There is no other way to put it.  The proposal to update the current charter was crushed at the polls on November 6th.

The city had to endure another campaign, briefer but just as poisonous as the 2017 “fight.”

Using letters to the editor, social media, and flyers the opponents to this year’s ballot question on the charter issued information that was often inaccurate or badly misleading and always fueled by bitterness.  Most disturbing, in spite of being advised of the inaccuracies, they continued to publish these same statements.

As recently as the Monday before the election someone left this flyer on our doorstep.

Dear reader, at the age of seventy-two and a veteran of many public controversies, this latest conflict was all too familiar.  I have never fully understood the pathology of groups like “Its Time Saratoga” (ITS).  In this case the core of the group that formed during the previous charter campaign adopted a kind of magical thinking.  The passion for their cause combined with the desire to be loyal to each other appeared to take on a cult like form.  Rumors and conjecture among their members were confused with the truth and took on a strange, collective orthodoxy unburdened by the anchor of facts and reality.  As often happens with these types of groups, the targets of their campaign were transformed in their minds into ruthless and cunning enemies.  It all became operatic.  In ITS’s eyes, every action by the members of the charter commission hid an allegedly sinister agenda.  Therefore, any consideration of ITS’s opponents’ arguments could be dismissed by ITS as pointless.  Thus ITS was able to hold on to its narrative because ITS was incapable of considering arguments that might jeopardize the euphoric unity its members were experiencing.

It is also important to note that this pathology was not being exhibited by teenage zealots.  The members of this group include professors, lawyers, and retired business executives.

In their quest to portray the writers of the charter proposal as charlatans, the members of this group circulated statements that were either incorrect or grossly misleading:

“City Council Members given authority to set their own salaries [their emphasis]” [in the flier above]

And “Lifetime [their emphasis] healthcare benefits” [also in flier]

And from a TU article: “Critics of the proposal said it was crafted by City Hall’s most powerful insiders [my emphasis]…”

And in the most recent  classic example of magical thinking, Dr. Robert Turner from a November 7 story on WAMC: “I think what this election showed was a stunning repudiation of the commission form of government.”  [JK: As Shakespeare observed “The empty vessel makes the loudest sound.”]

Playing To Fear

Pretty much everyone, including myself, is frustrated by our federal government that seems incapable of acting on behalf of its citizens.  An army of lobbyists armed with generous donations to elected officials seems to have, if not hijacked, at least disproportionally taken control of the decisions made allegedly on our behalf.

Is it any wonder then how easy it is to exploit this general disillusionment with government and create suspicion of our own city officials who many do not know?  Ignorant of the details of the charter proposal and assailed by things like the flyer above and a flood of disinformation on social media, is it any wonder that the proposed charter changes were defeated?

In many ways the modest nature of the changes in the charter proposal meant that a logical, rational defense could not compete with the drama offered by its opponents.

To make my point, review the flyer above and then listen to Charter Commission Chair and city attorney, Vince DeLeonardis’ interview following the defeat of the charter.   Cerebral, thoughtful, and measured, it cannot compete with the image the opponents  conjured up of defeating the alleged cabal that operates out of city hall.

DeLeonardis Interview

In the end, the failure of the very modest changes proposed by the commission was a lost opportunity.

Here is a link to an interview with city attorney Vince DeLeonardis on the defeat of the 2018 charter proposal.

This is an article from the Times Union re the defeat of the charter proposal.

The charter was defeated by a wide margin.  It failed 6,537 to 3,188.

Here is a link to the Gazette story.

I will be writing more on this shortly.

The term “weak” is pejorative.  There is no way of getting around it.  A Google search results in the following definitions:

1. lacking the power to perform physically demanding tasks; lacking physical strength and energy

synonyms:

frail, feeble, delicate, fragile;

2. liable to break or give way under pressure; easily damaged lacking the force of character to hold to one’s own decisions, beliefs, or principles; irresolute.

So any discussion of “weak” versus “strong” mayor is problematic from the beginning,

The commission form of government had populist/democratic roots.  The idea was to directly elect the people who would run the different departments that delivered services to the city (in our case public works, public safety, finance, accounts).  In some cases the “mayor’s” role was simply to run meetings and act as a spokesperson for the government.  As such, the role of mayor was rotated among the commissioners in some historical examples.

