This is an interesting story about the city reconsidering its ban on youth selling water. The city passed a resolution re-establishing the policy of allowing these sales with some restrictions. One of the things that makes this interesting is the way John Franck worked with interns from Skidmore College to come up with a policy that enjoyed a unanimous vote adopting the program. This is a link to the WAMC story on this.
At the Tuesday, March 20 City Council meeting, the city awarded a bid to SiFi Networks to construct a fiber optic network that will reach every home and business in the city. SiFi Networks was the only company to respond to an RFP issued by the city.
After a conversation with Commissioner Madigan and a brief review of the SiFi website (http://sifinetworks.com/) I have some “impressions.” I use that word because the scope and nature of what is being proposed is both exciting and overwhelming at the same time.
The city has awarded a bid to SiFi Networks to deploy a citywide fiber optic network. As many people know, fiber optics radically increases the speed of telecommunications.
It is my understanding that SiFi, along with its partners, has developed a rapid deployment method that lays underground cable with minimal impact on infrastructure. The basic concept is that the city grants them the use of its right of ways and in return SiFi deploys and operates a fiber network that covers the city. As I understand it, most of our city’s streets are right of ways owned by the city.
Apparently, two other municipalities have some sort of agreements with SiFi. They are Fullerton, CA and East Hartford CT. Neither has reached the operational level yet.
As I understand it, SiFi would charge vendors for the use of their network. The theory is that a variety of companies would use the network to provide web services to customers. So theoretically, Spectrum, ComCast, Charter, etc. would compete for residential customers to use their products. Similarly, phone companies would vie to provide telecommunications. I am assuming that local firms here in the city that need special secure and high speed connections between offices would similarly pay.
If I am correct (always a risky assumption) one of the key questions would be how much SiFi would be charging for the use of their network because those costs would have to be passed on to the customers using their services. I do not know if they would require exclusive rights for networking the city or if other companies might also deploy competing networks. Knowing technology, I would assume that overtime the cost of such deployments might drop. There is also the possibility that the satellite industry might, over time, develop high enough speeds and bandwidth to compete.
Central to this would be a number of questions. How many vendors would be attracted to compete in order to keep costs down? What protections would the city have that the charges by SiFi are not problematic both initially and in the future?
My sense in talking to Commissioner Madigan is that she is excited by the potential this has for both the residents and businesses of this city but that she is keenly aware of the complexity of what is being considered. She has indicated that while the city has awarded the initial bid, should the city fail to come up with an actual contract that protects the interests of the city, the city faces no liability from walking away.
The city will be assisted in its negotiations with SiFi by New York State Technological Enterprise Corporation. NYSTEC is a not for profit corporation providing IT consulting services to public institutions in the state. https://www.nystec.com/
So while it is exciting that Commissioner Madigan has started this ball rolling, in a conversation I had with her, she made it clear that the city is in the very early stages of this process. Much work needs to be done to identify and address the complex issues of how this will be implemented, how it will be maintained, and how its costs might impact the residents and businesses of the city.
I assume that Spectrum will be threatened by this project and that they will aggressively identify potential problems with it.
MEDIA ANNOUNCEMENT
For Immediate Release: March 21, 2017 From the Office of Commissioner of Finance, City of Saratoga Springs, Michele Madigan
City of Saratoga Springs awards fiber project bid to SiFi Networks:
Aims to bring fiber access to every home and business in the city
Saratoga Springs, NY – During last night’s City Council meeting, the City of Saratoga Springs awarded the broadband infrastructure project bid to SiFi Networks. The goal of the broadband infrastructure project is to improve access to high-speed internet for Saratoga Springs residents and businesses. SiFi Networks, which intends to oversee the financing, design, construction, and operation of a city-wide fiber optic network, plans to partner with telecommunications experts such as Nokia and Adcomm.
Madigan stated: “This project has the potential to be a game changer in how the City can improve the online experience of residents and enable businesses to access technology previously thought unavailable. From an economic development standpoint, a gigabit-speed fiber optic network would be a massive driver of efficiency and productivity, and it would provide cutting-edge infrastructure that allows the businesses that drive today’s economy to thrive in Saratoga Springs.”
