real possibility of finding common ground with them overtime. That will happen when, in the future, we can agree on policies that will serve to address the deep seated problems that currently are undermining our democracy.
In the end, we have no choice. If we cannot find ways to unite around solutions to our country’s decline, there is no long term future for our democracy.
[JK: This is a release I received from Saratoga Hospital]
SARATOGA SPRINGS, N.Y., Jan. 20, 2021—–The Saratoga County Chamber and Saratoga Hospital today unveiled “#IGotTheShot,” a campaign to encourage local residents to get a COVID-19 vaccination.
Organizations whose employees are eligible for vaccines will receive posters and stickers featuring the hashtag #IGotTheShot along with an illustration of a primrose, one of the first flowers to bloom in spring. The goal is to build enthusiasm for the vaccine in much the same way “I Voted” stickers encouraged people to cast ballots in recent elections.
“Getting people vaccinated is the most important thing we can do right now to speed up the safe and full reopening of our local economy,” said Todd Shimkus, Saratoga County Chamber president. “Many local businesses are struggling as restrictions imposed upon them to stop the spread of COVID 19 must remain in place. We see this campaign as part of our effort to Save Our Locals.”
Saratoga Hospital, which has started providing second doses to employees this week, will be among the first organizations to give #IGotTheShot stickers to staff as they are vaccinated.
“This campaign is yet another way that our healthcare workers are on the front line of the fight against COVID-19—this time by setting an example that can save lives,” said Angelo Calbone, Saratoga Hospital president and CEO. “
Our hope is that people will see Saratoga Hospital employees proudly wearing their #IGotTheShot stickers and, when the time comes, will also get the vaccine,” he added. “Then, they can join the campaign to spread the word by displaying their stickers, posting on social media, and sharing their experience with family, friends and colleagues.”
The Saratoga County Chamber is distributing stickers and posters to offices of local dentists, chiropractors, opticians, small medical practices, school districts, and EMTs and other first-responders. Stickers will also be provided to Saratoga County offices and area pharmacies. Shimkus came up with the idea for the campaign after reading about a similar effort in Italy, one of the European nations hardest hit by the pandemic. Recently, Italy used a primrose motif to brighten up temporary vaccination pavilions.
“In Italy and in Saratoga County, the primrose reminds us that brighter days are ahead,” Shimkus said. ”As more people get vaccinated, we will see a renewal of life.”
Organizations can request posters and stickers by emailing the Chamber at info@saratoga.org.
PHOTO CAPTION:They got the shot, Saratoga Hospital employees, Carol Howard, RN and Dr. Michael Holland, director of Occupational Medicine at Saratoga Hospital.
Governor Acknowledges Saratoga County Health Department and Saratoga Hospital For Vaccinations
Governor Cuomo highlighted the Saratoga County Health Department and Saratoga Hospital for utilizing all the vaccines distributed to them. The health department is at the top of the list and the hospital is the seventh one down.
The Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation just sent out the following notification regarding the DRC review of the demolition request for 65 and 69 Phila Street scheduled for tonight’s (Wednesday 1/20) meeting:
We are disappointed to announce that the future of these buildings has been further delayed. According to the Planning Department of the City of Saratoga Springs, the applicant has requested additional time in order to compile the necessary information to meet the criteria set forth under the zoning ordinance.
Both applications will be on the next Design Review Commission agenda on Wednesday, February 10th at 6PM.
Thank you to everybody who has shown their support by submitting comments and displaying signs! If you have already submitted comments to the city, they will be uploaded to the application for review by the commission. If you still want to comment on the proposed demolitions of 65 & 69 Phila Street prior to the next DRC meeting please email jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org before noon on Wednesday, February 10, 2021.
Saratoga Springs Politics 