In the case of our own city, it appears that the mayor’s responsibilities evolved as activities taken on by the city that did not fit into the domains of the other commissioners were allocated to the mayor’s office.  These involved economic development, grant writing, and city planning functions.  It appears that by default, these responsibilities fell into the mayor’s domain.  These responsibilities were added to the duties of the chairing of council meetings, representing the city to other public institutions, and serving as the face of the city rather like the royals in England.

Often when people think about a mayor they envision mayors who play more traditional roles in other cities that don’t have a commission form of government. In many municipalities the mayor is the true CEO.   All administrative responsibilities fall under the jurisdiction of  a traditional mayor.  The budget officer, the public works director, the chief of police, etc. all report and serve at the pleasure of the mayor.

A separate body, the council, passes legislation such as budgets, zoning ordinances, etc.

So to understand the changes being recommended by the current charter commission one needs to recognize that in the commission form of government that we have, the city is really run by five people and that the mayor’s position is quite modest.  Any “strengthening” or “weakening” of a mayor is going to be fundamentally limited. If a citizen wants a mayor with real authority, they need to consider a different model.  I find it ironic that many of the advocates of the city manager model who are expressing concern over the “weakening” of the mayor, are ignoring that under their proposal they would have stripped the mayor of all administrative authority.

Mayor Kelly’s charge to the current charter review commission was to update  the current commission form of government , not replace it. What was refreshing about this process was that the members of this commission, all our elected officials and their deputies, did not focus on the usual parochial issue of how to divvy up power.  If you observed their deliberations, you would have seen thoughtful discussions on how best to manage resources given that administrative responsibilities are delegated to departments based on the unique mission of each.

So, for example, it was determined that since the Informational Technology office’s role was an internal one that needed to be shared between departments, it should not be under the domain of one commissioner but instead operate independently as a shared service to all departments.

Over half of the city’s recreational program budget is devoted to the maintenance of the city’s playing fields and buildings.  The program has its own recreation commission and director running the program but in the interest of better coordinating the constant maintenance  of facilities with the actual activities, it was decided to move the recreation program from the mayor’s office to the Department of Public Works which is charged with all maintenance.  In fact, the Recreation Commission issued a statement that endorsed this reconfiguration.

It seems especially logical, and a credit to Mayor Kelly who implemented this last January, that the state of the city address should be done by the entire council, not just the mayor as has been done in the past. In their literature, the critics see sharing this function as representing a weakening of the mayor’s authority.  It appears to me that this is simply a thoughtful recognition that in a commission form, to accurately describe the state of the city, it is best done by the mayor and all the other commissioners.

It should be noted that it is not just the mayor’s office that has been affected by the changes proposed this year. For instance,  the Finance Department is giving up IT, and appointments to boards made by the Commissioner of Accounts and the Commissioner of Public Works will also be subject to the approval of the majority of the council.

So, in the end, it seems all of this is a matter of perspective.  If you are not comfortable with the distribution of responsibilities in a commission form of government in general, it makes sense that you would be troubled by these reforms.  For those who see merit in power sharing, these reforms will be welcomed.

 

 

The Daily Gazette Newspaper has editorialized urging its readers to vote yes on the proposed Saratoga Springs Charter.  The editorial begins by reminding its readers that it supported the 2017 charter which would have changed the city’s form of government to a city manager.  The editorial goes on to acknowledge that last year’s charter failed to pass and that as long as the commission form continues, the proposed changes make sense to improve operations.

Link To Editorial

 

One of the four oft repeated attacks on the proposed charter is that it would move the Recreation Program from the Mayor’s department to the Department of Public Works.  The attack has taken several forms.  In one case it was asserted that the children would suffer from the change and in another it was asserted that it would interfere with the management of the city’s streets and water.

The Recreation Commission voted six to zero praising the reorganization in the proposed charter (One member of the seven person commission was absent).

In their statement the Recreation Commission praised the Charter Review Commission for the excellent job they have done (full text below).

In their November 1 email/newsletter the Saratoga Springs Recreation Commission announced:

“After reviewing how the proposed changes would affect the Recreation Commission, the Commission voted 6-0 to approve these changes. Learn (full text below) the reasons why here.”

---

City of Saratoga Springs

RECREATION COMMISSION

15 Vanderbilt Avenue, Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 518-587-3550 x2300  Fax 518-584-1748

www.SaratogaRec.com

Derrick LeGall Recreation Commission Chair

Alphonse Lambert

Amy Smith, Robert Manasier, Cheryl Smith, John Dowd, Michelle Merola

Dear Recreation Community,

The Recreation Commission would like to remind you to VOTE, on Tuesday, November 6^th. The ballet will contain a referendum proposing to update the City’s Charter which will have a direct effect on the Recreation Department.