The next step for the City will be finalizing a contract with SiFi Networks. Given the scope of the project, every department in City Hall will have input in the process. The City will also be engaging with NYSTEC, which acts as the City’s IT consultant, and the Saratoga Springs Smart City Commission, which Commissioner Madigan created in February 2016, for additional input.
Broadband infrastructure is one of the focuses of the Saratoga Springs Smart City Roadmap. According to Madigan: “Connectivity is key. Internet access at globally competitive speeds is no longer an optional luxury. In other words, broadband has become an essential resource — no different than any other utility — for residents, businesses, service providers, and government. For Saratoga Springs to become a smarter city, we must do more to make the internet accessible at faster speeds throughout the city.”
About SiFi Networks: SiFi Networks is a global developer and operator of fiber optic networks, enabling service providers to deliver dozens of next-generation applications, including superfast internet, video, and phone. http://sifinetworks.com/
About the Smart City Commission: In February 2016, Saratoga Springs Commissioner of Finance Michele Madigan announced the formation of the Saratoga Springs Smart City Commission comprising a diverse community membership, with the goal of helping set Saratoga Springs on a path to becoming a smarter city. https://www.saratoga-springs.org/2288/Smart-City-Commission
About NYSTEC: NYSTEC is an independent, not-for-profit technology advisor headquartered in Rome, NY, with offices in Albany and New York City. A smart city technology leader, NYSTEC worked with the City of Saratoga Springs and the Smart City Commission on the Smart City Project, which culminated with the publication of the Saratoga Springs Smart City Roadmap. https://www.nystec.com/
Michele Madigan. Commissioner of Finance, City of Saratoga Springs
The City Council, in a special meeting on Friday, adopted a motion to revise its lease with the City Center to bar the selling of non antique guns and ammunition. Antique guns are generally considered to be guns manufactured prior to 1899. They are exempt from federal laws controlling the selling of guns such as the requirement for a background check. This is a link to Wikipedia on antique guns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antique_firearms
I disagree with the decision by the Council. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and former US Representative Gabby Giffords attended a gun show at the City Center in 2013. Ms. Giffords was the victim of gun violence and suffered a bullet to her head. She is an advocate of strengthening gun laws. Both Giffords and Schneiderman praised David Petronis, the organizer, for running a responsible gun show and lauded it for the rigorous implementation of background checks. One of the criticisms of gun shows has been that they have been used to circumvent such checks but that has not been a problem in the Saratoga Springs shows.
There is no difference between buying a gun at the City Center gun show and buying one at a gun store. The city has at least one gun store.
I do not believe that the end of selling modern guns at a gun show will make the people of Saratoga Springs safer. The people attending this event are responsible, active hunters and target shooters in our area who will now be penalized.
Still, I have complete sympathy for the Mayor’s desire to do something to curb the terrible killing that seems to happen with greater and greater frequency in our country even if it is only a symbolic action. This is a complex issue and the vehemence of many on both sides has made seeking meaningful solutions extremely difficult.
I am impressed with the skill the Mayor showed in achieving the ban. This has been an issue that has been a source of controversy for years in Saratoga Springs. It took Mayor Kelly less than three months to affect the change.
I think I am not alone in welcoming the quiet way the mayor has gone about initiating change.
After last year’s divisive battle over Saratoga Springs’ charter, it’s understandable that the new mayor would want to avoid a repeat of the fight.
The way Mayor Meg Kelly is now looking to tweak the existing charter, however, is not the way to do it.
The mayor has appointed a city charter review commission to go over the existing charter and propose improvements and efficiencies. The goal is to fine-tune the city’s existing commission form of government, not to do the kind of broader review that led to last year’s referendum on an entirely different city manager form of government. That proposal lost by 10 votes.
Much as advocates of that rejected charter might want another shot at it, Mayor Kelly is right to choose not to do that now. It’s not in the public interest to keep having a do-over of votes once citizens have spoken — as the mayor, who supported the charter proposal, recognized. There may be a time down the road to reconsider that idea, or some other form of government, but a constant state of uncertainty over the basic form of government is unhealthy for a community.
The mayor’s plan to instead review the commission form of government is not a bad idea in itself. It’s an opportunity to use the city’s experience to improve this rather uncommon structure. And it’s a chance for both sides of the charter debate to work together on an effort of mutual interest.
Or it would be, if the mayor hadn’t gone about it the way she has.
Mayor Kelly put together a ten-person commission made up entirely of city officials and employees — the city attorney, the commissioners of accounts, finance, public works and public safety, their deputies, and the deputy mayor.
The most glaring problem goes to the very concept of democracy and self-governance: The government itself would redraft the very blueprint that governs that government.
Moreover, nearly half the commission is made up of deputies who work for (that is, owe their livelihoods to) other panel members. It’s like giving two votes to several members. This would be like Congress and the president getting together to decide how to tweak the Constitution.
So this is not an objective or independent group, nor are the prospects good for it to be a deliberative one.
The mayor and the commission — whose members, unsurprisingly, are content with this arrangement — describe this as more of a technical fix, best left to those most familiar with day-to-day operation of government. They note that charter changes would be subject to a public referendum, so citizens will have the final say — on a revised charter that most likely will be unanimously endorsed by a commission full of conflicts of interest.
This is not about efficiency, but about something less tangible yet far more essential. As some wise people once wrote, “governments are instituted … deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” That’s in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, of course. Creating, or in this case re-creating, the foundational charter of government is a right, a privilege and a responsibility of the people — the citizens of Saratoga Springs, not their government. The mayor should go back and do it right.
There is no doubt an argument to be made that it would be valuable to appoint people beyond city hall to the proposed charter review commission. There is also an argument to be made in support of Mayor Kelly’s decision, however.
To begin with, the TU editors made a stunning error. In their criticism of the Mayor’s proposal to have City Council members sit on the charter review commission they wrote, “This would be like Congress and the president getting together to decide how to tweak the Constitution.” Well, actually although the President is not involved, Congress does decide how to tweak the Constitution and, by the way, the New York State Legislature is similarly involved in making changes to the NY State constitution.
In the case of New York State, the Legislature drafts and passes amendments which then have to be approved by the voters.
The procedure for amending the US Constitution is laid out in Article V of that document. First either two thirds of the states or two thirds of Congress propose an amendment. Then three fourths of the states are required to ratify the proposed amendment. Congress determines how the states will do this. All the amendments to the US Constitution so far have been drafted by Congress. It is troubling that the TU editors would not know this and make such a basic mistake.
It strikes me that the plan the Mayor is proposing is very similar to the methods used to amend both the US and NY State constitutions. In her proposal there will also be two steps with the City Council members and their staffs drafting the changes. For the proposed changes to go into effect, however, the public will have to ratify them in a November vote.
The editorial also seems to view government as some disembodied entity existing apart from the people. But the Council members of this charter review commission were democratically elected by the people of this city to represent them and make decisions. I think that grants them the status to take on this responsibility. There is something that verges on hysteria in the TU’s assumptions of self dealing.
I think the Mayor should be commended for going out of her way to share the responsibility with all the members of the Council. Contrast this with the previous charter commission where eleven of the fifteen members were selected by one member of the Council, the Mayor. I do not think it was coincidental that that charter review commission adopted the then Mayor’s goal of changing to a city manager form of government.
I think that people of goodwill can differ on how to form a charter review commission. I think it is unfortunate that the Times Union was unnecessarily harsh in their differences with the Mayor’s decision.
Here are two videos from the city website showing the public comment period from the March 6 City Council meeting. The comments from the public were all concerning the decision by Mayor Kelly to establish her own charter review commission.
I have a certain sympathy for the frustration of the people supporting the charter that was defeated. Many worked very hard in support of the city manager form of government.