Many of you have asked for our opinion on the Charter Review Commission’s (CRC) proposed amendments. Below we will share our experience with the CRC and our opinion of the effects from the proposed amendment in regards to the Recreation Department in hopes that it is helpful as you make your own decision.

We encourage you to visit the CRC’s website to read the current Charter, the proposed Charter amendments, and other helpful information including a 1 page document outlining the proposed amendments to the City Charter as it relates to Parks and Recreation.

Our experience with the CRC has been great, as we have found them to be very respectful, diligent, and inclusive throughout the process. In meetings, with our Rec director and Rec Commission Chairman, CRC showed an interest in listening, learning, and engaging with us to better understand how the Charter works, in regards to Recreation. In addition, the director took part in a non-bias questionnaire, in which he could document how the Charter applies to Recreation and offer recommendations for improvements and changes. The CRC also presented at a Recreation Commission meeting, outlying the proposed changes while highlighting the direct impact the proposed amendments would have on Recreation. We couldn’t have been more pleased with the efforts and attention that the CRC took to understand how the Charter impacts our service to the community.

As for the proposed changes, it is important to know that regardless of Tuesday’s Vote, the City’s Recreation Department will continue serving our community under the supervision of the Recreation Commission. Our mission, focus areas and goals are not being changed by the proposed Charter. The Recreation Department’s budget, which is currently shared between the Recreation Department and the Department of Public Works, are not being changed by the proposed Charter. The proposed charter amendments, in our opinion, will however, have a direct impact on the service provided to you. And although this impact is not directly financial, it will provide efficiencies and effectiveness with the Recreation Department.

In the current Charter, “Parks”, including the maintenance for Recreation, is the responsibility of the public works staff under the Commissioner of Public Works. Recreation is the responsibility of the Recreation Department under the Recreation Commission which resides under the Mayor’s Office for administrative, reporting, and oversight purposes. The proposed Charter addresses this with the creation of a Parks and Recreation Department under the responsibility of the Commissioner of Public Works in coordination with the Recreation Commission. Essentially, the two departments, Recreation and Public Works, currently charged with providing recreation opportunities for our residents, who currently share a recreation budget, maintain our recreation facilities, develop recreation programs, and support our community recreation organizations will unite as ONE department called Parks and Recreation to serve our community more efficiently and effectively. Furthermore, the proposed amendment would require the Commissioner of Public Works, in coordination with the Recreation Commission, to develop a Policy and Procedures Manual to be reviewed and approved by the City Council which will aid in both our efforts to be efficient and effective in our service to you.

In conclusion, the CRC’s proposed amendments, in our view, align with our mission and goals and align with the CRC’s goal to find efficiencies and organizational improvements to better serve the people who live and work in the City of Saratoga Springs.

We hope you find this information helpful in making your decision on November 6^th. VOTE! IT MATTERS.

Sincerely,

Recreation Commission

 

Our mission is to create fun, safe, affordable activities, and to enrich the community’s quality of life through outstanding recreation programs, resources

Someone forwarded to me an email that was sent out to the League of Women Voters members.

It’s interesting.  I live in a different world.  While I did not agree with the city manager model, I responded to the early drafts of that proposal regarding term lengths and having the county supervisors also serve on the council.  If it was going to pass, I wanted it to be as good as it could be.

For the foreseeable future we have a commission form of government.  The LWV could have stated their commitment to a traditional separation of powers while still studying and providing the public with an opportunity to understand the proposals being put on the ballot November 6 to improve what we have.

I don’t understand the kind of rigidity reflected in the League’s email. I am afraid this is just another example of the kind of intolerance and unwillingness to engage with each other that is part of the decline in civil discourse that is so vital to a democracy.

It is important however to not allow frustration to blind one to people’s essential humanity.  The members of the League volunteer their time in a good faith effort to serve our community.  However much I disagree with their recent actions, these are good people doing what they believe to be right.

---

Here is the full text of their email:

The LWVSC Board of Directors thinks that it is important that our members understand why LWVSC does not support the proposed new charter that will be on the ballot in Saratoga Springs on November 6, 2018 and why we did support the charter that was on the ballot in 2017.