Having said that, the videos reflect the anger and conflict that dominated this last year over the issue. As someone who has endured many struggles over many years, a sense of historical perspective and of proportion seems in order. The Mayor’s initiative means the that those seeking to totally change the city’s form of government will have to wait till 2019 to put their proposal on the ballot again. This delay of not quite two years seems like a blink to me. The city is flourishing and there is no crisis. I know that their narrative during the campaign was one of urgency to address what they saw as a crippled government. This tendency to raise even modest issues (and I would say that changing our form of government pales before more serious crises in the world) to heated levels rivaling going to war cripples our ability to argue civilly with each other.
I must say that watching the Council in this video is a welcome sight compared to what is going on in Washington.
My guess is that the Mayor decided that the city would benefit from a year or so without the craziness that created a poisonous environment in our city during this past year. I give her great credit for having the poise and self confidence to not respond to the pointed attacks on her made by members of the public during the comment period.
This is a video of the statements by the public:
This is a video of the Council members’ responses:
Mayor Meg Kelly appointed a ten member charter review commission at the March 6 city council meeting. The commission will be chaired by City Attorney Vincent DeLeonardis.
Members include: Deputy Commissioner of Finance Michael Sharp, Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety John Daley, Deputy Mayor Lisa Shields, Deputy Commissioner of Accounts Marie Masterson, Deputy Commissioner of Public Works Joseph O’Neill, Commissioner of Accounts John Franck, Commissioner of Public Safety Peter Martin, Commissioner of Finance Michele Madigan and Commissioner of Public Works Anthony “Skip” Scirocco.
The mayor set out their mission “…To find efficiencies and organizational improvements to better serve the people of Saratoga Springs.”
Mayor Kelly indicated she anticipated the revisions would be submitted to the public as a referendum in November’s election.
The mayor was sharply criticized by nine of the speakers during the public comment period.
John Franck defended the mayor, asserting “What the mayor is doing is courageous and I believe it is the right thing to do.”
Commissioner Skip Scirocco similarly defended Mayor Kelly. “It took a lot of guts to put it on there and I am sure she took a lot of hits for it, but that’s part of being in politics.”
In a prepared statement Commissioner Michele Madigan wrote:
“Mayor Kelly showed tremendous leadership in allowing for another Mayoral Charter Commission, this time with a *charge and scope* to review and update our current City Charter which operates under the Commission form of government. The charge also states that this is to be placed on the ballot / referendum this November 2018. It’s been 17 years since it’s last successful update, and this Charter needs a through review and update. We cannot afford to wait any longer for this review. Mayor Kelly campaigned on supporting the last Mayoral Charter Commission in which they proposed a change to a city manager form of government. She also stated very clearly that if that initiative failed (and it did fail – make no mistake) that she would lead an effort to update our current charter. She is fulfilling this promise to the people and the Council and has the lead the way forward with her charge and Commission.”
Your blogger is in NYC.
Apparently the public in comment period turned into quite a scrum. I may post video highlights when I return.
Mayor Meg Kelly is establishing a Mayoral Charter Review Commission. It is the first item on her agenda for Tuesday night’s City Council meeting. A reliable source tells me that the City Council will craft changes to the existing charter themselves.
This will be a stunning setback to the supporters of the previous failed charter. According to state law, a mayoral charter commission trumps all other such initiatives. So no other charter proposal can be considered in next November’s election. This makes sense when you think of the legal entanglement that passing two charters at the same time would precipitate.
The details should come out at tomorrow’s Council meeting.
From the Gazette: “Cuomo’s proposal would require every county in New York to offer residents access to at least one early voting poll site during the 12 days leading up to Election Day, implement an automatic voter registration system at the DMV and allow New York residents to register and vote on the same day.”
At their regular monthly meeting the Saratoga County Board of Supervisors voted 21 to 2 to oppose Cuomo’s proposal. The dissenting votes came from Saratoga Springs Supervisors Tara Gaston and Matt Veitch. I have to give Matt Veitch, who is a Republican, credit for breaking with his fellow Republicans on this vote. It’s something that rarely happens. Tara Gaston is one of only two Democrats on the Board. The only other Democrat on the Board of Supervisors, Thomas Richardson of Mechanicville, voted with the Republican majority.
Here is an email I received from Tara Gaston regarding the vote:
John:
The item voted on regarding early voting was a part of the Board’s 2018 Legislative Agenda, which the Board uses for state/local advocacy as you know. Item #3 of the agenda pushes back against early voting and automatic voter registration. I moved for the item to be removed from the legislative agenda but the motion failed, with only Supervisor Veitch seconding and voting with me. Supervisor Veitch and I then voted against the Agenda as a whole. We were the only two to do so. I hope this helps.
Supervisor Tara N. Gaston
The February 28 edition of the Saratogian quotes the chairman of the Board of Supervisors, Ed Kinowsku, as stating that “the county is not against early voting.” Kinowski goes on to assert that no one “knows exactly yet what the full proposal is and its impact on the county.” If that is the case, it would seem premature for our county to take a position on the issue either for or against.
The Saratogian article quotes Roger Schiera, the county Republican Commissioner of Elections as characterizing the proposal as an “administrative nightmare” which would increase the county’s vulnerability to people voting at more than one location. He warned that the electronic polling books required to prevent this fraud would cost “at least $500,000.00”
Interestingly, in the Times Union article on this meeting, Wendy Liberatore reported that Mr. Scheira estimated that the cost to implement all of the the governor’s proposal could be $800,000.00 to $1,000,000.00. In the Gazette he is quoted as asserting that the electronic polling books alone would cost between $800,000.00 to $1,000,000.00. According to the Times Union story, Mr. Schiera was unable to provide any analysis supporting his numbers when asked for the information by Saratoga Springs Supervisor Tara Gaston.
I called Bill Fruci who is the Democratic Commissioner of Elections. He told me that while he has great respect for his colleague, Mr. Scheira, he is unclear how he arrived at the cost in terms of the required electronic polling books. Mr. Fruci believes that the county could efficiently implement the three sites and the other requirements at a reasonable cost, especially in light of making voting easier for the people of Saratoga County.
The Saratogian has an article on the controversy and vote as well
As a side bar to this story, I was struck by a statement made by Barbara Thomas at the meeting. Ms. Thomas has held leadership positions in the League of Women Voters for decades. Ms. Thomas’ career was with the local chapter of Planned Parenthood consistent with her advocacy on behalf of women’s rights.
In the Gazette article, Ms. Thomas proclaimed that it is important that everyone has the opportunity to take part in elections.
I am reminded that Ms. Thomas, who served on the now defunct Saratoga Springs Charter Review Commission, not only advocated that the vote on her group’s proposed charter change be held in May following the Memorial Day weekend holiday but asserted that more people would turn out for this special election than would if it were held as part of the general election.
It is regrettable that Ms. Thomas did not demonstrate the same commitment to inclusiveness when she campaigned for charter change.
Recently, Gordon Boyd, the former treasurer of the now defunct Charter Review Commission, appeared on LookTV to advise the public that their proposal for charter change would be back on the ballot in the coming November election.
In the February 22nd edition of Saratoga Today, Mr. Boyd announced:
“Our core leadership group is investigating the legal, procedural and campaign dynamics of getting a petition drive going as allowed under the law, and how we can put the same exact proposal (as 2017) on the petition and placed on the ballot this coming November.”
The famous Russian revolutionary, Leon Trotsky, spoke of permanent revolution. It seems this city is living through permanent attempted charter change.
During this last week alone there have already been two instances of charter change proponents publicly resuming their advocacy for a change in city government: a Readers View in the Saratogian written by the former Charter Review Commission Chair Bob Turner, and a radio interview with the former Charter Review Commission Vice Chair Pat Kane. Bear in mind that their next bite at the apple is some nine months away.