A little history:  At our Annual meeting in 2015 we adopted a 2-year study of the governance of local governments in Saratoga County.  We formed a committee, studied the relevant state laws, held meetings, including a consensus meeting, and on April 5, 2017 adopted a position.

The relevant part of the position is: 
The League of Women Voters of Saratoga County believes that Cities in this County should separate their administrative functions from their legislative functions by having a City Council that makes policy and laws and either an elected executive or an appointed administrator to carry out administrative functions. The League supports this separation of functions in order to have a strong centralized administration, to have clear lines of responsibility and to eliminate waste.
(The entire position is on the website at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b1ec58225bf0214c000f55f/t/5b2825d2f950b7a1b5587437/1529357779042/LocalGovernance.pdf

The 2017 proposal called for an elected City Council and a City Manager ( a clear separation of powers).  This year’s Charter change proposal retains the Commission form of government (where Commissioners administer a department and serve on the City Council), so LWVSC issued the following Letter to the Editor:

To the Editor:
The League of Women Voters of Saratoga County (LWVSC) does not support the new charter being proposed for the City of Saratoga Springs.
LWVSC believes that cities in this County should separate their administrative functions from their legislative functions by having a City Council that makes policy and laws  and either an elected executive or an appointed administrator to carry out administrative functions. The League supports this separation of functions in order to have a strong centralized administration, to have clear lines of responsibility and to eliminate waste.
Neither the current Saratoga Springs City Charter nor the City Charter being proposed by this year’s Charter Commission separates the administrative functions from the legislative ones.(City Commissioners and the Mayor sit on the City Council and each administers a department).  
If a proposed new charter does not separate legislative from administrative responsibilities, LWVSC does not support it.

Ann Kril
Co-President, LWVSC

Recently I have been struck by the number of thoughtful friends who, having supported the city manager charter proposal in 2017, dismiss support for the current proposal to update the charter out of hand.  They decline to engage in a conversation about the actual specifics due to their fundamental opposition to the commission form of government.

I find this odd and troubling.  Both Mayor Meg Kelly and Public Safety Commissioner Peter Martin supported the city manager form. Yet the Mayor created this charter commission and Peter Martin was an active participant.

Voting for amending the current charter is not an endorsement of the commission form over the city manager form.  It is simply an acknowledgement that there are changes to the charter that will improve the city’s operation. Both Commissioner Martin and Mayor Kelly support these changes.

The proponents of the city manager form have made it quite clear that they intend to hold another vote for their proposal as soon as possible.  They understandably are hopeful that they will overcome the ten vote deficit they lost by last year.The reality is, however, that they may not succeed. To Kelly’s and Martin’s credit they acknowledge the commission form of government is the form we currently have and may continue to have and that the city will benefit from having a charter that makes that government as effective and efficient as possible .

If you are not familiar with the specifics of the proposed changes, I encourage you to visit the city website where they are detailed and explained.  

https://www.saratoga-springs.org/DocumentCenter/View/8760/CRC-FAQ-20181030

Mike Sharp, whose name seems particularly apropos, just pointed out to me that the salaries and the provision barring benefits after leaving office were in the proposed 2017 charter.  I stand corrected and remove that from my challenge. Having eaten humble pie and admitted to and corrected my errors in the blog, I hope I have set an example that Turner et al will follow.

 

As documented in a previous post, eight of the now disbanded 2017 Charter Review Commission members issued an attack document on the proposed 2018 charter.  They are:

Dr. Robert Turner

Gordon Boyd

Laura Chodos

Beth Wurtmann

Dr. Minita Sanghvi

Jeff Altamari

Pat Kane

Ann Casey Bullock

In response, Vince DeLeonardis and Michael Sharp, the 2018 Charter Commission chair and co-chair respectively, issued a point by point rebuttal, to my mind thoroughly discrediting their allegations.

Realistically, I never expected Turner et al to publish a retraction but Dr. Turner and Mr. Boyd have gone so far as to repeat these demonstrably false or misleading statements recently in area newspapers and on their website.

In an earlier and quainter time (pardon my snarkiness), there would have been a debate in a public forum to allow the community to decide for itself which information was valid.  Traditionally the League of Women Voters would have performed this service but the League has declined to provide any forum let alone a debate.  In fact, in a kind of “blind” efficiency, the board of the League has issued a blanket rejection of the proposed charter without ever having met with members of the charter commission to discuss the changes.  The League’s release was a study in brevity.  Rather than go though the proposed changes, they dismissed the entire charter in just a few sentences.  Apparently, because they oppose the commission form of government, considering whether any of the proposed changes might actually benefit the city under the current form of government was not worth their time to consider.