The Apparent Decline Of Political Science At Skidmore College
Traditionally political science was a discipline that among other things, taught students how to critically assess the kind of manipulation that today’s professional campaign consultants produce to sway the electorate. It appears, at least as regards Skidmore Professor Robert Turner, that he has embraced the techniques of modern campaigning rather than expose its abuses. Some of us had hoped that having endured a year of this kind of campaigning that we would be granted some respite. But in the February 18th edition of the Saratogian Turner published yet another of his ubiquitous exercises in spin.
Turner’s Saratogian Readers View concerns Supreme Court Judge Thomas Nolan’s recent ruling on Gordon Boyd’s petition regarding the November charter change vote. In his ruling Judge Nolan addressed two distinct issues. I have discussed these in a previous post but it is helpful to review some background on them before looking at Turner’s remarks. Here they are again briefly.
Judge Nolan first addressed Boyd’s request to have the Board of Elections release documents he had requested through a FOIL. The Freedom of Information Law procedures are quite clear and specific regarding the responsibilities of the person seeking documents and the institution holding them. The petitioner is required to send a request for documents to a particular employee responsible for addressing requests. This is important because the receipt of the request starts a “clock” that in turn requires that within a specific number of business days that the documents be provided or that the person seeking the documents be advised as to when a determination will be made regarding their availability. This then starts another clock which requires at the end of a fixed number of business days either the documents be provided or an explanation given as to why they are not available. If the documents are not available, the law then sets out an appeal process to a different employee at the institution. It is only after this internal appeal process has been exhausted that an appeal for the release of the documents can go to a court. So there is a reason for the procedures. They are to insure that the petitioner gets a response in a timely manner. In the case of the request made by Gordon Boyd on behalf of Mr. Turner and other charter change advocates, the FOIL was not sent to the appropriate employee originally and therefore no subsequent appeal was ever executed.
2. The second issue Judge Nolan addressed was Boyd’s request for a recount or re-canvassing of the votes cast in the November charter referendum. State law requires that a recount of ballots can only be imposed if the petitioner can document that there was a problem in the voting process that placed the accuracy of the results in doubt. There are a number of types of evidence that can meet this requirement. For instance a report of a mechanical failure at a polling place, perhaps a power outage or other interruption, might be reported by the inspectors at a polling place or by a voter or other observer, or evidence that persons not actually eligible had voted might be presented.
Mr. Turner’s Readers View repeatedly waffles back and forth between these two issues.
After a long tutorial about the voting machine technology ending in the fact that the machines produce backup images of every ballot, Turner then tells his readers, “However, the Saratoga County Board of Elections has decided not to provide these to the public, nor have they provided any explanation as to why.”
This attack is rather a stunner. The Board of Elections had nothing to do with denying him the images. The request for the images was done as a Freedom of Information request by Gordon Boyd. The petition to Judge Nolan included the request that the county be impelled to honor Mr. Boyd’s FOIL for the ballot images. Judge Nolan denied this request noting that Mr. Boyd did not submit his FOIL to the correct officer and that in addition he never of course pursued the internal appeal process.
Rather than acknowledge that the original denial was due to his own group’s ineptitude, Turner blames the Board of Elections. As if this were not enough he has the chutzpah to proudly tell his readers: “This is why I have filed a FOIL request with Therese Connolly, Deputy Clerk of the Board for copies of the TIF files. The TIF files of our ballots are public property.” Ms. Connolly is in fact the FOIL officer and the person who was supposed to be sent the FOIL application in the first place.
Curiously when the election results before the opening of the absentee ballots showed a modest majority in his group’s favor Turner had a very different attitude towards the Board of Elections. At that point he told the Times Union, “It [the Board of Elections] is a bipartisan institution that is mandated by law and their oath to conduct the elections according to law. I do not understand why the three city councilors don’t trust the Board of Election to handle the counting of absentee ballots.”
At another point in his piece Mr. Turner briefly acknowledges the law requires proof of “voting machine malfunction or irregularity” in order to order a recount. He then makes the leap to the assertion “…However, in order to show a malfunction or irregularity, you need copies of the ballots, which can only be provided by the Board of Elections.” This is an incorrect statement but he takes it further:
“It’s a Catch-22. In order to get a recount, we need to show the Board of Elections has made a mistake, and the ONLY WAY [emphasis added]to do that is to have the Board of Elections provide the TIF files of those ballots, which they have declined to do. When Judge Nolan’s decision stated that the ‘petitioner presents no facts to support or justify his request,’ it is because the Board of Elections Commissioners would not show us copies of the ballots.”
Mr. Turner chooses to ignore the fact that copies of the ballots are not the only evidence that can show the Board of Elections may have made a mistake and refuses to acknowledge that they were unable to produce any evidence of any kind of irregularity occurring in the election.
Now Mr. Turner may fairly feel that the requirements for a recount in New York State are excessively restrictive. Unfortunately, this is not enough for Mr. Turner. Instead he chooses to portray as villains those who are charged with following and administering these laws, namely the Board of Elections and Judge Nolan. The problem is that to merely criticize existing laws does not allow for the drama that portrays him and his group as victims of an odiously entrenched malevolent establishment and thus stir his supporters to righteous indignation.
Rick Thompson, who is an avid supporter of charter change , has a talk show on WSPN. I do not listen to it. I don’t expect it enjoys a large following given it is on Skidmore Radio on a Saturday morning. Someone sent me a recording of the show from February 17th, though. Pat Kane was the guest. Mr. Kane was the vice-chair of the Charter Review Commission.
If the reader finds some of this less than coherent or logical it is because the program had a sort of stream of consciousness character to it and I transcribed it as I heard it. Here is the full recording:
The following is a transcript of some of the discussion that occurred at the end of the show. I think it needs no analysis.
Mr. Thompson, after indicating that they will be discussing the charter change legal case offers the following:
“Judge Nolan is a Republican. The County Republican Party donated money to see that this proposal did not pass. Republican people that were running for office donated from their campaign funds…and some Democrats to see that this charter change didn’t happen. So the political input of this is huge…and you are talking about county funds being used when this was a city issue so right there I am thinking Judge Nolan is kind of impartial…”
Kane responds:
“There were some irregularities we heard. If you wrote in a name it kicked the ballot out. Blah, blubba blah. Machines break down but you always expect your day in court. It’s not required in New York but you expect your right. And I was there when we filed with the court. At that time the Republican Commissioner I drove to his house. First we met with Judge Nolan on Friday after Thanksgiving. So he told us to submit that to one of the Republicans Commissioners for the county. I went to his house. I think his words and I can’t say them on the radio but to get off his bluh bla, bluh bla property. We did supply him with the information. For whatever reason I may be wrong. I hope I am.
None of the six [machines] were in Saratoga Springs. We do somewhat of a clearing of the machines were there any irregularities. They’re saying there is no discrepancy in six of the election districts in the county. None of them were in Saratoga Springs and this is what this law suit is about…Saratoga Springs. They tested six machines and none of them were in Saratoga Springs and I don’t buy that. But here again, let’s take the high road I don’t begrudge anybody but it smells. So far I have had one hundred and forty-seven email from people who are just angry about what’s wrong with asking for a recount? I mean we’re citizens of Saratoga County. It does smell of something. I don’t want to get into some conspiracy thing because that’s not relevant but to think this is going to go away is just wrong.”
Thompson says:
“Well, I think number one there should be something placed against Judge Nolan. That right about there is totally insane. He’s behooved to the Republican Committee. They endorsed him and they are paying money to the group opposed to the charter.”
Kane:
“I’m a Republican and I’m not defending Judge Nolan. Obviously we filed with the county. We did as instructed in January 8 and we were under the impression that we were going to wait for oral arguments which number one never took place. Number 2 we were going to wait for the Appellate Division which is a higher court which was handling a very similar issue in Essex County [ he goes on about attending that case in Albany] We thought we were all waiting for that because it is a higher court. Whether it comes or not we don’t know which is fine ‘cause as I said one hundred and forty-seven people have wrote to me already and I am sure there’ll be more who will participate in getting this back on the ballot. I think its going to pass so overwhelmingly let it run in November it’s no big deal.”
Saratoga Springs Politics 