I will review some of the falsehoods and misrepresentations in the original attack below but I am issuing the following challenge.  I will provide any and all of the people who signed the attack the opportunity to write their own post for this site.  If all eight of the signatories want individual posts, I will accommodate them all.  They can give it whatever title(s) they wish.  They can make their post(s) as long as they wish.

The only caveat is that they must address directly the points made by Mr. DeLeonardis and Mr. Sharp in their rebuttal to their allegations.  If they, in fact, have credible explanations this should provide them with an excellent forum to share them with us.

Let me go through a few of the points that would need to be addressed.

1. They attack the proposed charter for removing the salaries from the current charter with the sensational accusation that this is being done to allow the council members to provide themselves with unlimited salaries.   There are quotes in the minutes from Mr. Boyd and Mr. Kane urging that they remove the salaries from the charter.  They need to explain this apparent contradiction.
2. They attack the proposed charter because it would require the advice and consent of a majority of the city council for land use boards.  Their charter had the same policy.  These people need to explain this apparent hypocrisy.
3. They claim that the projected cost for implementing the proposed charter did not include the increased cost of the city attorney and the cost of a human resources administrator.  The city attorney’s hours were increased earlier this year by the council and has nothing to do with the charter.  The human resources administrator was approved by the voters in the 2001 charter and thus not “created” by this charter proposal.  Mr. Turner and the signers of this statement should have known they were making a false statement since they interviewed the HR person during their own charter deliberations.  They need to explain these falsehoods.
4. The proposed charter would make the City Attorney’s office and the Information Technology office responsible to the entire council rather than under the Mayor’s office and the Finance office respectively.  They claim that having to report to five people (the council) would be dysfunctional.  These same people proposed that a city manager report to the seven people who would have formed the council in their proposed charter.  They need to explain why this would have been any less dysfunctional than that proposed by the current charter commission.
5. They claim that the charter was crafted “with little input from the public.”  I would refer people back to the DeLeonardis/Sharp paper but briefly, all meetings were properly noticed, opportunities for public input were provided both at the beginning and end of the meetings.  Videos of the meetings were and are available on the city website, surveys and interviews were conducted.  I would also note that unlike the Turner commission, the current charter commission strictly adhered to the open meetings laws giving proper notice of all meetings. The frequent violation of the Open Meetings Law by Turner’s group (which included a member of the LWV) was repeatedly pointed out but the violations continued.  And because the last commission’s meetings were often held in the Music Hall, the recordings of their meetings are so poor that it is difficult to hear what members are saying. The tape of one of their public hearings was never made public. In addition, Dr. Turner, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Kane were personally invited to address the current commission and declined.  It would be helpful if these people would explain why they declined to participate in giving this commission any input and how their commission was more open to input..
6. They claim that under the new charter the council members will be able to set their own salaries.  This is false.  The council can set the salaries for those who are elected in the future but not for themselves.  As noted under item #1, this is the same language as in the 2017 charter proposal.   They need to explain why they continue to repeat this false information.
7. They make a point that the polling firm used to do a professional poll (as compared to the unscientific poll done by the previous commission) is a “Republican” polling firm.  In light of the fact that four out of five members of the council are Democrats, they need to explain what is the significance of this firm, which was the lowest qualified bidder, being associated with Republicans?
8. They allege that the mailer sent to the voters was “designed to confuse” and was “hiding the truth.”  They say it did not state that the proposed charter “would continue the commission form of government.”    The mailer includes the language that the mission was  “to improve our Charter without changing the form of government” and further states that the Commission was charged with finding “efficiencies and organizational improvements within the current form of government to better serve the people of Saratoga Springs”.    They need to explain why they used this uber language to describe the mailer.
9. As to the accusations that the proposed charter would strip the mayor of her power, please review the DeLeonardis/Sharp document where they cite  the Turner charter which designates that their mayor will have no administrative duties. They need to explain the apparent hypocrisy of this criticism.

It seems to me that if the facts support them they should jump on this opportunity.  In fact, it would be nice if they offered me the same challenge to be on their Face book page.  The public deserves these kinds of accusations to be properly addressed.